Strange Helo Loss

CFI A&P said:
Oh, being a Navy vet - I certainly can’t say they’re great but I know they’re not the average H60 pilot.
Click to expand...

It was tongue in cheek.

d9ebf58a607d2e5eefadd687b40c14e5.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
“Delta operators [sic] landed near the objective area in the early morning hours of Feb. 3, with local nationals quickly reporting on social media that there was increased air traffic in the area as helicopters, drones, and other air support circled overhead.

The ground force commander initiated what is known as a "tactical call out." With the target structure surrounded, al-Qurayshi and his followers were instructed over a bullhorn to lay down their weapons and surrender themselves. Instead, al-Qurayshi detonated a suicide vest which partially collapsed the building and killed a number of civilians inside.

Meanwhile, with the tactical call-out portion of the mission taking nearly 45 minutes, one of the Black Hawk helicopters circling the objective area began taking surface-to-air fire and suffering mechanical problems. The pilots safely landed, and the decision was made to destroy the aircraft in place with an airstrike after the pilots and crew cross-loaded onto another aircraft.

All U.S. personnel were reported to have returned to base without injury.”

www.audacy.com

Delta Force strikes ISIS leader in Syria as surface-to-air fire forces helicopter landing

Delta Force raided an ISIS leader Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurayshi’s compound last night in Idlib, Syria conducting a tactical call out while surface to air fire struck 160th helicopters. al-Qurayshi died in the raid. | Connecting Vets
www.audacy.com www.audacy.com
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
I mean, how would the US respond if overnight some Russian special forces made their way into AK or HI to take out what they perceived as a high value target (US citizen) and then left in the cover of night?
Click to expand...

Difference is, we have the capability and motivation to seek out, arrest; and if warranted, even extradite, someone who was living here who had committed terrorism or crimes against Russia; which would make such a raid by Russian forces in that scenario politically and diplomatically unnecessary. As opposed to some criminal or terrorist hiding out in these third world countries that lack the political will, motivation, or capability, to capture or kill them themselves.
 
Minuteman said:
“Delta operators [sic] landed near the objective area in the early morning hours of Feb. 3, with local nationals quickly reporting on social media that there was increased air traffic in the area as helicopters, drones, and other air support circled overhead.

The ground force commander initiated what is known as a "tactical call out." With the target structure surrounded, al-Qurayshi and his followers were instructed over a bullhorn to lay down their weapons and surrender themselves. Instead, al-Qurayshi detonated a suicide vest which partially collapsed the building and killed a number of civilians inside.

Meanwhile, with the tactical call-out portion of the mission taking nearly 45 minutes, one of the Black Hawk helicopters circling the objective area began taking surface-to-air fire and suffering mechanical problems. The pilots safely landed, and the decision was made to destroy the aircraft in place with an airstrike after the pilots and crew cross-loaded onto another aircraft.

All U.S. personnel were reported to have returned to base without injury.”
Click to expand...

“Tactical call out”. Why waste the time and lose the tactical advantage and element of surprise, with this?
 
MikeD said:
Difference is, we have the capability and motivation to seek out, arrest; and if warranted, even extradite, someone who was living here who had committed terrorism or crimes against Russia; which would make such a raid by Russian forces in that scenario politically and diplomatically unnecessary. As opposed to some criminal or terrorist hiding out in these third world countries that lack the political will, motivation, or capability, to capture or kill them themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed. And @Cherokee_Cruiser I wouldn't imagine China would have much reason to participate in a strike against ISIS. They don't have an ideological reason to oppose the kind of suppression of human rights or mass suffering that ISIS imposes where it exists. They don't have significant interests in the Gulf states that are threatened by ISIS. They have interests, but they aren't yet the enemy of regional extremists. It will be interesting to see how this situation changes for them, as they look to expand control in SW Asia, all while continuing to force Uyghurs into concentration camps. I don't think they have the means to execute an attack such as we did last night, but I imagine they will want it in the coming years.
 
MikeD said:
“Tactical call out”. Why waste the time and lose the tactical advantage and element of surprise, with this?
Click to expand...
My understanding is that the call-out is the result of evolution. Rather than doing a "dynamic entry" into places that are setup with bunkers and large weapons positioned inside a building, along with suicide vests, the Delta guys probably discovered fewer people are wounded on average when they show up with a convincing presence outside.

We may still learn from this instance (or won't) that there were additional factors that could have been considered that would weigh against the call-out approach. I don't know how long they planned to be on-site, but 45 minutes seems long even from the comfort behind a keyboard, and I wonder if there was a chain of things that happened counter-to-plan.
 
Minuteman said:
My understanding is that the call-out is the result of evolution. Rather than doing a "dynamic entry" into places that are setup with bunkers and large weapons positioned inside a building, along with suicide vests, the Delta guys probably discovered fewer people are wounded on average when they show up with a convincing presence outside.

We may still learn from this instance (or won't) that there were additional factors that could have been considered that would weigh against the call-out approach. I don't know how long they planned to be on-site, but 45 minutes seems long even from the comfort behind a keyboard, and I wonder if there was a chain of things that happened counter-to-plan.
Click to expand...

Just seems a strange and high risk tactic for a small unit force in the middle of the enemy’s backyard, to be hanging out for 45 mins. I see raids like these to be more like Operation Ivory Coast at Son Tay, North Vietnam. Get in, disrupt/destroy a bunch of preplanned stuff while searching for what you were there for, and get out.
 
MikeD said:
Just seems a strange and high risk tactic for a small unit force in the middle of the enemy’s backyard, to be hanging out for 45 mins. I see raids like these to be more like Operation Ivory Coast at Son Tay, North Vietnam. Get in, disrupt/destroy a bunch of preplanned stuff while searching for what you were there for, and get out.
Click to expand...

Every ground customer I’ve worked for has a differing variation on the same concept of direct action.

Some want to land to the guys doorstep and use violence of action, others want to walk in from 11 miles away, set a cordon, and creep in slowly with lots of warning.

It’s all mission and customer driven and sometimes they don’t get options. The last 2 years we were in Afghanistan almost nothing was done to the X, because it was mandated per strategic directives. Other times we had to let the partner forces go first because politics…


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lawman said:
Every ground customer I’ve worked for has a differing variation on the same concept of direct action.

Some want to land to the guys doorstep and use violence of action, others want to walk in from 11 miles away, set a cordon, and creep in slowly with lots of warning.

It’s all mission and customer driven and sometimes they don’t get options. The last 2 years we were in Afghanistan almost nothing was done to the X, because it was mandated per strategic directives. Other times we had to let the partner forces go first because politics…
Click to expand...

Maybe its just me, but I’d be very wary of treating being in the middle of the enemy’s backyard with a small force, as akin to doing some sort of hostage negotiation standoff with someone in a city in the middle of the US with all the time in the world to spend. Of course its politics driven, I get that, but it still sucks.
 
MikeD said:
Maybe its just me, but I’d be very wary of treating being in the middle of the enemy’s backyard with a small force, as akin to doing some sort of hostage negotiation standoff with someone in a city in the middle of the US with all the time in the world to spend. Of course its politics driven, I get that, but it still sucks.
Click to expand...

I mean… these guys do in fact eat snakes..


Also you feel pretty immune to the zombie horde when you’ve got a Gunship above you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BobDDuck said:
1993 was long enough ago that it would make sense that there has been a loss of institutional knowledge.
Click to expand...

Oh no….

Desert One, Gothic Serpent, and Anaconda are like the mandatory OPD studies for everybody in SOCOM positions.

If anything our pendulum has swung to being almost too conservative in minimum resources required to go on a mission. It’s rare for us to hang it all out. The times it does happen and goes south are AAR’d to death.


Now the regular Army/Military… of yeah we forget what we did last week and repeat mistakes regularly. Luckily for the most part it’s not us being good at war… it’s the opponents being absolutely terrible at it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top