They aren't Apaches....
They are also ancient and obsolete.
"...These helicopters were already being phased out of the Department’s inventory and were slated for eventual destruction due to age and supportability issues...."
Afghanistan - 20 years on
- Thread starter GreatAuk
- Start date
They aren't Apaches....
They are also ancient and obsolete.
"...These helicopters were already being phased out of the Department’s inventory and were slated for eventual destruction due to age and supportability issues...."
Soldato
Soldato
Soldato
the apaches at HKIA wont be able to be packed up and transported out quickly so they will have to blow them up
they cant mid air refuel either and its too far to fly them out
the article is about the state department ch-46's which will also be left behind (and disabled somehow hopefully?) - these are the helicopters that are "out of date"
they cant mid air refuel either and its too far to fly them out
the article is about the state department ch-46's which will also be left behind (and disabled somehow hopefully?) - these are the helicopters that are "out of date"
Soldato
Soldato
There's the option to FARP them to a "safe" area out in the middle of nowhere, pick up the crews and then "deny" them (aka bomb them) once everyone is clear. Giving up Bagram was a very large tactical mistake I think, I hope it doesn't come back to haunt them as the final collapse/pull-out happens.
You'll have to be more specific which. Videos you're referring to. Your link referred to the ch46. Which is the sea stallion not the apache.
The sea stallions are obsolete. Not the apache.
Soldato
This is what you posted. So be specific where in Afghanistan are these Apaches you are referring to.
The ones at Kabul are still in use.
Read the whole thread?? Link to the post your referring to instead of these vague references.
Half this thread is gibberish
Soldato
Blow them up
Another one that should read the whole thread
Which important post out the 1885+ did I "miss"? your incorrect ones or something else?
do you have an alternative? gift them to the Taliban?
using your own logic perhaps people like yourself who have never been to Afghanistan shouldn't post about it
ianh - yes you could FARP somewhere but where to after that? nearest is gulf states so too far, even best case would be FARP at furthest south possible to a carrier off the Pakistan coast is till too far I think
Without a google I think we don't have friendly airfields north any more
Suspended
Indeed.
Caporegime
What would I rather face. A few vehicles or an apache heli?
An Apache which take a serious amount of ground support to make operational.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Jul 2018
- Posts
- 254
It would only take a small number of heavy machine guns to lockdown the airport and the Taliban have them by the bucket load. Sure the US will flood the sky with attack helicopters to cover the withdraw but its could turn out to be a blood bath in the end for withdrawing Western forces, the Taliban hold all the deck right now while we make a run for the exit.
The logistics are interesting. Id have thought bagram would have been a better place to withdraw from. But perhaps there are pros and cons to either place
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,041
He reversed every other Trump decision but not this one? Blaming everything on Trump and absolving this ice cream licking dolt is just absurd. As for Kamala Harris giggling her way to a visit to asia I don't even.
Hence Biden saying all americans will be gone by the 31st which is wishful thinking he's willing it to be true rather than putting anything practical into place even the Washington Post's reporter had to be pulled out by british forces the americans are refusing to leave the airport. The agreement with the Taliban clearly expires on the 31st hence despite keeping their mouth shut about it and british forces having suspicions the plan is clearly that all US forces will be gone by then. Keeping your allies in the dark, nice.
While not impossible. I think the Taliban want to maintain international relations. So that's unlikely. They've won. Nothing else to prove.
Erm, reversing domestic policy decisions, or even changing international deals with allies etc, is VERY different to completely going back on a deal made with a pretty hostile group who were once deemed the enemy/terrorists.