Helicopter politics
The head of the Army was accused of playing politics after he flew around Afghanistan in an American helicopter and demanded more equipment for British troops. General Sir Richard Dannatt made clear that he would have flown in a British helicopter if one had been available and called for greater urgency over the supply of new equipment ... When asked why he flew in a Black Hawk General Dannatt replied: “Self-evidently . . . if I moved in an American helicopter it’s because I haven’t got a British helicopter.”
Labour seized on his remarks as a deliberate political comment on the shortage of British helicopters in Afghanistan. One senior Labour MP said: “The Army has a proud record of keeping out of party politics and the Chief of the General Staff should be very careful about his interventions.” A junior minister went farther, accusing General Dannatt of “playing politics” and saying: “This is a very difficult time and he should know better.”
I am probably not alone in longing for the day when the Army plays politics. Properly. & it takes in upon itself to gun down every Labour politician in once Great Britain. The socialists have lied & lied again & again about Iraq, Afghanistan & the lamentably shoddy equipment levels that they have provided our magnificent Armed Forces with.
Dannatt is retiring very shortly – Let hope that he takes the opportunity to open up a new front against Westminster village pondlife. Remember dear readers that the Lying Scotsman cut the defence budget by £1.4 billion in 2004, when he was Chancellor, leading to a shortfall in the number of helicopters available today
Comments
Also reported here:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/war/for-christ%27s-sake-just-buy-some-helicopters%2c-says-everyone-200907161908/
Posted by: EX_STAB | July 16, 2009 11:08 AM
Hey, they asked, he answered. Being (I presume) a Good Soldier, he told The Truth.
Politicians being unfamiliar with The Truth, they got all butt-hurt.
Me, when I finish mowing the weeds, I'm going shopping for rope.
Posted by: D.W. Drang | July 16, 2009 8:02 PM
At least he's got the bollocks to do it whilst he's in post unlike the prince of darkness.
Posted by: ScaleyBack B*stard | July 16, 2009 8:21 PM
Monty never minded running around in an American tank............
Posted by: stuart | July 18, 2009 2:18 AM
“The Army has a proud record of keeping out of party politics"
I'm sure party politics once had a proud record of supporting the Army.
Posted by: POWinCA | July 18, 2009 4:50 AM
I saw the video; I have a truly legitimate question here: What adaptations was Brown talking about? Altitude? Would there have been a problem with oxygen and fuel not burning? Terrain? Helicopters don't need runways, do they?
Could someone please elaborate on that? I thought the only adaptation they would need would be armament or medical.
Posted by: Cricket | July 18, 2009 3:19 PM
Cricket
Speaking very generally, the PM was correct in his discussion of the need to modify the choppers. The terrain (ground level) in Afghanistan is higher than the usual operating altitude of choppers in the UK. The air density is lower and reduces the the power from the engines and the lift from the rotors; however this does not qualify as rocket science, and fixes for these problems have been available for years. There are other useful mods which are dependent on the missions assigned to those choppers. Generally there are time constraints required for the installation and testing of the mods, but most have been trialled before and the main constraint is money.
The PM is announcing corrective steps being taken now which he did not support when such problems were first mentioned, post 2001.
The choppers mentioned by Mr Cameron were a batch ordered for the Special Forces Command c.1995, which were delivered without the proper documentation and software c.2000. Mr Brown neglected to properly finance the necessary fixes and thus only one is serviceable at present.
Cheers
Posted by: J.M. Heinrichs | July 19, 2009 5:36 AM
I saw the video; I have a truly legitimate question here: What adaptations was Brown talking about? Altitude? Would there have been a problem with oxygen and fuel not burning? Terrain? Helicopters don't need runways, do they?
Could someone please elaborate on that? I thought the only adaptation they would need would be armament or medical.
SNIP
It's called "density altitude", which, for the reasons pointed out, can make any aircraft perform poorly. The worse conditions are "hot and high" which pretty well describes the territory in question during the summer. Let's assume you have an aircraft that has a service ceiling of 10,000 feet with a certain load and are trying to take off from 8,000 feet. If the heat is sufficiently bad (say midafternoon), the density altitude might reach 11,000 feet. The aircraft, not knowing any better, would refuse to lift off. You would have to either wait for evening to cool things off or reduce the load. The US Army found that UH-1D helicopters operating in the Central Highlands of Vietnam that could hold 10 men could only carry half that under local conditions, which led to the UH-1H with a more powerful model of the engine to restore performance. This also happens with civilian airliners (insert evil laugh), so manufacturers offer special "hot and high" models for customers who anticipate those conditions.
Posted by: Beausaber | July 22, 2009 4:57 PM