British army in Afghanistan,shortage of helicopters

ynotdu

Hi,
This is NOT a question i am asking to invite *Brit bashing*or morality of war,or serves them right for being there responses!

in the months of July and August(so far in August)over 30 UK soldiors have been killed(more than the losses there in ALL of 2008)and 94 injured.

eight Chinook helicopters are being dispatched ASAP to Afghanistan.
Merlin helicopters have been recalled from their bases in Iraq(dunno how that will affect the agreement between UK army and Iraq Govt that UK Army will leave their bases to support Iraq army if requested by Afghan Govt?)

The vast majority of soldiers being killed are on foot patrol,a lot of these deaths might be prevented as much as possible by helicopter transport.

The Merlins need refurbishing and some major adjustments for flying in the Afghan enviroment and there ETA is December:eek:

My Questions are,Can the US army not lend some helicopters to the UK army?
Can NATO not lend some?
can NO country or the immoral arms industry lend some.?
is it that the UK have too much pride to ask for help?
what am i missing i.e laws that may prevent countries that have not declared war from helping the UK?
thanks in advance.

neilled

UK arms procurement has been a disaster. For the sake of "buying british" nad keeping jobs in various MP's constituencies they often receive fewer weapon systems, ones that are considerably inferior to those available internationally off the shelf and pay well over the odds. The Lynx helicopter which has been in service for years will go out of service and be refurbished by Agusta Westland at yeoville - at a cost thats greater than buying a load of brand spanking new Blackhawk's from the yanks. Merlin, another fine AW product has been a monster that has consumed a massive chunk of the defence budget for very little capability so far.

The key thing to remember is that not all the deaths are preventably just by brining in helicopters - for instance one assumes that they'll still have to patrol through villages, towns, countryside etc - helicopters will be of no use to a foot patrol which is needed to control the ground and will come under attack from IEDs, small arms fire etc.

What an increased amount of helicopters would do is reduce casualties that are on various types of supply convoy that have to go to fixed locations.

OS119

what he said.

as an example, its been calculated that the Wastelands WAH-64D Apache project cost so much that 99.99% of the capability could of been bought off the shelf from Boeing, been in service 5 years earlier and with enough money left over to give every employee of Wastelands £1 million in redundancy money.

sadly however, this is where it gets complicated: if the UK doesn't buy from wastelands and gets it cheaper, off the shelf, from Boeing, then wastelands goes under and the ability of the UK to build its own helicopters becomes non-existant. this means that whenever the UK wants to buy helicopters it has to ask a foreign governments permission, and that is where you can get screwed over, not only can they say 'no', they can also ramp-up the price knowing that you've got few other options.

a somewhat difficult balance to strike...

Manic Moran

US is pretty short on helicopters as well. Wouldn't have any to loan.

NTM

Victor

ynotdu wrote: »

The vast majority of soldiers being killed are on foot patrol,a lot of these deaths might be prevented as much as possible by helicopter transport.

You can't do a foot patrol from a helicopter.

OS119

ynotdu wrote: »

My Questions are,Can the US army not lend some helicopters to the UK army?
Can NATO not lend some?
can NO country or the immoral arms industry lend some.?
is it that the UK have too much pride to ask for help?
what am i missing i.e laws that may prevent countries that have not declared war from helping the UK?
thanks in advance.

the MoD bought 6 Danish Merlins to try and get assets on stream quickly, but its still going to take an age.

personally think there's two problems: firstly that running helicopters in A'stan is an awful lot harder on the airframes, aircrew and groundcrew than anyone planned for - ergo there's availability problems with the assets you've got, and secondly that lots of staff officers in lots of Armies screwed up on a doctrinal level on the 'how many airframes do i need to run a battalion/brigade/division in combat that's spread out very a wide area with few roads and those are infested with IED's?' question.

i don't think the helicopters that can operate usefully in A'stan (the 'hot n high' environment means you'd be hard pushed to get a Lynx in the air with four blokes in it for instance) are sat around doing nothing, i just don't think enough of them were built.

neilled

I'm not sure about the utility version but I've seen a pricetage of £105 million per bird for the naval version. Thats a whopping amount of cash just to maintain your operational sovereignty, particularly when there are bits that are likely to be sensitive that come from the yanks anyway, who'll just stop selling the spare bits if they think your being troublesome.

The other thing is that Westland is an outfit now entirely owned by the Italians, so whilst the chopper may be British built, the it still is going to in effect have to ask someone else for permission and thats forgetting about mission systems etc.

ynotdu

Victor wrote: »

You can't do a foot patrol from a helicopter.

I realise that Victor.but surely a foot patrol would at times be better informed of what is surrounding&ahead of them via helicopter visuols?
obviously it could also indicate where a foot patrol is to the enemy.
so it would depend on the purpose of the foot patrol.
also in general surely the more helicopters available would ensure a quick response from the medic,s to treat on the spot and airlift the patrol to safety?


OS119 on post 3 you say *He* said just wondering who he is?cheers.

also just wondering for those serving in Afgha,what has it been like in the run-up to and the elections themselves if you can answer that on the internet?

I saw a chinook was forced to ditch today,last i heard enemy fire had not been ruled out as cause,the crew destroyed it to avoid it falling into the wrong hands.
that will be a help to all!:(

neilled

ynotdu wrote: »

I realise that Victor.but surely a foot patrol would at times be better informed of what is surrounding&ahead of them via helicopter visuols?
obviously it could also indicate where a foot patrol is to the enemy.
so it would depend on the purpose of the foot patrol.
also in general surely the more helicopters available would ensure a quick response from the medic,s to treat on the spot and airlift the patrol to safety?


OS119 on post 3 you say *He* said just wondering who he is?cheers.

also just wondering for those serving in Afgha,what has it been like in the run-up to and the elections themselves if you can answer that on the internet?

I saw a chinook was forced to ditch today,last i heard enemy fire had not been ruled out as cause,the crew destroyed it to avoid it falling into the wrong hands.
that will be a help to all!:(

I'm guessing that the tendency is that this type of reconnaissance in future by unmanned reconnaissance aircraft. Whilst the more sophisticated of these are costing a fair whack ( a few million per unit) if one gets shot down, there are no dead (and expensive to both have trained and then to replace) pilots - the physical small size of these craft should make them harder to hit as well.

The arms industry is something that is rather cynical Its kind of like a rather large vampire feeding of its various host states. States are essentially realist. In that institutionally they tend not to trust in concepts like international law - although states are formally and legally equal, then they have different capabilities - hence the demands of lichenstien are less likely to be paid heed to than those of the USA in any international discussion. Anyway, being realist entities, states tend to assume that a country that is friendly today may not be tomorrow and that at some unspecified point in the future their former friendly neighbour may elect the next saddam, hitler, stalin, pol pot, - name your bogeyman of choice. Anyway if they've bought their military kit from a state that has suddenly turned hostile then for service, spare parts etc they're screwed. Hence the reason for buying "british" french, etc. Western choppers and armoured vehicles tend to be rather high tech, so these industries also sustain well paying jobs in their native countries. If the company is going out of work it will publicly say so in effect putting out its hand for a government order - see the situation with the Apache helicopters used by the UK as an example. Of course the arms industry is out to make a profit for its shareholders as well, so the chance of a "loan" from them is out of the question.

The latest proper military spec (not civilian ones painted green like the Irish aircorps ones) european choppers like the NH-90 cost in the region of 16 million euro a piece. European states are not inclined to loan out these and their expensively trained crews to get worn out (dusty conditions and helicopters do not mix, especially where the longevity of the chopper is concerned) and shot at unless there is some likely benefit for the state in it.

Regarding the brits, the only reason I can see why they've went with the lynx upgrade is that - they fit on existing royal navy ships and in theory could have deliveries arriving by 2011 and to some extent the helicopter is "proven". At the same time though they probably could procure cheaper western helicopters like the US blackhawk, or even theoretically the AW149 when it flies in 2014 for similar amounts of cash - AW have offered over 100 to Turkey for about 1.4 billion euro. In theory anyway, it carries more men, more weapons and is a new airframe which presumably benefits from the advances in technology that have occurred since that chopper entered service in 1977

Manic Moran

Victor wrote: »

You can't do a foot patrol from a helicopter.

You can do them better, actually. Two reasons: 1) You don't need to dedicate a bunch of your men to manning and guarding vehicles as you go walking in terrain which vehicles cannot go, and 2) you can do foot patrols in areas where vehicles can't get to, which is rather a lot of places in Afghanistan.

NTM

OS119

Manic Moran wrote: »

You can do them better, actually. Two reasons: 1) You don't need to dedicate a bunch of your men to manning and guarding vehicles as you go walking in terrain which vehicles cannot go, and 2) you can do foot patrols in areas where vehicles can't get to, which is rather a lot of places in Afghanistan.

NTM

and, perhaps just as pertinent to the political sphere of the conflict, helicopters don't say "we physically dominate this location, we can walk where we like, and we're staying - so if you deal with us today you can be sure that we'll be here in 10 years time, we'll not be pissing off and leaving you to the tender mercies of the Taleban", which has been a fundamental stumbling block to the campaign in the more rural and outlying areas.

OS119

ynotdu wrote: »

OS119 on post 3 you say *He* said just wondering who he is?cheers.

Nellied, post #2. spot on.

Fratton Fred

Am I right in thinking that out of 60 odd Apaches the british Army has, 8 are deployed in afghanistan but of those 8 it is only possible to keep two in the air due to the harsh conditions?

i get the impression that with the Apache it is not only a case of the conditions being hard on the machine, but also the constant maintenance needed is even harder on the resources it takes.

OS119

yeah, the Apache spares chain has been a problem - a cash problem - since the type came into service.

it appears to me that the UK defence budget would have to be significantly increased (maybe another 10%?) to get all the hardware that's been bought into actual service - witness most of the RN surface fleet tied up on the south coast...

if you look at the quantity of hardware owned the UK military has an astonishing capability, but it shows that buying the stuff and its headline cost is only half the story.

ynotdu

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Am I right in thinking that out of 60 odd Apaches the british Army has, 8 are deployed in afghanistan but of those 8 it is only possible to keep two in the air due to the harsh conditions?

i get the impression that with the Apache it is not only a case of the conditions being hard on the machine, but also the constant maintenance needed is even harder on the resources it takes.

also Fratton i heard the UK ministor of defense say it takes between four and five crews to keep a helicopter available 24/7.not sure if he was talking about chinooks/merlins or through his ass?

what nation developed Apache,s?excuse my ignorance.

iceage

Goggle is your friend..

Manic Moran

Apache is an American helicopter. However, when the British purchased them, instead of simply buying them right off the production line in the US, they had Westland, a British company, buy the licensce to make the things, so they were built in the UK, with the additional costs of tooling, production line setup and so on and so forth.

That sort of thing makes equipment far more expensive, but does have the strategic advantage of keeping a home industry in operation.

NTM

ynotdu

iceage wrote: »

Goggle is your friend..

Difficult to be sure wheter you are being sarky or trying to be helpful there iceage.

why would i use google for this thread,or wikipedia where it can be very difficult to find unchallenged posts?

Have you read the previous posts?
The quality of the posting is top notch,the posters have gone to a lot of trouble to give comprehensive and accurate information,for which i am very grateful as i asked the original question.

iceage

No sarcasm was intended, merely trying to offer assistance. But to be honest I was getting a bit twitchy when the discussion turned to actual numbers of airframes purchased or "borrowed" by the British MOD from other countrys travelling to Afghanistan. Please forgive my Paranoia but OpSec can be a issue sometimes. I'm sure I'll be told that I'm being silly and I'm sure the Mods are keeping an eye but hey, you can never be too careful now can you?

Please forgive me for being suspicious and sarky ole git.

ynotdu

iceage wrote: »

No sarcasm was intended, merely trying to offer assistance. But to be honest I was getting a bit twitchy when the discussion turned to actual numbers of airframes purchased or "borrowed" by the British MOD from other countrys travelling to Afghanistan. Please forgive my Paranoia but OpSec can be a issue sometimes. I'm sure I'll be told that I'm being silly and I'm sure the Mods are keeping an eye but hey, you can never be too careful now can you?

Please forgive me for being suspicious and sarky ole git.

Lol forgiven!!!!!!!!

thought it might be an idea to put up the charter as i have been known to land myself in it by forgetting to read a forums charter.
hope that does not seem arrogant of me!and land me in it:)

everything here is in the public domain so could be sourced elsewhere.
its just this is a more compact place for me to learn from.
i would not underestimate posters abilities to know what information is too sensitive to post or breach the secrets act.

Manic Moran

There's no need to post the entire charter. Please don't do that again.

Just because something has been put into the public domain doesn't mean we need to amplify its publicity. That said, I don't think the announcement of a move of eight helos iis going to transgress it as it's something of an official source which initially publicised it.

NTM

ynotdu

Hi Manic,as i said i hoped it would not seem arrogant.
I thought selectivly quoting the charter would be a no-no.
on reflection i wonder could you remove it as it does seem patronising of me?

the thread seems near its natural end anyway and i would hate to be the one to ruin what to me is one of the most intelligent threads i have come across on boards.
regards
and be safe!

WHOOPS just realised i could delete it my self!

iceage

Maybe a slight over reaction on my behalf Manic, agreed. My apologies to the OP for derailing the thread.

PYRO#1

Helicopter numbers have always been a problem for the british. They never had enough to fulfill all requirments. Afghanistan is hard on helicopters, hot and high conditions dont suit them and the dust aswell on top of that, they need extra crews to look after them

ynotdu

PYRO#1 wrote: »

Helicopter numbers have always been a problem for the british. They never had enough to fulfill all requirments. Afghanistan is hard on helicopters, hot and high conditions dont suit them and the dust aswell on top of that, they need extra crews to look after them

Thanks for the post PYRO.The amount of deaths from the US&UK is really getting alarming!!!!!!!


Gordon Brown on a *surprise*visit to Afghanistan promising more equipment for UK troops at this late stage,IMO just does,nt cut it!
He was in charge of the pursetrings for ten years before he suceeded Tony Blair.