Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Apache and Royal Marines

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Apache and Royal Marines

Old 27th Jan 2007, 18:16
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Beside the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 283
MM4 - thanks for the advice. But I was only retaliating (in typical overmatch style it seems, given gimpee's limited ability to 'do' banter) to what the loser said in the first place. Read the posts and you'll see.

And I'm not bitter - life's good to me these days...

all the best, whoever you are!
ChristopherRobin is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2007, 21:34
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 567
Sky News now (2130 Sat)...42 CDO in Afghanistan
timex is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2007, 19:51
  #123 (permalink)  
GPMG
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CR, I'm a bit tired at the moment but your accusations are a bit over the top.
Limited ability for banter? I'm fine for banter, got me into trouble many a time as I like to see the joke in things even when it's serious, got me through the tough times , if you can't stand piss taking then don't take the piss. But I'm sure you'll realize that calling someone a walt is pretty low, how am I to prove otherwise? And that accusation would wind any ex serviceman or women up if meant seriously.

And now I'm a loser am I? What I did was ask a couple of questions amongst all of the backslapping and good shows etc.

Yes it was an awesome effort, yes the people involved deserve respect and awe, they have it from myself, my mate and by the looks of it everyone. I asked why an RSM and a Capt RE were on the mission, that has been cleared up (Apaches at HQ, HQ personnel probably the only people available hence the 2 x sigs Marines). Good thatís understood.

But there are still other things to be answered about the operation and I'm sure they will be. Except of course why our military do not have access to the right kit (troop carrying helo's that can work at the altitudes that our troops are operational?)

Yeah you got a bite and I'd bite anytime some fool accuses me of being a liar or a fake I'm proud of my time in the corps, but the only reason that I read this particular forum is because it is populated by some knowledgeable and well informed people mixed with a bit of good humour but not childish. Shame it's not 100% across the board.
 
Old 29th Jan 2007, 12:05
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 93
For the arm-chair Generals just remember this. No plan, no matter how good, will survive contact with the enemy.

CR & GPMG (and mate) shame on you both for the mud slinging you've done on this forum.
MM4, I'm lost for words.
owe ver chute is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2007, 18:49
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Owe Ver Chute,

Please check PMs
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 05:49
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Wattashame
Posts: 136
For everyone who has praised the actions of those involved during the events of 15 Jan 07, thank you. Every member of the Sqn is humbled. To those who choose to use those actions as a means of trying to score points or even sling mud at each other as OVC put it, shame on you. The family of Matt Ford might not view this forum, but word gets around. The events of the day will be revealed in the fulness of time, but not on this forum. Until then, if you have an opinion, you are entitled to it, but think before you spout.
There was not a shortage of CH, and even if there had been, would it have been any more suitable for the task? As most of you on this forum seem to know what the situation was, or are making assumptions about how it was. This isn't a trianing evolution, the enemy had a vote and it counted.

For the family of Matt Ford, our entire Sqn offer their sincere condolances for your loss. Though we didn't know Matt personally we have only heard good things about him. May he rest in peace.

If anybody would like to PM me, feel free.

Once again, thank you for the support.
AHQHI656SQN is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 08:00
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 3,947
I'm sure that even those raising questions have nothing but respect for ALL of those involved in the operation.

Naturally (I guess) the media spotlight has fallen on those who 'rode' outside the Apaches, but this particular journo (and pilot) has even more respect for the aircrew who were involved in this magnificent op - planning it, and having to use their aircraft in an unfamiliar role.

I guess that using Apaches gave the enemy rather less warning than a Chinook thudding in would have done.
Jackonicko is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 09:22
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Aren't medals won by people doing things out of the ordinary?

Well done 656, keep up the good work!
mutleyfour is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 09:22
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Beside the beach
Age: 48
Posts: 283
owe ver chute - for the record, here is my original post because you obviously didn't read it.
Now I challenge you to find anything in there disrespectful to the people on operations, or their actions.
Shame on me? Last time I checked, this wasn't a church and PPRuNe wasn't a religion. Everyone, and that includes GPMG and ABIW or whoever, is entitled to their opinion. If that opinion is flaming me, I reserve the right to reply. So so try not to get so sanctimonious.
All of us are profoundly awed of the action that took place. All of us regret that a life was lost. And if you disagree with what we have said to each other then for that I apologise, but such is the evolving nature of sequentially recording bulletin boards. But if anyone ever got truly slagged off, I think it could only be the government, waltish accusations notwithstanding, and for which I make a public retraction and apology to GPMG.
ChristopherRobin is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2007, 15:49
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
So it's official then - despite Blair's buttock-clenched promise late last year that commanders could have anything else they wanted for Afghanistan, no-one high up seems to think that more helicopters are needed:

http://www.bizbuzzmedia.com/blogs/fl...1/30/6436.aspx

Surely 20 helos in theatre is not enough to provide the support that should be available? Or am I wrong?
sprucemoose is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 13:43
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
I have received numerous PMs regarding my comments, thank you - so much better than venting your spleen in public.
Just to make sure that it is publicly acknowledged, the individual personal courage of those crews/personnel that day that made those tactical decisions at that specific moment in time of the battle was never in question. Brave indeed.
However, I believe that there may be some mixed messages with many believing that the CH 47/'twin engined Tq monster' was not suitable for the job.

I can readily accept this point of view (having no love for either the 'Freaks' or the 'Old Queen of the skies', but those in the know or those that aren't who just Google CSAR-X, will see that the US obviously believe that the 'happy hooker' (as they refer to their CH-47s) is more than suited in their opinion as they have just procured 141 of them for this role after a quite exhaustive tendering process looking at a number of platforms.

If availible (and there lies the question), an Apache/CH 47 mix would have been a pretty potent rescue package that has seemed to have worked so far in theatre for some of the other recovery style missions.

Last edited by MaroonMan4; 1st Feb 2007 at 13:54.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 15:34
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Europe
Posts: 580
Quite correct MM4 but that doesn't account for those Ad Hoc moments when a little bit of Harry Black will suffice to keep everything together.

Sometimes you just have to make do with the tools you have available at that time, and that is what us Britains are famous for, and I know that doesn't or shouldn't excuse anybody, its just simple fact.

Last edited by mutleyfour; 1st Feb 2007 at 15:35. Reason: I am great at spelling but sadly rubbish at typing!
mutleyfour is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 15:55
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Mutley,

Totally 100% agree - lets just learn from this episode so that Harry Black becomes the exception rather than the norm and that when the commanders on the ground go to that well worn staff puke college phrase of 'tool box' to get some 'tools' that there is something for them to use besides bodge tape.

But then I suppose if the tool box was empty except for Harry Black, they could always go their 'golf bag' to see what that had in it...
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 16:01
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Was this a combat rescue mission?

Last edited by nigegilb; 1st Feb 2007 at 22:52.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 18:04
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Anywhere
Posts: 567
Was this a combat rescue mission?
No, this was a "hot" reaction to a mate possibly still alive close to taliban. No Sp Helo's close enough to react.
timex is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 22:18
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Nigegilb,

Just Google my friend - JWP 3-66, page 1-3. This aspect of definitions is not classified and will not jeopardise future missions. IMHO I believe it was an Immediate Combat Recovery conducted with the resources that were 'immediately' availible to the commander on the ground at that moment in time

But hey, I wasn't there and what would I know, but may help you out?

b. Combat Recovery Operations. CR Operations is a generic term for
recovery operations comprising the following elements:
(1) Combat Recovery. CR is the recovery of isolated personnel in
distress and/or equipment, from an environment in which a threat is
posed by hostile interference, who are not trained and/or equipped to
receive CSAR.
(2) Combat Search and Rescue. The recovery of isolated personnel
in distress, from an environment in which a threat is posed by hostile
interference, who are trained and equipped for CSAR.
(3) Special Forces Operations. Special Forces (SF) operations will
not be covered within this JWP. However it should be noted that,
following a strategic decision to commit UK SF personnel to a task, SF
would conduct unconventional assisted recovery tasks within their own
planning and execution criteria.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 22:34
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
MM4 thanks. The reason I ask is that in March last year I wrote to the Defence Committee questioning the ability of UK Armed Forces to conduct CSAR Ops, questioning the CSAR support provided to troops/airmen in Afg and asking if the US had agreed to provide CSAR assets. Ingram refused to disclose any information. I asked because I was close to an incident in the Kosovo war where no agreement existed with US about CSAR and my colleagues were subsequently left on the ground for hours watching the wreck of their aircraft burn. Since then work has been done on Brit capability in this area, but my concerns were not alleviated by the Govt response. I am acutely aware of not disclosing anything that might be of use to the enemy but I was alarmed by the photos of those very brave men searching for their colleague.
nigegilb is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 22:43
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Nigeglib,

I understand your question totally and as you have probably gathered I echoe your concerns, but sadly I have absolutely no idea of what the JPR arrangements are for this theatre of operations and to be truthful if I did I most certainly wouldn't disclose them.

So not wishing to let anyone get off the hook for not resourcing properly, I can wholly understand why you were given the stonewalling.

However, if you lobby someone that has the right security classification and trust them to do your business, then you may have better results.
MaroonMan4 is offline  
Old 1st Feb 2007, 23:58
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Swindonshire
Posts: 1,909
The Select Committee may (re)visit the issue in their forthcoming inquiry into operations in Afghanistan (details here) - and they're welcoming submissions, so perhaps time to write to them once more, Nigegilb?
Archimedes is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2007, 00:11
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Thanks for the heads up. Frustrating thing about the Defence Committee is that the Govt regularly uses the "lives of British servicemen at risk" card, as a reason not to answer questions. The Chairman took my concerns seriously and asked the questions but Ingram as usual hid behind secrecy. If anyone wants any points or concerns raised I am familiar with the system so to speak and can help out if required.
nigegilb is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.