Apache and Royal Marines
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Thread creep amber caption - Although the USAF CSAR community are very pleased to be getting the 47F, some have no problem admitting there are situations where it will be either too large, or too much of a physical target compared to the HH-60. The only point being that just because today's situation calls for bags of lift and torque into mountains above 10 grand with air supremacy an assumption, that might not always be the case, and a mixed fleet gives you infinitely more flexibility. Despite Tony's best efforts, we won't always be fighting in Helmand.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Twos In
Totally agreed, so if CH-47 wasn't the platform for the task, then what is - ok, HH-60/Blackhawk - so where was it?
Off thread in that where ever in the world, at what ever temperature, at whatever height any platform must surely be better suited to Combat Recovery than an AH.
This does not detract from the 'slap on the back' to the crews that bravely did the best they could with what they had that day, but surely we owe our lads and lasses more than the prospect of recovery by riding an Apache bare back!
If it is an autogyro or an R-22, 'Little Bird' or an EC 135, or A109 or a Sea King or Merlin or CH-47 or a Hook - I believe that this experience was a timely reminder to all to ensure that we have the correct resources in all current and future operational areas in order not to force crews/commanders into having to take decisions/risks that given other options would not normally make.
As all of the other threads have highlighted, along with the NAO report, the whole lack of lift is just being at worst ignored or just taken on risk. Even if the cupboard is bare, then JPR (in all its forms) should be readily avilible to commanders and if the Rolls Royce version isn't realistic in this budget fuelled country, then atleast lets provide something that should be atleast a BMW and not a Trabant.
Totally agreed, so if CH-47 wasn't the platform for the task, then what is - ok, HH-60/Blackhawk - so where was it?
Off thread in that where ever in the world, at what ever temperature, at whatever height any platform must surely be better suited to Combat Recovery than an AH.
This does not detract from the 'slap on the back' to the crews that bravely did the best they could with what they had that day, but surely we owe our lads and lasses more than the prospect of recovery by riding an Apache bare back!
If it is an autogyro or an R-22, 'Little Bird' or an EC 135, or A109 or a Sea King or Merlin or CH-47 or a Hook - I believe that this experience was a timely reminder to all to ensure that we have the correct resources in all current and future operational areas in order not to force crews/commanders into having to take decisions/risks that given other options would not normally make.
As all of the other threads have highlighted, along with the NAO report, the whole lack of lift is just being at worst ignored or just taken on risk. Even if the cupboard is bare, then JPR (in all its forms) should be readily avilible to commanders and if the Rolls Royce version isn't realistic in this budget fuelled country, then atleast lets provide something that should be atleast a BMW and not a Trabant.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I attended L/Cpl Ford's funeral yesterday, the town council went to the trouble to open the town's civic centre up after the funeral, for the family and friends. And all I can say is, that whatever part of the very badly underfunded part of the British Armed Forces you are a member of you still do a great job.
That means all of you
R.I.P L/Cpl Mathew Ford 1/8/76 - 15/1/07
Back to the non pilot parts of the forum, me thinks
V1
That means all of you
R.I.P L/Cpl Mathew Ford 1/8/76 - 15/1/07
Back to the non pilot parts of the forum, me thinks
V1
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A thorough well done to all concerned!
May I point out to those that debate that there is a difference between Immediate Personnel Recovery (IPR) and Joint Personnel Recovery (JPR).
The first requires those involved to make best use of what is immediately to hand, maybe AH, maybe SH.
The second would require dedicated assets and as such these may not be readily available for some time after the event.
For an Air Force that works over long distances and perhaps into a threat area JPR/CSAR would probably be the technique that would take precedence.
For AH/BH/SH than at the tactical level there is continuous planning for IPR because at close quarters with the enemy time is important, as in this case.
Again, a superb demonstration of IPR although I do look forward to some JPR assets in theatre as well,
HEDP
May I point out to those that debate that there is a difference between Immediate Personnel Recovery (IPR) and Joint Personnel Recovery (JPR).
The first requires those involved to make best use of what is immediately to hand, maybe AH, maybe SH.
The second would require dedicated assets and as such these may not be readily available for some time after the event.
For an Air Force that works over long distances and perhaps into a threat area JPR/CSAR would probably be the technique that would take precedence.
For AH/BH/SH than at the tactical level there is continuous planning for IPR because at close quarters with the enemy time is important, as in this case.
Again, a superb demonstration of IPR although I do look forward to some JPR assets in theatre as well,
HEDP
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: YES
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AH6 has been mentioned in a few papers if we want an updated 60's helecopter why don't we ask westlands to dust of the file marked scout and do an update but build it to the old robust standard.
