Helicopter reality
Daniel Korski 2:36pm
There is something oddly comforting about discussing NATO’s Afghan mission in terms of kit, helicopters and troop numbers - or the lack thereof. These are tangible categories. You either have the right amount or you don't. And if you don't, then it is because somebody made the wrong decision or failed to make a timely one. Even Mrs Janes, grief-stricken after the killing of her son, seems to take some comfort in the question of equipment while Liam Fox has made much political capital of the Government’s failures.
There are just two problems with this kind of approach to warfare. First, the stories in the press about helicopters take precedence over reality. Has the government cut the defense budget? Yes. Did it for a long time run on a peacetime budget and on SOPs? Yes.
But this is now changing. Since the summer of 2006, the number of British airframes available to commanders on the ground is up by over 60%, and the number of helicopter hours by 84%. In addition, the Merlins which had been based at Basra have been re-deploying to Helmand, increasing the capacity of UK helicopter lift by 25%. Eight Chinook Mk3 helicopters are also being converted to a support role for the NATO deployment. Finally, a number of Lynx Mk 9s are being re-engined so that from mid-2010 they will be able to operate in the extreme Afghan summer conditions.
Is this enough? Perhaps not. Does the UK have the right kind of helicopters? Perhaps not. The Gazelle and and RN Lynx cannot fly in Helmand’s hot and dusty conditions while those helicopters that can are needed for search and rescue and for basic and pre-deployment training. It is a political decision to decide the balance of forces for various defence tasks. But the tone of the press would lead you to think nothing is happening, which is not true.
The second problem with the focus on helicopters is that it reduces success or failure to tangible things. Unfortunately, even if there were more helicopters available, and even more troops deployed, success could not be guaranteed. For that, the US-led coalition will need a different, more political approach, which I have sougth to sketch out. By focusing on helicopters, troops and equipment, both the Government and the Opposition fudge the real debate about what will be needed for NATO’s mission to succeed.
Previous
Irene
November 11th, 2009 3:06pm Report this commentWhat shocked me yesterday seeing Mrs Janes' interview, she said that even now soldiers are having to buy some of their own kit, she mentioned heavier boots, thicker jackets etc.
This can't be right surely.
Rainer Unsinn
November 11th, 2009 3:49pm Report this commentIn January 2006, there were, I believe 3300 British troops in Afghanistan. Those troops had a number of helicopters available. You say that, since then, the number of airframes has increased by 60%. Whereas the number of troops has increased to over 9000. That is an increase of 200%. Even if there were sufficient helicopters in 2006, how can anyone, now, claim that there enough when troop increases are far higher than helicopter increases.
If there has been an increase of 60% in 'copters and 84% in flying hours, that means that the current contingent is being heavily overloaded. This shows, clearly, that there are too few 'copters in Afghanistan. Under the harsh Afghan conditions, 'copters are far more likely to need servicing - so, whilst there are the same number of airframes in theatre, there are fewer actually in operational condition. What percentage of airframes is in operating condition at any one time? Bet it's not better than 60%.
As for what may arrive in 2010, that is not relevant, the squaddie that dies today does so because of shortages today. How many will have to die before the promised aircraft arrive?
TomTom
November 11th, 2009 4:10pm Report this commentHas the government cut the defense budget?
Where did Defence go ? Anyway, the British Army sources Chinese sleeping bags and British soldiers have to go to Snugpak and buy their own, so they can get quality product as supplied to foreign armies.
British soldiers used to toddle off to Damart to buy thermals.
It just happens that when you live in a poor island republic with little money to fight the "hobby wars" of the party leadership it is obvious that personal funds will have to eke out the meagre rations.
The regime has other priorities and rather like the chaotic and corrupt procurement of Crimean War times Britain is at heart an 18th Century society run by cabals lining their own pockets and sending soldiers off scantily trained, poorly clad, and cheaply fed. Tradition is being upheld
Peter From Maidstone
November 11th, 2009 5:12pm Report this commentIf I provide 2 helicopters and then increase it to 3 then I have increased helicopter capacity by 50%. But if the Armed Forces ask for 10 helicopters then I am still sending soldiers into danger without the righr equipment. Percentages are just a way of covering up the gap between what is needed and what is provided.
Mirtha Tidville
November 11th, 2009 5:37pm Report this commentBrown spent years as Chancellor destroying Defence budgets, so he could waste it elsewhere buying votes. He particularly plundered the helo budget and it is satisfying to see him being crucified for it.He has the deaths of many good men and true on his conscience.Its lttle more than this incompetent oaf deserves...
Gareth
November 11th, 2009 6:04pm Report this commentWhy the MoD had become so inept at managing the Defence budget? They continued along a Cold War procurement path, just buying fewer than anticipated (see: Type 45 Destroyer, Eurofighter, Nimrod). They did not routinely upgrade the helicopters (the export version of the Lynx has had more powerful engines for years, the Carson blade upgrade for the Sea Kings had been around since 2001 or 2002 IIRC) nor got their finger out at replacing them with more modern, capable rotorcraft (Puma to Super Puma/ECwhateveritis - more powerful, more reliable, bigger capacity, full glass cockit rather than antiquated analogue instruments etc. The Lynx is too small to be a battlefield taxi.). Then there are the vehicles - the Snatch Landrover debacle was pitiful. The haphazard approach to buying MRAPs similarly arse first. The MoD only started buying them after assurances from the Government that the funding would come from the Treasury Reserve not the regular Defence budget.
There are any number of reasons for the poor performance of the MoD management:
1. The Top Brass are too political picking kit that brings jobs over it being the most appropriate stuff, picking kit for future pie in the sky projects to support the Government plans (FRES fitted nicely into the A400M and a European Rapid Reaction force, which is how Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt managed to keep FRES alive for so long) and forgetting their duty to the lower ranks.
2. The politicians have never bothered to point the MoD in a new direction after the fall of Communism. Parliament has been very, very lazy in accepting almost without question the views of the Top Brass on procurement and deployment decisions.
3. The promise of some future technology is seen as much more preferrable compared to getting decent enough gear in a reasonable timeframe and then using it. A computer generated A400M supported by the Government and the Top Brass prevented the RAF from enlarging and renewing the Hercules fleet when it was not an urgent requirement. The spectre of FRES prevented the ground vehicles from being brought into the 50s with anti-mine designs pioneered in Aden and then further developed in Rhodesia in the 70s.
When commanders call for more troops, more choppers and the like they should be looking to the Top Brass as much to the Government.
TrevorsDen
November 11th, 2009 6:58pm Report this commentTop brass have their share to answer for, but when the govt set a military objective it is their responsibility to ensure that procurement is shifted to support that objective.
Its not rocket science - set an objective and resource the achievement of that objective.
The govt have been behind the curve at every stage.
Ultimately it may well all be for nothing. The word now is about training the ANA and the Police. This cannot happen overnight. There is a long timescale if the Afghans are to be trained properly before they can handle the situation on their own.
It took 2 years to properly train armies from scratch in WW1 and 2 and then they had to learn on the job. Its not just the squaddies its the NCOs and Officers.
The hints coming out are that this training can be done quickly and painlessly. Well IIRC this is where we came in.
dilys
November 11th, 2009 7:27pm Report this commentA good review of the big picture but in the small picture soldiers are dying needlessly for lack of proper equipment, and that should be our concern.
Chuck Unsworth
November 11th, 2009 7:41pm Report this commentThese statistics are almost irrelevant. Percentages? So what? It is clear that our troops remain in mortal peril, dying, suffering grievous wounds.
Time and again we have seen serving soldiers complain of the shortages - and time and again we have seen the predictable and self-serving political responses.
These politicians (and I include some very senior officers in that category) are unprincipled scum. Why have they sent the flower of our youth to fight and die - unarmed?
Boudicca
November 11th, 2009 8:03pm Report this commentTroops should not be deployed if they do not have all the necessary equipment - and that includes helicopters. Our soldiers have been in Afghanistan for 8 years. It is a bit late starting to increase the number of helicopters in 2006. And the parents of any young soldier killed today, are not going to be comforted by the fact that Lynx helicopters are now being re-engineered and will be available in mid 2010.
2trueblue
November 11th, 2009 10:56pm Report this commentWhat kit have our great partners in NATO got? If they have it they can let us have it as our men are on the front.
What is going on? The MOD has grown hugely and spent on their lovely offices and growing their own numbers. Their procurement history is a legend of incompetence. If the government can not get it right after 8yrs. something has to give. There are too many instances of poorly kitted soldiers at a basic level, so I can not say I believe the government on any other issues.
Back to top