Choppers for Darfur

[Detonable]

Can this be true? Are there less than 12 in all of Europe? Can't they rent a few, plus some transports, from Russia or something?

 

From The Washington Post

EU Needs Helicopters for Darfur Force

 

BRUSSELS, Belgium, Nov 19, 2007 (AP Online via COMTEX) -- European Union defense ministers reiterated their commitment Monday to sending troops to help Darfur refugees, but a lack of helicopters was holding up deployment of a force that should have been on the ground by now.

 

Portuguese Defense Minister Nuno Severiano Teixeira said other ministers expressed hope a meeting of military planners scheduled for Wednesday would fill the shortfalls in the EU plan to send almost 4,000 troops to the borders of Chad and the Central African Republic, neighbors to Sudan's Darfur.

 

"The council was unanimous on the need to launch this mission," Severiano Teixeira told a news conference.

 

For weeks, the EU has struggled to muster the dozen or so helicopters needed to move European soldiers quickly around the vast area. In addition, problems have hit a planned United Nations-African Union force of 26,000 for Darfur itself.

 

and

 

Bentegeat's concerns were taken up by Irish Defense Minister Willie O'Dea, who said it would impossible for his country to deploy and supply the 400 troops it has offered for the mission unless other nations come through with transport aircraft.

 

"We don't have nearly enough air transport as yet," O'Dea said, adding that the force still needed commitments for fixed-wing airplanes and a field hospital as well as the helicopters.

[Guest JamesG123]

It took how long for the US to move a Company (Batt?) of Apaches to the Balkans?

[DB]

We have none spare - not even enough available to properly support Afghanistan,

 

David

[Ariete!]

Helo assets have been used very heavily in all the PK/PE campaigns since the 1990s due to poor local conditions, security requirements and relatively think presence on the ground. Procurement certainly ahs not kept up (peace dividend nonsense plus money’s often gone into shiny Ahs, to the detriment to UHs and CHs) so most active PK/PE participant nations (think UK, Italy, France, etc.) have worn down and out their choppers. The Brits are doing particularly badly but it’s a problem for everyone.

[BansheeOne]

We have none spare - not even enough available to properly support Afghanistan,

 

Correct. ISAF is so strapped for helicopters that they're considering to charter civilian ones (not for combat tasks, obviously, but rather to relieve the existing force from menial supply missions).

 

It doesn't help that our choppers are long in the tooth, the CH-53Gs already having gotten prolong treatment and being supposed to soldier on until at least 2018 (at which point part of them may be replaced by the follow-on HTH project, which however at this stage is still looking for industrial partners and more users to make it affordable), and the UH-1Ds waiting to be replaced by the NH 90 which is in a very tedious phase of introduction.

[DB]

The Brits are doing particularly badly but it’s a problem for everyone.

Specifically, the utter shambles that was the CH-47 procurement - if you guys think that the VH-71A is going badly, you should take a look at our farrago of a procurement balls-up:

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/poli...icle2584509.ece

 

They've been sat in hangars for 6 years, so far.

[Archie Pellagio]

Correct. ISAF is so strapped for helicopters that they're considering to charter civilian ones (not for combat tasks, obviously, but rather to relieve the existing force from menial supply missions).

 

It doesn't help that our choppers are long in the tooth, the CH-53Gs already having gotten prolong treatment and being supposed to soldier on until at least 2018 (at which point part of them may be replaced by the follow-on HTH project, which however at this stage is still looking for industrial partners and more users to make it affordable), and the UH-1Ds waiting to be replaced by the NH 90 which is in a very tedious phase of introduction.

 

As is the backbone of the UN missions across the globe is the Mi-8/17/171 Hip family, though some funny buggers still goes on (Like a Turkmen registered hip flying from Herat (Afgh) to Termiz (Uzbek) turning up in different markings in Nigeria two months after the families had been "notified"

[Tomas Hoting]

IMHO, the Bundeswehr should have continued to operate the Mi-24s and Mi-8s they inherited from the NVA after reunification. With some nice updates, these tough helicopters, and maybe some new Mi-17s, might have been be the solution for an enviroment like Afghanistan (instead of having to wait for the delayed NH 90).

[Cinaruco]

Darfur is something awful that you see on TV... nothing else, then why bother?

[Old Tanker]

Darfur is something awful that you see on TV... nothing else, then why bother?

 

Sad but true, isn't it ?

 

We have pols and leaders who can talk the talk but very few who can walk the walk.

[shep854]

Correct. ISAF is so strapped for helicopters that they're considering to charter civilian ones (not for combat tasks, obviously, but rather to relieve the existing force from menial supply missions).

 

(Somewhat dated) From StrategyPage.com: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/a...s/20071028.aspx

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairmo/a...s/20071009.aspx

[Jim Martin]

Sad but true, isn't it ?

 

We have pols and leaders who can talk the talk but very few who can walk the walk.

 

 

Unfortunately, the world's 911 force is occupied in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Balkans, and various other hotspots around the world, meaning someone else needs to take up the slack. Those who call so loudly for intervention in Darfur are also the same crowd who hold up signs saying that the military should have to hold bake sales to buy bombers. The West needs to get over this "Peace Dividend" BS and start ramping up their military manning again. Not so much investing in heavily mechanized forces necessarily, but if we in the West want global peace and stability, we need infantry-heavy forces with good logistical support for out-of-area deployments. That includes good-sized fleets of helos, wheeled APC's, amphibious transportation and logistics ships. While I see Western navies building up their amphib holdings, I don't see Western militaries doing much to increase their ability to put boots on the ground, with adequate logistics support.

 

The EU especially, should be able to buy far more C-17s than they have contracted for.

 

Heck, even if you don't want to do Iraq or engage in combat ops in Afghanistan, most Euro countries could stand up a couple more division-equivalents to send to quieter places which still need adult supervision.

 

And let's face it, stability is in the West's interests, for a litany of reasons. Everyone needs to up their ante.

[EchoFiveMike]

Honestly, given Europe's geography, I'm not sure why they don't have more amphibious capability. Is it some sort of way by which they can avoid actually doing something concrete about all these UN interventions they advocate? Airplanes are all nice and crap for supporting about a reinforced rifle company but to actually accomplish something, you need to come via ship. Does nobody in Europe see the utility of having something similar to a MEU? S/F.....Ken M

[Assessor]

Honestly, given Europe's geography, I'm not sure why they don't have more amphibious capability. Is it some sort of way by which they can avoid actually doing something concrete about all these UN interventions they advocate? Airplanes are all nice and crap for supporting about a reinforced rifle company but to actually accomplish something, you need to come via ship. Does nobody in Europe see the utility of having something similar to a MEU? S/F.....Ken M

 

 

I can see the utility of amphib. forces in general, but in what is essentially a land-locked area, I think it is what's called "a bit tricky". I don't disagree with you in principle, but unfortunately Darfur is way across the other side (roughly a 1000 miles, I think) from where Sudan has any sort of coast.

 

Much of Europe actually has NO tradition of amphibious warfare - in the sense you mean, it's a fairly recent and I think actually an American invention. Didn't once of the former USMC commandants have a fairly strong "godfather / midwife" role in its inception?

 

I think the UK could (in principle at least) deploy an MEU-type unit, although most of our specialist amphibious troops are currently a bit tied up...

 

Of course, AmphiGav!ns could simply go up the beach, drive across the country and do the job. Why aren't OUR LEADERS thinking this way

[Lambda]

Honestly, given Europe's geography, I'm not sure why they don't have more amphibious capability. Is it some sort of way by which they can avoid actually doing something concrete about all these UN interventions they advocate? Airplanes are all nice and crap for supporting about a reinforced rifle company but to actually accomplish something, you need to come via ship. Does nobody in Europe see the utility of having something similar to a MEU? S/F.....Ken M

As said, the UK should have that ability. The French navy still has 2 brand new LHDs and 2 recent LSD/LPDs, both of which with decent command/support/medic/commo equipments. They are significantly shorter on lighter landing boats, for some reason.

There are still a number of Army regiments with naval traditions and training to go with that, from the top of my head about enough for a standing (light armored) brigade.

I don't know much a bout the Spanish and Italian capabilities, but they should have a number of suitable designs, along with the Netherlands, for some reason. Why all this can't be integrated in two or three European Fleets is beyond me, and off topic.

[BansheeOne]

There has been a joint UK/NL amphibious force for 34 years, actually. Plus the Spanish-Italian Amphibious Force was established in 1996, though neither is a standing force.

[Anixtu]

Honestly, given Europe's geography, I'm not sure why they don't have more amphibious capability.

 

Because traditionally the enemy lives next door across a convenient land border and expeditionary warfare on a large scale is not contemplated outside of Britain and France?

 

There is a fair amount of amphibious shipping amongst European navies. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphi...s_warfare_ships I make it:

 

1 x LPH

2 x LHD

11 x LPD

4 x LSD

8 x LST/LSL

 

For a total of 26 vessels, for no fair reason not including LSTs operated by Greece and excluding other vessels that I have overlooked either accidentally or deliberately such as RFA Argus or FS Jeanne d'Arc which could act as LPHs.

 

As compared to the US

 

10 x LHD

10 x LPD

12 x LSD

 

For a total of 32 vessels (with between them a disproportionately larger lift capacity than the European 26).

 

I think the UK could (in principle at least) deploy an MEU-type unit, although most of our specialist amphibious troops are currently a bit tied up...

 

AFAIK there is only one Commando in Afghanistan at present, the other two could therefore be available for MEU-type games. If all three and their supporting units were available you could have 3 Commando Brigade to play with, more of an MEB-type unit.

[Ivanhoe]

To follow up on E5M's point about long-term logistics, if brigade or larger sized forces are emplaced, how are large volumes of fuel, beans, and bullets going to get in there? Are roads or rails sufficient?

 

And it is probably obvious that putting a large international force in the area is going to lead to a pretty substantial humanitarian aid task, not only refugee camps but also non-refugees. When the US military goes into the 3rd world, they always seem to end up providing medical and dental services en masse. Health care and nutrition for the locals will be ramped up, no doubt. Which is a good thing, but adds to the log burden.

[Ivanhoe]

The West needs to get over this "Peace Dividend" BS and start ramping up their military manning again. Not so much investing in heavily mechanized forces necessarily, but if we in the West want global peace and stability, we need infantry-heavy forces with good logistical support for out-of-area deployments. That includes good-sized fleets of helos, wheeled APC's, amphibious transportation and logistics ships. While I see Western navies building up their amphib holdings, I don't see Western militaries doing much to increase their ability to put boots on the ground, with adequate logistics support.

 

Along with peace and stability, there's good old disaster relief.

[EchoFiveMike]

Because traditionally the enemy lives next door across a convenient land border and expeditionary warfare on a large scale is not contemplated outside of Britain and France?

 

There is a fair amount of amphibious shipping amongst European navies. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphi...s_warfare_ships I make it:

 

1 x LPH

2 x LHD

11 x LPD

4 x LSD

8 x LST/LSL

 

For a total of 26 vessels, for no fair reason not including LSTs operated by Greece and excluding other vessels that I have overlooked either accidentally or deliberately such as RFA Argus or FS Jeanne d'Arc which could act as LPHs.

 

As compared to the US

 

10 x LHD

10 x LPD

12 x LSD

 

For a total of 32 vessels (with between them a disproportionately larger lift capacity than the European 26).

AFAIK there is only one Commando in Afghanistan at present, the other two could therefore be available for MEU-type games. If all three and their supporting units were available you could have 3 Commando Brigade to play with, more of an MEB-type unit.

 

Perhaps, for one ad hoc surge effort. Given three, you could have a permanent BCT sized rotation. One prepping, one out and one back reconstituting.

 

As for helos in Darfur, it seems that several countries are enjoying the advantages of willful poverty. It's hard to be held accountable for supporting something when you can beg off due to your chosen lack of supporting equipment. I suspect that most news agencies in California have more helicopters to cover traffic reporting than are needed in Darfur. S/F.....Ken M

[swerve]

...There is a fair amount of amphibious shipping amongst European navies. Based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amphi...s_warfare_ships I make it:

 

1 x LPH

2 x LHD

11 x LPD

4 x LSD

8 x LST/LSL

 

For a total of 26 vessels, for no fair reason not including LSTs operated by Greece and excluding other vessels that I have overlooked either accidentally or deliberately such as RFA Argus or FS Jeanne d'Arc which could act as LPHs....

 

There are also 6 militarised ro-ro transports, several civilian ro-ro ships leased by various navies for logistic support, 1 light STOVL carrier refitted for a secondary LPH role & a larger STOVL carrier with built-in secondary amphibious capabilities (ro-ro vehicle deck, etc) to enter service next year, as well as the auxiliaries & training vessels you mention, which could be pressed into service in case of urgent need.

 

NB. Carriers with no specific modifications for amphibious use are not included in the tally above, though some have been used in the LPH role.

[Anixtu]

Perhaps, for one ad hoc surge effort. Given three, you could have a permanent BCT sized rotation. One prepping, one out and one back reconstituting.

 

Which we would use for what, in the context of UK requirements? A standing amphibious ready force somewhere outside of northern European waters?

[Assessor]

Perhaps, for one ad hoc surge effort. Given three, you could have a permanent BCT sized rotation. One prepping, one out and one back reconstituting.

S/F.....Ken M

 

Again, not arguing that it's a good idea, but right now the British Army has trouble filling its existing infantry slots, never mind raising another six battalions - and it's been like that for a LONG old time.

 

Sorry, we might as well wish for the moon

[Ariete!]

Those who call so loudly for intervention in Darfur are also the same crowd who hold up signs saying that the military should have to hold bake sales to buy bombers. The West needs to get over this "Peace Dividend" BS and start ramping up their military manning again. Not so much investing in heavily mechanized forces necessarily, but if we in the West want global peace and stability, we need infantry-heavy forces with good logistical support for out-of-area deployments. That includes good-sized fleets of helos, wheeled APC's, amphibious transportation and logistics ships.

 

Amen!

 

While I see Western navies building up their amphib holdings…

 

But only from really low levels. In another post, someone listed all the amphibious ships available to the ‘EU’. Yet, unlike the US, if someone said today “we need to effect a large amphibious forced entry” I think it would take ages to form even a remotely coherent brigade-sized force. That’s pathetic, IMHO.

 

The EU especially, should be able to buy far more C-17s than they have contracted for.

 

Exactly. Given the wealth of WE and its political ambitions, they should own a few WINGS of those bad boys, not buy them in dribbles of 1 and 2 like the Honduran air force or something.

 

And let's face it, stability is in the West's interests, for a litany of reasons. Everyone needs to up their ante.

 

I’m not 100% sure all the interventions pushed by some are really that useful and necessary (c.f., Darfur) but the point is that talking the talk without being able to walk the walk is seriously messed up and counterproductive.

[Anixtu]

if someone said today “we need to effect a large amphibious forced entry” I think it would take ages to form even a remotely coherent brigade-sized force.

 

You mean a formation like 3 Commando Brigade, 9e Brigade Légère Blindée de Marine or the Spanish Marine Infantry Brigade?