Soldier's death sparks debate over arming medevacs
94 replies, posted
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34693809]however it doesn't explain why the USAF and Brits arm their medevacs, there must be an argument for that.[/QUOTE]
Because they have better helicopters?
[QUOTE=Safer;34693835]Because they have better helicopters?[/QUOTE]
Still doesn't address the doctrinal question of whether the cover fire provided from miniguns and belt-fed MGs in doors is as effective as that from a dedicated assault helicopter.
Also, it would still make sense for them to have dedicated medevacs, for again, increased casualty evac capacity.
It would be nice to have statistics on how many trips a army medevac needs to take to evacuate wounded, and if each of those trips are filled to max capacity.
Remotely controlled machine gun on the side of the helicopter.
Weight problem solved.
[QUOTE=Safer;34693905]Remotely controlled machine gun on the side of the helicopter.
Weight problem solved.[/QUOTE]
how does it being remotely controlled magically reduce it's weight and that of the ammunition.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34693920]how does it being remotely controlled magically reduce it's weight and that of the ammunition.[/QUOTE]
20Kg additional weight of the entire contraption is not much at tbh.
[QUOTE]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."
[b]The Army's goal is to get the most critically injured troops, or Category A patients, to a medical facility within 60 minutes after someone on the battlefield calls for the rescue. Clark reached the hospital one minute within the goal.[/b]
[b]The Army says that last year 167 Category A missions took longer than 60 minutes, [i]nine of them because the medevac was waiting for an air weapons team.[/i] None of these delays affected the outcome for the patient, according to the Army.[/b]
"You rarely wait" for an escort," said Maj. Graham Bundy, a medevac commander from Sussex, Wisconsin, who is stationed at a hangar at Bagram Air Field that operates like a firehouse waiting for a casualty call. "They could be off doing something else and get re-tasked (to escort a medevac) and that could cause a delay.[b] In six months, I can't think of an instance."[/b]
The Army boasts that a service member wounded in Afghanistan currently stands a 92 percent chance of surviving — the best rate of any war.
Clark was among the 8 percent who didn't.
After the explosion, Clark's fellow soldiers applied tourniquets to stop his bleeding. They were hopeful that he might survive even though [b]both of his legs and most of his left arm were severed in the blast.[/b][/QUOTE]
[editline]14th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Safer;34693938]20Kg additional weight of the entire contraption is not much at tbh.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE] and that installing machine guns, ammunition and soldiers to man them would add roughly [b]600 pounds[/b] to a medevac chopper. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34693956][editline]14th February 2012[/editline][/QUOTE]
Are you stupid? That very statement you're trying to use against me suggests adding men, heavy machine guns and a boatload of ammunition to the mix.
I suggested a light M249 box fed machine gun, which weighs roughly 7.5kg, double box of ammunition which will weigh in another 5kg. Then using a remote system to control the machine gun. If you wanted tons more firepower they could adapt CROWS I Light which weighs in at 74Kg.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694010]Are you stupid? That very statement you're trying to use against me suggests adding men, heavy machine guns and a boatload of ammunition to the mix.
I suggested a light M249 box fed machine gun, which weighs roughly 7.5kg, double box of ammunition which will weigh in another 5kg. Then using a remote system to control the machine gun.[/QUOTE]
Which would help how, exactly? They could simply carry the M249 and still be allowed to have a red cross on their heli..
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34694033]Which would help how, exactly? They could simply carry the M249 and still be allowed to have a red cross on their heli..[/QUOTE]
Tons less weight, removing the excuse that says less men can be carried while still being armed to protect the craft. Please address your original statement which completely ignores what I said?
Only those who wish to be protected by the convention are gonna obey it. It's obvious that this was a problem before this came to news. Their have been suggestions before. But because in a modern era like today your not gonna be fighting conventionally. Bottom line you need to adapt.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694060]Tons less weight, removing the excuse that says less men can be carried while still being armed to protect the craft. Please address your original statement which completely ignores what I said?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Remotely controlled machine gun on the side of the helicopter.
Weight problem solved.[/QUOTE]
^that is what you said. Do you, anywhere there, see that it says anything about the weight of the weapon itself, or the contraption that supports said weapon?
And like I said, if you're going to put a relatively small (for a helicopter) weapon on the helicopter, the medics might as well just carry it, since then they would still be allowed to have a cross on the heli.
[t]http://i.imgur.com/wmPBn.png[/t]
Yeah I see 20kg.
I even said in the post before.. remotely controlled machine gun, yet your post says it would require tons of additional weight for a [B]manned solution[/B].
In order for you..
[QUOTE=Safer;34693905]Remotely controlled machine gun on the side of the helicopter.
Weight problem solved.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Safer;34693938]20Kg additional weight of the entire contraption is not much at tbh.[/QUOTE]
The medics cannot carry weapons because they're either A, going for the wounded or B, getting ready to treat the wounded.
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;34693492]isn't that exactly the same logic the germans used for the soviets in WW2?[/QUOTE]
No actually, the Nazi's acted horribly because of their ideology and not because the Soviets broke and/or never signed it. If they did they probably would have used poison gas. The Italians, however, used this as their excuse for using poison gas against the Abyssinians in the Second Italo-Abyssinian War.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694185][img]http://i.imgur.com/wmPBn.png[/img]
Yeah I see 20kg, it says right there 20kg. Otherwise I would not have said 20kg if I dident mean 20kg because 20kg is infact 20kg.
I even said in the post you strip-quoted.. remotely controlled machine gun, yet your post says it would require tons of additional weight for a [B]manned solution[/B].[/QUOTE]
I assumed your 20kg was a typo as 600 pounds with at most 400 pounds removed for the personnel still isn't 20 kg.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;34694235]I assumed your 20kg was a typo as 600 pounds with at most 400 pounds removed for the personnel still isn't 20 kg.[/QUOTE]
Then you seem to lack basic metric knowledge or understand what is put on these helicopters.
At most, my solution would weigh in at 74Kg, even less if you mounted a M249 on it assuming you were opting for the already produced and common CROWS.
Even less if they could design a simpler system.
CROWS is not a weapons system designed for helicopters (it has limited elevation/depression, compared to other heli RWS), and the airframe of the H-60 is not very conducive to remote weapons systems in general. [b]Plus, you would still have to add a crewman to operate the CROWS.[/b]
Current doctrine doesn't use RWS on most medium helicopters anyways, guns on medium helicopters are almost always door mounted or forward-fixed with no exceptions.
Remotely operated implying they're at a FOB.
Then pick another system I never said CROWS was the only option.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694686]Remotely operated implying they're at a FOB.
Then pick another system I never said CROWS was the only option.[/QUOTE]
uh bro, RWSs are almost never used by people at remote locations (you're thinking of UAVs, which is another can of worms), they're almost always used by people inside the vehicle to reduce crew exposure to enemy fire.
This is for multiple, extremely good reasons, like target identification, lag, and communication with the rest of the crew of the aircraft. Having a gun going off when you're not expecting it is bad, plus losing your "gunner" when you lose radio link is also bad.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;34694730]uh bro, RWSs are almost never used by people at remote locations (you're thinking of UAVs, which is another can of worms), they're almost always used by people inside the vehicle to reduce crew exposure to enemy fire.
This is for multiple, extremely good reasons, like target identification, lag, and communication with the rest of the crew of the aircraft. Having a gun going off when you're not expecting it is bad, plus losing your "gunner" when you lose radio link is also bad.[/QUOTE]
Then this entire argument is redundant and they should put better engines in their helicopters, create more room and put a minigun on the side of the chopper.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694748]Then this entire argument is redundant and they should put better engines in their helicopters, create more room and put a minigun on the side of the chopper.[/QUOTE]
Jesus christ you're thick. Do you realize how much money it would cost to do that?
Depends how many medevac helicopters they need for Afghanistan.
They probably have at least 20-30 if not more, To retro-fit all of those helicopters would cost a massive sum, They might aswell just buy a whole new fleet.
[QUOTE=Safer;34694748]Then this entire argument is redundant and they should put better engines in their helicopters, create more room and put a minigun on the side of the chopper.[/QUOTE]
well if you put better engines in and create more room, you already have a better casevac platform, why reduce it's casevac potential by adding a minigun?
if you want attack and cover capability, go for an attack helicopter.
if you want better casevac, get a dedicated casevac platform.
The Mi-24 Hind, iyo, would be an almost perfect casevac platform, yet it isn't used as such.
Or they could just bring in a apache to oversee the operation from above..
[QUOTE=Safer;34694813]Or they could just bring in a apache to oversee the operation from above..[/QUOTE]
which is what current doctrine says
did you even read the article?
[quote]U.S. military officials also say that door guns can't match the precision firepower unleashed by Apache helicopters, which often escort medevacs. Limiting collateral damage is critical in Afghanistan where the death of civilians and destruction of property has put the U.S.-led coalition force at odds with the Afghan people.
"I just don't see the precision fire capability that this fight really requires, especially when you've got aircraft around that are specifically designed with Hellfire missiles, .30mm cannons with laser range finding," said Col. T.J. Jamison of Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, who commands the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade based at Bagram. "You're not going to get that out of any door gun on the side of an aircraft."[/quote]
however I agree that they should consider converting some regular HH-60s to a casevac role because it's not matter of maximum casualty capacity [b]in today's small conflicts[/b].
[QUOTE=Safer;34694748]Then this entire argument is redundant and they should put better engines in their helicopters, create more room and put a minigun on the side of the chopper.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah! God we're so stupid! The solution to the problem was in our face the whole time. Let's just redesign our entire helicopter fleet and just replace all the current ones. It's so easy, cheap, and hassle-free!
Seriously, you should totally pitch this idea to congress/the military.
It seems everyone reading the article assumes that the medevacs need to be armed; the article gives many good reasons why that isn't the case.
Im late
The Geneva convention does allow medics to carry firearms to defend themselves and their patients. They are defensive only.
They should amend that to medevacs. Weapons for defense purposes only. To defend the medical operation and defend the patients. No for offensive operations.
[QUOTE=HkSniper;34695292]The Geneva convention does allow medics to carry firearms to defend themselves and their patients. They are defensive only.
They should amend that to medevacs. Weapons for defense purposes only. To defend the medical operation and defend the patients. No for offensive operations.[/QUOTE]
But thats the problem, even defensive weapons weigh too much. Thats why they have apache escorts.
[editline]14th February 2012[/editline]
The reason the USAF and Navy have armed casevacs may be due to them having a lack of escorts due to having fewer helicopters than the Army.
[QUOTE=BurningPlayd0h;34695378]But thats the problem, even defensive weapons weigh too much. Thats why they have apache escorts.[/QUOTE]
well the argument is that the casevac can only carry one patient anyways (because the medic can only attend to one patient) and the argument that defensive weapons weight too much does not really apply when the casevac isn't going to be used at maximum capacity anyways
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.