The Kiowa going away is looking more and more likely.

[brackac]

l3uller to expand on what you've said. Let's say I'm out conducting a surveillance mission and a bomb goes off near me. I hear and feel that bomb go off and immediately start looking for it. Within 10 seconds I've found it and have started to develop the situation. A UAV is not going to feel it or hear it. They're not going to get eyes on unless someone tells them about it. They're not going to be able to immediately call it up and provide a spot report. Nope. They're going to continue watching whatever they were watching until someone calls them up and says "hey a bomb just went off."

 

 

The fixed wing asset at 20K feet already has the signature, blast diameter, and grid before you get turned around. The new technology that has hit the battlefield in just the last year is incredible. They then send it to 4 other platforms via data link.

[brackac]

 

Do you think a UH-60 crew could be trained to do the 58's mission?

 

 

No. Airframe isn't small or agile enough.

[d10]

What does size and agility have to do with recon? I can maybe see an argument for size in extremely rare circumstances but agility? I don't buy that the ability to turn around slightly quicker has ever provided a practical advantage.

[brackac]

What does size and agility have to do with recon? I can maybe see an argument for size in extremely rare circumstances but agility? I don't buy that the ability to turn around slightly quicker has ever provided a practical advantage.

 

 

Now you are getting into TTP topics, which I'm going to stay out of.

[SBuzzkill]

 

Oh, don't get me wrong, I had multiple days of fun two deployments ago working as a pink team or heavy team with our 58's down in RC South. I don't think there isn't anything better on the battlefield than a 58/Apache team or 2 58's and 1 Apache, but it's not what the ground force wants or sees as most effective on the battlefield. In today's world of instance information and access, the video feed is king. The video capability provided due to the link between the UAVs/Apaches/Fixed Wing/Ground Forces is hard to beat recon wise.

 

Gotcha. Sorry about my earlier comment. I get a little defensive about my aircraft and mission after hearing and seeing so many people bash it who don't understand what we do and just regurgitate things they've heard.

[brackac]

 

Gotcha. Sorry about my earlier comment. I get a little defensive about my aircraft and mission after hearing and seeing so many people bash it who don't understand what we do and just regurgitate things they've heard.

 

 

No problem. I think 58 guys will have a blast in the Apache. Put a recon minded pilot in the same aircraft with a attack minded pilot and you have a very effective crew mix.

[brackac]

I'm more interested in if this does come to fruition what it will do to promotion numbers and what options will the 58 drivers have. I have a lot of good friends who are 58 pilots and are at 12 - 15 years in their careers. Rumors are 64's, UAS, or release from service.

[d10]

Now you are getting into TTP topics, which I'm going to stay out of.

 

The Kiowa has an obvious problem here. It's struggling to remain relevant in today's Army. I realize those who are emotionally attached to the airframe are going to defend it but it's not going to be a convincing argument unless you can define what the mission is, and why other options won't work for performing that mission.

 

TTPs don't need to be discussed. Two different airframes can and should use different TTPs to accomplish the same mission. The fact that a Black Hawk can't do some of the things a Kiowa can do doesn't necessarily prevent it from meeting the same objectives. I would agree with you that Black Hawks wouldn't be effective at recon using current TTPs, but if Black Hawk commanders were tasked with that mission, I have no doubt that we would develop TTPs to be able to handle it just as well, if not better than Kiowas. I don't see the limitation being in the airframe.

[Joe_P148]

It's not either or both the UAV and the 58 have thier roles.

 

An infantry commander may want a UAV but an infantry squad leader would probably prefer a SWT over a UAV when the sh*t goes south.

[akscott60]

I'm more interested in if this does come to fruition what it will do to promotion numbers and what options will the 58 drivers have. I have a lot of good friends who are 58 pilots and are at 12 - 15 years in their careers. Rumors are 64's, UAS, or release from service.

That worries me as well.

[aeroscout]

What does size and agility have to do with recon? I can maybe see an argument for size in extremely rare circumstances but agility? I don't buy that the ability to turn around slightly quicker has ever provided a practical advantage.

 

It might be the difference of dodging a stream of tracers coming at you, or being a bullet sponge as an example.

[d10]

Nobody dodges tracers. If you mean get to safety when you see that you're being targeted, the power margin and speed of a Black Hawk is much more useful.

[brackac]

D10,

 

To respond to the reply you deleted, there is more to the recon mission than flying up and down a MSR. The 7 fundamentals will give a good idea as to why the 58's small size, lower audible signature than the bigger airframes, and electronics on board make it the best choice of all the manned platforms. Not only would you have to retrofit a UH-60 with FLIR, LRFD, video recorders, glass cockpits with the ability to store targets/grids on the fly, and at minimum rocket pods for target marking, but you would have to completely retrain a lift pilot to fly and think like a recon pilot. Not to mention the threat to crew that is involved when two Blackhawks start flying around a populated urban area at 40 knots and 50 - 100' AGL continuously for 2 hours at a time.

 

Now, throw a Shadow in the air for 12 hours at a time, have an AWT at REDCON 2 or flying within the area, and with the current electronics available, you have extended coverage with superior firepower.

[brackac]

Nobody dodges tracers. If you mean get to safety when you see that you're being targeted, the power margin and speed of a Black Hawk is much more useful.

 

 

You would have to change that mentality also. 58 drivers go forward, locate, and either mark or destroy.

[brackac]

That worries me as well.

 

Yeah, I'm talking about people in your unit. Sucks.

[aeroscout]

Nobody dodges tracers. If you mean get to safety when you see that you're being targeted, the power margin and speed of a Black Hawk is much more useful.

I've never had to, but if I see them coming at me I sure will try.

[d10]

D10,

 

To respond to the reply you deleted, there is more to the recon mission than flying up and down a MSR. The 7 fundamentals will give a good idea as to why the 58's small size, lower audible signature than the bigger airframes, and electronics on board make it the best choice of all the manned platforms. Not only would you have to retrofit a UH-60 with FLIR, LRFD, video recorders, glass cockpits with the ability to store targets/grids on the fly, and at minimum rocket pods for target marking, but you would have to completely retrain a lift pilot to fly and think like a recon pilot. Not to mention the threat to crew that is involved when two Blackhawks start flying around a populated urban area at 40 knots and 50 - 100' AGL continuously for 2 hours at a time.

 

Now, throw a Shadow in the air for 12 hours at a time, have an AWT at REDCON 2 or flying within the area, and with the current electronics available, you have extended coverage with superior firepower.

 

What post are you referring to? I haven't deleted anything. This post is the kind of stuff I was looking for though. When a commander or a customer asks if you can do a mission, even if the answer is "no", you don't say it like that, you lay out the facts and alternative options and let them come to the conclusion. I don't expect Black Hawks to take the Kiowa's mission, especially since there's been no discussion of that from the people who will be making that decision, but I'd like to find out why it's not feasible or what it would take to accomplish the mission.

 

That being said, I can use those same fundamentals of recon to support an airframe with 4+ crewmembers. I don't think crewmember training is a valid argument because I'm pretty sure at some point in time every Kiowa pilot also started with zero knowledge of how to perform the mission, and the equipment mods would be a budgetary decision that I don't think any of us are qualified to speak with authority on.

[akscott60]

Dont worry. I will fly that Hook like a Scout pilot. Cant take that out of my head.

[Hotdogs]

 

Well this thread is all over the place.

UASs. I'm going to take a wild guess and state that a good majority of pilots here have little actual experience with UASs. I personally hate the thought of coming to the defense for them, mainly because my experience with them has been not that great. That and they tend to be very passionate about their MOS, even though every thinks of them as the redheaded step child of the wing. I have correlated via TVDL feeds with them and had them lase for my missiles, which was interesting, to say the least. Most of the limitations, I felt had to do with the operator (Some enlisted and obviously with limited training time...very junior) and integrating into a fires mindset. Simply put, it'll take sometime for them to operate fluidly in a battle space, and that's a training issue. Not a capability issue. As far as having Apaches operate UASs from their aircraft, I'm curious as to how that's going to work, because I can imagine there could be a decent amount of disorientation and nausea for the crew.

They have a great on station time, they can locate, have a better sensors (FLIR, radar, passive systems) than current helicopters running around with sensors designed in the 80s, mount some weapons (not a lot really, -114P, some Mk 82 series GBUs) IRLP, and designators. This all depends on UAS type... RQ-1/MQ-1, RQ-2, RQ-11, RQ-21. They are much higher than Helicopters, lowering their audible signature, which is good. A good portion of UAS operate with SATCOM. It's hard to talk on UHF to a dude who is half way around the world or in some cases too many mountain ranges away. TACP teams have SATCOM capability but it can become an issue if you're trying to integrate them into the airspace with other aircraft and use them in your overall game plan. Other services are talking about mounting UASs as a EW asset with comm jammers and ALQ-99s and shooting trons into enemy radar systems. SEAD is a manned mission that probably shouldn't be, and a dedicated manned reconnaissance platform is probably in the same boat.

 

I could beat up on the Kiowa performance wise - slow, inaccurate, lacks firepower, armor, mediocre mast mounted sensor. Lots of negatives. If a bomb goes off and you can "hear and feel it" you're doing something wrong as a pilot. Kiowas used to get IEDs detonated underneath them flying low doing route recon in Iraq during the early stages of OIF. Some see it a source of chest thumping, I see it not very tactically sound. The Apache can fill the rest of the performance gap aside from UASs. However, it's not like the Army isn't going to lose something out of this, they may have just shot themselves in the foot for ever replacing the Kiowa, especially in this budget environment. You throw in the bungled acquisitions of it's replacement and it leads to this situation. This isn't to say Kiowas haven't contributed to OEF/OIF because they have, and obviously this can be attributed to the current budget environment. Not because it's a willing decision.

[brackac]

As far as having Apaches operate UASs from their aircraft, I'm curious as to how that's going to work, because I can imagine there could be a decent amount of disorientation and nausea for the crew.

 

 

This is the biggest issue I see with the future ability of the Apache to not only receive video feed from but also control the UAS. I know I have at times found myself watching my front seaters vid as the ground guys moved on the objective while at the same time looking at the UAS feed on my other screen for a different view of the objective, or watching the UAS vid because the UAS has been tasked with recon of a completely separate objective and I am still responsible for them, all while flying NVS at 10K'. In the front seat I would have the UAS vid up on a screen while I work the TADS on the objective. The different angle and movement of the UAS feed when combined with being "heads down" and operating the TADS, while the back seater is doing what he needs to do to keep my on target can be mentally and physically taxing.

[Rob1237051]

Time to throw a Flight Engineer in a box under the cockpit like they can on a Mi-24. Lol.

[SBuzzkill]

Edited because everything I wanted to say has already been said.

Edited December 12, 2013 by SBuzzkill

[apacheguy]

If all of the Kiowas are finally going away then the army needs to get serious about replacing them with the AH-6/MD530. Anyone who thinks the EC145 can win the AAS contract is fooling themselves. I fly the Lakota, I like the Lakota, but it ain't a scout in any way. Either keep the 58D, upgrade it as planned, or move on to a solid aircraft with a good history such as the MD530F.

[EngineerChisum]

I came across an interesting article that should add some fuel to the fire:

http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsus-dod-set-cancel-uh-72a-lakota-programme-2014

 

I have to say, I'm a bit disappointed because the armed scout version of the Lakota looked like a capable platform. On the other hand, it may mean the Kiowa will be around for a while!

[UH60L-IP]

These last two posts are a bit off the wall in my opinion.

 

apacheguy - the Army is not looking to replace the 58 with anything so to "get serious about replacing them" with another aircraft would be a bit awkward. The AH6/MD530 are little more than a figment of the imagination as far as the Army even adopting it is concerned. You are right though, anyone who thinks that the EC145 could win the AAS contract is indeed fooling themselves - it's not even a consideration.

 

EngineerChisum - That story is not likely to "add some fuel to the fire." That story is from 7 months ago - a millennia in this conversation. But the decision to not replace the Kiowa with the Lakota was made even long before that. Whether or not the Kiowa will be around for a while is up for debate, but it has nothing to do with the fact that the Lakota is not a viable option.