Interesting article. The TH67 may be on the chopping block....

[akscott60]

In an additional effort to minimize the diversity of its fleet and take out aging aircraft, the Army is also proposing to divest its TH-67 training helicopters at Ft. Rucker, AL, according to the officials. To replace the TH-67s, the Army plans to use some of its LUH-72A Lakota helicopters, which are already a part of the service's inventory, for pilot training. While some of the LUH-72As needed for training will be pulled from the Guard, others will be pulled from the active component. The Guard will keep its security and support battalion Lakotas it uses along the Southwest border, according to the officials.

 

Bell Helicopter's Miller questioned the proposed divestment, asking, "Why would you get rid of something that is already in place and already been paid for?" Bell also manufactures the TH-67 helicopters. He added that "we've got no complaints about its ability to meet the mission at Ft. Rucker."

 

Transfer costs should be considered in deciding whether to swap TH-67s and Lakotas, Miller said. "You have to buy new simulators, you are going to have to move those Lakotas, you are going to have to renegotiate maintenance contracts at Ft. Rucker. That is a huge bill," he said.

 

Additionally, the Lakota has twin engines, while the TH-67 has a single engine. Training on a single-engine aircraft is easier for a new pilot; they are also less-costly to operate. "You don't want to over-complicate your initial instruction, nor do you want to overpay for it," Miller said.

 

However, the Army officials said the service would have to pay a heftier bill to keep the TH-67s flying because Bell doesn't make the model anymore. "We lose a couple every year, we already have less than we need for our training fleet," and Ft. Rucker has had to bring in OH-58s to complete the fleet, an official said. Also, the service must cannibalize parts to keep the current helicopters running.

 

Additionally, the TH-67s will require a life-extension program that the Army can't afford, the officials said. If the service wanted to buy something new -- from Bell or another company -- costs would be prohibitive, they added.

 

Using Lakotas as trainers would also give the Army an incentive to revamp how it trains pilots. "We've been running flight school on the same paradigm since the era of Vietnam," an official said, adding, "cut to 40 years later, the entire fleet" -- aside from Kiowas -- "is a dual-engine, glass-cockpit aircraft." Training on a single-engine, rigid-rotor, small helicopter makes less sense as time goes on, they argued

 

The Army, in looking around the globe at other first-world countries with large militaries, has learned that German forces were very pleased with their Eurocopter EC-135s -- which uses the same airframe as the Lakota. While the LUH is not designed well for "crash-and-bang" exercises performed during training, the Army has also learned that Australia has completely phased out that training practice because it is used for pilots who fly single-engine aircraft, not twin-engine helicopters in which a pilot is less likely to deal with a complete stall.

 

By divesting two fleets of aircraft, the Army is looking to simplify the fleet as whole, one official noted. For example, when developing a new capability for a helicopter such as aircraft survivability equipment, the Army would only have to pay to make sure the new equipment can fit and function on four different types of helicopters, which would bring down integration costs.

 

The service also wants to reduce its eight variants of Black Hawk helicopters to just two, according to the officials, leaving the two most modern versions -- Lima models with digitized cockpits, and Mike models. The Army is hoping to embark on the digital L-model effort in FY-14.

 

"We will be a smaller, leaner force, but we will keep all of the modern equipment," an official emphasized. "The motto here is buy nothing new because we are poor, but keep the best of what you've got."

 

Additionally, divesting fleets would not mean firing key operators, like those who work on Kiowa fleets, the officials stressed. "Those pilots and maintainers are highly valued" and could be trained to fly different helicopters, one noted.

 

Because the Army is looking to divest two aircraft fleets, it logically follows that combat aviation brigade numbers will have to shrink with the fleet. However, the officials could not pinpoint how deeply the service is prepared to reduce its CAB numbers in the active and reserve components, though they acknowledged the total numbers would have to go down. The numbers are dependent on the Army's total force structure, which has yet to be decided.

[Yamer]

Hooray!!! My dream has come true! I might get to fly the Lakota and still be an apache pilot!!! That would be awesome!

[akscott60]

Haha. I believe anything in this business when I can see and touch it.

[Velocity173]

Man, the Army's gotta be hurting for money if they're thinking of doing this. You got a Utility helicopter that production orders were halted, take them from the Guard and throw it in as a trainer? Seems like the whole LUH thing wasn't thought out that well. Also, at over 3 times the cost per hour, you can bet they make up for that by reducing student's hours yet again. I agree with the whole dual engine argument but I think we're robbing Peter to pay Paul here.

 

Either way, I bet I can get a good deal on a used Jet Ranger in the near future.

Edited December 6, 2013 by Velocity173

[akscott60]

Here is my radical idea. Buy a whole fleet of Cessna 182s with full glass cockpits. Get 50-75 hours in them for pattern work, TALKING ON THE RADIO, air-sense, cross country flying, planning, navigation, manuevers, etc. Then do another 50 hours in instruments. Work on all of the approaches from NDB to LPV and everything in between. Then transition to a helicopter for intro into rotary wing/BWS. That period could be flown in just about anything with a good amount of simulator work if needed.

 

After that go to selection.

 

Imagine if pilots showed up to advanced aircraft with 50 more actual flight hours a piece.

 

The other branches of service all start in fixed wing before going to Helicopters. By using a fleet of comparatively dirt cheap and rugged Cessnas, we could save money and have a nice and thorough training pipeline.

[DaveC]

The Cessna idea would be great for instruments. I came in with a FW ATP, CFII, 3000 hours, and over 250 in actual IMC. Needless to say instruments was the easiest 8 weeks I've had in a long time. Instrument flying is instrument flying.

 

A 182 will blow the rotors off a TH-67 in cruise flight, so they could minimize the unproductive time in cruise flight and get in more approaches. Plus the longer range would allow them to get out of the immediate Rucker area and get real world IFR experience while relieving some of the traffic congestion.

[Velocity173]

If you're going to spend all this time and money training a student on a dual engine glass cockpit helicopter, then just send them direct their advanced airframes. It's not like some guy in the Navy going from a T-45 to an F-18. That's a significant jump in performance and complexity. An LUH to a Black Hawk isn't that significant.

 

While you're doing all the academics you'll get 50 hrs in the sim at Warrior Hall. After that start day one at the flight line for contact. Man, I'd save the Army soo much money if I was running the show.

Edited December 7, 2013 by Velocity173

[UH60L-IP]

Putting students through fixed wing training really isn't all that of a radical idea.

 

The idea has already been floated here at Rucker, currently and several times in the past, to conduct all initial training in fixed wing and then go directly to the advanced aircraft without touching another rotary wing in between.

[akscott60]

My comment on "radical" was tongue in cheek. I too showed up to Rucker with almost a decade of foxed wing flying. It made everything easier.

[Hotdogs]

My comment on "radical" was tongue in cheek. I too showed up to Rucker with almost a decade of foxed wing flying. It made everything easier.

 

A decade of flying should make a difference, but to your average boot student with 50 hrs, it might not. 50 hrs is nothing in a Cessna.

 

As far as USN/USMC fixed wing training, I think I had somewhere around 90 hours FW time going into the HTs. It's not just instruments, it's forms, nav, fam, aerobatics, in a complex turbine aircraft. You're also flying it solo at least 3 (IIRC) times during the syllabus. Not exactly a Cessna 180. The patterns I flew in VTs vs HTs were not exactly the same either. It's not exactly ridiculously hard, but the syllabus is challenging, and there are a pretty decent amount of people who don't graduate.

There are some fiscal and safety issues I could see with cutting out the initial RW training before a fleet aircraft.

[akscott60]

As it sits now, we get 80ish aircraft hours in the 67 and 58AC before we head to advanced aircraft. I showed up to my Squadron with 162.4 hours total, not counting sim.

[SBuzzkill]

Jesus. There are a lot of shitty aviators out there already can you imagine how f*cked up they would be if they never got stick time behind a helicopter that doesn't fly itself?

[copterdoctor64]

Do you have a link for this AKScott?

[Dnr032]

Jesus. There are a lot of shitty aviators out there already can you imagine how f*cked up they would be if they never got stick time behind a helicopter that doesn't fly itself?

 

And having never done an auto........ You can almost hear the rants from the anti-military bashers on the other forum now!

[akscott60]

Do you have a link for this AKScott?

http://insidedefense.com/201312062455033/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/DefenseAlert/army-aviation-plan-would-divest-kiowas-move-guard-apaches-to-scout-role/menu-id-61.html

 

Get a free trial membership. That is what I did. The TH67 article is on the end of a "Kiowa going away" article.

[nightmare515]

So they are doing Lakotas for all of flight school huh?

 

A few months ago some Eurochopper landed at Cairn's and the DAC's were telling me they were trying to get that to be the new trainer for primary and instruments. The guys at BWS said they were going to get Lakotas for BWS training soon, I didn't know they were doing it for primary and instruments as well.

 

I don't know much about the Lakota but everyone keeps telling me they hate it. Not very many IPs were happy with that decision...

[wopilot]

Considering it can't hold a hover for more than five minutes at a time.. It should be interesting.

[copterdoctor64]

http://insidedefense.com/201312062455033/Inside-Defense-Daily-News/DefenseAlert/army-aviation-plan-would-divest-kiowas-move-guard-apaches-to-scout-role/menu-id-61.html

 

Get a free trial membership. That is what I did. The TH67 article is on the end of a "Kiowa going away" article.

Thanks!

[Joe_P148]

Doesn't seem very logical to use LUH for primary and instruments. Look at the cost per flight hour comparison. I have serious doubts about this.

[AK60]

Doesn't seem very logical to use LUH for primary and instruments. Look at the cost per flight hour comparison. I have serious doubts about this.

Me too. This reads more like an april fool's joke (although, so do all the other cost saving measures being tossed around lately) than a well thought out article.

 

WTF is a "crash-and-bang" exercise? Who did they interview, the fat contractor giving hot gas?

[UH60L-IP]

It doesn't make much sense to me either, which may very well make it a real possibility for the Army.

 

The talk around here lately has been either fixed wing to advanced airframe or LUH to advanced airframe.

 

The major reason for the apparent move from the TH-67 to something else has been said to have little to do with cost, at least from the Army's viewpoint. Bell has apparently been reluctant to have us continue utilizing the airframe since they (Bell) are now losing money on it. The aircraft are paid for several times over and simply providing certain ongoing service support doesn't help Bell's bottom line, especially amid budgets that do not include plans to buy new Bell product. While this is put forth as the reason for transitioning from the TH-67, some of Bell's statements seem to contradict this.

[AK60]

Bell has apparently been reluctant to have us continue utilizing the airframe since they (Bell) are now losing money on it.

 

Is the Navy having similar issues with the -57?

[UH60L-IP]

Is the Navy having similar issues with the -57?

 

 

Hard for me to say. I'm not 100% that it's the true reason for the Army either. My gouge is normally pretty good as I have regular contact with some higher level sources here, but this time it's simply the talk around the IP table and some conversations with folks in AFS (Army Fleet Support).

[Joe_P148]

Not really a fan of Bell and I feel as though that airframe and it's other variants are not able to deliver what future Army missions will demand of it.

 

That being said it was a good trainer doesn't make sense to scrap it but as uh60ip says that's probably why it will happen.

[2ndGen]

If they want cheaper aircraft, scrapping what is already paid for is not the answer. Scrapping the creek because Bell is not making money on it isn't the answer either. If Bell will not supply the service, someone will.

 

With money being what money is today, tight, If they go to a new trainer, the focus should be to a simpler cheaper helicopter, not a more complex expensive one. Believe me, I think they look dorky as all he'll, but if the Army wants a better, cheaper trainer, go with an R44. Maintenance would drop, and the mission as it is now could be 95% completed minus the turbine experience. Keep a small portion of 58s around for the turbine transition and BWS. Looks like big Army is getting rid of the Kiowa, so there should be plenty.

 

Fixed wing first makes sense in other branches because the vast majority of their pilots end up in fixed wing, they Army is the opposite, IMO starting in fixed would be dollars not well spent (even though I would enjoy it).