Army Air Corps - Take me on a Revolution.....Please?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Yes, US Army types do own computers. In fact many active duty Aviators have issued computers.
To comment on the Apache...In my opinion...we would be much better off to have a modernized Cobra supplemented with the MD.
We had the OH-6 converted to the AH-6 and it performed with excellence.
The Apache and Commanche are expensive. So expensive that US Army commanders feared putting into battle. The well publicized movement of Apaches from Germany to Kosovo was a dark day for the US Army Aviation Corps which it has not completely recovered from.
The Apache is expensive to maintain and for pilots to stay current in. If I were paying the bills, I would go with something else, say a modern AH 1 Cobra.
Fraternally,
Tex
[This message has been edited by Tex (edited 04 December 2000).]
To comment on the Apache...In my opinion...we would be much better off to have a modernized Cobra supplemented with the MD.
We had the OH-6 converted to the AH-6 and it performed with excellence.
The Apache and Commanche are expensive. So expensive that US Army commanders feared putting into battle. The well publicized movement of Apaches from Germany to Kosovo was a dark day for the US Army Aviation Corps which it has not completely recovered from.
The Apache is expensive to maintain and for pilots to stay current in. If I were paying the bills, I would go with something else, say a modern AH 1 Cobra.
Fraternally,
Tex
[This message has been edited by Tex (edited 04 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Tex
I have just had a conversation with a a guy running the air int in Bondsteel, Kosovo( he is a uh60 driver but works closely with the Apache crews and oh58d crews) and discussed both the apache problems and the crash in Macedonia. He told me that alot of the problems to do with the A model were avionic based due to a number of different computers trying to interface. This has apparently been bettered in the D as it only has 2 or 3 computer systems to interface. He also said the gun jammed when filled up so now they just don't put quite so many rounds in the feeder.
Tex are you USMC? and how is Honolulu?
CR couldn't agree with you more about the career path for the AAC.
As for Apache and any other new bit of kit lets have the most capable people operating it whatever service they may be from, at the end of the day we are all on the same side and that needs to be the winning one.
Bring back the Royal Flying Corps (as long as its not crab uniform!!)
As for all you AAC officers being battlefield experts (pre JDSC) is that based on the 1 week tactics course at Middle Wallop
and your 6 month attachment with the argylle and bolton wanderers getting drunk in Scotland?
All three services operate battlefield helicopters in one shape or form and all have vast experience within that field so stop being quite so blinkered.
Bowing to the crowd i put on my helmet and shout INCOMING!!
[This message has been edited by Junglie (edited 04 December 2000).]
I have just had a conversation with a a guy running the air int in Bondsteel, Kosovo( he is a uh60 driver but works closely with the Apache crews and oh58d crews) and discussed both the apache problems and the crash in Macedonia. He told me that alot of the problems to do with the A model were avionic based due to a number of different computers trying to interface. This has apparently been bettered in the D as it only has 2 or 3 computer systems to interface. He also said the gun jammed when filled up so now they just don't put quite so many rounds in the feeder.
Tex are you USMC? and how is Honolulu?
CR couldn't agree with you more about the career path for the AAC.
As for Apache and any other new bit of kit lets have the most capable people operating it whatever service they may be from, at the end of the day we are all on the same side and that needs to be the winning one.
Bring back the Royal Flying Corps (as long as its not crab uniform!!)
As for all you AAC officers being battlefield experts (pre JDSC) is that based on the 1 week tactics course at Middle Wallop
and your 6 month attachment with the argylle and bolton wanderers getting drunk in Scotland?
All three services operate battlefield helicopters in one shape or form and all have vast experience within that field so stop being quite so blinkered.
Bowing to the crowd i put on my helmet and shout INCOMING!!
[This message has been edited by Junglie (edited 04 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Regarding the comment made by Tex about using an upgrade Cobra in place of the Apache. As far as downtime for maintenance the Cobra is slightly behind the Apache for Maintenance Man Hours/Flight Hours (MMHFH).
On my assignment in Iran I had to monitor the AH1J Cobras along with the Bell 214s for maintenance activity. The AH1Js had been in service for several years in the US Marine Corps and the mechanics maintaining them and the pilots flying them were all experienced ex US Marines. When the month of observation was over, it was determined that the AH1J had a MMHFH of 70.
In retrospect I can account for much of the high maintenance rates on poor build quality but even with that, the rates should have been considerably lower.
Here are several points of comparison:
AH-1W Sea Cobra 15.0
UH-1N Huey 16.3
SH-3H Sea King 37.2
CH-53E Sea Stallion 39.1
SH-60 Sea Hawk 21.0
Here is a paragraph taken from the report referenced above.
Maintenance Man-Hours Have Been Undertstated
Army test data has shown that the Apache needs 5 or fewer maintenance hours per flight hour--well within the requirement of 8-13 man-hours. However, this measurement of the number of maintenance man-hours conflicts with the large maintenance work load experienced at Apache battalions and contrasts with the much higher maintenance man-hours reported by the other services on their tactical aircraft.(See Above) The recorded number of maintenance man-hours appears unrealistically low because the Army narrowly defines what maintenance man-hours are counted and because its' man hour data is incomplete.
What the report was stating is that the Army didn't want to look bad.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 December 2000).]
On my assignment in Iran I had to monitor the AH1J Cobras along with the Bell 214s for maintenance activity. The AH1Js had been in service for several years in the US Marine Corps and the mechanics maintaining them and the pilots flying them were all experienced ex US Marines. When the month of observation was over, it was determined that the AH1J had a MMHFH of 70.
In retrospect I can account for much of the high maintenance rates on poor build quality but even with that, the rates should have been considerably lower.
Here are several points of comparison:
AH-1W Sea Cobra 15.0
UH-1N Huey 16.3
SH-3H Sea King 37.2
CH-53E Sea Stallion 39.1
SH-60 Sea Hawk 21.0
Here is a paragraph taken from the report referenced above.
Maintenance Man-Hours Have Been Undertstated
Army test data has shown that the Apache needs 5 or fewer maintenance hours per flight hour--well within the requirement of 8-13 man-hours. However, this measurement of the number of maintenance man-hours conflicts with the large maintenance work load experienced at Apache battalions and contrasts with the much higher maintenance man-hours reported by the other services on their tactical aircraft.(See Above) The recorded number of maintenance man-hours appears unrealistically low because the Army narrowly defines what maintenance man-hours are counted and because its' man hour data is incomplete.
What the report was stating is that the Army didn't want to look bad.
------------------
The Cat
[This message has been edited by Lu Zuckerman (edited 04 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Junglie, most of us in the AAC do not think of ourselves as "battlefield experts" and regard the young inexperienced officer who thinks he does in the same way your post suggests. I think what most AAC soldiers mean is that we have the experience "down in the weeds". No one is suggesting for a minute that the other services do not do an excellent job on the battlefield - we are not all blinkered!! - but maybe your idea of what we actually do isn't all that clear. However you may have actually been on the Army Pilots Course (are you a bootneck?) if so then I shall take my foot from my mouth!!
Please don't tar us all with the same brush!
Please don't tar us all with the same brush!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Christopher Robin
My Flippant post was not meant to rile you(oh ok it was). My point being the AEop trade has been dealing with multi-sensor operation for many years and the experience that goes with it. The advances in the last few years probably give the trade as a whole more experience than any other in the British armed forces. I dont want to take your new toy it should stay in the hands of the Land Commander but in this world of jointery why not establish exchange posts, as it is logical and makes sense.
But if you are hampered by tradition I can not help you.
As an aside the Littoral Maritime Environment is probably just as complex if not more so than your battlefield. Without us you dont get ashore to fight, it is worth a thought you might suprise yourself.
Charlie sends
My Flippant post was not meant to rile you(oh ok it was). My point being the AEop trade has been dealing with multi-sensor operation for many years and the experience that goes with it. The advances in the last few years probably give the trade as a whole more experience than any other in the British armed forces. I dont want to take your new toy it should stay in the hands of the Land Commander but in this world of jointery why not establish exchange posts, as it is logical and makes sense.
But if you are hampered by tradition I can not help you.
As an aside the Littoral Maritime Environment is probably just as complex if not more so than your battlefield. Without us you dont get ashore to fight, it is worth a thought you might suprise yourself.
Charlie sends
Guest
Posts: n/a
CR how is your desk handling? Hope you manage to fly it in balance more than your last type.
Remember, you have been chosen, because of your ability, education, commission and poor looks to leave the flying game to be a professional 'Captain Darling'. Once you have been educated, achieved your 1000 CASH email badge, been educated again achieved your 5000 CASH email badge you will then qualify for a lottery ticket on the command board and perhaps, who knows, command an Apache Sqn.
The moral of the tale? Even at the end of your tunnel there is light, it’s just that you need to don some NG700s again to see it. If you need some executive stress relief or just wish to smell some OX27 again, give me a call and you'll be sorted out. We have had some very nice postcards of lynx made with a scratch and sniff oil sample.
Of course it could be worse, they might remove your flying pay - now wouldn’t that be a cost saving measure and a half.
Remember, you have been chosen, because of your ability, education, commission and poor looks to leave the flying game to be a professional 'Captain Darling'. Once you have been educated, achieved your 1000 CASH email badge, been educated again achieved your 5000 CASH email badge you will then qualify for a lottery ticket on the command board and perhaps, who knows, command an Apache Sqn.
The moral of the tale? Even at the end of your tunnel there is light, it’s just that you need to don some NG700s again to see it. If you need some executive stress relief or just wish to smell some OX27 again, give me a call and you'll be sorted out. We have had some very nice postcards of lynx made with a scratch and sniff oil sample.
Of course it could be worse, they might remove your flying pay - now wouldn’t that be a cost saving measure and a half.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Great article highlighting all the problems the AH64 A! had, very interesting but the AAC hasn't bought Apache As, it has bought Longbow D Models. I am reliably informed by a man in the know that there are huge differences. I didn't understand all of them but to recap what I took on board-
new airframe
new engines
new radar
new RFI
new DAS
new cockpits
new flight controls
higher AUW capability
new rockets
new missiles
improved 30mm accuracy
improved fire control
So all in all you may as well dig out an article about the problems the Phantom had and relate them to Eurofighter Typhoon. The AAC has bought a great bit of kit - the main question is can they use it?
We, the RAF, have alot to offer and maybe Harrier/Apache exchange posts are the first thing. Surely there will be lots of role overlap. Equally we must seize this oppurtunity to gain a closer understanding of the ground war - maybe the aircraft will generate increased joint ops and further enhance our mutual understanding.
The point about support is hugely valid - one thing the RAF knows about is supporting high intensity air operations. I am guessing the Apache D models will use more fuel and a ton more ammo than the Lynx. Who is going to provide that?
Spec aircrew is not necessarily your answer either - what you need is experienced commanders. Our Sqns are commanded by Wg Cdrs, Stations by Group Captains - if you matched our command/rank structure you would find your young officers have much more time to get to grips with safe aviation and get some flying under their belt before being whisked away to do staff jobs and can then get on with commanding from experience.
Spec aircrew quite often (and most admit it) don't have the breadth of expereince to command anything more than a flight (nor do they want to). We all do staff jobs in the RAF and I am sure the RN do too. We just do them much later and therefore have 'the big picture' coupled with lots of flying experience. Your guys have 'the big picture' but can't impliment it 'cos you are too busy trying to stay in balance. The answer is stop promoting people so fast and let them fly more (2 more 3 yr tours in flying posts would suffice compared to what you do now).
Finally stop letting your QFIs run everything - my god if the RAF was like that we would all fly in straight lines and never get anything done. Get some people on the QWI course, even as observers (especially your Apache pilots).
[This message has been edited by Twilight (edited 04 December 2000).]
new airframe
new engines
new radar
new RFI
new DAS
new cockpits
new flight controls
higher AUW capability
new rockets
new missiles
improved 30mm accuracy
improved fire control
So all in all you may as well dig out an article about the problems the Phantom had and relate them to Eurofighter Typhoon. The AAC has bought a great bit of kit - the main question is can they use it?
We, the RAF, have alot to offer and maybe Harrier/Apache exchange posts are the first thing. Surely there will be lots of role overlap. Equally we must seize this oppurtunity to gain a closer understanding of the ground war - maybe the aircraft will generate increased joint ops and further enhance our mutual understanding.
The point about support is hugely valid - one thing the RAF knows about is supporting high intensity air operations. I am guessing the Apache D models will use more fuel and a ton more ammo than the Lynx. Who is going to provide that?
Spec aircrew is not necessarily your answer either - what you need is experienced commanders. Our Sqns are commanded by Wg Cdrs, Stations by Group Captains - if you matched our command/rank structure you would find your young officers have much more time to get to grips with safe aviation and get some flying under their belt before being whisked away to do staff jobs and can then get on with commanding from experience.
Spec aircrew quite often (and most admit it) don't have the breadth of expereince to command anything more than a flight (nor do they want to). We all do staff jobs in the RAF and I am sure the RN do too. We just do them much later and therefore have 'the big picture' coupled with lots of flying experience. Your guys have 'the big picture' but can't impliment it 'cos you are too busy trying to stay in balance. The answer is stop promoting people so fast and let them fly more (2 more 3 yr tours in flying posts would suffice compared to what you do now).
Finally stop letting your QFIs run everything - my god if the RAF was like that we would all fly in straight lines and never get anything done. Get some people on the QWI course, even as observers (especially your Apache pilots).
[This message has been edited by Twilight (edited 04 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Twilight - Are you sure the AAC is run by QFIs? At a rough count there are about 5. I know there is defo 1 QWI, well until he gets out in Jan. I do like your rank system though. lets see how it would work in the AAC. All pilots are captains, flight commanders major, squadron comd as Lt Col and my CO could be a full colonel. hmmm in JIFNI that would make him the same rank as the stash, so he would have to be promoted. if he was promoted, other stash's would have to be. then to make it even every other crab would have to move up one rank and ahhhhh i see where you are going with this.
[This message has been edited by Jeep (edited 05 December 2000).]
[This message has been edited by Jeep (edited 05 December 2000).]
Guest
Posts: n/a
Jointery will bring with it all sorts of benefits which many of you seem to be alluding to. Yes the Army will have problems overcoming the logistical nightmare of supporting the Apache and yes there will be a whole tranche of other problems which we will have to overcome in the non too distant future. But as long as we all take off the blinkers and embrace this new technology, then between the best military aviators (of any cap badge) supported by the most professional military support system I have ever come across (in my 23 years this has consistently been the case) we will make this thing work.
As for the Harrier/Apache exchange, I can foresee a lot of water passing under that particular bridge before it happens as there would be many hurdles to cross. As I recall, it takes quite a long time to get a fast jet mate to the front line, so to make it worthwhile he/she would need a fair time in the job in order to become effective(just a thought here, why don't we look wider than the Harrier force?). At present, the AAC officer system doesn't give him enough time to learn his craft as a rotary pilot let alone a jet, so when is he supposed to learn how to be an effective AAC Sqn commander? Just a thought. Everybody in the forces whether on the ground or in the air will benefit from the Apache so lets just hope that the powers that be adopt a non partisan pragmatic approach and allow us all to do our jobs effectively and make the bl**dy thing work!!
As for the Harrier/Apache exchange, I can foresee a lot of water passing under that particular bridge before it happens as there would be many hurdles to cross. As I recall, it takes quite a long time to get a fast jet mate to the front line, so to make it worthwhile he/she would need a fair time in the job in order to become effective(just a thought here, why don't we look wider than the Harrier force?). At present, the AAC officer system doesn't give him enough time to learn his craft as a rotary pilot let alone a jet, so when is he supposed to learn how to be an effective AAC Sqn commander? Just a thought. Everybody in the forces whether on the ground or in the air will benefit from the Apache so lets just hope that the powers that be adopt a non partisan pragmatic approach and allow us all to do our jobs effectively and make the bl**dy thing work!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Charlie, now of course I realise that you guys have lots of expertise but unfortunately it is so hard to resist having a laugh at the air force's expense. Lets call it jealousy on my part.
Lu - that is almost certainly the best piece of info on the AH (US version) I have ever read - thanks.
Everyone - no arguments from me that the AAC has a lot to learn from the other services, particularly the length of time between training and "combat ready" in SHAR et al.
And Jeep - thank you for that kind offer mate, and we must grab a drink soon when I join the great xmas rush for Calais.
Some great ideas on tri-service stuff. I think that cross-training is the gold-plated option, but lets face it, it costs more than the government will cough up, but if we have a JHF, then why shouldn't all the rotary guys get posted within the 3 services? Rather than penny-packeting exchanges why not make it policy? Exchanges are something you do with other countries' armies for christ's sake! Let's make all spec aircrew CWs like (I think) they do in the States!
Let's have more joint courses (Like they do at the AWC) because that's always a good way to exchange ideas (at the bar naturally).
Basically: why don't we listen to what aviators of all arms are saying and implement it.
We are all very keen that the AH should be a success - we don't want it to fail! So is anyone prepared to let us reorganise our system of crewing beyond the obsolete arrangement we have now?
Does anybody know of any such moves that may ease the pain of my ulcer?
anybody?
------------------
Christopher Robin
Lu - that is almost certainly the best piece of info on the AH (US version) I have ever read - thanks.
Everyone - no arguments from me that the AAC has a lot to learn from the other services, particularly the length of time between training and "combat ready" in SHAR et al.
And Jeep - thank you for that kind offer mate, and we must grab a drink soon when I join the great xmas rush for Calais.
Some great ideas on tri-service stuff. I think that cross-training is the gold-plated option, but lets face it, it costs more than the government will cough up, but if we have a JHF, then why shouldn't all the rotary guys get posted within the 3 services? Rather than penny-packeting exchanges why not make it policy? Exchanges are something you do with other countries' armies for christ's sake! Let's make all spec aircrew CWs like (I think) they do in the States!
Let's have more joint courses (Like they do at the AWC) because that's always a good way to exchange ideas (at the bar naturally).
Basically: why don't we listen to what aviators of all arms are saying and implement it.
We are all very keen that the AH should be a success - we don't want it to fail! So is anyone prepared to let us reorganise our system of crewing beyond the obsolete arrangement we have now?
Does anybody know of any such moves that may ease the pain of my ulcer?
anybody?
------------------
Christopher Robin
Guest
Posts: n/a
Dear Col Lective
Best you take proverbial foot from mouth then!!
Et Al - Looks like there is a general agreement from alot of people that exchanges between services need to be changed into ordinary appointments/postings. Surely a wider experience base across the whole rotary community can only benefit all three services. Wonder if anyone with any might is reading this thread. Lets turn JHC into the leader for cross service appointments.
I can't see the benefits or cost effectiveness of re training a fast jet mate to fly the apache there are plenty of capable people in the rotary world to do the job. I don't suppose you'd get a harrier mate off his bang seat anyway!!
Best you take proverbial foot from mouth then!!
Et Al - Looks like there is a general agreement from alot of people that exchanges between services need to be changed into ordinary appointments/postings. Surely a wider experience base across the whole rotary community can only benefit all three services. Wonder if anyone with any might is reading this thread. Lets turn JHC into the leader for cross service appointments.
I can't see the benefits or cost effectiveness of re training a fast jet mate to fly the apache there are plenty of capable people in the rotary world to do the job. I don't suppose you'd get a harrier mate off his bang seat anyway!!
Guest
Posts: n/a
MCM Glasgow has always maintained that the AAC do not have an Aircrew shortage, but is this all about to change, especially those associated with the AH.
MCM may be correct with regard to bums on seats, but who would agree that we have sufficient experience across the Corps to continue to man the Gazelle, let alone the Apache. Not me, thats for sure.
The numbers of those banging out may not yet be significant, but the identities of those individuals leaving is very significant.
A WO trained in the States has already gone. A Major with as much Apache experience as any Brit has resigned with rumours that another WO is soon to play his card. 1 Wallop based QHI earmarked to join the programme at the next phase of training has recently signed off with rumours of another just waiting for his QHI Course timebar to run out before he does the same.
The Corps may well be overmanned, but what with? A lack of quality in my opinion.
MCM may be correct with regard to bums on seats, but who would agree that we have sufficient experience across the Corps to continue to man the Gazelle, let alone the Apache. Not me, thats for sure.
The numbers of those banging out may not yet be significant, but the identities of those individuals leaving is very significant.
A WO trained in the States has already gone. A Major with as much Apache experience as any Brit has resigned with rumours that another WO is soon to play his card. 1 Wallop based QHI earmarked to join the programme at the next phase of training has recently signed off with rumours of another just waiting for his QHI Course timebar to run out before he does the same.
The Corps may well be overmanned, but what with? A lack of quality in my opinion.