NewsExperts claim chopper shortage costs British lives
Now there’s growing evidence helicopter shortages could be a major factor. The new findings, following research by a top statistician and a former SAS colonel, threaten serious political damage for Gordon Brown. Fear Despite Mr Brown’s claims to the contrary, former Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon insisted that when he was Chancellor in 2003 he reduced the MoD’s budget, which forced them to make cuts in equipment — including helicopters. It’s a decision military analysts fear may be costing British lives. Since 2006 Professor Sheila Bird and Clive Fairweather have reported every 20 weeks on military fatalities in Afghanistan and Iraq by cause and nationality. They’ve discovered that between May 2009 and February this year, the British death rate of 14.6 per 1000 personnel years was much worse than both the Canadians (10.8) and the Americans (5.7). 1000 personnel years is equivalent to 4000 troops in theatre for three months. Professor Bird believes further explanation is needed, insisting “chance is not the explanation”. Factors Factors accounting for the different death rates include the type of territory involved, variations in military operations, air cover, civilian casualties, equipment and leadership. But figures for Canadian fatalities clearly suggest helicopter cover plays a big part. Before May 2009 the Canadians were losing troops at a higher rate than the British and Americans. Three years ago it was 15.7 per 1000 personnel years compared with 8.9 for the British and the Americans’ 4.9. From November 2007 to May 2009 the Canadians were still worst with 12.2 compared with 6.5 and 4.1. Then in 2009 Canada increased air support to 5.6 helicopters per 1000 personnel. At the same time Britain had a meagre 3.3 per 1000. And since May 2009 Canada’s military fatalities have seen 22 deaths rather than the expected 55, leaving British forces with the worst death rate. Other changes Professor Bird, of the Medical Research Council’s Biostatistics Unit in Cambridge, explained, “Canada’s insistence on greater air support seems to have served its troops well in Afghanistan although other operational changes, to which we are not privy, may also have contributed.” Former SAS officer Clive Fairweather, an Honorary Fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, believes British forces’ greater reliance on foot movement or vehicles could be exposing them to greater danger from improvised explosive devices. He said, “Though many other factors which we don’t have access to may be involved, it seems the fewer helicopter assets generally, the more fatalities there are. “Perhaps the British do not ‘think’ helicopters enough, opt more for ground approach and don’t have so many well-armoured vehicles. “The Government and MoD seem to have recognised the situation by ordering 32 more large helicopters, but unless their production is hurried up British troops will be stuck in much the same Catch-22 situation for another two years.” Casualty An MoD spokeswoman said, “To present fatality rates in this way is a misunderstanding of the nature of operations. “Casualty rates vary over time both within, and between, individual units and wider force elements. “They may be due to a number of factors including the location of the troops, the nature of the operations and the sophistication and intensity of the threat they’re facing. “Since November 2006 the number of UK airframes available in Afghanistan has nearly doubled, and the number of helicopter hours — which is what commanders use to plan — has increased by nearly 140 per cent. “We operate in Afghanistan as part of a NATO force and as such increases in the assets contributed by other allies benefit all partners. “Excluding US helicopters, around half the helicopters available to commanders in southern Afghanistan are provided by the UK, Dutch, Canadians and Australians.” |
© All copyright D.C. Thomson & Co. Ltd., 2010 |
By
Adam Docherty
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
