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

Radio 4 "Today" Program a few minutes ago:

Sarah Montague: "General Dannat, we flew here (Sangin) in an American Blackhawk. If the Head of the British Army is forced to travel in an American Heli, doesn't that suggest that there is a shortage of British Helis?"

Dannat: "...if there was a British Heli available we would have used that instead."

I can remember when helecopters were held at unit level, all armd recce units had there own air squadrons, and the system worked realy well, aircraft tasking at regimental HQ with crews who where part of the unit was a realy good idea ,but this ,with todays aircraft would cause servicing problems due to the tecnology. But the US army still do this , and If I remember correctly we had 6 Sioux, and our freinds of the US 10 cav had 36 OH58 Kiowa, UH1 Heuy, AH1 Cobra aircraft, to do the same job as us. And when one learns that a US Army brigade sized unit,has about 120 troop carrying helecopters, and we have about 20. Somone at the top is talking balls again

Originally Posted by tropper66

I can remember when helecopters were held at unit level, all armd recce units had there own air squadrons, and the system worked realy well, aircraft tasking at regimental HQ with crews who where part of the unit was a realy good idea ,but this ,with todays aircraft would cause servicing problems due to the tecnology. But the US army still do this , and If I remember correctly we had 6 Sioux, and our freinds of the US 10 cav had 36 OH58 Kiowa, UH1 Heuy, AH1 Cobra aircraft, to do the same job as us. And when one learns that a US Army brigade sized unit,has about 120 troop carrying helecopters, and we have about 20. Somone at the top is talking balls again

If you're going to compare apples and bananas, it would help if you correctly described the two.

The UK does not have an aviation brigade at all. But certainly has enough assets across the RAF and AAC to configure 3 if it so chooses - not counting CHF which would equate to another half a brigade.

A US CAB (Combat Aviation Brigade) does indeed have about 120 rotary assets, and that formation is designed to support up to 5 ground manouver brigades but normally a division of 4. In the post-transformation US Army, a US division of 4 brigades equates in size to a UK division of 3 square brigades. So, in a roundabout way, the US would - rule of thumb - have about 35 helicopters for each UK equivalent ground manouver brigade. This compares favourably to the UK effort in Afghanistan in airframe numbers, but ends up about the same when you consider the uplift capabilities of SH. On the otherhand, the US offers greater AH capability.

Originally Posted by tropper66

I can remember when helecopters were held at unit level, all armd recce units had there own air squadrons, and the system worked realy well, aircraft tasking at regimental HQ with crews who where part of the unit was a realy good idea ,but this ,with todays aircraft would cause servicing problems due to the tecnology. But the US army still do this , and If I remember correctly we had 6 Sioux, and our freinds of the US 10 cav had 36 OH58 Kiowa, UH1 Heuy, AH1 Cobra aircraft, to do the same job as us. And when one learns that a US Army brigade sized unit,has about 120 troop carrying helecopters, and we have about 20. Somone at the top is talking balls again

That is the situation on the ground but is is not standard. The 82nd CAB is all the helos for the whole 82nd Abn Div so in theory they would be expected to support 4 brigades. But I suppose no deployment is "by the book" - and you might have non-divisional aviation units in support anyway. BTW almost 50 of those 120 helos are attack (Apache) or scouts (Kiowa).

http://www.bragg.army.mil/82dv/82nd%20Units.html

http://www.bragg.army.mil/82avn/

PS.

Originally Posted by tropper66

I can remember when helecopters were held at unit level, ... But the US army still do this ... And when one learns that a US Army brigade sized unit,has about 120 troop carrying helecopters, and we have about 20.

US Army brigade ground manouver units have NO organic aviation assets - just like the UK. AH and SH assets are pinged as necessary. USMC MEBs have a mission specific task-based ACE.

Outstanding post Archimedes.

I've mulled over this over the past few days , and have tried to apply some out of the box thinking.

We've kissed and made up with the Russians, and have now restored their status to NATO after the Georgian unpleasantness. Russia have consented and are now co-operating with us in opening new airbridges to Afghanistan.

Would it be outside the realms of possibility to sound the Russians out about deploying a Hind Aviation Regiment in support of British/NATO Forces?

Hind D/E ?
Terry sees those things coming and up pops the RPG's he got given for Christmas, and we lose a squad of ground troops(which we can't afford to lose) and AH asset into the bargain.
The mujahadeen were knocking them out for fun back in the day.
Helicopters are not the 'magic-bullet'
We need troops on the ground, holding that ground and denying territory to Terry and his pals from across the border.
You can't win this by insertion and extraction of ground forces.
Extra SHF would be useful for casevac and re-supply, and rapid insertion/extraction, but we need to put guys in harms way to achieve whatever the politicians want this week or next.
Surely our strategy should be,
What we hold we keep, plain and simple.

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

Outstanding post Archimedes.

I've mulled over this over the past few days , and have tried to apply some out of the box thinking.

We've kissed and made up with the Russians, and have now restored their status to NATO after the Georgian unpleasantness. Russia have consented and are now co-operating with us in opening new airbridges to Afghanistan.

Would it be outside the realms of possibility to sound the Russians out about deploying a Hind Aviation Regiment in support of British/NATO Forces?

Bearing in mind the delicate situation in some of the Russian Republics, if they did, we could end up doing a quid pro quo situation and helping them out.

The again, the Salafist Jihad is global, the response needs to be Global too, who knows, maybe China will take up the mantle one day.

Originally Posted by PartTimePongo

Would it be outside the realms of possibility to sound the Russians out about deploying a Hind Aviation Regiment in support of British/NATO Forces?

In practical terms I'd say it's certainly do-able, but could you imagine the attached caveats and favours the Russians would tag-on to such an arrangement? Even if it were floated, I would see this idea being dismissed by the Government - by way of the MoD - as they wouldn't recognise a good idea if it bit them.

Perhaps a bit simplistic of me, but what about a new form of Lend-Lease Agreement with the United States as a way of obtaining the necessary helos?

Terry sees those things coming and up pops the RPG's he got given for Christmas, and we lose a squad of ground troops(which we can't afford to lose) and AH asset into the bargain.
The mujahadeen were knocking them out for fun back in the day.

Eh? What stops the Taliban doing that with any rotary asset? Back in the day, the Hinds were dominating the ground and severely restricting movement and manouvere until WE supplied MANPADS. Hinds were also standing up to RPG strikes on the forward areas of the Helo.

TCM, exactly.

If this is the GLOBAL fight we keep getting told about then we need to apply GLOBAL asset. The conditions of requesting Aviation support from Russia I don't think would lead to us having to supply expertise to help them hand a former Soviet Republic a slap, except perhaps shutting our necks about criticising them re. the recent Georgian nonsense.

Would deployment of Russian assets in theatre awaken a Vietnam style reaction in the Russian Public? I doubt that very much.

We do need Helicopters, that is the bottom line. Cost is also a bottom line.

We can improve relations with the Bear, and get ourselves some serious asset availibility into the bargain.

However, it needs OOB thiking , which I don't think this Government is capable of, especially with that Clownshoes Milliband in the seat.

Originally Posted by tropper66

I can remember when helecopters were held at unit level, all armd recce units had there own air squadrons, and the system worked realy well, aircraft tasking at regimental HQ with crews who where part of the unit was a realy good idea

Army QM's mentality "my asset, nobody else can use it - it can sit there until I need it". It is a shocking way to use scarce assets and only worked because it was a massive waste. I hope you can understand that and how it is history never to be repeated. Higher view gives best use of assets.

Archimedes

I speak in regards to condemning AAC officers to AAC only roles. this is fine for those officers for whom flying is their reason d'etre and have limited ambition, but would stop anyone who wants to reach the top from becoming AAC badged.

It has been said already on ARRSE that the armies top jobs are only for those who have commanded front line battalions, whilst the AAC is a teeth arm its regiments are not yet recognised one of these (I am willing to be corrected on this).

The lack of helicopters is a symptom of the problem, not the problem. We will not cure the problem by massaging the symptoms.

We do not dominate the battlespace geographically or morally. We do not have the political will to do the things necessary to effect a more positive outcome. More helicopters will simply mean we continue being part of the problem - but a little more efficiently. That's the big picture.

Small picture is that more SH will provide better protection for the troops transiting between locations. That's a good thing, of course. But if all we are doing is trying to massage the casualty rate on route to doing the job, you have to ask yourself whether we've taken our eye off the ball. Or whether a 'ball' even exists. In either case, we have to ask ourselves whether it's all worth it.

Re: Russian helicopter units.

Given that the majority of the world do NOT see this as a global problem, or more precisely fighting in Helmand etc is not the way to solving the problem, it is clearly not a problem with global support. Whether it be German, French or Russian support, ask yourself why they should backfill what we haven't got the political will to do ourselves?

Times article: Gen Dannatt uses US Black Hawk "pool" helicopters to get around

oh yes they are, how many helicopters have been blown up by an ied?