NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Air Transportation Article Index : Current 1999 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Britain And The Cold War Curse

July 17, 2009: British commanders in Afghanistan have asked for more troops, and a lot more helicopters. Currently, the 9,000 British troops there have 17 helicopters (10 CH-47Ds Chinooks, which can carry 33 troops or 10 tons, and seven Sea Kings, a 1950s design that can carry a dozen troops.). But two of each model are reserved for commando use. Britain has always had a SAS detachment in Afghanistan, and they need helicopters to carry out their commando missions.

Meanwhile, while the British have one helicopter for every 700 troops,  the Americans have one for every 200. British commanders believe they need (based on American experience) about fifty helicopters. The British government has promised more helicopters, but has recently withdrawn six Lynx (four seat scout helicopters) because they could not operate in the hot climate and high altitudes of Afghanistan. The British government promises more helicopters, but the troops aren't holding their breath. Also unlikely to show up are any additional troops. While 2,000 additional troops were requested, only 140 more are being sent.

The main problem here is that, while Britain has a large defense budget (by European standards) of $50 billion, much of it is committed to pay for Cold War era weapons that are of no use in Afghanistan. There, Britain is at war, but most of Britain's defense budget is still paying for jet interceptors, nuclear submarines (some armed with nuclear missiles) and many other items that were designed for a World War III type conflict against the Soviet Union.

Britain still needs some of the nuclear submarines,  as maintaining control of the seas is essential for an island nation. The nuclear weapons are hard to give up, as they are seen as an essential "weapon of last resort." Moreover, obtaining major items of equipment, like military grade helicopters, cannot be done quickly. Nor can you shed Cold War era systems quickly either. The problems Britain faces now were set in motion over a decade ago, and will take nearly as long to put right. That is, if there is any will to do right by the army troops currently fighting a real, and not a potential, war.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article WARPLANES: Robowarriors Outnumber Fighter Jocks


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

rmancassman       7/17/2009 3:23:58 PM
I guess SP is taking the Robert Gates position in that the only conflict or potential foe any western power will ever face will be some third world brush fire type conflict.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Simplistic   7/17/2009 4:10:39 PM
It's not a good argument given the constant cuts in defense by Labor.  If the RN is mostly a Cold War force then there should be more than enough money for other things given how Labor has gutted the RN.  There was simply not enough spent on the defense budget and saying too much was spent on submarines is ridiculous- especially given the RN hasn't enough of those either.  There's also the small matter of MOD screwing up one program after another including helicopters.  Retiring cost effective aircraft, like Jaguar, which then forced use of more expensive to operate Harriers in Afghanistan was another example of poor management.  Labor likes to play games with ships and aircraft.
 
All this aside Labor did seem a tad too overboard on anything euro including eurofighter.  It's possible they budgeted too many or too many too quickly which moved money away from other programs.  OTH, given they've reduced the RN to the size of a flotilla, 19 destroyers and frigates with 7 submarines, there really should have been enough in the budget for things like transport helicopters.
 
Quote    Reply

vhmbnm    Lend Lease   7/17/2009 4:34:11 PM
Ordering new helos will take years to fruition. As a bridge, ask the US DoD to lease used CH-47, AH-64, and UH-60 systems + spare parts provisioning until the new systems get fielded. This worked well in WWII and can work here.
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot    Lend Lease   7/17/2009 4:50:45 PM

Leasing UH60?s ain?t gonna happen.

The UK doesn?t operate them, so there are no pilots to fly them, no ground crew to keep them flying and no operational experience.

 It could take years to get just one squadron into an operational state.

 
Quote    Reply

wjr321       7/17/2009 11:18:19 PM
Lease the support -- there are lots of contractors out there.
 
Best,
wjr
 
Quote    Reply

Heorot       7/18/2009 6:14:47 AM
Doesn't solve the pilot problem though. And the UK doesn't use contractors for critical roles. i.e support of helos in a combat zone.
 
Quote    Reply

kirby1       7/18/2009 5:02:27 PM
You're right on as to why the US can't simply lease a bunch of UH-60s to the UK,

There's also the small fact that the US army doesn't have that many to spare to begin with. 

The MOD and Parliament needs to realize that the problem isn't a temporary lack of helos, but a permanent shortage. Simply leasing or borrowing a couple more is not the solution. They need to buy and support more helos.
 
In the meanwhile, Doesn't the navy and RAF have a few EH101s?   

 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy