Author Topic: I'm tired of US helos crashing in every conflict... (Read 1371 times)

Animal · « **on:** October 20, 2001, 01:03:00 PM »

I hate to read about our guys dying because of helicopter crashes. Read in CNN.com that two Rangers died in a helo crash. This is becoming some sort of trend? something should be done about this roadkill.
The embarassing Delta Force crash incident with Reagan, the Apaches crashing in the Kosovo conflict, and now this.
Not to mention the marines who died in those Ospreys a few months ago.

the_hegemon · « **Reply #1 on:** October 20, 2001, 01:16:00 PM »

Actually, it was a Blackhawk prepping for CSAR(combat search and rescue). There were 2 Rangers slightly injured in the parachute drops, but none died. Blackhawks have a very low incident rate nowadays, however, when they first entered testing and active service, they acquired the nickname "Crashhawk" becuase, well, they did rather frequently.

Desert One was an accident, where a CH-53 (i think) collided with an K/MC-130 in the dark. They were in the middle of Iran and didn't have any, or only mininal, lights on.

And what do you think should be done? Raise taxes so you can raise military spending? Or use the budget surplus for it? Becuase it's really only a matter of money, getting enough people to work on the birds, and enough money for spare parts, etc.

Feel free to offer other solutions, instead of just whining.

Tac · « **Reply #2 on:** October 20, 2001, 01:55:00 PM »

A helicopter is intrinsically far more difficult to fly than an airplane animal. And when you're in one you have to take many things into account that an airplane pilot doesnt have to (like a slight wind or power lines)...and they dont have the same survivability (autorating down IF they can is the only thing they can do.. you can jump, eject or glide in a plane with no engine... try that in a helo!).

Its a more dangerous machine. But hey, the motto is still true: "To fly is fine, to hover, DIVINE!"

Animal · « **Reply #3 on:** October 20, 2001, 04:42:00 PM »

whining?
lol. i'm not whinning, i'm diddlyING PISSED OFF that guys have to die in such incidents.

yeah, the pentagon reads the AH bbs for suggestions!

the millions they put into smart bombs going thru windows so the CNN viewers can see it on green-night vision, should be spend on more safety precautions for this kind of thing. the ground troops the guys who get the hands dirty and the TRUE guys who win wars, deserve more money if needed to so they can have more manteinance crews, better lighting/navigation/etc equipment.

those helos carrying troops are MUCH MORE important than those nifty propaganda B-2 Spirits that the public "ooohhhh!! ahhhh!!"'s so much.

yes Tac, I know helos are much trickier than fast movers. yet the comanche seems like a very simple to fly craft with many automated systems.
we dont see many US soldiers dying by the enemy in conflicts. i see much more friendly fire and accidents. More money has to be put for the safety of our guys, than it should be to have sexy stealth planes, amazing cyborgh sighting systems, and money sent to other contries for THEIR military.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Animal ]

Wobble · « **Reply #4 on:** October 20, 2001, 05:09:00 PM »

helos carrying troops are MUCH MORE important than those nifty propaganda B-2 Spirits that the public "ooohhhh!! ahhhh!!"'s so much

hmm, funny, what ever happened to "he controls the air above the battlefield, is destined to control the battlefield"

sadley that was just some idiot general in WW2, probably didnt know that much about war..

with a military as big as that of the US with that many people, no matter how careful you are, accidents will happen.. ya cant really beat the laws of probability.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Wobble ]

Dowding · « **Reply #5 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:30:00 PM »

Quote

hmm, funny, what ever happened to "he controls the air above the battlefield, is destined to control the battlefield"...

[/b]

It was disproved as a hard and fast rule in Vietnam and in Afghanistan.

Animal · « **Reply #6 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:33:00 PM »

EXACTLY Dowding.

And you dont really need B-2 to fight the new world threat, terrorism.

B-52 and strike planes can do that job just fine, saving $20,000,000,000.

Wobble · « **Reply #7 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:50:00 PM »

B52 and strike planes can do that job just fine, saving $20,000,000,000.

fly solo over SAM defended ares, no I think not.

Vietnam and Afgan were both a-typical wars, against low tech enemies and No front lines..
they are the exception, not the rule.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Wobble ]

easymo · « **Reply #8 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:51:00 PM »

I agree that they need to get to bugs out of the choppers. More like out of the tactical systems. However, seeing those Navy F-4's fly over always gave me a warm happy feeling.

And then there was Puff. That was like having Godzilla on your side.

Wobble · « **Reply #9 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:53:00 PM »

hehe, i heard that for quite a while NVA officers ordered their troops not to fire at puff with small arms, because all they would do is piss it off..

hell, I wouldent shoot at it, I wouldent want its attention.

Animal · « **Reply #10 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:54:00 PM »

hahahahha yeap, the Taliban is gonna shoot down many, many US planes!!
please.. what are they gonna use.. obsolete russian SAMs, leftover Stingers from their war against the ruskies, and AK-47

I'm all for the F-117, and even those are overkill against the Taliban.

Did you know that a B-2 costs more than two billion dollars each?

All that money could be used for other stuff like what I mention, with spare change for the International Space Station, and other such advancements for mankind.

Animal · « **Reply #11 on:** October 20, 2001, 06:57:00 PM »

Oh, and I forgot to mention: put more money into specialized teams like Delta, SEALs, etc.

Need I put more suggestions for all those pentagon officials and generals reading this board?

Wobble · « **Reply #12 on:** October 20, 2001, 07:55:00 PM »

well, i guess some people can put a preic tag on human lives..

sure we could accomplish the same taskes just fine with lesser planes.. sure it would be more dangerous, but hey its cheaper.. thats what counts.

Animal · « **Reply #13 on:** October 20, 2001, 08:09:00 PM »

Do you have a clue why i started this thread, or are you too busy blowing up pepperspray cans shirtless and sweaty?

I am talking about saving US soldiers lives.

I doubt the taliban will ever get to shoot down a B-52, a cruise missile, an F-15 Strike Eagle, much less an F-117.

I dont know how much an F-117 costs, but a B-2 is amazingly expensive. With the price of a B-2 you can buy many Comanches, cruise missiles, and more advanced and safer systems for troop transport.

But I guess too many people like cool looking planes from the future.

The B-2 is a propaganda weapon.

edit: another suggestion to our noble generals reading this bbs: hurry up making the F-22 operational, and the JSF too. And please pick Boeing's prototype.

[ 10-20-2001: Message edited by: Animal ]

Wobble · « **Reply #14 on:** October 20, 2001, 08:48:00 PM »

Quote

I doubt the taliban will ever get to shoot down a B-52, a cruise missile, an F-15 Strike Eagle, much less an F-117.

most pilots doubt they will ever be shot down, they doubt that those old ruskie SAMS are worth a crap..

you can DOUBT all you want, but you will never KNOW.. thats why the overkill in safty of these giant planes..

sure the B-2 and F-117 is expensive.. but how many have we lost? how many were show down in desert storm? none.. and in the beginning they had more and better SAM sites than were EVER active in Vietnam.. yet we didnt lose a single F-117 or B-2.. we didnt lose any B-52s either.. but thats because they didnt.. COULDENT come in untill the AA defences were severley degraded.

the B-2 is a necessary tool, especally these days, when even a little toejampot like Afganistan could get ahold of SAM sites.. and they DID have them, or was that footage of SAM spreades being blasted to hell all fake? and I wonder what blew them away? yup, B-2s

spend more money on better troop stuff :YES

take that money from our Airpower: NO