Another one?

chinook_thumbNato forces in Afghanistan have been forced to destroy a crashed British Chinook helicopter to keep it out of the hands of the Taliban for the second time in 10 days.

None of the 15 soldiers and four crew on board was injured in the crash, described as a “hard landing,” which is not thought to have been caused by enemy action.

But the £40 million Chinook sustained damage to its undercarriage, nose and front rotor, making it unflyable, and a decision was taken that it could not be recovered safely.

Rather than leaving it for Taliban forces to obtain, the helicopter was destroyed using explosives.

The soldiers, from the Second Rifles Battlegroup, were taken away from the crash site around 10 km east of Sangin in Helmand Province by one of two other Chinooks which were taking part in the same operation, and allowed to continue with their mission.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Defence said that the decision to destroy rather than retrieve the aircraft was taken due to the difficult terrain and poor security situation around Sangin, where a number of British troops have lost their lives in recent weeks.

[More]

VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)
VN:F [1.9.13_1145]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
This entry was posted in Featured and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Another one?

  1. Mac says:

    Glad to hear no-one was hurt but that’s an expensive piece of kit to blow up!!

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. mike says:

    Why not leave it there and use it as  bait to attract the enemy, then drop a couple daisy cutters on it.   Cull out a few scrap metal salvagers.   Maybe a bit of covert biological warfare, some anthrax spread around the chopper and the site.   I know, I’ll have the UN war crimes people having fits.  

    mid island mike

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. Jack says:

    The idea has potential, Mike.  Never really thought about it but you have a point.

    As long as they sign the area ahead of time it should be OK.

    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    VA:F [1.9.13_1145]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>