US Army News and updates general discussion

[Ranger25]

The Solomon blog snafu article on Land 400 is not complimentary. Is this a case of sour grapes by the losing bidders or is there substance?

I take his commentary(SNAFU/Solomon) with a grain of salt but I do think they can offer some good information. I just shift through the editorials on the site.

 

[ADMk2]

The Solomon blog snafu article on Land 400 is not complimentary. Is this a case of sour grapes by the losing bidders or is there substance?

Snafu Solomon the 'ex' US Marine who freely admits that doesn't understand the importance of situational awareness in combat vehicles? (Or combat in general more likely...)

Yeah, his POV isn't exactly relevant to well, just about anything military related...

https://snafu-solomon.blogspot.com.au/2016/08/the-death-of-8x8-ifv-is-situational.html

 

[Raven22]

I just had a look at the articles on that site for Land400, and they don't make a lot of sense. The author complains that the requirements are written too generic so that the manufacturers don't know what to offer (manned/unmanned turret etc), and later complains that the requirments are written specifically to exclude some contenders. Which is it? Are the requirements too specific or too generic?

His love affair with the Sentinel seems strange as well. The reason Sentinel was excluded is pretty simple - it couldn't come within cooee of meeting protection requirements. Since it was by far the largest vehicle, it was no surprise it couldn't be armoured to the same extent as a smaller vehicle.

I think the biggest problem is he seems to fundamentally not to understand what sort of vehicle is being procured. The CRV is constantly referred to as an IFV, which it is not. The advantages of, for example, the Sentinel are not suited to a CRV. It is hardly rocket surgery.

 

[ADMk2]

I just had a look at the articles on that site for Land400, and they don't make a lot of sense. The author complains that the requirements are written too generic so that the manufacturers don't know what to offer (manned/unmanned turret etc), and later complains that the requirments are written specifically to exclude some contenders. Which is it? Are the requirements too specific or too generic?

His love affair with the Sentinel seems strange as well. The reason Sentinel was excluded is pretty simple - it couldn't come within cooee of meeting protection requirements. Since it was by far the largest vehicle, it was no surprise it couldn't be armoured to the same extent as a smaller vehicle.

I think the biggest problem is he seems to fundamentally not to understand what sort of vehicle is being procured. The CRV is constantly referred to as an IFV, which it is not. The advantages of, for example, the Sentinel are not suited to a CRV. It is hardly rocket surgery.

His opinion on just about everything he posts doesn't make a lot of sense...

Apparently Norway is looking at second hand M109's or K9's for it's SP gun replacement program.

This therefore makes them 'better' than PZH-2000 in his estimation.

Couldn't possibly be something as simple as 'cheaper' obviously...

 

[Boagrius]

His opinion on just about everything he posts doesn't make a lot of sense...

Apparently Norway is looking at second hand M109's or K9's for it's SP gun replacement program.

This therefore makes them 'better' than PZH-2000 in his estimation.

Couldn't possibly be something as simple as 'cheaper' obviously...

He's another drop in the ocean of clickbait bloggers from what I can tell. There's nothing exciting about saying that the program is going ahead essentially as planned and that the AMV35 and Boxer simply met the requirements best. I guess the blog becomes much more interesting when you have something salacious to talk about or allude to. Why ruin a good story with the facts eh? :hitwall

 

[Guardian52]

FVL Program Stalls as OH-58 is retired.

I'm sure we were all pretty livid when the US Army announced that the OH-58D Kiowa fleet was not going to be upgraded/replaced with the OH-58F Block II (as originally planned) but in fact the entire fleet of dedicated reconnaissance rotor-winged aircraft will be retired. And now that we're here in August 2016, the question to be asked is "Where do we go from here?"

Well, apparently we're not going anywhere, at least not in the AAS (Armed Arial Scout) category of helicopter. That's correct, ladies and gentlemen, the US Army will be without an AAS until the 2030s when the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) line of aircraft enter development. Notice that I said development, not service. So, not only will the OH-58 Kiowa (and our only AAS) not have a viable replacement for the remainder of the decade; but it's not likely to have one for another fifteen years. And fifteen years is being very generous. I'd like to point out that the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program began in 1981 and that resulted in the V-22 Osprey; which did not enter service until 2007.

So, why is this important?
Well, let's start with the mission and capabilities of the OH-58 Kiowa:
Crew: 2 pilots
Length: 42 ft 2 in (12.85 m)
Main rotor diameter: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)
Height: 12 ft 10 in (3.93 m)
Main rotor area: 14.83 ft2 (1.38 m2)
Empty weight: 3,829 lb (1,737 kg)
Gross weight: 5,500 lb (2,495 kg)
Powerplant: 1 × Rolls-Royce T703-AD-700A or 250-C30R3 turboshaft, 650 hp (485 kW) each

Performance:
Maximum speed: 149 mph (240 km/h)
Cruise speed: 127 mph (204 km/h)
Range: 161 miles (556 km)
Endurance: 2.0 hours
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,575 m)

Armament:
Each pylon (two total) can carry one of the following:
1x M3P (or M296) .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine gun
1x LAU-68 rocket launcher w/ seven 2.75" Hydra 70 rockets
2x AGM-114 Hellfire missiles

So we're talking about an aircraft that can fly in-between buildings, laze targets for Apaches with its Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS), while defending itself with its M2 Brownings (the OH-58F would have been able to carry the GAU-19 tri-barreled .50 Cal). Or, totally ignoring its recon role, it can kill tanks and bust bunkers with four AGM-114s.

So, to make a long story short, the OH-58 Kiowa is being retired without a viable replacement for the next fifteen plus years.

No big deal... Wait... Russian tanks positioning themselves to make another push into western Ukrain? Oops...
: Kremlin deploys more tanks to eastern Ukraine

Thank you for your time, have an excellent day.
Keep Up The Fire
- Guardian
:flame :duel
"Mortis Prius Infamia"

Sources: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/the-100-year-helicopter-sign-of-army-helo-fleets-vulnerability/
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/the-100-year-helicopter-sign-of-army-helo-fleets-vulnerability/
http://www.scoutsout.com/next-generation/oh-58f/
http://www.military-today.com/helicopters/oh58f.htm

 

[Boagrius]

^ Perhaps it has been determined that the Apache/UAV mix will suffice in the interim? I know there has been a big push for the E model to pick up some of the slack in the armed recon role by networking it with various UAVs. Not au fait with the bigger picture though or how effective this is likely to be as a capability "replacement". I'll leave that to the more knowledgeable posters around these parts...

 

[Guardian52]

Yeah and that's a really cool capability, I like the concept. I don't like splitting a 2 man aircrew; one guy worrying about a drone and trying to process that information, while the other guy is left with the threats directly in his line of sight. I prefer to have 2 different manned aircraft, preferably working under the same Chain of Command, supporting each other and not relying on a constant signal link with an unmanned aircraft that may or may not be armed/can't take cover from SAMs and AA behind hills and buildings and such.

 

[Boagrius]

Yeah and that's a really cool capability, I like the concept. I don't like splitting a 2 man aircrew; one guy worrying about a drone and trying to process that information, while the other guy is left with the threats directly in his line of sight. I prefer to have 2 different manned aircraft, preferably working under the same Chain of Command, supporting each other and not relying on a constant signal link with an unmanned aircraft that may or may not be armed/can't take cover from SAMs and AA behind hills and buildings and such.

I suppose that comes down to a question of CONOPS and how you best employ the platforms in question to make the most of the crew's (perhaps divided) attention. Doesn't strike me as a show stopper though. The level of networking being built into something like the Guardian would have to help maintain a very high (perhaps unprecedented) level of crew SA.

 

[Guardian52]

It is a question of CONOPS; that's a very good point. I'm sure the Guardian and its crews could handle the extra information flow; my main beef is that the UAVs in question will not necessarily be armed at all times. An OH-58 Kiowa can be rapidly tasked to provide CAS in the event other assets are not available; very few UAVs can. Also, I don't like the premise of a UAV, presumably armed with AGM-114s and nothing else, providing CAS in most scenarios.
1. A maximum of 2-4 shots (missiles) I'm pretty sure is the payload of the MQ-9
2. I've never heard of JTACs, CCT, TACPs being in direct communication with UAV pilots and I imagine that would be difficult to coordinate directly because they fly UAVs from Las Vegas. I don't like having a middle-man when my life is on the line, and I need CAS ASAP (Danger Close, troops in contact)
3. How many of these UAVs do we have currently in the inventory that can perform this mission requirement with the Guardian? Maybe they've been working on this for years but tbh I don't have that much faith in Obama's (and eventually Clinton's) DOD. I don't think the OH-58 was planned for retirement until somebody at the White House decided this was one of the things they could cut from. So now they're going to design, and mass produces a new system to replace a more effective system that didn't even need an upgrade? Granted, from what I've gathered, the older Kiowa's were suffering in the engine maintenance department, lot's of malfunctions relative to time in the air, but the OH-58F program addressed that with adaptations to the Rolls-Royce engines.

 

[ADMk2]

It is a question of CONOPS; that's a very good point. I'm sure the Guardian and its crews could handle the extra information flow; my main beef is that the UAVs in question will not necessarily be armed at all times. An OH-58 Kiowa can be rapidly tasked to provide CAS in the event other assets are not available; very few UAVs can. Also, I don't like the premise of a UAV, presumably armed with AGM-114s and nothing else, providing CAS in most scenarios.
1. A maximum of 2-4 shots (missiles) I'm pretty sure is the payload of the MQ-9
2. I've never heard of JTACs, CCT, TACPs being in direct communication with UAV pilots and I imagine that would be difficult to coordinate directly because they fly UAVs from Las Vegas. I don't like having a middle-man when my life is on the line, and I need CAS ASAP (Danger Close, troops in contact)
3. How many of these UAVs do we have currently in the inventory that can perform this mission requirement with the Guardian? Maybe they've been working on this for years but tbh I don't have that much faith in Obama's (and eventually Clinton's) DOD. I don't think the OH-58 was planned for retirement until somebody at the White House decided this was one of the things they could cut from. So now they're going to design, and mass produces a new system to replace a more effective system that didn't even need an upgrade? Granted, from what I've gathered, the older Kiowa's were suffering in the engine maintenance department, lot's of malfunctions relative to time in the air, but the OH-58F program addressed that with adaptations to the Rolls-Royce engines.

2-4 Hellfires was also the principal armament of the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior...

MQ-9's are also certified and regularly carry Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II LGB's as well.

 

[Guardian52]

Right, The Kiowa has the same payload capacity in the Hellfire department. That's not really my main beef. Mainly I'm concerned with rapid reaction and survivability of systems. Generally speaking the MQ-9 is not considered stealthy, although its smaller airframe does contribute to a small RADAR cross section. I read Command Authority by Tom Clancy and when he used the Kiowa's in a fictional war with Russia they were flying nap of the earth and popping out from behind buildings and hills; killing T-90s that didn't even know they were there. Although, as I said before, the Reaper has a small RADAR footprint, once it is detected it cannot run or defend itself reliably.

Didn't know the MQ-9 could carry LGBs, that's good. Thanks for that.

 

[protoplasm]

Right, The Kiowa has the same payload capacity in the Hellfire department. That's not really my main beef. Mainly I'm concerned with rapid reaction and survivability of systems. Generally speaking the MQ-9 is not considered stealthy, although its smaller airframe does contribute to a small RADAR cross section. I read Command Authority by Tom Clancy and when he used the Kiowa's in a fictional war with Russia they were flying nap of the earth and popping out from behind buildings and hills; killing T-90s that didn't even know they were there. Although, as I said before, the Reaper has a small RADAR footprint, once it is detected it cannot run or defend itself reliably.

Didn't know the MQ-9 could carry LGBs, that's good. Thanks for that.

For many of the members here, quoting a Tom Clancy novel to support your assertions isn't going to carry much weight, and may well diminish the value of your argument in their eyes.

 

[Guardian52]

Hahaha I know. Using fiction is a bad example, but as a writer, and a huge fan of Tom Clancy I couldn't help myself.

But the fact that I used a novel as an example proves another point; the Kiowa has not been used to its full potential since... I'd say the second gulf war. When was the last time a Kiowa was actually used to kill a tank? And that brings up another question... Does the Army need a dedicated AAS to counter the kind of threats present in the GWOT? But even if the answer is no, shouldn't we be preparing with the ever more likely open war with Iran that might occur within the next 5-10 years?

 

[gf0012-aust]

you can't dumb the debate down to a platform specific issue - the battlespace is far more complex than that and it gets down to the nature of the threat, the players involved, timeline of the conflict etc...

as per the OP, referencing Tom Clancy in a serious forum is an option and path I'd not use again

its like quoting donald trump to run an argument for the need for coherent debate

There is no way in hades that I would use a Kiowa against a threat player such as the Iranians. unless you own the battlespace then you won't be using them in complex and contested space - and its the same reason why you see exercises such as Green Flag where the A-10's only enter the fight once the theatre has been cleansed or managed. Like the F-111's in days gone by, they will struggle to survive and need to enter complex battlespace with escorts and other aircraft "eared up" - or they're going against a very unsophisticated player

Kiowas have bugger all chance of coming home unmolested against a country like Iran unless that theatre was wiped and cleaned before they even started up at their base

 

[Guardian52]

Point conceded on the novel thing, not gonna happen again.

Do we not usually destroy a country's air power before invading? Wasn't that an aspect of the bombing campaign directly preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Would we not see that in a potential invasion of Iran? If so, one could make the argument that we'd have a need and use for the Kiowa in that permissive environment.

But as far as the current war, I know the Kiowa has its uses as a CAS platform. I'd like to point out that the 160th SOAR still uses AH-6Ms and that aircraft has less of an offensive capability than an OH-58 with two Hellfires and a .50 Cal.

 

[Boagrius]

Do we not usually destroy a country's air power before invading? Wasn't that an aspect of the bombing campaign directly preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Would we not see that in a potential invasion of Iran? If so, one could make the argument that we'd have a need and use for the Kiowa in that permissive environment.

But as far as the current war, I know the Kiowa has its uses as a CAS platform. I'd like to point out that the 160th SOAR still uses AH-6Ms and that aircraft has less of an offensive capability than an OH-58 with two Hellfires and a .50 Cal.

I'll let GF speak for himself but I think there is a lot more to the Kiowa's survivability in such a theatre than merely OPFOR airpower. Ubiquitous mobile SHORAD, VSHORAD and MANPAD systems combined with simple trash fire would all be serious issues.

I'd also venture that the CONOPs for AH6 et al. in the spec ops domain would be totally different to using a Kiowa as a useful recon asset - it's a bit of an apples and oranges situation. I imagine the latter would need to be capable of bit more "independence" than the former, which would more routinely be operating as part of a much larger, pre-planned force package. In short, your recon chopper needs to be able to consistently detect and/or encounter the enemy and survive it, while your AH6 is there to maneuver against an enemy/asset you've already more or less identified.

Just my 2c.

 

[Guardian52]

I'm very new to defense forums in general so I am here to learn what I can from whom I can. So I really appreciate the knowledge you're throwing down to me.

Can we all agree that the Kiowa was a valuable asset? If not, why?
Can we all agree that it should not have been retired until it could have been replaced? If not, why?

 

[ngatimozart]

Point conceded on the novel thing, not gonna happen again.

Do we not usually destroy a country's air power before invading? Wasn't that an aspect of the bombing campaign directly preceding the 2003 invasion of Iraq? Would we not see that in a potential invasion of Iran? If so, one could make the argument that we'd have a need and use for the Kiowa in that permissive environment.

But as far as the current war, I know the Kiowa has its uses as a CAS platform. I'd like to point out that the 160th SOAR still uses AH-6Ms and that aircraft has less of an offensive capability than an OH-58 with two Hellfires and a .50 Cal.

Not all battlefield airspace can be guaranteed to be sanitized so such aircraft may become a liability rather than an asset. The US no longer has the same edge in battlespace management and capabilities that it had in 1991 or 2003. This is because other nations have observed, learned, adapted and are catching up, closing the gap. That is how strategies and military capabilities work. The PRC have developed an A2/AD strategy to keep the US as far away as possible from the motherland as feasibly possible so as to prevent the shock and awe that occurred in Iraq (twice) happening to them.

Secondly and more importantly, todays battlespace is changing and the assets within it are part of a series of systems that are required to communicate and transfer data between multiple diverse platforms. So the platforms must have that ability. For example the RAAF can do more with its E7A Wedgetail AEW&C than the USAF can with its E3 AWACS. That's just purely to do with advancements in technology and the Aussies having a different way of doing things.

Thirdly, CAS itself is changing and no longer is platform specific or centric. It can be delivered by multiple platforms ranging from a UCAV to a strategic bomber using PGMs.

Fourthly, the modern battlespace is becoming more netcentric hence sensing and targeting can be performed by different platforms such as UAVs removing manned platforms from hazardous areas.

It's time to move on with new technologies and ways of doing things that actually help the warfighter. The next enemy may not be an irregular asymmetric low tier opponent with no or little anti air capability, but a nation state having a conventional armed forces with the ability and knowledge in how to effectively use them.

 

[Guardian52]

What about the Wedgetail makes it better than the E3? You say the RAAF does things differently? Exactly how when it comes to AWACS deployment?

Keep dropping knowledge bombs on me. I'm really loving the feedback I'm getting.