Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hmph.... A politically-driven purchase of a helo that struggles to carry any payload in hot weather and is forbidden from flying in combat (and is a butt-ugly flying cockroach to boot).

At least the Kiowas can carry weapons and deploy.

Edited by 11bee
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like all airframes it has it issues but a few things, this was a COTS solution to replace aging stateside aircraft and not be flown in combat. The idea was to free up the number of stateside assets so they could be used in forward areas or so I recall.

If it so bad then why do a number of hospitals use it around the world. That is same basic mission used stateside.

If you want weapons then AAS-72X is the bird you want. link

I think this is one of the better examples of the DOD replacing aging systems with modern systems and not majorly screwing it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmph.... A politically-driven purchase of a helo that struggles to carry any payload in hot weather and is forbidden from flying in combat (and is a butt-ugly flying cockroach to boot).

At least the Kiowas can carry weapons and deploy.

Considering the requirements when it was ordered was very specific in stating that it wasn't going to deploy in combat I think you're missing the boat.

If the Army wanted at combat Helicopter then they would have specifed that requirement in RFT documents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the requirements when it was ordered was very specific in stating that it wasn't going to deploy in combat I think you're missing the boat.

If the Army wanted at combat Helicopter then they would have specifed that requirement in RFT documents.

And in fact they did as a separate same-time buy, Bell won that program with the ARH-70 but it got cancelled due to massive cost over-runs (70% over budget per-unit), the Army is making a second shot at it now, EADS is bidding a UH-72 variant (Bell is bidding a less ambitious Kiowa Warrior update, with some of the upgrades from the ARH-70 program on a Kiowa fuselage instead of a 407 fuselage)

The buy that resulted in the UH-72 was very specifically a COTS buy to replace ageing Kiowa A/C's and UH-1's in domestic service as well as freeing Guard Blackhawks up for deployment on the cheap by giving those units some commercial birds for their domestic commitments (SAR, Emergency & assorted local missions which UH-60's are overkill for). The UH-72 is also a lot cheaper to run than the aircraft it replaces so it's an all-round win for the budget.

Edited by mawz
Link to post
Share on other sites

And in fact they did as a separate same-time buy, Bell won that program with the ARH-70 but it got cancelled due to massive cost over-runs (70% over budget per-unit), the Army is making a second shot at it now, EADS is bidding a UH-72 variant (Bell is bidding a less ambitious Kiowa Warrior update, with some of the upgrades from the ARH-70 program on a Kiowa fuselage instead of a 407 fuselage)

The buy that resulted in the UH-72 was very specifically a COTS buy to replace ageing Kiowa A/C's and UH-1's in domestic service as well as freeing Guard Blackhawks up for deployment on the cheap by giving those units some commercial birds for their domestic commitments (SAR, Emergency & assorted local missions which UH-60's are overkill for). The UH-72 is also a lot cheaper to run than the aircraft it replaces so it's an all-round win for the budget.

The feedback I've read (including some from active duty pilots on this board) is that the Lakota has some real issues carry payload in hot weather. Most of them don't have a very high opinion of it.

Still think the entire concept of purchasing a helo that can never deploy is crazy. If the Army really needed this mission filled and wanted to save money, they should do what the Brit's did with their SAR mission and simply sub the entire thing out to a civilian contractor.

Are Lakota pilots also rated to fly other Army helos or if the units they are assigned to deploy, do all these pilots remain stateside while their parent units go to war?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The feedback I've read (including some from active duty pilots on this board) is that the Lakota has some real issues carry payload in hot weather. Most of them don't have a very high opinion of it.

Still think the entire concept of purchasing a helo that can never deploy is crazy. If the Army really needed this mission filled and wanted to save money, they should do what the Brit's did with their SAR mission and simply sub the entire thing out to a civilian contractor.

Are Lakota pilots also rated to fly other Army helos or if the units they are assigned to deploy, do all these pilots remain stateside while their parent units go to war?

Most helicopters have issues with hot/high. The Kiowa's certainly do, as do most UH-1's (although the later UH-1's are better at this than early models). Bell developed the 214 specifically as a UH-1 variant for hot/high for the Iranians back in the early 70's and if you compare it to a 205 you can see the necessary mods, as the 214 has far larger chord blades (3' vs 18" or so for a 205) and a far more powerful engine than the 205 it was derived from. Sadly, due in part to Bell's dislike for anything 2-bladed, you can't buy an new 214 today and there are only 26 214B's flying (the 214A is more numerous, but almost all are still in Iranian hands).

Note the Kiowa's and UH-1's the Lakota's are mostly replacing weren't deploying either as they were long-obsolete in service and just as unfit for combat (which mostly means they lack the ability to fit countermeasures and the crash survivability of a Blackhawk, Little Bird, or Kiowa Warrior, as well as some communications capabilities).

And the pilots of course would be rated on their units other aircraft. They'd still be flying Blackhawks and such for their training, but wouldn't be putting time on the Blackhawks (or other aircraft) doing the fairly large amount of local work that Army and Guard units do. The Guard in particular does a lot of local support flying, especially for units in more rural areas. These units were using obsolete and expensive to operate Kiowa and UH-1's for these duties to free up expensive Blackhawks for deployment. Frankly, it's cheaper for us, and better all-around to keep the Blackhawks operating primarily where their additional capabilities are needed and fly cheaper COTS options over here where you don't need the Blackhawk's additional capabilities. Note that in a general mobilization scenario the UH-72's would almost assuredly deploy, combat rated or not, they'd end up being used as flying jeeps in the rear areas, freeing combat-rated helo's to operate at the front lines.

Edited by mawz
Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to ride in two UH-72s at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) in Febuary 2012. It was suppossed to be a ride in just one UH-72. The Army Aviation Detachement at WSMR had just turned in their UH-1s for the 72s. We were conducting a recon of WSMR and reached the farthest north base camp and had to stop for fuel, which required an engine shutdown. When it came time to resart only one engine cooperated. The Lakota can fly and land on one engine, but they are not cleared for launch on just one engine. The pilots stated that this is a frequent problem with the Lakotas. A second helicopter was sent up from Holliman AFB and we switched rides. The pilots took us up to Salinas Peak, the highest point on WSMR at 9,000ft plus and the aircraft struggled to get their with seven personnel on board during late winter! Plus the seats in the cargo section are on the floor. A very uncomfortable ride when compared to previous Army helos.

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, the Army is gonna buy something it can not take to war except under the most dire circumstances. Yeah that makes a lot of sense... :bandhead2:/>

CUCV sound familiar? Stateside military do a lot of jobs that do not require the expense of a combat ready aircraft. Some of this flying is very technical so good for developing / maintaining the piloting skills useful in combat. The AS350B3 with its excellent hot and high performance (one landed and took of from the peak of Everest) would seem a better choice to me, but the concept is practical and financially sound.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CUCV sound familiar? Stateside military do a lot of jobs that do not require the expense of a combat ready aircraft. Some of this flying is very technical so good for developing / maintaining the piloting skills useful in combat. The AS350B3 with its excellent hot and high performance (one landed and took of from the peak of Everest) would seem a better choice to me, but the concept is practical and financially sound.

Plenty of pictures of CUCV's in the former West Germany (where they would have been in the middle of the shat if the cold war turned hot) and Desert Storm. They were assigned to combat units and deployed with those units.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, the CUCV is very familair to me... my old LRS unit had two. One for the CO, and one for utility/cargo use. I do beleive that those went to war in '91. They had about the same cross country capability as a M151.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Canada used the CUCV as well. We used them to haul around the 81mm and for cargo. On occasion I had to use one as the aid station as well very rarely had access to proper ambulances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CUCVs served a similar purpose freeing up tactical vehicles (M151 and HMMWV) when an off the shelf truck could do the job. They may have deployed overseas but they were never intended for use in combat as a replacement for the M151 or HMMWV.

In the past obsolete aircraft have served on the home front to free up the cutting edge aircraft for war. Again they were never intended at that point to face real combat conditions. The only difference is the Army is buying a modern aircraft appropriate to specific peacetime missions instead of using well used surplus aircraft.

The UH-72 costs about 25% the price of a basic UH-60 (5.9 mil vs 21.3 mil). A new build UH-1Y used by the USMC is actually more expensive than a UH-60 (21.6 mil). A lower spec-ed UH-1 would probably be a bit cheaper, but would also probably have the same no deploy restrictions. For the intended use, the UH-72 is an upgrade over the OH-58 with greater range, payload, ceiling and speed.

For the 345 UH-72s the Army ordered the US paid a little more than $2 billion. If they had purchased an additional 345 UH-60s the bill would have been 7.4 billion. Is 5.4 billion dollars really a good investment for helicopters that are going to spend the majority of their lives hauling 2 or 3 VIPs around a base on a tour, collecting mission data or medevac-ing a lone lost hiker out of the forest?

That 5.4 billion doesn't even factor in the difference in operating costs. $5.4 billion may not sound like much as military expenditures go, but that would fund the entire National Park System for 2 years.

Edited by Aaronw
Link to post
Share on other sites

For the 345 UH-72s the Army ordered the US paid a little more than $2 billion. If they had purchased an additional 345 UH-60s the bill would have been 7.4 billion. Is 5.4 billion dollars really a good investment for helicopters that are going to spend the majority of their lives hauling 2 or 3 VIPs around a base on a tour, collecting mission data or medevac-ing a lone lost hiker out of the forest?

I guess my question is why the Army could not rehab OH-58C's for the "VIP hauling mission or collection mission data"? What exactly is "collection of mission data" anyway?

Also not sure why the US Army is responsible for SAR of hikers in a forest either? Let the civilian authorities handle stuff like that or do what the Brits did and privatize the entire SAR mission.

Just seems like a lot of money for a mission that has nothing to do with combat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a chance to talk to the UH-72 pilots here at the YTC last year, and all of them were "other-rated" pilots...They are part of the 16th Combat Aviation Brigade out of Joint Base Lewis McChord, and so were either Kiowa, Blackhawk or Chinook pilots that were doing a Lakota rotation. It seems they all liked the way it flew, but all of them had issues with it as well...For instance, it could only carry two litters at a time...Seems like the Huey could carry three or four. They have an 8-bird det at The YTC for medical evacuation for the center and surrounding area.

11bee...The US Armed Services in this area ALWAYS help civilians when needed just simply because they don't have the capabilities themselves...They don't have the budgets or equipment...So, NAS Whidbey SAR routinely helps get people off of Mt Rainier, and Fairchild SAR helps people out of the Cascades pretty routinely. And if needed, the Lakotas will do civil medevac, just like the Hueys did before.

One way the crews said they save money is that all maintenance is done by EADS...They birds are under warranty and are contracted out to them. The US Army has nothing to do with it. There are EADS technicians on base that handle all of that by contract. That is one reason why no tactical flying is allowed...It would void the warranty.

Aaron

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually its the other way around, the HMMWV replaced the CUCV, M151, and a slew of other vehicles. The CUCV did do its intended job in war and peace and was not purchased as a peacetime stateside only vehicle. As stated above, tehy were deployed to Europe and Korea where if the balloon had gone up, they would have been expected to perform their assigned duties and not wait for a war designed vehicle to arrive in theater to take its place.

I know that stateside aviation assets, and especially Guard units have more missions than training for war. I was on the short end of the stick more than once when we lost our assigned mission support aircraft to firefighting, disaster relief, or flying politicians around to such things rather than helping us train to how we are supposed to fight. It is what it is. So will these Army Aviation units also have combat capable aircraft such as Blackhawks that they can also go to war with or will they get somebody elses hand me downs when it is time to back in country? Or will they be deploy to war only in dire emergency units?

Locally in Southern California we have had a very good civil (Sheriffs and Fire departments) rotary wing Search and Rescue assets. Very very rarely has any military been called in to supplement them, let alone in their place. it all depends on what authorites want to fund in their capabilities there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in the movie :woot.gif: Had self defense systems and everything...

I realize that we dont have the budgets of the Reagan years anymore. But buying stuff that is not meant to be taken to war, for units that rotate to war, during time of war, is simply hard to fathom. Definitely stepping away from the "train as you fight" concept. But then again that has been going on for awhile... <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in the movie :woot.gif:/> Had self defense systems and everything...

I realize that we dont have the budgets of the Reagan years anymore. But buying stuff that is not meant to be taken to war, for units that rotate to war, during time of war, is simply hard to fathom. Definitely stepping away from the "train as you fight" concept. But then again that has been going on for awhile... <_</>

You really can't win. they can buy stuff that is cheap and off the shelf for really basic stateside missions, or they pay a lot more for aircraft that can deploy but almost never do and are overly equipped to rescue hikers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in the movie :woot.gif:/> Had self defense systems and everything...

I realize that we dont have the budgets of the Reagan years anymore. But buying stuff that is not meant to be taken to war, for units that rotate to war, during time of war, is simply hard to fathom. Definitely stepping away from the "train as you fight" concept. But then again that has been going on for awhile... <_</>

So, we should dump our tankers, electronic recce aircraft and Predators?

Link to post
Share on other sites

OpforJohn, All those things have their wartime missions that they have performed, and are still performing, as intended- tankers, recce, etc. Dump them? No. replace them as they wear out with a platform that is as capable or more so of performing the same mission.

11B, so that sounds like it is a case of getting non deployable equipment for non deployable units. If they are not meant to go to do a wartime mission, and capable of doing that, be it as a combat arms, combat support, or combat service support unit, that unit should be deactivated and those funds and that equipment released and reassigned to units that do. Yes I know the powers that be arent thinking that way...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets see, the Army is gonna buy something it can not take to war except under the most dire circumstances. Yeah that makes a lot of sense... :bandhead2:/>/>

It makes perfect sense. After all I'm sure they have a large fleet of sedans that they don't intend to take to war.. This is no different. Try reading the posts above from mawz, they explain the situation pefectly. (alothough I do agree with 11bee that many of these missions could potentially be done by contractors)

It's all to do with dollars and cents, their is no point filling the roles, which are "non warlike", with a a combat capable helicopter like the UH-60. They cost so much more to operate and support.

Edited by a4s4eva
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, last I knew,every post had a TMP (Transportation Motor Pool) of NTVs (Non Tactical Vehicles) for use. They were not assigned to individual units, but could be used by them as needed. I understand the reasoning behind the decision, but find it highly flawed. All units are supposed to be deployable, in our smaller current military. Equipping them with items that are not deployable, while making sense for the bean counters, does not make sense for those who will have to go down range.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...