Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
US Military Sees Need For Bigger Iraq Force
Topic Started: Nov 22 2004, 10:10 AM (1,176 Views)
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Nov 29 2004, 01:39 AM
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 12:13 AM
So a helicopter would easily cover that distance in a lot less than an hour.

You know nothing.

The first hour is critical when dealing with the severe trauma caused on the battle field. Critical care and surgury are necessary within the first hour if the severely wounded victim is to survive at all.

The most likely helicopter in the Iraqi theatre carrying wounded from battle or attacks to medical facilities is the UH-60Q MEDEVAC, which has a max speed of about 150 knots. In fact the UH-60 is one of the fastest helicopter in Iraq.

Kuwait City, as you suggested as a likely location for medical facilities, is 299 nm from Baghdad. At max speed it would take the UH-60 nearly 2 hours if it were able to sustain its maximum speed the whole time, and that is highly unlikely.

As I said, you're full of it.

Not right .
Quote:
 

Bell 407 used by many rescue and medical evacuation services.

Engine Allison C47B - 850 Horsepower
Speed 140 knots (260 kph)
Range 450 nm - up to 830 km
Endurance  3.5 hours


and from your citation:
Quote:
 

uh-60. medevac
Max Cruise Speed 
4,000 ft; 95°F  152 knots 
2,000 ft; 70°F  159 knots 
SLS 155 knots 
VNE 193 knots 


That's knots , not km per hour - there is a difference (140 knots = 260 km per hour).
159 knots = 300 km per hr .
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Did you notice the distance was 299 nautical miles, not kilometers? 299 nautical miles is 344 statute miles, which is 554.5km.

159 knots is actually about 294km/h, but who will quibble.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Nov 29 2004, 11:51 AM
Did you notice the distance was 299 nautical miles, not kilometers? 299 nautical miles is 344 statute miles, which is 554.5km.

159 knots is actually about 294km/h, but who will quibble.

Still not very far.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
and in addition...

Quote:
 
Kuwait City, as you suggested as a likely location for medical facilities, is 299 nm from Baghdad. At max speed it would take the UH-60 nearly 2 hours if it were able to sustain its maximum speed the whole time, and that is highly unlikely.


His quote was correct. It works out to be one hour and fifty-three minutes at maximum cruise.
Offline | Profile ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Which means that any person in critical condition would probably be dead, and that the wounded would be piled up and dying due to the fact that the helicopters could only pick up wounded every 3 HOURS. It's a good thing that the Army has field hospitals close to the AO.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 08:36 AM
Dwayne
Nov 29 2004, 01:39 AM
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 12:13 AM
So a helicopter would easily cover that distance in a lot less than an hour.

You know nothing.

The first hour is critical when dealing with the severe trauma caused on the battle field. Critical care and surgury are necessary within the first hour if the severely wounded victim is to survive at all.

The most likely helicopter in the Iraqi theatre carrying wounded from battle or attacks to medical facilities is the UH-60Q MEDEVAC, which has a max speed of about 150 knots. In fact the UH-60 is one of the fastest helicopter in Iraq.

Kuwait City, as you suggested as a likely location for medical facilities, is 299 nm from Baghdad. At max speed it would take the UH-60 nearly 2 hours if it were able to sustain its maximum speed the whole time, and that is highly unlikely.

As I said, you're full of it.

Not right .
Quote:
 

Bell 407 used by many rescue and medical evacuation services.

Engine Allison C47B - 850 Horsepower
Speed 140 knots (260 kph)
Range 450 nm - up to 830 km
Endurance  3.5 hours


and from your citation:
Quote:
 

uh-60. medevac
Max Cruise Speed 
4,000 ft; 95°F  152 knots 
2,000 ft; 70°F  159 knots 
SLS 155 knots 
VNE 193 knots 


That's knots , not km per hour - there is a difference (140 knots = 260 km per hour).
159 knots = 300 km per hr .

If anything proved you have no clue what you're talking about, everything you said above proved it.
Offline | Profile ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dwayne
Nov 29 2004, 06:54 PM
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 08:36 AM
Dwayne
Nov 29 2004, 01:39 AM
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 12:13 AM
So a helicopter would easily cover that distance in a lot less than an hour.

You know nothing.

The first hour is critical when dealing with the severe trauma caused on the battle field. Critical care and surgury are necessary within the first hour if the severely wounded victim is to survive at all.

The most likely helicopter in the Iraqi theatre carrying wounded from battle or attacks to medical facilities is the UH-60Q MEDEVAC, which has a max speed of about 150 knots. In fact the UH-60 is one of the fastest helicopter in Iraq.

Kuwait City, as you suggested as a likely location for medical facilities, is 299 nm from Baghdad. At max speed it would take the UH-60 nearly 2 hours if it were able to sustain its maximum speed the whole time, and that is highly unlikely.

As I said, you're full of it.

Not right .
Quote:
 

Bell 407 used by many rescue and medical evacuation services.

Engine Allison C47B - 850 Horsepower
Speed 140 knots (260 kph)
Range 450 nm - up to 830 km
Endurance  3.5 hours


and from your citation:
Quote:
 

uh-60. medevac
Max Cruise Speed 
4,000 ft; 95°F  152 knots 
2,000 ft; 70°F  159 knots 
SLS 155 knots 
VNE 193 knots 


That's knots , not km per hour - there is a difference (140 knots = 260 km per hour).
159 knots = 300 km per hr .

If anything proved you have no clue what you're talking about, everything you said above proved it.

:huh:
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
somerled
Nov 29 2004, 11:08 PM
:huh:

Huh?

:rotfl:

You truly are clueless.
Offline | Profile ^
 
24thcenstfan
Member Avatar
Something Wicked This Fae Comes
**UPDATE**


U.S. to Expand Military Force in Iraq


-Snip-

WASHINGTON - The United States is expanding its military force in Iraq (news - web sites) to the highest level of the war — even higher than during the initial invasion in March 2003 — in order to bolster security in advance of next month's national elections.

The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee when Baghdad was toppled in April 2003.

Brig. Gen. David Rodriguez, deputy operations director of the Joint Staff, told reporters Wednesday that the American force will expand from 138,000 troops today to about 150,000 by January.

The previous high for the U.S. force in Iraq was 148,000 on May 1, 2003, when President Bush (news - web sites) declared that major combat operations were over and most soldiers thought the war had been won. The initial invasion force included thousands of sailors on ships in the Persian Gulf and other waters, plus tens of thousands of troops in Kuwait and other surrounding countries.

The expansion in Iraq will be achieved by sending about 1,500 troops from the 82nd Airborne Division in Fort Bragg, N.C., this month and by extending the combat tours of about 10,400 troops already in Iraq. Those 10,400 will be extras until March because the soldiers who were scheduled to replace them in January will arrive as planned.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved the moves Wednesday, according to a Pentagon (news - web sites) statement.

--Snip--
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Quote:
 
The 12,000-troop increase is to last only until March, but it says much about the strength and resiliency of an insurgency that U.S. military planners did not foresee when Baghdad was toppled in April 2003


Anyone else notice that the author presented a different analysis from the paragraph directly above it?


Quote:
 
in order to bolster security in advance of next month's national elections.

I guess that part didn't sink in to the author's thick skull and felt the need to prattle on about something completely new?
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

So there is no way that the two statements can be consistant with each other, Admiral?
^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Put frankly, No!

The reason was given why troop strength was being increased. It is not up to some dipstick NEWS reporter to give his editorial analysis.
Offline | Profile ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

If the military foresaw the strength of the insurgency then they would have planned accordingly by having the appropriate troop strength, no?
^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiral,

I frequently find this with today's journalists and reporters. Their agendas frequently overshadow their responsibility to the public.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
gvok
Dec 2 2004, 10:22 AM
If the military foresaw the strength of the insurgency then they would have planned accordingly by having the appropriate troop strength, no?

Then MAYBE, just maybe, they would have said so.

In reality, we want to insure that the elections (and their results) are not disrupted by terrorists and Saddamist thugs.

No, this "reporter" had an agenda and put it out there hanging in the wind.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus