No chance cuz...look it up yerself.
<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>
| Warthog Territory Forums https://warthogterritory.net/forum/ |
|
| RAH-66 Canceled and new Army Aviation Plan https://warthogterritory.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=5631 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | ViperTTB [ 23 Feb 2004, 11:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pentagon Press Conference (out of order): Secretary of the Army: First of all, the Block III Apache, which we will now be able to do in some numbers, will have all of the capabilities that we would have built into the Comanche with the exception of one, and that's the low observability. And if you look at the operational environment in which we're now operating and the one we think we'll be operating in the future, we think that is not where we should put our focus. Chief of the Army: To have Comanche survivable and to do the kinds of things we'd have to do in the current threat environment, we have to add things to Comanche, which takes away from its primary stealth capability and also requires an investment of several billion dollars to do that. Lt General Cody, J-3, US Army: Our total upgrades would have been 498, and now we move it to 801. Our current new buys would have been 107; we now move it to 903. What I'd like to do is throw up a couple slides, talk you through in detail what we're going to do, what our plan is, and then I'll open it up to questions. First off, we've had seven major studies in the last 25 years on Army aviation. It intensified after Task Force Hawk, and then we did another study just prior to 9/11. And that study drove us to some decisions as to retiring Vietnam-era aircraft, the Cobra, the Huey, the OH-58 A and C model aircraft, out of the National Guard. And that study also had us cascading some modern aircraft into the National Guard, at some numbers. We've had a changing operational environment, and we've looked at it very carefully since 9/11. War does several things for you, but it also requires you to really focus your efforts and to study exactly what risks you thought you took and what -- how those risks actually play out on the battlefield, as you made them without a good crystal ball. And the operational environment has changed. Comanche was built to go deep. It was built to be a low observable helicopter. It -- which it is. It was built to be a highly responsive reconnaissance aircraft with a 4 billion -- excuse me -- 4 million lines of code, of mission equipment package, so that that it could be the see-first, understand-first and the action agent to act first on the modern battlefield. And we're sure that it could do that. But the operational environment has changed. We're seeing a proliferation of MANPADS, IR missile systems, more sophisticated air- defense systems, as well as, in the joint fires arena, we have now new types of capabilities to deal with the radar threat environment that 13 or 14 years ago we did not have in the joint force. And so that has changed. Okay. What we're seeing on the battlefield is a proliferation of much more sophisticated missiles. What we're seeing on the battlefield is triple-A weapons systems, and where they're being employed is much more sophisticated in terms of target acquisition. If we were to put Comanche on the battlefield today, we would have to do some upgrades to deal with that. We've also seen, in the war in Afghanistan, in the war in Iraq, a greater preponderance in synergy between our ground maneuver forces and our aviation forces. And that changed our operational dictum. We've had nine confirmed helicopters shot down with the loss of 32 lives. We also took a good look at the attrition of our aircraft and loss of lives that we've had since 9/11 in aircraft that have been shot down. And I won't get too much into that because of the classification. But we did look very hard, and we sent people down range. And it gets to the question about why just now? It took us quite a while to study every one of these tragic incidents so we fully understood what the real threat was and what we forecast the threat to be. Reserve component missions. Because we're retiring their aircraft because they're not sustainable and they're 1970 technology aircraft, we were faced with two choices; either not cascade aircraft from the operational force that's being used more, which has about 44 aircraft we've attrited already, or shortening -- or making their formations smaller. At the same time, we're relying more and more on the National Guard and the Reserve component aviation forces. We have in Afghanistan right now, we have them in Iraq. They're part of our rotation base. Yet we have not adequately equipped them with helicopters and formations and their formations don't look like ours today. So we took a good look at that. We looked at our replacement and recap, recapitalization requirements for our fleet. And then we also looked at the emerging unmanned aerial vehicle strategy for manned and unmanned teaming with our helicopter fleet, and what it means as we move to the FCS-equipped force in terms of the requirements for reconnaissance, surveillance and target acquisition. And then we looked through the lens again of this, and the task force came back to us and said: Here's the capabilities you need to have for Army aviation. And so it was a capabilities-based study, not targeted towards Comanches in particular. And what we had in the balance, when it was all said and done, the task force came back to us and said: We've got to deal and fix right now our aircraft survivability equipment across our fleet. We need to fully fund the Apache Block III Longbow. The Longbow with full Block III capability gives us all the digital connectivity, the battlefield awareness, the battlefield situational understanding that we would get with Block I Comanche. And oh, by the way, the fire-control radar on Longbow Block III is the same fire-control radar that Block I Comanche would have. So they recommended that. They also recommended that we needed to continue to pursue retiring the Kiowa Warrior aircraft, which was an interim reconnaissance aircraft, and buy a new reconnaissance aircraft. They recommended buying 303 light utility aircraft to replace the Hueys and OH-58s in the Guard; recommended buying more Blackhawks. We have a Blackhawk buy in the current pres-bud, and that number was about 100, and they recommended buying another 80 Blackhawks, which we could give to the National Guard as well as to replace the ones that we lost; buying more Chinooks -- 50 of them; buying 25 fixed-wing cargo; but also invest in common cockpits and fly-by-wire. Common cockpit will bring us closer to where the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment's aircraft are, so that we'll have our UH-60 Mikes that are coming and our CH-47 Foxtrots have the same cockpit, the same technology upgrade that we have in our special operations. And that will also proliferate on the battlefield more situational understanding and awareness in our assault and lift aircraft; and then invest in our aviation munitions for our rockets and for our Hellfire and the joint common missile; initiate RDT&E funds in some of the tech base that we have in Comanche for the Joint Multirole Helicopter for 2020, and then resource our new UAV strategy. So that was in the balance, and then what we had in these years, 121 Comanches coming off the line, a Block I that was designed for low-observable. It would have been a reconnaissance aircraft replacing the Kiowa Warriors. And it has great diagnostics; it has two-level maintenance. But, as the chief already explained to you, based upon the current operational environment we have, we would have to put more money into those aircraft to make them survivable through the full spectrum of what the study told us are the emerging employment of Army helicopters that we had. So what this enables us to do -- and this is why we made the decision -- we went here and said we want to buy 800 new aircraft, fully recap 1,400 of our aircraft, fully buy and wire our fleet for aircraft survivability, and double the buy of our aircraft survivability B-kits, the jammers and the chaff and flare systems. It gives us 796 new aircraft; it fully fleshes out our multifunctional brigades that we're building for the Army, for the active and the Guard; enhances our Reserve components; and it moves us towards modularity, to where we're going. I just want to touch on this just for a minute because it's kind of important to understand. Today we have about seven different formations in Army aviation depending upon what division, what corps or what National Guard division you're in. And the study came back to us and said if you want to fight Army aviation as part of the joint force in the air-ground regime that we anticipate to fight with the Future Combat System-equipped force, they recommended to us that it needs to be at the brigade level, it needs to be resourced with two attack battalions of 48 aircraft; a lift battalion of 30 aircraft; a general support battalion of eight command and control helicopters, 12 CH-47s, 12 medevac aircraft; a self-sustaining aircraft support battalion, with its own AVIM unit; and then the Class IV UAV unit. When you lay that out -- and that would be for all our heavy divisions, a very similar design for our three light divisions, except here we would have the light reconnaissance aircraft vice the Apache Attack Helicopter -- you see that we've standardized our formations between the active component and the Guard component. When you lay that bill on the table, with the attrition aircraft we have and the retirement of over 880 Vietnam aircraft, we were short aircraft even with the buys we had in the current budget, not to mention the fact that we have to recap many of these aircraft based upon the operational tempo we have on them. So we're moving to these formations. In fact, the 3rd Infantry Division, when it goes back to Operation Iraqi Freedom, it will go back with this aviation brigade. Its original aviation brigade only had 18 Apaches, 16 Black Hawks, did not have this and did not have this, and that was a heavy division design. Now this is a complex chart, and I made it that way, because it's the only way I understand it. But when we looked at the missions areas of attack, reconnaissance, reconnaissance and surveillance with our UAVs, utility and cargo assault aircraft -- and I'll talk about fixed wing here in a second -- what's in green is what we had funded. We only had funded so many Longbows in Block I and II; did not have Block III funded. We were going to divest ourselves of the 605 Kiowa Warriors that we have, and we were going to buy Comanche and go out. What we can do now is go to Block III and take our 501 Longbows, 284 between now and '11, to make full up Block III and place up the other residual 237 to bring us up to 501 Block III Longbows; divest ourselves of the Kiowa Warrior and purchase a new armed reconnaissance helicopter with the cast common cockpit, so it's digital connectivity, about 368 of them, and recap our A-model Apaches for the National Guard. On the UAVs, right now, this is where we would have been: We've already got Hunter; we're working an early buy-out for the Shadow; we just started producing and procuring the Raven, which is the small UAV. And what we're able to do now is procure more UAVs, accelerate the extended-range and multipurpose UAVs so that we can fully work the manned and unmanned teaming with our helicopter fleet. By the way, a Block III Longbow will give you level-four control of a UAV. In other words, what the UAV sees, the Longbow will see. If the Longbow pilot wants to take charge of the UAV package that's 50 miles out in front of him and drive the sensor package, he will be able to do that. And so that's how we're working and pulling transformational-type technology forward. On the utility fleet, if we stayed where we were, we had the UH- 60L, and we were going to buy about 101 in our program. This new program continues with the 101, but also buys another 80. It also buys 303 of this light utility helicopters to replace these aircraft, and then it converts -- some of our Ls will come to the Mike-model line, will have an A-to-A UH-60 recap, and it gets our program set up out here to 2020. The CH-47, we had a new buy in here of 20, plus we had six that we'd already had funded, and this also allows us to accelerate that. But also, for both of these aircraft in here we fully funded common cockpit for both of these airframes as well as fly by wire so we can deal with the austere brownout conditions that our pilots have been encountering, so that they can better land the aircraft in brownout conditions. And then when we looked at our fixed-wing fleet, we're already set up on our special electronic missions aircraft. We'll be moving from the RC-12 and RC-7 out to the aerial common sensor aircraft. That's a joint program. That's been on track. What has not been on track is our cargo aircraft. Right now we have about 40 of the C-23A's and B's in the Reserves, and we're looking to replace that with a much more capable aircraft, about 25 of them, that we'll put in the National Guard to meet intra-theater lift requirements for the new modular formations we have, as well as for the homeland security, homeland defense missions that the Guard has. So the bottom line is, 70 percent of the current fleet we have we'll be able to either upgrade, recapitalize and buy new, compared to trading off 121 Comanches. And that's what this whole program's about. National Guard General: So you can see that the organizations now, while they today don't match, they're not plug-and-play, they're not interoperable, and they're certainly not interchangeable, we insisted -- and the Army has come up with an organization that makes us look exactly alike, we'll be equipped exactly alike, and we'll be -- we will fight exactly like our active-duty counterparts, as soon as the same modules that you see here are resident in the Reserve component as they are in the active duty, and the same numbers apply. Edited by - viperttb on Feb 23 2004 9:13 PM |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 23 Feb 2004, 11:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
good ridance. I love Commanche but it had no mission left. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | ViperTTB [ 23 Feb 2004, 16:24 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here's the link to the Army Press Conference http://www.pentagon.gov/transcripts/200 ... -0484.html Edited by - viperttb on Feb 23 2004 6:13 PM |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 23 Feb 2004, 20:13 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I would personally like to see most of the Army dollars go into their soldier 21 program. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 23 Feb 2004, 23:52 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Swell. The Apache is a piece of shit. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 02:43 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why do you say that? the AH-64D is a wicked helicopter, and the AH-64D/OH-58D Apache/Kiowa combo is lethal, as you yourself can testify, Snipe "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 24 Feb 2004, 02:47 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I never said it wasn't lethal.....it is, big time. It just doesn't work very often, and is a maintenance nightmare. And extremely expensive. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 02:56 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Why do you say it doesn't work very often? I'm almost positive that 95% of the IAF's AH-64A fleet is in top condition. Mechs say they love working on it. "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I am almost positive you are wrong. Take a look at the mission readiness rates of both the A and D model Apaches in ODS and OIF. Abysmal. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:34 ] |
| Post subject: | |
BR might be right. Israeli and American 64's are operate and are constructed differently. |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:37 ] |
| Post subject: | |
They might've redesigned them, but usually the Israelis just do add on enhancements. If they did, i wouldn't blame them. Ours have all kinds of issues. <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:48 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Bring back the CHEYENNE in a 2004 version. |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:53 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Which helicopter was it that was cancelled after the Key West agreements giving all fixed-wing aircraft to the USAF? "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | tritonal [ 24 Feb 2004, 03:58 ] |
| Post subject: | |
CHEYENNE was cancelled after the Air Force got nervous that it over-stepped the agreements. I believe that's how the A-10/AH-64 evolved. |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 04:11 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Got any pics or specs on this Cheyenne helicopter? I've never heard of it and I'm curious "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 24 Feb 2004, 09:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Do a google for AH-56 Cheyenne <img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 10:16 ] |
| Post subject: | |
That entails working... Can't one of you guys just do it for me? "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | mattlott [ 24 Feb 2004, 10:20 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Now now be a good productive member of society, not a web wealfare socialist. lol |
|
| Author: | M21 Sniper [ 24 Feb 2004, 10:32 ] |
| Post subject: | |
No chance cuz...look it up yerself.
<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0> |
|
| Author: | prkiii [ 24 Feb 2004, 10:46 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Here are a couple pictures <img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/ah-56-1.jpg" border=0> <img src="http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v70/prkiii/AH-56_1.jpg" border=0> Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood moderator.....<img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle> If you can't go fast...go Ugly |
|
| Author: | boomer [ 24 Feb 2004, 12:40 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Apache is fine and a world beater. What in the world is the new "armed recon" helo going to do that an armed UAV cant do? We're going to end up with "Commanche lite" and spend another billion doing it! Is the Navy doing the Armys thinking now? Cheyenne was just a faster helo, cool at the time when EVERYTHING was going faster, but no big deal. "We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel ! <img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0> |
|
| Author: | ViperTTB [ 24 Feb 2004, 12:44 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Pretty pictures (well ugly slides at least) <img src="http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Feb2004/040223-D-6570C-003.jpg" border=0> <img src="http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Feb2004/040223-D-6570C-004.jpg" border=0> <img src="http://www.pentagon.gov/news/Feb2004/040223-D-6570C-005.jpg" border=0> |
|
| Author: | ViperTTB [ 24 Feb 2004, 13:06 ] |
| Post subject: | |
I don't fully understand the armed recon helo either. Here they are talking about it at the press conference: Q: The armed recon 368, is that a new development? And how is that different from Comanche? Cody: We have several ideas of how we're going to approach that. How would I answer that, Mr. Bolton? Bolton: As soon as you give me the requirement, we're going to put that on the street and let industry tell us which way to go. Edited by - viperttb on Feb 24 2004 12:06 PM |
|
| Author: | bigross86 [ 24 Feb 2004, 14:19 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Thankx for the pix and info guys. I knew I could count on you! Snipe: <Razzberry!> "Retreat, hell! We just got here!"-Captain Lloyd Williams, 2nd Marine Division, Belleau Wood, France, WWI |
|
| Author: | ViperTTB [ 25 Feb 2004, 14:52 ] |
| Post subject: | |
Anyone know how this Brigade Aviation Element will work? Will it be under the S-3 officer or seperate from the S3? Edited by - viperttb on Feb 25 2004 7:12 PM |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|