Saying that helicopters are not the answer to Afghanistan is disingenuous (sp?). There are many parts to "the answer" and I reckon they must, at least, include:

More infantry would allow us to take and hold more ground- surely the sine qua none of security

More transport helicopters would allow us to remove some of our reliance on the roads.

More PPVs would allow us safer travel on the roads when we have to use them.

More attack helicopter assets would allow us to provide more CAS. From what I've read, AH crews at Bastion have consistently worked themselves into the ground covering TIC situations etc. Surely just having more crews out there would be beneficial- some kind of downtime rota would benefit- a wide-awake crew is far more use than a tired one. I am reminded of the "tiredness kills" road campaign that states that tiredness is as dangerous as drunkenness behind the wheel.


I'm not daft enough to claim that this list is anything like exhaustive, but I feel that the above would be a damn good start.

Originally Posted by baboon6

There are specialist route-clearance vehicles in service with other armies, apparently the Royal Engineers are to get 14 Force Protection Buffalo vehicles with such equipment.

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/buffalo/

I don't know if any other route-clearance vehicles are in service with the RE. Of course there is still the problem of IEDs being used against dismounted troops.

How old is the buffalo now? I am sure I saw one in 1996.

Question for the ex-AAC guys; if the Gub'mint cave in and provide the blokes in Afghanistan with all the helicopters they need - would we have enough pilots to actually fly them? Or are they as over-stretched as everybody else?

Originally Posted by Werewolf

Question for the ex-AAC guys; if the Gub'mint cave in and provide the blokes in Afghanistan with all the helicopters they need - would we have enough pilots to actually fly them? Or are they as over-stretched as everybody else?

In AAC squadrons we used to be able to match aircrew to aircraft. So if things haven't changed in 20 years and you are talking about sending aircraft in service then yes, we can (ignoring harmony, courses etc). However, if you are talking purchasing extra aircraft then we would have to train up aircrew.

You would have to ask serving AAC types as to whether there is any shortfall in aircrew.

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by baboon6

There are specialist route-clearance vehicles in service with other armies, apparently the Royal Engineers are to get 14 Force Protection Buffalo vehicles with such equipment.

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/buffalo/

I don't know if any other route-clearance vehicles are in service with the RE. Of course there is still the problem of IEDs being used against dismounted troops.

How old is the buffalo now? I am sure I saw one in 1996.

First built in 2002. The design is based on that of the South African Casspir (as is that of the Cougar, known in British service as Mastiff/Ridgback), though that was/is a troop carrier and not a engineer vehicle.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...on-mraps_N.htm

I imagine the Gub'mint would have to buy extra helicopters to reach the required levels. So there would potentially be a shortage of pilots.

Definately one for Flashy or MDN.

However, it's a moot point since I don't see Broon breaking open the piggy-bank any time soon...

Does anyone know if we have worked on the options for leasing helicopters, at least while RAF Merlins are upgraded (Paxman did ask some very sharp questions on Newsnight about why it takes a year to do this)?

Are we too hung up on perfect solutions later when good enough now will do? Could we do the job with some second hand Bell 412's (Huey upgrades from the 80's) which the AAC already operate in Belize? Could we hire in pilots on short contracts? Perhaps even the Russian "have a Mi8 and will fly anywhere for cash" option should be considered?

Interesting to get views, especially from aviation types.

Originally Posted by baboon6

Originally Posted by chocolate_frog

Originally Posted by baboon6

There are specialist route-clearance vehicles in service with other armies, apparently the Royal Engineers are to get 14 Force Protection Buffalo vehicles with such equipment.

http://www.forceprotection.net/models/buffalo/

I don't know if any other route-clearance vehicles are in service with the RE. Of course there is still the problem of IEDs being used against dismounted troops.

How old is the buffalo now? I am sure I saw one in 1996.

First built in 2002. The design is based on that of the South African Casspir (as is that of the Cougar, known in British service as Mastiff/Ridgback), though that was/is a troop carrier and not a engineer vehicle.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/militar...on-mraps_N.htm

That is quite strange, because I have had a quick think and I DEFINITLY saw one on a US Base, in 1996.

I took note of it at the time because it looked (to me) like a narrowboat on wheels. (I wondered whta the fcuk it was).

I saw it again in 2008, in the same compound. I've even spoken to a mate to confirm the date we spoke about it (pre 0.

I think the real root of the problem is very much akin to that suffered by the railways.

Chronic underinvestment with ultra conservative and incompetent management over a significant period of time..

We are, IMHO reaping the results of the following:

1. The rise in the power of the Civil Servents in the MoD, going right back to the breakup of the separate service headquarters in the 1960s.. At every move the MoD CS has saught to take power from the services and neuter the influence of the CoC. In particular the following have been significant in changing the nature of the civil-military relationship:
a. Devolved budgets (along with devolved budget managers) has provided a parallel command structure through Civ Sec, influencing how decisions are taken.
b. The civilianisation of the Procurement agency has placed the ownership of the equipment procurement system into politically vulnerable hands.
c. Loss of Crown Immunity has resulted in the transfer of power from CoC who WERE responsible for everything under Crown Immunity to the current situation where authority and responsibility is not clear and the CoC is put under threat of external litigation..

2. The ever increasing separation of the G3 and G4 staff functions leading to the loss of the serious and professional dialogue that needs to occur between the two. In far too many situations the relationship has become seriously imbalanced, with G3 simply snapping their fingers and expecting the G4 to pick up whatever they have dropped.. We are cutting many, many corners to achieve the current effect, some are sensible, but many are not. We have got away with it so far, but we may not in the future...

3. Having watched the process for many decades, I think that "Purple" works on the front line, but not in the rear. In recent years, Jointery has been shown to be an unmitagated and expensive disaster. Wither it be Army/Navy/Airforce or UK/US/NATO, jointery is not an efficient model if done for economic reasons. It can be dressed up with flags etc and may look all right, but if you scratch the surface I am sure anybody who has ever has to do it will admit it is a COS...

So... Helicopters - Yes more helicopters are needed but it is the fact that we have ended up with not having this lift, and moreover no quick way of solving it is indicative of the real problem...

In other words, we don't have helicopters because:

1. As a result of Army v RAF v Navy bickering, transport helicopters funding lay in the hands of the RAF until very recently.
2. Because of internal RAF politics, MOD spends most of it's aeroplane toy money on fast jets rather than helios..
3. The MOD serpents are happy to allow this situation to exist because they win in any situation which sets one service against the other.
4. We cannot buy in "cheap" Hinds etc because they would not meet the H & S criteria we are all now subject to as a result of loss of C I.
5. UOR is much more fun than "real" procurement.. Better Lunches etc, and no long term liability! (See: Chinooks).

In other words, much of the Infrastructure is shot out. We have underinvested in equipment, knowledge and expertise over the past twenty years and now we are reaping the result.

As even the most cursory look at history will tell you:

Tactics may win battles, but it is logistics and the determination to sustain action that will win wars..

.... and breathe...

(Edited to reflect current situation re JHC)

Double Tap... Deleted!