Modern AirCav: Still effective?

[Sub_Zero]

Ooh-RAH to all those out there fighting for our nation's freedom, and a big "Semper Fi" to all those in the United States Marine Corps, from someone who was nearly one of you (I'm headed for college, and I'd applied USMC ROTC, but wasn't accepted. What can I say, I just wasn't the best of the best).

I've been milling over a problem that the modern militaries from all around the world have been facing, that problem being related to the employment of the Air Cavalry. I'm not here to debate the role of the gunship, as we've heard of the great successes our rotorheads have had in knocking out enemy tanks and APC's to clear the way for our hard-charging ground forces, but I am here to discuss the effectiveness of our Blackhawks.

I know that the media is notoriously unkind to military operations, but it's been well-publicized that several helicopters have gone down over Operation Iraqi Freedom, and not only United States ones. If you look at the statistics, a good percentage of all KIA's over this operation have been from helo-related incidents, be they accidental or from being shot down by enemy fire.

Is the risk of employing such a unique aircraft still worth the output? I know there are many, MANY helo sorties that go without a hitch, but when such a large number of deaths are the result of crashes and whatnot, is it time to re-evaluate our use of the helicopter as an insertion method? Perhaps not putting helos directly in the line of fire would help, but how else would we get rapid deployment of troops to a combat situation? Are heavily-armored APCs a better choice, or are we experiencing the best that we could possibly get?

I look foward to the discussion, and regret to say I have no hands-on military experience, only a studied knowlege in modern tactics and warfare. I apologize in advance if this has made me bring up a topic that is rediculous or misinformed.

[Beowulf]

I believe that some of the problems are inherent in the "crashhawk", but that may have changed...ask someone from the 101st they'll probably have quite a bit to say about it...
All Best
beowulf

[Seraphim]

You should take a look at the casualty list in afghanistan.

[James]

I don't have any numbers to toss out, but I do know some Marine CH-46 Frogs crashed because of mechanical trouble. They are all 30+ years old, though. While I was on active duty, there was a joke - "If you are in a 46 and you can't see leaking hydraulic fluid somehwere, it's bad, because iot means there is no more hydraulic fluid". I also know that troop carrying helicopters generally can't take punishment from HMG rounds and whatnot the way Gunships can. I do think helicopters should stick around, though. Given a choice, I would rather ride a 46 than walk. There's my 2 cents.

[Merik]

Another problem with the BlackHawk is visibility. If it had the same size of a nose bubble as a Huey so the pilot can actually see what he is landing on I believe that would surely help. Not only that but the BlackHawk is just way to damn heavy.

But one way to look at the situation in my perspective is thank god the Army isnt buying the Osprey, its a flying deathtrap. I would much rather be in a BlackHawk than one of those things.

[Seiyuuki]

Anyone here flown in the Osprey, or work on it, or any experience with it?

[vryhpyammoadded]

I love the Crashhawk but the Seamagnet has always frightend me.

Has anyone heard of or seen pics/drawings of the new Lockheed plane; an F-35 tech variant as a possible Osprey competetor? That would be one weird looking plane. Would be cool though. To heck with props and rotors, now your Huey can cruise at 600Kts! ;)

[SABER 2-3]

There are few insersion platforms that rival the helicopter due to it's ablity to perform so many functions. For more covert and smaller teams HALO/HAHO from fixed winged airframes works. And for airfield/hard target takedowns mass tactical airborne operations the helicopter is again beat out by the fixed wing. But for operations that call for troops to be pin-point dropped w/o the injuries, assembly concerns or logistical problems assosiated w/ airborne ops; the helo's are the current answer. Helo's also are easy platforms to master (when your a passenger) and require little instruction or rehersal prior to deployment. Not only that but there a great way to get to work and an even better way to get the hell out of the workplace.

[Sub_Zero]

It's good to see some feedback on the specifics of the Blackhawk, and the Chinook, but I asked another question that only SABER 2-3 really answered at all. Are choppers still the best insertion method for those pin-point raids (Mogadishu, Saving Private Lynch, etc.) Or can the "safety" of a ground-based tracked vehicle provide us with the same success rate without all the casualties? Would a vehicular raid just attract more attention, or might it provide for a better option?

Also, thanks to Tane Angle for bringing up the physics issue. The helicopter, for all intents and purposes, an impossible creation of man against the physics of flight. Needless to say, it still exists, but it really shouldn't. The concept of a helo is just extremely fragile WITHOUT being shot at by some ZSU or AAA emplacement. Also, a good point with the flat spin argument. The G-Force of a spin is immense (Centrifugal Force). You'd see that if you've ever seen NASA videos of those astronauts being spun around and around in the chair up to 6+ G's...it's physically dangerous, even. If the tail goes, the chopper goes...there's no real way you can save a ship from that kind of punishment on the way down. Durant's account says it all.

[ibstolidude]

Choppers versus a ground insertion by tracked vehicle??

Well if the insertion is a 120 mile deep insertion - I'll pass on the track vehicle - thank you very much.

the easy answer for every mil question is 'mission dictates'. As a simple means of transport from point A to B ground movement is easily tracked, generally has a longer exposure time to enemy actions, is subject to a greater(more severe) number of constraints and limitations (routes, fuel, terrain, fatigue, etc) , is of a slower speed. In most cases I would say NO way would using a ground based convoy be safer than a helo insertion, especially the further the distance needed to travel or the more the time becomes a factor.

There are disadvantages and advantages of either - me I so long as the plan provides for NON-SLING LOAD vehicles to be inserted with me - I'd go with Herc, Talon or Helo as a transport/insertion means

[Duke]

Anyone here flown in the Osprey, or work on it, or any experience with it?
I have a some experience with the MV-22, mostly academic.
Way back when and even today, some Marines aren't convinced as to the tactical logistics the MV-22 can provide.
For example, many question if actually 18 fully loaded Marines with supplies can fit comfortably inside and travel 200 Nautical miles without seriously degrading their combat skills. Also, many US military aviators believe the Osprey is instead a DUCK(sitting) on hot approaches. I'll try to dig up several independent tactical analysises of the Osprey.
BTW, in the early eighties, I had a neighbor who retired from the Army and became a DOD analyst working for the Senate Armed Services Committee. His job was to advise the Senate on the Osprey. He is now again retired from the DoD, and the damn bird isn't yet operational!

[usa320]

HELL YES. Helicopters carry a good number of troops, can go really far and in all weather at night, go fast, have good armor and fire power, ect...

You can carry the same number of men in one Chinook or Pave Low that could be carried in probably about 4 or 5 trucks.

[martinexsquaddie]

You Don't use tracked Mechs to Insert anyone you use them if your going to take the ground away from them and keep it.
There also good for peace keeping because your on the ground and everybody thinks there a tank. I don't think I'd like to ride into any drop off point by helo where some one who does'nt like me is waiting. Mind you never going to Happen the British army's only got 10 helicopters :o
I.e. There was going to be an airlift but the Helicopter got shot down the objectives 40k away and we have to be there by first light its now 2pm OH JOY :o
British army airmobile means Your walking :lol:
but its better than saxon :)

[digrar]

I don't think that any one who has sat in the back of a carrier getting bashed around inside would hesitate in opting for a chopper insertion if offered.

[Merik]

BTW, in the early eighties, I had a neighbor who retired from the Army and became a DOD analyst working for the Senate Armed Services Committee. His job was to advise the Senate on the Osprey. He is now again retired from the DoD, and the damn bird isn't yet operational!


Hehe that reminds me of the Commanche. It is a eighties aircraft design and my dad was on the project from 93' to when he retired in 95' and more than likely it will never see the battlefield. Such a shame because of what that thing can do is incredible.

[Sub_Zero]

What in the name of God ever happened to that beautiful piece of hardware? The Commanche, as I recall, was supposed to be replacing the Apache in the fast attack role for the Army. :cantbeli:

Again with the DoD budget cuts, or what? What killed my (and all the other taxpayers') Commanche?

[Merik]

Well thats what happens when you dont have a four-star general representing the Army Aviation. Because of that all of the weapons budget for the Commanche gets stolen for other Army projects, Air Force, Navy, and Marine stuff. One of the major setbacks for the Commanche program was the LongBow. If that had not been approved then we would probably have the Commanche right now. Remember, it was originally slated to been in operational status for line units back in 98' I do believe.