WAH-64 attack helicopters to ferry troops

[riksavage]

An interesting report coming out of Afghanistan today claiming UK marines used Apache WAH-64 attack helicopters to ferry troops in an attempted SAR mission. Once the soldiers were dropped off, the article claims, the helo’s then provided close air-support. Use link for full story:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...acheRescueDuringAfghanistanOperationvideo.htm

I’m aware the Russian Hind series can carry troops as well as provide dedicated close air-support, however I'm not aware of any current Western operated attack helo’s having the ability to carry troops? If not, why not, I would of thought this option would have been ideal for a dedicated SAR platform, which has the punch to provide suppressive fire during operations in hostile environments.

 

[old faithful]

yep, read that article.Seems that the boys were attached to upper surface of the wpns wings.G ive those men a gong! If the English cricket team were awarded OBE,s after winning the ashes last time.then these blokes surely qualify sor something a little better, I would recomend MM for the soldiers and DFC,s for the chopper crews. Well done men.

 

[riksavage]

The English cricket team will be confined to the Tower on there return in preparation for the 'long drop!'

 

[swerve]

An interesting report coming out of Afghanistan today claiming UK marines used Apache WAH-64 attack helicopters to ferry troops in an attempted SAR mission. Once the soldiers were dropped off, the article claims, the helo’s then provided close air-support. Use link for full story:

http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/D...acheRescueDuringAfghanistanOperationvideo.htm

I’m aware the Russian Hind series can carry troops as well as provide dedicated close air-support, however I'm not aware of any current Western operated attack helo’s having the ability to carry troops? If not, why not, I would of thought this option would have been ideal for a dedicated SAR platform, which has the punch to provide suppressive fire during operations in hostile environments.

Oh no! You really, really don't want to do this routinely. It's strictly an emergency-only procedure. There were exactly two marines per helicopter, hanging on (I think they use carabiners) to the outside.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

The troops and aircrew who carried out the rescue attempt were brave, but in my opinion this was a foolhardy mission risking the lives of at least 12 men and 3 expensive helicopters to rescue 1 man. Before the mission was launched a body was seen near the wall of the fort.

I can understand the motive of a commander not to leave a man behind, but in this case I think the red mist set in and clouded his judgement.

This mission could very easily have ended in disaster and the commander would have been in front of a court martial.



Chris

 

[Tasman]

I’m aware the Russian Hind series can carry troops as well as provide dedicated close air-support, however I'm not aware of any current Western operated attack helo’s having the ability to carry troops? If not, why not, I would of thought this option would have been ideal for a dedicated SAR platform, which has the punch to provide suppressive fire during operations in hostile environments.

Whilst dedicated Western attack helos may not have a troop carrying capacity (other than hanging on to the side) helos such as the Blackhawk, and the Iroquois, can be fitted as gunships whilst still retaining some troop carrying capacity. For armed SAR I think this is the way to go. The Australian Army is only now replacing armed UHIH Iroquois in the gunship role. The USAF uses the MH-60G Pave Hawk (Blackhawk variant) for special operations and combat search and rescue.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/uh-60.htm

To design troop carrying capability into the role of an attack or armed recce helo would, IMO, compromise its performance in its specialist field. Trooplift helos, on the other hand, can be fitted with weapon stations when required, albeit at the expense of some troop carrying capacity.

Cheers

 

[old faithful]

The troops and aircrew who carried out the rescue attempt were brave, but in my opinion this was a foolhardy mission risking the lives of at least 12 men and 3 expensive helicopters to rescue 1 man. Before the mission was launched a body was seen near the wall of the fort.

I can understand the motive of a commander not to leave a man behind, but in this case I think the red mist set in and clouded his judgement.

This mission could very easily have ended in disaster and the commander would have been in front of a court martial.



Chris

Unlike what weve seen from the English crickerters,when all seems lost,resign your self to the fact that that its hopeless to continue,and just give up, these blokes had a go, were successful,it didnt go wrong, and deserve recognition for their efforts and courage! Glad you were never my comander!

 

[riksavage]

I have to agree with you there oldfaithful. Accepted, a very difficult decision for the ground commander to make – Send in more assets to rescue one missing Royal Marine, even though the likelihood of him remaining alive is very slim.

Contributing factors why I believe he chose to commit:

The enemy does not adhere to the Geneva Convention, if alive the Marine would have been tortured and killed in a most gristly manner (zip prisoner of war status), and

It sends a strong message to the other serving RM guy’s that if you become wounded or are found missing following an engagement, we will do everything in our power to get you back – a huge morale lift .

 

[old faithful]

Yes, going into a mission knowing that if the shit hits the fan,every effort will be made to ensure the return of every member,would be a great confidence booster, and a blow to the enemy. They cant parade a dead body around for the media either,as seen in Somalia and Iraq.

 

[Tasman]

Yes, going into a mission knowing that if the shit hits the fan,every effort will be made to ensure the return of every member,would be a great confidence booster, and a blow to the enemy. They cant parade a dead body around for the media either,as seen in Somalia and Iraq.

The current situation where prioners/hostages are shown being paraded in public, and humiliated and/or killed on the internet, justifies huge efforts being made to bring them home. Its not like the POW camps of WW2 where humanitarian conventions were at least claimed to be upheld (yes - I know abuses still went on!). Maintaining morale justifies appropriate action and I would want to think that all reasonable efforts would be put into extracting me if I was unlucky enough to be captured or taken hostage.

 

[vivtho]

I’m aware the Russian Hind series can carry troops as well as provide dedicated close air-support, however I'm not aware of any current Western operated attack helo’s having the ability to carry troops? If not, why not, I would of thought this option would have been ideal for a dedicated SAR platform, which has the punch to provide suppressive fire during operations in hostile environments.

I don't know if any other western aircraft have this capability, but the Sukhoi Su-25 can carry a single pod under each wing, each capable of carrying up to one man. They are not meant to fight from (indeed, the pod only has a single small window up front), but rather to carry maintenance techs with the aircraft when they deploy to forward locations. Along with such 'man pods', the Su-25 can also carry pods, that together can carry all the tools and basic spares required for a week of forward deployed operations. Not a bad idea from the point of quick deployments. However, the one and only time the pod was actually tested by Soviet AF personnel, the only comment made was that the designer of the pod should have been made to endure a flight in the pod, as it was very claustrophobic with little view, lots of wind noise and no way of contacting the pilot or anybody else.

Going further back in time, a similar pod was developed with a similar rationale for the P-38 Lightning, but I don't know if it was ever used.

The concept of using combat aircraft like fighters for SAR is not new. In WW I, it was common for the wingman of a downed fighter to land in the nearest open area to pick up the pilot. The rescued pilot would then hang on to the wing (I remember reading that one wing was preferred over the other, as it minimized torque effects). There is at least one account of something similar occurring in WW II, then a fighter (I believe it was either a Spitfire or a Hurricane, but am not sure) landed in a field to take on a downed pilot. A Mosquito bomber also performed a similar mission when it landed in a field to take on the crew of a downed aircraft who were accommodated in the bomb bay.

 

[old faithful]

I don't know if any other western aircraft have this capability, but the Sukhoi Su-25 can carry a single pod under each wing, each capable of carrying up to one man. They are not meant to fight from (indeed, the pod only has a single small window up front), but rather to carry maintenance techs with the aircraft when they deploy to forward locations. Along with such 'man pods', the Su-25 can also carry pods, that together can carry all the tools and basic spares required for a week of forward deployed operations. Not a bad idea from the point of quick deployments. However, the one and only time the pod was actually tested by Soviet AF personnel, the only comment made was that the designer of the pod should have been made to endure a flight in the pod, as it was very claustrophobic with little view, lots of wind noise and no way of contacting the pilot or anybody else.

Going further back in time, a similar pod was developed with a similar rationale for the P-38 Lightning, but I don't know if it was ever used.

The concept of using combat aircraft like fighters for SAR is not new. In WW I, it was common for the wingman of a downed fighter to land in the nearest open area to pick up the pilot. The rescued pilot would then hang on to the wing (I remember reading that one wing was preferred over the other, as it minimized torque effects). There is at least one account of something similar occurring in WW II, then a fighter (I believe it was either a Spitfire or a Hurricane, but am not sure) landed in a field to take on a downed pilot. A Mosquito bomber also performed a similar mission when it landed in a field to take on the crew of a downed aircraft who were accommodated in the bomb bay.

Great info mate! I really like the SU25, an aircraft that runs on multiple fuel,and is very deployable to remote areas and has good CAS capibility.
A lot of practicle uses in third world countrys. Wasnt aware of the man pods. Again, i think its a great idea, and could be tweaked to make it even better. The Harriers would benefit from a similer concept.

 

[vivtho]

Wasnt aware of the man pods. Again, i think its a great idea, and could be tweaked to make it even better.

Personally, while i think the man pods are an interesting idea, I doubt their practicality. What's the point of carrying the techs to the new site, if they have to sit around waiting for the weapons and fuel to show up in trucks?

IMO For a forward deployment on a short term, I'd use the forward base only for refueling and reloading aircraft. For any kind of maintenance, the aircraft could fly back to the main base.

 

[old faithful]

Personally, while i think the man pods are an interesting idea, I doubt their practicality. What's the point of carrying the techs to the new site, if they have to sit around waiting for the weapons and fuel to show up in trucks?

IMO For a forward deployment on a short term, I'd use the forward base only for refueling and reloading aircraft. For any kind of maintenance, the aircraft could fly back to the main base.

Trucks?? I suppose a chopper could bring in the techs as well wpns,spares etc to a rough field. But the thought of a rugged,easily maintainable CAS aircraft, that can operate away from an established airfield has its merits. A couple of dozen SU25,s scattered in groups of four ,are harder to find when spread out, and in different locations, a bit like the great scud hunt.

 

[Waylander]

Oh my god.
Just try to imagine how it is to be in this little tin can under the wing of a Su-25 while the Su is doing a low level high speed relocation to a forward operational base due to security reasons. :shudder

 

[Distiller]

Just read this here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1992036,00.html


I just cannot believe it! (And what I write now is under the assumption that the Guardian report is factual correct).

A professional army with equipment worth millions, "highly trained", etc is not capable of taking an adobe stronghold!That is simply a story of unbelievable incompetence, misuse of equipment and I would also say cowardice.

And in what state is that "army" that it calls a retreat a success!

 

[vivtho]

Trucks?? I suppose a chopper could bring in the techs as well wpns,spares etc to a rough field. But the thought of a rugged,easily maintainable CAS aircraft, that can operate away from an established airfield has its merits. A couple of dozen SU25,s scattered in groups of four ,are harder to find when spread out, and in different locations, a bit like the great scud hunt.

Weapons and fuel are very heavy. A medium helicopter can carry enough weapons for one aircraft for one sortie. Even a C-130 can carry a maximum of 20,000 kg. Assuming each Su-25 is carrying it's maximum payload of 4,400 kg, that means that the entire aircraft is devoted to carrying enough weapons for less than 5 Su-25s. Putting a 20 aircraft squadron in the air would entail airlifting about 80,000 kg i.e. dedicating two Il-76 airlifts per sortie. The math just does not work out.

Oh my god.
Just try to imagine how it is to be in this little tin can under the wing of a Su-25 while the Su is doing a low level high speed relocation to a forward operational base due to security reasons.

Even better ... if the Su is bounced while on such a flight, imagine the state of the poor guy in the pod pulling Gs without any g-suit or padded seat. Also, since the man pods look similar to fuel tanks, the pilot better check twice before jettisoning tanks. :rotfl

 

[vivtho]

Just read this here
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1992036,00.html


I just cannot believe it! (And what I write now is under the assumption that the Guardian report is factual correct).

A professional army with equipment worth millions, "highly trained", etc is not capable of taking an adobe stronghold!That is simply a story of unbelievable incompetence, misuse of equipment and I would also say cowardice.

And in what state is that "army" that it calls a retreat a success!

Attacking a well defended enemy position - no matter what it is constructed of, especially when the enemy is expecting an attack is a very difficult task. Even with the support of bombers. Unless a bomb falls extremely near a combatant, it is unlikely to cause fatalities. Most personnel losses during a bombing raid or artillery shelling are either caused by shrapnel or by the pressure wave. Even if the Taliban were crouching in foxholes instead of a well constructed fortress, that simple protection would have protected them. Also, I don't know what you have in mind when you think of adobe houses, but in the region, adobe is only the outer covering (or shell) of a wall. The center of the wall will have a core or wood, brick or stone. Additionally, in hot regions, walls are built extremely thick to keep the interiors at a stable temperature, no matter the season.

Just to give you an idea, the standard doctrine for the Indian army when attacking a defended, fortified position in mountainous terrain is to maintain a numerical superiority of at least 7:1, preferably 9:1, even when supported by air power.

 

[Super Nimrod]

It was a very interesting situation militarily. I also was somewhat surprised that the attack was repelled, particulalry when B1's & 155mm arty had been used along with the Apaches. I wasn't aware that the Brits had any 155mm in theatre just 105's, perhaps this support was from Canadian or American M777's - anyone know ?


The commander who ordered the rescue mission was in a difficult position. He knows from past history that prisoners in Afghanistan are appallingly treated there. British experience in the previous 200 years shows that prisoners have often been handed to the wives of the tribal chiefs for them to deal with, which is a death sentance of the very worse kind. he didn't have perfect info and wouldn't have known that the man concerned was sadly dead. Yes, they took some risks but as it was a success and initiative was used for the right reasons then it will be viewed as being in the finest traditions of the service and there will be gongs all round.

 

[Waylander]

The Netherlands have four PzH2000 there which also participate in combat support operations.