Controversial article about parachute operations

[Lastdingo]

LD, you seem to be in a debating mood, so entertain me these questions:

-I'm curious what "competent" adversaries there are out there that can achieve the appropriate degree of accuracy to sling a rocket (or salvo) 50km with the required accuracy to influence (I'll not go so far as to say stop expeditionary airfield operations. I mean, c'mon, we put thousands of troops under the possible umbrella of SCUD-delivered WMDs just over four years ago. Can we agree to say it is a stretch to say we wouldn't risk a few aircraft (that won't be sitting on any runway for long).

-Do you really think MRL can be effectively disguised as simple logistical or civilian trucks, and then exercise the required command and control to set into a fire position, receive fire missions, and shoot? They can hide for a while, but if we are going to protect a airhead (or beachead for that matter) we are going to employ a wider range of shooter/sensors than would an airborne force would bring in on its own. Expand your mind a bit to consider that.

-Have you ever seen dud ICM neutralized? It's remarkably easy using the appropriate personnel. It doesn't take a mineclearer, believe me.

OK, one after another.

- Pakistan, India, Indonesia, Iran, Algeria, North Korea, Colombia, Venezuela, Brasilia, Chile, Peru, Mexico. Just to name a few. It doesn't take more than standard artillery and motivated men.

- The South African Valkiri is a MRL that cannot be recognized as MRL in travel mode. Towed versions of BM-21 MRL could easily be camouflaged as normal trailer. The military components of a BM-21 can be removed and put onto a civilian truck in a backyard repair shop. It's easy to cover that launcher.
Long-range MRL can be scattered over such a large area and still reach out to the airfield that securing the Iraqi borders is easy in comparison to finding such a vehicle.
It's also not that difficult to aim with a MRL. All you need is your position and the airfield position on a 1:50,000 map plus a meteological rocket shot into the air and observed with optics as well as a bit meteorological information that helps you guess the wind between the MRL and the airfield in the relevant altitudes. That's no high-tech, it's barely Korean War level tech.

The U.S. military knew that Iraq had no functioning Scuds left in 2003. The whole rocket fuel issue prevented that. The fuel degrades within weeks, and they had no supply for years. Besides that the U.N. had found almost all examples and documented their destruction.

- ICM dud neutralization is not difficult once they're spotted, but that's something different if stones from nearby explosions are scattered over the runway as well and if you want to clear a runway of almost a km length and 30+ m width within less than the couple of minutes as I mentioned. Artillery ICM is also usually much smaller than bomb submunitions are.
And even if you simply shot the dud with a .50cal, you would likely still be required to clear the runway of sharp metal fragments. One such fragment is no problem, dozens on every take-off or landing are a problem.


The whole idea that C-17 alike aircraft would land on an airfield that's only secured with a safety distance of a couple of miles is simply unrealistic. That's good for very nice propaganda pictures when congress needs to be convinced to pay for the C-17, but no air force in the world would do that, not even the Russians.