Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Anger at one helicopter per 600 troops

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 17 July 2009
GORDON Brown faced renewed attacks over the conditions facing British troops in Afghanistan yesterday, on the day that a damning report warned a chronic shortage of helicopters was undermining their protection.
In a grilling by MPs, the Prime Minister refused to confirm that he had knocked back requests from defence chiefs for 2,000 extra troops on the ground, while also rebuffing demands to declare how many helicopters are deployed in Afghanistan.

His t
esty exchanges with the Commons liaison select committee came as a report from MPs on the defence committee said that a shortage of helicopters was undermining the protection of troops and their mission in Afghanistan.

Mr Brown insisted that the number of helicopters had risen by 60 per cent, but refused to reveal how many there were.

It is believed that there are about 23 in Afghanistan: 10 Chinooks, five Sea Kings and eight Apaches.

Just 15 of these can carry troops, which means there is one British helicopter for 600 troops out of total troop level of 9,000.

"For the mission that we are doing at the moment, we have the troops on the ground," Mr Brown told the liaison committee. "We are equipped to do the job that we are doing at the moment." He added that MPs should not create the impression that "our troops are not properly equipped".

"We have spent the right sums of money and are prepared to do more to ensure that our troops are properly equipped," he said.

But the defence committee concluded in its report that "the size of the fleet is an issue, and (we] are convinced that the lack of helicopters is having adverse consequences for operations today".

The report added that "operational commanders find they have to use ground transport, when helicopter lift would be preferred, both for the outcome and for the protection of our forces".

Plans to revamp ageing fleets of Pumas and Sea Kings at hefty costs were criticised by the defence committee, which warned that only procurement of new helicopters could meet the operational requirements.

A shortage of helicopters has forced troops in the volatile Helmand province to make more use of road transport, which is at greater risk from improvised explosive devices.

British Armed Forces Foundation director James McCann warned that the equipment situation was endangering morale.

Shadow defence secretary Dr Liam Fox said the report showed troops were being let down as Mr Brown was not willing to fund "Tony Blair's wars".

In the Commons, Foreign Secretary David Miliband also came under pressure about the provision of helicopters.

He told MPs that Britain had access to all Nato helicopters which were pooled between the allies.

"It is normal that the UK has access to other nations' helicopters, just as they have access to our hospitals," he said.

"That is the whole point of being part of a coalition."

MOTHER OF KILLED SOLDIER IN PLEA FOR 0 BETTER EQUIPMENT

THE mother of a soldier killed in Afghanistan made an emotional plea to the government yesterday demanding that troops be given the best equipment.

Speaking at the inquest of her son, Caroline Munday said rather than "feathering their own nest", politicians should concentrate on the needs of serving soldiers.

Trooper James Munday, 21, was killed in a bomb explosion while on patrol in Helmand province in October last year. The soldier, a member of the Household Cavalry's D Squadron, was driving a Jackal vehicle to the north of Garmsir when it hit an improvised explosive device (IED).

Mrs Munday cried at the inquest in Leamington Spa as she spoke of the "hellish" conditions British soldiers are facing in Afghanistan.

"I hope our Government, rather than feathering their own nest, are giving the troops the best equipment they can because they deserve it.

"God bless all our soldiers," she said.

Coroner for Coventry and Warwickshire Sean McGovern recorded that Trooper Munday, from Coleshill, Birmingham, died from a blast wound caused by an explosion.

Two of Trooper Munday's colleagues were also injured in the blast on 15 October.

Mrs Munday said she was "so glad" they had survived, adding she would not wish any mother to have to go through what she has experienced.





Page 1 of 1

 
1

MadJockMacMad,

Edinburgh 17/07/2009 00:53:52
The lack of Helicopters was very much highlighted by General Sir Richard Dannart when he visited the troops and had to use an American helicopter to get around.
When asked why he said there were no British one's available.
If we don't have the resources to move a the head of the army by helicopter in a war zone I would suggest that there are too few.
2

donald,

glasgow 17/07/2009 01:19:21
The latest buzz from British Imperialism is for more Helicopters as opposed to gunboats.

Mayne the Murph will lead on in his tank after taking George Square from the workers.
3

donald,

glasgow 17/07/2009 01:21:23
How many helicopters do the "towelheids" have?
4

pitpony,

musselburgh 17/07/2009 05:16:07
US SPEND ON MEN £1.500 UK SPEND ON MEN £2.50p WAR ON THE CHEAP.BULL HEAD BROON AT HIS BEST!
5

steve 1511,

aberdeen 17/07/2009 06:35:06
brown squirmed at the liason commitee yesterday as again he failed to answer the questions put to him by its members,the man is a liar with the blood of british troops on his hands,even the bbc are saying his figures and replies to the commitee are far off the mark of the truth,the man is a disgrace to the office of prime minister
6

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 07:00:43
If we cant afford to act as an imperilist power then why are we still trying to do so?
If the US wants to continue with its empire building and requires the UK to help then why doesnt the UK government get them to pay. The US military has helicopters to spare why dont we make them give us some as a condition for our support?
It seems to me that this so called special relationship is a wee bitty one sided.
No wonder the UK government is tripping over itself to send that poor autistic hacker over to the US justice system. When the US says jump the UK asks how high boss?
7

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 17/07/2009 07:12:33
The situation in Afghanistan needs to be clarified. There are, apparently troops from 27 countries there but it seems that only those from four (USA, UK, Canada and Demark) are involved regulary in combat operations.

If there is a shortage of equipment for UK forces who are engaged in combat, can this not be alleviated by using equpment from those forces who are not in combat. I always thought that one of the purposes of the NATO alliance was to have the facility for this type of easy transfer.
8

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 17/07/2009 07:20:07
Number 4 hits the nail on the head. You don't hear the towelheads complaining and they usually have little choice being abducted from their families and pressed into service while "our boys" pop onto a bus, usually, all bright eyed and bushy tailed and knowingly sign up for this, they can hardly then legitimitely complain about what a surprise it all is. And it ill behoves Tories to start complaining now about decisions taken by Maggie years ago in the 80's when instead of going for cheap American or French helicopters that did the job the army was given expensive British ones that didn't, expensive and useless both because the chinless wonders of the army, navy and airforce aren't engineers but "philosophy" or "English literature" or "daisy growing under a red pot" "degree'd" individuals who should have no place whatsoever in running these services or in procuring equipment for them. I have worked in procurement with these people and you simply wouldn't believe the sheer waste and stupidity these people are capable of. To this day the M4 corridor is subsidised to the tune of £20billion each and every year by procurement programs that should have been cancelled years ago. Until we get officers in place who don't see things in one dimensional terms we will never get anywhere and that means getting rid of every last public schoolboy toff from their favourite idiot son job creation scheme, the forces. What else can you call it but one dimensional when the head of the army out there tells the Taliban what countermeasures he is demanding? A good commander makes do with what he has on the ground, we don't have good commanders we have an officers mess full of Montgomery's unwilling to move until every last i and t has been dotted and crossed while all over the area the locals with far fewer men make mincemeat of the mugs from the UK sink estates who are the only ones dumb enough to see killing other people in their own countries as some sort of romantic endeavour. There is
9

Proximaking,

Aberdeen 17/07/2009 07:20:57
as some sort of romantic endeavour. There is only one way to lead and that is by example and the UK can hardly complain about people using weapons when we have a standing army and nuclear missiles etc, you can either love God or money, you cannot love both Mr Brown and that means sacking every last man jack in the armed forces and everyone employed making weapons in this country, now THAT would show us he is a leader worthy of support by any right thinking person with an eye to a long term future for this planet and at this stage THAT is all he can do to show us. At the moment the UK is part of the disease.
10

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 17/07/2009 07:37:24
#9/10

Why don,t you take a spin down to Arbroath and tell the guys in the wardroom at Condor that they are a bunch of "chinless wonders" or "daisy growing under a red pot" "degree'd" individuals" and see how you get on. You sound very bitter did you per chance fail RCB or AIB.
11

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 07:54:55
8

Its as clear as day to most folk Ugly we dont belong there we're not wanted there, we're doing no good there, we have no moral purpose for being there, we are suffering physically economically and morally for being there. Of course a fake like you doesnt really care about the issues when your only job is to stir the threads eh?
12

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 07:56:08
11

If all politicians are the same why do you take sides in political debate?
13

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 17/07/2009 08:04:52
#13

How have I taken any sides with my post here?
14

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:15:50
14

How have you not? you cant enter a debate without taking sides? even if you switch them between posts. But having your name implies that you dont care about sides because they are all the same to you. Youre obviously an idiot.
I especially love it when you post as a royalist left wing radical calling yourself Grahamski. Taking sides against the only mainstream left wing party in the UK Thats is an absolute classic.
Its amazing how many times you trolls forget youre supposed to be pretending to be personas with personal agendas.
15

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 17/07/2009 08:20:04
#15

You really are quite deluded. I only ever post under one moniker. I actually work for a living and do not have time to post all day every day like some people seem to. A singular dissgust at Politicians in general is not mutually exclusive from having an opinion on matters.
16

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:20:20
14

With a name like Ugly George for example you can post whatever you like take whatever side in the debate you want without looking like a complete tool. Another fine example is when you use "truly English" and post about the joys of being truly British.
You phuqqing people are clueless.
17

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:22:13
16

Whatever. The advise is free take it or leave it.
18

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 17/07/2009 08:29:28
#18

You are weird. How can you accost somebody who posts an opinion and accuse them of being a schizo who posts different things under different identities. Somebody you have never met and know nothing about, yet you feel completely free to make damming acusations and swear at them. If you did that on the street people would report you.
19

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:33:57
19

Weird is a relative term on these threads.
20

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 17/07/2009 08:35:06
Brown being an inveterate liar or distorter of the truth just could not answer a straight question at yesterday's liaison committee, leading the chairman to ovserve with some exasperation (and I parphrase)about him "answering a question or not answering the question", which I suppose is about the nearest he can go to saying "look you're lying through your teeth just give me a straight answer".

Here's one answer to the helicopter situation. If troops have increase by threefold since the inception of the Afghan confilct and helicopters have gone up by 60% in my book we are 1.4 / 3 x 100% short of helicopters if the original ratio was about right. Thiat;s 47% short to you and me. The ones that are there are being pushed 13% harder than they were originally which has implications for actual availability due to breakdown and lack of maintenance. Inevitably in situations like that spare parts get to be at a premium so the real question for Broon is how many actually aerviceable helicopters are operatin in Afghanistan? And does he think it is OK to operate at 47% under-strength assuming the ones that are there are serviceable?

The problem is when he selectively uses ratios and stats he fails to give any meaningful description of the situation on the ground. This is of course apart from questions about why we are there at all. No doubt if he pulled troops out that would upset O'Bampot and that would never do would it as the stardust would be from that point strictly rationed!

With Brown it's about a) looking good personally and being the big man on the world stage. b) being PM x) votes. If the ducks line up in this context he's fine. If a real-world concern comes up which doesn't fit it's down at the bottom of priorities. You will notie as the Afghan conflict becomes increasingly strained and many further troop deaths and casualties appear on the news this will affect a) and c) at least and he will be onthe phone like a scalded cat to get the troops equipped prop
21

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 17/07/2009 08:37:20
...properly. Except in helicopter terms it is probably now too late to make a material difference.
22

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:40:04
21

Good post youre obviously not a fake.
23

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 08:44:54
22

Mind you the Russians werent short of helicopters and it didnt do them any good. The fact remains we are in an unwinnable war at the whim of our politicians who are at the whim of unknown influences. It is a sad sickening situation.
24

Upbeat,

17/07/2009 09:57:48
Conventional warfare, with the occupation of ground , and the domination of airspace will never subdue rebels in Afganistan. The Russians found this out, and they had access to huge fleets of helicopters, and hundreds of thousands of troops.

The Russian tactic was to deny the use of land to all, by the indescriminate " sowing" of huge tracts of the countries valleys with landmines and anti personnel devices. While the British press may claim that a Taliban IED has caused death to Nato forces, the truth is that in some parts of Afganistan the legacy of russian involvement will kill and maim for generations.

Whether the British and other NATO forces have access to enough helicopters or not, this conflict will only end when all sides accept that neither can dislodge the other, and come to terms.

At present the very best that can be done is to disrupt the supply routes that are necessary for the Taliban to continue the fight. They then might withdraw from the more populated areas and permit stability to return. Meantime the fact that Afganistan can no longer harbour international terrorist training camps- as happened in the 1990's -is the greatest justification for all that is being done in our name there.
25

Derick fae Yell,

The Holiday Hoose 17/07/2009 10:05:51
Question:

how much opium/heroin was produced from Afghanistan when the Taliban (a notorious bunch of straightlaces) were in charge?

How much opium/heroin is now being produced from Afghanistan now that we are supposed to be in charge?

Just asking.


26

Prudence,

17/07/2009 10:21:49
Two of the main poltical parties in the forthcoming August election in Afghanistan are
Hamid Karzai en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karzai
Dr Abdullah Abdullah www.drabdullah.af
27

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 10:30:28
27

Oh god I hope they dont use the US or UK models of election or all of this death and killing will have been for nothing. Lets hope they find a better model one which is democratic for example.
I reckon that gives them 2 chances Fat and Nane.
28

Jimmy Le Pie,

17/07/2009 10:37:50
And yet another soldier dies while Comrade Broon lies like a cheap watch.

Absolutely shocking!
29

,

17/07/2009 11:10:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 11:24:38
30

Oh hello Peev. Thread too slow for you?
31

Marian,

17/07/2009 11:42:24
Brown's dissembling at the Westmonster liaison committee yesterday should have led to his impeachment but our spinelss MP's let him away with it.
32

Luigiana,

Aberdeen 17/07/2009 12:07:16
I can't see the reason for having Gordon Brown before the committee yesterday. He refused to answer a single question, and deliberately used his time up spewing out his usual guff.

A complete waste of time.

Effective politicians at least manage to create the impression that they answer difficult questions. Brown just looks evasive all the time.

33

Jimmy Le Pie,

17/07/2009 12:36:49
Some good news from the Telegraph. Looks like Comrade Broon has so impoverished the country that the replacement for Trident has been put on hold!!

No doubt Jacqui Baillie will be haranging Comrade Broon to save the 20,000+ jobs she claims will go if the SNP government refuse to grant planning permission!!!


"Gordon Brown has deferred the design work for replacing Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent until after the next election, it emerged yesterday"
34

mr broon,

Edinburgh 17/07/2009 12:47:37
During the 9 year occupation of Afghanistan, the former Soviet Union sustained over 45,000 casualties.

The Soviets claimed that, of this total, 15,537 were killed in action, although that figure is disputed by military experts.

Desertion was rife in the Soviet forces.

In 9 years, 620,000 Soviet forces served in Afghanistan.

The annual deployment totalled 115,000 servicemen and 21,000 "civilians".

The Soviets had hundreds of combat aircraft and strike helicopters in support of ground forces, along with 115 massive transport helicopters, many of which were shot down by the Mujahidin, or involved in air crashes because of poor maintenance.

Inordinate amounts of the Soviet defence budget were spent on the war in Afghanistan to little effect.

During the hurried withdrawal, the Soviets abandoned munitions, heavy armour, and damaged helicopters.

Source: Jane's Defence Weekly.
35

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 17/07/2009 12:59:02
17 The saltire
"With a name like Ugly George for example you can post whatever you like take whatever side in the debate you want"

Is that not the essence of free speech and democracy whether or not one is cosmeticaly challenged?
36

JCA REID,

Annan 17/07/2009 13:34:20
On last night's "Question Time" Mr. Dimbleby cited these figure, ".....The Americans have 1 helicopter per 33men & we have 1 per 300."

With Brown spouting off so-called "increases" in percentages, e.g 43% more here & 62% here etc. all that is really happening is he is hiding facts. Maybe 3 or 4 more helicopters have been added to the "ORBAT", but also make the very few there do a couple of extra flights a day - whether for REAL operational purposes, or a "jolly", it doesn't matter - this is where Brown's increases are actually coming from.

More helicopters are needed but to win ALL wars you have got to have boots on the actual ground! Helicopters can deploy squads as picquets around villages & then troops with engineers can move through villages, defuse the IED's, remove casualties far quicker than the poor lads are now & win this hearts & minds of the populace.
37

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 14:10:08
36

you could very well be right Ugly mind you on these threads I doubt anybody cares if youre cosmetically challanged or not. Its the fact that youre trying to argue while being intellectually challenged as well.
Mind you its inspiring in a way that somebody with so many obvious defects still soldiers on.
38

Prudence,

17/07/2009 14:38:38
28
Its a presidential election.
39

The Saltire,

17/07/2009 14:54:15
39

Ah so the idea of democracy didnt take then? so we have all of this death and destruction based on the lie that we're supposed to be bringing democracy to the godless? and all along the idea was to change out one despotic regime for another. No changes there then.
40

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 17/07/2009 15:47:07
Why believe a word Brown says about figures and statistics/ He got it all wrong when Chancellor and as Prime Minister declares there will be "a 0% rise in capital spending" He obviously knows nothing about anything! Interesting to note the lack of comments from the "dumb down" brigade of Labour/New Labour acolytes. Have they seen the truth is a word they fail to understand? Brown certainly doesn't. What a pair! Bliar Blair and now Brown! Twiddle Dum and Twiddle Dee!
41

Il Penseroso,

Inverurie 17/07/2009 15:49:15
Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee had sense!
42

Moder8,

EDINBURGH 17/07/2009 17:04:45
"The Ministry of Defence's programme to make airworthy the eight Chinook Mk3 helicopters which it acquired in 2001 for special operations work has been a gold standard c**k-up" - June 4th 2008

Are they ready yet or have they been written off?
43

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 17/07/2009 22:05:46
38 Saltire
Whatever my limitations or defects might be, at least (unlike yourself) I do not have to resort to personal abuse and insults as a substitute for proper discussion and debate.

It would appear that, like so many others on these threads, you have adoptedd the tactic of insulting the debater rather than answering the debater's points. Is this not the epitome of intellectual poverty? Note - a question - not an insult.

In such circumstances many might conclude that it is the height of irony if not hypocrisy for you to attempt to point out defects in others.

44

scotnotbrit,

chameleon 18/07/2009 00:08:28
even i can see where the brits are getting it wrong .it'll never take off , with all them sodgers on it , i mean six hundred , one helicopter ? individual hot air balloons , h m m m .....that might work , cheap and freely available
45

Panda123,

18/07/2009 19:16:37
Re 43 Cost 4.2 million each in 2001 computer problems prevented night and low level flying upgrades to onboard IT systems continue forst due to enter service late 2009 rest end of 2010 total cost for 8 chinooks to date exceeds 400 million puonds another labour c*ck up.

just like Brown selling all our gold reserves at $600 an ounce discount on todays prices this co*k up alone cost us all 4 billion pounds Jock Stirrups public statement yesterday proves Brown has no clue he lied to the country 2 days ago on television how and why is he still in power can he not be impeached for dishonest treason and war crimes its a disgrace

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.