PDA

View Full Version : A reason for choper downs?


chulo_allen
03-19-2007, 01:02 PM
Mobile Helicopter Killers Found and Destroyed in Iraq
March 19, 2007: American troops in Iraq figured out how Iraqi terrorists had managed to ambush American helicopters with heavy machine-guns and get away with it. The Iraqis had used trucks with the machine-gun mounted in the back, and a tarp over metal supports (a common feature of military trucks) to conceal the weapon. The tarp was rigged so it could be quickly pulled aside, as well as the metal supports for the tarp. This enabled the heavy machine-gun to immediately open fire. There were four of these trucks, and they roamed around areas that American helicopters were operating above. One of these trucks was spotted, with its machine-gun revealed, by a UAV, after informants indicated that this was probably the weapon responsible. U.S. intelligence then analyzed video and other data they had, and put more UAVs over areas believed frequented by the trucks. On the ground, intelligence operatives began beating the bushes for information on these mobile flak traps. Soon the four trucks were identified and, one by one, destroyed with smart bombs.

Vehicles like this are particularly popular in Africa, where they are called "technicals" (and the heavy machine-guns are used mainly against ground targets.) The Iraqi innovation was the hide the machine-gun, until it had to be used against a passing helicopter. The Iraqis came up with this concept because, in the past, when heavy machine-guns were used against aircraft, U.S. aircraft and ground troops were usually all over the area before the 14.5mm heavy machine-gun could be moved or hidden. These machine-guns weigh several hundred pounds, and even when disassembled, the lightest component weighs 176 pounds. It took four years for an Iraqi to realize that heavy machine-gun would only work against the American helicopters if the weapons were mobile, and not easily identified. But that will be difficult now, as the Americans know what to look for, and the word is out in Sunni Arab areas (where the Iraqi "technicals" operated, so reduce the chances of an informer turning them in), that there is a reward for anyone providing information on additional systems like this.

Eight helicopters have crashed in Iraq since January, most from heavy (14.5mm) machine-gun fire. In some of those cases, the hostile fire appeared to be carefully planned. That is, multiple machine-guns, including at least one heavy machine-gun were placed along a route used by helicopters, and fired in a coordinated matter. This tactic is called "flak trap," and dates back to World War II (or earlier). This tactic works if you can use surprise, and the concealed, truck mounted, heavy machine-guns did that.

The enemy has also been using portable surface-to-air missiles since 2003, including more modern models, like the SA-16 (which is similar to the American Stinger.) American helicopters are equipped with missile detection and defense (flare dispensers) equipment. Thus the most dangerous anti-aircraft weapon is the machine-gun. However, despite the recent losses, aircraft losses to ground fire have been declining every year, since 2003, mainly because of good defensive tactics. Moreover, the most vulnerable aircraft, helicopters, have been spending more time in the air. In 2005, U.S. Army aircraft (mainly helicopters) flew 240,000 hours over Iraq. That increased to 334,000 hours last year, and is expected to go to 400,000 hours in 2007. The more time helicopters are in the air, the more opportunities someone has to shoot at them.

Since 2003, the United States has lost 60 helicopters in Iraq. Most of them belonged to the U.S. Army, the rest were marine or civilian (mainly security contractors.) In the last year, helicopters were fired on about a hundred times a month, and about 17 percent of the time, the helicopters were hit. In Vietnam (1966-71), 2,076 helicopters were lost to enemy fire (and 2,566 to non-combat losses). In Vietnam, helicopters flew 36 million sorties (over 20 million flight hours). In Vietnam, helicopters were about twice as likely to get brought down by enemy fire. As in Iraq, the main weapons doing this were machine-guns. Today's helicopters are more robust, partly because of Vietnam experience, and are more likely to stay in the air when hit, and land, rather than crash.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htada/articles/20070319.aspx

lt tahoe
03-19-2007, 02:49 PM
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=107723

Doh! RMM by hours... :)

More info here, though. That is a lot of airtime...400k hours? Damn.

bluffcove
03-19-2007, 07:31 PM
getting shot?

Mastermind
03-20-2007, 10:49 AM
I know Iraq is a big place and I also know resources are limited. But, as an American tax payer, I watch how much we are spending in that "place'...I want to know why the "surveillance" pictures were not studied like crazy when the first choppers went down..why did it take this many destroyed helicopters and dead service people to find this out. I mean, it should not take someone who stayed at a "Holiday Inn Express last night" to figure it out. These heavy weapons are not light, their fire is very exposing, with flame, smoke and dust kicked up just by the muzzel blasts....


I'm probably being way too critical...but, man, this kind of stuff frosts me considering the billions spent on "Buck Rodgers" technology...what the hell is going on?
MM

chulo_allen
03-20-2007, 11:52 AM
I know Iraq is a big place and I also know resources are limited. But, as an American tax payer, I watch how much we are spending in that "place'...I want to know why the "surveillance" pictures were not studied like crazy when the first choppers went down..why did it take this many destroyed helicopters and dead service people to find this out. I mean, it should not take someone who stayed at a "Holiday Inn Express last night" to figure it out. These heavy weapons are not light, their fire is very exposing, with flame, smoke and dust kicked up just by the muzzel blasts....


I'm probably being way too critical...but, man, this kind of stuff frosts me considering the billions spent on "Buck Rodgers" technology...what the hell is going on?
MM
because people do their best to survive and fight another day, so they hid and try to cover their tracks, and im sure some have done it well... It is survival of the fittest and most of the dumb ones have been killed, and the ones that are now fighting are learning each day, it may have been dumb luck they have survived this long, but im sure they are gettin more and more skilled at what they do every day. A heavy machine gun on a truck can be hidden quite easly

hist2004
03-20-2007, 11:55 AM
I'm probably being way too critical...


No your not, with Global Hawk & Predator the area’s involved in the helicopter shoot down’s
should have rec’d top priority…given the catastrophic losses and images from these helo’s going
down.

Hist2004

Argyll
03-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Happens a lot unfortunately( failure to utilise assets properly)

Royal
03-20-2007, 03:06 PM
Too much intelligence and not enough analysts. An age old story which gets worse by the day.

90% of actionable intelligence is from open sources (like this) - it's having the time to trawl for it.

Sith
03-20-2007, 04:16 PM
I'm probably being way too critical...but, man, this kind of stuff frosts me considering the billions spent on "Buck Rodgers" technology...what the hell is going on?
MM

No you are not being too critical, but you do have to keep a few things in mind.

First off is that during wartime one helicopter being shot down is not going to warrant a major investigation. It’s the old “such is war” mentality. This may even extend to two or three helicopters. It is only when a pattern starts to develop that the powers that be take notice and launch more intensive efforts.

Secondly is the technical mindset. Sure we have lots of “Buck Rodgers” technology, and it is working well. Missiles have been rendered largely ineffective and crash landings are more survivable. The problem is that when people get too caught up in “high tech” they tend to lose sight of “low tech” problems. When this happens, things like these flack traps become effective again.

Now to (sort of) kill my second point. There really is not a good technical solution for countering a machine gun trap such as this, as it is a tactic. People in war are always trying to think of ways to out do each other, and sometimes they discover simple tactics that are very effective. Not to sound cold but “such is war.” Tactics can be enhanced greatly by technology but when it comes down to it tactics have to be countered with tactics, and this is exactly how they neutralized this threat. If not then we could win the war by remote control.

So, no you are not being too critical. As a general mindset people need to be critical, as to stay on top of things. We always have to be thinking about how we can do things better, and when lives are lost it must be unacceptable. Otherwise we would not learn from them.

Thanks,
Sith

Herrmannek
03-20-2007, 04:48 PM
Too much intelligence and not enough analysts. An age old story which gets worse by the day.

90% of actionable intelligence is from open sources (like this) - it's having the time to trawl for it.

Loosing half day reading this forum, Where I have to send application and cv :)

justagoodolboy
03-23-2007, 06:21 PM
I always attributed the downings to gravity.