RAF Merlins crews unwilling to go to Afghanistan?
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Somerset
Age: 61
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would it have been a better idea to simply have ordered more MK3s?
Absolutely! But ideally marinized and fitted for (not necessarily with) a folding head and tail, so they could be trialled as a SK4 replacement.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of them as a possible Sea King replacement...
Evalu8er mentioned that Merlin can do 2 out of 3 things - payload/protection/range - i'm guessing SK is even worse?
So, for the Junglies, all three of those issues are fairly critical, their job being an assault helicopter force, so need long range for over the horizon lifts, protection to be able to fly into well protected areas, and still carry plenty of Booties.... which Merlin cannot do so well? At least compared to other aircraft?
So the question I ask here, is which priority should these be in? Then, once prioritised, which aircraft type would be best to replace it?
I understand that thats a fairly simplistic way of looking at it - cost and training/logs infrastructure also must count, but I'm wondering at the basic type vs type level...
The two i've heard thrown about the most are Merlin as mentioned, and a marinized version of Chinook (if such a thing exists?)
Evalu8er mentioned that Merlin can do 2 out of 3 things - payload/protection/range - i'm guessing SK is even worse?
So, for the Junglies, all three of those issues are fairly critical, their job being an assault helicopter force, so need long range for over the horizon lifts, protection to be able to fly into well protected areas, and still carry plenty of Booties.... which Merlin cannot do so well? At least compared to other aircraft?
So the question I ask here, is which priority should these be in? Then, once prioritised, which aircraft type would be best to replace it?
I understand that thats a fairly simplistic way of looking at it - cost and training/logs infrastructure also must count, but I'm wondering at the basic type vs type level...
The two i've heard thrown about the most are Merlin as mentioned, and a marinized version of Chinook (if such a thing exists?)
Before anyone launches into the real BigGreenGilbert, note the spelling of the last poster's name - our friendly replicant troll again! 
Edit - who has now been deleted by the MoDs, which is why the above makes no sense to anyone new to the thread...
Edit - who has now been deleted by the MoDs, which is why the above makes no sense to anyone new to the thread...
Last edited by Archimedes; 7th Aug 2009 at 20:20.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 868
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Combat ban' for Afghanistan helicopters - Telegraph
Surely the boys in light blue aren't trying to weedle their way out of their time in the desert because they don't have enough ballistic protection?!
"I don't want people to come back strapped into their seats with bullet holes in them" - Oh really, probably best to avoid jumping into a Sea King then.....
I'm sure the top brass were happy that this was 'leaked' out. Are the Crab merling boys/girls aware the Royal Navy have been out there for the last two years with even less ballistic protection then the Mk3 Merlin currently has, but you haven't found them whingeing....
Sometimes you have to get on and do the job with what you have...
Light the touchpaper....
Surely the boys in light blue aren't trying to weedle their way out of their time in the desert because they don't have enough ballistic protection?!
"I don't want people to come back strapped into their seats with bullet holes in them" - Oh really, probably best to avoid jumping into a Sea King then.....
I'm sure the top brass were happy that this was 'leaked' out. Are the Crab merling boys/girls aware the Royal Navy have been out there for the last two years with even less ballistic protection then the Mk3 Merlin currently has, but you haven't found them whingeing....
Sometimes you have to get on and do the job with what you have...
Light the touchpaper....
Reachforthebucket, as it appears you are not of the children who is often hijacking this forum, then you are a complete and utter tw@.
Do you really think that after 5 years of ops in Iraq (yes, getting shot at too) that the Merlin crews are not prepared to deploy to Afghan? The Merlin Force has done more than its fair share in the desert than I suspect you have.
I am not going to start fishhead bashing as I will leave that to prats like you.
I bet you are one of those idiots that goes on a joint op and finds everything possible wrong with everyone but yourself. Well done on your 'light hearted prod' at the Merlin Force. Hilarious.
Last edited by TheWizard; 12th Aug 2009 at 15:41. Reason: Clarity on the posters ID and background
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I must say, Reach, it takes a certain kind of person, either incredibly brave, or incredibly stupid, to boast on an open forum about the lack of protection and risks he is taking in a theatre of war.
I fail to see what is so great about flying around in a helicopter that is not fit for purpose, but to broadcast the situation is fcuking stupid.
The decision to deploy, or otherwise Merlin crews into Afg will have fcuk all to do with the crews themselves. They will do as they are ordered and do it well.
Congratulations for placing your colleagues at increased risk.......
Edited to add for the benefit of Strobin Purple, I was not referring to anti RPG armour, but I am not willing to discuss specific ballistic protection in public. Neither, I believe, should you be, either regarding Merlin or Sea King.
I fail to see what is so great about flying around in a helicopter that is not fit for purpose, but to broadcast the situation is fcuking stupid.
The decision to deploy, or otherwise Merlin crews into Afg will have fcuk all to do with the crews themselves. They will do as they are ordered and do it well.
Congratulations for placing your colleagues at increased risk.......
Edited to add for the benefit of Strobin Purple, I was not referring to anti RPG armour, but I am not willing to discuss specific ballistic protection in public. Neither, I believe, should you be, either regarding Merlin or Sea King.
Last edited by nigegilb; 7th Aug 2009 at 22:44.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oxford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That'll be a bite then! Don't rise Wiz....
In answer to the OP, no....and don't believe everything you read in the papers, a top RAF insider told Pprune.
What you have is an entire force that has been champing at the bit to get to Afgh for years with lots of wheedling and ducking and diving to ensure that folks get on the first det....why any of you would think that Merlin SH crews who, as a part of their normal working routine, operate day in, day out in a threat environment, would baulk at a few RPGs, defeats me. To the OP, maybe if it was true it would make you feel better about yourself? PM me, we can talk about it if you want?
There seem to be so many Merlin 3/3A experts on here I am surprised no-one said it earlier.
And it's always a pleasure to follow the SK4s into th if only to watch them try and blame a Merlin crew for crashing an overweight SK4 . Bloody heroes the lot of 'em.
And nigegilb go and grind your hysterical axe elsewhere. When you find the lightweight helicopter anti-RPG armour, let me know, I'll have a dozen sets, in green.
In answer to the OP, no....and don't believe everything you read in the papers, a top RAF insider told Pprune.
What you have is an entire force that has been champing at the bit to get to Afgh for years with lots of wheedling and ducking and diving to ensure that folks get on the first det....why any of you would think that Merlin SH crews who, as a part of their normal working routine, operate day in, day out in a threat environment, would baulk at a few RPGs, defeats me. To the OP, maybe if it was true it would make you feel better about yourself? PM me, we can talk about it if you want?
There seem to be so many Merlin 3/3A experts on here I am surprised no-one said it earlier.
And it's always a pleasure to follow the SK4s into th if only to watch them try and blame a Merlin crew for crashing an overweight SK4 . Bloody heroes the lot of 'em.
And nigegilb go and grind your hysterical axe elsewhere. When you find the lightweight helicopter anti-RPG armour, let me know, I'll have a dozen sets, in green.
Last edited by Strobin Purple; 8th Aug 2009 at 07:00.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
So in addition to the debate about BP, how is the entire Merlin Force re-set going in Southern California/Arizona operating out of Naval air Facility El Centro?
the Royal Navy have been out there for the last two years with even less ballistic protection then the Mk3 Merlin currently has
but you haven't found them whingeing....
Perhaps these two statements are linked by more than just a sentence?
Catch 22
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And let's tie one arm behind our backs to make it more difficult...
Rant on
We had cockpit armour on the Wessex 20 years ago - surely no-one would argue that the Wessex has more performance than the Merlin.
Secondly, anyone that argues that you should go to a shooting war in a helicopter without cockpit armour fully deserves the Darwin award that must surely be coming their way.
And finally, I wish one of our Commanders had the balls to tell some VVIP that he is going to be transported to Hellmand by road because of the lack of helicopters. I suspect we'd either get more helicopters or less VVIP visitors.
Rant off...
We had cockpit armour on the Wessex 20 years ago - surely no-one would argue that the Wessex has more performance than the Merlin.
Secondly, anyone that argues that you should go to a shooting war in a helicopter without cockpit armour fully deserves the Darwin award that must surely be coming their way.
And finally, I wish one of our Commanders had the balls to tell some VVIP that he is going to be transported to Hellmand by road because of the lack of helicopters. I suspect we'd either get more helicopters or less VVIP visitors.
Rant off...
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: See that little island just above France? Yeah, there...
Age: 37
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amusing as that idea is, it surely must be slightly tongue in cheek to suggest sending visitors by vehicle?
Can you imagine the propaganda Terry would get if the PM or MP's were killed? Can't reallly risk it, eh?
Can you imagine the propaganda Terry would get if the PM or MP's were killed? Can't reallly risk it, eh?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Megawart, I doubt commies like Ainsworth would ever risk their necks in a snatch landrover, but it sounds like they should be flown into theatre in a Sea King, should be good enough for a reaction. A former colleague of mine had great fun telling Geoff Hoon and his 1 star adviser that the C130 he was flying in (over Afg), had absolutely no ballistic protection and an anti-missile system that didn't work. The 1 star harrier mate allegedly tried to tell the captain he must be mistaken....
All very funny and it went very quiet on the flight deck afterwards, VIP guests looking very pale faced.
All very funny and it went very quiet on the flight deck afterwards, VIP guests looking very pale faced.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oxford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nigegilb just got the edit.
How can you spend half your life on a forum discussing the operational failings of Britmil FW/RW and then pompously attempt to 'Beadwindow' me on something that was mooted in the original DT article? I am far more conscious of what is plainly evident/open forum than you in relation to this (RW) topic and you quite patently don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just stick to the C130/ESF and leave the RW fraternity alone, we're busy enough without becoming part of your particular self-publicising crusade.
And stop chucking phrases like 'not fit for purpose' and 'gung-ho planners' around and reduce the hysteria...or are you after a job with a red top rag? Your writing style is perfect for the NOTW or Daily Sport.
Patronising hypocrite!
How can you spend half your life on a forum discussing the operational failings of Britmil FW/RW and then pompously attempt to 'Beadwindow' me on something that was mooted in the original DT article? I am far more conscious of what is plainly evident/open forum than you in relation to this (RW) topic and you quite patently don't have a clue what you're talking about. Just stick to the C130/ESF and leave the RW fraternity alone, we're busy enough without becoming part of your particular self-publicising crusade.
And stop chucking phrases like 'not fit for purpose' and 'gung-ho planners' around and reduce the hysteria...or are you after a job with a red top rag? Your writing style is perfect for the NOTW or Daily Sport.
Patronising hypocrite!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh right, that would be the Daily Telegraph article that you rubbished, "why any of you would think that Merlin SH crews who, as a part of their normal working routine, operate day in, day out in a threat environment, would baulk at a few RPGs, defeats me."
Nowhere does it mention SeaKing in the article and by confirming the lack of anti RPG armour on Merlin, you are confirming the truth behind the article.
And BTW the MoD published the BoI report on XV179 on the internet, years before modding any of the frames and before I ever uttered a word in public, so don't try and hang that on me.
If you think sending WIMIKS on MSRs to complete helicopter resupply tasks because there are no helicopters to do the job, is a sign of good military planning, then more fool you. The SeaKings are needed because of the terrible risks of IED attack and because of a lack of SH, doesn't mean they are fit for purpose. Or are you saying they are?
"Currently running in Exeter is the inquest on the death of Pte Jack Sadler, which we covered last year, with the inquest proceedings attracting an interim report from The Daily Telegraph.
Jack, a TA volunteer in Honourable Artillery Company, was a Wimik gunner, attached to the Brigade Reconnaissance Force (BRF) serving 52 Brigade in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick 7.
On 4 December 2007, the BRF, comprising a group of Wimiks, was scouting a route for an artillery convoy of made up of two Pinzgauers each pulling a 105mm light gun, plus DROPS trucks carrying the ammunition. They were on their way to a firing point close to Musa Qala to take part in the operation to recover the town.
Making pitifully slow progress over the rough ground, they had been observed by what they feared might have been Taleban "dickers" as they had skirted a village en route before then reaching a "problematic" steep-sided wadi which they had to cross, following a route they had taken the day before – the only one which the trucks could negotiate.
Because of the heavy trucks the Force was escorting, there were only a very limited number of points at which the wadi could be crossed. While scouting the route across, Jack's Wimik hit a mine, with him sustaining fatal injuries.
No mine clearance had been carried out as the convoy was static while the reconnaissance was carried out. It was a "sitting target" and an attack was feared if it remained in one place too long, so the pressure was on to get the convoy moving again. But, on the rocky ground, the Group commander did not suspect any danger. There were no "Combat Indicators" suggesting trouble and no one in the group "sensed" any danger.
Had there been enough helicopters, the two guns and their supplies of ammunition could easily have been transported by air – as underslung loads. This would be an easy job for a Chinook. But, with a major operation in the offing, there was no spare capacity and, therefore, the battery had to travel by road, with fatal results."
There are about 30 deaths attributable to similar circumstances.
I fully understand the concept of fitness for purpose and I am very comfortable in the context in which I have used it. You are the one who appears to be struggling to understand the concept. It is simple, if there is a ballistic threat, it needs to be countered. If it is not countered and there is shown to be a cost effective and straightforward solution, promulgated in DefStans then it is not fit for purpose. I understand the problem in the RW with helo performance and that is where military risk is currently being used, on certain types.
For a more macro look at why I am so critical of military planners here is a bit of bed time reading; (warning there are some long words in here)
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/558/558.pdf
All the problems of shortages of men, equipment and support predicted for the 2006 deployment to Afg and ignored. I am comfortable with my description of military planning as gung ho.
59. "Given the importance to the Helmand mission of airlift capability, we note with concern the small number of UK helicopters dedicated to the deployment. We welcome the commitment made by the US and Dutch air forces to supplement the UK airlift. We remain deeply concerned about the ability of the UK’s ten dedicated helicopters to perform the extensive range of roles that will be asked of them, particularly given the demanding environment in which they will operate and the likely attrition rates that
will result."
MoD Response to the above Defence Committee criticism;
Powered by Google Docs
20. As announced by the Secretary of State on 26 January, the HTF will be supported by a total of 18 helicopters: 6 Chinook support helicopters, 4 Lynx light utility helicopters, and 8 Apache attack helicopters.
21. The number of support helicopters deployed on this mission is based on
recommendations made by the relevant military planning staffs and was agreed by Chiefs of Staff earlier this year. The planning figure takes into account the expected flying hours for each aircraft and attrition rates. These planning assumptions will be kept under review.
For an update on the situation, the recently published and devastating FCO report that starkly highlighted the mission creep and lack of clarity of mission purpose. Apologies to everyone for thread creep.
House of Commons - Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan - Foreign Affairs Committee
CHAPTER 6: THE UK'S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN
The UK's expanding mission in Afghanistan
29. We conclude that the UK's mission in Afghanistan has taken on a significantly different, and considerably expanded, character since the first British troops were deployed there in 2001. The UK has moved from its initial goal of supporting the US in countering international terrorism, far into the realms of counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, protection of human rights, and state-building. During our visit we were struck by the sheer magnitude of the task confronting the UK. We conclude that there has been significant 'mission creep' in the British deployment to Afghanistan, and that this has resulted in the British government being now committed to a wide range of objectives. We further conclude that in its response to this Report, the Government should set out, in unambiguous terms, its first and most important priority in Afghanistan. (Paragraph 225)
The UK deployment to Helmand
30. We conclude that the UK deployment to Helmand was undermined by unrealistic planning at senior levels, poor co-ordination between Whitehall departments and crucially, a failure to provide the military with clear direction. We further conclude that as the situation currently stands, the "comprehensive approach" is faltering, largely because the security situation is preventing any strengthening of governance and Afghan capacity. The very clear conclusion that we took from our visit to Helmand is that stabilisation need not be complicated or expensive, but it does require provision of security, good governance, and a belief within the local population that ISAF forces will outlast the insurgents. (Paragraph 236)
The role of, and impact on, the British armed forces
31. We conclude that the Government must ensure that our armed forces are provided with the appropriate resources to undertake the tasks requested of them, particularly in an environment as challenging as Helmand. We further conclude that in spite of well-documented difficulties, British armed forces are now gradually beginning to create and sustain the conditions that make it possible to extend good governance and the rule of law in the most heavily populated areas of Helmand. We conclude that the support provided by additional equipment and by the US 'surge' of troops in Helmand will be of considerable assistance, and is greatly to be welcomed. (Paragraph 248)
Nowhere does it mention SeaKing in the article and by confirming the lack of anti RPG armour on Merlin, you are confirming the truth behind the article.
And BTW the MoD published the BoI report on XV179 on the internet, years before modding any of the frames and before I ever uttered a word in public, so don't try and hang that on me.
If you think sending WIMIKS on MSRs to complete helicopter resupply tasks because there are no helicopters to do the job, is a sign of good military planning, then more fool you. The SeaKings are needed because of the terrible risks of IED attack and because of a lack of SH, doesn't mean they are fit for purpose. Or are you saying they are?
"Currently running in Exeter is the inquest on the death of Pte Jack Sadler, which we covered last year, with the inquest proceedings attracting an interim report from The Daily Telegraph.
Jack, a TA volunteer in Honourable Artillery Company, was a Wimik gunner, attached to the Brigade Reconnaissance Force (BRF) serving 52 Brigade in Afghanistan during Operation Herrick 7.
On 4 December 2007, the BRF, comprising a group of Wimiks, was scouting a route for an artillery convoy of made up of two Pinzgauers each pulling a 105mm light gun, plus DROPS trucks carrying the ammunition. They were on their way to a firing point close to Musa Qala to take part in the operation to recover the town.
Making pitifully slow progress over the rough ground, they had been observed by what they feared might have been Taleban "dickers" as they had skirted a village en route before then reaching a "problematic" steep-sided wadi which they had to cross, following a route they had taken the day before – the only one which the trucks could negotiate.
Because of the heavy trucks the Force was escorting, there were only a very limited number of points at which the wadi could be crossed. While scouting the route across, Jack's Wimik hit a mine, with him sustaining fatal injuries.
No mine clearance had been carried out as the convoy was static while the reconnaissance was carried out. It was a "sitting target" and an attack was feared if it remained in one place too long, so the pressure was on to get the convoy moving again. But, on the rocky ground, the Group commander did not suspect any danger. There were no "Combat Indicators" suggesting trouble and no one in the group "sensed" any danger.
Had there been enough helicopters, the two guns and their supplies of ammunition could easily have been transported by air – as underslung loads. This would be an easy job for a Chinook. But, with a major operation in the offing, there was no spare capacity and, therefore, the battery had to travel by road, with fatal results."
There are about 30 deaths attributable to similar circumstances.
I fully understand the concept of fitness for purpose and I am very comfortable in the context in which I have used it. You are the one who appears to be struggling to understand the concept. It is simple, if there is a ballistic threat, it needs to be countered. If it is not countered and there is shown to be a cost effective and straightforward solution, promulgated in DefStans then it is not fit for purpose. I understand the problem in the RW with helo performance and that is where military risk is currently being used, on certain types.
For a more macro look at why I am so critical of military planners here is a bit of bed time reading; (warning there are some long words in here)
http://www.publications.parliament.u...ce/558/558.pdf
All the problems of shortages of men, equipment and support predicted for the 2006 deployment to Afg and ignored. I am comfortable with my description of military planning as gung ho.
59. "Given the importance to the Helmand mission of airlift capability, we note with concern the small number of UK helicopters dedicated to the deployment. We welcome the commitment made by the US and Dutch air forces to supplement the UK airlift. We remain deeply concerned about the ability of the UK’s ten dedicated helicopters to perform the extensive range of roles that will be asked of them, particularly given the demanding environment in which they will operate and the likely attrition rates that
will result."
MoD Response to the above Defence Committee criticism;
Powered by Google Docs
20. As announced by the Secretary of State on 26 January, the HTF will be supported by a total of 18 helicopters: 6 Chinook support helicopters, 4 Lynx light utility helicopters, and 8 Apache attack helicopters.
21. The number of support helicopters deployed on this mission is based on
recommendations made by the relevant military planning staffs and was agreed by Chiefs of Staff earlier this year. The planning figure takes into account the expected flying hours for each aircraft and attrition rates. These planning assumptions will be kept under review.
For an update on the situation, the recently published and devastating FCO report that starkly highlighted the mission creep and lack of clarity of mission purpose. Apologies to everyone for thread creep.
House of Commons - Global Security: Afghanistan and Pakistan - Foreign Affairs Committee
CHAPTER 6: THE UK'S MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN
The UK's expanding mission in Afghanistan
29. We conclude that the UK's mission in Afghanistan has taken on a significantly different, and considerably expanded, character since the first British troops were deployed there in 2001. The UK has moved from its initial goal of supporting the US in countering international terrorism, far into the realms of counter-insurgency, counter-narcotics, protection of human rights, and state-building. During our visit we were struck by the sheer magnitude of the task confronting the UK. We conclude that there has been significant 'mission creep' in the British deployment to Afghanistan, and that this has resulted in the British government being now committed to a wide range of objectives. We further conclude that in its response to this Report, the Government should set out, in unambiguous terms, its first and most important priority in Afghanistan. (Paragraph 225)
The UK deployment to Helmand
30. We conclude that the UK deployment to Helmand was undermined by unrealistic planning at senior levels, poor co-ordination between Whitehall departments and crucially, a failure to provide the military with clear direction. We further conclude that as the situation currently stands, the "comprehensive approach" is faltering, largely because the security situation is preventing any strengthening of governance and Afghan capacity. The very clear conclusion that we took from our visit to Helmand is that stabilisation need not be complicated or expensive, but it does require provision of security, good governance, and a belief within the local population that ISAF forces will outlast the insurgents. (Paragraph 236)
The role of, and impact on, the British armed forces
31. We conclude that the Government must ensure that our armed forces are provided with the appropriate resources to undertake the tasks requested of them, particularly in an environment as challenging as Helmand. We further conclude that in spite of well-documented difficulties, British armed forces are now gradually beginning to create and sustain the conditions that make it possible to extend good governance and the rule of law in the most heavily populated areas of Helmand. We conclude that the support provided by additional equipment and by the US 'surge' of troops in Helmand will be of considerable assistance, and is greatly to be welcomed. (Paragraph 248)
Last edited by nigegilb; 9th Aug 2009 at 20:48.
Strobin:
I rather suspect that Nigegilb is thinking the same thing, but about yourself. It may or may not be of any consolation, but you are merely one of countless others who have attacked Nige for having pointed out the shortcomings of their particular mount over recent years. Now I can empathise with that reaction, I'm sure he does too, but his condemnation is not of the aircraft so much as those who have ensured that they are compromised for the work that they have to do. In other words they lack airworthiness. Until he showed that was the case of the Hercules, the very notion that there was any such deficiency in the UK Military Airfleet was firmly denied. Since then the MOD has admitted that was the case not only of the Hercules but also of the Nimrod fleet. The Mull thread points to an even graver situation, if that be possible, with the premature RTS of the Chinook Mk2. Other fleets are in turn liable to produce evidence of neglect by the UK Military Airworthiness Authority. At least now these deficiencies are becoming known to the most important people in the system, the crews themselves. I flew the Hercules K's in blissful ignorance of their unsuitability for their ultimate purpose, ie as Tactical Transport into Operational Areas. I applaud Nige for ensuring that is no longer the case and look forward to the time when we can once again assume the same for all UK Military Aircraft.
Rather confused logic going on!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Oxford
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug
My initial defence was from a cheap shot by a Junglie at a supposed unwillingness of an entire SH force to shoulder the burden in Afgh. This was generated by an unsubstantiated and sensationalist report in the DT that achieves nothing. Helicopters vulnerable to ground fire you say? BP to protect RW weighs a lot and reduces ability of helicopter to do its business....nah really? Enemy likely to target RW in th; crikey, you think?
My objection to the vehemence of ng's bandwagon-style and wildly (in this case) inaccurate Not Fit For Purpose mantra, regardless of the level of his subject knowledge, is that it is sensationalist and damaging to the morale of those required to operate it in harm's way. Like I said the threat is something SH crews live with on a daily basis and just get on with. I don't need an armchair critic advising me how fit for purpose my ac is or giving me hypocritical lectures on opsec over something that is as plain as day common sense.
SP
My initial defence was from a cheap shot by a Junglie at a supposed unwillingness of an entire SH force to shoulder the burden in Afgh. This was generated by an unsubstantiated and sensationalist report in the DT that achieves nothing. Helicopters vulnerable to ground fire you say? BP to protect RW weighs a lot and reduces ability of helicopter to do its business....nah really? Enemy likely to target RW in th; crikey, you think?
My objection to the vehemence of ng's bandwagon-style and wildly (in this case) inaccurate Not Fit For Purpose mantra, regardless of the level of his subject knowledge, is that it is sensationalist and damaging to the morale of those required to operate it in harm's way. Like I said the threat is something SH crews live with on a daily basis and just get on with. I don't need an armchair critic advising me how fit for purpose my ac is or giving me hypocritical lectures on opsec over something that is as plain as day common sense.
SP
Well as yet another armchair critic, and outfitted with the optional slippers as well, I take your point, Strobin. By the same token in replying to you, Nige and myself for that matter are addressing the wider audience of those who read this thread. If either of us are preaching, ranting, or lecturing your criticism is justified. As to demoralising I robustly resent that charge whether directed at me or Nige. Save your condemnation for those who have brought UK Military Airworthiness to its reduced circumstances. You know, senior military officers of all three services. Those who were/are responsible for this neglect should shoulder the charge of demoralising crews as the very least of their misdemeanors. Finally my earnest wish for you Strobin, and for all in harm's way, is to stay safe. Please!