Ideas that might help secure our troops?

[wing fan]

What is wrong with what we are already doing? And why flood Isreal, they aren't doing anything to harm us. If you going to do it to anyone, i say you somehow pick up the Dead Sea and drop it on top of Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan! Get rid of those filthy counrties!

Another question: We are there to help every single little country, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Afganastan, but who helps us? When Katrina hit, no one helped us. North Carolina helped, but that's part of our own country. You didn't see any other country even blink an eye at us. No one helps us. We do all the helping, and what do we get? We get attacked by the freakin' terrorists that we helped years before that! What The F**K? (sorry) If we get another attack, I want some help. But no, everyone else is to good to help the people who saved their a** in the past years, of course they're not going to return the favor! I'm sorry, i say we get rid of the countries that are against us, and befriend the countries that aren't. Just go in there guns-a-blazzin'! Show those freakin' terrorists who saved their sorry butts! :finger

Well, i guess i should stop there so i don't say something i might think about regretting!

- wing fan

 

[Bonza]

What is wrong with what we are already doing? And why flood Isreal, they aren't doing anything to harm us. If you going to do it to anyone, i say you somehow pick up the Dead Sea and drop it on top of Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan! Get rid of those filthy counrties!

Another question: We are there to help every single little country, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Afganastan, but who helps us? When Katrina hit, no one helped us. North Carolina helped, but that's part of our own country. You didn't see any other country even blink an eye at us. No one helps us. We do all the helping, and what do we get? We get attacked by the freakin' terrorists that we helped years before that! What The F**K? (sorry) If we get another attack, I want some help. But no, everyone else is to good to help the people who saved their a** in the past years, of course they're not going to return the favor! I'm sorry, i say we get rid of the countries that are against us, and befriend the countries that aren't. Just go in there guns-a-blazzin'! Show those freakin' terrorists who saved their sorry butts! :finger

Well, i guess i should stop there so i don't say something i might think about regretting!

- wing fan

How on earth did you get the impression that "when Katrina hit, no one helped you"?!? Please, read the following:

BBC NEWS | Americas | World mobilises to aid US victims

EUROPA - Press Releases - Hurricane Katrina list of offers from countries participating in the EU mechanism

Albania Pledges Assistance for Hurricane Katrina Relief Efforts (SETimes.com)

VHeadline.com - Venezuela's CITGO pledges an additional $1 million to Hurricane relief efforts

There's more articles out there, if you care to do some research. My own country, for example, donated ten million dollars and the services of a team of emergency management personnel, you can read about it here:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/30223.php

 

[wing fan]

I appoligize. It was not my place to speak. I was having a really bad morning, and i let it get the best of me, which was wrong. I see my mistake and i will try to correct it. Note i say "try", but i will try really hard. Thanx and sorry.

-wing fan

 

[OPSSG]

I appoligize. It was not my place to speak. I was having a really bad morning, and i let it get the best of me, which was wrong. I see my mistake and i will try to correct it. Note i say "try", but i will try really hard. Thanx and sorry.

-wing fan

American is not alone. If you think America is alone, it reflection of your individual lack of knowledge of the efforts of America's partners and allies. BTW, all is that this information is already posted in DT.

I can't speak for other countries but I can show you what Singapore has done and what we are doing.

Post #35 of this thread shows pictures of Singapore Chinooks taking part in the humanitarian assistance operations after Hurricane Katrina. Our Chinooks flew more than 80 sorties, transported over 800 evacuees and security personnel during the operations and airlifted 540 tonnes of equipment, humanitarian supplies and sand during the relief operations. Our efforts may be small but we do what we can.

I hope you realise that in width, the city state of Singapore in only 42km and in population size terms we are a mid-sized city. Our country has only 3.73 million Singaporean citizens and permanent residents (the US has about a 100 times more people than Singapore). Despite our small size, we managed to send 998 personnel to support American efforts in Iraq from 2003 to 2008 (until the end of the UN mandate in Dec 2008). When we send 1 KC-135R, it represents 1/4 of our KC-135R fleet. When we send 1 C-130, it represents about 10% of our C-130 fleet. We only have 4 Endurance class vessels and each time we send one, it's 1/4 of our 3rd Flotilla. Watch this video for some background:

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpC4TTkT8Iw[/nomedia]

In between sending our people to help in Katrina and Iraq, we also found time to help Indonesia in the aftermath of the Dec 2004, Tsunami by sending over 1,500 of our people, 3 Endurance class vessels, a couple of helicopters and other aircraft to deliver aid. Currently in the Gulf of Aden, CTF-151 is lead by a Singaporean naval officer. On top of all this we also have joint maritime patrols to deter piracy in the Straits of Malacca and Singapore.

As of this moment, in Thailand, we are taking part in Ex Cobra Gold with US and US allies in Asia. We play a very minor role in Afghanistan but we are also there with a weapon locating radar team. A medical team is also going there again. Later this year, we are going to send UAVs there and we not stopped doing work with the NZ PRT to help the people of Afghanistan.

Do you think that Singapore's support for the US in Iraq has been without political cost to us as a country? Our neighbours are predominantly Muslim countries and they were not happy about the US invasion of Iraq. What are you belly aching about - the US is the most powerful country in the world and your country will have responsibilities commensurate with that power.

 

[wing fan]

I'm sorry! I didn't know! I'm just a dumb teenager that only sees the news about 10 minutes a month. Note how i say "Dumb". Yes it is true.

Totally off subject, but i am reading this awesome book called Reckless Disregaurd. It is written by a Vietnam Vet. Pilot. It is about how the "left side" is trying to basically get rid of the military, and when you read it, it makes you furious at them. Thought i'd throw it out there!

-wing fan

 

[LloydTasiD]

The problem is armys tend to do either one thing or another.

Just look at how many western armies cut back their conventional war capabilities.

Just talk to some active US Army guys. Soldiers from tank and cavalry units are retrained to light infantry and serious conventional war training is lacking.
The same goes for the UK or other armies doing many peacekeeping operations.

Amen. Because stupid politicians always think (as is shown throughout history) that defense spending is a luxury during peacetime, they of course cut more than is safe. By cutting our budgets so much, we are forced to limit our scope of capabilities, those such as conventional warfare. I don't think the public realizes what the real threat is out there. In the long run, it's not terrorism. It's war. Guess who's left after the Taliban and Al Qaeda die out? Iran and North Korea. And if the Taliban and Al Qaeda don't die out, it's because they would have gotten support from a country, such as Iran.
I am tired of people thinking that defense is expendable. Huge military cuts in America were enforced right before both the world wars? Can we not learn from the past?

What is wrong with what we are already doing? And why flood Isreal, they aren't doing anything to harm us. If you going to do it to anyone, i say you somehow pick up the Dead Sea and drop it on top of Iraq, Iran, and Afganastan! Get rid of those filthy counrties!

Another question: We are there to help every single little country, Haiti, Iraq, Iran, Afganastan, but who helps us? When Katrina hit, no one helped us. North Carolina helped, but that's part of our own country. You didn't see any other country even blink an eye at us. No one helps us. We do all the helping, and what do we get? We get attacked by the freakin' terrorists that we helped years before that! What The F**K? (sorry) If we get another attack, I want some help. But no, everyone else is to good to help the people who saved their a** in the past years, of course they're not going to return the favor! I'm sorry, i say we get rid of the countries that are against us, and befriend the countries that aren't. Just go in there guns-a-blazzin'! Show those freakin' terrorists who saved their sorry butts! :finger

Well, i guess i should stop there so i don't say something i might think about regretting!

- wing fan

I realize you already apologized for this. But being a teenager is no excuse for incompetency, especially in the defense community. You have to realize how big America's military is, even with a struggling economy. We are huge. Our other friendly countries don't have nearly the power we do. You need to humble yourself and get a grip of the global perspective of things. Only than can you understand the true nature of the global situation.
Also, profanity isn't necessary. That's not a way to get friends in the international community.

 

[RobWilliams]

Ultimately i think its a case of aggression, rather than staying in a defensive position take probing patrols (on foot or mounted, depends on Intel) and more use of special forces, if insurgents feel compromised in their own 'safe zone' then there isn't anywhere to go. Naturally all these 'what i would do' assumptions from those of us less informed (like myself) may seem a bit 'naff.

After reading a book called Apache Dawn by Damien Lewis (about a flight of British Apaches from 662 Reg AA's tour in Afghanistan) and throughout the book it explains why in most cases attack helicopters are more effective than fast air, the downside being that fast air has the use of JDAMs and the like, but the advantages being they can stay over the target for a longer period of time and can offer munitions quicker and (sometimes) more accurately than fast air when the JTAC requests it. So i think a heavier use of attack helicopters (with appropriate countermeasures) and other ground attack aircraft would be very effective in the Afghan theatre.

Anyway thats just my opinion, cross examine away guys

 

[LloydTasiD]

I can only think of two problems with this. First one is response time. If a fielder calls up for air support in response to contact with the enemy, he doesn't really have time to wait for a chopper. A jet is much faster. This wouldn't apply to planned air support.
The second problem is that hanging helicopters are extremely vulnerable to RPGs, a favorite weapon of the insurgents. The battle of Mogadishu shows a prime example of this turning bad for a chopper. There isn't really much countermeasure for this besides killing the launcher first.

 

[RobWilliams]

I can only think of two problems with this. First one is response time. If a fielder calls up for air support in response to contact with the enemy, he doesn't really have time to wait for a chopper. A jet is much faster. This wouldn't apply to planned air support.
The second problem is that hanging helicopters are extremely vulnerable to RPGs, a favorite weapon of the insurgents. The battle of Mogadishu shows a prime example of this turning bad for a chopper. There isn't really much countermeasure for this besides killing the launcher first.

I agree with the response time, but it would be countered somewhat by the increased "over target" time, meaning once on station the response of an attack chopper would be significantly faster than fast air and generally more available to the JTAC on station

Again I do agree about the issue on the RPG-7, that's what makes it popular, simple and effective, from my understanding the issue with Mohadishu was the black hawks orbiting at a relatively low and repetetive orbit whereas an attack chopper would be at a higher and a partcially more random orbit, that extra altitude would give the attack chopper much more survivability, and according to that book, the HIDAS system in British Apaches can detect missiles launched from ground level therefore giving the pilot the chance to perform evausive tactics

I could be horribly wrong on all my info so if I am, please correct me

 

[My2Cents]

I can only think of two problems with this. First one is response time. If a fielder calls up for air support in response to contact with the enemy, he doesn't really have time to wait for a chopper. A jet is much faster. This wouldn't apply to planned air support.

There is more to response time than simply speed.

1. Approval to the jet/helicopter to provide supporting fires. For helicopter support this will probably come from the battalion level, 2 steps up from a platoon. The jet is in a different service and support would generally have to be coordinated and approved at the level of theatre commander, 5 to 6 levels higher than a platoon, and then probably several levels back down on the Air Force side. These extra levels add considerable time, and an increasing probability that the request for support will not be approved and passed to the next level for a variety of reasons.
   This is of course shortened a lot for planned and pre-assigned air support with an Air Force tactical air control party on site. Or if it is a Marine unit using Marine fixed wing air assets.
2. The jet is faster but it also will have to come several times farther on average. This offsets much of the advantage in raw speed.
3. Target acquisition time. The unit on the ground under fire knows where the targets are, not the aircraft when it arrives.
   The helicopter, being in the same service, can communicate directly with the ground unit. Their perspective is also closer to that of the ground unit than a jet’s.
   The jet has to relay communications through several levels and networks. Considerable improvements have been / are being made in this area, but there are still severe limitations if the ground unit does not have an Air Force FAC assigned.
4. Is an appropriate weapon available? JDAMs and the like are very impressive, but ROE, minimum safe distance, collateral damage, and concerns about having the munition available if a better target presents itself, can make getting permission for weapon release difficult. That is why the emphasis to develop smaller and smaller weapons that you can carry more of continues.

The second problem is that hanging helicopters are extremely vulnerable to RPGs, a favorite weapon of the insurgents. The battle of Mogadishu shows a prime example of this turning bad for a chopper. There isn't really much countermeasure for this besides killing the launcher first.

Low and slow is vulnerable, that is why helicopter and jets generally orbit an area higher up while waiting for a target. RPGs cannot reach over 2000ft elevation, much less if not directly below the flight path, because they self destruct after 8 seconds of flight. Heavy machineguns and light AAA cannon are much more dangerous to helicopters than RPGs. Nearly all RPG hits have been during take-offs or landing at elevations less than 400ft, or when helicopters are deliberately ‘trolling’ for AAA teams.

Higher elevation also maximizes the coverage for the aircraft’s sensors which can be more valuable than the weapons they bring to the fight. Historically helicopters have had the advantage in this area, but the proliferation of targeting pods and improving communications have also made jets relevant here.

 

[LloydTasiD]

There is more to response time than simply speed.

1. Approval to the jet/helicopter to provide supporting fires. For helicopter support this will probably come from the battalion level, 2 steps up from a platoon. The jet is in a different service and support would generally have to be coordinated and approved at the level of theatre commander, 5 to 6 levels higher than a platoon, and then probably several levels back down on the Air Force side. These extra levels add considerable time, and an increasing probability that the request for support will not be approved and passed to the next level for a variety of reasons.
   This is of course shortened a lot for planned and pre-assigned air support with an Air Force tactical air control party on site. Or if it is a Marine unit using Marine fixed wing air assets.
2. Target acquisition time. The unit on the ground under fire knows where the targets are, not the aircraft when it arrives.
   The helicopter, being in the same service, can communicate directly with the ground unit. Their perspective is also closer to that of the ground unit than a jet’s.
   The jet has to relay communications through several levels and networks. Considerable improvements have been / are being made in this area, but there are still severe limitations if the ground unit does not have an Air Force FAC assigned.
3. Is an appropriate weapon available? JDAMs and the like are very impressive, but ROE, minimum safe distance, collateral damage, and concerns about having the munition available if a better target presents itself, can make getting permission for weapon release difficult. That is why the emphasis to develop smaller and smaller weapons that you can carry more of continues.

.

Helicopter support would actually come from the brigade. The helicopters are in a separate battalion than the infantry battalion, thus inter-battalion contact is maintained by brigade HHC. Combat theater operations would have QRF in place so that there is already a pre-established route through which emergency situations would be handled, thus theatre command is bypassed. As already mutually established, pre-planned missions have neither problems.

The method by which the helicopter communicates directly with the ground is actually the same means by which the jets communicate with the ground. There are pre-established radio frequencies and communication lingo in a theater of operations. Air to ground communication is no problem. An air force ground liaison in not required, just a RTO which is standard in a platoon. However, the helicopters do have the advantage of easier ground view and situational coordination; jets sometimes need airbore forward observers to coordinate their air support efforts with the needs on the ground, jets having a harder time being aware of the ground situation.

Yes, munitions load is more in favor of helicopters. However, A-10s are specifically designed for close ground support.