British destroy own C130 in Iraq

[aka_tom_w]

web page

British forces in Iraq have destroyed one of their transport aircraft on Tuesday after it was damaged during a landing "incident" in southern Maysan province.

The Hercules C-130 was destroyed after the "incident" on Monday made the aircraft unsafe to fly again, the UK's Ministry of Defence said.

"We're certainly saying it hasn't been shot down," an MoD spokesman said.

He said there was "no suggestion of pilot error", but said he was not in a position to comment on whether the Royal Air Force plane had been attacked during the landing itself.

The incident, which occurred during a routine landing at a "tactical landing zone", described by the spokesman as something less permanent than an airstrip, resulted in "minor injuries" to two passengers.

[civdiv]

One C-130 hit a land mine some time ago. I don't know if it's the same incident.

[flamingknives]

Sounds like it hit a rock or ditch on an modestly, if at all, prepared strip, resulting in structural damage

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, this sounds like one of those "we are really embarrassed" kind of accidents. Someone forgot to check for potholes or warn the crew about some sort of obstruction. What I mean by embarrassing is lives were almost lost and a very expensive aircraft was lost because Lance Corporal Jones forgot to shovel some dirt earlier that morning.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Looks like an IED, this from flight,

Runwayside bomb' new threat as UK defence ministry blames improvised explosive device attack for RAF C-130J Hercules loss in Iraq

By Craig Hoyle

Hostile action was responsible for the loss of a UK Royal Air Force Lockheed Martin C-130J tactical transport in Iraq on 12 February, according to the UK Ministry of Defence.

“The initial investigation suggests that it was struck by an improvised explosive device [iED] similar to a roadside bomb,” Minister for defence procurement Lord Drayson revealed last week.

The aircraft – ZH876 – suffered significant damage while landing at an airstrip in Iraq’s western Maysan province, but all the crew and personnel aboard survived without serious injury. Worth an estimated £45 million ($87.7 million), the platform was destroyed after an assessment that it “could not be recovered without undue risk to personnel,” says Drayson. The RAF’s remaining C-130J fleet now totals 24 aircraft.

Peter.

[Wicky]

Ouch! fifty quid bomb to write-off a £45 million aircraft. :eek:

[panzermartin]

Runway side bomb? This is almost funny.

[tiny_tanker]

Funny until you see pictures of it. Take the left wing off from the outboard engine to the tip, with the engine being destroyed also so the prop probably did some damage to the body of the aircraft. Not a pretty sight for sure, made me a bit sad and sick in the end. I'm amazed there were only two minor injuries.

[Battlefront.com]

So... runway security was apparently not high up on the priority list? I know those Insurgents can be sneaky little buggers, but that's a pretty serious breach in security. But the again, Blair says everything is just ducky in the south and everybody can go home anyway. Well, not in that C-130 though

Steve

[tiny_tanker]

I imagine they used this strip one to many times in a regular interval, wouldn't be the first time people have been killed in Iraq due to aircraft using the same route over and over. Plus since this was an unimproved strip there would be no permanent personnel, the troops would just show up when the plane is supposed to be there. With a command detonated ied no one would have a clue it was there until it was to late.

[Battlefront.com]

Plus since this was an unimproved strip there would be no permanent personnel, the troops would just show up when the plane is supposed to be there.

Hence my comment about a lack of prioritization of security. Personally, I don't understand how one could be landing huge, expensive "targets" on a strip of dirt that wasn't secured 24/7/365. I guess the Brits just figured this out too.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

It all depends on what the type of device was.

An obvious choice would be something that was buried and triggered by a metal detector as opposed to an IR sensor or command wire.

That way unless you were running mine detectors over the strip on a daily basis it could lie their for a long time.

Of course you could just go down the US route and rely totally on large secure airfield s orbase areas, like the Green Zone and baghdad Airport, but of coursethat leads to the insurgents having free to virtually control the capital.

In Afghanistan the British have been Criticised for "platoon houses", small bases dotted around and often laid siege too by superior taleban numbers, but the alternative is to retire in to bigger and bigger, mounting large scale sweeps far less often.

The end result of that is the same 90% of the time the insurgents have the run of the land and the ear of the people, With you becoming a rare visitor and then in a large military operation, that probably scares the **** out of the people you are trying to help.

The British approach is higher risk. it means spreading yourself thinner in smaller groups, and potentially higher casualties, but as a way of winning the war it's probably a better long term strategy.

Peter.

[aka_tom_w]

"The British approach is higher risk. it means spreading yourself thinner in smaller groups, and potentially higher casualties, but as a way of winning the war it's probably a better long term strategy.

Peter."

um well,

OK, except for the practice of landing large C130 transports on less then secure strips of dirt now and then.

-tom w

[c3k]

Ah,

A perfect case of tactics and training and operations coming together and handing your enemy an opportunity.

A few rhetorical questions: How many places are ready-made for a C-130 to land? Of those, how many are known as possible sites to the British?

Now, let's narrow those down a bit: of those possible sites known to the Brits, how many could be useful? (Who cares about a strip of asphalt near Syria if I'm operating in Basra.)

Well, that limits it a bit, but I'm sure there are more unprepared sites than there are runways.

Now, how do we use these sites? Do we land C-130's willy nilly across the countryside? Of course not. You send in a patrol and provide an airfield survey. You know, check for obstacles on the ground and along the flight path. Check weight bearing capacities, etc. (Kind of embarrassing to land in a bog.) How often do these surveys occur? How manpower intensive are they? And do you think just anyone is qualified to provide an airfield survey?

So, it seems obvious that only a handful of unprepared sites would be used as forward operating bases for C-130's. The conundrum comes from the decision to reuse one of your limited sites without advance warning to the enemy. If you send sweeper teams, the enemy can congregate around the field with SA-7/14's etc. Tough call. If you don't sweep before use - thoroughly - which could take days to accomplish - you may get the ol' land mine in the wing trick. Ooops.

If you ignore each site you've previously landed on, you'll soon run out of landing sites. Not a viable option.

So, armchair aviators/tacticians: what's the answer?

Thanks,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

C3K has hit it on the head. This has nothing to do with the US "Base" mentality vs. the British "Patrol" mentality. We're talking about a logistics center that is specific to the purpose of handling extremely vulnerable and expensive equipment. Hardening such facilities, or moving them about, or at least having some security wouldn't impact patrols in the street.

What if that C-130 had a company of British troops on it and the plane totally crashed and burned? One IED in one split second could have doubled the number of deaths the British have suffered in 4 years of war in Iraq. How much of a force would have been necessary to make sure that opportunity wasn't put in the hands of the insurgents? A platoon? Two? We're not talking about putting an entire Battalion in a fixed fortification while the area around it goes to Hell.

While I agree that the US "Base" mentality is highly flawed, I also disagree that the "Beret" mentality that the Brits favored would work in an Anbar or the Suni Triangle. Heck, even the Brits have largely traded in the berets for helmets due to the rising violence against them i the south.

As for C3K's last question:

So, armchair aviators/tacticians: what's the answer?

It's already been answered -> withdrawal.

Steve

[Challenger 2]

But haven't the US decided to put in another 20,000 troops into the Capital? Do they have anydates for withdrawal yet? The British have decided to start thier withdrawal of troops with I belive 1200 by the end of the summer and redeploying them to Afganistan.

[flamingknives]

Baghdad and Basra are rather different areas, so it's not really conclusive proof of anything.

[Battlefront.com]

Challenger 2,

But haven't the US decided to put in another 20,000 troops into the Capital? Do they have anydates for withdrawal yet?

I was speaking of the Brits, not the US. The withdrawal of British troops from the south means the US will have to cover that area too, since it will go from bad (and it is bad) to worse as the British (and Danish, who also announced withdrawal) depart. US withdrawal is coming soon too, so there will be no additional US troops put into Iraq to make up the difference. Since all other major contributors, except the Aussies, have withdrawn or downsized their forces already, each soldier removed will not be replaced. The occupation force has always been undermanned (probably by a factor of 3 or 4), so the Brits tossing in the towel is a big negative. It doesn't matter how thick Dick Cheney's rose colored glasses are either.

Steve

[flamingknives]

I think that you're taking a very negative view of it Steve.

The MND(SE) area was much less of a challenge than the Sunni triangle, so there's a fair chance that the new Iraqi armed forces are actually up to the challenge.

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

I think that you're taking a very negative view of it Steve.

My view was decidedly negative before, so this certainly isn't something to make it be more positive

The MND(SE) area was much less of a challenge than the Sunni triangle, so there's a fair chance that the new Iraqi armed forces are actually up to the challenge.

Not likely. Do not forget that Iraq is trying to be kept whole. What goes on in one part of Iraq influences what happens in the other parts. If the US forces fail to get a handle on the rest of Iraq, the south will sucumb to whatever ills befall the rest of the country. The pullout also means that if the Iraqi government isn't able to keep things under control (and I see no indication that they can) then who will come in to sort things out? The US doesn't have the forces to do it's current ToDo List, so going down to the south to crack heads is not possible.

If the south was so happy and peaceful, then the British should have deployed further north where it isn't happy or peaceful. This would have increased the chances of success for the Coallition overall. And if things went sour in the south they could pick up and go back down there as needed. But now, with the forces totally pulled out, they aren't doing anything to help win a very difficult struggle in the rest of the country nor can they be there to help out in the south if things go "tits up".

It is obvious to me that Blair has finally realized that the support for doing what it takes to win this war is missing, therefore the only viable option is to withdraw. The US has mostly figured this out too, so it will withdraw soon enough. Baring some sort of unexpected miracle with the "surge" strategy.

Steve

[flamingknives]

The Iraqis in the South are used to the Brits, those in the middle and North are used to the US forces. I'm not sure that it would be practical to simple switch in the MND for US units. Plus the British Army has commitments in Afghanistan and can't really meet both. So if their bit in Iraq is OK to wind down a bit, it would make sense to shift from there to Afghanistan.

[JonS]

Is this, from two years ago, smaterer or dumberer than being hit by an IED?

Incidentally, seems the RAF are having a rough time with their Hercs in the TWAT (from Wiki):

* January 30, 2005: An RAF C-130K Hercules C.1, XV179. c.n. 4195, with 10 crew on board was hit by insurgent fire while taking off from Baghdad airport for Balad. A fire triggered by the hit induced an explosion in the right hand wing fuel tank.

* May 24, 2006: A Special Forces RAF Hercules C.1P XV206, c.n. 4231, of No. 47 Squadron's Special Forces Flight carrying the new British ambassador in Afghanistan, Stephen Evans, crash landed at a dirt landing strip outside the town of Lashkar Gar in the in Helmand Province, Afghanistan after hitting a landmine on roll-out which holed the port external fuel tank and set the number two (port inner) engine on fire. All nine crew and 26 passengers aboard safely evacuated, but the airframe burned out. It was later revealed that the Hercules was carrying a large number of SAS troops as well as a large amount of cash described as being one million dollars in some sources, and as "more than one million pounds" by others, while the MoD only admitted to a "sizeable amount of cash". The money was apparently destined for local warlords in exchange for their influence and intelligence.

* February 12, 2007: A RAF Hercules C-130J-30 ZH876, c.n. 5460, formerly Lockheed N4080M, was seriously damaged following a landing incident in the Maysan Province of Iraq near the Iranian border. The aircraft was subsequently destroyed as it was deemed too dangerous for coalition forces to repair and recover it. This is the first C-130J loss for any nationality since the new variant entered service in 1999.

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

The Iraqis in the South are used to the Brits, those in the middle and North are used to the US forces. I'm not sure that it would be practical to simple switch in the MND for US units.

It's more practical than having nobody there. That's the way it is now. Actually, I think the Brits would be greeted as a breath of fresh air by the locals. At least for a while. And I'm not suggesting that the Brits be sent to Baghdad or Fallujah, rather they be sent to the generally more stable areas south of Baghdad. That would free up US forces to go northward into the real trouble spots.

Point being that if you need x troops to control the country and you only have about half the number, then x - the Brits does not improve the overall chances of winning.

Plus the British Army has commitments in Afghanistan and can't really meet both.

And the US is able to meet both? Hardly. Now it has to meet both with less help.

So if their bit in Iraq is OK to wind down a bit, it would make sense to shift from there to Afghanistan.

If the US were able to pick up the slack, sure. But they can't. Therefore the Brit reduction in Iraq has a strategic impact in the negative. There is no way around this basic fact.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pointing my finger that the Brits and saying "you cowards!" or "lazy mo-fos going and leaving us to do the real dirty work". Not in the least. I'm just pointing out that there is *no* happy face that can be put on this no matter how hard anybody tries.

The Brit pull out is being done because it is impractical for British forces to stay as long as it is expected to take to stabilize Iraq. The Brit government is recognizing, quite late in the game, that they bit off more than they could chew. The US is reluctantly coming around to the same conclusion. It is only a very limited amount of time before the US has to leave as well and for almost identical reasons as Britain is pulling out now. And "things are peachy, it's OK to leave" is not one of those reasons.

The only hope is that the Iraqi government is able to get its crap together and establish some sort of cohesive powerbase so that it can stand on its own. Not many are optimistic about its chances given the last 4 years of missed opportunities.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

JonS,

Is this, from two years ago, smaterer or dumberer than being hit by an IED?

Oh, I'd say dumber for sure! When you have all the things in place and an accident like this happens... that's far worse than when things go wrong without things in place. It's a fine line between incompetence and negligence sometimes.

Steve

[civdiv]

Originally posted by flamingknives:

I think that you're taking a very negative view of it Steve.

The MND(SE) area was much less of a challenge than the Sunni triangle, so there's a fair chance that the new Iraqi armed forces are actually up to the challenge.

The Basra area USED to be calm and quiet. It's a nightmare now and the Iranian-backed insurgents pretty much control the area. There are even areas where harsh semi-Sharia law has been imposed. You don't hear a lot about Southern Iraq, what with what is going on in Baghdad, Ramdai, and Falluja, but it's hardly 'mission success'. The Brits are pulling out because their military is on it's death bed due to constant deployments. And as NATO now pretty much owns Afghaniland, they figure they need more troops there such that they cannot sustain their Iraq commitment. Maybe they think we should save at least one country.

But don't see in the British withdrawal that things are all rosy in Southern Iraq. Iran esentially controls the area with its surigates. Shoot, for a while one of the provinces down their was totally controlled by Shia militia for a week or so.