Restructuring Army Aviation

zaurus · May 1, 2014

For your pleasure, view the YouTube video clip titled Restructuring Army Aviation. Somewhat long at 1:10:27 but interesting none the less. Many compromises were made in deciding not only the size of the Army's helicopter fleet but also divesting of the legacy aircraft specifically the OH-58/TH-67 for the UH-72A. In addition, the transfer of the AH-64D to active duty forces from the Guard and Reserves in these economic times.

Being junior and future Army aviators, what's your opinion on the Army's decisions that Congress may approve?

Of course, Aviation Warrant Officers are the flyers and the Commission Officers are the deciders.

zVo · May 1, 2014

In my opinion, the Guard has no business with the AH-64. There's no reason a dedicated attack platform needs to be utilized by the state governor. I know they use it for recon, but that's an awfully overpriced package that can be done much more affordably with a UAS/UAV or -58.

Which brings me to my next point: how much more valuable is a manned reconnaissance helicopter over a drone? The -58 is underpowered, has less time-on-station than their UAS-counterparts, and risks human lives on the front lines. I understand the advantages of having a manned platform (e.g. human eyes on the scene can sometimes be more valuable than the video feed), but is it worth the cost of an entire helicopter fleet and the support that goes with it?

I'm going to the Quad-A meeting in Nashville next week and it's going to be interesting...

SBuzzkill · May 1, 2014

There are a lot of weaknesses in the D model 58 but being underpowered is not one of them.

The restructure was inevitable but it's clear that the shiny new car with nav is more important than the used Honda that gets us to work every day. That's OK.

Edited May 1, 2014 by SBuzzkill

cwil7280 · May 1, 2014

I think keeping the 64s in the guard makes more financial sense than keeping them all AD. Realistically, you don't need all the 64 pilots on AD all the time. Being an attack/recon helicopter, there isn't much use for it in the states. Keeping them in the guard allows the 64s to be deployed and tasked with missions just as often as if they were active duty, while at the same time not paying pilots AD pay and benefits. That's just what I think.

annerajb · May 1, 2014

I believe this is the correct Video.

zaurus · May 1, 2014

Annerajb

Correct. After the 1st 6 minutes, the aviator Cols discuss the specifics regarding airframes, missions and numbers.

brackac · May 2, 2014

Good to be qualified on the Apache.

BM1 · May 2, 2014

Summary

#1 Budget Cuts

#2 Don't train in an aircraft you'll never see again.

#3 AAS is still dead, but we really like the idea.

#4 Operate from Ships? yea we wanna do that some more, but not tooo much.

smalltownguy · May 2, 2014

Does anyone know if there has been a similar meeting held publicly to discuss the fixed wing ISR side of things? One gentlemen asked a question about it and was told to speak off line with the Col about getting in touch with the right people. I'm just curious as to how things on that side of the house could be changing. If anyone sees any recent/current articles of videos regarding fixed wing manned/unmanned ISR I'd appreciate a heads up. Thanks.

Oh and thanks for the share, I feel that was a well spent 1:10 and worth the watch if you have time.

apacheguy · May 2, 2014

Seems like it's the army as usual: lots of incorrect opinions from non-experts who happen to be in power making decisions that will screw us up for years to come. Since this is a pretty big money move, it's going to have to play out in congress.

And yes, the 58D is underpowered.

And no, a UAV doesn't equal having human eyes on target.

smalltownguy · May 3, 2014

Seems like it's the army as usual: lots of incorrect opinions from non-experts who happen to be in power making decisions that will screw us up for years to come. Since this is a pretty big money move, it's going to have to play out in congress.

And yes, the 58D is underpowered.

And no, a UAV doesn't equal having human eyes on target.

Just to be clear, are you saying the three military officers in the video are the "non-experts" that you speak of? Or are you talking about others behind the scenes that we don't see in this video?

And the UAV vs human eyes is completely situational and depends on so many factors, it's hard to say indefinitely that human eyes on target are better than human eyes looking through a 2 million dollar camera. Some cases yes, but definitely not 100% or even 75%-50% of the time.

Hobbit64 · May 3, 2014

UAVs are fine for certain things but they are not the end all,be all.

Put a crew in a helicopter with a with a good sensor and you can have the on-scene S.A. and standoff capes. Plus the Manned aircraft won't lose link, and can ingress/egress NOE if need be.

Funny, no one seems to discuss the fact that the next 'battle space' may just be contested by the other side. UAV vs. Manned A/C... who's gonna have a better chance of getting the job done?

UAVs have many weakness that I feel are conveniently over looked.

brackac · May 3, 2014

UAVs are fine for certain things but they are not the end all,be all.

Put a crew in a helicopter with a with a good sensor and you can have the on-scene S.A. and standoff capes. Plus the Manned aircraft won't lose link, and can ingress/egress NOE if need be.

Funny, no one seems to discuss the fact that the next 'battle space' may just be contested by the other side. UAV vs. Manned A/C... who's gonna have a better chance of getting the job done?

UAVs have many weakness that I feel are conveniently over looked.

If we go to war with Russia or China, the UAV's will be nothing but target practice for our opponents.

Velocity173 · May 4, 2014

If we go to war with Russia or China, the UAV's will be nothing but target practice for our opponents.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Everyone talks big on future war only because they frame it based on our last two experiences. As far as ADA it was a walk in the park. Iraq had some outdated SA-2s/3s and a few MANPADS but that was it. Outside of RC west there really wasn't much MANPAD activity in Afghanistan.

Since the start of OIF & OEF many of our possible future opponents (Iran, N Korea) have significantly upgraded their ADA capabilities. Air dominance won't be as easy as some might think. We would lose crews and a crapload of UAVs.

smalltownguy · May 4, 2014

No one with any real credibility has said the current (active) UAVs would be effective in contested airspace. The next generation is certainly working to be more effective in other combat scenarios and exploring options, this is where the "future" with UAVs comes in. No one is stupid enough to send a wave of Predators in to a N. Korea, Russia, or China without ensuring we have at least a moderate level of control over the airspace. Maybe as decoys when they get older and the next gen comes out haha... but seriously even then I highly doubt it! Everyone gets so defensive like the UAV is the illegal coming over the border to take your job! It will not happen in our lifetime and if it does your ass will be to old to fly anyway.

Helos make for excellent target practice for most opponents as well, just ask the Ukraine... if they had Preds over head they may not have sent their choppers in to that mess. At least the UAV could fly higher than the surface to air unit that brought the helos down. Point being its all situational and you can list pros and cons for ANY aircraft... UAVs are a work in progress but they do some seriously good sh*t.

Hotdogs · May 4, 2014

If we go to war with Russia or China, the UAV's will be nothing but target practice for our opponents.

It's going to be a EW cat and mouse game. UAVs operate out of small arms and most heavy AAA systems as you already know.... If some clowns want to emit RF signals to shoot down a UAV, that's also a risk they'll be taking by shooting trons out into the air. Strap a couple AGM-88s on a UAV and now you've got a interesting weapon. I'm also curious as to whether the bad guys will be willing to expend a 1/2 million dollar missile on a flying lawn mower.

All kind of rabbit holes to go down on this subject. I'm not a UAV fan but the subject does purpose a lot of different possibilities.

apacheguy · May 4, 2014

Everyone gets so defensive like the UAV is the illegal coming over the border to take your job! It will not happen in our lifetime and if it does your ass will be to old to fly anyway.

Helos make for excellent target practice for most opponents as well, just ask the Ukraine... if they had Preds over head they may not have sent their choppers in to that mess. At least the UAV could fly higher than the surface to air unit that brought the helos down. Point being its all situational and you can list pros and cons for ANY aircraft... UAVs are a work in progress but they do some seriously good sh*t.

Big army would like nothing more than to replace observation helicopters with UAVs. Why do you think OH-58D squadrons now have 2 troops of Shadows?

I'm actually a school trained UAV operator in addition to being a rated aviator. In my limited experience with UAVs, I've never seen one that delivered on the promises. Range is always less than promised, the video usually sucks, loiter time, etc etc. I do believe they have a place in the army but we sure as hell didn't need to spend billions on what I consider the first generation of UAVs. The Raven is a complete joke at $35,000 per....

Those Ukrainian pilots better learn how to fly at night real fast, Russians have a lot of good MANPADS and they aren't afraid to fire them.

apacheguy · May 4, 2014

Just to be clear, are you saying the three military officers in the video are the "non-experts" that you speak of? Or are you talking about others behind the scenes that we don't see in this video?

Yeah I was talking big army in general, not specific to those three. We went from declining to buy the last 30 UH-72s on the program to now buying 100 more to use for IERW... Again, I'm a fan of the Lakota but it is not a trainer. Why not buy a couple hundred R22s to use for primary? Buy something American instead of paying Airbus. Everyone has their opinion, I got that, but when was the last time the guys actually flying everyday were asked for theirs?

smalltownguy · May 5, 2014

... The Raven is a complete joke at $35,000 per....

True story but the predator family has serious potential if the operators were trained better. It is hit or miss, some of the operators figure it out and can be a real asset in the sky while others (if you've flown overseas you've probably come across the ones I'm talking about) can just be a pain in the ass. It all goes back to being situational like I mentioned earlier but the Grey Eagle can do great things with a mature, experienced/well trained crew.

Yeah I was talking big army in general, not specific to those three. We went from declining to buy the last 30 UH-72s on the program to now buying 100 more to use for IERW... Again, I'm a fan of the Lakota but it is not a trainer. Why not buy a couple hundred R22s to use for primary? Buy something American instead of paying Airbus. Everyone has their opinion, I got that, but when was the last time the guys actually flying everyday were asked for theirs?

Roger. That's what I figured you meant but I had to ask because the guys in the video (at least to two Cols) have plenty of experience to make calls. Oh well man, can't make everyone happy and you certainly have valid points.

fatbretcantjump · May 5, 2014

Seems to me there's something else driving the decision.

The "going from 7 types to 4" argument SOUNDS good, but it's not at all valid if you're going to spend more buying and maintaining the 4 types than you ever would have with the 7.