Forum: F-16 News

Quote:

This is not a good topic where we can have humor.

Relax. You're among many military veterans on this forum who have seen combat. Grim humor is sometimes a way of coping.

Quote:

Going out of propaganda war and coming back to infantry tactics and lesson learned, NATO should revise the airborne cavarly tactics. This high rate of helicopter casualies were accetable in Vietnam War, not today. I think they should not pack an H-47 or H-53 like that and probably these kind of bigger helicopters should be kept out of the battlefield. Nothing bigger than a Blak Hawk should fly under fire.

Here's the problem with Blackhawks. They lack the speed (when compared to the Chinook) and high altitude capability for mountain top insertions and extractions. Some of these shortcomings are supposed to be rectified with the new MH-60M which has the YT706 in it producing 2600 SHP. However, only the 160th SOAR is getting these. Performing air assault missions with the big birds should be avoided if you ask me. Blackhawks or similar sized aircraft allow for troop dispersion which is a key fundamental in tactical movements whether it be by foot, wheeled vehicle, or aircraft. During this mission, I would like to know where the Apaches were at as I believe they could've kept this from happening. We sure could use more AC-130 gunships.

F-16.net Sponsor

Marco - while it seems you are somehow upset about this retaliatory strike and upset at any resulting morale boost which might have been achieved, I'm sure that is not the intent you were wanting to express here. Regardless of the politics, the tactics employed, equipment used, etc and view of the war in general, I guess it should be clear by now that special ops around the world get special respect that is warranted to them for their service. Also should be clear that in warfare, psyops is a very key element of the mission. Nothing wrong with understanding why it was so critical to execute this retaliatory strike in timely fashion.

But many would agree, it's too bad that this is a discussion piece in public and is probably best to keep any special operation missions and losses classified in the first place, imho.

geogen wrote:

Marco - while it seems you are somehow upset about this retaliatory strike and upset at any resulting morale boost which might have been achieved, I'm sure that is not the intent you were wanting to express here. Regardless of the politics, the tactics employed, equipment used, etc and view of the war in general, I guess it should be clear by now that special ops around the world get special respect that is warranted to them for their service. Also should be clear that in warfare, psyops is a very key element of the mission. Nothing wrong with understanding why it was so critical to execute this retaliatory strike in timely fashion.

But many would agree, it's too bad that this is a discussion piece in public and is probably best to keep any special operation missions and losses classified in the first place, imho.

No, I am really not a Taliban supporter. I just cannot trust such an action. How can they know the shooter? I even guess that there were many shooters... It's like saying you killed a soldier, a specific soldier, in a war. How can you do that SPECIFICALLY? Don't tell me the UAV or mega-satellite bulls*t since the Afghan situation is under anyone's eyes. If NATO was able to track down any single armed Afghan insurgent, the talibans were not existing anytmore since a while.
This is the reason, this is just propaganda war and this is all fine, since it is just another aspect of war.
The point that I am trying to make is that while making propaganda war , NATO has not to trust it itself! I hope that they don’t think like “anyway, now the people think the shooter was killed, they think the bad guy is not around anymore so the problem is solved and the battle finally was won”.
NO! it was lost! It was a shameful defeat. I hope they completely revise their assault tactics and stop packing +30 elite soldier in a big chopper heading for a combat zone.

I wonder if a Quick Kill/ARENA anti-RPG system could be mounted on a helo. That would save a lot of lives. Anyways, two thumbs up to the Viper driver who bagged those guys! Cool

Quote:

I wonder if a Quick Kill/ARENA anti-RPG system could be mounted on a helo. That would save a lot of lives. Anyways, two thumbs up to the Viper driver who bagged those guys! Cool

The Army is about to introduce HALTT (Helicopter Alert Threat Termination) into Afghanistan. As far as I can tell, it's a series of acoustic sensors that can locate the point of origin for gunfire. Systems like these have been used in high crime areas with a high degree of accuracy.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=60458

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-G5LYgWI2o

Forum: F-16 News

USAF F-16 nails Taliban insurgents who shot down a CH-47