An ‘appetite suppressant’ for Army aviation

An ‘appetite suppressant’ for Army aviation

By Philip Ewing Monday, October 10th, 2011 6:40 pm
Posted in Air, Land

The top leaders of Army Aviation, known inside the family as “the Four Horsemen,” said Monday they’re bearing the brunt of the Army’s grueling deployment schedule. Helicopter units go in on the first day of the war and they must stay until the last, the leaders said, making for a disproportionate amount of wear on soldiers and aircraft.

There’s a light at the distant end of the tunnel — Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, head of the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation, says the service is aiming at a new joint, multi-role helicopter by 2030, one that will be able to handle both attack and utility missions. The ins and outs of that goal are a whole other story, and in the meantime, the Army must do something to bridge the gap.

That means the aviation branch needs to take “an appetite suppressant,” said Maj. Gen. Tony Cruchfield, who commands the Army Aviation Center of Excellence. In this situation, it means the Army has to “accept risk, sustain older systems, be really smart, do budget analysis and figure out the biggest bang,” Crosby said.


For example, when it comes to one of the biggest near-term priorities — doing something about its battered old scout helicopter fleet — that will mean one of two choices. Either the Army does a service life extension for its OH-58 Kiowa Warriors, or it buys what Crosby called a “COTS system,” i.e. a consumer, off-the-shelf helicopter as a stopgap solution. The Army wants to begin to look at possible competitors soon, with a goal of having demonstrations around April. It won’t be a fly-off and it won’t be an operational test, Crosby stressed — it’ll just help officials learn more about what’s out there.

In the long term, the Army hopes discipline today will pay off with new helicopters in the long term, which will be essential because the current fleet cannot keep flying forever.

“I don’t want my grandson flying the [AH-64 Apache] Longbow Block 80. I don’t want my grandson flying the CH-47 Zulu,” Crutchfield said. “Taking an appetite suppressant to fill the armed aerial scout capability is what we need to get us to a point where we can fly something that is new, that does lift more, that has a reduced logistical footprint. It won’t be the airframes we have now, no matter how much money we put in them.”

Join the Conversation

TMB October 10th, 2011 at 7:00 pm

Joint Multi Role Helicopter — another EFV/F35 in the making. Unnecessary years of development, way over budget, and will be “okay” at doing multiple missions instead of great at one.

Bronco46 October 10th, 2011 at 7:19 pm

The Russians did this years ago with the Mi-24 (Hind). This was, and is a very tough attack helicopter with the ability to transport a squad of troops. And they did it for less then the Blackhawk.

TMB October 10th, 2011 at 8:00 pm

“The Russians did this years ago with the Mi-24 (Hind). This was, and is a very tough attack helicopter with the ability to transport a squad of troops. And they did it for less then the Blackhawk.”

Hardly an even comparison since the Blackhawk is a transport helicopter. What’s the price difference between an AH-1 and Mi-24? Or an AH-64? Keep in mind the Hind was designed about 20 years before the Blackhawk so factor that into your pricetag. Could it do everything our attack helicopters could do? How many have been shot down? And by the way, the Hind is being replaced by an attack helicopter with no pax capability so perhaps that capability wasn’t as useful as they thought.

The army makes it sound like a single helicopter will replace the CH-47 and the AH-64. That’s madness. This new helicopter won’t be able to lift as much tonnage or troops as the CH-47 since it’ll be loaded full of weapons or be as nimble and rugged as the AH-64 in order to carry troops. The Hind can transport a squad? Whooptie doo! The CH-47 can carry 30!

Bob October 10th, 2011 at 8:33 pm

Thats a neat capability, but the Mi24 is not a medium utility helicopter.

Bob October 10th, 2011 at 8:40 pm

The Army already had an opportunity for a COTS replacement to KW…it failed. If the only alternative left is a midlife extension, then the Army can do away with KW in the mid term.

Longbow Block III and UAS can fill the gap until 2030.

GoRangers! October 10th, 2011 at 8:48 pm

I remember seeing a video on youtube with the original proposal for the Sikorsky Blackhawk. It was basically an American version of the Hind. Only before the Hind existed… so more like the Attack Hueys from the Vietnam war… only not slow easy targets. Why we didn’t go with that I have no idea. And isn’t Sikorsky proposing a AH modification of the existing UH-60? I wonder if thats worth pursing as a “suppressant” until a new ground up redesign can be fit into the budget. Just a thought…

TMB October 10th, 2011 at 10:28 pm

I’ve got a long response to Bronco’s post that will show up eventually, but I wanted to caveat this post by saying I dug a little deeper and it looks like the army is still planning on an AH, medium UH, and heavy UH mix in the fleet with common cockpits, avionics, sensors, and countermeasures. My worry is that someone will get a bright idea and try to combine the medium lift and attack birds to save money and turn it into something that will never get off the tarmac. The army has already made significant strides with common electronics in most of the fleet, and the Marine Corps is getting the UH-1 and AH-1 to have something like 70% common parts.

Byron Skinner October 10th, 2011 at 10:38 pm

Good Evening Folks,

I’m shocked. This is a rather rational approach to the problem. After the failed Karbollah attack the Army’s whole attack helicopter doctrine went into the crapper. Since then the AH’s have been working in a restricted tactical environment and mainly in support of ground troops. UAV’s are in the process of canceling out the AH in the ground support role, see “The Gray Eagles” program. The question is find new missions and that will require new attack helicopters.

The attack helicopter is one area of technology that other countries, thankfully nearly all European, and friendly have been keeping up with the US and developing new technologies and tactics. British, French and Italian AH’s are in the same class as the US AH-64D’s The US might be better off building several classes of the AH in small amounts (like a couple of hundred or enough for a battalion or two, instead of thousands) developing the technology and tactics and the moving one to where ever that leads them.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

TMB October 10th, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Until a UAV can skim the treetops with a .50 cal doing figure-8s above troops in contact, the scout helicopter isn’t going anywhere.

jumper October 11th, 2011 at 11:30 am

I think the UAV program offices have been a little too successful with their PR… it seems people tend to think that UAVs can, and are, replacing all aspects of military aviation. I don’t think people understand how limited these systems still are when compared to a manned aircraft… As of right now, and in the near future, these small drones just aren’t as capable as an on-site attack aircraft.

CSARmedic October 11th, 2011 at 1:21 pm

What does ALLONS mean?

mike j October 11th, 2011 at 1:30 pm

French for “let’s go.” It’s the motto of the 11th ACR.

BOOMER October 11th, 2011 at 4:01 pm

The MI24 also cannot deliver slung loads or deploy troops via fast rope or repel due to its inability to hover because of its very heavy weight. (No those were not real hinds you saw hovering in Rambo and missing in action 3).

BOOMER October 11th, 2011 at 4:03 pm

Already in use by SPECWAR.

gunslinger6 October 11th, 2011 at 5:30 pm

i always wondered that too

seesthrubs October 11th, 2011 at 6:11 pm

http://​www​.youtube​.com/​w​a​t​c​h​?​v​=​j​J​_​s​v​J​X​O​oHw

Skip to the 2 min mark. The Hind could hover, just not early early models IIRC. Changes were made to subsequent models to improve flight characteristics including hovering ability. Its one of the mis-conceptions that started in fact and has done the rounds.

A joint multi-role helicopter seems a tad problematic. A medium utility attack helicopter?? Isn’t it like trying to make a hybrid Mi-17/Apache.

Bob October 11th, 2011 at 9:14 pm

The scout helicopter is disappearing in the here and now, replaced in its squadrons by UAS. In the rotary wing world, the ability to carry more = better, whether that is bullets, slingload, MRE’s, or pax. Thats why the little single engined, underpowered KW should not be allowed to continue, and certainly not replaced by standing up an entirely new costly program.

Bob October 11th, 2011 at 9:22 pm

I should hope that British AH’s are in the same class as AH64D…they fly Longbow as well.

…and successfully executed deep strikes from carrier decks against targets in Libya. So much for Karbalah killing doctrine.

And do Mangusta or Tiger have multimode fire control radar, capatible with MMW missiles, UAS control, fully integrated digital comms, and all the features of Longbow Block 3? Block 2? Seems to me that the Europeans are still catching up.

Finally the modernized “class” of AH was called Comanche, but that is gone, replaced by incremental upgrades to AH64. Sad (and everyone knows the history), but there it is.

Bob October 11th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

…but the facts are that the Hind cant carry a fully equipped squad into combat. It is not an assault helicopter. It also is fairly marginal as a heavy attack helicopter, but someone else already pointed that out.

TMB October 11th, 2011 at 9:30 pm

The problem with the March 2003 deep strike in Iraq was that the 11th aviation regiment flew over a lit-up city, lost several birds due to a dust storm, and attacked a dug in republican guard brigade that had just enough warning to chew them up. Aside from the route choice and the weather, they probably needed more preparatory fires on that unit before sending in helicopters. The positive spin was that almost the entire regiment made it back to base despite every single bird taking hits. I believe a second deep strike was carried out by the 101st a day or two later with much better results.

Thinking_ExUSAF October 11th, 2011 at 9:53 pm

I believe that I read an account, supposedly by a Soviet designer, that the cargo capability in the Hind was more for a Speznatz team (of six or eight), or a full “reload” of missiles, rockets and 23mm ammunition. I don’t believe it was EVER meant to carry a full combat squad, and anyone who has seen a Hip up close can testify to the fact that if carrying a squad was the intent with the Hind, it could have been made to happen. :-)

A Hind is not an attack helo in the same sense as the Apache (or the newer Russian AH’s), and its a whole lot more of an attack helo than the Hips with the door guns and rocket pods.

William C. October 13th, 2011 at 1:00 am

I think many of you are getting the wrong idea here. I doubt the Army is trying to make one helicopter do it all. Rather it is probably two or more designs sharing many common components. The best example would be the LHX program, which would later become the RAH-66 Comanche after the utility side of the program was dropped. I think the Italians also pitched a similar concept with their A129 attack helo.

seesthrubs October 13th, 2011 at 5:42 pm

Totally agree with above post.

“but the facts are that the Hind cant carry a fully equipped squad into combat. It is not an assault helicopter. It also is fairly marginal as a heavy attack helicopter, but someone else already pointed that out.”

Whose facts? Care to cite the source? Depending on how much gear they have, it can carry 8 guys. Now that is a fact. Its not a great capacity but it can carry troops, is fast, armored and possess firepower to support infantry. That gives it assault capability in my book. Its only a marginal heavy attack helicopter because of the changed tactics and role of heavy attack helos since it was introduced. It wasnt designed to NOE and lurk around. It was designed to support a full frontal assault by the Soviet Army and there is a massive mural in one of the Moscow military museums which depicts this; worth a look if you’re ever there.

Richard Miller October 13th, 2011 at 6:07 pm

Did I not recently hear the army had an unmanned helicptier to deliver suppies. If this is the case why would they want a multipurpose vehicle? We have good attack copters.

Lisa October 13th, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Perhaps if the military could have their own depot again and build their own helicopters with their own civil personnel, then they could build some really awesome great helicopters for a much cheaper price (while still having great quality). I would think they could get 2 built for the price of one…and could even get the work accomplished one schedule if not ahead of it. Get the politics out of the military and get the troops what they need now. The government should use their muscle to make suppliers provide supplies at cost. That’s what America should be about-supporting the military. The military is what makes everything else possible. Without security you have insecurity. We have much larger issues preventing us from having great helicopters that need to be addressed.

Bob October 13th, 2011 at 7:23 pm

So you are saying that the Hind can carry a fully equipped Russian infantry squad into a helicopter assault? Not just “eight guys”, but all the guys in a squad organization, with all their stuff. Please cite *your* source. It isnt up to anyone to prove the negative. Yes, you can cram eight humans into the bay (and the FE can sit there and see how crammed it is!). The point is that an assault helicopter can deliver the full package because its designed to do just that. It also operates the hoist/ infil/ exfil devices that you just dont have on the Mi24, *and* a real assault helicopter doesnt have the landing limitations that the Mi24 has. Mi24 is less than marginal as an assault helicopter.

Next:
The Hind is “only” marginal as an attack helicopter *because it cant operate as an attack helicopter*? If only the tactics hadnt changed? There is alot of high class competition out there. Hind doesnt stack up well against it. ..its pretty fast, I suppose. Even the Russians are fielding better attack helicopters.

And I am sure I would be impressed by the mural in Moscow. Thanks for the tip.

Bob October 14th, 2011 at 9:26 pm

I did go back and check my reference. The operators manual states that the Mi24 can carry 8 fully equipped combat troops. I stand corrected on that. (Cargo hook, too!)

Jack October 16th, 2011 at 5:24 pm

The AH64 albeit a good platform was designed for a cold war stand off attack or front line battle of troops against troops. We are no longer fighting that type of battle and with embedded reporters or the political ramifications of killing civilians since the “bad guys” now are fighting a gorilla style warfare, the roll of the AH platform is quickly fading away and is being replaced by the UAS. This way a General Officer can oversee a battle and give a green light to shoot seeing the video first hand rater than a captain or warrant officer relaying information and hoping to get an approval, or that G.O. having to pay the political cost when someone pulls the trigger when they shouldn’t have. A “multi-purpose” platform sounds nice but if the higher ups wont relinquish the responsibility to the aircrew to make the decision to shoot when necessary based on the Rules of Engagement then an attack addition to any platform is almost worthless.

Bob October 18th, 2011 at 9:18 pm

The Longbow Apache is kicking butt in todays low intensity conflicts, while retaining the capability to completely dominate when the battle shifts back to armored warfare. This isnt a trait of today’s UAS. In addition, the technology today allows a Longbow Apache crew to transmit their video to ground receivers, valuable at the lowest (boots on the ground) level, and at the higher command levels that Jacks comment addresses.
Future RW developments will have a crew of 2, 1, or be unmanned, and carry a payload tailorable to the mission, whether that be troops, supplies, electronics, or bullets. It is the versatility that is key; something lacking today in US Army helicopter design. Sikorsky is (for instance) unveiling a ‘light, multirole’ design. The video is available on the internet, and is likely similar to what we will see from future medium, multirole designs. Fast, medium hauler, and reconfigurable (either at the factory, or maybe at the unit, who knows?) are valuable attributes to future Army aviation.

Nomdeplume October 23rd, 2011 at 4:24 pm

Of interest is the business development initiative that the Bell Boeing business development team is pushing for the Army to acquire the V-22 as a MEDEVAC platform. How realistic is that effort considering the ongoing budget constraints for the Army to acquire a new aviation platform like the V-22?

Jose J Clavell November 21st, 2011 at 4:11 pm

This is not a new concept as I had been hearing about Medevac V-22 since the late 80s. The Medical Department was the Army main proponent for tilt rotor aircraft when they were first proposed. The rational at the time was that with its increased range, cargo and speed, it would allow us to move our field hospitals away from the FEBA.

By the way, The Medical Department was not only behind the introduction of helicopters in general to operational army service but also were responsible for the introduction of first turbine powered rotor craft, theUH-1 Huey. Maybe history will repeat itself.

Kent November 23rd, 2011 at 8:21 am

A completely broken acqusition system. ALL the Army general officers with current oversight should be fired. Only one thing assured in Army procurement at this juncture — the more money they have, the money they waste.

*required

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement