Roadside Bombs & IEDs (catch all)

[Xenophon]

Yeah, I'm thinking just a flying pallet. Troops at a rear base strap on some boxes of ammo, some MRE's, some medical supplies, a "pilot" flies it out to the COP, then the troops there unload it, maybe throw on some empty ammo cans, an EPW or two, then the "pilot" flies it back.

[William F. Owen]

Yeah, I'm thinking just a flying pallet. Troops at a rear base strap on some boxes of ammo, some MRE's, some medical supplies, a "pilot" flies it out to the COP, then the troops there unload it, maybe throw on some empty ammo cans, an EPW or two, then the "pilot" flies it back.

You're 100% right! - not surprisingly. Plus Medevac!
... and this is why Helicopters are extremely useful in both regular and irregular warfare. - so you need lots of them!

[slapout9]

You're 100% right! - not surprisingly. Plus Medevac!
... and this is why Helicopters are extremely useful in both regular and irregular warfare. - so you need lots of them!

It was developed years ago for Vietnam. Actually for the original Air Cavalry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOVh-vlUius

[slapout9]

Original Hiller Flying Platform......made good Helicopters and VTOL Aircraft too.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MwhBW...eature=related


That's Ken White driving it.

[Rex Brynen]

I'm rather surprised, Slap, that you missed the opportunity to mention this particular marvel of modern flight

[slapout9]

rex, I am not allowed to expose any secerts of the Redneck Air Force

[Pete]

I wasn't in Vietnam, but I've heard that helicopter landing zones there could be extremely dangerous places. I'm sure our current adversaries would quickly figure that out and adjust their tactics accordingly. A guy I served with, now a retired lieutenant colonel who was in Vietnam, said he was amazed to see how slow soldiers were to exit helicopters during a training exercise he witnessed in the 1980s. He mentioned it as an example of how skills degrade when they are not frequently practiced.

[reed11b]

I have some STOL UAV plans from an old school FAC that had some published articles on UAV concepts a while back. They kind of address what Xenophon is saying though they are longer range in concept. I'll have to see if the owner of the concepts is okay with me sharing. There was a double ducted fan VTOL UAV design a few years back by the same company that was trying to make backpack vtol that was meant for resupply type missions. My though is that they would have to be able opperate autonomously to be viable.
Reed

[tankersteve]

They were conducting a deep attack against a brigade (I believe) of Iraqi armored forces. This was an AH-64 force. The attack was not coordinated well with any SEAD and the force got fired up quite a bit by small-arms fire, to the point that they couldn't continue the mission.

So what is the relevance? Well, the Army seems to be forgetting about deep attacks and is focusing on Apaches conducting direct support to ground forces - and are doing an excellent job of it. If reacting to a TIC, they show up overhead, and talk to the ground force commander, telling him what he has, and for how long, and asks for an update on the situation and what the ground force needs him to do. Simple, no JTAC/Anglico to work through, on regular FM nets. If it is a preplanned mission, a bit of coord can make sure that they have the same mission graphics that the ground force is using.

I am not an expert on Air Assault missions, I am just a big fan of the direction that attack aviation elements have gone. I would not be surprised if the deep attack has fallen completely out of favor, freeing up a lot more Apaches to work with the guys on the ground.

By far, the easiest and most responsive aviation asset available to the ground force maneuver commander.

Tankersteve

[Ken White]

Not offended, just have a long term antipathy to dropping or 'smoking' people -- idle harassment IMO. I've never seen any benefit in it. None. The concept raises my hackles and being a curmudgeon, I tend to curmudge about it...

Thanks for the expansion on the original post, that places it in context and makes sense. Might I suggest that wasn't apparent to an old slow Dude like me. The younger folks may have instantly gotten the connection but many of my synapses have synapped...

No need to try to draw me out, best bet is just to ask a question and I'll answer as best I can or admit I'm clueless (a frequent occurrence). Some folks post with a lot of links, I use very few. Everyone has their own techniques, which is fine but this is a discussion board where one can say what one thinks and ask questions, it isn't a forum where brevity is desired (good thing or I'd be in deep yogurt...).

As Tankersteve says, aviation doctrine is evolving and mostly for the better. Helicopters are great items of equipment but like anything else, they have to be used as designed and the limitations have to be respected. We misused them in Viet Nam (badly in some cases) and the Karbala attack was an exercise in bone stupidity. However, we are getting better.

Interestingly, Howze -- a former cavalryman and one of the better Generals of his era (he was the best XVIII Abn Corps Commander I've seen thus far, probably as good as was Ridgeway) was way back then adamant that attempting to directly attack ground elements with Armor and ADA using gun ships was excessively dangerous and that airmobile raids with carefully chosen LZs and the guns in support were the best use of airmobile assets...

He also said they'd be used for log support and overflying significantly dangerous terrain or routes subject to heavy attack -- and he pushed for more heavy birds (Chinooks) versus the lighter ones (UH1 / UH60). Unfortunately, he lost that one but the Marines listened and thus are replacing their Phrogs with Ospreys and the 53E with the K model...

[Pete]

Thanks Steve. Perhaps "Aviation doctrine and tactics" were the words I should have used.

Edit:
Ken, I'm glad you weren't offended. For a moment there I thought you might have something against people who live in West Virginia!

[William F. Owen]

It was developed years ago for Vietnam. Actually for the original Air Cavalry.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOVh-vlUius

Actually, I'm pretty against AIR CAV.
AIR SUPPLY, AIR MARCH and AIR SUSTAIN, all make sense to me, but using Helicopters as an APC or IFV doesn't really make sense to me.

OK SOF may have some applications, but I just don't see putting Support Helicopters in harms ways as something sensible folks should do.

[Rifleman]

.....using Helicopters as an APC or IFV doesn't really make sense to me.

But what if we come in low out of the rising sun and about a mile out put on the music?

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

[John]

Having been attacked with IEDs, I am not an advocate of just driving down roads in hopes you are not blown up. However, IMO completely avoiding roads, via helicopters, erodes credibility with the people, prevents Soldiers from developing intelligence, and seeing the ground from the people's perspective. Helicopters have viable missions, but not just as troop carriers.

Chief Bratton (Chief of Police) NY, Boston and most recently LA - used to have his officers ride public transportation to work periodically so they saw the streets as did the people. I submit Soldiers have to do the same thing.

[William F. Owen]

However, IMO completely avoiding roads, via helicopters, erodes credibility with the people, prevents Soldiers from developing intelligence, and seeing the ground from the people's perspective. Helicopters have viable missions, but not just as troop carriers.

All true, if done badly by stupid people. None of that is true, if done well, by a well-trained Army. All the negatives you cite had no impact on UK operations in South Armagh, or even the use of helicopters in other theatres, such as South Arabia, and Cyprus.

[John]

But what if we come in low out of the rising sun and about a mile out put on the music?

Don't surf!