Given that IEDs are the cause of most casualties, why not use choppers instead?

Question

All valid points.

I was thinking mainly of remote areas and roads where there's a lot of nothing such as between villages, where vehicles get hit.

Obviously boots on the ground is necessary, and patrolling corridors and alleys etc can't be done by vehicle or chopper, it just seems terrible that more can't be done to avoid IEDs.

Answer 1

There's no way to reduce casualties to zero  and it's (paradoxically?) true in counter-insurgency operations that the most effective method of limiting them is to get small groups of men patrolling actively on foot.  

Answer 2

It's too hard to get out of the chopper to fight. Takes too long and the chopper has to stay still, which makes it an easy target.

Answer 3

They do.  But you still need to clean up on the ground and they are not really safe in the air.  Bear in mind that they are trying to draw fire to get them to engage.

Answer 4

what everyone else said.

Answer 5

The cost of producing, maintaining, and operating the choppers for one, the disruptive nature of a helicopter, the fact that the people are on the ground, not in the air, and the high mortality rate for 'accidents' involving helicopters as opposed to humvees.

Not to mention that if the skies were flooded with helicopters, how long do you think it would be before RPG's replaced IED's as the cause of most casualties?

Answer 6

Because you can't patrol down city streets and alleys and courtyards in a chopper. But you already knew that, didn't you sparky. Duh

Answer 7

Cuz RPG shoot them down and they're expensive and choppers patrol the skies, not streets. But, good idea anyway.