AH-64 Apache shot down in Iraq - the crew is safe

[Uncle Chô]

Guerrillas May Have Downed U.S. Chopper, Military Says
Tue January 13, 2004 07:00 AM ET

BAGHDAD (*******) - A U.S. Apache helicopter that crashed west of Baghdad on Tuesday may have been shot down by Iraqi guerrillas, a U.S. military spokesman said.

"Our initial information tells us that it's possible that the helicopter was downed by or at least was struck by enemy fire," the spokesman said after the helicopter crashed near the town of Habbaniya, about 50 miles west of the capital.

[George W. Bush]

Pilot and gunner are OK.

[ShotOver]

aah that's good.

Was it hit by missile or small arms?

[He219]

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20040113/i/r1158131867.jpg

A U.S. Army Apache sits in a field without its rotors and surrounded by U.S. vehicles near the restive central Iraq (news - web sites) town of Falluja January 13, 2004. A U.S. Apache helicopter that crashed west of Baghdad on Tuesday may have been shot down by Iraqi guerrillas, a U.S. military spokesman said. *******

[ShotOver]

Why without it's rotors?

[NcDeuce]

Same area as the last two...

[ShotOver]

Yeah, they have an OP going on there?

Because if they don't they should send some troops and do some door-to-door searching.

[Uncle Sam]

Why without it's rotors?

Either they were taken off for transport, or someone stole them.

[ShotOver]

Okay.

I thought the AH-64 had an ejection system that blew the rotors off before the pilot and gunner was ejected... so i thought they had tried to eject but hit the ground too soon or somthin.

[Uncle Sam]

Okay.

I thought the AH-64 had an ejection system that blew the rotors off before the pilot and gunner was ejected... so i thought they had tried to eject but hit the ground too soon or somthin.

Maybe so. I'm no Apache expert, but they can eject out of one ?? The rotors shoot off and they eject, is what you're saying ?? I did not know that...Is this true ??

[ShotOver]

Im not sure, but some helos.. the pilot/gunner "pod" ejects through the blown off rotors, not sure if the Apache can do that though.

[flanker7]

The only helicopter with ejection seats is the russian Kamov Ka-50/-52 Warewolf. It uses the K-36 (?) ejection seat, much the same as that of russian fighters, and there is an explosive mechanism that removes the rotors blades just before the ejection.

[Uncle Sam]

Everthing you've ever wanted to know about the Apache...But were afraid to ask...BTW, there is no mention of an ejection system...FYI


http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml


BOEING AH-64 APACHE
US Army designations: AH-64A and D
Israel Defence Force name: Pethen (Cobra)

Type
Day/night, twin-engined, attack/reconnaissance helicopter.

Programme
Original Hughes Model 77 entered for US Army advanced attack helicopter (AAH) competition; first flights of two development prototype YAH-64s 30 September and 22 November 1975;

details of programme in 1984-85 and earlier Jane's; selected by US Army December 1976; named Apache late 1981.

Deliveries started 26 January 1984; 800th delivered July 1993; 900th in October 1995, at which time US Army had ordered 821 (excluding prototypes) with export contracts totalling 104 AH-64As; latter total increased to 213 (116 AH-64A; 97 AH-64D) by July 1995. Last of 821 (excluding prototypes) AH-64As delivered to US Army on 30 April 1996; aircraft concerned was production vehicle 915, and manufacture of AH- 64A variant terminated with completion of 937th example (for Egypt), in November 1996; details of initial service use in 1999-2000 and earlier Jane's. Delivery of 1,000th Apache (including AH-64D rebuilds) effected on 30 March 1999.

Boeing awarded four year, US$15.9 million, contract on 27 May 1998 to design, manufacture and flight test new centre fuselage section incorporating advanced composites materials;

Phantom Works responsible for design leadership, with support from Boeing facilities at Long Beach, Philadelphia and St Louis. If successful, new section from rear of aft cockpit to just behind engines will be simpler to manufacture as well as lighter and more durable than existing all-metal structure.

In separate development, on 5 October 1998, a modified AH-64D Apache Longbow prototype made initial flight with Rotorcraft Pilot's Associate (RPA) advanced cockpit management system.

Also developed by Phantom Works over 60 month period, under terms of US$80 million advanced technology demonstration contract, this featured updated controls and displays, including Boeing-developed four-axis, full authority, advanced digital flight control system. Flight and mission data presented to pilots on three large multipurpose colour displays;

RPA also features advanced data fusion and an advanced pilotage system, as well as the ability to recognise and respond to verbal commands. Company flight trials continued throughout remainder of 1998, with test aircraft then scheduled to visit US Army's Yuma Proving Grounds for demonstration flights in January-February 1999.

Current Versions

AH-64A: Produced for US Army and export; 937 built. First 603 had two 1,265 kW (1,696 shp) T700-GE-701 engines. Total of 530 US Army examples to be upgraded to AH-64D. Retrofit from 1993 with SINCGARS secure radios and GPS; first installed in Apaches of 5-501 Aviation Regiment on deployment to Camp Eagle, South Korea.

AH-64B: Cancelled in 1992. Was planned near-term upgrade of 254 AH-64As with improvements derived from operating experience in 1991 Gulf War, including GPS, SINCGARS radios, target handover capability, better navigation, and improved reliability including new rotor blades.

AH-64C: Previous designation for upgrade of AH-64As to near AH-64D standard, apart from omission of Longbow radar and retention of -701 engines; provisions for optional fitment of both; Army requested draft proposal, August 1991; funding for two prototype conversions awarded in September 1992. With exception of AH-64Ds and resales, all remaining US Army AH-64As (then approximately 540) to have been modified. Designation abandoned late 1993.

AH-64D Apache Longbow: Current improvement programme based on Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman joint venture development of mast-mounted AN/APG-78 Longbow millimetre-wave radar and Hellfire missile with RF seeker;

Northrop Grumman has lead on Longbow with Lockheed Martin taking principal role for Hellfire.

Programme also includes more powerful engines, larger generators, MIL-STD-1553B databus allied to dual 1750A processors, and a vapour cycle cooling system for avionics; early user tests completed April 1990.
Detailed description applies to AH-64D.

Full-scale development programme, lasting 51 months, authorised by Defense Acquisition Board August 1990, but airframe work extended in December 1990 to 70 months to coincide with missile development;

supporting modifications being incorporated progressively; first flight of AH-64A (82-23356) with dummy Longbow radome 11 March 1991; first (89-0192) of six AH-64D prototypes flown 15 April 1992; second (89-0228) flew 13 November 1992; fitted with radar in mid-1993 and flown 20 August 1993;

No.3 (90-0324) flown 30 June 1993; No.4 (90-0423) on 4 October 1993; No.5 (85-25477; formerly AH-64C No.1) 19 January 1994 (first Apache with new Hamilton Standard lightweight flight management computer); No.6 (85-25408) flown 4 March 1994; last two mentioned lack radar. Following redesignation

of AH-64C in late 1993, original plan was to convert 748 to AH-64D, although only 227 (original AH-64D total) to carry Longbow radar; subsequent review, revealed at start of 1999, proposes reducing total number of conversions to 530 and increasing purchase of Longbow radars to 500;

these would equip regular Army units, with remaining 218 AH-64As of Army National Guard and Army Reserve undergoing service life extension programme. Decision still awaited in April 2000.

Under original programme, AH-64D to equip 26 battalions, although this may be reduced to 16 of regular Army; three companies, each with eight helicopters, per battalion.

Longbow can track flying targets and see through rain, fog and smoke that defeat FLIR and TV. RF Hellfire, which delivered to US Army from November 1996, can operate at shorter ranges; it can lock on before launch or launch on co-ordinates and lock on in flight;

Longbow scans through 360º for aerial targets or scans over 270º in 90º sectors for ground targets; mast-mounted rotating antenna weighs 113 kg (250 lb). Longbow radar transmitter subject of redesign in late 1997 to overcome poor performance of some electrical components in low temperatures;

eliminate lengthy and costly manual integration necessary to achieve required output; and avoid shortages of critical components which suppliers reported in 1995 that they would no longer provide. New transmitter meets or surpasses original specification and is fully interchangeable with original unit.

Further modifications include `manprint' cockpit with large displays, air-to-air missiles, digital autostabiliser, integrated GPS/Doppler/INS/air data/laser/radar altimeter navigation system, digital communications, faster target handoff system,

and enhanced fault detection with data transfer and recording. Cockpit displays initially monochrome, but these replaced by colour displays with effect from 27th production conversion;

first flight of AH-64D with colour displays on 12 September 1997. AH-64D No.1 made first Hellfire launch on 21 May 1993; first RF Hellfire launch 4 June 1994; first demonstration of digital air-to-ground data communications with Symetrics Industries improved data modem, 8 December 1993.

First preproduction AH-64D conversion completed remanufacture in September 1995; aircraft made successful first flight at Mesa on 29 September 1995.

Advanced acquisition phase contract for remanufacture programme, worth US$279.6 million and covering 18 helicopters (later increased to 24), awarded on 14 December 1995; predated by arrival of first two AH-64As (85-25387 and 85-25394) at Mesa on 27 November 1995 for stripping to basic fuselage in readiness for start of remanufacture in early 1996.

First fuselage moved to final assembly area on 15 August 1996; first flight (85-25387 with new identity 96-5001) 17 March 1997; formal roll-out at Mesa on 21 March.

Multiyear contract, worth US$1.9 billion, covering 232 AH-64Ds (retrospectively including advanced acquisition aircraft) over five year period signed 16 August 1996; further 298 conversions to be acquired in follow-on multiyear contract covering FY01 to FY05.

Initial contract also included 227 Longbow radars, 13,311 Hellfire missiles and 3,296 launchers. AH-64D deliveries to US Army began 31 March 1997 and total of 16 handed over by end November 1997.

Delivery of 24th and last Lot 1 aircraft accomplished 4 March 1998, with US Army having accepted total of 48 by end of October 1998, when production rate was three per month; 100th remanufactured AH-64D delivered to US Army in early December 1999.

Initial AH-64D battalion (1-227 AvRgt) at Fort Hood, Texas fully equipped by end July 1998 and attained combat-ready status on 19 November 1998, after eight month training programme at company and battalion level which included four live fire exercises and more than 2,500 flight hours. Second unit is 2-101 AvRgt at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, which certified as combat-ready on 28 October 1999; third will be 1-3 AvRgt at Hunter AAF, Fort Stewart, Georgia.

Entire US Army fleet (743 helicopters) grounded at start of November 1999 to permit replacement of faulty hanger bearing assemblies in tail rotor system; initial inspection completed by mid-November revealed need to replace assemblies on up to 420 helicopters at estimated cost of about US$13.5 million. Priority given to overseas-based units, with entire rectification programme likely to mean that some Apaches could remain grounded for up to 10 months.

GAH-64A: At least 17 AH-64As grounded for technical instruction.
JAH-64A: Seven AH-64As for special testing, of which one reverted to standard.

WAH-64D: British Army version with Longbow radar and two Rolls-Royce/Turbomeca RTM 322 turboshafts; see Westland entry in the UK section.


Features

Modern, tandem-seat, armoured and damage-resistant combat helicopter; is required to continue flying for 30 minutes after being hit by 12.7 mm bullets coming from anywhere in the lower hemisphere plus 20º; also survives 23 mm hits in many parts;

target acquisition and designation sight (TADS) and pilot night vision sensor (PNVS) sensors mounted in nose; low-airspeed sensor above main rotor hub; avionics in lateral containers;

chin-mounted Chain Gun fed from ammunition bay in centre-fuselage; four weapon pylons on stub-wings (six when air-to-air capability is installed); engines widely separated, with integral particle separators and built-in exhaust cooling fittings;

four-blade main rotor with lifting aerofoil blade section and swept tips; blades can be folded or easily removed; tail rotor consists of two teetering two-blade units crossed at 55º to reduce noise; airframe meets full crash-survival specifications. Two AH-64s will fit in C-141, six in C-5 and three in C-17A.


Main transmission, by Litton Precision Gear Division, can operate for 1 hour without oil; tail rotor drive, by Aircraft Gear Corporation, has grease-lubricated gearboxes with Bendix driveshafts and couplings; gearboxes and shafts can operate for 1 hour after ballistic damage; main rotor shaft runs within airframe-mounted sleeve, relieving transmission of flight loads and allowing removal of transmission without disturbing rotor; AH-64A has flown aerobatic manoeuvres and is capable of flying at 0.5 g.

Flying Controls

Fully powered controls with stabilisation and automatic flight control system; automatic hover hold; tailplane incidence automatically adjusted by Hamilton Sundstrand control to streamline with downwash during hover and to hold best fuselage attitude during climb, cruise, descent and transition.

Structure

Main rotor blades (by Tool Research and Engineering Corporation, Composite Structures Divisions) tolerant to 23 mm cannon shells, have five U-sections forming spars and skins bonded with structural glass fibre tubes, laminated stainless steel skin and composites rear section; blades attached to hub by stack of laminated steel straps with elastomeric bearings. Northrop Grumman produces all fuselages, wings, tail, engine cowlings, canopies and avionics containers.

Landing Gear

Menasco trailing arm type, with single mainwheels and fully castoring, self-centring and lockable tailwheel. Mainwheel tyres size 8.50-10, tailwheel tyre size 5.00-4. Hydraulic brakes on main units. Main gear is non-retractable, but legs fold rearward to reduce overall height for storage and transportation. Energy-absorbing main and tail gears are designed for normal descent rates of up to 3.05 m (10 ft)/s and heavy landings at up to 12.8 m (42 ft)/s. Take-offs and landings can be made at structural design gross weight on terrain slopes of up to 12º (head-on) and 10º (side-on).

Power Plant

Two General Electric T700-GE-701C turboshafts, each rated at 1,409 kW (1,890 shp) for 10 minutes, 1,342 kW (1,800 shp) for 30 minutes, 1,238 kW (1,660 shp) maximum continuous and 1,447 kW (1,940 shp) 2½ minutes OEI. Engines mounted one on each side of fuselage, above wings, with key components armour-protected. Upper cowlings let down to serve as maintenance platforms.

AH-64 modernisation may eventually lead to installation of new 2,237 kW (3,000 shp) engine; joint US Army/US Navy effort to prepare requirement for Common Engine Program (CEP) likely to result in adoption on H-60 series first, but Army expects to draw up operational requirements document for AH-64 during 2001 or 2002.

Two crash-resistant fuel cells in fuselage, combined capacity 1,421 litres (375 US gallons; 312 Imp gallons). Modifications ordered September 1993 for carriage of four 871 litre (230 US gallon; 192 Imp gallon) Brunswick Corporation external tanks on 437 Apaches. Total internal and external fuel 4,910 litres (1,295 US gallons; 1,078 Imp gallons).

New crashworthy, ballistically self-sealing internal auxiliary fuel tank entered evaluation phase in fourth quarter of 1997; tank holds 492 litres (130 US gallons; 108 Imp gallons) and is interchangeable with ammunition storage magazine, enabling all four weapons pylons to carry ordnance on long-range missions.

Testing of preproduction system undertaken in 1998 in addition to formal test and qualification programme by US Army; total of 48 units ordered from Robertson Aviation in 1999. `Black Hole' IR suppression system protects aircraft from heat-seeking missiles:

this eliminates an engine bay cooling fan, by operating from engine exhaust gas through ejector nozzles to lower the gas plume and metal temperatures.

Accommodation

Crew of two in tandem: co-pilot/gunner (CPG) in front, pilot behind on 48 cm (19 in) elevated seat. Crew seats, by Simula Inc, are of lightweight Kevlar. Northrop Grumman canopy, with PPG transparencies and transparent acrylic blast barrier between cockpits, is designed to provide optimum field of view.

Crew stations are protected by Ceradyne Inc lightweight boron armour shields in cockpit floor and sides, and between cockpits, offering protection against 12.7 mm armour-piercing rounds. Sierracin electric heating of windscreen.

Seats and structure designed to give crew a 95 per cent chance of surviving ground impacts of up to 12.8 m (42 ft)/s. Simula of Phoenix, Arizona, under contract by US Army to develop cockpit-airbag system; development phase was due to be completed in early 1997, but was cancelled in favour of modifications to gunner's sighting equipment to lessen risk of injury.

Systems

Honeywell totally integrated pneumatic system includes a shaft-driven compressor, air turbine starters, pneumatic valves, temperature control unit and environmental control unit.

Fairchild Controls improved environmental control system comprises a distributed vapour-cycle cooling and heating unit, with two redundant systems incorporating dual-speed compressors, digital databus controllers and multiple heat exchangers, fans and control valves.

Parker dual-hydraulic systems, operating at 207 bars (3,000 lb/sq in), with actuators ballistically tolerant to 12.7 mm direct hits. Redundant flight control system for both rotors. In the event of a flying control system failure,

the system activates Honeywell secondary fly-by-wire control. Honeywell electrical power system, with two 45 kVA fully redundant engine-driven AC generators, two 300 A transformer-rectifiers, and URDC standby DC battery. Honeywell GTP 36-155(BH) 93 kW (125 shp) APU for engine starting and maintenance checking.

DASA (TST) electric blade de-icing. Smiths Industries integrated electrical power management system (IEPMS) installed on AH-64D is currently being upgraded to incorporate multichannel remote interface unit (RIU) that will replace core electronics and wiring associated with conventional electrical control systems; improved IEPMS to become available in 2001 and will be installed on approximately 300 Apaches for US Army.

Avionics

Comms: AN/ARC-164 UHF, AN/ARC-222 SINCGARS secure UHF/VHF; AN/ARC-220 UHF to be retrofitted; KY-28/58/TSEC crypto secure voice, C-8157 secure voice control; AN/APX-100 IFF unit with KIT-1A secure encoding; C-10414 Tempest intercom.

Radar: Optional Lockheed Martin/Northrop Grumman AN/APG-78 Longbow mast-mounted 360º radar, presenting up to 256 targets on tactical situation display; detects air targets in air-to-ground mode; air-to-air mode for flying targets only.

Flight: BAE North America AN/ASN-157 lightweight Doppler navigation system, Litton LR-80 (AN/ASN-143) strapdown AHRS, AN/ARN-89B ADF, GPS, Honeywell digital automatic stabilisation equipment (DASE), Astronautics Corporation HSI, Pacer Systems omnidirectional, low-airspeed air data system,

remote magnetic indicator, BITE fault detection and location. Doppler system, with AHRS, permits nap-of-the-earth navigation and provides data for storing target locations. BAE Systems air data system, comprising two omnidirectional airspeed and direction sensors (AADSs) mounted on engine cowlings and a high integration air data computer (HIADC) installed in avionics bay.

Instrumentation: Honeywell all-raster symbology generator processes TV data from IR and other sensors, superimposes symbology, and distributes the combination to CRT and helmet-mounted displays; Honeywell AN/APN-209 radar altimeter video display unit. `Manprint' (manpower integration) instrumentation including Litton Canada upfront display and two Honeywell 152 × 152 mm (6 × 6 in)

monochrome CRT displays in each cockpit of early aircraft; with effect from 27th AH-64D, Honeywell flat-panel, colour, active matrix LCD multipurpose displays (MPDs) installed in both cockpits, as well as in aircraft for UK and Netherlands. AH-64A's 1,200 cockpit switches reduced to approximately 200 on AH-64D.

Mission: Lockheed Martin target acquisition and designation sight and AN/AAQ-11 pilot's night vision sensor (TADS/PNVS) comprises two independently functioning, fully integrated systems mounted on nose.

TADS consists of a rotating turret (±120º in azimuth, ±30/-60º in elevation) housing sensor subsystems, optical relay tube (being replaced under 1998 contract by Planar Advance/dpiX flat panel display) in the CPG's cockpit, three electronic units in the avionics bay, and cockpit-mounted controls and displays;

used principally for target search, detection and laser designation, with CPG as primary operator (can also provide back-up night vision to pilot in event of PNVS failure). Once acquired by TADS, targets can be tracked manually or automatically for autonomous attack with gun, rockets or Hellfire missiles.

TADS daylight sensor consists of TV camera with narrow (0º 50') and wide angle (4º 0') fields of view; direct view optics (4º narrow and 18º wide angle); laser spot tracker; and International Laser Systems laser range-finder/designator. Night sensor, in starboard half of turret, incorporates FLIR sight with narrow, medium and wide angle (3º 6', 10º 6' and 50º) fields of view.

PNVS consists of FLIR sensor (30 × 40º field of view) in rotating turret (±90º in azimuth, +20/-45º in elevation) mounted above TADS; electronic unit in the avionics bay; and pilot's display and controls; provides pilot with thermal imaging for nap-of-the-earth flight to, from and within battle area at night or in adverse daytime weather, at altitudes low enough to avoid detection.

PNVS imagery displayed on monocle in front of one of pilot's eyes; flight information including airspeed, altitude and heading is superimposed on this imagery to simplify piloting. Monocle is part of Honeywell integrated helmet and display sighting system (HADSS) worn by both crew

members. Symetrics Industries improved data modem for transmission of target data (and eventually real-time imagery) between helicopters, tactical jet, Joint STARS airborne command posts, HQs and ground units at 16,000 bits/s, plus radio frequency interferometer beneath radome for identification of hostile transmitters.

Self-defence: Aircraft survivability equipment (ASE) consists of Litton AN/APR-39 passive RWR, Sanders AN/ALQ-144 IR jammer, Raytheon AN/AVR-2 laser warning receiver, ITT AN/ALQ-136 radar jammer and chaff dispensers and Lockheed Martin AN/APR-48A radar frequency interferometer.

Sanders AN/ALQ-212 Advanced Threat Infra-Red Countermeasures (ATIRCM) system and ITT AN/ALQ-211 suite of integrated RF countermeasures (SIRFC) system currently under development. ATIRCM combines next-generation directable IRCM system with Sanders AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System (CMWS);

SIRFC currently at EMD stage, with contractor tests on Apache Longbow undertaken in latter half of 1999, followed by operational test and evaluation from early 2000; production decision due to be taken in mid-2000. Elisra began flight test of passive airborne warning system in second half of 1999 and Israel plans to install this on its AH-64 fleet.

Equipment
Avpro of UK cleared Exint transport pod for use with AH-64 at start of 2000, but certification to carry personnel still required. In special forces insertion role, Apache can carry maximum of four pods, each able to accommodate 226 kg (500 lb) payload. First customer reported close to placing order in January 2000, with initial batch of pods being manufactured by Hunting, which expected to complete first one in April 2000.

Armament

Boeing M230 Chain Gun 30 mm automatic cannon, located between the mainwheel legs in an underfuselage mounting with Smiths Industries electronic controls.

Normal rate of fire is 625 rds/min of HE or HEDP (high-explosive dual-purpose) ammunition, which is interoperable with NATO Aden/DEFA 30 mm ammunition. Maximum ammunition load is 1,200 rounds.

New `Sideloader' system demonstrated June 1994 and now installed in starboard forward avionics bay; cuts normal loading time of 30 minutes by up to half and reduces number of personnel required from three to one. Gun mounting is designed to collapse into fuselage between pilots in the event of a crash landing.

New electric turret under development by Boeing, which received two year, US$5 million contract in first half of 1999; objective is to achieve accuracy of 0.5 mrads compared with current 3.0 mrads. Gun, mount and feed system to be retained in conjunction with redesigned mechanical system featuring electric rather than hydraulic drive as well as digital control;

result should be at least 10 per cent lighter and require one instead of two electrical boxes. HR Textron responsible for controls, with Boeing providing the rest. Prototype delivery is scheduled for September 2001. Four underwing hardpoints, with Aircraft Hydro-Forming pylons and ejector units, on which can be

carried up to 16 Hellfire/Hellfire 2 anti-tank missiles or up to seventy-six 2.75 in FFAR (folding fin aerial rockets) in their launchers or a combination of Hellfires and FFAR. Planned modification adds two extra hardpoints for four Stinger, four Mistral or two Sidewinder (including Sidearm anti-radiation variant)

missiles; Shorts Starstreak high-velocity AAM system completed initial 17 month test programme on Apache in February 1997 and being promoted for use by US and UK, with funding allocated for follow-on two year test programme; second round of live fire tests completed October/November 1998. Starstreak to participate in

competitive evaluation against Stinger, despite problems with debris from missile container and pressure wave caused by first-stage rocket motor; trials of both weapons were scheduled to begin September 1999; Hellfire remote electronics by Rockwell Collins;

Honeywell aerial rocket control system; multiplex (MUX) system units by Honeywell. Co-pilot/gunner (CPG) has primary responsibility for firing gun and missiles, but pilot can override his controls to fire gun or launch missiles.

[ShotOver]

Yeah, i told you i wasnt sure about it... :|

[He219]

Transport....
;)


http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2004-01-13T144553Z_01_BAG16_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ.jpg

U.S. Army troops recover an Apache attack helicopter from a field near the restive central Iraqi town of Falluja January 13, 2004. A U.S. Apache helicopter that crashed west of Baghdad on Tuesday may have been shot down by Iraqi guerrillas, a U.S. military spokesman said. *******/Akram Saleh

[Uncle Sam]

Yeah, i told you i wasnt sure about it... :|

Hell, I wasn't either...

[Uncle Sam]

Transport....
;)


http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2004-01-13T144553Z_01_BAG16_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ.jpg

U.S. Army troops recover an Apache attack helicopter from a field near the restive central Iraqi town of Falluja January 13, 2004. A U.S. Apache helicopter that crashed west of Baghdad on Tuesday may have been shot down by Iraqi guerrillas, a U.S. military spokesman said. *******/Akram Saleh

Figures...

[Uncle Chô]

http://wwwi.*******.com/images/2004-01-13T144553Z_01_BAG16_RTRIDSP_2_IRAQ.jpg

U.S. Army troops recover an Apache attack helicopter from a field near the restive central Iraqi town of Falluja January 13, 2004. A U.S. Apache helicopter that crashed west of Baghdad on Tuesday may have been shot down by Iraqi guerrillas, a U.S. military spokesman said. *******/Akram Saleh

"May have been shot down ? " rofl

Look at the right engine. It seems there is a direct hit from a SAM (Sa-7 / 14 ?). The crew survived the blast (thanks to the armored canopy and seats and (according to the pictures) seems to have landed the chopper right on his wheels... woot

And yes, the 4 blades fixations seem intact, meaning they have been carefully removed by the US troops.

[Kenshin]

Definitely SAM ( heat seeking ). Dont these have counter measures ( flares ) installed? I think I read awhile back that they are proposing to put them on or do they already have em?

[Uncle Sam]

Definitely SAM ( heat seeking ). Dont these have counter measures ( flares ) installed? I think I read awhile back that they are proposing to put them on or do they already have em?

Find out here: http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/jawa/jawa001013_1_n.shtml

[He219]

Definitely SAM ( heat seeking ). Dont these have counter measures ( flares ) installed? I think I read awhile back that they are proposing to put them on or do they already have em?
Good question. I believe the insurgents are using MANPADs at low level. This would reduce the reaction time to deploy countermeasures and also the time to execute evasive maneuvers.

Without checking the Jane's link, my guess would be that the Apache is equipped with the 'Black Hole' IR supression system (http://www.jolly-rogers.com/airpower/ah-64d/64d-str.htm)...

How about IR deflectors. When the Aznar visited, I think his chopper had deflectors...
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/afp/20031221/capt.sge.qis71.211203024042.photo00.default-384x313.jpg


The Blackhawks and Chinook troop transports that were hit previously are of critical importance. Anybody have more information (pictures) of their IR supression or exhaust deflectors (ALQ-144 "Disco Light" IR jammer (http://www.ballistic-studios.com/equipment.asp))?

[Uncle Chô]

You are right He219, this Spanish Super-Puma/Cougar does have the IR suppressor fitted over the jet exhaust. This systeme is not new, the first use was in South Vietnam in 1972 on UH-1 and AH-1. The hot exhaust gas are rerouted upward and "cooled down" by the rotor wash.

The "Disco Light " jammer was retired on most US Army choppers in the mid-90s because it was found ineffective. But the problem with this latest incident, is that it seems every time a Sa-7 or Sa-14 is fired at choppers, there is a " One shot one kill " ratio :(

What have been done in those last 30 years ?? :bash:

IR flares, IR jammers, IR suppressors, all failed. Not only on Western machines but also with the Russians (see the crashed Mil in Afghanistan and Chechnia)...

There is a serious and critical review to do on how to use helos over the battlefield (even the so-called " low intensity conflict") anywhere in the world !

And I think this will be the perfect reason for the opponents of expensive programs like the RAH-66 and Osprey to come back in force...

[ShotOver]

Yeah, flying from a low height, and being shot at by a SA-7 wouldnt give you much chance of having the flares deployed intime, or being able to manouvre out of the missiles path... or somthin.

[dontaskme]

I guess Ka-50 and Ka-52 are the only helicopter deployed which use eject seats. Can anyone confirm that?

[Uncle Chô]

guess Ka-50 and Ka-52 are the only helicopter deployed which use eject seats. Can anyone confirm that?
That's affirmative Sir !

The K-36 seat is a derivative from the one used in the Flanker family.

But AFAIK no pilot ever ejected for real over the country... :roll:

I mean this is supposed to work from ...the drawing board ;)

[usa320]

Dont these have counter measures ( flares ) installed? I think I read awhile back that they are proposing to put them on or do they already have em?

AFAIK all AH-64D longbows are equipped with the IR jammer, its usually half way down the tail.

This helo appears to be an AH-64A, and it appears to not be equipped with IR jammers, and as earlier stated, at low altitude, the chance of hitting flares in time is slim.

Good job by the crew though... It looks like an engine replacement is all that would be needed to get it flying agian.

[Merik]

The "Disco Light " jammer was retired on most US Army choppers in the mid-90s because it was found ineffective.

Ineffective my a$$. Sorry dont take that personally Im just saying that its not true. The disco light is very effective and the only reason why the AH-64 doesnt have it is because they wanted to rely on newer jamming equipment and counter-measures. Look at the Marines, they still use them because they work.

And about the ejection seats, the Marines AH-1W Cobra uses them also. The Apache doesnt.


"May have been shot down ? "

Look at the right engine. It seems there is a direct hit from a SAM (Sa-7 / 14 ?). The crew survived the blast (thanks to the armored canopy and seats and (according to the pictures) seems to have landed the chopper right on his wheels...

Im not saying that is wasnt hit by a SAM but I pretty sure that if it was that the wing pylon on that side of the aircraft would have been blown up as well as that engine. But I mean, it all depends on what angle the missile hit, how fast it was going, and what altitude the Apache or any helicopter was flying at.


Either they were taken off for transport, or someone stole them

No way the rotors could be stolen. That takes a lot of work getting those off the aircraft and hauling them around, lots of manpower. Two more things, why would anyone want to still rotor blades to begin with, and there is no chance security would have left it out to let someone steal something off the aircraft.

[Strikeman]

Jeeze, take a look at those latter pics. The right engine is totally messed up, makes me think it was an IR MANPAD.

Strike

[jlanni]

no the apache does not have ejection seats i believe they were looking to putting them on the commanche but i dont know how that is going... i think.. i also believe they were putting the countermeasures on them i know they started putting them on chinooks so ya never know haha .. but a big hooah to that pilot for bringing down that bird safely

[Merik]

No ejection seats in the Commanche that I know about.

[martinexsquaddie]

apprantly the FRL have access to 50 helicopters but have not rotor blades for them thats why they were trying to steal the rotor blades :backhand:
so if you see a mob pushing a hind towards your checkpoint you will know there hostile :lol:

[cold0]

Apparently the missile has only damaged the right engine of Apache so the Ah-64 is reparable. A pair of techical notase about the soviet MANPAD and the helicopters counter measures. The SA-7 isn't the "wonder weapon" that someone says. The SA-7 is a "tail chasers" and can only be launched after an aircraft has passed. It has a maximum rage of only 2 miles and a top speed of Mach 1.5, a limited manoeuvrability and it's, for most aicraft, relatively easy to avoid. A common failing of this system would often see the missile heading off toward the sun if th operator inadvertently pointed the SA-7 toward the sun and it's foiled by flares. Sespite this drawback the SA-7 has shot dwn numerous aircraft in various conflicts, especially during the '70 and '80.
The more recente SA-14/16 are completely new "beasts". Saddam bought hundreds of these weapons, and the SA-14 is the prefer weapon of Iraqui guerrilla. The DHL liner was hit by a SA-14 sam. Compared with its predecessor the Sa-14 had a more powerful motor, an improved cooled IR homing head, digital electronics, a larger warhead, and a ma rage of 4 miles. The SA-16 is an all aspect missile with PN Guidanece (pratically it "finds" the fuselage and not the heat exhaust) and 2-colour seekerhead that recogness the flares from the aircraft. The max rage is 7.7 miles. During the IGW the US ARMY equipped in a hurry 2/3 of the AH64 fleet with the new ALQ-144A(V) infrared jammer. The soviet IR sam shooted down 12 coalition aircrafts but only a helicopter, an AH-64 without the new jammer (the engagement is described in War in the fourth Dimension of Alfred Price).In total the Iraqui troops launched 17 missiles against Coalition 'copters without success; the combination of nap of the earth flyng tactica, timely warning from warning receivers and the deployment of chaff and jamming defeated the threat on every occassion.
The question is why these IR sam are more effective than during the IGW.
In part the Iraqui use now these weapon with sounds tactics, they only launch the missiles at minimun range, generally firing at 'copter 6 'o clock, so the crew have not any warning of the missile launch. Another point is that only part of the part of US ARMY 'copter have the latest infrared jammer; for example the CH47 shooted down didn't have anything, 'cause the flares dispenser was damage during the fly in a C-5 Galaxy!!!! Finally the nap of the earth tacticts are good only in clear war scenario, when the pilots have clear idea where is the enemy, and not in relative paeceful scenario. A solution can be found a change in the fly tactics (there is a good letter from a Vietnam War vet pilot on www. sftt.org) and with introduction, in every 'copter, of the new Directional Infra-Red Counter Measures systems. These concentrate a beam of infra-red energy on the missile seeker head itself and using a series of pre- prommed modulation patterns to confuse the missile's locking mechanisms ( see Airforce Montly October 2000). It's an expensive solution but other helicopters will be shoot down in the future if nothing change.

Sorry for the bad english but this my first post

Regards,[/i]

[Uncle Chô]

Grazie ! ;)

Very informative post indeed. :D

About the AN/ALQ 144, what is new ? Same "Disco Light" with improved capacities ?

[cold0]

I'm not sure if the AN/ALQ-144 is the original "Disco Light" or not. I remember to have read an article about the sov Hind in Afganistan; they used a jammer similar to the Disco Light that foiled the 1 generation IR sam (sa-7, the america redeye), but "attract" the more modern Stingers. The article was in oldo issue of World airpower Journal but I don't have it with me now.
For the AN/LQ-144 here it's what I have found; from our description it's probable, that the first model was the "Disco Light":

The AN/ALQ-144 system is an omni-directional active infrared Countermeasures Set which protects the EH-1H, EH-1X, EH-60A, MH-60K, UH-60A, AH-1F, AH-64A, OV-1D, and RV-1D aircraft from air-to-air and ground-to-air heat seeking (infrared) missiles. The airborne installed system included in this family of equipment are designed to provide jamming of threat IR missile systems. They are active, continuous operating, omni-directional, electrically fuel-fired IR jamming systems designed to confuse or decoy threat IR missile systems. The AN/ALQ-144A (1) and (3) are upgraded versions of the AN/ALQ-144 (V)1 and (V)3 for helicopter applications. The AN/ALQ-147A (V)1 and (V)2 are designed for fixed-wing aircraft.

The AN/ALQ-144A(V)1 CMS is the upgrade version of the AN/ALQ-144(V)1. This CMS is an active, continuously operating, omni-directional and electrically fired infrared (IR) jammer designed for use on helicopters to confuse or decoy threat IR missile systems. The AN/ALQ-144A(V)1 CMS consists of a transmitter assembly and an operator control unit. The operator control unit has a nine pin connector assembly. The total system weight is 30 pounds. The AN/ALQ-144A(V)1 CMS is designed to provide jamming of all known IR threat missile systems when operated on helicopters equipped with low reflective paint and engine exhaust suppressors. Army helicopters using this system include the OH-58D, EH-60A, UH-60A/L, and MH-60K.

The AN/ALQ-144A(V)3 CMS is the upgrade version of the AN/ALQ-144(V)3. It is an active, continuously operating, omni-directional and electrically fired infrared (IR) jammer. This CMS is designed for use on AH-1F and AH-64A/D helicopters to confuse or decoy threat IR missile systems. The AN/ALQ-144A(V)3 CMS is designed to provide jamming of all known IR threat missile systems when operated on helicopters equipped with low reflective paint and engine exhaust suppressors. The AN/ALQ-144A(V)3 CMS consists of a transmitter assembly and an operator control unit (OCU) with dual capabilities. The OCU controls both the AN/ALQ-136(V)1/5 and the AN/ALQ-144(V)3 or AN/ALQ-144A(V)3. The OCU has a 25-pin connector assembly. The total system weight is 30 pounds.

The Kiowa Warrior has a unique problem with the ALQ-144 when it is installed on the aircraft. Because of its location on the aircraft it is exposed to engine exhaust. Testing at ATTC, Fort Rucker, demonstrated about 79 hours of flight time before system failure of the ALQ-144. This number of hours dropped after the first internal cleaning was performed. Tests were conducted with the modified low smoke combustion liner installed. Based on ATTC testing the Kiowa Warrior Product Manager’s Office (PMO) recommended external cleaning of the ALQ-144 at the AVUM level every 20 hours/14 day Preventive maintenance Service inspection as the minimum. Internal cleaning of the ALQ-144 was recommended at the AVIM level at each PPM 1 thru 15 done on the aircraft; this will insure that internal cleaning is accomplished every 40 hours.

Old engine liners on the the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopter were generating large quantities of soot which reduced the operational capability of the AN/ALQ-144 Infrared Countermeasure Set. The redesigned Allison Engine Low Smoke Liners has significantly reduced the maintenance requirements of the AN/ALQ-144 and in turn increased operational readiness levels.

Regards,

[He219]

Anybody see the 'disco light' (http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/bell/oh-58d_kiowa/oh-58d-007-alq-144-ircm.jpg) on any of the helos downed by MANPADS?

http://www.capitalhire.com/lighting/projector_01_small.jpg

Great info, cold0!
:D

[cold0]

For what I have read on newspapers the downed CH47 was without any form of protection. The 2 downed AH-64, the Kiowa and the Blackhawks have the standard EW equipment, but it'snt clear what 'chopter was shoot down with an RPG or a SAM. There is another major problem regarding the IR missile, that, contrary to the Radar SAM, there'snt any warning of the missile launch or approach. Thera'snt any eletronic emission from the IR missile, because it's a passive weapon. So if the pilot doesn't see the missile he is DEAD; in the recent years many 'copter have received the new MAD (missile approach detector, for example the Eh-60 used, during the IIWG, the ALQ-156) that "see" the ultraviolet exaust of an incoming missiles. But it seems the the MAD are ****e to failiture and false alarms; the malfunction of the MAD was one of the cause for whom the Apaches never see action in Kosovo in 1999.

[mustamato]

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rbs70/images/RBS70_1.jpg

And then there is those laser-guided missiles that are quite unjammable. In example the RBS-70 MANPAD (the missile itself has been improved over the years, the latest one is the ASRAD-R). But a bit large for insurgents to operate though.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rbs70/images/RBS70_7.jpg

If it were not vehicle-mounted that is, on a pickup or so forth.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/rbs70/images/RBS70_3.jpg

[cold0]

For the warning it's "better" a laser missile than an infrared missile. All the attack 'copter have an equivalent of RWR that give a crew a warning when the 'copter is "painted" by a laser weapon. Cleary the laser "ray" that guides the missile isn't jammable. Anyway, if i remember the Iraq Order of battle, they never have a Laser SAM.

Regards,

[aktarian]

Plus laser guided missiles don't work in bad weather. Same as LGBs.

[GazB]

"But AFAIK no pilot ever ejected for real over the country... "

The Ka-50 ejection seats have been tested for real, though part of test... not because the aircraft was shot down. There are only a few Ka-50s in service... they were accepted in the early 90s, but lack of funding kept their numbers very low... a dozen or less. Ka-52s are only now being introduced and will be used by Spec ops at night. (Mi-28N will replace Hinds).

"This helo appears to be an AH-64A, and it appears to not be equipped with IR jammers, and as earlier stated, at low altitude, the chance of hitting flares in time is slim."

The release of flares is often automatic and also in many situations (like flying onto or away from a target that knows you are there) in an automatic sequence. The problem is that IR seekers have improved greatly and are not fooled by individual flares anymore. Very early flares could only see hot points and would go for the hottest thing it could see. This meant a flare or the sun were more likely to be targetted than an aircraft. Modern all aspect missiles can be set to target the 4th or 5th hottest thing it sees, plus it sees a heat pattern rather than points of heat, so a large number of flares are required to create a false pattern that might distract it. Such missiles like Igla, Stinger, and in AAMs the AA-11 Archer, and late model Sidewinders, not including the X-ray model. The R-74, AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T on the other hand have imaging seeker heads. You can target the canopy of an aircraft.

"Ineffective my a$$. Sorry dont take that personally Im just saying that its not true."

Against Redeye and Strela-2 they are effective. Against stinger or Igla they attract missiles rather than jam them.

"And about the ejection seats, the Marines AH-1W Cobra uses them also. The Apache doesnt."

The Cobra has not got ejection seats.

" in the recent years many 'copter have received the new MAD (missile approach detector, for example the Eh-60 used, during the IIWG, the ALQ-156) that "see" the ultraviolet exaust of an incoming missiles. But it seems the the MAD are ****e to failiture and false alarms; the malfunction of the MAD was one of the cause for whom the Apaches never see action in Kosovo in 1999."

The Natasha device was fitted to Soviet helos in the mid eighties. Some times called nagging Nadia it warns of incoming missiles via their heat signatures. Early versions were not that reliable... they did detect the missiles but they gave a lot of false warnings too. current models are apparantly much better.

[cold0]

Just another note about new, improved ECM against IR missiles.

During the 2001 the Lockheed/Sanders was working on the new ALQ-212 Advanced Tactical IR CounterMeasures system (ATIRCM). The ATIRCM uses an infrared or ultraviolet system (both were under consideration 3 years ago) to detect yhe missile and determine whether it is a threat. If it is, ATIRCM aligns the laser or IR head on the weapon and beams energy in that direction.
The ATIRCM was sschedule for retrofiting into the Ah-64, but I don't know the status of this program and if other helicopter in the US ARMY will receive the ATIRCM.
Apart for the new equipment the other problem today in Iraq is the shortage of tactics for the US ARMY pilots.
Here it's the post that I have found in www.sftt.org:



Is Army Aviation In A Tailspin?


Why have we lost helicopters needlessly?

We have forgotten how to fly them tactically. In Vietnam the greatest threat we faced in helicopters were AKs and .51 Caliber Machine Guns. RPGs were only a threat in the LZs or on short final or immediately after takeoff. How did we fly to avoid the threat? Either at 1500 feet above the terrain above the threat of AKs and RPGs or right on the deck as fast as we could go. 51s scared the **** out of us. If they were known or suspected we were on the deck. You couldn’t get high enough to get out of range of a .51.

What else did we do? We never hovered unless we absolutely had too. And whenever we were transiting the area between the deck and 1500 feet above the ground we did it a rapidly as possible, high overhead approaches, and maximum climbs. Were we cowboying the aircraft? No!!! We had actually done a risk assessment although we didn’t call it that then and determined that this was the safest way to operate, minimize threat, and accomplish the mission. One final thing that we did whenever possible, we went with gun cover. The hottest part of my tour was when the 1st Cav went into War Zone C north of Tay Ninh Mountain in the spring of ’70. Up there our lifts consisted of 6-8 Slicks, 5 Cobras (one team of Guns and a heavy fire team of ARA), and an OV-10 and whatever fast movers the OV-10 had with him. Cobras accompanied single and two ship Log (resupply) missions during this period. We did the best we could to protect ourselves with flying techniques and gun cover. Were we always successful? No, ask any veteran of the 227th or 229th Assault Helicopter Battalions (particularly Alpha and Charlie 229th). We lost aircraft and we lost people but not because we flew stupid or didn’t have armed support.

Where did we first learn of these techniques? In the four- week tactical phase of flight school at Fort Rucker. Then they were then drummed into us by the Aircraft Commanders we flew with when we arrived in Vietnam and then when we became Aircraft Commanders we drummed it into the new guys. Crew coordination in those days consisted of phrases like “Are you tryin’ to ****in’ kill me new guy?” and the like. But we weren’t trying to be mean or offend anyone or be politically incorrect we were being taught and teaching 22 year old aviators like ourselves how to stay alive (and keep their crews and passengers alive).

What has Army Aviation forgotten and how did it happen? First of all they don’t even teach tactics at Fort Rucker anymore. Secondly, in the seventies the Aviation School began teaching two tactically bogus techniques; Nap of the Earth Flying, and Night Vision Goggles. (They also began insisting Aviators put on face paint I guess to hide the fact that there was a crew in the helicopter the bad guys had in their sights while it hovered). Nap of the Earth was taught at tree top level at airspeeds varying from zero to 60 knots with stops to hover (called masking and unmasking). This technique supposedly minimized the threat from SA-7s, ZSU 23s, and other heat seeking or radar controlled anti-aircraft weapons. Great! Problem is though, anyone flying this way is susceptible to being blown out of the sky by a bad guy with a .22 rifle let alone an RPG. NVG training was more of the same, low and slow, mask and unmask, the theory being that if you had the goggles on and the lights out they couldn’t see you. Horse****.

What other factors contributed to Army Aviation’s forgetfulness in the seventies and eighties? The gunships quit covering the slicks. From 1976 when I joined the Guard until now I was involved in one training exercise in which as a slick pilot I was covered by real (not notional) gunships and that was only because a couple of other Vietnam vets in the Guard with me and I organized the combat assault training exercise. By that time half of the pilots in my unit had never flown with gun cover and for instance the girl pilot who was flying with me that day completely freaked out went she saw the guns make a run just prior to our touch down in the LZ. Since the guns no longer covered slicks what were they doing? They were practicing hovering fire, masking and unmasking, so they could shoot Russian tanks at long range. They practiced so much that they forgot running fire.

Two years ago I attended an Army conference and one of the speakers was an active duty warrant officer aviator who had been shot down over Mogadishu about a month prior to the Black Hawk Down debacle. His presentation was about how his aircraft was shot down and the harrowing night he spent with the other pilot (the backseat crewmembers were killed) and awaited rescue which came the next morning in the form of Pakistani Armor. This aviator also discussed his injuries, in particular, the burns he suffered. During his presentation there were a number of spontaneous “Hooahs” from the audience. He stated that his aircraft, a Blackhawk, was at 300 feet above Mogadishu at 70 knots, they were flying goggles, when they got hit with an RPG. He also stated that they were flying a route that they flew nightly in the past. As I listened to this narrative my thoughts were “Are you ****in’ crazy? Do you have a death wish?” of course this aviator stated that he wished it would have been darker that night so they would have been undetected and not blown out of the sky. In the photos of the wounds sustained, shown with the presentation, were two serious burns to the thighs where the pilot had his two medal knee boards fastened. He was not going more then 10 nautical miles from Mogadishu International where they staged from. What in the hell did he need the knee boards for?

Over and over it’s happened. Blackhawk Down, hovering over known ground to air (a month after the previous shoot down), Anaconda (we’ll sneak up on ‘em in a Chinook without a prep or gun cover), the 11th Group Apache attack last spring (hovering fire, everyone took hits, two POWs from an apparently flyable aircraft and no downed aircraft support) and now in Iraq.

How did Army Aviation get into this mess? I can see three clear reasons:

1. The Aircrew Training Program
2. The Briefing Statement
3. The Inexperience of the Aircrews and Aircraft Availability and Blade Time Restrictions

The Aircrew Training Program

The aircrew training program looks good on paper but it is not doing what it was designed to do, train aircrews to perform combat missions with minimal risk. The program begins when an aviator or enlisted crewmember arrives at their unit with a commander’s evaluation. The newly assigned aviator/crewmember then goes through three levels of readiness progression until he or she is deemed mission trained. Problem is, their not. This training program takes soldiers, aviators and crewmembers, through various tasks they must perform to standard but there is no emphasis on decision-making or how to conduct a mission to support a supported unit. Therefore, tasks can be performed, i. e. Takeoff to a Hover, Perform NOE Flight, Perform Masking and Unmasking, and a whole laundry list of other minutiae but there is no emphasis on the stuff that matters on the battlefield when decisions must be instantaneous and based on proven tactical principles.

The Briefing Statement

The briefing statement is probably the worst thing that has happened to Army Aviation since Vietnam. Developed by GEN Maxwell (Mad Max) Thurman, a non-aviator, and TRADOC Commander in the eighties this policy requires all aviators to be briefed by a designated briefer before all missions. The briefer, often the unit commander, but many times a non aviator, often has less experience than the crew performing the mission.

Only tasks specifically briefed may be performed by the crew during the mission without a call “home” to do something not on the statement. Flying along at a briefed altitude of say 250 feet at say 90-100 knots the crew sees a coupla bad guys with RPGs off to their right, oughta turn left and hit the deck at high speed immediately—gotta call home-left turns and altitude changes weren’t on the briefing statement.

The Inexperience of the Aircrews and Aircraft Availability and Blade Time Restrictions

Aircraft availability is not good. Many units inflate operational readiness by carrying aircraft with less than ten hours remaining to major maintenance as operationally ready which they technically are, but not for long if there flown, and thus are unusable assets for quality training. The aircrews just don’t have the flight time. Several years ago an internal study showed that the average aviation battalion commander had around 700 hours of flight time including flight school time. I had that much time in the first four months of my Vietnam tour. How is a 700 hour pilot going to conduct a proper tactical briefing. Another problem is the MTOE structure. Warrant Officers leave operational flying positions (except the 160th, Chinooks, and Apaches) upon reaching CW3. They have to quit being line pilots when they have finally acquired most of the experience they need to do the job right.

Are There Solutions

There are solutions.

First, realistic multi-echelon mission scenarios must be incorporated into the aircrew training program. These scenarios must be designed to challenge the aircrew with fluent changing situations that require decision making on the spot. Pilots must make mission decisions based on the mission situation not based on what the briefer said prior to the mission. The goal of this training should be that every briefing statement is very simple: Support the supported unit.

Second, put the lieutenants in flying positions and make them fly. Don’t give them any responsibilities other than being pilots and develop them into aircraft commanders like the warrants. Then when they are captains they will have some experience.

Third, let the warrants stay in line pilot positions right through CW4 in the line units.

Last, seek out Vietnam helicopter pilots and listen to what they have to say about flying in tactical situations, no more low and slow!


Regards,

[Merik]

God damn thats what I've been trying to preach about what the **** is happening to Army Aviation. The one place he didnt mention where the Army messed up was Grenada in '83. The Rangers did the same **** they pulled in Afganistan under Op Andaconda by going in without any fire support, very bad intel, and no gun cover. The ****ing Army has some serious problems because there is no four star Army Aviatior. The Marines have a four star heli pilot and they get all the funding and approvals they want for stuff, but they also dont have Cold War grown aviators that sit still all the freakin time. Im gonna blow a fuse over this subject if I dont calm down cause this gets me so riled up. The Army better get its ****ing act together before we have a huge amount of loss of life because of no tactics for the choppers.

BRING BACK THE COBRA YA JACKASS'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[HMMcrewchief]

There is NO ejection system on the AH-1W Cobra! Or any way to remove the blades while in flight. The crews only chance of crew survival is for the PIC (pilot in command) to iniatate an autorotaion QUICKLY. If there is a lack of forward airspeed and or altitude the crew would just be along for the ride.

It looks as though the Apache had only lost one engine so he prob was able to control the descent rate. Not sure if what the abilities of the Apache are with one engine out. I am sure it would depend on Air temp, weapon load and fuel state.

Never knew that the KA-50 had an ejection system! I just can't grasp the concept of ejecting from a helicopter. If you shear the blades with explosives you would have 6 blades going in all directions! Talk about being a hazzard to your wingman. Or are the blades blown into smaller pieces? I have to learn more about this!

[Uncle Chô]

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/ka-50-40p04.jpg

http://www.ejectionsite.com/ejctpic/k37_1.gif


The above photograph shows the Zvezda K-37 Helicopter Extraction System used in the Ka-50 and Ka-52 attack helicopters. Not a true ejection seat, this system is closer to the Stanley Aircraft developed YANKEE extraction system used in the A-1H Skyraider and its variants.

Unfortunately I have been unable to acquire a better photograph or more information. Due to this lack of information, I am only presenting the basic information on how this system works.

The system jettisons the six blades of the main rotor with explosive bolts at the roots on initiation. Then the canopy glass is jettisoned and the rocket assembly, the white cylinder at the top, is catapulted out of the cockpit. This is connected by a lanyard system to the aircrew and once the rocket ignites, this lanyard is used to extract the aircrew. The parachute is deployed rapidly afterwords.

[HMMcrewchief]

Thanks Uncle Chô! Interesting system. I wonder if it is a zero zero system? Doubtfull since it is not a full blown ejection seat, but possible. So it does send those 6 blades flying every which way with explosive shear bolts. I wonder if you could take out a whole troop flying in formation rofl . You would have to be lucky and would prob get hit by the rain of rotor blades :cantbeli: . Russian designers never cease to amaze me, especially in rotory wing design.