Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
copydude

No Helicopters For Troops, Only For Royals

Recommended Posts

Unlike Our Boys, Camilla Gets Chopper

Britain's Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall, is embroiled in a row over her helicopter use.

The 61-year-old royal - the wife of Prince Charles - reportedly used a helicopter for a 75-mile journey last week, at an estimated cost to the taxpayer of £3,000.

The royal was in Portsmouth to meet royal navy medics and present them with medals.

The visit lasted two and a half hours, prompting some people to query why she couldn't have used a car for the trip.

Britain's Daily Express writer Richard Palmer wrote on the paper's blog: "She had no other official engagements that day so it was not that she needed to get somewhere else in a hurry on taxpayer-funded business.

"Clarence House officials, while insisting that all travel decisions are assessed for value for money along with other factors such as disruption to the public, could only justify it by saying that Portsmouth was a long way from London."

Camilla is not the only royal to be criticised for her use of air travel.

Prince Andrew - whose love of private aircraft has earned him the nickname 'Air Miles Andy' - was criticised when he used a Sikorsky S-76 helicopter to travel just 146 miles last week, at a cost of £4,000.

Actually, the cost is probably insignificant considering what the Royals get through on expenses.

But you'd have thought, since the Afghan helicopter issue is so sensitive at this time, Clarence House might have thought twice. She was going to a military base after all.

Talk about a PR gaffe.

Link if you want one

Edited by copydude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole helicopter issue is just another example of how non existent the leadership and authority of our incumbent government is.

Can you even imagine a general pulling this shit with Thatcher in the middle of the Falklands because the poor Paras had to do a bit of hill walking with heavy loads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are these the right kind of helicopters the Royals use? Suited for military operations.

Regulary used to see Chinooks flying up the Thames and wondering who was in them. Probably the odd Royal

Edited by HostPaul TAFKA Rover2000

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My only wish is that, for the next political (say Brown himself) excursion to Afghanistan, no helis are available, and he has to visit Camp Bastion by road. That is all I ask. Fantasy, I know, but how great would that be? Get Mandelson to drive them from Kandahar, have the Labour flagship tune "things can only get better" on permanent loopback on the stereo. Sorted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sick of hearing this on the news.

We haven't got enough helicopters! :rolleyes:

FFS. How many helicopters or armoured vehicles does the Taliban have?

You are on their turf, you invaded them, so don't be surprised by underhand tactics like a bomb in the road. :ph34r:

I support our lads but somehow I don't think we will win when I see a compensation culture screaming for 'more helicopters or else we wont fight'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you even imagine a general pulling this shit with Thatcher in the middle of the Falklands because the poor Paras had to do a bit of hill walking with heavy loads?

Falklands was as big a nonsense as Afghanistan and Iraq.

But at least Mrs T didn't mess about. Just about every last thing floating was sent down there. Car Ferries from the Hook Harwich run. North sea rig supply and maintenance craft. QE2 of course. A mindbending armada. It wasn't done on the cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My only wish is that, for the next political (say Brown himself) excursion to Afghanistan, no helis are available, and he has to visit Camp Bastion by road. That is all I ask. Fantasy, I know, but how great would that be? Get Mandelson to drive them from Kandahar, have the Labour flagship tune "things can only get better" on permanent loopback on the stereo. Sorted.

I can just pictue that. That would awesome.

Instead, we have this

article-0-0202FE1600000578-912_468x562.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Falklands was as big a nonsense as Afghanistan and Iraq.

But at least Mrs T didn't mess about. Just about every last thing floating was sent down there. Car Ferries from the Hook Harwich run. North sea rig supply and maintenance craft. QE2 of course. A mindbending armada. It wasn't done on the cheap.

I wasn't raising the legitimacy issue, just whether you could ever imagine a general pulling this sort of stunt for days on end with a decent leader in charge.

The most important thing an army needs is discipline, what are we going to have next, squadies going on strike in the middle of a firefight because the sergeant didn't wipe their **** for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's have a look at what happened to the Soviets shall we:

Soviet Loses 1979-1988

Troops

Dead:14,453

Wounded:469,685

Other Loses

118 aircraft

333 helicopters

147 tanks

1,314 IFV/APCs

433 artillery guns and mortars

1,138 radio sets and command vehicles

510 engineering vehicles

11,369 trucks and petrol tankers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan

All this against men on camels with AK-47s, RPGs and a few anti-aircraft missles.

Edited by MOP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All this against men on camels with AK-47s, RPGs and a few anti-aircraft missles.

So we aren't talking about helicopters.

Or the Royal family. :(

Yes. The Soviets had a huge amount of equipment at their disposal compared to the US/UK and they still got their arses kicked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The Soviets had a huge amount of equipment at their disposal compared to the US/UK and they still got their arses kicked.

CIA arming the Mujahideen (however you spell it)?

You can't just spend money like water but if the main source of British Army deaths is roadside IEDs then it seems obvious that you should purchase more heavily armoured vehicles for short trips and use helicopters for excursions into disputed territory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
The most important thing an army needs is discipline, what are we going to have next, squadies going on strike in the middle of a firefight because the sergeant didn't wipe their **** for them?

I think you misunderstand. The guys out in the field will always go out and do the job, regardless of threat. However, it is the job of General Dannatt to make sure that his troops don't take unnecessary casualties. When we have existing helicopters in Hampshire that can be equipped to operate in Afghanistan, surely it is imperative that steps are taken to get a wiggle on and get them out there? The five guys killed in one incident last week would still be alive if they'd used a helicopter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes. The Soviets had a huge amount of equipment at their disposal compared to the US/UK and they still got their arses kicked.

but NATO (US, UK, Belgium, French, Czech ...) forces do not fight the whole Afghanistan. They support the previous Northern Alliance with their 20 years fight against Taliban. There was a long civil war after the Russians left, you know ...

And now everybody fights Taliban including Iran and Pakistan ...

we just need to train the Afghans army upto scratch so they can maintain their own state ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The whole helicopter issue is just another example of how non existent the leadership and authority of our incumbent government is.

Can you even imagine a general pulling this shit with Thatcher in the middle of the Falklands because the poor Paras had to do a bit of hill walking with heavy loads?

It's not really the same, Thatcher sent the helicopters, but only one got there. All the rest were sunk when the Atlantic Conveyor was hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think you misunderstand. The guys out in the field will always go out and do the job, regardless of threat. However, it is the job of General Dannatt to make sure that his troops don't take unnecessary casualties. When we have existing helicopters in Hampshire that can be equipped to operate in Afghanistan, surely it is imperative that steps are taken to get a wiggle on and get them out there? The five guys killed in one incident last week would still be alive if they'd used a helicopter.

are the laws of flight different in Afghanistan? is the air different?

are airliners that fly to Afghanistan different in a substantial way.

do Cessnas work OK in this strange Afghan atmosphere?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real joke is we have 8 helicopters sitting in a warehouse due to software issues. They have been sitting there for years. Get some ******ing out of work IT contractors in to finish the job quick smart !!

As for Afghanistan. Those people are warriors. They have never been beaten, that looks unlikely to change. Our troops will do their very best as usual, however it is not a battle they can ever win. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The real joke is we have 8 helicopters sitting in a warehouse due to software issues. They have been sitting there for years. Get some ******ing out of work IT contractors in to finish the job quick smart !!

As for Afghanistan. Those people are warriors. They have never been beaten, that looks unlikely to change. Our troops will do their very best as usual, however it is not a battle they can ever win. IMO.

CH47 sat on the ground because QQ cannot read the software code (SWC) and will therefore not clear for flight other than in VMC

Boeing delivered as per the contract that was written. MOD PE did not ask for SWC to be included in contract, assumption was made that they could use the SWC from the Dutch CH47 fleet.

Fastest and cheapest way to sort is to rewire......plenty of jobs at Boscome Down for Rotary wing Avionics techs.

Paying £21.50 a hour basic plus bonus of £1.50 a hour and on completion .... & loads of overtime.

24,000 seperate cables in each A/C that need to be replaced.

IT contractors may be good at IT but will be pretty useless at rewiring A/C......I know i fix helos

Edited by jungllie jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CH47 sat on the ground because QQ cannot read the software code (SWC) and will therefore not clear for flight other than in VMC

Boeing delivered as per the contract that was written. MOD PE did not ask for SWC to be included in contract, assumption was made that they could use the SWC from the Dutch CH47 fleet.

Fastest and cheapest way to sort is to rewire......plenty of jobs at Boscome Down for Rotary wing Avionics techs.

Paying �21.50 a hour basic plus bonus of �1.50 a hour and on completion .... & loads of overtime.

24,000 seperate cables in each A/C that need to be replaced.

IT contractors may be good at IT but will be pretty useless at rewiring A/C......I know i fix helos

perhaps you could help by explaining why THESE helicopters need this stuff.

what is QQ and SWC?

does a cessna out of Earls colne need QQ and SWC for non VMC, or do standard avionics, satnav, inertial nav etc, not work in Afghanistan, or indeed, Scotland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CH47 sat on the ground because QQ cannot read the software code (SWC) and will therefore not clear for flight other than in VMC

Boeing delivered as per the contract that was written. MOD PE did not ask for SWC to be included in contract, assumption was made that they could use the SWC from the Dutch CH47 fleet.

Fastest and cheapest way to sort is to rewire......plenty of jobs at Boscome Down for Rotary wing Avionics techs.

Paying �21.50 a hour basic plus bonus of �1.50 a hour and on completion .... & loads of overtime.

24,000 seperate cables in each A/C that need to be replaced.

IT contractors may be good at IT but will be pretty useless at rewiring A/C......I know i fix helos

Cheers for the info. So as Bloo Loo says - does this work NEED to happen ? Can they simply not fly without these changes ?

If so the person who signed the contract should be shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest X-QUORK
are the laws of flight different in Afghanistan? is the air different?

are airliners that fly to Afghanistan different in a substantial way.

do Cessnas work OK in this strange Afghan atmosphere?

One major difference about helicopter operations in Afghanistan is that the aircraft have to operate "hot and high". Higher altitude and high temperatures make it much harder for aircraft to maintain lift as the air is much thinner. I believe this can be mitigated with upgraded engines and rotors, which probably explains why it's taking a while to provide the additional aircraft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Afghanistan. Those people are warriors. They have never been beaten, that looks unlikely to change. Our troops will do their very best as usual, however it is not a battle they can ever win. IMO.

Once again: we are helping previous Northern Alliance (warriors, but on our side) to fight Taliban (more crazy warriors, which are not on our side) ...

we do not fight the whole Afghanistan as such ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One major difference about helicopter operations in Afghanistan is that the aircraft have to operate "hot and high". Higher altitude and high temperatures make it much harder for aircraft to maintain lift as the air is much thinner. I believe this can be mitigated with upgraded engines and rotors, which probably explains why it's taking a while to provide the additional aircraft.

Understood - but thos whole warehouse issue is down to software. I am interested to know why this is an issue. Shocking that those whop put the contract in place didn't know what they were doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One major difference about helicopter operations in Afghanistan is that the aircraft have to operate "hot and high". Higher altitude and high temperatures make it much harder for aircraft to maintain lift as the air is much thinner. I believe this can be mitigated with upgraded engines and rotors, which probably explains why it's taking a while to provide the additional aircraft.

thank you. seems plausible.

that begs the question, why send an army to a theatre of war that its not equipped to fight in? reminds me of the German invasion of Russia...It HAD to be over by winter as they were not equipped to fight inthe winter. cost them the war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   295 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.