Quote Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I mentioned casualties because the need for quick exfil was the very best explanation for why anyone would consider helicopters a necessity for LRS.
Apparently in your opinion. I'd be inclined to say that was a very poor reason. If the team is in a good and important location and is otherwise uncompromised, I'd leave the casualty(ies) there to take their chances in order to avoid compromising the team and thus the mission. Distance is the most likely reason to infiltrate by air, time next most likely. Exfiltration is a whole different bundle of contradictions and the Team may just be abandoned. War's tough on folks...
Speed and time are only critical if the conflict is very fast-moving (in that case the corps commander better gets his timing right to set up recce & surveillance before his decisive action) or if the LRS teams have problems with sustainment (food, hydration)...I do assert that they can get food and water from their area of operations (at the very least when leaving it for another), so the portable amount does not restrict their mission duration. The morale is the real limiting factor (unless something goes wrong on the mission).
Corps normally look 200km out; to infiltrate on foot, that's at least five days, add a day or two to select and occupy a hide. That time may or may not be available. Plus there are strategic Recon LRS tasks that entail 500-1,000 km inserts. METT-TC guides all. Including the local food and / or water; some places that can occur, other no. Morale in war time becomes almost a non-issue. Yes, the team may just get discouraged and give up. That's why they're isolated going in and no team knows where another is going. War is not for the uncommitted.
Conflicts with a force density that prohibits infil and exfil on land will most likely not allow for risky helicopter flights with a useful depth. Helicopters are very vulnerable to all kinds of missiles (and the countermeasures only help against one kind) and at low altitude they would face even more threats.
All true -- and all not insurmountable. Not a topic for discussion.
The Fernspäher do a lot, including training with UH-1Ds which wouldn't be considered fit for duty in an actual LRS mission even if the company was very desperate.
War's occasionally get desperate. However, there are also the CH53Gs with rather more capability and we can offer and have provided various Schlangenfesser a ride in penetration aircraft (not just helicopters...)
I struggle a bit with the idea how infil/exfil on vehicle could take a lot of time..
Again, depends on the situation. Sometimes, a couple of days is acceptable, sometimes it may not be. You're also confronted with the 500 plus km strategic infil...
You mentioned that access to aviation assets has worsened after Vietnam...This means that better access to aviation support cannot be necessary for a greater LRS capability.
Number of aircraft isn't the issue; dedicated aircraft that the LRS unit can depend on having and that are capable of the rather dangerous infil and exfil missions is the missing element. There are work arounds and they get used but the basic point is that we have not put the right resources in the right places in all cases. The number of aircraft is good, where they are assigned is not so good. Divisions who do not need the number of aircraft assigned will not release their aircraft to go do a mission, particularly one where the Bird may be lost, for some Captain-commanded little Company of LRS folks. Tactical requirements immaterial.
That's why I sniped at the dependency on luxuries.
Not dependency on luxuries, requirement for mission accomplishment in some -- not all -- cases. Again, it's not a raw numbers issue, rather an allocation problem and a METT-TC problem.