Copter crashes in Iraq worsen the nightmare

February 8, 2007

A neighbor of mine is a pilot who’s done two tours in Iraq. Both times, when we chatted before he left, there was an awkward truth that we were hesitant to say out loud: of all the U.S. soldiers in Iraq, the safest ones were in the sky, where there are no IEDs or snipers.

Tragically, that’s no longer a safe assumption.

With two more helicopter crashes near Baghdad, including a Marine transport crash on Wednesday that killed seven people, the number of helicopters that have gone down in Iraq over the past three weeks rose to six. American officials say the streak strongly suggests that insurgents have adapted their tactics and are now putting more effort into shooting down the aircraft. […]

Some aspects of the recent crashes indicate that insurgents have become smarter about anticipating American flight patterns and finding ways to use old weapons to down helicopters, according to military and witness reports. The aircraft, many of which are equipped with sophisticated antimissile technology, still can be vulnerable to more conventional weapons fired from the ground.

Details about the Marine helicopter, a CH-46 Sea Knight transport that crashed into an open field in an insurgent-heavy region northwest of Baghdad, were still sketchy Wednesday night. Witnesses said the aircraft appeared to have been shot down, but some military officials suggested that the crash might have been caused by a mechanical failure.

After four years of war in which the air was relatively attack-free, six helicopters have gone done in three weeks. “Mechanical failure” seems like an unlikely explanation. For that matter, it’s not even a reassuring account of the incidents. As the Heretik put it, “So now the good news is our helicopters are just falling apart in the air? … The enemy couldn’t possibly be have the weapons nor the training to shoot down one of our helicopters, could they? Far better to think the machines are just dropping from the sky.”

From the NYT piece, here’s an menacing paragraph if I’ve ever seen one:

Historically, improved tactics in shooting down helicopters have proved to be important factors in conflicts in which guerrillas have achieved victories against major powers, including battles in Somalia, Afghanistan and Vietnam.

Josh Marshall adds:

There seems little doubt now that this is more than a statistical anomaly. But investigators still don’t seem to have a clear grasp of what’s happening. The one piece of information that appears relative clear is that this is not being caused by new weaponry. It’s been accomplished with high-caliber machine gun fire in most or all cases. The insurgents are just getting better, or more aggressive, or more ominously, they’re getting better at knowing where the helicopters are going to be.

The nightmare worsens.

if it weren’t for the unnecessary harm to the troops, which i wouldn’t wish for the world, i’m almost inclined to say let’s just let this war go on to see just how bad its going to get. remember, i said i’m not really serious, but if it does go on, it is going to keep getting worse.

  • It doesn’t take rocket science to bring down a chopper. Just aim at those big, swirling blades, and let fly with any ol’ thing imaginable. Hell’s bells—if the thing is low evough, you can zing a few stones at the rotors with a slingshot. Crack one tail-blade; the ship’s limping home, at best. Bust up a “main” blade, and it’s history. And those wretched sea Knights? They’re like flying a freaking cow in the air. They’re huge, ugly, barns that are so-ooo easy to hit—that’s why they used the Hueys in Viet Nam.

    But this is Iraq; no rainforests over which to hide from ground-based hostile fire—just like Somalia; just like Afghanistan was for the Russians.

    Here’s an idea—maybe Bush, Cheney, Gates, Petraeus, and a few other “hardy chickenhawks” could tool around in the skies over Baghdad with Marine One. You know—just to “show us evil, enemy-enabling lib-rul cut-n-runners” how it’s done….

  • It has been said that Vietnam would have been much much worse if the USSR had supplied the NVA and VC with Strela Shoulder Launched SAMs as Air Cav tactics at the time assumed that there was no SAM threat.

    My friend, Tom Cleaver mentioned that earlier. Things started to go really bad in Afghanistan for the Soviets when the CIA brought in Stinger SAMs.

  • Let’s look at the possibility that the DoD is correct and these choppers did go down b/c of mechanical problems. What exactly does that say about the quality of our equipment and the state of our rediness? Seems to me that suggesting every chopper ride is a gamble due to worn out equipment is not a morale booster for the troops. Why do they insist on emboldening the terrorists? Why do they hate America?

  • I worked a helo-carrier for 3 years and unlike steve seems to believe, a little fodder (bullets or stones)near the blades will not bring down a helo. The Speed in which the blades spin generally deflect small arms and certainly stones. These aircraft are specifically designed to bring troops into hostile places, so even a direct hit to a blade isn’t going to bring them down.

    What I would imagine is the enemy has figured this out and is starting to shoot at the turbo jet engines that power these aircraft, they are much more susceptible to small arm hits.

    The other point to mention is that sand tears these machines apart and life expectancy of a jet engine in sand vs. any other environment is very low. Think sandblaster on steroids. My point is that if replacement parts are not being replaced as often as necessary, the helos are not operating at 100% and this mixed with the enemy knowing what parts to strike is what is bringing these birds out of the sky.

  • More troops, more targets. The Bushies have been extraordinary at underestimating situations and others have had to pay the price. Looking back to the start of this war, the parties shooting at us, whomever that may be at this point, have constantly adapted their tactics to create havoc for US troops. From the fedayeen to suicide bobers to IEDs to shaped charges and now to tactics to shoot down choppers. I don’t trust the Penatgon nor the civilian leadership of the armed forces to either respond or stay ahead of the evolving battle tactics. They just don’t seem that smart.

  • From my point of view (keeping track of reported US military deaths), the tragedy is that 25 deaths in one day doesn’t add up to a pixel’s worth of growth in the death curve. And the dramatic increase in the moving two-week average of deaths, normally in the 2.0 range but now frequently above 3.0 per day, isn’t noticeable either. Announcing “Mission Accomplished” (139 US deaths) required landing on an aircraft carrier by Commander Codpiece; crossing the threshold of 3,100 happened without a whisper from anyone.

    Voters made stunningly clear their disgust with the invasion-occupation last November, but it doesn’t seem to matter. Even those we elected who, whatever they say, do have the power to cut off further funding for our part in the slaughter and do have the power to bring our troops home. Wouldn’t that be a better way to “show support for our troops” than wishing them godspeed as we toss them into Bush’s Iraq Quagmire?

  • Re the current war resolutions in the Senate:
    I called the office of my Sen. Smith (R), who has spoken out against the war and the surge, to ask why he voted against debating the Warner-Levin resolution, which he co-sponsors. Yet it appears that he now wants discussion. I was confused. The guy in his office told me that Smith wants debate on all of the resolutions, but the majority leader is preventing that, even debate on Feingold’s resolution.

    His position seems resonable, though some of the resolutions are pretty pathetic. Could the Dems not debate the others but then filibuster when it came time to vote so that a weak Repub resolution isn’t passed?

    Come to think of it, none of these resolutions are going to accomplish a thing (except Feingold’s, which has no chance) so the better way to go is to impeach W and the Shooter, or at least threaten it. Let’s see what Pelosi can accomplish in the House.

  • The day the US Army was really certain they weren’t going to be doing anything other than leaving Vietnam with their tail between their legs was the first day of Operation Lam Song 719 in 1971, the US-supported South Vietnamese incursion into Laos to “lay waste” to the Ho Chi Minh Trail. The first day, they lost 75 helicopters shot down and over a 100 shot up. The ARVNs did what the ARVNs always did – not fight (when I once heard the Vietnames down in Orange County were going to do a statue of the ARVN, my response is, “how do you do a bunch of guys running away and throwing down their weapons?”), so the Americans took it in the shorts on this operation, which became the last major US offensive operation of the war. Overall, in the week or so of the whole thing, they lost nearly300 helicopters shot down or shot to hell.

    The Army says they have all the anti-missile technology on these helicopters now, but there’s no technology to stop a well-aimed RPG when you’re only 200 feet AGL, which is where they fly at in Iraq – also well within range of a .50 caliber machine gun,which can rip the heart out of a turbine engine in 20 seconds.

    The CH-46s are what, 45 years old now? The fact they even fly is a frickin’ miracle.

    No helicopters means no more US military superiority. They’re already trying to deal with ground supply convoys that move like covered wagon trains from IED to IED.

    I hope somone in David Petraeus’ gaggle of those whose brains have been Piled Higher and Deeper has been reading “The Anabasis” because getting out of the Chosin Reservoir is going to look like a Sunday School picnic compared to the evacuation of Iraq.

    I seem to recall another army that came up with a “surge strategy” and won every fight it fought in that campaign, only to come marching out of its last fortifications to the tune of “The World Turned Upside Down” (the British southern campaign in North America, 1778 – won every battle, retreated into Yorktown because they couldn’t survive in the countryside, you know the rest)

  • It’s the insight of the New York Times piece (echoed here by others) that is really scary. Are the politicians in Washington finally going to pull the troops out because we lost six helicopters in two weeks rather then because we lost 100+ soldiers in certain months last year?

    You know that once Congress says we have to leave the Bushites are going to do it STUPID just to shift the blame to the Democrats.

    Why do you think they keep begging and daring and hoping the Democrats will cut the funding for the war.

    Gah!

    But I have a suggestion for Pelosi and Reid. Let the Republican’ts put up an amendment saying we won’t cut the funding if they agree to an amendment saying the funding HAS TO BE PAID FOR WITH NEW TAXES. We need to stop paying for this war with our Chinese Communist Party issued credit card and pony up some real money. If this is an existential war against terrorism and it matters so much, surely the Republican’ts will be willing to pay for it rather than borrow.

    • Comments are closed.