# Wire Svc:  NATO Leasing 20+ Choppers for AFG



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2007)

Shared in accordance with the "fair dealing" provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act.

*NATO to Lease 20 Helicopters to Fill Afghan Shortfall*
James G. Neuger, Bloomberg wire service, 22 Oct 07
Article link

NATO will lease about 20 transport helicopters to fill a gap in the Afghanistan mission and relieve an overstretched U.S. unit, alliance officials said.

Negotiations over a leasing contract are in the final stages, three NATO officials told reporters under condition of anonymity today. The non-combat helicopters would be used to shuttle equipment and ammunition around the Afghan battlefields.

The leasing arrangement would be unusual for the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, reflecting the strain on allied armed forces as the Afghan war heads into the seventh year with the radical Taliban movement far from vanquished.

``Pressures on troop numbers in all of our nations are exceptionally high,'' John Colston, NATO assistant secretary general for defense policy and planning, said at a news conference in Brussels today.

NATO's 41,000 troops are battling to hold ground seized from the Taliban in the south and east of Afghanistan, with Canada and the Netherlands weighing full or partial pullouts unless other allies send more combat troops.

Transport Shortage

Faced with the transport shortage, the U.S. in June extended the deployment of a helicopter unit in Kandahar until the end of 2007 and insisted that NATO plug the holes by then. The leasing pact would free the U.S. helicopters for combat, troop transport and the ferrying of wounded soldiers.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates today criticized allies for failing to make good on commitments for Afghanistan and said he will increase the pressure at a meeting of NATO defense ministers in Noordwijk, Netherlands, on Oct. 24 and 25.

``I am not satisfied that an alliance whose members have over 2 million soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen cannot find the modest additional resources that have been committed for Afghanistan,'' Gates said in Kiev today, the Associated Press reported.

The U.S. drove the Taliban from power a month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. As the military turned its attention to Iraq, the U.S. has relied on equally hard-pressed NATO allies to consolidate gains in Afghanistan.

Britain, Canada

The U.S., Britain, Canada and the Netherlands are doing the bulk of the combat in the hard-fought south and east of Afghanistan, while Germany, France, Spain and Italy restrict their troops to quieter sectors.

NATO is trying to hand more of the battle to the Afghan army, now halfway to a goal of 70,000 troops. Gates will push allies to send more instructors to train Afghan recruits. Currently NATO has fielded only about 20 army-training teams, short of a goal of 46.

Defense ministers will focus on ``how best to support Afghan capacity,'' Colston said.

_To contact the reporter on this story: James G. Neuger in Brussels at jneuger@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: October 22, 2007 12:09 EDT_


----------



## Meridian (22 Oct 2007)

Any sources as to where NATO gets the funding for this?  I mean, do all NATO members essentially split the cost, or?


----------



## TCBF (22 Oct 2007)

- Nothing overtly revolutionary here.  I know a Canadian commercial helicopter pilot whose employer sent him and others to fly troop lift missions in Somalia for the UN.  

- The only way this can go downhill fast is if Blackwater gets the contract.

 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Oct 2007)

We discussed this possibility in another thread some months ago. NATO will be contracting for Russian made helicopters. The money will be paid for out of operating funds.


----------



## Falange (22 Oct 2007)

*Any sources as to where NATO gets the funding for this?  I mean, do all NATO members essentially split the cost, or?*

Yeah, technically all the member states have allocated funds in the IO and the operation itself so the secretariat has a budget that it can work with and maintain the operations moving forward.


----------



## TCBF (22 Oct 2007)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... NATO will be contracting for Russian made helicopters. ...



- Danger pay should go up then.


----------



## Falange (22 Oct 2007)

lol, Nothing more equals safety than a thrustworthy Mil Mi-8, specially the ones that were gonna be sold as scrap to ramdon African and Latin-American countries


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Lord knows the Russians would be interesting in flogging their military hardware to the world.
Ever since the Soviet Union fell apart, business for big ticket items has been mighty slow.  Also, am certain that their Military pilots would be happy to cash in on the gravy train and work on their retirement nest egg


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2007)

Logically it makes sense, but I would assume there would be more than one Afghan that will be flooded with memories when these things come in....much like the whop whop of the Huey makes anyone who was in SE Asia look up.


----------



## geo (23 Oct 2007)

Yeah - but the Afghan military continues to fly old soviet helicopters.


----------



## GAP (23 Oct 2007)

geo said:
			
		

> Yeah - but the Afghan military continues to fly old soviet helicopters.



Well like others have said, parts and service are readily available, it a machine the Afghans know, it's durable and has the power to operate there, and is likely far cheaper than any derivative the West is likely to bring in. It also folds in some benefits for Russia, not necessarily a bad thing strategically......


----------



## enfield (24 Oct 2007)

So it's ok to hire Russian mercenary pilots and choppers, but not ok to use US/UK private security firms?


----------



## TCBF (24 Oct 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> So it's ok to hire Russian mercenary pilots and choppers, but not ok to use US/UK private security firms?



- That is correct, Comrade.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2007)

Enfield said:
			
		

> So it's ok to hire Russian mercenary pilots and choppers, but not ok to use US/UK private security firms?



Don't worry - the anti-war crowd will be rolling out that message track quickly enough if/when it happens


----------



## geo (25 Oct 2007)

There is an article in the Montreal Gazette this morning.  Quotes a Cdn co - Skylink Aviation - already providing helicopters in the Sudan and other places as having been selected - or in the running - for this ocntract.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2007)

Hands off – it's our war!  
Article Link - About 1/2 way down page

Some insight into the back-biting and dog-in-the-manger attitude of (some of) the military comes in an intriguing article by Tom Coghlan in The Daily Telegraph today on the plans by Nato to hire 20 helicopters from civilian contractors to support troops in Afghanistan.

This is something this blog has campaigned for vigorously, not only because it is a quick answer to the chronic shortage of helicopters, but also because it is a cheaper option and brings to the theatre equipment which is often better suited to the conditions. Furthermore, it makes available a cadre of highly experienced – mostly ex-military – pilots and crews, whose expertise could be a valuable asset in a difficult campaign.

But rather than applaud this imaginative and welcome development, Coghlan is distinctly downbeat, writing under a headline, "British troops 'to depend on rented helicopters'", as if this was an inferior option.

Opening his piece by telling us that "British troops in Afghanistan could soon be relying for their resupply on rented civilian helicopters," Coughlan tells us that the new plan is to rent 20 large transport helicopters from civilian contractors. They would be used in the south of the country, including Helmand province, to meet the needs of Britain, Canada and Holland who have troops engaged in heavy fighting.

However, in what is clearly a sign of the military briefing against the proposal, Coughlan then goes on to write:



Military sources in southern Afghanistan questioned whether helicopters rented from private security companies would meet the standards required to transport British forces. Britain and other European countries fly helicopters that are equipped with complex defensive equipment to detect and defeat heat-seeking missiles. Pilots are also trained to perform difficult low-level evasive flying to throw the aim of Taliban ground fire.
He adds that 18 military helicopters have been lost in Afghanistan since 2001 with the loss of 110 soldiers and airmen. The last was a US Chinook transport helicopter in May. Seven people died, including a British soldier.

This wholly negative picture is a travesty. As we have pointed out before, the helicopters under consideration are piloted in the main by ex-military pilots, many of whom are instructors who taught the current generation of military pilots their trade. Others are ex-special forces and some of them are already in theatre, working with US special forces, and thus have acquired considerable experience of the conditions and operational demands.

As to the "complex defensive equipment", fitting this to the civilian helicopters is no big deal – a complete suite can be fitted in a few days, and the pilots are well used to operating it.

The real story, therefore, is the reluctance of the military to see civilian contractors encroach on "their" war. Some of this is fuelled by a fear of the competition, with the civilians able to operate more flexibly, sometimes in conditions where military aircraft like the Lynx simply cannot fly.

And since they are vastly cheaper, they provide an unfavourable comparison, which might have the politicians asking why they are funding expensive military operations when they can get much more for their money by using contractors.

In effect, what we have, therefore, is the military crying "hands off, it's our war" – an exercise in protecting their own interests rather than going for what is needed.

Furthermore, the need for more helicopters is real. As Coughlan writes, in concluding his piece, "The need for helicopters has become more acute in response to the growing threat from roadside bombs, increasingly acquired via Iran." This dog-in-the-manger attitude costs lives. It is a pity that this is not recognised by The Telegraph.
More on link


----------



## Loachman (25 Oct 2007)

GAP said:
			
		

> Hands off – it's our war!
> Article Link - About 1/2 way down page
> 
> it is a cheaper option



One gets what one pays for.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> and brings to the theatre equipment which is often better suited to the conditions.



Or junk.

What equipment, specifically? How new/old? What standard of airworthiness? Who sets and maintains that standard?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it makes available a cadre of highly experienced – mostly ex-military – pilots and crews, whose expertise could be a valuable asset in a difficult campaign.



How experienced? Ex-whose-military? Trained to what standard? Currency? Reliability?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> But rather than applaud this imaginative and welcome development,



Welcome, with limitations, and suspicions.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Coghlan is distinctly downbeat, writing under a headline, "British troops 'to depend on rented helicopters'", as if this was an inferior option.



As I would consider it, without receiving a whole pile of concrete reassurances.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Opening his piece by telling us that "British troops in Afghanistan could soon be relying for their resupply on rented civilian helicopters,"



Resupply would be acceptable. Personnel transport is an entirely different matter.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> However, in what is clearly a sign of the military briefing against the proposal, Coughlan then goes on to write:
> 
> Military sources in southern Afghanistan questioned whether helicopters rented from private security companies would meet the standards required to transport British forces.



There is something wrong with this? The writer may have a low personal survival instinct, but mine is pretty high. I would be highly reluctant have to be forced or be extremely desperate to fly in one of these rentals. I would also not want to be the commander or politician having to answer for the deaths of a bunch of my troops killed through incompetence or negligence of a rental agency.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Britain and other European countries fly helicopters that are equipped with complex defensive equipment to detect and defeat heat-seeking missiles.



Which are classified. The rental agencies would be cleared to what level of security?

What about defensive weaponry? Would that be permitted as well?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> Pilots are also trained to perform difficult low-level evasive flying to throw the aim of Taliban ground fire.



And receive regular briefings on the threat which are, again, classified. Again, training and currency of these proposed pilots is?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> He adds that 18 military helicopters have been lost in Afghanistan since 2001 with the loss of 110 soldiers and airmen. The last was a US Chinook transport helicopter in May. Seven people died, including a British soldier.



Modern helicopters equipped with defensive systems and crewed and maintained to a known, high standard.

Civilian helicopters would be expected to fair better because...? Hmmm?



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> This wholly negative picture is a travesty.



This whole article, written by somebody who neither knows what he is talking about nor any personal stake in the proposal, is the true travesty.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> As we have pointed out before, the helicopters under consideration are piloted in the main by ex-military pilots,



Completely meaningless, until we know who they are and what their experiene and training are.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> As to the "complex defensive equipment", fitting this to the civilian helicopters is no big deal – a complete suite can be fitted in a few days, and the pilots are well used to operating it.



Sure it isn't, sure it can, and sure they are - to somebody not competent to make such claims.



			
				GAP said:
			
		

> The the reluctance of the military to see civilian contractors encroach on "their" war.



No, the real story is  the reluctance of commanders who care about their subordinates, their mission, their reputations, and their morals to jeopardize lives unnecesarily.


----------

