If the Chinook is slow, lumbering, and lands slowly.....why not replace them with Ospreys which we are all told are fast, manuverable, and land quickly?
It would seem that would sort it out pronto! Or do I miss something here?
Are Osprey's immune to RPG's?
Are Osprey's immune to small arms fire?
Do Osprey's not land where the Bad Guys are by some onboard kit we know nothing of yet?
Or....should we be asking questions like....."Did we plan this mission properly? Did we become predictable in our Tactics and thus fall prey to the enemy adapting to our tactics? Did we have airborne surviellance assets over head scanning the LZ and surrounds for enemy activity? If we did...was there a failure in capability, command and control, and/or application of technology/assets? Were on-scene Troops properly tasked/resourced for the mission? Was there effectively coordination of all units tasked? Was Command and Control elements properly informed, knowledgeable, and in effective control of all units/assets/resources? Are we getting complacent due to the sheer number of these operations being undertaken? Are the units involved in these missions experiencing over-saturation? Are the Rules of Engagement too restrictive? Did the engaged units receive adequate and timely support from Tube Artillery, Scout and Attack helicopters, and Tactical Aircraft?"
This smacks of another Takur Ghar fight (Robert's Ridge) where things went down hill fast after pre-assault intel was inadequate and command and control was absolutely a disgrace. Senior officers in Bahrain have no reason to be involved in local goings on in Afghanistan. That kind of decision making and coordination is best done by the commanders on the scene.