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

Originally Posted by rockhoppercrab

Originally Posted by MeRlInHaTeR

What is the difference between SAR and tactical transport? IIRC all the ones we modded had ramps, large side doors, winches, UK spec radio's and fittings for things that go bang. BTW i didn't read this from flight international, i was part of the team that did the work.

SAR and TTT differences? The massive amount of search lights, the external speakers, the Galley, the neon paint job, plus some differences with DAS capabilities that dont go bang (Admittedly modded during the HC3A program)

Uk Spec radios? Not the same Spec as our MK3's are they? US made with resulting supply chain issues and very limited 2nd line support!

So Bowman not UK spec then? Searchlights? Galley? Have you actually been inside a Mk 3A then?

If you re-read your own post you asked for the differences between Danish SAR and TTT cabs? Remember? The Standard V/UHF radios are not UK spec, Bowman was part of the Mod program (to HC3A) and is a bolt on to met the TES as were KY100's.

Are you saying that the Ex RDAF Merlin's are correctly manned and provisioned for spares? If so why aren't the Airframes in Herrick now?

'More helicopters are not the answer in Afghanistan'

True the Answer is Political, not Military.
Tom (The Brit Serviceman) will Fight, Bleed and Die there , just as he always has.
Perhaps Blur will explain his full motives for employing Tom and just what His withdrawal solution was, as he committed HM Forces.
Brown well altho he seemed to start off well, couldn't run a National Economy, and in the disgraceful matter of the recent Overlord Celebration shows he thinks he is Head of State and not HM's First minister.
No Tom will have to continue doing His Duty, something he knows how to do.
The Politico's will winge and wine, find serious uses for the money they squander.
john
Lynx a surface sea skimmer, and even when it gets its new powerful engines it will still have problems for they don't do fine sand very well, long known problem.
Merlin, well evidently No Magic there.
Chinook yes please Yes and if you can't get ours there , then Beg, Borrow or Steal !

Originally Posted by whitecity

Something else for Whet to ponder and lick his whiskers over...

Is the UK chartering civil helicopters directly, or was this one of the NATO chartered aircraft that Whet has never heard about before?

Ann Winterton (Congleton) (Con): Will the Secretary of State confirm whether the helicopter that is believed to have been shot down earlier this week, with the loss of eight lives, was a NATO helicopter, or was directly leased, if that is the right word, by the United Kingdom? I understand that it was a supply helicopter, and the insurgents may well have believed that it was a Chinook.

David Miliband: I think that the hon. Lady is referring to the six Ukrainians who lost their lives when their helicopter was shot down earlier this week. Plus the 2 LNs on the ground big boy, let's not forget them. I do not want to trespass on to operational details. I think that it would be better if we considered what we are able to say publicly about that incident, and then referred to the matter at the end of the debate. There is some information, but it does not quite tally with what she suggested. I suggest that we seriously take on board her inquiry, but right hon. and hon. Members will know that there are good reasons why we do not go into details here.

and

Ann Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman able to answer the question that I posed to the Foreign Secretary at the outset of this debate about the helicopter that had been contracted to the British?

Mr. Ainsworth: We suffered the loss of a contract helicopter in the north of Helmand province and there were deaths as a result of that. I will write to the hon. Lady and give her more detail on it if she wants. Leased directly to UK Plc because we do't have, what Bob?. I know that she often raises the issue of vehicles and that she has had a long-standing interest in the subject. People continue to say that there is a huge problem with vehicles. We have a suite of vehicles now, including Mastiff, Ridgback and Jackal. We also have the new tactical support vehicles—Wolfhound, Husky and Coyote—coming into province. It is cruel to pretend to those who have lost their lives that we will be able to stop our people dying by providing more helicopters or a suite of vehicles. Many Members have said that this afternoon, however. Even if we can get to the point where every single vehicle is available in every single location the length and breadth of the Helmand province for every operation, from time to time people will have to get out of those vehicles. They have to make contact with the people; they have to walk among them and win them over. That is dangerous work and it is cruel to pretend that we can remove the danger from the job that we ask our people to do.

If you re-read your own post you asked for the differences between Danish SAR and TTT cabs? Remember? The Standard V/UHF radios are not UK spec, Bowman was part of the Mod program (to HC3A) and is a bolt on to met the TES as were KY100's.

Are you saying that the Ex RDAF Merlin's are correctly manned and provisioned for spares? If so why aren't the Airframes in Herrick now?

My point is that you complained that the aircraft supplied were unsuitable as they were SAR ones. Have you actually been inside one or is all your knowledge gleaned from the likes of wiki. As to why are they not in theater now, go ask the RAF.

Bob Ainsworth said
It is cruel to pretend to those who have lost their lives that we will be able to stop our people dying by providing more helicopters

Yes but they'l remove unesessary risk. And allow people to atleast attempt to tackle the Taliban in an efficient manner etc etc. At the moment the situation is comical. And this buffoons comments are becoming more ridiculous by the day.

I would agree with the assertion more helicopters aren't the answer but they are part of the solution. The answer needs political clarity as to what the question is . What is the long term game plan?
As to the future of support helicopter yes the numbers will fall away quite alarmingly in the next few years and the press is spinning raw figures without claryfing the types and roles/numbers.
The puma is about to have a shed load of money spent on it pity the same isn't being done with the Sea King HC4 as well but the descisions on helicopter funding come from LAND.
The figures in hansard/MoD state the chinook fleet will stay at 40 HC2/2a & 8 HC3r till at least 2022 (bariring losses due to accidents etc)
Merlin HC3/3A 22/6, Puma currently 36 will drop to 30 by 2018 replaced by 2022 by 30 Future support helicopter's.
Navy will have lynx HAS3 33 disappearing by 2012. Lynx HMA8 34 disappearing by 2022 replaced by 30 Wildcat/lynx. 39 Merlin HMA1 falling to 30 by 2022, 13 sea king ASaC, 37 Sea king HC4 disappearing by 2018 to be replaced by 30 future support helicopter. 16 Sea King HU5 to disappear by 2012 and 5 Sea king HC6C to disappear 2012.
AAC to hace 67 Apache and 40 future lynx.
thats if all the plans come to fruition . optimistically by 2022 the UK will have 316 military Helicopters pesimistically it could be 186

I think the point is being missed though folks, and I'm not one to defend the government here cos they're all cnuts.

One of the missions of aviation is 'limited movement of men and materiel'. Whilst I agree that some casualties MAY have been avoided had there been a few more cabs in theatre, helicopters cannot hold groundor do the more mundane tasks of security patrols around the platoon/troop locations.

Originally Posted by whitecity

Originally Posted by Blogg

WTF?

Helicopter fleet to be reduced to save £1.4 billion the Times learns

"Under the Ministry of Defence’s plans for the future the total fleet will be reduced to 291 by 2019. This will involve the Fleet Air Arm reducing from 166 to 66 helicopters, the Army Air Corps from 198 to 112, and the RAF from 138 to 113.

The revelation came after the country’s most senior military officer emerged from talks with Gordon Brown to say that the deployment of more helicopters to Afghanistan would save lives. "

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6718583.ece

What's the surprise in this?

RN has 61 Lynx Mk.3/8 in service which are due out of service by 2013 and 2015 respectively. The plan is to replace these with 28 Future Lynx.

AAC has 94 Lynx Mk.7/9 in service which are all due out of service by 2013. The plan is to replace these with 34 Future Lynx.

AAC has 42 Gazelle in service which are all due out of service by 2012. There is no intention to replace them at all.

The RAF/RN have 40 Sea King Mk.3/5 (SAR) in service which are all due out of service by 2017. The intention is to replace these with a PFI service.

The RN has 42 Sea King Mk.4/6 (SH) in service which are due out of service by 2012 and 2010 respectively. The intention is to replace them with the Future Medium Helicopter programme which allegedly is going to arrive in 2018 (haha!!!) - quantity unknown. The Sea Kings may get a life extension in the interim, but they can't find the cash to confirm the work....

The RN has 13 Sea King Mk.7 (AEW) in service which are all due out of service by 2018. They may get life extended and the intention is, perhaps, to replace them with the 4 MASC.

The RAF has 43 Puma in service which are all due out of service by 2012. The intention is to replace them with the Future Medium Helicopter programme which allegedly is going to arrive in 2018 (haha!!!) - quantity unknown. The Pumas may get a life extension in the interim, but they can't find the cash to confirm the work....

The RAF has 40 Chinook Mk.2/2A in service (not including the 8 hanger tarts) which are due out of service by 2015 and 2025 respectively. The intention is to life extend them to 2040. Clearly the 34 HC2s due to expire in 2015 are in urgent need of a decision to go ahead with this, but alas, they can't find the cash to confirm the work....

Probably the most accurate assessment of the situation I have seen on here.
A couple of points to add.

The SK Mk4 OSD is currently 2017 without any upgrade (it was originally 2012)

The planned OSD for Puma, if it gets the Life Extension Programme is 2022 with an option to go to 2025. (original OSD 2010)

As for FMH. The only realistic way to bring it forward to ensure delivery in 2018 (or earlier) is likely to be more Merlins, not the most popular choice but sensible in terms of support and commonality. I'm sure that performance in a new theatre will have an impact on the decision.

You could get Blackhawks a lot quicker and lot cheaper, even made under license by Westland but they don't have the same capability, they could have niche roles though.

The other contenders for FMH, NH90 and S92, would probably be better value than more merlins but as they are new types it could add significant time and risk to any procurement programme.

Work has already started to extend the Chinooks to 2040 and I believe that this funding is fully in place with contracts already placed.

Originally Posted by 20NOV1917

I think the point is being missed though folks, and I'm not one to defend the government here cos they're all cnuts.

One of the missions of aviation is 'limited movement of men and materiel'. Whilst I agree that some casualties MAY have been avoided had there been a few more cabs in theatre, helicopters cannot hold groundor do the more mundane tasks of security patrols around the platoon/troop locations.

Why do you people keep coming out with this nonsense?. The number one reason for lots more helicopters is operation effectiveness. It's almost comical as things are now.

Originally Posted by jaspery

Originally Posted by 20NOV1917

I think the point is being missed though folks, and I'm not one to defend the government here cos they're all cnuts.

One of the missions of aviation is 'limited movement of men and materiel'. Whilst I agree that some casualties MAY have been avoided had there been a few more cabs in theatre, helicopters cannot hold groundor do the more mundane tasks of security patrols around the platoon/troop locations.

Why do you people keep coming out with this nonsense?. The number one reason for lots more helicopters is operation effectiveness. It's almost comical as things are now.

Fella, just out of interest, what is your knowledge of helicopter operations?? I suggest that there's a few more people on this thread that know a lot more than your current ramblings are illustrating. I for one, having deployed to theatre, and currently work in a unit developing better protection for all (not just army) helicopters on operations, would know a little bit better about the pro's and cons of these machines being used on ops, clown!

would sugest that given the Puma is being LEP'd the CHF sea kings are run down to provide extra crews and engineering support for the Chinook/Merlin/Puma fleets. But thir replacements should be ordered at the same time in the Form of a Version of the Merlin amphibious support helicopter that the Italian Navy already operate. It has all the folding bits like rotors and tail to make it suitable for operating of ships it also has better enginsthan the olls Royce ones in the UK fleet maybe Rolls Royce should be expected to come up with a more powerful variant or the ew engine is the same as the Italian ones.
Longer term planning as to the future of he chinook fleet and when its is to be upgraded and if possible its fitting with folding blades. Also on the long term list should be the planning of the Puma replacement and the upgrade of the Merlin.
I would also sugest that the support infrastructre and C3 in Joint helcopter be sorted out.
Unfortunatly the current state is more to do with the shortermism of this administrations planning and that needs to be sorted looking 15-25 years ahead not to the next election.

Chinooks can have the blades folded but after a certain incident most people don't like to use this facility. IIRC a couple of the 3A merlins had blade and tail fold. With regard to SK mk 4 there is and has been money spent, carson blades for example.

Originally Posted by 20NOV1917

Originally Posted by jaspery

Originally Posted by 20NOV1917

I think the point is being missed though folks, and I'm not one to defend the government here cos they're all cnuts.

One of the missions of aviation is 'limited movement of men and materiel'. Whilst I agree that some casualties MAY have been avoided had there been a few more cabs in theatre, helicopters cannot hold groundor do the more mundane tasks of security patrols around the platoon/troop locations.

Why do you people keep coming out with this nonsense?. The number one reason for lots more helicopters is operation effectiveness. It's almost comical as things are now.

Fella, just out of interest, what is your knowledge of helicopter operations?? I suggest that there's a few more people on this thread that know a lot more than your current ramblings are illustrating. I for one, having deployed to theatre, and currently work in a unit developing better protection for all (not just army) helicopters on operations, would know a little bit better about the pro's and cons of these machines being used on ops, clown!

Nicely put mate! Everybody wants more helicopters, fine have them but what about the crews? Where do you think they've been languishing for the last couple of years? Now they're going to need time to re-c0ck!

For perfectly understandable reasons, the media and ARRSE has focussed on the tragic losses to UK personnel over the past week. But another tragic losses almost slipped under the radar. In fact, it would have done if it hadn't happened at the UK FOB near Sangin.

A Ukrainian Mi-26 helicopter on contract to UK forces was brought down with the loss of all 6 crew.

Point 1:
None of the 8 tragic losses of the 9/10th could have avoided by a helicopter. The loss of CO WG BG could have been avoided but only with the employment of a personal helicopter to each senior officer. Not impossible, but ...

Point 2:
Helicopters provide greater protection in some respects, but also a significant vulnerability. How would we be feeling and writing at this moment if the helicopter brought down at Sangin was an RAF Chinook with 50 troops aboard?

Point 3:
Helicopters only allow less to give the illusion of doing more. Helmand is no longer in need of illusion, it's in need of reality. Security will only come when the battlespace is dominated by the good guys. It has to be dominated by boots on the ground in sufficient numbers and there for reasons that the locals accept and welcome. Any number of helicopters will NEVER give 'us' either.

Well now, what to make of this??

MoD rejected three deals to buy Black Hawk helicopters

"Defence ministers spurned three separate deals to buy American Black Hawk helicopters which would have helped to plug the dangerous shortage facing British troops in Afghanistan. The most recent rejection came only days ago, the Observer can reveal.

A letter sent last week by the defence equipment minister, Quentin Davies, to Sikorsky, the US manufacturer of the Black Hawk, appears to admit that snubbing its latest offer could delay the introduction of desperately needed helicopters into Afghanistan.

Davies admits that rather than opt for the "earlier acquisition of another helicopter", the government chose to pursue the heavily criticised refit of Britain's ageing Puma fleet.

The minister's letter is dated 7 July, the day trooper Christopher Whiteside, 20, died on foot patrol in Helmand after being hit by a hidden explosive device. Military figures say that lives are being lost in Afghanistan because troops have to move over ground, making them vulnerable to roadside bombs.

Defence industry sources have also revealed that under the initial offer from Connecticut-based Sikorsky in 2007, a total of 60 Black Hawks would already be available for British forces in Helmand province, where they have sustained heavy casualties from roadside bombs in their renewed offensive against the Taliban.

The damaging revelations come days after the head of the army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, was forced to use a Black Hawk on a visit to Afghanistan due to the shortage of British helicopters. "


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/ju...wk-helicopters