Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[Quirky]

Fair enough - the main point still holds strong though:

"...the reality is that Canada is wading into a complex, fractured and unpredictable landscape. There is no satisfying endgame in sight."

This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money. 

 

[Kirkhill]

This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money.

On the other hand we had an opportunity to secure Benghazi or Tobruk and establish secure havens there.  It wasn't, and isn't necessary to secure the whole of Libya to manage the refugee problem, or to influence events in Libya to our advantage.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Hmm:

A Canadian Warplane Mistakenly Broadcast Its Location Over Islamic State Controlled Territory [Iraq]

For what appears to be an entire sortie, a Canadian warplane broadcast its flight location while flying over so-called Islamic State (IS) controlled territory.

The revelation regarding a refueling plane flying as part of Operation IMPACT in Iraq, comes from civilian website Flightradar24.com — a collective of thousands of volunteer antenna networks all over the world streamlining location data of planes using something called automatic dependent surveillance-broadcasts (ADS-B).

ADS-B capability is an air traffic control technology which, in a sense, replaces ground control radars. Instead of relying on ground radars to locate and identify aircraft, planes with ADS-B transmit information about their identity, location, and velocity. Both civilian and military aircraft all over the world now use ADS-B. And, occasionally, military planes will forget to turn off their ADS-B transponders, exposing both their GPS-location to the public and giving potential threat actors the chance to identify them.

That was the case for the plane nicknamed "HOSER 15" by aviation enthusiasts monitoring Flightradar24 online that identified a Royal Canadian Air  Force (RCAF) A310-CC-150 in the skies of Iraq as it flew overtop of parts of IS controlled territory.

...
The Canadian Department of National Defense confirmed to VICE News the incident was indeed a mistake by pilots — which, theoretically, could've allowed IS forces to identify them in the sky and fire on the warplane...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SupersonicMax]

Not the first time it happens...  Happened in 2011 as well.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lovin' the callsign, though ....  ;D

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I notice they said "fire on..." not 'effectively engage'.  But a detail like that doesn't make a difference in the news or to politicians... ;D

 

[The Bread Guy]

.... a detail like that doesn't make a difference in the news or to politicians... ;D

Or most media consumers, either.

 

[The Bread Guy]

For the record, this from the CAF Info-machine ....

The following statement is issued in response to recent coverage regarding possible civilian casualties resulting from a Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) airstrike in ISIS-held territory in Iraq on January 21, 2015.

Shortly after the air strike, information came to the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) through the Coalition headquarters that there might have been civilian casualties as a result of coalition action that included a Canadian airstrike. The source of this allegation had himself heard of these potential casualties through a second-hand account and, as far as we understand, there remains no eyewitness or credible information relating to any civilian casualties due to Canadian action on Jan. 21.

The target was an ISIS-occupied compound that was identified as a legitimate military target and struck on January 21, 2015. Analysis indicated that no civilians were present in the area for a number of days and so the target was cleared for engagement.

That area was under observation because it is located at the front lines where constant fighting between ISIS and Iraqi-Kurdish security forces has been occurring over a prolonged period. ISIS was using this compound as a fighting position to fire upon Iraqi-Kurdish security forces. On Jan. 21, a sniper was firing on Iraqi-Kurdish troops and our aircraft were guided to the target by coalition observers. The target was cleared as a valid military target with no civilians present before striking.

The Coalition headquarters conducted a review of all available imagery, video and intelligence. Concurrent to this, a CAF review, including a full history of the site since Jan. 2, also found there were no grounds to believe that civilians had been killed or even present. Furthermore, subsequent to the allegations, there has been no information from the Iraqi-Kurdish Security Forces suggesting there may have been civilian casualties.

Because the initial reviews eliminated Canadian action as a possible contributor to the unconfirmed civilian casualties, there were no grounds for an investigation and thus no reason to report anything other than our routine strike updates to Canadians.

The CAF remains confident there were no civilian casualties associated with the January 21 airstrike. Should there ever be a credible allegation of civilian casualties resulting from any CF-18 airstrikes during Operation IMPACT, the CAF will investigate thoroughly with coalition partners and provide as much information as possible to Canadians without compromising the safety and security of our operations and personnel.

To be clear, any agency with information that would indicate potential civilian casualties, or aid in clarifying existing allegations, is encouraged to provide it to the CAF so that it may pursue it with the coalition.

-30-

 

[Eye In The Sky]

This. Dropping bombs from 20,000ft onto people in the desert hasn't worked too well thus far. We did the same thing to Libya and look how much of a cluster fuck that country is right now. This operation will be nothing more than a gigantic waste of money.

:

 

[crowbag]

So, if it's hard or difficult, leave it for someone else?  Imagine if the world continued to do that in say, 1939ish...would have been a great ending no?

If we pull out of the MESF now, how long will it be before the Liberals and NDP are yacking that the Conservatives are 'doing nothing and letting innocent people die"? 

Point - no matter what the PM and government do, the Liberals and NDP will say it is wrong and not enough.

I'm not sure conflating current events and 1939 is in any way effective beyond trying to stifle debate. Leave it for someone else? Maybe that isn't such a bad idea, regional stakeholders as opposed to MESF? Lets see how they make out in Yemen though...another sub-plot in this terrible saga...

I completely agree with the points on the political squabbling, though. Will be interesting to see what happens on this post-election, especially if the NDP end up winning (appears increasingly possible  :-\).

...But, in short, the MESF is doing what the GOI is asking it to do.  Again IT IS NOT AN OCCUPATION FORCE. 

Interesting take on the current relationship with the GOI:

http://warontherocks.com/2015/09/dont-bother-working-through-baghdad/

Not sure I agree entirely with the author, but it is food for thought, and brings up some important points.

While clamoring to "do something" about ISIS, I fear we are being shortsighted on a strategic/geo-political level. Winning tactical victories does not necessarily translate into strategic success, as we all know from Iraq and Afghan. "Degrading and destroying ISIS," or whatever the official line is now, is not a long-term strategy.

Maybe there is just a bad taste in my mouth from being shot at by Iranian funded/supported militias in Iraq, the same Iranian proxies we are now supporting in the fight against ISIS...Iran's influence in Iraq is there to stay, while ours is fleeting at best. I don't feel that this is recognized by our current government.

Don't get me wrong, the situation is a quagmire, and if anyone claims they know the right answer they are deluded. It is important that the prudence of the mission is debated by Canadians though.

In any case - God speed to you and all the others involved over there on the tactical side of life. Lets hope the political masters are working equally hard on the rest of the picture, and adequately understand the nuances of the situation in the region as a whole. The rhetoric of the current government sure doesn't make me optimistic though...

 

[Baz]

:

You may role your eyes but there is a lot of evidence, including at NATO within 18 months, that Libya was a tactical success, operational learning process, and strategic failure.

What if all we do against ISIS is teach them how to operate in the presence of air power, like the Talisman also learned?  Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?

 

[Infanteer]

Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?

ISIS internet streams suggest they are already there.

Douhet still remains attractive, even though we learn every decade or so (Vietnam, Iraq, Libya) that airpower has limits as a coercive tool.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I'm not sure conflating current events and 1939 is in any way effective beyond trying to stifle debate. Leave it for someone else? Maybe that isn't such a bad idea, regional stakeholders as opposed to MESF? Lets see how they make out in Yemen though...another sub-plot in this terrible saga...

Not trying to stifle debate, but trying to show 'the head in the sand/ignore the problem' technique usually doesn't fair out well.  I believe the overall 'intent' is that the solution come from the middle east area.  I think there are many question on if that is realistically possible in the current...climate.  One thing is clear, there is no easy solution.  IMO it is plausible there will never be one, in my lifetime at least. 

Not sure I agree entirely with the author, but it is food for thought, and brings up some important points.

While clamoring to "do something" about ISIS, I fear we are being shortsighted on a strategic/geo-political level. Winning tactical victories does not necessarily translate into strategic success, as we all know from Iraq and Afghan. "Degrading and destroying ISIS," or whatever the official line is now, is not a long-term strategy.

I wonder about the strategic/political level as well; but I try to keep it tucked away.  I may have an opinion on it but I don't pretend to understand or even be able to consider the factors in that quagmire.  Lacking an educated/informed opinion, I try not to embarrass myself too much. 

Maybe there is just a bad taste in my mouth from being shot at by Iranian funded/supported militias in Iraq, the same Iranian proxies we are now supporting in the fight against ISIS...Iran's influence in Iraq is there to stay, while ours is fleeting at best. I don't feel that this is recognized by our current government.

Glad you made it out of the Badlands. 

Maybe our total force commitment is an indication of something?

Don't get me wrong, the situation is a quagmire, and if anyone claims they know the right answer they are deluded. It is important that the prudence of the mission is debated by Canadians though.

If someone does know the answer, they are being real pricks by keeping it to themselves all these years.  And agree on the debated by Canadians part, my beef is that they are not necessarily deciding on factual information, rather on bits and blurbs and political sound-bites centered more on an upcoming election than the actual mission and the people they've sent over into the litterbox who are risking the orange pajama dance.

In any case - God speed to you and all the others involved over there on the tactical side of life. Lets hope the political masters are working equally hard on the rest of the picture, and adequately understand the nuances of the situation in the region as a whole. The rhetoric of the current government sure doesn't make me optimistic though...

I'll second that.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You may role your eyes but there is a lot of evidence, including at NATO within 18 months, that Libya was a tactical success, operational learning process, and strategic failure.

History might not repeat itself? 

What if all we do against ISIS is teach them how to operate in the presence of air power, like the Talisman also learned?  Then what's the plan?  Bomb them back into the dark ages?

That's a question for a few floors up from where I work.  I'm just a self-loading button monkey.  8) 

Having said that, I felt pretty swept-up on the tactical and (less so) the operational level.  I don't pretend to know or have valuable input at the strategic level.  I was trained to think '2 up' and that is way above 2 for me. 

 

[Baz]

Having said that, I felt pretty swept-up on the tactical and (less so) the operational level.  I don't pretend to know or have valuable input at the strategic level.  I was trained to think '2 up' and that is way above 2 for me.

Then you are prepared to consider that simply dismissively rolling your eyes to someone asking these very questions is just a way to stifle the conversation?

Some of us believe that promises are being made on the current capability of airport ti deliver strategic effect, which are causing politicians to make poorly informed decisions.  Directly related to your community is your designation as ISR; what is the long term cost of that?

The previous Come RCAF was completely focused on this; when your only obvious concern about the state of MH is how it can support ISR, especially the overland air effort, we have a problem.

I have worked at the strategic level on these questions.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

What I am prepared to say (at the risk of offending some) is that ground crew aren't sitting in the DMSC getting eyes on the same info on the tactical/operational stuff, so I don't feel they have any real reason to be waving the 'this is a waste of time' flag. 

If you don't have any real, accurate info (and anyone who does won't be putting it out on this forum, naturally) then you have an 'opinion'.  That's a fair difference from having an 'informed' opinion.

The ATF task is not to 'win the war on it's very own'.  People need to keep site of that.  However, my opinion, is the ATF is doing it's mandated job and doing it as well as it is able to.

My community is, has, and will continue to do ISR and do it quite well.  I guess the only way anyone can really judge that is to see if for themselves, which won't happen for 99.9% of the CAF.  I personally know of 1 GOFO who was pretty impressed with the job after witnessing it with his/her eyes and it was over the normal op area.

I am hoping the long term cost of that is that we get a little more noticed, a little better supported/funded, more access to some beneficial training opportunites and 'gainfully employed'.  I'll also note that while IMPACT is ongoing, the community is still doing all the other things we normally do.  I am away from my postal code now but not at a sandy location. 

With limited resources, I suspect any Comdr these days are looking to wring every drop he/she can out of any resource.  My  :2c: is either the new or old MH platform would be better employed elsewhere.  However, I think the broad left and right of arcs on the term/buzzword "ISR" need to be explored and put into more...detail?  Definition?

 

[Good2Golf]

EITS, rest assured folks are tracking you guys -- and your last point is a valid concern, but is becoming better understood of late, both inside and outside the Department.

Fly safe!

Cheers,
G2G

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Tks.  In all honesty, I think ISR is a very generalized term that is used today.  ISR can be done by 1 pers, 1 CPF, heck a guy in a bug-smasher with a friend along for the ride with bino's can do "ISR".

Because of that, I don't think anyone can realistically expect to understand the nuances of that come with each and every platform that is capable, in whatever degree, of doing "ISR". 

Is ISR an appropriate term to use WRT what the CP-140 is doing in theatre?  Yes.  IMO.

Are the CF-18s doing the job they are supposed to be doing?  Again I say yes.

There's no need to take just my word for it though see the info below...and for the record, there's more to it than just the strike %s carried out by our Hornet folks.  Comparatively, if you are an infanteer on a defensive position, how much does the mere threat of an active sniper 'in the treeline' somewhere make you change the way you do your business, without ever having a fired a shot at you.  There are more effects a weapon system can have on a battle space than just kinetic.  :2c:

Attention: Latest News - Air operations

As of 14 September 2015, Air Task Force-Iraq conducted 1481 sorties:
•CF-188 Hornet fighters conducted 951 sorties;
•CC-150T Polaris aerial refueller conducted 255 sorties, delivering some 15,359,000 pounds of fuel to coalition aircraft; and
•CP-140 Aurora aircraft conducted 275 reconnaissance missions.

Definition - sortie: In air operations, a sortie refers to an operational flight by one aircraft. A sortie starts when one aircraft takes off and ends upon landing

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact.page

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/operations-abroad-current/op-impact-airstrikes.page

 

[Good2Golf]

In all honesty, I think ISR is a very inappropriately over-generalized term that is used today. 

  :nod:

Better granularity on ISR-elements and their context within the larger ISR framework is being dist'd extradepartmentally...small but positive steps.

 

[eharps]

http://winnipeg.ctvnews.ca/former-chief-of-defence-staff-says-military-intervention-is-needed-in-iraq-syria-1.2598880

The Canadian Press
Published Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:23AM CST
Last Updated Wednesday, October 7, 2015 5:24AM CST


WINNIPEG - Retired general Rick Hillier says military intervention in Iraq and Syria is needed.

The former chief of defence staff says the humanitarian crisis won't end unless Islamic State leaders are dealt with first.

Canada's role in the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant has become an election issue.

NDP leader Tom Mulcair has said he would end bombing campaigns and other military action, and put more resources into humanitarian and refugee efforts.

Hillier says that's wrong, and what's needed is continued air strikes and the ongoing presence of special forces in the region.

Hillier was in charge of Canada's military between 2005 and 2008.