Afghanistan - 20 years on

Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
US putting AC-130s and various drones into use to support Afghan forces but on the other hand plenty of evidence the US simply left a lot of supplies that the Taliban have now captured...

Ultimately drones won't have quite the same overflight issues but still gonna be interesting how the US will continue to operate air assets in the region in the longer run.

Funny how people think this can still be resolved politically with a bit of a push while the Taliban are carrying out atrocities, etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
Saw earlier that the Afghans had called in B-52 strikes, but where did they fly in from? Are the Pakistanis allowing them to overfly their territory, because I can't see that going down too well with their Taliban allies.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
Saw earlier that the Afghans had called in B-52 strikes, but where did they fly in from? Are the Pakistanis allowing them to overfly their territory, because I can't see that going down too well with their Taliban allies.

They seem to be flying from Qatar currently, assumedly over Pakistan.

Interesting to see how many BA flights, etc. overfly Afghanistan - would not want to be on one of those if they had a problem and were forced to land in a the wrong parts and/or the Taliban acquired the capabilities to shoot them down :s though at 30-40,000 feet they should have around 100 miles gliding range to reach somewhere better even with complete engine failure assuming it wasn't something catastrophic enough to force them down earlier while still survivable.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
US putting AC-130s and various drones into use to support Afghan forces but on the other hand plenty of evidence the US simply left a lot of supplies that the Taliban have now captured...

Ultimately drones won't have quite the same overflight issues but still gonna be interesting how the US will continue to operate air assets in the region in the longer run.

Funny how people think this can still be resolved politically with a bit of a push while the Taliban are carrying out atrocities, etc.

The taliban don't have anything which can shoot down a modern military aircraft. It's easy pickings if the US wants it.

They can't be reasoned with. They only stall for time or make ridiculus demands, threats, etc. You have to remember they are dealing with very backwards people here, who have been witnessed ******* goats at the side of the road (yes seriously).
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
27 Aug 2019
Posts
2,583
Never understood the logic of attempting to reason with them etc, they were always going to go full retard as soon as NATO pulled the plug.
Can't reason with stupid, even more so with religion in the mix as well.

Apparently the old warlords who used to run the place pre Taliban are putting up fierce resistance, more so than the ANA
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
Never understood the logic of attempting to reason with them etc, they were always going to go full retard as soon as NATO pulled the plug.
Can't reason with stupid, even more so with religion in the mix as well.

Apparently the old warlords who used to run the place pre Taliban are putting up fierce resistance, more so than the ANA

ANA are useless, it's was pointless even trying to train them. I once was a clip of a UK soldier training some of them to sweep mines (on a potentially live minefield), while another Afghan soldier did doughnuts in some kind of dune buggy, on an area which hasn't yet been cleared. I think they gave up and let him carry on, if he went boom he found a mine.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
The taliban don't have anything which can shoot down a modern military aircraft. It's easy pickings if the US wants it.

In that bit I was talking about the routes to and from Afghanistan rather than the possibility of being shot down.

In terms of shooting stuff down most of the man portable systems have about 1/3rd the altitude capability to be a serious threat to things like passenger flights but you never know even with the complications of acquiring never mind the training to use some of the more intermediate systems I wouldn't entirely bet against it.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
ANA are absolutely useless as a fighting force. They have had all the training yet, once in combat, they ignore said training and still spray bullets in the general direction of the enemy and then pray that Allah guides them to the target, I **** you not. Even the Taliban, and those ***** are properly devout nutjobs, have mainly stopped that practice now.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Nov 2006
Posts
23,304
ANA are absolutely useless as a fighting force. They have had all the training yet, once in combat, they ignore said training and still spray bullets in the general direction of the enemy and then pray that Allah guides them to the target, I **** you not. Even the Taliban, and those ***** are properly devout nutjobs, have mainly stopped that practice now.

Yea because they just got mowed down like lemmings when they faced NATO forces on the ground.

Many of them are high on drugs most of the time also, they have no idea what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
They seem to be flying from Qatar currently, assumedly over Pakistan.

Interesting to see how many BA flights, etc. overfly Afghanistan - would not want to be on one of those if they had a problem and were forced to land in a the wrong parts and/or the Taliban acquired the capabilities to shoot them down :s though at 30-40,000 feet they should have around 100 miles gliding range to reach somewhere better even with complete engine failure assuming it wasn't something catastrophic enough to force them down earlier while still survivable.


A civilian airliner isn’t gliding anywhere from any weapon that can reach their altitude
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
Yea because they just got mowed down like lemmings when they faced NATO forces on the ground.

Many of them are high on drugs most of the time also, they have no idea what's going on.


Haha yeah TBf watching the videos of the ANa troops with the British was hilarious. Remember the guy who’s gun hotshot and he just casually wonders back in stoned off his face
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
A civilian airliner isn’t gliding anywhere from any weapon that can reach their altitude

Was linked to my post before that - concerning if the passengers planes that are still flying over Afghanistan had some kind of issue that forced them down rather than being shot down - would not be fun if one minute you were on the way to say Singapore the next crash landing in Taliban occupied territory (with a good likelihood you'll end up strung from a road gantry) :s

I always wonder why the airlines take such chances with this, like with Ukraine, but I guess money is more important.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
Was linked to my post before that - concerning if the passengers planes that are still flying over Afghanistan had some kind of issue that forced them down rather than being shot down - would not be fun if one minute you were on the way to Singapore the next crash landing in Taliban occupied territory (with a good likelihood you'll end up strung from a road gantry) :s


Eh you’re dead anyway tbh in anything but a airport landing realistically.


Unless Afghanistan has a particularly hard flat and clear terrain?

Until the Hudson River landing the most successful emergency water landing in civil aviation killed 70% of the passengers
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
Eh you’re dead anyway tbh in anything but a airport landing realistically.


Unless Afghanistan has a particularly hard flat and clear terrain?

Doesn't necessarily mean a crash is going to be fatal/have no survivors - there are parts of Afghanistan with large field like areas though none of it is ideal for bringing a passenger plane down but a hard landing isn't necessarily fatal.
 
Caporegime
Joined
30 Jun 2007
Posts
68,770
Location
Wales
Doesn't necessarily mean a crash is going to be fatal/have no survivors - there are parts of Afghanistan with large field like areas though none of it is ideal for bringing a passenger plane down but a hard landing isn't necessarily fatal.


It pretty much always is though

for anything BA is flying that is hard landings usually happen in airports not random places

In assuming any landing at an active airport there won’t have you I Taliban hands or they’d probably be moving the flight paths as those airports would no longer beacceptable
 
Man of Honour
Joined
13 Oct 2006
Posts
90,821
It pretty much always is though

for anything BA is flying that is hard landings usually happen in airports not random places

There are loads of parts in Afghanistan with large open areas you can bring a plane down, some risk of digging in on touch down with the dry loose packed soil/sand but a lot of areas that are survivable - C130s, etc. have done it from time to time.
 
Soldato
Joined
15 Jan 2004
Posts
10,185
There are loads of parts in Afghanistan with large open areas you can bring a plane down, some risk of digging in on touch down with the dry loose packed soil/sand but a lot of areas that are survivable - C130s, etc. have done it from time to time.
Perfect reason to fly over it then. It's better to go down there than over an ocean.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Oct 2011
Posts
21,590
Location
ST4
>Survive the initial impact from the ManPAD.
>Survive the catastrophic decompression and sudden drop in altitude.
>Survive what remains of the aircraft making it to terra firma.
>Survive the crash landing and stagger out of the burning wreckage, in shock but amazed and delighted that you're alive.
>Get beheaded by some angry bearded nutjob.
 
Back
Top Bottom