There may not be enough Chinook’s in Afganistan but you can see plenty at the Air Show in Fairford this weekend

 

Full credit to John Laity who brilliantly raised this point in the comments thread of TBB’s previous blog.  I will reproduce again here for this article:

______________________________________________________________

John Laity comment:

This weekend is the Royal Air Tattoo at Fairford.

I live in the MATZ for Fairford and have been watching aircraft arrive at low level all day. It is great as we have a 1000 ft cloud base which means you can waive at the pilots ;0)

Today I have seen:
4 Medium Helicopters kitted our for radar and anti-submarine
2 Medium Helicopters kitted out for anti-ship & Anti-submarine
2 Attack Helecopters (to be fair possibly low level training)
4 Medium Attack Helicopters (Italian I think)
2 F15 Eagles

All in the space of 20 minutes.

What this must mean is that the 8 nm airspace between Fairford and Lyneham (containing Wootton Basset) is now better protected than our troops in action. Small comfort for those arriving back I am sure…

Now I am NOT critiquing the airshow or the great job the dedicated display pilots will do this weekend. However, I would bet all the money in the world, that if you asked any one of them, they would deploy tomorrow to protect our troops on the ground.

It is CRIMINAL not to provide EVERY resource we have at our disposal to protect the lives of our troops on the ground. We must stop trashing money on banks and spend on urgent equipment. This in turn safeguards UK Jobs and prosperity..I am not a huge fan of Margaret Thatcher, but she went so far as to deploy the QE2 in the Falklands!

Save troops lives, not greedy bankers!

______________________________________________________________

Thanks John.  I have looked into this further and it is fascinating to see the full list of British aircraft participating at this show.  Please note this is all British aircraft.  There are hundreds more from across the world.

Whilst some may criticise this article, it does draw a point quite nicely that some of these helicopters could be being equipped for service for our troops?

Take a look at the show, it does look awesome and the Saturday is sold out.  In many ways it is a great way to show your support for the troops.  http://www.airtattoo.com/airshow

British aircraft at the Fairford Air Show.  Yes there are Chinooks, Apache, Merlin, Lynx, Sea King’s….more helicopters than in Afghanistan !!!!

NB  F=Flying, S-Static, SP=Support, V=Visitor

AIRCRAFT	SQUADRON	THEME
Army Air Corps
Apache AH1	TBC	NATO 60th
Apache AH1 and Lynx AH7	The Blue Eagles	NATO 60th
Defender AL1	651 Squadron	NATO 60th
Islander AL1	1 Flt, 5 Regt	NATO 60th
Lynx AH7	672 Sqn, 9 Regt	NATO 60th
Lynx AH9	672 Sqn, 9 Regt	NATO 60th
QinetiQ
Sea King Mk4 X	QinetiQ	Fly Navy 100
Royal Air Force
A109E Power	32 (TR) Squadron	NATO 60th
C-17A Globemaster III	99 Squadron	NATO 60th
C-17A Globemaster III	99 Squadron	NATO 60th
Chinook HC2	27 Squadron	NATO 60th
Chinook HC2	27 Squadron	NATO 60th
Dominie T1	55 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
E-3D Sentry AEW1	8 Squadron	NATO 60th
Griffin HT1	60 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Grob Viking (x2)	621 VGS	NATO 60th
Harrier GR7/9	TBC	NATO 60th
Hawk T1	208 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Hawk T1 (x11)	The Red Arrows	NATO 60th
Hawk T1 (x2)	208 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Hawk T2	19 Squadron	NATO 60th
Hurricane IIC	BBMF	NATO 60th
King Air B200	45 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
King Air B200	45 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Lancaster B1	BBMF	NATO 60th
Merlin HC3	28 (AC) Squadron	NATO 60th
Merlin HC3A	78 Squadron	NATO 60th
Nimrod MRA2	42 (R) Squadron	Sea Search 09
Puma HC1	33 Squadron	NATO 60th
Puma HC1	230 Squadron	NATO 60th
Sea King HAR3	202 Squadron	NATO 60th
Sea King HAR3	202 Squadron	Sea Search 09
Sentinel R1	5 (AC) Squadron	NATO 60th
Spitfire	BBMF	NATO 60th
Squirrel HT1	60 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Squirrel HT1 (x2)	DHFS
Tornado F3	111 Squadron	NATO 60th
Tornado GR4	XIII Squadron	NATO 60th
Tristar	216 Squadron	NATO 60th
Tucano T.1 (x2)	207 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
Typhoon (x2)	29 (R) Squadron	NATO 60th
VC10 C1K	101 Squadron	NATO 60th
VC-10 C1K	101 Squadron	NATO 60th
Vigilant (x4)	612 VGS	NATO 60th
Viking T1 (x2)	621 VGS
Royal Navy
Chipmunk	RNHF	Fly Navy 100
Falcon 20 (x2) and Hawk T1 (x4)	The Black Sea Hawks	Fly Navy 100
Harrier GR7/9	NSW	Fly Navy 100
Harrier GR7/9 (x3)	NSW	Fly Navy 100
Hawk T1 (x2)	NFSF (FW)	Fly Navy 100
Jetstream T2	750 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Jetstream T2 (x4)	750 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Lynx	815 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Lynx AH7	847 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Lynx HAS3/HMA8 (x2)	The Black Cats	Fly Navy 100
Lynx HAS3/HMA8 (x4)	various	Fly Navy 100
Merlin HM1	TBC	Fly Navy 100
Merlin HM1	814 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Merlin HM1 (x4)	various	Fly Navy 100
Sea King ASac7 (x2) & HU5 (x2)	various	Fly Navy 100
Sea King HAS2	Sea King IPT	Fly Navy 100
Sea King HAS6	846 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Sea King HC4	845 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Sea King HC4/HAS6 (x4)	CHF	Fly Navy 100
Sea King HUS5 (SAR)	771 NAS	Fly Navy 100
Squirrel HT1 (x2) & Griffin HT1 (x2)	DHFS	Fly Navy 100
T67M Firefly (x4)	703 NAS	Fly Navy 100
“Lads, stay low to the ground, helicopters are coming, they have to finish an air show first”!!

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

4 Responses

• Ole Blue Eyes

  This is a scandal.

  Who will raise this issue?

  It must get air time

• John Laity

  I feel I need to justify some missed sarcasm…I KNOW that Fairford is the International Air Tattoo (IAT)…It is just with most of the Royal Airforce there I felt it should be renamed ;0)

  Being very serious, the debate needs to be widened. It is not just about helicopters, it is about resources and state commitment. When the Queen can deploy her Grandson, we know it is not about resolve!

  As a country we should have a War Effort by now, underpinned by a War Act (More Legislation, even Labour MPs should like that!). We are after all “at war with terror”!

  Here is an example of what could be done immediately:

  In Birmingham 800 LDV workers are directly out of work. In turn about 3000 workers face uncertainty within the LDV supply chain. The state could take compulsory ownership of the LDV assets under a War Act. In turn, the workers could be re-employed and placed under the management of the Army. They could take on urgent refitting and repair work on Army Transport vehicles.

  I understand that a rescue package was tabled at £5 million? (Peanuts compared with the cost of Trident).

  LDV could make under license parts for 4 x 4 Ridgebacks and up armor Snatch Landrovers. All the while LDV could continue to develop its Maxus Electric Van, creating jobs for the future.

  The debate on resourcing the War in Afghanistan is about Resources not Strategy. Our commanding officers can only utilise the resources we provide them. Which brings me back to the IAT…The IAT demonstrates we have equipment in a ready state that can be deployed. AND as the LDV example above shows, we have plenty of redundant resources that could also be utilised by the state to make new equipment or refit stuff that is unserviceable for Afganistan.

  So the big questions are:
  Where is the leadership from our Government to put all this right?
  What price have we had placed on the lives of our troops? i.e. What spending restrictions are in place for Afghanistan and divide these by the number of troops deployed.

  In closing, everyone should try and visit IAT to show support for our service personnel. They embody courage, sacrifice and valor and it is a good way for individuals to show they care.

  If visitors get the chance they should also try and join the ordinary people of Wiltshire and Gloucestershire in Wootten Basset to understand the real cost of getting our resourcing policy wrong.

  But please take the bus, as car parking in Basset is rubbish ;0)

• John Laity

  Apologies for my terrible rant driven spelling.

  Is the full gravity of the Resource Situation in Afganistan is really understood?

  When the Soviets invaded Afganistan in 1979, the initial Soviet force was around 1,800 tanks, 80,000 soldiers and 2,000 AFVs. In the second week alone, Soviet aircraft had made a total of 4,000 flights into Kabul.

  Between December 25, 1979 and February 15, 1989, a total of 620,000 soldiers served with the forces in Afghanistan (though there were only 80,000-104,000 serving at one time): 525,000 in the Army, 90,000 with border troops and other KGB sub-units, 5,000 in independent formations of MVD Internal Troops, and police forces. A further 21,000 personnel were with the Soviet troop contingent over the same period doing various white collar and blue collar jobs.

  The total irrecoverable personnel losses of the Soviet Armed Forces, frontier, and internal security troops came to 14,453. Soviet Army formations, units, and HQ elements lost 13,833, KGB sub-units lost 572, MVD formations lost 28, and other ministries and departments lost 20 men. During this period 417 servicemen were missing in action or taken prisoner; 119 of these were later freed, of whom 97 returned to the USSR and 22 went to other countries.

  There were 469,685 sick and wounded, of whom 53,753 or 11.44 percent, were wounded, injured, or sustained concussion and 415,932 (88.56 percent) fell sick. A high proportion of casualties were those who fell ill. This was because of local climatic and sanitary conditions, which were such that acute infections spread rapidly among the troops. There were 115,308 cases of infectious hepatitis, 31,080 oftyphoid fever, and 140,665 of other diseases. Of the 11,654 who were discharged from the army after being wounded, maimed, or contracting serious diseases, 92 percent, or 10,751 men, were left disabled.

  After the war ended, the Soviet Union published figures of dead Soviet soldiers: the total was 13,836 men, on average, and 1,537 men a year. According to updated figures, the Soviet army lost 14,427, the KGB lost 576, with 28 people dead and missing.

  Material losses were as follows:
  118 aircraft
  333 helicopters
  147 tanks
  1,314 IFV/APCs
  433 artillery guns and mortars
  1,138 radio sets and command vehicles
  510 engineering vehicles
  11,369 trucks and petrol tankers
  The collateral damage in Afghanistan was worse.
  Over 1 million Afghans were killed. 5 million Afghans fled to Pakistan and Iran, 1/3 of the prewar population of the country. Another 2 million Afghans were displaced within the country. In the 1980s, one out of two refugees in the world was an Afghan.
  Along with fatalities were 1.2 million Afghans disabled (mujahideen, government soldiers and noncombatants) and 3 million maimed or wounded (primarily noncombatants).

  So lets see if I have this right…We are providing security across the same region with a small mobile force that will win hearts and minds. Yet we seem to be skimping on mobility equipment?

  I am positive that we are doing a fantastic job on the ground!

  But do we have enough of the right resources deployed?

• Ian

  I don’t mean to be critical, but that list doesn’t reflect what’s needed in Afghanistan. For example, Lynx and Puma helicopters aren’t much use in the Afghan climate. Naval Merlins aren’t troop carriers, they’re anti-submarine birds, so they’d be handy against that fearsome well-known Taliban Sub Force that’s threatening our boys.

  I admit that we could use the Chinooks and Apaches out there, but I bet they’re the training aircraft needed to keep aircrew skills up. I doubt being parked up somewhere different for three nights will critically impact training.

  I’m sure the Globemasters could be shipping stuff to and from theatre, but if they’re needed they won’t be there.

  As for damn near all the rest- they either aren’t needed out there or aren’t capable of being used there.

  I don’t object to people making a fuss about critical equipment shortages, but complaining about an airshow is petty. Many in the Forces get weekends off when they’re not deployed or on exercise, so aircraft would be sat idle… just on a different base.

Leave a Reply