MedLawPlus.com®
|
Comments
What's up with the Army's Helicopters?
- From: iraqadvisor
Date: 7-16-2005
Subject: low-tech solution.
JJ, pretty good recap of the Army's experience with its transport and attack helicopters lost due to enemy fire. Let me suggest one glaring omission in Army thinking, which is perhaps reflected throughout the U.S. military. We have invested billions of dollars in very expensive, complex helicopters, which are equipped the latest in avionics, ECM, etc. These capabilities are very much needed and great for a fight against the old Sov-pac forces. However, in the low-intensity conflicts, in which we are increasingly engaging, we are not fighting regular opposition mech at stand-off ranges nor do we often have the luxury of wiping out whole urban areas using free-fire zones, artillery, and heavy CAS. Our Army often needs to selectively engage irregular forces at close range in environments, in which we have to be careful of collateral damage (e.g., fighting in Mogadishu or Najaf where we did not want to waste the very civilians we were ostensibly attempting to "liberate"). In those scenarios, most - not all - of the advanced electronics we have onboard the Blackhawk or Apache are rendered irrelevant. What is really needed and is very much lacking in these helicopters is the "archaic" feature of armor. Yes. Both the Blackhawk and Apache have some armor around the pilot seats and covering critical mechanical areas, but both machines lack the level of armor protection seen in the Hind and several other Russian machines. This low-tech, decidedly unsexy feature would save our helicopters from being turned into swiss cheese by illiterate irregulars using AK-47s (7.62) that sell for less than USD 30 in the streets of Baghdad and ancient RPGs, which get sold in bundle packs at every falafel stand in Iraq. At the very least, our transport and attack helicopters operating in low-intensity conflicts should be able to completely shrug off (including protecting the troops onboard) 7.62 rounds - higher levels of protection would desirable. I doubt that the current helicopters can be retrofitted with more armor without unacceptable degradation of speed, maneuverability, and range. I suggest that the Army needs to look at building a new generation of urban warrior helicopters that are loaded with powerplants sufficiently powerful and fuel-efficient to maintain high speed, maneuverability, and range while acting as airborne tanks, protected against 7.62 to 12.5 rounds and RPG hits in most critical areas.
- From: JJRAY
Date: 7-16-2005
Subject: Low tech solution
Thanks much for the comment and I like the idea. Nice to have input from someone who has been there. The issue reminds me of the Air Force and their opposition to the A-10 (the brass didn't want the plane, not sexy enough for the zoomers). Link. Exactly what you suggest: i.e., the A-10 is a low-tech flying tank. Perfect for CAS on a traditional battlefield. Can the Army come up with a helicopter APC that is impervious to small arms fire? How about a helicopter A-10 for CAS in low-intensity / urban environments? I'll take your word that it's technologically feasible (as I haven't a clue). Are you suggesting that we trade much of the high-tech electronic gear and maybe some of the payload capacity for armor? Makes sense to me. As the facts indicate, most of the deaths from crashes come when transports go down. Why can't we develop a transport that is immune at least, as you suggest, to small arms fire? How hard is it to design one that can also survive a direct hit from an RPG? I would think this is a hurdle the Pentagon could get over if it had the desire. How many troops would still be alive if the only thing that could bring down our transport helicopters were surface-to-air missiles?
Add Comment
Index to Reader Comments
|
|
|
|
