EU Referendum

Showing posts with label helicopters. Show all posts

Mi-8+Lash[i-Mi-8+Lash]
There is a report today of another Russian helicopter going in, an Mi-8 – this one at Kandahar, sadly with at least 16 deaths. Enemy action is not suspected.

The operator was the Russian air company Vertical-T, another of those dodgy Skylink "partners", although there is no information yet as to whether this was running a Nato or British contract. It could have been, but it could also have been ferrying for an NGO or other outfit in the region.

Meanwhile, in a lazy, ill-informed article by Christopher Leake in the Mail on Sunday, we see the paper wake up to part of the story about civilian contractors supplying helicopter lift to the MoD in Afghanistan.

Under a plainly wrong headline, which declares: "Now we are borrowing Russian helicopters to fight the Taliban", we get Leake proclaim that "British frontline troops in Afghanistan are so short of helicopters and transport planes that they are being bailed out by the Russians."

Actually, we may be using "Russian" helicopters (although the new models are not built in Russia) but there is no direct Russian involvement in the helicopter supply. As we know, the contract is held by the Canadian firm, Skylink, which then subs out to all manner of operations.

In typical Mail style, pompous and self-important, however, we get this piece of information dressed up as "The Mail on Sunday has established that the Ministry of Defence is using civilian Russian-built Mi-8 and Mi-26 transport helicopters ... ".

All the key information here, and much more of which the Mail is evidently unaware, has actually been announced in Parliament or tabled as responses to Parliamentary written questions, starting with an oral statement by Des Bowne on 20 May 2008, with a question from Dr Fox on 2 June 2008, followed by two questions from Ann Winterton, on 25 March 2009 and 20 April 2009 respectively.

And, for all Leake's hyperventilation, he completely misses the main story about the Mi-26 going in, fact that it was shot down and the very shady history of the operators. All Leake can manage is, "The pilots are freelance Russians and Ukrainians." No doubt, he calls this journalism.

And the thing is, in missing the real story, Leake is making drama out of a non-story. It makes absolute sense to augment lift with suitably qualified and reputable civilian operators. It is cheap and highly flexible. The MoD should be commended for saving taxpayers' money - it took them long enough.

But then, Leake even makes a big deal out of the fact that we are hiring "massive commercial Russian Antonov aircraft to fly vehicles and heavy equipment from RAF Brize Norton in Oxfordshire to Afghanistan." And the point is? Everybody uses these aircraft, even the Americans. They are simply the biggest in town ... chartered from perfectly reputable operators, including several based in the UK. And if he looks at some of the MoD press handouts, he will see pics of Antonovs, going way back, with military kit being loaded on them.

For his "scoop of the week", however, Leake has picked up bits of information about the use of Mi-8 MTVs by Special Forces. But, he tells us, they are being used "because of a desperate lack of UK aircraft." Er ... nah! They are being used because they are the best aircraft for the job – and very successful they have been.

Then Leake tells us they are "on loan" from an unspecified "Third World nation". Er ... nah! The RAF bought six of them in 2007 (or could be a bit earlier) – there are five left. We may occasionally "borrow" others, but then that is normal in the theatre. The Yanks operate them as well – anonymous machines, camouflage-painted and no markings, just like ours.

To add to the mystery, Leake embellishes what little detail he has with the legend that they are flown by an elite team of UK Army Air Corps pilots, trained at a secret special forces base in Afghanistan. Er ... nah! In the main, they are flown by serving RAF officers. And they train in Boscombe Down, where two machines are kept for "evaluation" purposes. For sure, the pilots do theatre-specific training when they get there ... as do all operational pilots.

To Leake, though, this is a "humiliation" and he gets some talking heads – anonymous, of course – to say they are "dismayed" about being forced to borrow helicopters.

At times, you can understand the MoD's reluctance to tell the hacks anything. They will only get it wrong, or "spin" it. Clearly though, the best way for the MoD to keep things secret is to get the defence secretary to announce them in Parliament. Hansard, websites and Google are clearly beyond the reach of Mr Leake.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]It is no coincidence that, at Defence Questions yesterday, a line was developed trying further to elucidate where and on what grounds decisions are made concerning the purchase of equipment for our armed forces.

This time it was light assault helicopters, an issue we have been pursuing for some time on this blog and which re-emerged with a vengeance after the use of Apaches in Afghanistan to recover the body of a dead Marine.

It was following that incident that one of the better debates took place on the unofficial Army forum about the provision of "organic" close air support. On balance, it seemed, sentiment was in favour of such a provision, and a number of Parliamentary questions were framed, pursuing the matter.

One of the questions was from Nick Harvey, the Lib-Dem defence spokesman. He asked whether the Secretary of State for Defence had made an assessment of the potential for the use of small light assault helicopters in Afghanistan and other combat zones. This was the reply:

Mr. Ingram: We continually review our helicopter requirements to ensure that we have sufficient helicopter support to meet current and anticipated tasks. While we do not use the term "small light assault helicopters", our helicopters in Afghanistan and other combat zones include those suited to heavy-lift tasks, such as Chinook and Merlin; utility helicopters, such as Lynx, Puma and Sea King; and attack helicopters, such as Apache. No capability gap has been identified for small light assault helicopters.

Thus it was yesterday that Peter Bone, the Conservative MP for Wellingborough, asked the Secretary of State who had identified that there was no capability gap? "Was it politicians, the civil service or the armed forces, and on what basis was that judgment made?" His effort elicited this reply:

Des Browne: A judgment would be made only on the basis of advice from the military and on no other grounds at all. I have no expertise to make such an assessment and I would depend entirely on military commanders to make an assessment for me. I have to say that I agree with the hon. Gentleman — I do not believe that there is a shortage of attack helicopters in Afghanistan. Those Apaches that we deployed, despite the fact that many people said that they were a bad purchase in the first place, have turned out to be much more capable than anybody thought they would be.

AIR+-+Eurocopter+2[i-AIR+-+Eurocopter+2]If Browne can be applauded for his candour, he can also be condemned for his naïvity. Firstly, he has confused the concepts of the attack helicopter, with the different "assault" machine, a (usually) armed helicopter that brings troops into battle.

More seriously though – as we know – there has already been the debate within the MoD as to whether some of these machines should be acquired – and the decision was "no". So, Browne has gone to the very organisation that has made a negative decision, for reasons we know why not, and got a negative answer. But, given the aura of negativity within the department, the reasons could well have been ill-founded.

Browne should not have relied on that tiny little clique of officials (some in uniform) to tell him what to do. He should have widened the debate, listened to more voices and, if necessary, commissioned independent studies. He has no business outsourcing policy to his officials. There lies the black hole at the heart of our defence policy.

And the odd thing is that, despite its crucial importance in hampering the war effort, neither the "official" opposition nor the media are even aware of it. As always, the real debate goes on without them.

COMMENT THREAD

ApacheRescue05[i-ApacheRescue05]
The MoD has now posted photographs and a video of the "Apache rescue" on its website. There are 13 stills in all – well worth a look.

Despite now, the clearest evidence that the soldiers were not strapped to the wings (see above – double-click to enlarge), amazingly, one of the captions reads: "In all, four Troops were strapped to the small side 'wings' of two Apaches, two to each helicopter".

This is the MoD on which we rely to defend our country?

COMMENT THREAD

casevac[i-casevac]As a phenomenon, it should not go unremarked. While the majority of "professional" print journalists have been wetting their knickers over the "derring do" of the Apache drivers and their strapped-on riders, the more measured and analytical commentary has come from elsewhere.

The latest offering is from another "amateur", Jon Selous of Horsham, W Sussex, who has a letter in today's Daily Telegraph under the heading, "Wrong helicopters". He writes:

Sir – I have the utmost admiration for the initiative, aggression and bravery of the air crews and Marines who extracted the body of their fallen comrade in Afghanistan (News, January 17).

However, would Adam Ingram, the defence minister, now reconsider his statement that "our Afghanistan helicopter fleet and crews are meeting current demand through careful management"? Being forced to commit two specialist machines costing upwards of £30 million and representing two-thirds of the firepower available to the tactical commander is not an example of good management of assets – rather one of brave decision-making in extremis.

Had we lost a machine and taken more casualties as a result of this extraction, there would have been an outcry over the commander's decision. He should have had available to him a dedicated "casevac" (casualty evacuation) medium-lift helicopter covered by the firepower of all three gunships.

Among the few advantages our forces should have in Afghanistan are air mobility and rapid air casevac and extraction. Senior commanders must insist that the Government provides a better level of support and stop dissembling that they have sufficient resources.

One suspects, though, that Mr Selous has in mind the stirring scenes of casevac Hueys of VietNam fame, darting in to pluck casualties from under the noses of the NVA. But, of course, that is now history… or is it?

AIR+-+Bell+412+01[i-AIR+-+Bell+412+01]It just so happens that, permanently stationed on the island of Cyprus, there are four Bell Griffin HAR2s (Hueys by any other name) operated by 84 RAF Squadron, used primarily for search and rescue. They would be ideal for operations in Afghanistan and would, at a stroke, double the number of tactical helicopters we have in theatre.

One wonders, therefore, why they are still in Cyprus and who is paying for a service which seems primarily for the benefit of the citizens of the island of Cyprus.

Oh! And by the way, the helicopters pictured at the top of this piece are not VietNam era Hueys. They are modern CH-146 Griffons, currently in service with the Canadian Armed Forces - some of which are now in Afghanistan.

Photo of the RAF Bell 412 from sky-flash.com

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]UPDATED

What was intended to be my last word on last Monday's attempted rescue using Apache helicopters is posted here, complete with pics of one of the actual helicopters used.

It is a testament to how the story is developing, however, that the BBC has now obtained from the MoD video coverage of the flight of one of the Apaches, which has been run on BBC News 24, with the recording available on the BBC website

Despite the stupid graphic (what is it about commissioning editors?), we actually get a sensible comment from Paul Adams, saying:

This episode raises questions. The military lacks the sort of light helicopters that would normally be used for this sort of work. It'll be another seven years before something suitable is available.

The message is gradually beginning to filter out and, with luck, we might be seeing some detail emerge. It is odd, though, how it should be the BBC which picks up the thread, when all the newspapers seem to have missed it.

Read more here.

COMMENT THREAD

LAND+-+Mamba+Estonia[i-LAND+-+Mamba+Estonia]In today's Sunday Telegraph, Sean Rayment reports an officer in Afghanistan complaining that troops from Estonia … who were working alongside the Royal Marines were better equipped and had more reliable armoured vehicles than did British troops.

Er… would that be because the Estonians are operating ex-British Mambas, as reported by this blog on 8 January and The Booker column last week?

It would be too much to ask Rayment to read this blog but one might have thought that, at the every least, he could read his own newspaper – from which he might have learnt something.

In this week's edition, however, the Telegraph's defence correspondent also tells a sorry tale that all four of the Army's mine protected vehicles (MPVs), "used to extract injured troops from minefields in Afghanistan", have broken down.

LAND+-+Tempest+003[i-LAND+-+Tempest+003]Commanders, we are told, regard the MPV (illustrated) as one of the most vital pieces of equipment in Afghanistan, where more than 10 million mines lie primed after 20 years of war. Since last June two servicemen have been killed in mine explosions and three have been seriously injured yet "one source" reveals that the farthest the MPVs have travelled outside Camp Bastion in Helmand has been just one mile. The same officer who complains about the Estonians is then cited as saying that "we need four more MPVs and we haven't got them".

Although Rayment doesn't say so (possibly because he does not know), he is actually referring to the vehicle known as the Tempest MPV (illustrated above), which we described last June. Ironically, as we described then, the Tempests were the replacements for the Mambas which have been sold off to the Estonians.

However, not all is lost. Despite the Telegraph conveying the view that there are only four MPV, readers of this blog will know that there are in fact eight vehicles (see also here), so somewhere (possibly in Saffron Waldron, where they were last seen) there are another four. It would not take very long to fly them out in a C-17 Globemaster, so perhaps the newspaper could not ask why this isn’t being done.

LAND+-+Mastiff_PPV2[i-LAND+-+Mastiff_PPV2]Even then, there is another option. Once again this is not "revealed" by the Telegraph, but as we know, the Tempest was effectively the prototype for what is now known as the Force Protection Cougar, a fact we revealed last June.

As we also know, the British have bought 100 Cougars under the name of Mastiff, some of which, we have been told, are destined for Afghanistan. These are described by the manufacturer as a "mine protected vehicle" so, far from there being only four MPVs, there are a considerable number on their way – perhaps as many at 30.

These, however – according to Rayment - are vital tools that have been refused by the Ministry of Defence. To that list, Rayment adds "night-vision equipment and thermal-imaging devices used to distinguish friend from foe" - the latter, as we know, being particularly useful for detecting suicide bombers.

LAND+-+Vipir+sight[i-LAND+-+Vipir+sight]Something else we know is that these is no shortage of night vision equipment – the shortage was in thermal imagers, which was "revealed" by the Daily Mail in November. But, as we reported on this blog on 9 January, plans are in place to increase this number, by the procurement of over 300 additional sights.

All that leaves little Sean with is the original litany of a shortage of helicopters and troops, which makes for rather a thin story, especially as he does not bring in the issues raised by the use of Apache helicopters to carry troops in last Monday's attempted rescue.

Fortunately, the Sunday Telegraph's alternative defence correspondent, Christopher Booker is on the ball.

COMMENT THREAD

MISC+-+Mail+head+001[i-MISC+-+Mail+head+001]The front page of The Daily Mail today rightly complains about the politicians getting diverted onto the ultimate in trivia, a discussion on a certain television programme, thereby giving itself an excuse to devote its front page to just that issue.

It was the same show to which The Daily Telegraph print edition devoted a full page , complete with three photographs and a headline to a commentary piece which reads: "Repellent, crass and trivial: now this show has even become significant."

However, if you want something "repellent, crass and trivial", all you need to do is turn to page 18 of the print edition of the newspaper.

MISC+-+Tel+head+001[i-MISC+-+Tel+head+001]It is there that you will find an unbelievably amateur graphic to illustrate Monday's action of the Royal Marines "clinging" to Apache helicopters in an attempt to rescue their colleague. The picture shows two cartoon-esque overlays of soldiers lying on the top of the Apache wings as the manner in which they were supposedly conveyed to their rescue drama. The trouble is that it is fiction - total, absolute fiction.

For sure, the fiction was actually originated by the MoD itself which, in its own press release claimed that "four troops were strapped to the small side 'wings' of two Apaches, two to each helicopter." Interestingly, the MoD held the account off its website until the media had been able to chew it over.

link[i-link]However, no sooner had the media conveyed the MoD's claim and we put it up on our site than we began to look at the practicalities of this claim. It took very little time indeed to find out how it was done, that this was a recognised procedure to allow what is known as "self extraction", the rescue of downed crews by an Apache in an emergency.

The procedures has been carried out before, in the heat of action, at least twice, in April 2002 in Afghanistan and again, in Iraq, November 2004, the latter report complete with a photograph of how it was done (above left).

link[i-link]Should there be any doubt - making up for its original, inaccurate report (which is still up on the website), actually demonstrated the procedure yesterday, at its airbase in Middle Wallop, a film of which was shown by Channel 4 News. So, once again we confront the amateurism and idleness of the Telegraph which has devoted so much space to a fictional account of events. And nor was it alone: Sky News managed an equally ridiculous graphic, which it put up on its own website.

Wearily we find ourselves again repeating that, if you cannot trust the media on the small details, how can you trust them on anything. There is no magic filter that allows small-scale error but somehow ensures that other issues are treated with scrupulous accuracy. Accuracy and attention to detail is as much an attitude - a frame of mind.

More importantly, though, the space given to the graphic and the accompanying story (which was not found in the online edition), completely missed the point, the one which we so obviously asked in our own piece - why were there no proper troop-carrying assault helicopters to convey troops in what was a pre-planned attack?

AIR+-+MD500+007[i-AIR+-+MD500+007]Once again, it takes a letter writer to the newspaper, Mr Philip McLaughlin, of Ormskirk, Lancs, to remark that the episode showed that "our troops are still desperately short of sufficient resources in Afghanistan, especially helicopters." Mr McLaughlin, who has a son serving in the Royal Marines in Afghanistan, asks, "Why were there no suitable helicopters available for evacuation or reinforcement?"

To give it its due, for once, that issue has been picked up with a vengeance by the unofficial Army forum, which has been hosting a serious debate about the use of lightweight "cheap and cheerful" organic helicopter support, based on the MD500 series (pictured above).

AIR+-+Kiowa+009[i-AIR+-+Kiowa+009]This is something that the US (and other) forces have enjoyed for so long that operations without close helicopter support are scarely thinkable (and when they say close, they mean close).

That British forces are being deprived of this fundamental tool is nothing short of a scandal yet the media cannot bring itself to discuss the issue in anything that even approaches an adult manner. Either it is gossiping about the "repellent, crass and trivial" or it is falling, uncritically, for the MoD "Boy's Own" spin and ignoring the substantive issues.

As for the Conservative Party... where art thou Gerald?

COMMENT THREAD

AIR+-+Apache+002[i-AIR+-+Apache+002]Four British Royal Marines, we are told by agencies and others, have staged a dramatic rescue attempt in Afghanistan, strapped to the wings of Apache attack helicopters.

This followed the death on Monday of Royal Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Ford, who was shot when more than 200 British troops attacked a Taliban fort in Jugroom in the southern Helmand province.

AIR+-+Apache+005[i-AIR+-+Apache+005]At the time, Ford's fate was unknown to his comrades who discovered him missing. A rescue was planned using Viking carriers but, when the Apaches became available, they decided the fast attack helicopters provided the best opportunity to rescue him.

Two marines each were strapped to the wings of two Apache helicopters, with a third Apache and several ground units providing covering fire. After landing at the site of the earlier battle, the four soldiers found Ford dead, but were able to recover his body.

According to UK military spokesman Lieutenant Colonel Rory Bruce, this is believed to be the first time British forces have ever tried this type of rescue mission. "It was an extraordinary tale of heroism and bravery of our airmen, soldiers and marines who were all prepared to put themselves back into the line of fire to rescue a fallen comrade," Bruce said.

link[i-link]That is as may be or, to put it slightly different, c'est magnifique, mais ce n'est pas la guerre. This was an extraordinarily risky venture as the two troop-carrying Apaches would have had their mobility heavily restricted and would, therefore, have been extremely vulnerable during the whole operation. And this would not just have been a question of lives at risk. Apache helicopters are extremely expensive - ours costing £60 million apiece - and any loss would have been a propaganda coup for the Taliban.

Without in any way denigrating the bravery and determination of our troops, however, this points up the dangerous lack of equipment available to our soldiers in Afghanistan, especially helicopters.

But here, we are not talking about Chinook-type transports that the media and the bandwagon-jumping Tories have been calling for. The shortage here, as we have pointed out again and again, is in light tactical helicopters (example pictured above). The nearest thing we have is the highly unsatisfactory Lynx of which, apparently, we have only four in theatre.

AIR+-+Black+Hawk+004[i-AIR+-+Black+Hawk+004]To an extent, we have been able to get by because our allies have been stepping in with support, and the Americans have been particularly generous with air support and the loan of helicopters (another example of which is illustrated – this one showing Lt Gen Graeme Lamb departing a US Black Hawk helicopter in which he has just hitched a ride) so much so that the British forces have acquired the title "the borrowers".

On this one occasion though, it seems the Americans were not there to bail us out so we had to rely on the amazing bravery of our soldiers and airmen. This should not be happening. We should not have to rely on this simply to make up for deficiencies in basic equipment. The time is long overdue for Blair to turn his rhetoric into action.

COMMENT THREAD

Inde+front[i-Inde+front]We saw it as a genuine attempt to conduct a debate. But it says something of Independent that Blair's lecture yesterday was seen in a completely different light.

Heading its front-page piece, "Shoot the messenger: PM blames media for anti-war mood", in its eyes, the most significant thing about the lecture was Tony Blair turning the blame for his "disastrous military campaigns" in the Middle East on anti-war dissidents and the media.

Pursuing that message, the newspaper selected two passages from the lecture, quoting them in full. It thus had the prime minister saying:

[Islamic terrorists] have realised two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide missions; and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures.

and…

They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in Baghdad, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Iraqis who voted for a non-sectarian government, then the image presented to a Western public is as likely to be, more likely to be, one of a failed Western policy, not another outrage against democracy.

It then had Blair acknowledging the public backlash against the Iraq war, citing his comment that: "Public opinion will be divided, feel that the cost is too great, the campaign too long, and be unnerved by the absence of 'victory' in the normal way they would reckon it."

Then we had the paper adding another quote from Blair: "They will be constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated by their own media, to the effect that it's really all 'our', that is the West's fault. That, in turn, impacts on the feelings of our armed forces. They want public opinion not just behind them but behind their mission."

Finally, the paper has him warning that the terrorists had learnt how to use the media to undermine public opinion, citing a website, called LiveLeak, showing "gruesome images" of the "reality of war" as the kind of propaganda weapon that was being used by international terrorism.

It is then that the newspaper calls in aid John McDonnell, leader of the left-wing campaign group of Labour MPs, who accuses Blair of "delusional ramblings". Alan Simpson, a leading Labour anti-war MP says: "Tony Blair is whingeing about the hundreds of thousands of people like me who opposed the war on Iraq. He totally fails to realise that soldiers and their families blame him for the reckless way he launched an illegal war with no coherent exit strategy."

The line-up continues with Lib-Dim leader Sir Menzies Campbell, saying: "The Prime Minister does not seem to have learnt the lessons of Iraq. Without United Nations authority the military action was illegal and severely damaged Britain's reputation. This will be the Prime Minister's legacy."

This is seasoned with Air Marshal Sir John Walker, former head of defence intelligence and deputy chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: He says: "This is politics, not morality. The only reason Mr Blair is saying this now is because he cannot airbrush Iraq out of the news. He is talking about renewing the covenant with the armed forces because they are the ones having to bear the fallout from his mistakes."

His attack on the media was "particularly rich coming from a party which made a such a fetish out of spin," added Sir John.

And, for the coup de grâce, shadow foreign secretary William Hague is enlisted. He says: "This is yet another episode of 'Ten Wasted Years', by Tony Blair. His legacy will be an overstretched army, navy and air force. Our servicemen and women want to know what Tony Blair is going to do about the failure to deliver armoured vehicles to protect troops from roadside bombs in Iraq. They want to know when they will have enough helicopters in Afghanistan and when the Hercules transport fleet will get proper protection."

Nothing, it seems, is too damning for the Independent, which is determined to ram home its message with a leader declaiming: "A mendacious attack by Mr Blair to cover up his fatal misjudgement".

Only then do we even get a hint of Blair’s core argument on the applications of "soft" and "hard" power, about which the newspaper concedes there is "room for different opinions about the balance between these different applications of power". But it is quickly dismissed in order that the newspaper can concentrate on its own agenda. It declares:

In seeking to blame the media for what he sees as the growing distaste of the British public for war, the Prime Minister is quite simply wrong. If there is, as he suggested, a crisis of confidence in the benefits of military force, it is one that he has brought upon himself.

We are not looking at a general crisis of confidence in the use of British military force, fostered by the sensation-driven modern media. It is a particular crisis of confidence precipitated by the débâcle of Iraq. For all Mr Blair's personal salesmanship at the time - the weapons of mass destruction and all that - this began as a highly unpopular war, and it remains one.

It is astounding that, almost four years on, Mr Blair still fails to understand that the mission is precisely the problem. And his address contained all the old deceits. He conflated, as he habitually does, the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though the one had UN approval and the other, crucially, did not. He spoke about the qualitatively different threat we face after 9/11, as though the prime reason for invading Iraq was terrorism. And yet again he rejected all suggestion that Britain's presence in Iraq might be a factor in the alienation of young British Muslims.

To this catalogue he has now added the notion that media coverage is turning the British public off the use of "hard" power. The voters may indeed be more wary of military interventions in future. And so may the MPs who represent them. If this is so, however, it will not be because the media have willed it, but because of the fatal misjudgement of a Prime Minister.

It is said of autism that its sufferers lack empathy. They lack the capability to see anything from the point of view of another. And here, The Independent sees in Blair's lecture a direct attack. As it can do no wrong, and has never done wrong Blair must be attacked. The one thing that cannot be allowed, of course, is a debate.

This is truly an autistic response.

COMMENT THREAD

service+accom[i-service+accom]On reflection, the Boy King has actually achieved something that many readers might have thought impossible – an expression of sympathy from this blog for the MoD.

Cutting through the furore about Service accommodation standards, with such a huge estate (comprising nearly 200,000 bed units) it is very easy to pick up examples of the very worst and put pictures up on the net. But, as the MoD has done (left), it is also possible to put up examples of good conditions, thus redressing a balance that has been sorely missing.

What also has been missing is the reality that a great deal of Service accommodation is very good, while some of the tenants are very bad – the boozed-up squaddies that think nothing of trashing their barracks or the dozy little Misses in married quarters who block off all the vents and who do not open windows from one week to another, and then wonder why black mould grows in the bathroom (the bane of the life of many a housing manager).

Whatever else, as the dust begins to settle on this issue, what does emerge is that there is not a major crisis of Forces' accommodation. There are problems, yes – and they do require vigilance from and occasional intervention by MPs, who are the longstop in the system. But it is also fair to say that there always have been problems. In the old days of "Works and Bricks", some of the stories would have made your hair curl.

Nevertheless, the issue – as we observed when it broke – has given the opportunity for the touchy-feely Girlie Boy to deal with defence without getting his soft little hands soiled with nasty green (and now grey) things that go "bang!".

And however bad the ghastly Mr Harding of the Telegraph might be – and that is seriously ghastly – he does point up in today's piece on the Royal Navy that there is a serious defence spending crisis building up, which the Girlie Boy Tories are ignoring.

type45[i-type45]But, for all its indignation about the state of the Fleet, the Telegraph itself has not only been wholly inadequate in addressing the growing crisis but, in the persona of its defence correspondent, has been a cheer-leader for the Type 45 Destroyers which, at £1 billion each, are part of the reason why the Royal Navy is having financial problems.

And it the procurement of Type 45, as much as anything, that demonstrates so clearly why we need a broader debate on defence, one which the Tories should be – but are not – leading.

To illustrate just how wide that debate should run, I am much taken with a comment on the unofficial Army forum, which questioned my assertion that we should be using (MAMBA) counter-battery radar as part of our strategy for dealing with hit-and-run mortar attacks on our bases in Iraq. To the person who made the comment, all the deployment of that equipment meant was that troops would get extra warning, which would "get them to the trenches but not much more".

link[i-link]In this beguilingly simple comment lies the debate. In the last few years, the MoD has spent over £200 million on new, state-of-the-art counter-battery radar. It bought four MAMBA sets for £30 million and ten COBRA sets for £17.8 million each. If this equipment has no use in the shooting wars in which we are currently engaged – in Iraq and Afghanistan – why did we buy them?

If all they are to do is sit unused in a warehouse, "somewhere in England", against the eventuality that they might be wanted for some distant, as yet unspecified campaign, then surely we had better things to do with the money?

On the other hand, if they are to be used, there is no value to be gained simply from identifying the location of enemy mortars unless you are prepared to act on that information – attempting either to kill or capture the mortar teams. But that costs extra money, for UAVs and for helicopters – which simply has not been spent.

Therefore, it is all very well for the Telegraph to complain that defence funds "are often spent unwisely" but the only examples it can offer are the "£20 billion so far gobbled up by the otiose Euro-fighter" and a similar sum for the Trident replacement. But, as we have pointed out elsewhere, without talking into account either of these two projects, this government has overspent £8.8 billion on European projects which could have been sourced more cheaply elsewhere.

Yet, not only has this waste gone unrecorded, the paper also bleats about the "Euro-centric nature of our defence", complaining that Britain's strategic thinking has been focused on the defence of western Europe. The paper now argues that the end of the Cold War "should have released Britain to pursue its more usual vocation as an island nation with interests in every continent."

But, it says, our top brass is gearing up for the last war whereas, "the truth is that, as our horizons widen, the Royal Navy should be assuming a pre-eminence it has not enjoyed for 50 years." And, on that basis, it argues that we "should be building more ships than ever, including unmanned vessels."

Well, that is an argument, but not a very good one. The essence of our current misfortunes is that we are currently engaged in counter-insurgency operations, in which the Navy features very little. We are engaged against enemies operating to a wholly different moral code, who are not afraid to die and who are able to exploit our weaknesses. And, currently, if we are not losing, we are certainly not winning.

link[i-link]Rather than looking to wider horizons, therefore, it might help if we looked at the wars we are actually fighting – not the last war, not the next war but the wars of the here and now. It is these that we need to win before considering any other adventures.

The trouble is that, from its most recent record, we cannot look to our Armed Forces to come up with the answers. The government is manifestly incapable of producing solutions, the Opposition is a waste of time and space and the media is not even on the same planet.

How did that phrase go? "Houston… we have a problem!" Forget the Houston bit. We have a problem.

COMMENT THREAD

careersforqueers[i-careersforqueers]
Reacting to this stunning piece of news, I don't think the Army has quite got the right idea (double click on the pic to enlarge). I suspect, like us all, they would prefer the MoD to be spending our money on things like helicopters, rather than, "tens of thousands of pounds on advertising in the 'pink' media."

Puts a slightly different complexion on the Queen's Squadron, though. I guess they'll have to change the position of the apostrophy.

COMMENT THREAD

roberts_hr[i-roberts_hr]"To send soldiers into a combat zone without the appropriate basic equipment is, in my view, unforgivable and inexcusable and represents a breach of trust that the soldiers have in those in Government."

Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker today, speaking about the death of Sgt Steve Roberts and the failure of the MoD to supply him with body armour.

The danger now is that the media and (opposition) politicians will focus on this one issue - which has actually been sorted. All troops in combat areas have been issued with high-tech body armour. But there are many more fundamental shortages, from armoured vehicles, to thermal imagers and counter-mortar equipment - to say nothing of helicopters and UAVs.

So when are the media and the politicians going to start doing their jobs and demand this equipment, instead of just using troops as a source of cheap copy or stage dressing for their own publicity?

Read "Reflected glory" here.

COMMENT THREAD

ST%20afghan[i-ST%20afghan]And today, 10 December, we see this illuminating headline in The Sunday Telegraph. Amongst other things, the piece says:

Hopes that the onset of winter would bring with it the traditional break in the fighting have been dashed by the Taliban's sudden return to the attack, using a mixture of suicide bombings and a ferocious fire-fight with British forces last week to turn up the heat on the coalition.

Yet, on 24 September, you could have read this:

As to the second issue, we have heard from a number of media and other commentators that, with the onset of winter, hostilities will slacken off, given Nato forces – and especially the British – time to re-group and rest.

However, as numerous accounts of the Soviet invasion show, this is a myth.

In the south – unlike the north – temperatures do not fall precipitously but the weather generally does make flying more difficult and dangerous, especially for helicopters. Effectively, for sophisticated armies, logistics become much more difficult and the balance of tactical advantage shifts to the insurgents.

Far from diminishing over the winter, therefore, Nato forces can expect attacks to intensify and, given the extreme difficulty the British already have in supplying their forces, we could see a major disasters just at a time when we are schooled by the media to expect it least.

The source of that piece? You guessed it. Is a quick "told you so!" in order?

COMMENT THREAD

Alliot-Marie[i-Alliot-Marie]Over 500.000 people turned out for Pierre Gemayel’s funeral in Lebanon and the procession swiftly turned into an anti-Syrian demonstration. Alas, we have been here before with Rafik Hariri’s funeral and numerous others. Nothing, it seems, can prevent the Syrians and their proxies, the Hezbollah from destroying the Lebanese Cedar Revolution and the state of Lebanon itself.

Why should they care? The UN may huff and puff but will not blow any terrorist’s house down, be it made of sand or straw. If Israel, the only power prepared to take on Hezbollah, comes anywhere near inflicting any damage on that organization, the international community unites in imposing a cease-fire that allows terrorists to operate with impunity.

In Britain and the United States, meanwhile, the “realists” are “winning the argument” with the help of the MSM who seems to be incapable of any unbiased, knowledgeable reporting. Sadly, we can all remember what happened when there was a similar situation: helicopters taking off the roof of the American embassy in Saigon and an appalling mess left behind in Vietnam and Cambodia.

But hey, there is a UN force in Lebanon. It may not be quite as large as it was promised to be (it is not at all clear, for instance, whether the 2,000 French are actually there) but it is there and its mandate is – well, now, it is hard to recall the details but I do believe disarming Hezbollah came into it somewhere. Except that UNIFIL has long ago announced that it will do nothing of the kind, because those nasty Hezzies might shoot at them.

What if Hezbollah fires rockets into northern Israel? Well, honestly, we cannot be everywhere.

Still, UNIFIL knows who the enemy is: Israel. According to the Jerusalem Post, a senior French officer has explained that should the IAF fly over the French troops again, they will be allowed to fire at the aeroplanes. It seems that the October 30 episode really unnerved the troops and up with this they will not put. What they will do should Hezbollah fire anything is unknown.

There is some suspicion in Israel that this posturing has something to do with the forthcoming presidential elections in France and the possibility that the Defence Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie may well decide to run. Or at least announce her candidacy. (Alliot-Marie against Royal? Now there’s a contest worth watching.)

It seems that getting tough with Israel might bring some useful and approving headlines while getting tough with Hezbollah will bring nothing except shrieks of fear. One wonders what the headlines will be if Lebanon disintegrates into yet another civil war.

COMMENT THREAD

LR0001[i-LR0001]There are many reports on the violence in southern Iraq yesterday and, although confusion still reigns, the situation is beginning to come clearer.

As we left it, British ground forces and US military helicopters had been fighting with gunmen on Friday in the area of southern Iraq where four American security contractors and their Austrian co-worker had been taken hostage after their convoy had been hijacked.

The fighting turned out to be in the Basra suburb of Zubair, and there were reports that two of the gunmen had been killed in the fighting. Furthermore, according to The Times and others (mostly reporting from over 300 miles away in Baghdad), there have been several more incidents.

In one, a British security guard was shot dead and another was wounded in the same area where the Americans and Austrian were kidnapped (apparently in a shoot-out with Iraqi border police).

The Times says the upsurge of violence "began on Thursday" with the attack on the convoy, but we know different. There has been pretty much a continued escalation of violence ever since last Sunday's boat attack, but the increase has in fact been sustained ever since the end of last month.

Iraq%20kidnap[i-Iraq%20kidnap]As to the convoy incident, we now know that the convoy consisted of 49 vehicles, which was a substantial target to take on. The insurgents hijacked 20 of them and grabbed 14 foreigners, according to a US embassy spokesman, leaving some vehicles burning.

Nine of the hostages, all of them Asian, were released by the kidnappers and two of the remaining five hostages have since been freed by the police. One, apparently an American, has been found dead.

Meanwhile, Blair has been on interview on Al-Jazeera's new English-language channel and, challenged that the Western intervention in Iraq had "so far been pretty much of a disaster", we are told that he "gave a brief agreement before swiftly moving on."

He said: "It has, but you see what I say to people is why is it difficult in Iraq? It is not difficult because of some accident in planning, it is difficult because there is a deliberate strategy, al-Qaeda with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other, to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

After his apparent admission that the intervention had been a disaster, he insisted: "We are not walking away from Iraq. We will stay for as long as the Government needs us to stay." He continued:

And the reason for that is that what is happening in Iraq, as in Afghanistan, as elsewhere in parts of the Middle East, is a struggle between the decent majority of people, who want to live in peace together, and those who have an extreme and perverted and warped view of Islam, who want to create war. In those circumstances, our task has got to be to stand up for the moderates and the democrats against the extremists and the sectarians. They are testing our will at the moment, and our will has not to be found wanting.

link[i-link]That, we would aver, remains to be seen. It is to our mind highly significant that, although British troops were out in force yesterday, they had to rely on support from US helicopters – although it does seem as if the newly up-armoured FV432s have been given an airing (see above).

However, in its failure properly to equip its own Army, the British government is displaying a lack of political will. Words are cheap but, so far, Mr Blair has not backed them up with action.

COMMENT THREAD

Basra%20raid[i-Basra%20raid]In broad daylight, it seems, Shi'ite insurgents yesterday stop a convoy and kidnap foreigners. According to the BBC report

Four Americans and an Austrian have been kidnapped from a convoy of civilians in southern Iraq, US and Iraqi sources have said. The convoy of 19 vehicles, operated by a Kuwait-based security service, was attacked on Thursday. Unconfirmed reports said the incident took place at a bogus checkpoint. Nine other civilians were released. Sunni-linked insurgents have killed dozens of kidnapped foreigners but most abducted in the south have been freed. Reports said the convoy was attacked near Basra as it headed for the city of Nasiriya. The foreigners taken were all security contractors.

And this morning, according to ABC News, there is holy war in Basra:

British ground forces and U.S. military helicopters fought with gunmen on Friday in an area of southern Iraq where four American security contractors and their Austrian co-worker were taken hostage after their convoy was hijacked, British and Iraqi officials said. Two of the gunmen were killed in the fighting, and it was not known whether the five hostages were being held in the area at the time.

If you join up the dots, you can see a clear pattern of escalation, with the insurgents getting bolder and more aggressive.

Rarely, in these situations, does the status quo hold. This seems to be coming to a head. Be prepared for some serious Shi'ite.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]Never believe the MoD and never, never take any details in an MoD press statement at face value.

Even as of yesterday, this lying department of state was talking about "a routine boat patrol" when describing the bomb attack on Sunday.

Now we learn from The Daily Telegraph this morning that the four service personnel killed were on a "personnel move" from Basra Palace to another British base along the Shatt-al-Arab waterway. They were being moved by boat because this was considered the safest form of transport.

Despite the war-like action pictures being put about (above left) the two Rigid Raiders in the group on Sunday were carrying 17 personnel (including crews) and being used for nothing more glamorous and exciting than water-taxis. And it was one of these boats that got hit.

From The Scotsman we get the information that "British forces have routinely used the river as a transport route, to avoid sites where IEDs may be planted." But, says the paper, "in order to navigate the bridge, patrol boats have to pass close to the eastern bank, where the fatal attack was mounted."

link[i-link]The site can be seen in the video grab (right), taken from the Telegraph/ITN footage, accessible from here. (This is copyright material taken without permission for the purpose of reporting news and making comment. If the owners wish to make an issue of it – sue me.)

Now, from what appears on the grab, the pontoon bridge rises at the point arrowed, allowing navigation by small craft – but making for an ideal (and obvious) ambush point. We are now told that "military sources are reviewing river security" which is a bit bloody late, with them saying that "the positioning and accuracy suggest considerable planning".

To me, it begins to look very much like someone (or several persons) cocked-up and one hopes that an inquiry will bring this to the fore. But that does not change the general points made in my overnight piece.

One of the best ways of protecting transiting personnel is to use helicopters, provided the general area is under control. Without that control, however, there can be tragic results , as occurred last May when a Lynx helicopter was shot down, coincidentally also killing a female – that time Flt Lt Sarah-Jayne Mulvihill, an RAF officer.

However, ground transport in "Snatch" Land Rovers has also proved unsafe and there are too few Warriors and they are being worked to death. They are not available for routine transport. In any event, by far the safest form of transport would be a mine protected vehicle, such as the Mamba, with or without a helicopter escort.

Mean%206%20012[i-Mean%206%20012]Once upon a time, we could have taken that option, except that we sold off our Mambas, which are now used by Blackwater Security Consulting … for transporting personnel in Iraq (having survived at least two IED attacks - one pictured).

Alternatively, we could have bought the more modern and reliable RG-31s, which we had on trial in 2003 and could have had in service now – as have the Canadians, whose vehicles have survived mines and suicide bombs. But no! Instead, we bought freakin useless and vastly more expensive Italian Panthers, which can't be used in Iraq and anyway are still not in service.

So we send our people to their deaths in unarmoured motor boats and then have the Secretary of State weep in his cups about "the sacrifice made by the brave men and women of our armed forces."

Brave they undoubtedly were, but they were led to the slaughter like lambs. This is simply not good enough.

COMMENT THREAD

It seems there is no limit to the amateurism of the Beeb, its website offering so-called background information on yesterday's tragic attack on an Army patrol boat.

"What kind of boats do British forces use?" the piece asks rehetorically, using a Q&A format often adopted by the Beeb. Answering its own question, it tells us: "Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab is a risky job for troops because the waterway is too narrow and shallow for large, well-armoured vessels. Instead British forces use so-called 'rigid raider' launches, which can carry up to a dozen troops."

link[i-link]From our piece, readers will be aware that the Army operates two main types of patrol craft, the "Rigid Raider" and the "Combat Support Boat". We have published pictures of both but the BBC, in its news report, offers only one, a picture of a combat support boat (right), attributed to "PA" but actually taken by an MoD photographer in August 2003 (they can't even get the attribution right).

This makes the Beeb piece inaccurate. Another word is "wrong". For sure, this is only a matter of detail, and technical detail at that, so does it really matter? In isolation, possibly not. But it does display is a casual sloppiness on the part of the author and his or her employing organisation. Just a few minutes on Google identifies the MoD site and a few more minutes gives you pictures of the boats in use in Iraq. Doing those checks is what being a professional is all about and, while we all make mistakes, the Beeb is taking our money for its "services".

link[i-link]Furthermore, the error does not stop with the boat type. Says the Beeb: "Patrolling the Shatt al-Arab is a risky job for troops because the waterway is too narrow and shallow for large, well-armoured vessels." Yet, the pictures we showed yesterday are of a wide waterway, navigated by substantial craft. The one left, featuring a rigid raider, also shows a wide waterway. (See also picture at the end of this piece, which also depicts a rigid raider.)

With such a casual regard for truth and accuracy, one really does have good cause for wondering whether the Beeb can or should be trusted on other things. And it is not just a question of what they are getting wrong, but what they are missing or, in their amateur way, failing to understand.

In this context, we now have a number of more detailed reports of yesterday's incident. A number of them, based on agency input, tell us that two of the soldiers killed were from 45 Commando Royal Marines and one each was from the Royal Signals and the Intelligence Corps.

It is The Times, though, with a piece by Michael Evans, defence editor, which gives us important detail – not offered at all by the Beeb and many others.

Evans tells us that the military personnel had been engaged in a routine patrol of the river, travelling in two boats, looking for suspicious craft and monitoring movements along the bank from where mortar rounds have been fired in the past. It was as the boats approached a pontoon on the waterway on the west side that an improvised explosive device detonated, probably by remote control. Shia Islamic terrorists were suspected of carrying out the attack.

link[i-link]The crucial information here is that the boats were part of the defensive effort against the continued mortar attacks, one of which, on the Shatt Al-Arab Hotel in early October killed a soldier from the Royal Army Medical Corps. And, as we know, the Basra Palace complex, is beside the waterway, which makes it prone to attack from that direction.

That the insurgents were able to target the boats suggests that the movements of the vessels were known and predictable. It is not inconceivable that the mortaring and this attack were linked, the one setting us the site for a later ambush of the patrol.

That said, hindsight is a wonderful tool and it is easy to be an armchair general. But the point is that each and every death of a British serviceman is exploited by the anti-war groups, and adds to the unease of the general population about the conduct of the war.

As we pointed out earlier, if Blair is to keep troops actively engaged in southern Iraq, he must have at the very least the tolerance of our population. To ensure that, every effort must be made to protect our troops from harm.

link[i-link]On the basis of what we know, we cannot be assured that that is the case and it will take only a few more incidents like this before the pressure for a full-scale withdrawal becomes unstoppable.

But, without good information on what is happening out there, we are all at a loss: the quality of debate and understanding will suffer. For that we need or should be able to rely on the British Broadcasting Corporation. Instead, we have is a collection of amateurs who - amongst other things - want to tell us, without qualification, that the Shatt Al-Arab is "narrow and shallow".

We are not being well served.

Et tu, Scotsman?

It seems the Scotsman has also caught the "amateur" disease with a piece so off the wall that, if we weren't dealing with such a serious subject, it would actually be funny. It writes:

Type%2023%202.0[i-Type%2023%202.0]

Around Basra, it is too narrow and shallow for large vessels such as frigates, necessitating the use of so-called "rigid raider" launches. These typically carry up to a dozen Royal Marines or soldiers, and have only light arms for protection.

This leaves them vulnerable to attack, especially when they slow down to go under the many low bridges that criss-cross that part of the Shatt Al Arab and are open to the public.

One insurgent tactic has been to push small children to the front of the bridges, and then throw missiles over them - meaning it is virtually impossible for coalition troops to return fire for fear of hitting the youngsters.

The British troops carry out the dual role of protecting British bases in Basra while another detachment works from Umm Qasr, protecting the strategic port which is the supply lifeline for UK troops in the area. The marines and navy personnel also guard against water-borne terrorist attacks on offshore oil-pumping stations and merchant shipping.

Er… the frigate is above right. There is nothing in between that and a "rigid raider" (above left)? And what about the use of helicopters?

I suppose an equivalent is, "We can't get a tank down these roads, chaps, so we're going to have to use bicycles". From where do they get these people?

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]The loss of the Nimrod in Afghanistan apart, incidents were our servicemen are reported dead tend mercifully to involve small numbers.

By historical comparisons that remains the case but, by contemporary measures, the loss of four British soldiers in Iraq on Sunday, with another three suffering serious injuries, all in one incident is a major event. Defence Secretary Des Browne has offered a tribute, to which we must add our own.

What makes this very different is that the deaths occurred during an attack on an Army boat making a routine patrol along the Shatt al-Arab waterway in Basra. Apparently, the boat was hit by an IED, leaving Army spokesman Captain Tane Dunlop, speaking from Basra, to say that it was "slightly unusual" for the insurgents to target a boat.

We have no further details of the incident or of the craft involved, which could have been a Combat Support Boat (pictured top left) or a Rigid Raider (below right, furthest from the ship), both of which are used routinely by the Army to carry out patrols of the waterway, which borders with Iran and is a major route of oil and arms smuggling.

link[i-link]Once again though, with an upsurge in activity by the Army – currently engaged in "Operation Sinbad" – we are seeing a matching increase in violence from the insurgents. It is far too early to say whether these deaths could have been prevented but one has to ask whether a "routine" patrol was too predictable – and necessary.

In this context, the words of the Viscount Brookeborough come to mind and, although spoken in the context of land patrols, seem highly relevant to river patrols:

We must ask ourselves questions about the patrols, especially mobile patrols. Is a given patrol really necessary? What is the threat and why is the IED beside the road? Could the patrol be done on foot? If we have the heli hours, could we use helis to patrol at virtually no risk? Are the helis at risk?

There was a range of conclusions, which included the following. Obviously many mobile patrols are vital to achieve the mission, but occasionally, if you ask the questions carefully, it is found that the answer is that they are "not really vital". So why are we doing it? If the threat to a mobile patrol is an IED, then why did the opposition set it up? To protect something, or purely because the patrol would pass it? If the latter is correct, then there is no need to be there, and that is why the IED is there. That is a very simple but important argument.

Of course, as we well know, there is a serious shortage of tactical/patrol helicopters. Is this yet another effect of the MoD's procurement disasters?

COMMENT THREAD

MoS%20-%20Missing[i-MoS%20-%20Missing]There can be no dispute that, when it comes to monitoring the performance of government, the media are definitely part of the problem – to which effect the Mail on Sunday today offers a graphic example.

The story itself looks worthy enough – the sort of "shock, horror, probe!" item that gets the juices of the average hack going, except that it is probably over-blown.

No case is made that the MoD should not be making recruitment films, and the ministry is already being criticised for not meeting recruitment targets, so the issue rests on whether it would have been cheaper to make the film in the UK (and whether it would have been as effective, bearing in mind that part of the sales pitch was the chance to travel the world).

However, in the typical style of modern hackery, political editor Simon Walters had picked up this snippet and then contacts Liam Fox, shadow secretary of state for defence, for a ritual comment. A story is born, a few inches of space are filled, dead trees are sold and tomorrow's fish and chip wrappers are created.

phoenix%20launch[i-phoenix%20launch]The point, of course, is that in a week when the British Consulate in Basra (recently refurbished at a cost of £14 million) has been evacuated for want of effective countermeasures against incessant mortar fire, not least helicopters but also because of the failure of the Army's Phoenix UAV programme – at a loss of £345 million.

By any measure, that is a bigger and better story, in purely journalistic terms. The fact that Simon Walters and the Mail on Sunday go for the trivial instead of the bigger picture betrays their fundamental amateurism.

However, one has also to point to the opposition parties – and especially the Tories. It is not is if they were not aware of the issues and have not had the opportunity to comment. Liam Fox's office could just have easy contacted Simon Walters to give him the story. But, once again, they have dropped the ball and have also missed out on the bigger picture.

COMMENT THREAD