There are numerous missions which need over - the - horizon and immediate - area vision that helicopters are tasked to perform in "the new military." They were so, in the old military.
Now, some units on the ground have new-fangled airborne observation toys, but these are few; however, their numbers should be increasing.
Yet, over a given area that in the old days, a larger number of troops might cover, now, in "the new military," a smaller number of troops covers that same area, putting a greater demand on, and for, more equipment. These troops are more mobile, which assists with adjusting them to threats and offensive tasks. But, to affect contact observation with potential threats, requires airborne vision in over and around the immediate area and in addition, just - over - the - horizon --- jobs for an elevated platform: the helicopter and its human eyes.
Supply missions and patrols in the rear areas especially need this visibility.
Presently, given a wish to prove some of the budget, the desire to prove the combat assault worthiness of the Apache and Cobra aircraft, has these platforms husbanded for attack plans, when the need for these platforms is more, at this time, for the many troops on the ground in the rear areas.
Visibility is not great, and columns on the roads to the rear, are routinely attacked --- they cannot see the enemy at 200 - 500 yards out, a job for helicopters, not F-15's and A-10's who really can do damage up at the front, tasked in the priority stack for assault and protection, there.
Story after story of lamentation regarding our losses is self-evident here, and by other communications, pointing to the lack of area visibility for our operations beind the front lines.
As you may now know from other stories, the British have discovered evidence of Saddam's henchmen experimenting with the possible use of delivering chemical weapons via mortar fire.
Such mortar fire, which our supply units have been encountering, must be considered chemically potent as well.
Now, as we bore in on Baghdad, and a chemical attack stretches along 100 plus miles to the rear and near Basra, because we could not observe well-enough close-in to detect and defeat it imprimis, that will cause quite a lot of consternation. The routes are going to be loaded with humanitarian supplies and civilian contract drivers; and I mean a whole lot.
The routes must be heavily patrolled by close-in air support, in addition to strike aircraft. We cannot go merrily down the road, ignoring what is going on left and right at 150 yards, 250 yards, 350 yards . . .
We need helicopters for these missions, and to free up the Apaches and Cobras from the diversions, so that they can head back to the front.
Also, we are going to lose helicopters; and therefore we need even more helicopters.
The application will save many more of our ground troops.
At Baghdad, we are going to need a whole lot of helicopters, hovering nearby on call for every small unit.
It'll be a nasty business, but our people on the ground cannot be valued any less.
I do not see a shortage.
If there is, it is likely due to a lack of pilots, but I believe that they have gotten that under control since Clinton. many were opting out then and working for private industry.
Who in their right mind would work for that bunch of morons.
BTW, is your middle name NEED?
According to you, we need everything.
Watch and learn.