Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FiveFiveSix)
    What prevents people being on the ground/in vehicles with helicopters? :confused:
    Its fairly easy to hide from helicopters, especially in towns. You have no way to search people for weapons, no way to rebuild Afghanistan and no way to create a presence with the population. It is also not feasible as a matter of economics: each helicopter costs millions. Even the Americans only have about 100 helicopters for something like 30,000 troops.

    The other reason is this:
    (Original post by fire2burn)
    Helicopters are nothing but flying coffins anyway, if you start sending troops via air mail they'll just adapt their tactics yet again. The Russians learned that the hard way.
    Indeed - helicopters cannot fly low over risky areas or they get hit with RPGs.

    What I'm trying to say is that it sounds like more helicopters would be very useful as the fighting in Helmand is tougher than most anticipated. But they wouldn't stop the casualties, we need to do everything else as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fire2burn)
    Helicopters are nothing but flying coffins anyway, if you start sending troops via air mail they'll just adapt their tactics yet again. The Russians learned that the hard way.
    Only because we started handing out surface to air missiles willy-nilly. Before that, the Russians had the upper hand in their armoured helicopters.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Its fairly easy to hide from helicopters, especially in towns. You have no way to search people for weapons, no way to rebuild Afghanistan and no way to create a presence with the population. It is also not feasible as a matter of economics: each helicopter costs millions. Even the Americans only have about 100 helicopters for something like 30,000 troops.

    I think his point was that you can have both and what we basically need is more helicopters AND more troops on the ground. And also, try hiding from an Apache.

    The other reason is this:

    Indeed - helicopters cannot fly low over risky areas or they get hit with RPGs.

    What I'm trying to say is that it sounds like more helicopters would be very useful as the fighting in Helmand is tougher than most anticipated. But they wouldn't stop the casualties, we need to do everything else as well.

    So again, more troops needed, more helicopters needed. In short instead of a half arsed attempt at war spending from the government we should be able to send enough troops/helicopters/tanks etc etc to do the job they want us to do properly.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Its fairly easy to hide from helicopters, especially in towns. You have no way to search people for weapons, no way to rebuild Afghanistan and no way to create a presence with the population. It is also not feasible as a matter of economics: each helicopter costs millions. Even the Americans only have about 100 helicopters for something like 30,000 troops.

    The other reason is this:

    Indeed - helicopters cannot fly low over risky areas or they get hit with RPGs.

    What I'm trying to say is that it sounds like more helicopters would be very useful as the fighting in Helmand is tougher than most anticipated. But they wouldn't stop the casualties, we need to do everything else as well.
    Err, FLIR? Also, no one is suggesting we replace boots off the ground with helicopters. The helicopters are there to ferry the troops from A-B, and provide CAS/CASEVAC cover. The actually fighting will still be done by the men on the ground, only their routes in and out of the location will be made much safer, faster and harder to detect by being dropped in by helicopter.

    RPGs are not so effective against modern helicopters, or even back in the 70s/80s. There are stories of Hinds taking several hits from RPGs and still staying airborne. The biggest threat are stingers, which are both luckily few and far between, and outdated.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bighairedmike)
    Superior army training. Thats what that comes down to, not because we have 'sufficient' numbers of helicopters etc.

    It's more to do with the fact that for a good percentage of the time the areas we were looking after were relatively quiet. Now they are very much not so.


    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    Even the Americans only have about 100 helicopters for something like 30,000 troops.
    Spouting numbers like that is meaningless. The Americans, because of the way they deploy, take many thousands more support staff than other forces. It's much more pertinent to count the number of helicopters per combat soldier.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Even if we do need more helicopters, what is the point of having them if they are gonna take years to arrive, will probbably have something wrong with them and a lack of pilots to fly them.... I say we have more copters, but that we also have larger amounts of troops in IED/RPG-proof viechles (lol, cant spell), more choppers wont solve the problem, you have to grab it by the balls
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would be very good to see more helicopters out there. How ever one of the real menaces, which has been mentioned in this thread is the the snatch land rover. Built for use in the Northern Ireland troubles they are only for low risk areas and stopping low power small arms fire not IEDs. The sooner they replace them with the jackals the better. Capable of taking more fire-power with them, better at stopping bomb blasts they're far safer than the snatch coffins.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    It's more to do with the fact that for a good percentage of the time the areas we were looking after were relatively quiet. Now they are very much not so.
    However the superiority of training shines through. If you look at the number of taliban killed in Afghanistan in the past 7 years and then the 100 and something of our soldiers that have died the difference is quite astounding.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by booger)
    It would be very good to see more helicopters out there. How ever one of the real menaces, which has been mentioned in this thread is the the snatch land rover. Built for use in the Northern Ireland troubles they are only for low risk areas and stopping low power small arms fire not IEDs. The sooner they replace them with the jackals the better. Capable of taking more fire-power with them, better at stopping bomb blasts they're far safer than the snatch coffins.

    However, maneuverability and speed is vital. Something the Snatch gives you more than almost any other vehicle available out there.

    Big armoured vehicles are fine, but they also attract lots of attention because they're fecking massive.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    However, maneuverability and speed is vital. Something the Snatch gives you more than almost any other vehicle available out there.

    Big armoured vehicles are fine, but they also attract lots of attention because they're fecking massive.
    The jackal is pretty manoeuvrable maybe not as much as the land rovers but it will most likely save lives and is something that the MOD can actually get financed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I went to an airshow at the weekend and watched a display that included over 30 British military helicopters, i felt naughty. :ninja:
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    I went to an airshow at the weekend and watched a display that included over 30 British military helicopters, i felt naughty. :ninja:

    Didn't happen



    Honest :ninja:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tishy)
    Some of you seriously need a slap around the head.
    I can't believe you think you can pick holes in the prime minister. Like you know everything that goes on.
    You are all posh ******* who would go against ANYTHING labour says and would quite happily wipe the butt of David Cameron.
    Just because you are incredibly and pathetically geeky, that doesn't mean you know more than the prime minister.
    You hate the fact that Gordon Brown is doing a good job with the recession. You hate the fact that people remember what **** the Tories did the last time the LEAD US into a recession. And you spend your lonesome days looking for somthing to go against Gordon Brown. *sigh* There's just no help with some people.

    So go, get off your little computer, in your littler dark room and go and get a life.
    I can actually imagine you all twittering and twithing at my words. Racking your brains for something to say, that will make your fellow geeks go 'THIS! I must remember to rep you on the morrow, Gertrude ahahah!' *snort.

    So, shoo little ones. SHOO


    Oh, yes. Because everyone who supports the Conservative way of life must be a ''posh *******''. :rolleyes:

    That means that, according to recent polls, there are currently more ''posh *******'' in the country than Labourites.

    In that case, if you're calling over half the country ''posh *******'' then you must be exceptionally poor or have a record-breakingly large chip on your shoulder... :p:

    I pity your ignorance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Didn't happen



    Honest :ninja:


    lol, What day did you go?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.