Army Rumour Service

P: 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19  >  :| |:

Current Affairs, News and Analysis

'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 7:57 am
Author: Semper_Flexibilis Location: Back of beyond
I wonder if that nobber Ainsworth has told the US Marines operating in Helmand that?


"…US Marines from the 2nd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment of the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade walk towards the helicopter as part of Operation Khanjar at Camp Dwyer in Helmand Province in Afghanistan on July 2, 2009. US Marines launched a major offensive into the Taliban heartlands of southern Afghanistan before dawn as President Barack Obama's new war plan swung into action. With dozens of aircraft ferrying out troops from various bases, the assault aimed to insert forces into insurgent strongholds in Helmand province in what officers said was the biggest offensive airlift by the Marines since Vietnam. Operation Khanjar (Strike of the Sword), involving nearly 4,000 US forces as well as 650 Afghan police and soldiers, would bring security to the Helmand River valley ahead of presidential elections on August 20, commanders aid.…"















Last edited by Semper_Flexibilis on Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:03 am
Author: Fallschirmjager Location: TQ74801549
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:08 am
Author: tropper66 Location: cardiff
Fallschirmjager:
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Yes, but speed and mobility must be a factor in an area as large as Helmond

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:16 am
Author: Fallschirmjager Location: TQ74801549
Hence why I said they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there?

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:20 am
Author: The_Rattler Location: Democraticshire
I think you need to decide what we are doing to answer this, are we
1, Attacking/fighting
2, Defending
3, Sustaining
4, Containing

each of the above has its own solution

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:23 am
Author: tattybadger
Fallschirmjager:
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Probably with reduced cas.

For years ptling in S. Armagh was on foot or by heli iot reduce the threat of IEDs - surely that lesson has not been lost on the keepers of the purse string?


Or do they give a fuck?

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:27 am
Author: HE117 Location: Here, there and everywhere
Not wishing to raise the old Tri-Service thang...

However the fact that the majority of the aircraft budget still seems to end up in the form of whizzy jets is surely a factor...?

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:30 am
Author: Vasco Location: In retirement
HE117:
Not wishing to raise the old Tri-Service thang...

Raise it! Raise it!!

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:30 am
Author: Semper_Flexibilis Location: Back of beyond
tropper66:
Fallschirmjager:
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Yes, but speed and mobility must be a factor in an area as large as Helmond


It also avoids the huge 'Here we come up the road, please deploy your IED's' dust clouds that are rather a giveaway to ops.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:34 am
Author: FrankCastle Location: God's Chosen Country
Did'nt the Red Army give Terry a shoeing by using helicopters? IIRC, the tide only turned against Ivan once Terry started recieving Stingers from Cnuts In Action. Once the helo's started to go down, the Red Army could no longer exploit their greater numbers and firepower.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:35 am
Author: tropper66 Location: cardiff
tattybadger:
Fallschirmjager:
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Probably with reduced cas.

For years ptling in S. Armagh was on foot or by heli iot reduce the threat of IEDs - surely that lesson has not been lost on the keepers of the purse string?


Or do they give a fuck?

How many Helcopters were in Ulster?, My sqn had 12 recce Sioux, backed up with 6 Scouts, and 2 sqn of Wessex/ Puma. 30/ 40 airframes. At a push there were also 2 sqn of RN in BK in 1970 that could be called upon
How many are there in Helmond? 8 apache, 8 Chinook and some Lynx 20/30 airframes

In an area , how much larger than Ulster?

And they say they have enough

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:35 am
Author: Schaden
Fallschirmjager:
Hence why I said they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there?

Just explain exactly what that mission is please.

Either it's confronting a threat to the existence of the UK and it's people - in which case no expense should be spared or it's not in which case what is the point exactly?

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:36 am
Author: ChunkeyKnob
What happens if the Government agrees to spend X amount on Helicopters, how long will it take to source, equip and send them out to theatre? Can we buy straight of the shelf? or will we have another debacle like the SF chinooks from a few years ago?

Perhaps we can bully the rest of europe for their helicopters on a long lease.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:39 am
Author: tropper66 Location: cardiff
ChunkeyKnob:
What happens if the Government agrees to spend X amount on Helicopters, how long will it take to source, equip and send them out to theatre? Can we buy straight of the shelf? or will we have another debacle like the SF chinooks from a few years ago?

Perhaps we can bully the rest of europe for their helicopters on a long lease.

Second hand MI 8s they already got 2 at Boscomb

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:42 am
Author: Semper_Flexibilis Location: Back of beyond
ChunkeyKnob:
What happens if the Government agrees to spend X amount on Helicopters, how long will it take to source, equip and send them out to theatre? Can we buy straight of the shelf? or will we have another debacle like the SF chinooks from a few years ago?

Perhaps we can bully the rest of europe for their helicopters on a long lease.


The only Euros with a good number of helos are the Germans. They have shitloads of CH-53's but won't play with the rough boys so they're as much use as tits on a bull.

We've got the next largest heavy lift helo force.

How long to get more Chinooks OTS?

Boeing can ship refurbs in about a year at reasonable money @ £15 Mil IIRC. New builds cost something like £20 Mil a go and take a tad longer.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:42 am
Author: Yeoman_dai Location: Somewhere in the UK, and on the 7 seas...
Ah ha, but a Mastiff costs around £200 000 each...

Lets see, helicopter wise you could get an R22 for that!

[img]http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.the-viking.co.uk/images/robinsonR22helicopter.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.the-viking.co.uk/images/&usg=__CdLV4wg8p8fcmodp_gRxhx8RTjo=&h=364&w=550&sz=78&hl=en&start=1&tbnid=VxpPlTDqGdIwtM:&tbnh=88&tbnw=133&prev=/images%3Fq%3DR22%2Bhelicopter%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG[/img]


Or, to put it another way, 1/100th of a single Merlin.


All of which is very attractive to HM Treasury, and PM because they can say 'look, we're buying all this impressive kit that the Army needs' whilst actually dodging a very expensive bullet. Bwastards

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 8:55 am
Author: tropper66 Location: cardiff
Do what the Canadians did, Hire the Airframes with crew from a former Soviet Republic

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:01 am
Author: para_medic
Oil_Slick:

The only Euros with a good number of helos are the Germans. They have shitloads of CH-53's but won't play with the rough boys so they're as much use as tits on a bull.
O_S, nope. The Germans had 12 (twelve) CH-53GS beginning of 2008 and 6 were flying out of Mazar. I am not aware of them reinforcing any of the CH-53G so - they have even less.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:10 am
Author: baboon6 Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
tropper66:
tattybadger:
Fallschirmjager:
Helicopters aren't the answer to Afghanistan though they will go a long way in helping us achieve our mission there.

Probably with reduced cas.

For years ptling in S. Armagh was on foot or by heli iot reduce the threat of IEDs - surely that lesson has not been lost on the keepers of the purse string?


Or do they give a fuck?

How many Helcopters were in Ulster?, My sqn had 12 recce Sioux, backed up with 6 Scouts, and 2 sqn of Wessex/ Puma. 30/ 40 airframes. At a push there were also 2 sqn of RN in BK in 1970 that could be called upon
How many are there in Helmond? 8 apache, 8 Chinook and some Lynx 20/30 airframes

In an area , how much larger than Ulster?

And they say they have enough

As far as I know 8 Chinook, 6 Sea King, 8 Apache, 5 Lynx.

Re: 'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

Posted: Mon Jul 13, 2009 9:10 am
Author: Pit_Bull Location: On the sunshine bus, licking mongs.
ChunkeyKnob:
or will we have another debacle like the SF chinooks from a few years ago?

Are they still in the hanger awaiting config. or whatever was holding them back?? Or have they actually been released into service (unlikely I imagine).
All times are GMT
Page 1 of 19 P: 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19  >  :| |:
http://www.arrse.co.uk/