Future of OH-58 program

[WaterRooster]

 

Genuinely curious as to what those benefits are...

 

The ability to actually BE on station and not down for maintenance? haha

[d10]

 

Genuinely curious as to what those benefits are...

 

It's like that scene from Office Space.

 

Gen Odierno: So, Kiowa Pilot, what would you say you actually do here?

Kiowa Pilot: I ALREADY TOLD YOU. I FLY A CHEAP UNDERPOWERED HELICOPTER THAT CAN'T SHOOT AS GOOD AS AN APACHE AND LOOK AT STUFF SO THE UAVs DON'T HAVE TO. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

[akscott60]

We can and do provide reliable, persistent SA, fires, and command and control to the ground commander. Having a huge chunk of our pilots being former infantry, Rangers, SMU, etc brings our understanding of the ground units to a high level.

 

Plus we can see.

 

:-)

[UH60L-IP]

 

It's like that scene from Office Space.

 

Gen Odierno: So, Kiowa Pilot, what would you say you actually do here?

Kiowa Pilot: I ALREADY TOLD YOU. I FLY A CHEAP UNDERPOWERED HELICOPTER THAT CAN'T SHOOT AS GOOD AS AN APACHE AND LOOK AT STUFF SO THE UAVs DON'T HAVE TO. CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND THAT? WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE?

 

While funny, I actually think the scouts provide a number of benefits that cannot be replicated.

 

My example from barely a year ago:

 

I was going into a very tight landing zone in Afghanistan with near vertical cliffs on either side for maybe 1000 feet or more, under red illum (night almost zero visibility). Due to recent acts in the area, we were required to have an armed escort (beyond our door gunners obviously). The Kiowa escorted us in, we circled while they cleared, and then I set up for the approach. I couldn't see a dang thing. The scout was able to get so low in such tight terrain and then light up the LZ for me that the approach to a dangerous LZ was possible, if not easy. So that little aircraft gave me cover, was able to stay very close, make tight turns, light up the area with IR, and allowed me to accomplish a necessary but dangerous mission that I would have otherwise been very unlikely to be able to do.

 

I'm not convinced that an Apache (though I have them to thank for other times) and even a UAV combined could have pulled that off. And that is but one of many examples in my 700+ combat hours.

[SBuzzkill]

 

Genuinely curious as to what those benefits are...

 

I'm not trying to blow you off here I just can't think of a way to describe what we do without going into TTPs. The Kiowa allows us a lot of flexibility in how we want to operate which facilitates creativity in coming up with ways to get the mission done. It's a great QRF platform because I can go from being completely shutdown to off the ground with all my systems running in an incredibly short amount of time and get on station and develop the situation rapidly. I have tools like smoke grenades, chem lights, cameras, laser pointers, etc. that may seem simple but are easy ways to identify things for the ground commander and provide him with information.

[afarcryfromsane]

The real tragedy here is how much this hurts the ground guys. An Apache from a 3km standoff simply cannot properly surveil an active battlefield and engage without coordinated instructions from ISR or ground troops marking targets. As was mentioned above, they just can't see. It is not an aircraft designed to attack and kill dismounted enemy in urban/dense environments. 30mm is great but it is an anti-vehicle weapon, not a sniper rifle.

 

We worked daily with Kiowa pilots in Afghanistan. They made the difference. They could see the Taliban, and they regularly engaged them. They could mark their own targets with smoke, shoot from their cockpit, and wreck havoc with 50cal and rockets. The Taliban in our AO were terrified of the Kiowas, but completely indifferent about the Apaches.

 

If we had lost Kiowas mid deployment, and had to rely on Shadow, Blimp, Predator and Apache ISR/Recon, and solely Apache air support, we would have had a serious issue on exfil from objectives or securing MEDEVAC LZ's. It would have been a disaster.

 

That being said, I cannot discount the giant boner you get when 30mm passes over your head and rips into dudes 40m away.

 

I've just always felt like Kiowa drivers were the infantry of the sky. Why would we take grunts off the battlefield?

[afarcryfromsane]

We can and do provide reliable, persistent SA, fires, and command and control to the ground commander. Having a huge chunk of our pilots being former infantry, Rangers, SMU, etc brings our understanding of the ground units to a high level.

 

Plus we can see.

 

:-)

THIS

[SBuzzkill]

^ Well said.

Edited September 25, 2013 by SBuzzkill

[d10]

If we had lost Kiowas mid deployment, and had to rely on Shadow, Blimp, Predator and Apache ISR/Recon, and solely Apache air support, we would have had a serious issue on exfil from objectives or securing MEDEVAC LZ's. It would have been a disaster.

 

Kiowas are the absolute worst at securing Medevac LZs. I've been to a lot of hot LZs as a Medevac pilot and any time they were "secured" by a team of Kiowas they had zero effect.

[SBuzzkill]

This dude really hates us.

[afarcryfromsane]

Haters gonna hate.

 

I can only speak to my experiences on the ground. With Kiowas, we were safe®. They kept the Taliban's heads down and could spot the f***ers and track them easier. Simply being overhead was usually enough to get the Taliban to break contact until they broke station. If it wasn't enough, they were effective with their weapon systems. Granted, that is going to vary wildly from unit to unit. Accuracy with a weapon system is more of an indication of the crews ability than the weapon's capability.

The Apaches had nominal effect. Their mere presence was not enough to scare off the enemy. But if they ever (rarely) got clearance to engage, it was usually effective. They almost always engaged from standoff, though I did witness a pair of 64's doing actual gun/rocket runs in the distance. Their weapon of choice was definitely the 30mm.

 

I aint lookin to spread hate. Only love. And that includes love for the MEDEVAC drivers. They had some huge balls and landed in places I never thought a Blackhawk would fit. And all of those LZ's were scouted and assesed by KW's beforehand.

 

Our CAS was a true team effort between the 58s, 64s and MEDEVAC teams. They kept me safe and got my wounded friends home alive. There aren't enough beers out there.

[Hotdogs]

The Apaches had nominal effect. Their mere presence was not enough to scare off the enemy. But if they ever (rarely) got clearance to engage, it was usually effective. They almost always engaged from standoff, though I did witness a pair of 64's doing actual gun/rocket runs in the distance. Their weapon of choice was definitely the 30mm.

 

This doesn't make much sense. You said that they had nominal effect yet you said that when Apache's got clearance to engage they were usually effective. Then you said they usually engage from standoff yet their weapon of choice was the 30mm. You don't shoot 30mm from standoff and if you did it would be like watering your plants on the porch from the other side of the lawn - a large amount of dispersion. The Apache's fire control system allows it to be accurate from further away than the Kiowa, allowing it to stay out of enemy smarms. Which is what you may be mistaking for standoff. Reducing risk to aircraft and crew - if it's done right.

 

Underpowered, under-armored, under-armed, and slow aircraft. Never a good combination on the battlefield. As evidence by their high combat loss rates in the last 12 years compared to other helo platforms. It was built for the Fulda gap - not the ever changing battlefield we see today. Prior enlisted experience (even from MFE units) rarely ever translates into more competent pilots. Hours are hours regardless of age or experience. This is speaking from knowing lots of prior enlisted pilots who basically were a mixed bag, some good and some bad, but it actually had more to do with the individual, attitude, and desire and not the background.

 

Smoke grenades, chem lights, better vision, and cameras are not enough reason to keep a platform around where another platform can pick it up. Which is basically the other tangible things that the Kiowa brought to the table that the Apache can't bring (and vision is a pretty weak reason.) Everything else is well above what the Kiowa brings and that's pretty much hard fact. No doubt Kiowas have been good at their jobs but the economy of today doesn't bode well for that community in particular. It's not about hate, it's more about common sense. I'm surprised no one has notice the loss rates of the last 12 years. Evidently it's catching up.

[Velocity173]

I show it's total combat losses being slightly less than the Apache the last 12 yrs??? Also, I'd estimate the 64s flew about 2/3s the amount of hours of the 58 guys.

 

OH-58 total combat accidents 41. Accidents due to shootdowns 16.

 

AH-64 total combat accidents 45. Accidents due to shootdowns 12 with 4 lost to mortar for a total of 16.

 

Even 60s had more total losses with 42.

 

Army aircraft had far more accidents because we had far more helos flying far more hours than anyone else. I don't care what kind of platform / armor you have, when your flying all day long sniffing around for trouble like KWs do, you're gonna lose aircraft.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Velocity173

[Hotdogs]

Here we go again - nobody was insulting the Army or it's loss rates. Everyone knows you fly a lot.

[Velocity173]

Here we go again - nobody was insulting the Army or it's loss rates. Everyone knows you fly a lot.

Never said you were insulting the Army or their loss rates. I'm simply saying type mission and having the highest optempo of any Army aircraft probably had the most to do with their loss rate.

[akscott60]

Run what you brung. Almost 1 million combat flight hours.

And we can disagree on the Former ground pounder turned pilot. The WO ranks are chock full of them. It is the way we do things.

[Hotdogs]

You have a bigger accession pool to feed. It makes sense for the Army to grab typically more mature and older potential pilots - there's nothing wrong with that. The Navy recently tried it but it didn't work out, so they canx the program. I'm just saying that prior enlisted experience from MFE units has little to do with skill level of a pilot. If that was the case, everyone would be doing it. It doesn't make the platform more capable.

[akscott60]

I don't think it makes the piloting better. I think it makes the platform and mission handling better. As you know, flying is an afterthought when trying to do your job.

[Hotdogs]

I don't think it makes the piloting better. I think it makes the platform and mission handling better. As you know, flying is an afterthought when trying to do your job.

 

 

Fair enough, I guess we just disagree.

[afarcryfromsane]

-

[I3uller]

How exactly is a CIB any better than a CAB? To judge something so superficially is a little disconcerting. I know people with CIB's that got them for taking some rocket or mortar fire here and there and I know of people with CAB's that got theirs at the same time they earned their MOH. Or how about all the 19D's that earned their CAB in the same manner than any 11B earned their CIB. At that point it's just semantics. And to even compare an EIB to a CAB is just absurd.

[afarcryfromsane]

-

[afarcryfromsane]

-

[Hotdogs]

Afarcryfromsane, since you don't have a set of wings your opinion on what pilots are and are not means jack squat. Regardless of what they may or may not have on their chest, I know dudes who could fly circles around pilots who have been in combat, when they have not themselves. Just based on experience in the aircraft. A CIB or CAB or whatever little boy scout badge is on some dudes chest has very little to do with their competence.

When you actually get some time in an aircraft then you can talk, until then stop talking about things you don't have experience in and go sit in the corner.

[2ndGen]

How exactly is a CIB any better than a CAB? To judge something so superficially is a little disconcerting. I know people with CIB's that got them for taking some rocket or mortar fire here and there and I know of people with CAB's that got theirs at the same time they earned their MOH. Or how about all the 19D's that earned their CAB in the same manner than any 11B earned their CIB. At that point it's just semantics. And to even compare an EIB to a CAB is just absurd.

 

A CIB is better than a CAB because the CIB is original. It was designed as something to entice recruits to choose infantry, to be proud of being in the infantry during WWII when the vast majority of soldiers were needed in the infantry ranks. When maneuver battalions had 10-12 line infantry companies.

 

Many, many soldiers earn their CAB the same way 11's earn their CIB, the difference is when the sh*t hits the fan, all the other MOS's have a job to do. 11's sole job is to keep pushing to the enemy. To keep fighting, to close with and destroy them. While everyone moves to their support role, the infantry keeps pushing and advancing.

 

The CAB is something that was developed to give to non-infantry types who saw combat. The CIB is something that infantry types use to distinguish themselves from other infantrymen.