Can anyone hear the Sound of the Valkyries playing in the background.
1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (1 R IRISH) has conducted a huge air assault operation in Helmand province, overwhelming an insurgent safe haven and leaving the enemy unable to respond
More information here
What part of clear, hold, build is this then?
[adrotate group="1"]
You might also want to have a read of this
The UK's foreign policy approach to Afghanistan and Pakistan
And then if you really want to confuse yourself, pop over to the Guardian
What is going on in Helmand?
Now I don’t want to sound to seem overly sarcastic, but I can’t see more than 4 Chinook and 4 Merlin in the photos, and that is “huge” ?
Anyway, BZ to all 1 Irish, AAC (?), RAF and USMC involved !
“Anyway, BZ to all 1 Irish, AAC (?), RAF and USMC involved!”
Seconded. Just to have an unseeemly and, I hope, untypical milporn moment, Merlin really looks the part for air assault, doesn’t it? Being able to cram so many squaddies aboard for quick action is also quite useful.
I think the various combinations of info you put up here are the closest thing we’ll see to good news; that is, staging ops with good “optics” in order to declare victory and pull out well in advance of 2015. There are more credit crises on the horizon in the EU-sphere, Japan’s economy has gone south in the face of natural disaster, and there’s genuine trouble in other areas (the Gulf, North Africa) where there are actual useful things like oil that even more people than usual want these days, not just notional mineral deposits. All that adds up to a bit of Kabuki on the Afghan front line and, we may all pray, getting the French Connection UK out of there.
@Jed
According to MoD web-site the operation involved 15 helicopters.
Yes Bravo Zulu Royal Irish and friends!!!!!!!
One question. That dirigible, what tranche is it?
4 Chinooks and 4 Merlins can likely carry more infantrymen than the Hueys in the famous movie scene.
SO,
Quite a bit more. Even if you’re modest and seat 24 on Merlin (instead of packing the forty-odd who can get aboard if you send proper supplies in a second wave rather than weighing them down at the start) and 32 on Chinook, that’s roughly half a light-role battalion in one 4×4 lift.
x,
It’s Tranch 7b on the second Thursday of this month, but for accounting purposes it may be 3q until the new fiscal year and then be reclassified as a potential export to the permanent inhabitants of Ascension, so they can keep fleet maintenance off the books until the financial pinch clears and they can reclassify again.
And yes, when I saw that dirigible, I smiled inside. Long live the Royal Airship Corps.
Although the tactical and financial benefits of using fewer but larger airframes are obvious I still feel nervous about concentration of risk, a couple of lucky shots and its a serious loss
@ Jackstaff
Over Christmas the Sky Arts channel were showing Post Office Film Unit productions from WW2.
One of them was about RAF barrage balloon squadrons. It was super. I didn’t realise how much effort the balloons took to deploy. All good clean fun.
(I am being sincere there and not anti-RAF)
@ TD pax in helicopters.
True. For the price of one Merlin you could buy 40 PZL SW-4 light helicopters (4 passengers) and move 80 bods. For the price 8 Merlins you could move the whole battalion.
Hi S O,
Which one do you mean
RE “4 Chinooks and 4 Merlins can likely carry more infantrymen than the Hueys in the famous movie scene”
- Hamburger Hill (a friend of mine directed it, 101 AB)
- or, Apocalypse Now (I was on the ground coordinating staff, fictive in the true sense of the word)?
240 PZLs? How many engine fitters?
Regarding the photos, where’s my BUFFALO, WATER, US ARMY, 1? (I think that only got into the director’s cut.)
It makes more sense as part of something like the Russians’ strategy towards the end – beating up this or that commander to push them or their neighbour to make a deal, with plenty of incentives on the other side of the table.
Those aerostats might be part of Project CORTEZ
@ Alex re fitters
If FAA or AAC about 2. If the RAF well how many grains of sand on the shore? How many stars in the sky?
I was joking. It would be silly to buy that many helicopters when BAE could develop jetpacks for a billion or three.
You want a lot of helicopters? How about one per soldier (sorry,”Warfighter”);
http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2009/01/01/lets-use-helicopter-cavalry/
Now that’s a airborne assault! No loud speakers tho…
I agree with TD about concentrations of risk with the number of blokes in the back of the choppers. Fancy DAS works mainly against things that are electronic rather than someone with and AK, RPG or nice big Russian machine gun hidden in a compound ready to have a pop.
One thing that stuck out to me is no Apache gunships in the Op or in the pictures at least?
Yes “No Apache gunships in the Op or in the pictures at least?”
ACC, re: Apaches, that’s what I was wondering….
1. Was 7.62 mm more than enough for the Op
2. Were the AH-64′s just out of sight of the camera man?
Hmm, did TD mention risk?
Guys if you read the MOD article the op involved 11 troop-carrying helicopters- 7 RAF Merlins & Chinooks and 4 USMC CH-53s. The first wave landed over 300 troops, comprising the BG Tac HQ, D Coy 1 R IRISH, A Coy 5 SCOTS, an ANA coy and a USMC platoon. Presumably the other 4 helicopters were Apaches.
As regards “lots of small helos vs a few big ones”, a couple of points
1) a helicopter which carries 10% of the cargo of another does not use 10% of the fuel or maintenance or crew or airfield space
2) in the “hot and high” conditions in Afghanistan lighter helos can carry very little, hence types such as UH-60s are not much used for troop lift
Rusians won’t fill their big choppers with troops because of the risk of loosing a company to one lucky hit.
There is a balance in these things.
11 helos lifting 300+ men none of them were carrying a coy-or could. Average about 30 pax in each ship at that those figures which sounds reasonable to me. I presume you are talking about Mi-26s. Yes there is a balance but I bet the Russians don’t conduct air assaults with 4 pax in each helicopter either.
Another factor to remember- you want to get all your helos in and out of the LZ as quickly as possible.
Sorry to add a footnote-average 30 pax per helo, the Merlins were probably carrying less and the CH-53s more. But I’m sure you see what I mean.
B6
Yes the mil 26
Russian commander got ct marshalled over loss in chetchnya when he did exactly that and but a cmpny in a mil 26 that got shot down.
We have our own Chinook crash in the western islands to remember. Chopper crashes tend to be of the 0 survivability type, and as a result big chopper full of troops = loss of lots of troops if it’s hit.
Just saying like so many things there are factors to balance.
Also, isn’t part of the tactical point that the choppers are meant to land people simultaneously in multiple LZs?
RE “and the CH-53s more”
- a platoon of US Marines?
- either they were baby sitting ANA, or the CH-53s brought in heavier stuff
Sorry I meant they were probably carrying more than 30 pax each. Were they lifting the ANA and USMC, probably, I don’t think it’s that important. The whole point I’m trying to make is that this idea of launching a large-scale air assault with lots of helicopters carrying 4 pax each is ridiculous. Small special ops in urban areas, yes, that’s why US 160th SOAR have MH-6s. Before anyone brings up the Rhodesian example they used Alouettes because that was all they had, not because it was a good idea. They paid a fortune for some clapped-out Hueys just to have some decent lift.
Of course the Russian example is erring to much in the opposite direction.
Hi baboon,
You are absolutely right in everything you say.
But a platoon is not what you normally deploy
- if they were just looking after troops with whose training they had been involved – that would be great news!
- if there was a heavier lift going on, they would have provided the perimeter protection for it, to be put into action after the drop-off
Re Risk
From the MoD, it sounds liek a lot of effort went into making sure the landings were seriously quick and the enemy were looking the other way.
At the end of the day Chinook losses have been very few, they simply dont have enough heavy guns to defend everywhere.
RE “At the end of the day Chinook losses have been very few”
- not so, but I can’t remember a casualty figure higher than 14-15 (luckily!)
What part of clear, hold and build is this?
Obviously, it is part of the CLEAR phase. Not terribly complicated is it? Air assault into INS AO, clear ground by means of advance to contact and progress on to HOLD and BUILD. Come on Think Defence, get a grip.
Clearly CLEAR. Have you got the work experience boy in charge at the moment? This used to be a great blog, but has been seriously below par recently. As above, get a grip.
Welcome to TD Henry and ESL
I think my rather poor attempt at sarcasm failed to work, the point I was trying to make, by contrasting the story of heliborne assaults with the damning report from the select committee and report in the Guardian about solid progress was about the difficulty of getting an accurate picture of what is happening.
Of course I understand the definition of clear, but remind me how long we have been in theatre, surely the clear phase should have been well over by now
On your wider criticism of the blog and your advice to get a grip, I always like to hear feedback, even negative feedback and it is a shame that your first comments are negative, thats not how it should be.
It is only through feedback that the quality can improve and quality is something that is taken very seriously so with some humility and without the usual bloggers affliction of ego, what can be done to improve things
ACC
We’ve had two go down in Afghanistan, no casualties in either case.
Although the other four “incidents” listed in wikipedia did involve everyone on boarding being lost.
It would of course be something of a political disaster for platoon transport to be lost, and it would rather suck for the platoon too.
But these arent heavy losses in a hot war.
The airlift was escorted by Cobra & Apache airframes I believe.
Sorry, I did not realise the UK only in “We’ve had two go down”
- it is remarkable how they tend to manage to crash land; is it mainly the two engines (structural strength is of course a factor)
A modern version of the above linked “sky Cavalry” concept, and going to the opposite side of the spectrum from the Russians…
http://www.g2mil.com/aircav.htm
Well, clearly we can still do the magic, all well done with the RIR, AF and leathernecks involved
Kinda wondering about the air-balloon… old school XD
Perhaps that is the new “1(F) Sqn”? They were ‘the first’, operating balloons…
As with the news…Afghan ops are in a constant state of flux…things go well in one place while the turf hits the fan at other places, the media picks what it chooses depending on its mood I guess, but I am just glad the Army and Air Force worked together, along with better inter-operations with the USMC, I thinks its been nearly a year since we started working with them in combined air ops (on a serious level).
I’ve mentioned it a few times in other posts, but I believe one of the biggest draw backs of the Chinook is the noise factor. I’m sure most commentators on this blog have heard one, the fact being you can hear it coming from miles away, usually long before you see it. I’m sure reducing the acoustic signature significantly will improve its survivability. I’ve probably mentioned it before, but the original CH-47F was destined to have four bladed main rotors to reduce noise, but this was dropped early on because of cost constraints.
Shape, Clear Build and Hold – this operation was part of the hold element in that it was designed to disrupt and degrade enemy attempts to attack into an area already held by Coalition and Afghan forces.
The aerial element was escorted by Cobras and possibly Apache as well. These would normally sweep forward of the air assault and then stand off – that is why you will not necessarily see pictures of them close in to the troop lift. There were also USMC Sea Stallions involved in the operation.
Operations such as these send a powerful message out in Afghanistan about who is the biggest kid on the block. Helicopters and armoured vehicles (tracks) are prestige items in Afghanistan – having them shows that you are a force to be reckoned with. In this instance the operation took place in what I believe is disputed territory. The message may have been along the lines of ‘join us and gain in the prosperity your neighbours are enjoying us; oppose us at your peril’. For Afghans waiting and watching on the fence, wondering which side to support the arrival of this operation must have given them something to consider.
Doh! Shape Clear Hold Build!
TD – Still cannot figure out the edit on this site!
I completely agree with Richard Stockley regarding the noise of a Chinook, living in the Clyde valley you can hear them bloody miles away and they are quite distinctive. I get to see helicopters quite often with the SAR bird flying past a couple of times a week at all hours of the day and night as well as EC-135’s.
me too, RE “I completely agree with Richard Stockley regarding the noise of a Chinook”
I used to live in one of the river valleys opening up to the Lydd firing ranges. Before Iraq invasion it was easy to hear, every night, what was about to happen (storming of those huts they have there, in darkness).
No problem with that… but when the smaller command helo parked itself over the chimney and blew everything down, that was a moment when flak almost went up
ACC My favourite is when there are big naval exercises as there can be a hell of a lot of activity in the air especially when the yanks turn up to play and of course lots of ship spotting to do as well. The police EC-135 however is less welcome as it hovers around behind the house over some moorland when the local idiots go out and have some fun. Nightsun spotlights really are fecking powerful, wonder if anyone has ever reported it as a UFO.
RS,
Seconded (or thirded, now?) on Chinook noise. Used to live near a batch of the bar stewards, whenever the helo drivers really aired them out because of an excercise’s requirements or just to relieve boredom I always thought, “well, that’s secrecy up the spout, then.”
ACC,
Nearly took out my screen with a Mk 1 Mouth Spray at the flak comment. Yes indeed.
@ baboon6
Sometimes some of us (ok me mainly) say things here with tongue firmly in cheek……….
@ baboon6 re Rhodesia
Yes but they did bloody well with those few Alouettes. Another tactic they adopted once spares for the Alouettes became tricky was to parachute from Dakotas. Some of the Rhodesians were jumping more than a couple of times a day and racked up a huge number of jumps. I am sure our Parachute Regiment would be up for it….
@x the Paras may be up for it…but what about the RAF?
Noise isnt great, but in this case, I’m not really sure what it tells you.
If Callum is correct, then the gunships should have already been in place.
Even if you hear it 5 miles away, its going to be on top of you in 2 minutes.
Your going to have to be on the ball to grab the keys, open the garage, start the truck, drive into a firing position and bring them down, even if you know “something” might be “up” in advance.
As it was, they were caught with their pants down and the two minute warning was enough time to panic and run around.
If your fighting a three week war, you can be dug in and be prepared to engage helicopters with a two minute warning.
Not if your fighting a 10 year war.
Dominic,
“Your going to have to be on the ball to grab the keys, open the garage, start the truck, drive into a firing position and bring them down.”
Grabbing an RPG-7 and several rounds takes moments, a few guys firing from a number of different positions in the vicinity can cause a lot of problems.
X,
“Another tactic they adopted once spares for the Alouettes became tricky was to parachute from Dakotas.”
The South Africans did the same, and picked the paras up afterwards using Pumas.