US Army leaning towards new scout
Not issued to each "lone infantry man," and I think you know that. I'll point out that the chain gun is a relatively cheap and effectivce weapon. As with dog fighting, who spots whom first has a lot to do with how a fight turns out.
Apache does a lot of things well, but it isn't all things to all people. The Light Heavy Mix is a problem in force balancing as old as the Cav/Footsoldier mix when going on a campaign. It will ever be with us.
This takes us back to the problem the Army is trying to solve: What is it you want the Scout / Armed Scout to do besides keep US industrial base warm? What mission niche is being filled?
Apache does a lot of things well, but it isn't all things to all people. The Light Heavy Mix is a problem in force balancing as old as the Cav/Footsoldier mix when going on a campaign. It will ever be with us.
This takes us back to the problem the Army is trying to solve: What is it you want the Scout / Armed Scout to do besides keep US industrial base warm? What mission niche is being filled?
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Phuket
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quantity
If we fielded three times as many but smaller and less capable single pilot Scout helicopters, could we not have a net gain in capability over sticking to Two Crew machines? A concept similar to the Soviet way of thinking re Tanks during the Cold War.
Our navy tends to use the basic airframe on several helicopter types. The AH1W is simpler than the 64. There is going to be a reduction in the OR when the technology increases. I am for increasing the quality of our pilots before we tend to use technology to mask (Not intended as such but it is happening) lack of basic piloting technique.
Last edited by before landing check list; 9th Jan 2013 at 20:14.
The AH-1W is being replaced by AH-1Z.
Not sure if "simpler" is what is going on here.
Not sure if "simpler" is what is going on here.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not missing the point..the army has been there, done that already!!!
The idea of using a non rated observer was the norm back in SE Asia. Scout helicopters very mission is RISTA (Recon, Intel, Surveillance, and Target acquisition), its lightly armored, lightly armed in relation to am actual dedicated attack platform. The Army brass as well as pilots realized the single point of failure in that concept (single pilot) was once your pilot got shot...down came the helicopter and the resulting loss of both the crewmembers and the airframe. The A thru C model OH-58s flew with single pilot. These very same pilots realized this, so they taught their non rated crewmember some flying skills to try and ensure a return of all who had a vested interest. The dual pilot requirement grew from this basic lesson. Plus as the 58 matured into the Kiowa Warrior sensors suite grew taking the place of the enlisted man using his Mark 1 eyeballs. Now a fix to that is available currently...use a operator to remotely take control should the primary pilot onboard the airframe become incapacitated. But that opens up a new can of worms and pretty much negating the low cost aspect in the original argument started here.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by SASless
Does a Scout Helicopter have to be multi-crewed? Has technology advanced to the point the Scout Mission could be done by a single pilot?
Europe is also pursuing similar tech, in the form of the Pilot Assistance System (PILAS) introduced at one of the AHS fora a few years back.
I/C
OH-58's were very late comers to the LOH job in Vietnam.
H-13's and H-23's started the mission, followed by the OH-6....and finally the absolute POS OH-58A.
The LOACH mission in Vietnam is entirely different than the current Scout Mission as are the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the aircraft.
In Vietnam it was 50 feet or lower....and if you were smart 60 knots or faster never flying in a straight line with a Torque (Door Gunner in the back seat on the Pilot's side), and Observer with a Car-15 up front beside the Pilot. This was old fashioned Sabre, Lance, and Pistol style of combat....very up close and personal. Taking on Machine Guns, groups of NVA or VC troops with automatic weapons and RPG's at that distance was a very sporty business and way too many good folks died doing it.
The only thing the crew had were MK I eyeballs and big Testicles!
Try the same tactics in Afghanistan today during the day.....and it would be a real bloodbath.
As some have said.....first one has to define the Mission.
Then one can begin to adapt the Strategy and Tactics to fit that defined need.
As fighting the Russians in Europe does not seem to be the concern now....why do we need Longbow and the Scout that works in conjunction with that system?
Can we not go back in capability and still adequately perform the Scout mission in Counter-Insurgency Missions?
H-13's and H-23's started the mission, followed by the OH-6....and finally the absolute POS OH-58A.
The LOACH mission in Vietnam is entirely different than the current Scout Mission as are the tactics, weapons, and capabilities of the aircraft.
In Vietnam it was 50 feet or lower....and if you were smart 60 knots or faster never flying in a straight line with a Torque (Door Gunner in the back seat on the Pilot's side), and Observer with a Car-15 up front beside the Pilot. This was old fashioned Sabre, Lance, and Pistol style of combat....very up close and personal. Taking on Machine Guns, groups of NVA or VC troops with automatic weapons and RPG's at that distance was a very sporty business and way too many good folks died doing it.
The only thing the crew had were MK I eyeballs and big Testicles!
Try the same tactics in Afghanistan today during the day.....and it would be a real bloodbath.
As some have said.....first one has to define the Mission.
Then one can begin to adapt the Strategy and Tactics to fit that defined need.
As fighting the Russians in Europe does not seem to be the concern now....why do we need Longbow and the Scout that works in conjunction with that system?
Can we not go back in capability and still adequately perform the Scout mission in Counter-Insurgency Missions?
SASless:
Had Comanche lived on, you could argue that Comanche fills both scout and attack role sufficiently to remove both the Scout and the Attack platform from the Air Order of Battle, particularly when you supplement the scout function with UAV's doing a lot of the simple "look" and "watch" functions in scouting and various ISR or S & R mmissions.
As you can readily imagine, there were political obstacles to that, in terms of whacking Bell and M.D. (which became Boeing Mesa) from the competitive mix, and the industrial base.
The High-Low mix problem to solve is "what can you afford" and "what are you trying to buy."
Had Comanche lived on, you could argue that Comanche fills both scout and attack role sufficiently to remove both the Scout and the Attack platform from the Air Order of Battle, particularly when you supplement the scout function with UAV's doing a lot of the simple "look" and "watch" functions in scouting and various ISR or S & R mmissions.
As you can readily imagine, there were political obstacles to that, in terms of whacking Bell and M.D. (which became Boeing Mesa) from the competitive mix, and the industrial base.
The High-Low mix problem to solve is "what can you afford" and "what are you trying to buy."
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 10th Jan 2013 at 13:19.
The big problem with all this advanced kit is the time it takes for pilot/observer to train to use it ( 2 years for Longbow) So in a big fight you could make the aircraft quicker than you can train the crew. Although different age in WW2 the Battle of Britain we very nearly lost not because of technology ( Hurricane and Spitfire argubably the best machines of the time) but we couldnt train the pilots quick enough to replace those that died. Mind you most piots had less than 30 hours basic on a Tiger Moth, 10 hours in a Hurricane and then " follow me "
Not 2 years !
Not 2 years !
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hy Brasil
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Autonomy investment
More discussions, and a mention of autonomy.
AUSA Aviation: Industry warns of dangers of delaying new rotorcraft - News - Shephard
AUSA Aviation: Industry warns of dangers of delaying new rotorcraft - News - Shephard
Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program
Brooklands, 14 May, 13
The US Army has issued the following statement on helicopter procurement as part of a wider statement on how it responds to cuts in the military budget. It refers to the lack of "viable candidates" for the US Army Armed Aerial Scout program, which we read as "No candidates falls within our newly-tightened Budget constraints"
The Army has been looking for a follow-on to the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter for some time. As one lawmaker pointed out, the Army was going to replace the Kiowa Warrior with the Comanche aircraft -- but that program was cancelled. There was also the Armed Reconnaissance Program and most recently the Armed Aerial Scout, or AAS, program. The AAS program recently looked at commercially available helicopters to see if they would be good candidates for militarization -- but none proved a viable candidate.
Barclay said the Army continues to look for a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior, however, it is also now working on modernization of the aircraft. By late summer, he said, based on outcomes of fiscal guidance, the Army will make a determination on the way ahead for the Armed Aerial Scout program, or will make a determination on a service life extension program, or SLEP, for the Kiowa Warrior. Still, he said, those options would not get into the field until the mid- to late 2020s.
As a stop-gap, he said, the Army is now working the cockpit and sensor upgrade program, or CASUP, for the Kiowa Warrior. That, he said, includes "obsolescence and safety upgrades" to the current fleet. The first Kiowa Warrior with the CASUP upgrades will fly an inaugural flight, April 30.
"That is our bridge," he said, until decisions are made about SLEP or AAS.
Editor's Note - There is no suggestion that they are being rejected on performance or technical grounds. The bidders were:
- AgustaWestland AW169
- Eurocopter UH-72A
- Boeing AH6i
- MD Helicopters MD540F
- AVX Aircraft concept based on OH-58
- Sikorsky S-97
Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
As in seriously!!??
Brooklands, 14 May, 13
The US Army has issued the following statement on helicopter procurement as part of a wider statement on how it responds to cuts in the military budget. It refers to the lack of "viable candidates" for the US Army Armed Aerial Scout program, which we read as "No candidates falls within our newly-tightened Budget constraints"
The Army has been looking for a follow-on to the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopter for some time. As one lawmaker pointed out, the Army was going to replace the Kiowa Warrior with the Comanche aircraft -- but that program was cancelled. There was also the Armed Reconnaissance Program and most recently the Armed Aerial Scout, or AAS, program. The AAS program recently looked at commercially available helicopters to see if they would be good candidates for militarization -- but none proved a viable candidate.
Barclay said the Army continues to look for a replacement for the Kiowa Warrior, however, it is also now working on modernization of the aircraft. By late summer, he said, based on outcomes of fiscal guidance, the Army will make a determination on the way ahead for the Armed Aerial Scout program, or will make a determination on a service life extension program, or SLEP, for the Kiowa Warrior. Still, he said, those options would not get into the field until the mid- to late 2020s.
As a stop-gap, he said, the Army is now working the cockpit and sensor upgrade program, or CASUP, for the Kiowa Warrior. That, he said, includes "obsolescence and safety upgrades" to the current fleet. The first Kiowa Warrior with the CASUP upgrades will fly an inaugural flight, April 30.
"That is our bridge," he said, until decisions are made about SLEP or AAS.
Editor's Note - There is no suggestion that they are being rejected on performance or technical grounds. The bidders were:
- AgustaWestland AW169
- Eurocopter UH-72A
- Boeing AH6i
- MD Helicopters MD540F
- AVX Aircraft concept based on OH-58
- Sikorsky S-97
Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program | Helihub - the Helicopter Industry Data Source
Budget freezes US Army Armed Aerial Scout program
Bell manouvering again.
Mmmhh, Bell has no viable candidate? Then Bell manipulates customer into improving obsolete Bell product.
Generals and politicians get rich (or get VERY remunerative consultant position)
Bell wins.
But mostly, everyone else loses...seriously.
Generals and politicians get rich (or get VERY remunerative consultant position)
Bell wins.
But mostly, everyone else loses...seriously.
Last edited by tottigol; 14th May 2013 at 13:28.
Mmmhh, Bell has no viable candidate?
Voluntary flight demonstrations (VFDs) were conducted last year with the Bell OH-58D Block 2, Boeing AH-6i, EADS North America AAS-72X/X+ and MD Helicopters MD 540F. AgustaWestland demonstrated the AW139M as a surrogate for its AW169 AAS offering.
If anything, this buys time for Sikorsky to get the S-97 built and flying and cross their fingers that the army gets (much) more funding to pay for it.
If anything, this buys time for Sikorsky to get the S-97 built and flying and cross their fingers that the army gets (much) more funding to pay for it.
Uh- oh
"Agreed... this is either a win for Bell if the Army can't get the funding... or a win for Sikorsky if they can get this delayed until they do have funding."
I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily. For another, ( and this is just a guess from a retiree ) it might be incorrect for the competitors to count on SA not following thru with their stated plan to fly two S-97's. Doing this sort of thing has been part of the culture in the past, and the success of the X2 in using previously unavailable technologies to address issues left on the table by the XH-59 , must provide a good deal of confidence going forward. The implication of the quote from a previous post is that Army money is a necessity for the S-97 to fly and be credible. If you own UTC stock, don't sell it on that bet, because its not just UTC money being invested, but the partners are in it as well ( though I haven't a clue as to how the partnering arrangements are worded ).
Apologies for rooting for what to me is the " Home Team ".
I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily. For another, ( and this is just a guess from a retiree ) it might be incorrect for the competitors to count on SA not following thru with their stated plan to fly two S-97's. Doing this sort of thing has been part of the culture in the past, and the success of the X2 in using previously unavailable technologies to address issues left on the table by the XH-59 , must provide a good deal of confidence going forward. The implication of the quote from a previous post is that Army money is a necessity for the S-97 to fly and be credible. If you own UTC stock, don't sell it on that bet, because its not just UTC money being invested, but the partners are in it as well ( though I haven't a clue as to how the partnering arrangements are worded ).
Apologies for rooting for what to me is the " Home Team ".
John, while that was gentlemanly of you, there is no need to apologize. Most of us know of your long service with Sikorsky, and your depth of experience. I for one would be surprised if you didn't root for the home team. 
As to the delay: I'd be skeptical how that is an advantage to anyone, since my little crystal ball on the out years' procurement environment forecasts ssustained shrinkage. The C-130 and the Buff are still with ut.
Shrinkage may not hit Army aviation as hard as other areas, but coming off of wars the US typically goes into a funding/funds slump. It's the way our system is constructed, going back to the original days, and goes in cycles based on demand.
Recent history is no different. The post Cold War slump was a significant ebb tide. It lasted a decade. Then the procurement tide came in for the past decade. With the recent wars winding down, an ebb is written on the wall.
That said, I am not sure the Army will pursue a new airframe. With the past fifteen years' experience and growth in UAVs of various sized, the Recon and Scouting function will be a mix of manned an unmanned for the foreseeable future.
That argues to me for a reduction in the ToE of manned aircraft in that mission area, not an increase. How deep a reduction remains to be seen.
As to the delay: I'd be skeptical how that is an advantage to anyone, since my little crystal ball on the out years' procurement environment forecasts ssustained shrinkage. The C-130 and the Buff are still with ut.
Shrinkage may not hit Army aviation as hard as other areas, but coming off of wars the US typically goes into a funding/funds slump. It's the way our system is constructed, going back to the original days, and goes in cycles based on demand.
Recent history is no different. The post Cold War slump was a significant ebb tide. It lasted a decade. Then the procurement tide came in for the past decade. With the recent wars winding down, an ebb is written on the wall.
That said, I am not sure the Army will pursue a new airframe. With the past fifteen years' experience and growth in UAVs of various sized, the Recon and Scouting function will be a mix of manned an unmanned for the foreseeable future.
That argues to me for a reduction in the ToE of manned aircraft in that mission area, not an increase. How deep a reduction remains to be seen.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th May 2013 at 17:35.
Reality
LW, a lot of the readers, myself included, would agree with your assessment as being indeed a distinct possibility. If that proves true, then SA will then be left with a machine sized/priced for the international scout market, whatever that may be, but a significant bit too small to enter the S-76/AW-139 market. I guess that statement gives my hand away, because when the idea of an ABC follow-on was first raised, I thought a 12-13K lb vehicle was the size to build a prototype, and the difference in program costs to do that instead of the 6K vehicle wasn't a lot of money. That way, you only do the propulsion/drivetrain/ rotors once. Do all the risk mitigation work on the initial prototype. Win some, lose some.
I used the "Uh-oh " title because for one, the above quote underscores the predicament facing the other competitors if the mission assessment weights speed heavily.
For FVL, on the other hand, speed is of the essence according to the Army. Its plainly clear that Sikorsky has a major incentive to get S-97 into some contract, and AAS is the ripe fruit to get the Army into the ABC coax game for the big prize of FVL.
Question is, what does the Army fund? A crop of all new AAS ships, which increases the capability of that platform, which arguably has not demonstrated a real need for paradigm shift (doesn't the OH58 have something like 95% readiness?)...or FVL which from the outset was designated as moving the performance needle in a big way. I don't think they can do both.
As I have said before, the S-97 was a ship built to a contract that never existed. Sikorsky is desperate to try and shoehorn it into AAS (even though its oversized) or FVL (even though its much too small for FVL-M).
Since its well recognized in industry that scaling up the ABC coax to FVL-M size and maintinaing 230kt+ speed is currently impossible, I would put money on Sikorsky actually trying to use the S-97 airframe for the FVL tech demo, and claim they can tackle the tech issues with scaling in hopes they can get the Army to back off the speed requirement from the BAA.
Doesn't the OH58 have something like 95% readiness?
I am curious what is behind that "readiness" metric you tossed in there.
Full Mission Capable?
Partial Mission Capable?
Can get the engines / rotors started?
Launch with no abort?
Launch with no mission equipment degradation?
Sorry, but that number smells of fish.
In addition to the accumulation of these combat hours, all OH-58 units are reporting that they continue to achieve over 90% mission capable rates. This means that when a unit tasking comes down, over 90% of the helicopters are able to fly the mission.
“The Kiowa Warrior’s mission capable rate, coupled with the numbers of combat hours flown, is a truly remarkable achievement and represents the highest readiness rate and Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in the U.S. Army,” said Miller.
“The Kiowa Warrior’s mission capable rate, coupled with the numbers of combat hours flown, is a truly remarkable achievement and represents the highest readiness rate and Operational Tempo (OPTEMPO) in the U.S. Army,” said Miller.
As an experienced/ current OH-58D Instructor pilot, the readiness rate is pretty spot on, the birds have their ups and downs, but overall, the systems and aircraft are always ready to rock... Because it's a simple airframe and powerplant, we really dont have alot of problems to contend with. When I strap one on, I know it will work and be a reliable aircraft. 100% is an impossible number because scheduled maintenance obviously just doesnt allow it, but otherwise, They are ready to go!