M14 Forum

GARRARD · February 13th, 2012, 02:00 PM

Quote:

BAGRAM AIR FIELD, Afghanistan (AP) — It took a medevac unit 59 minutes to get U.S. Army Spec. Chazray Clark to a hospital in southern Afghanistan after receiving a call that a roadside bombing severed three of his limbs. Clark did not survive.

"I need something, please. It hurts," Clark, a 24-year-old combat engineer from Detroit, can be heard saying on a videotape as he waited in the dark for the helicopter.

But the rescue aircraft was unarmed, as are all Army medevacs. And the pre-dawn pickup zone in the Zhari district of Kandahar province was considered "hot," or dangerous, meaning the medevac could not swoop in for the pickup until another chopper with firepower arrived to provide cover.

In Clark's case, the military says there was a delay in determining whether any armed escort helicopters already in the air could be diverted to the scene. It's unclear how long that lasted and whether it made a difference. Army officials said they could not disclose the time Clark died because of a policy not to reveal medical information about casualties.

About 20 U.S. lawmakers have written to military officials inquiring about the Sept. 18, 2011 incident, which has revived a debate over whether Army medevac helicopters should have their own guns.

"I feel like they should be armed. They're in war. Why aren't they armed? These young men and women are risking their lives," the soldier's mother, Keyko Davis-Clark, said by telephone from her home in Romulus, Michigan.

Clark's mother, some medevac pilots and others who want to see the medevacs armed note that helicopters fly in pairs in Afghanistan. If both are armed, escorts wouldn't be needed and both could evacuate patients from the battlefield. That amounts to greater capacity, not less, they say, and there would be no waiting for escorts.

In a Feb. 7 letter to a lawmaker, U.S. Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. Central Command, which oversees Afghanistan, would be directed to review guidelines on the use of escort aircraft

Army officials say that waiting for an escort is rare, and that installing machine guns, ammunition and soldiers to man them would add roughly 600 pounds to a medevac chopper. That extra weight would limit its ability to fly in some high-altitude areas of Afghanistan and reduce the number of patients who could be evacuated at a time.

"They try to lighten the aircraft as much as they can. They take seats out. They do all kinds of stuff," said Maj. Gen. Richard Thomas, surgeon general of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. "Weight is their enemy. They need to get lift and you need to get speed."

Read the whole story here: http://news.yahoo.com/soldiers-death...184034109.html

Albud3 · February 13th, 2012, 02:19 PM

As this is a "asymmetric" conflict where the bad guys haven't signed the Geneva Conventions, dust-offs should be armed. Yes, there are times when the extra weight would be a factor, but you're talking about multiple causality, high altitude incidents. For an injured soldier to die waiting for an armed escort, the outdated "rules of war" unarmed policy needs to be tossed. If the next war/conflict is with a Conventions signatory and they don't shoot at dust-offs, then take the guns off.

markp · February 13th, 2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albud3

As this is a "asymmetric" conflict where the bad guys haven't signed the Geneva Accords, dust-offs should be armed. Yes, there are times when the extra weight would be a factor, but you're talking about multiple causality, high altitude incidents. For an injured soldier to die waiting for an armed escort, the outdated "rules of war" unarmed policy needs to be tossed. If the next war/conflict is with an Accord signatory and they don't shoot at dust-offs, then take the guns off.

There should be 2 cobras to fly escort for each medivac chopper... or an AC-130/A-10 on stand by to clear out the LZ. Plain and simple, this is an easy problem to fix and only requires a few extra air assets to accomplish competently.

sac troop · February 13th, 2012, 02:49 PM

The Dust-Off policy has become an Army tradition of sorts. It goes back to at least Vietnam.
For perspective the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps take a different approach to the situation. As far as an argument towards rules of engagement go. I don't believe the other three branches of our Military are acting in defiance of recognized treaties.

When the Air Force goes in to recover U.S. military personal from harms way. They will break things and kill what ever or who ever gets in their way. At least that’s one thing they get right, IMHO.

Philz M1A · February 13th, 2012, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markp

There should be 2 cobras to fly escort for each medivac chopper... or an AC-130/A-10 on stand by to clear out the LZ. Plain and simple, this is an easy problem to fix and only requires a few extra air assets to accomplish competently.

I watched the television special on this, apparently the gunships were tied up providing air support somewhere else. As unfortunate as it is, there are only so many escort aircraft to go around, and the medivacs (based on their TTP's at the time) can't go into a hot area solo. It just sucks that he couldn't get treatment in time.

Quicksilvergoat · February 13th, 2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markp

There should be 2 cobras to fly escort for each medivac chopper... or an AC-130/A-10 on stand by to clear out the LZ. Plain and simple, this is an easy problem to fix and only requires a few extra air assets to accomplish competently.

Great idea in principle. Unfortunately the Army canned their Cobra's years ago. I think they could do with one Cobra each as an escort. Out there somewhere are a ton of helicopters rotting away. Hell even modifying UH-1's as gunships to escort the UH-60's would be better. Now that I think of it I wonder if a UH-1 wouldn't be better suited for Afghanistan and it's altitude considerations. Any Aviation guys out there want to weigh in on if a UH-1 would be better suited for Afghanistan.

Albud3 · February 13th, 2012, 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by markp

There should be 2 cobras to fly escort for each medivac chopper... or an AC-130/A-10 on stand by to clear out the LZ. Plain and simple, this is an easy problem to fix and only requires a few extra air assets to accomplish competently.

Good policy...IF the assets are available. It seems in this case they weren't for some reason. Two gunships (Apache for Army, Cobras for Marines) per flight is a good idea, but you're talking about having two "DEDICATED" gunships being taken out of the loop so to speak, and only being used as escorts regardless of the tactical situation on scene or elsewhere. As for a Specter/Warthog on stand-by, it'll still take awhile to get to the area unless there's 24/7/365 coverage airborne in multiple 'boxes' country-wide.

With the Dust-offs being armed themselves, they could at least be en-route until other assets arrive. If no other assets are available the Dust-off could still protect itself, retrieve the injured and get him/her to the hospital in time to increase their survival chances immensely. Tradition is good until it costs lives, then it's time to start new ones.

Dang Quicksilvergoat, just too dang fast (hope your wife doesn't agree

). UH-1s would not be a viable alternative. Performance in high/high conditions are almost half of a 'Hawks. Have to be another UH-60 at least.

DukeRustfield · February 13th, 2012, 03:29 PM

I'm not a military planner. (Duh)

But there may be reasons why different branches have different practices. Is the Army is more likely to need that 600 lbs of space, maneuverability, whatever?

If one guy gets saved here do 5 guys die later because there's no room or they couldn't get there or something? I'm sure they look at all kinds of data. Not sure if they make the right decision, but basing an entire policy on one incident can be problematic. They got decades of data, presumably.

Quicksilvergoat · February 13th, 2012, 03:52 PM

The real issue comes down to money. As much as we spend on defense we can't afford to have the 24/7/365 air cover that Albud3 speaks of. There are probably more than enough Cobra's floating around that could be overhauled to pair up with the Blackhawks. We just can't afford it.

Our defense budget has continued to rise over the years and the number of birds, tanks, boats, and boots goes down. In some cases they have been effectively replaced by "combat multipliers". In far too many cases the "combat multipliers" come up short and the troops are left without.

We can say that far more troops survive severe injuries today than they would have been able to in the past past however, I wonder how the op-tempo of dustoffs in Afghanistan compares to those of the Vietnam war. I would imagine those of Vitenam had a much higher op-tempo.

CNelson · February 13th, 2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quicksilvergoat

Great idea in principle. Unfortunately the Army canned their Cobra's years ago. I think they could do with one Cobra each as an escort. Out there somewhere are a ton of helicopters rotting away. Hell even modifying UH-1's as gunships to escort the UH-60's would be better. Now that I think of it I wonder if a UH-1 wouldn't be better suited for Afghanistan and it's altitude considerations. Any Aviation guys out there want to weigh in on if a UH-1 would be better suited for Afghanistan.

No. Definently not. The older UH-1's with their single lycoming engine or even the "less old" UH-1N's with their pratt and whitney twin packs would be power limited. If you wanted to get a "huey" to operate at that altitude you would have to go with the newest 4 bladed versions available and even then they would be somewhat power limited... Then talking about adding both the guns, armor plating on the deck and pilots seats... then trying to sqeeze some stretchers is well a stretch. A huey with gau-2's, ammo cans, rocket pods, flir, ase, armor, is cramped and power limited enough as is without attempting to add stretchers, medical equipment, additional crewmembers with dedicated training for treating of casualties.

The issue is not of arming the helicopters. Its a maintenence and planning issue.

If you have sufficiently planned ahead to arrange a medevac capability for your operation, you as a commander, had better have planned to escort the medevacs. Your commanders should also plan for either of their first choices in medivac and escort units to fall thru, due to maintenence or other commitments and being unable to support your need. Then you should plan accordingly. If that means you must coordinate between 3 different apache longbow outfits just to get 2 armed escorts so be it.

If you have dedicated medical personnel in your unit operating in support of your mission then they can accompany your wounded onto ANY helicopter. Just because a MEDEVAC helicopter cannot land, does not mean that another helicopter which is already in the area and is armed cannot provide a lift of opportunity, and become a CASEVAC chopper... Your commander is just gonna have to suck it up and send two corpsmen or combat medics out on the chopper to tend to that wounded individual.

The problem with getting a MEDEVAC into a "hot" LZ is not getting them in there and landing. Its what happens when they are on the ground without weapons and when they try to leave without weapons. If an enemy tries to engage them they have no means of actively suppressing the enemy, they have means of defeating things such as shoulder fired missile (flares), but they dont have the ability to discourage second or third engagements while they, themselves are attempting to disengage.

An already armed helicopter, like the H-47 that just dropped you off already has defensive weapons, already has ASE (flares, armor).

Albud3 · February 13th, 2012, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DukeRustfield

I'm not a military planner. (Duh)

But there may be reasons why different branches have different practices. Is the Army is more likely to need that 600 lbs of space, maneuverability, whatever?

If one guy gets saved here do 5 guys die later because there's no room or they couldn't get there or something? I'm sure they look at all kinds of data. Not sure if they make the right decision, but basing an entire policy on one incident can be problematic. They got decades of data, presumably.

Duke, IIRC (and it's been 30+ years), the "no guns" policy on the Hueys was mainly because of the limited performance of the Huey. If the 2 M-60s and their systems were added to a Huey, only 2-3 littered patients could be carried vs the 4-5, maybe 6 otherwise. With the Blackhawk's greatly improved performance vs the Huey's, there would not be such a trade-off unless there was an extremely high-altitude/high-temperature flight. I believe they (factory reps) said a Blackhawk could carry the same number of patients armed/unarmed under 95% of flight envelopes.

The unarmed Dust-off tradition goes back to before WW II with the Geneva Conventions regarding medical personnel and facilities. Any person, vehicle and building marked with the Red Cross was a non-combative and not to be interfered, delayed, shot, bombed or attacked in any way whatsoever. Even the Japanese followed the conventions to a point (even though most medics considered the Red Cross to be an aiming point for the Japanese) while the Germans and Italians considered a violation by their people to be a courts-martial (or worse) offense throughout the war (except German/Soviet on the Eastern Front). The North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese shot at our medical people/facilities as a matter of fact (but raised hell if we hit one of theirs by accident) all during the wars/conflicts. But we, as the good guys, still adhered to the Geneva Convention even when it cost us lives.

CNelson · February 13th, 2012, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Albud3

Duke, IIRC (and it's been 30+ years), the "no guns" policy on the Hueys was mainly because of the limited performance of the Huey. If the 2 M-60s and their systems were added to a Huey, only 2-3 littered patients could be carried vs the 4-5, maybe 6 otherwise. With the Blackhawk's greatly improved performance vs the Huey's, there would not be such a trade-off unless there was an extremely high-altitude/high-temperature flight. I believe they (factory reps) said a Blackhawk could carry the same number of patients armed/unarmed under 95% of flight envelopes.

The unarmed Dust-off tradition goes back to before WW II with the Geneva Conventions regarding medical personnel and facilities. Any person, vehicle and building marked with the Red Cross was a non-combative and not to be interfered, delayed, shot, bombed or attacked in any way whatsoever. Even the Japanese followed the conventions to a point (even though most medics considered the Red Cross to be an aiming point for the Japanese) while the Germans and Italians considered a violation by their people to be a courts-martial (or worse) offense throughout the war (except German/Soviet on the Eastern Front). The North Koreans, Chinese and Vietnamese shot at our medical people/facilities as a matter of fact (but raised hell if we hit one of theirs by accident) all during the wars/conflicts. But we, as the good guys, still adhered to the Geneva Convention even when it cost us lives.

Kind of hard to see the little red cross markings on the side of an UH-60 or SH-60 at 3/4s of a mile... Even harder when your looking thru the infra-red targeting system of a shoulder fired surface to air missile... That is if you actually cared at all.

SAPPNASTY · February 13th, 2012, 04:17 PM

Its just unfortunate that it takes something like this to make them consider changing things around. I have never been in combat, but I would hope that if I was injured I could be lifted out by a chopper that either has weapons or a dedicated escort. It just sucks this soldier died as a result of the medvac chopper not have weapons or an escort...just sayin

Swamp Rat · February 13th, 2012, 04:35 PM

I don't mean to sound callous, but I wonder if this has ever happened before? If not, then with F-ups being the way they are in war, well, you know.

Quicksilvergoat · February 13th, 2012, 04:39 PM

It appears in this situation the only thing that could have made a difference was the crew of the MEDEVAC. They could have risked it. They might have violated the rules but if they were nearby regardless of the rules they had a painful choice to make.

CNelson and Albud3 I definitely appreciat ethe input. I learned a ton from your posts in this thread. I was just brain storming a bit. That's one of the reasons this is such a great site. Thank you both.