I'm tired of US helos crashing in every conflict...

[the_hegemon]

Sorry Animal, that's just what it sounded like to me.  I've heard too many people complain about things like that and then not be willing to do what it takes to try and fix the problems.  

And you never know, the Pentagon and Congress just might be reading this for suggestions  

The jobs that the military does tend to be dangerous, and accidents and mechanical failures happen, even in training.  And while safety records aren't perfect yet, they have been getting better over the years.  220 days(and counting) until i'm in the hotseat, i suppose i've been lucky thus far not having lost any friends.

And the generals and congress are going as fast as they safely can with the limited amount of $ that they have.

P.S.
And the Boeing guppy thing is ugly.  The Lockheed one is much better looking IMO.  

[Toad]

Originally posted by Dowding:
[/b]

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

Yeah, it's probably not a correct "rule" when almost all the strikes and attacks have to be approved by little Bobby McNamara sitting back at his desk in DC, resulting in a 2-3 day delay in hitting anything. Can't shoot SAMs stacked in the railyards, they have to be emplaced before they're a target.  

What VietNam proved about Air Power is that you can't micromanage it from half a world away... and you REALLY can't let some forking Harvard Professor turned WW2 AAF  beancounter with NO military combat experience play air strategist.

Who controlled the air above Iraq in '91? Who TOTALLY controlled that battlefield?

16 January to 24 February... a little over a month of airstrikes. Air-Land battle folks... there's a reason "Air" is first in that name. There's a reason the "Land" part was 100 hours long... and they were routed long before that. That was 10 years ago. We'll be even better at it next time.

I'm guessing what we've seen in Afghanistan is merely the validation of new Air/Land battle concepts/doctrine. For example, we didn't have Predators in the Gulf. New technology, new tactics, new procedures, much more joint integration of services. It all has to be smoothed out... in the Afghan proving grounds.

[chance]

I hate to hear of US aircraft going down, but what is the root cause?  Pilot error, maintenance, poor quality, critical part failure, etc... Until the cause is determined, we can only speculate as to the solution.

Talking about the B-2's price tag... isn't cost relative to the quantity ordered?  Generally, the greater the quantity of aircraft ordered, the lower the price.  Combine that with an optimum production move rate and typically product quality will benefit as realization improves.  B-2 was a cost-plus program, limited to 20 aircraft... consider the technology developments that had to be accomplished by the manufacturers in order to build that plane, they were essentially starting from scratch and did so in secret.  Neither of which come cheap.  But I believe the Govt has learned some lessons from programs such as the B-2.  Just look at the recent proposal submitted to the USAF on the C-17!  Manufacturers can cut costs provided the customer agrees to an economical order quantity.  Wonder how that JSF is coming along...

[Odin]

In the worst Australian peacetime military disaster, 15 SASR troopers were killed and five injured in the crash of two Blackhawk helicopters near Townsville in 1996.

The Blackhawks from 5 Aviation Regiment were participating in a six-ship counterterrorist exercise (code named Day Rota) when two helicopters collided while flying at between 90 and 100 knots approximately 30 meters off the ground. The SASR members had opened the doors of the aircraft and were preparing to exit via fast-rope when the main rotor blade struck the tail rotor of the lead. The helo plummmeted to the ground and burst into flames.

The second helo crashed moments later killing five, but most of the crew managed to escape before it too exploded. The remaining Blackhawk were used to medevac the injured troopers to nearby Townsville General Hospital.
 
  horrible way to go

<S> Beer

[funkedup]

wChance you've got the right idea.  It doesn't cost anything like $2B to build additional B-2's.

[leonid]

And then came the microwave oven.  What's the cost effectiveness for that little piece of deception?

[Voss]

I know how you feel, Animal. However, it is inevitable that some will die in this war. Fortunately, so far we have had fewer deaths then the same number of people would have experienced driving the streets of America. It would be nice to get out of this with no deaths, but it is statisically improbable.

Regardless, of what people think about complex helicopter systems and violent conflicts, it is a fact that people die everyday and these guys (the military) put their lives at stake just preparing for war.

I have to point out, though, that Operation Desert One was a Carter debacle. It took place in April 1980, which would be before Reagan was even elected.

Also, I don't think that a helicopter is more difficult to fly. It is a more complex system from typical general aviation aircraft in and of itself, but flying one is not as complicated as it might have been at one time. Helicopters have changed over the years and so have our front line aircraft. Today, neither system can be flown without the aid of computer systems.

Anyway, the problem is that no matter how much money they put into combat gear and flight systems, the guys inside are still soft fleshy beings. The only way to keep these guys safe is to keep them remote, and even that is no guarantee.

It sucks, but you can't stop it.

Back during the Monica Lewinsky deal, they knew precisely when this amazinhunk (bin Laden)was going to hold a meeting in Afghanistan. They had a chance to kill him then, but they waited for twelve hours after the meeting to launch the cruise missiles. Now THAT should piss you off.

[StSanta]

While the Taliban has nothing now to threaten US fighters and bombers, choppers are a whole other deal.

I just hope that the CAS is so good that there won't be too many US casualties.

And, FWIW, I am not convinced the US population is willing to have a conflict where there are thousands of US troops dead over a couple of years.

Not sure the coalition will last for much longer than a couple of months, either. And if the US strikes Iraq, other than the no fly zone stuff, it'll fall to pieces.

Oh, back to the subject: accidents happen, regrettably. Everyone does their best to avoid 'em, but anything involving stuff that goes faster than 10 mph is dangerous. :/

[AKDejaVu]

Take the sheer number of helicopters over there now and factor in the fact that they seldomely fly "out of danger" in relation to people on the ground and the ground itself.  Then factor in that they often fly with night vision which is still 2d rendered.  Oh and don't forget to factor in that a single malfunction in the transfer case/main shaft means you have a spinning brick heading for earth.  Oh.. and power lines and birds and whatever else.

There's a reason that helicopter crashes are so prevelant.  They're dangerous vehicles.

AKDejaVu

[Toad]

...and every piece that makes them fly is a moving part! <Shudder>.

 http://www.adam2fly.com/Humor.html

"Here is a story which concludes a very famous quote:

Helicopter Pilots Are Different! Helicopter Pilots are a Different Breed, never to be confused with airplane pilots.


Consider this:

An airplane is a marvelous vehicle that can easily "slip the surly bonds of earth and dance the sky with its laughter-silvered wings".

Being a fixed-wing aircraft, a lightweight, sleek airplane WANTS to fly and does so by utilizing a unique and very natural physical principle which involves air pressure over and under the airplane's wings.

The airplane pilot simply climbs inside, sits down, and leaves the earth on a joyously smooth, quick flight with only a minimal amount of care and concern: physics will keep it flying! He is reasonably assured that this will be another comfortable and pleasurable flight.

However, the helicopter's plight, I mean flight, characteristics bear no resemblance to those of an airplane.

Except for the very latest new models,helicopters are a piece of machinery that DOES NOT WANT TO FLY! Top-heavy and cumbersome, they carry a gigantic engine that is still too weak but nevertheless one that drains the fuel tank at an unrealistic rate.

The helicopter's constantly-rotating (hopefully!) rotor blades, which serve as wings, are forever trying to find more fresh air in a laborious effort to sustain even the barest production of flight through the air.

This complex rotor system in effect is constantly attempting to beat the air into submission! When the Helicopter Pilot climbs and securely straps himself into this mysterious machine, he utters a few choice words of confidence to himself.

These tend to increase his soon to be required sense of awareness and further remind him that what he is about to do is Not Natural:
To Fly a Helicopter!

Now end all Normal processes involving Life and reality! Occasionally, like the Bumble Bee which also generally is considered to be a flightless creation, this seems to work...for a while!

But then all the UNnatural imbalances and forces building up in that rotor system, compelled by Nature, attempt to gain control.
Not to forget that the Great Physical Force called Gravity which tries again and again to bring this twirling, overweight, fuel-guzzling contraption down to a final resting place upon the earth.

And Guess Who is trying to control all this by attempting to create a small Balance out of a great IMbalance?

Who shakes that little control stick around, hoping desperately to be The Master of the Forces of Nature while he is a Victim in a Box?

You guessed it:

The Helicopter Pilot. And the whole time while he's jockeying that Monster around through the skies, he's staying assured of one fact:

 "If nothing has gone wrong in the last few moments,
IT IS ABOUT TO!"

HATS OFF to All Helicopter Pilots, everywhere! Good Luck!

- compiled by Ronald S. Donakowski"

Indeed. <S> to all Helicopter Pilots.

[Dowding]

Well, Toad, I think the saying should be 'he who controls the skies has a pretty good, better than average with all things considered (although not concrete) chance of controlling the battlefield'.  

Didn't the Russians have complete air supremacy over Afghanistan? It didn't seem to help them complete their objectives. I guess it depends alot on the terrain under the sky you control.

[Mathman]

There was a joke I heard a while ago about a potential war between the Warsaw Pact and NATO.  It goes like this:

Two Russian tank commanders are sitting in Paris, and one turns to the other and asks, "Who won the air war?"

What this adds to the discussion, I honestly don't know.  Just that some of the posts here reminded me of it.  Oh well, carry on with your debate.

-math

[Toad]

Dowding, they had air supremacy until the Stingers showed up.

That pretty well stopped their successful helo/Special Forces operation.

I don't, however, think they ever applied the amount of Strategic and Tactical air that is our usual wont. I have not researched that so it is a guess.

So, I think it remains to be seen how we deal with manpads like the Stingers. In short, the jury is still out on this one.

You can't deny, however, that we dominated the skies over Iraq, manpads and all. And we rolled the huge Iraqi forces up like a cheap carpet as a result.

A desert is just about the ideal terrain for air ops against ground forces. Afghanistan is pretty much desert-like but they do have more folds in the ground to hide in.

It'll be another test of Air-Land doctrine. Be interesting to see how it plays out because play out it will, to the last card

[Dowding]

It was definitely that way in Iraq. And those deserts make for an excellent tank war I should think - all that open expanse with decent visibility.

Like you say, Afghanistan is different. It will be a good test of the doctrine. The Taliban could just hole up in the mountains and we'd never find them.

Until they got hungry, that is.  

[Toad]

One of the largest changes is night capability.

With manpads you pretty much have to be able to see the target to lock on. If you can't, you might get lucky sweeping the skies with the narrow apeture of the senor but it would be luck to find many targets.

I'm fairly certain the Russians didn't have the almost universal capability to operate effectively at night that we are bringing to Afghanistan. It's no coincidence that the SF ops are at night. Those guys have a saying.. "we own the night".

Another thing that has changed is space based intelligence. Those poor bastages are going to be sitting in some cave in the winter and the outside landscape is going to be frozen solid. They're going to light a fire to keep warm and guess what? The hot air from the cave mouth may well show up on the Satellite sensor. If not satellite, Predator infrared sensors.

If you've got bunker-busters up on data-link capable aircraft, that cave may get REALLY warm before the first load of wood burns down to coals.

It's indeed a new kind of warfare.

As to tanks.. tank battles are going to be very tough to start for any side that doesn't own the air over the battlefield, particularly in a desert environment.

Just too d*mn bad it always seems to come down to this.