Senate The Weekly Discussion of Military Technology

We primarily use helicopters because they're integral to the Army-A-10s, and all fixed-wing aircraft that can shoot missiles or drop bombs for that matter, are strictly Air Force only. Plus of course there's some things a helicopter can do that A-10s really can't-hover, for one thing, which makes very precise long-range attacks relatively easy. Plus there's the matter that a big part of an attack helicopter's job is escorting transport helicopters, whose max speed is not even close to what any sort of fixed-wing jet normally flies at-you want your transports to be able to keep up with the escorts, after all.

And yes, the AH-1Z is the four-blade rotor variant, among a whole pile of other improvements. Some, iirc, are going to be new manufacture, while some will be rebuilt AH-1Ws.

 

Aren't helicopters able to defend themselves? The Blackhawk can mount many of the guided weapons and machine guns for taking out ground opposition. As for fighter opposition... attack helicopters can mount air-to-air missiles, but they are only short-ranged. Not to mention that they aren't as capable of evading enemy missiles.

Although most fighters can't stay airborne at speeds under 100 kph, their stall speed is about equal to that of a Blackhawks' maximum speed. The advantage of being able to hover really doesn't have the same tactical advantage that it once did, as technology allows for more precision-based ranged attacks to be made.

The issue I have is that Apaches often fly missions that have been done with fixed-wing aircraft more effectively. Escorting troop helicopters is the kind of duty that the AH-1 was originally designed for, but the Apache was designed for ground attack specialization. Being a tank-buster. It has been used for missions in Iraq and Desert Storm where their hover abilities proved to be more of a liability. Escort and close-ground support are really the only missions where they are better than an A-10, but for virtually every other situation, being able to carry a greater warload at twice the speed and range makes fighters the best tools for the job.

The major difference between the AH-64 and AH-1 is that the Apache can take more punishment by ground forces and has more sophisticated targeting systems; but both these aircraft are just as vulnerable to SAM and fighter opposition. Despite their strengths, helicopters really have severe limitations that don't justify their expense. I am primarily addressing how much less more punishment an A-10 can take which would otherwise take down an AH-64. One RPG to the rotor could bring down any kind of helicopter, but the rugged design of the A-10 makes it capable of taking outrageous amounts of punishment and still be able to return to base.

 

Sure, you can mount weapons on a Blackhawk, but you'd need another helicopter to guide anything seriously lethal, like Hellfires. SOCOM's AH-60 has this capability, but regular Army Blackhawks and Chinooks do not. And to add the ability to guide weapons, you'd be cutting down on how much a Blackhawk can carry weight-wise, IE troop and cargo capacity. Not to mention that an Apache or Cobra is a much, much more difficult target to target from the front or rear-it's a good deal skinnier frontally and from the rear than a Blackhawk is. That makes it harder to shoot down, plus of course you can armor the crap out of an attack helicopter because the only weight you need to worry about carrying is weapons, which isn't the case with a cargo helicopter.


The advantage of being able to hover really doesn't have the same tactical advantage that it once did, as technology allows for more precision-based ranged attacks to be made.

Hovering is actually the centerpiece of Apache attacks when combined with an OH-58 observation helicopter; the OH-58 can get in very close and use it's mast-mounted sight to guide Apache-launched Hellfires from beyond visual range of the enemy.

And the A-10 is virtually worthless in a crowded city. It's optimized for destroying tank formations, and is designed as more of a blunt-force instrument than any attack helicopter-it's nowhere near as multipurpose as either an Apache or a Cobra. Not to mention that the normally low operating altitude of attack helicopters largely nullifies the SAM threat, and targeting helicopters with RPGs is not as viable an option as it may seem- approximately 130 helicopters have been lost in the current war, with about a third of those due to enemy action, and hardly any of those due to RPGs:

The List

The primary reason Blackhawks proved so vulnerable to RPG fire in Somalia was that they were being used as mobile sniper-fire platforms, which necessitated going very low and slowly. In hindsight, this was a bad idea, and Apaches have thus far not proven particularly vunerable to enemy fire-out of 26 Apache losses over 8 years, 11 have been due to enemy fire.

And if you haven't noticed, we're not fighting tank formations anymore, and that's where attack helicopters have proven to be worth their weight in gold. A-10s are extremely specialized aircraft; attack helicopters are excellent general-purpose designs that can do a variety of things, which is turning out to be alot more important on the battlefield than being fast, which is really the only practical advantage attack jets have over helicopters.

 

Wow, great helicopter outline Boba...It looks like everything has been covered, and I'm kind of sad I missed the discussion...

Ironically, just last night, R. Lee Ermy covered helicopters on his new History Channel show, "Lock N Load." If anyone is interested in anything remotely close to military technology, it's a great source. I think it's also better than his old show "Mail Bag," because every episode covers a unified theme.

 

Well, I do have a new discussion idea-the expansion of the 'brown-water navy', IE the new America-class LHAs that are being built for the Marines. There's going to be at least four, and I suspect possibly as many as eight, of these built. They mainly interest me because they're aircraft-only, and as such, could be excellent for air-assaulting Army light infantry in the event we ever have to attack a port or god forbid, a beachhead.

The main reason this strikes me as possible is that the Wasps are still relatively young ships (the lead ship is only 20 years old, and doesn't seem to be being retired anytime soon), and with the Americas coming online, we'll have between twelve and sixteen ships capable of transporting very large amounts of infantry by helicopter, and supporting them with heavy armor and fire support almost immediately. The Americas will be able to carry approximately 1,687 troops per ship; the Wasps can carry 1,894. So assuming a total of twelve ships, you could land just over 20,000 troops, which is quite alot of force by today's standards.

 

I'll just make it absolutely clear that I have not been in battle, so I don't know the value of anything by witnessing it first-hand. All I base my assessment on it from what I've read and addressed with other people who have been in the military.

And what of the rotor blades? They are really the broadest target on any helicopter. That makes the cross section almost as great as a blackhawk. One successful hit on one of those blades would result in the loss of the aircraft. Unlike planes that could lose huge sections of their wings and still stay airborne, it's the constant need of a 1:1 weight/lift ratio that an AH-64 can fly or drop like a stone. Lose just one engine or the tail rotor and it's out of commission.

A-10's can mount hellfire missiles as well. Eight hardpoints with four missiles each effectively doubles that of what an AH-64 can carry, plus that 30 mm avenger cannon, which can fire a wide variety of rounds at unbelievable rates. With its greater range, warload capacity, durability, speed, and versatility; it is what I would trust more than any attack helicopter to get the job done.

Granted that an A-10 does cost more than a Apache, but its performance more than makes up for the marginally higher production and upkeep costs that go into it. It does have a minimum stall speed, which makes it impossible to sit on station until orders are given... that's something which its range can't compensate for. It must be launched from an airstrip, but having a greater range can still make it able to strike from much further away. And its maximum speed allows it to respond faster to a situation when it's needed.

Although originally designed as a tank-buster, the A-10 can perform more subtle tasks in which it acts as a missile platform, receiving targeting data from a 'flying egg' observation copter. At the same time, being more versatile with the ability to mount air-to-air missiles and guided weapons weighing up to 1000 KG. Being faster, it can quickly respond in the midst of a battle and exit dangerous airspace when it finds itself in too hot a zone.

It's not just speed in which makes an A-10 better than an Apache or Cobra. It's the steep increase in their performance and survivability that makes them more practical and versatile in comparison to the alternatives.

A-10 Advantages:
Speed/acceleration/climb rate
Range 3x or greater with drop tanks
Warload 4x gross weight
Avenger cannon w/ 1100 rounds
Survivability
Versatility

Apache Advantages:
No stall speed/close-in ground support
Top of the line tactical weapons computer and sensors
Gunner and turret-mounted cannon w/300 rounds

Clearly the A-10, which is really a poor-performing jet fighter, still has the advantage over the Apache in most retrospecs. It doesn't have the means to perform close-in ground support, where a turret mounted gun and stationary platform would be most useful. Th

 

But the two can't be readily compared because they have such differing mission-sets.

What if I pointed out that the B-52 carries 105x more ordnance than the A-10, so the B-52 must be superior? Except the B-52 and A-10 have completely different mission capabilities.

Boba is absolutely correct when he pointed out that it is rather difficult to actually hit a rotor with an RPG. In open ground, the Apache's cruising speed is about 160+MPH..

Imagine standing 200ft away and shooting a bow and arrow at a Corvette when it races past at 160MPH... Now, imagine trying to hit a specific section of the Corvette with the arrow, say one of the tires as it speeds by.... It could happen, but I wouldn't count on it. (unless you have the luxury of launching dozens of arrows...)

The RPG is a pretty unwieldy weapon, and has a low hit probability to begin with. Not only that, but an RPG warhead doesn't explode in a big ball of fire like in the movies. It uses a HEAT warhead, which is a focused jet of hot gas and metal, or an HE/frag warhead, which releases shrapnel. The rotor blades of modern helicopters are made from composite material, which are resistant to both.

In close quarters, the Apache is going to probably use its nose mounted sensor array and chain gun to shoot 30mm reminders as to why the RPG firer should probably be elsewhere and not bothering it.

Are you comparing the Apache to the A-10 to suggest that the A-10 should replace the Apache, or just as a fun curiosity?

 

Maximum warload of your comparison is actually 5x. Let's not forget the sheer size of that aircraft, agility, lack of a gun, low thrust/weight ratio, cost, impracticality of such a huge warload for ground support, ext. All those clearly don't make the B-52 favorable for close-ground support roles.

I would say that your comparison neglects to take into account the other factors that makes the B-52 an unfavorable choice. I have.

Do you know what the hit ratio was for anti-aircraft guns on the Battleship Yamato? It was less than one in a hundred rounds that actually hit their target. If you are talking about a single guy with an RPG aiming, then you will not get a very likely hit on an attack helicopter (and they often aren't traveling at their maximum speed, especially when they are escorting transports as they are landing) If you have three, four, five, or six all firing at the same target, then the likelihood of a hit goes up enormously.

Maybe it won't be RPG's but shoulder-mounted Air to Air missiles. Those would be lethal to an Apache, but it would be difficult to take down an A-10 without something mounted on a vehicle.

I intensely dislike branches of the military using certain equipment that is inferior simply because of regulations. For instance, the F-35C is the WORST variant of that aircraft because it's inferior to the F-35B, which can take off and land vertically, but also the most expensive(The costs go into making the aircraft able to land on carriers). The F-35A doesn't have VSTOL, but is the most affordable variant because it isn't equipped with a lift fan. The F-35B is about three million dollars cheaper than the Navy model and it does. If the Navy weren't so fixated on making a version that was carrier-based (sacrificing VSTOL capability), they wouldn't be squandering their funds on a less capable and more-expensive fighter.

Why spend more for something that is inferior? I dislike wasteful practices such as these. The same thing goes for me seeing the Army using helicopters because they are not at liberty to use A-10's and F-16's... only the Air Force can. So why resort to something inferior instead of just lifting regulations so the Army can operate fighters if they want to?

To answer your question, I suppose that this isn't really going to happen, so it's just a fun curiosity.

 

Just did some more thinking on the possibility of having enough amphibious assault ships to finally make a large-scale (by which I mean a division-sized element, certainly nothing like the million men that went ashore at Normandy) landing feasible:

Assuming that eight of the new LHA-type ships are indeed built, and all eight Wasps are retained as well, you'd be able to have a split air-mobile/mechanized-infantry/armored assault force of fairly prodigious size. I'm not sure what the "split" is in your usual Amphibious Ready Group, but an MEU generally has 4 M1A1s, 6-17 LAVs, 15 or so AAVs, and 8 towed howitzers for heavy equipment. Now, if you wanted to embark say, four mechanized-infantry battalions and a tank battalion or two aboard our eight Wasps, I'm wondering if it'd possible to cram all that equipment onboard the current force of thirty-six amphibs, and put air-mobile infantry from the 101st or 10th into the Americas.

Of course, I'm sure the Marines would be mad at us stealing "their" ships.

But you could use the air-mobiles to strike deep and grab a nearby airfield or what have you, while the track toads chew up any emplaced defenses on the beachead or harbor...

Thoughts, beyond that the Army needs it's own bloody ships?

 

I like the idea.

I'm pretty sure that the Wasps (and now Americas) are equal to what the British, French, and probably some other NATO nations that I'm forgetting right now are using. I know it's easy to think of them as "little aircraft carriers," but "Amphibious Assault ship" sounds so much better. It's also because brown water conflicts will continue to have more of an importance...

I'm surprised you didn't mention a role that these assault ships would be perfect for, closing into well within striking distance of a port, and engaging in anti-pirate operations, ala Somalia pirates...I can't think of anything better.

But I think this means that we'll see a further specialization in roles.

The Army is going to continue to operate in air transported units. The Marines, amphibious operations, and then the blue Navy and Air Force support everything.

I see a potential contingency like this:

1)The initial "speed bump/fast reaction" units like the 101st get dropped in. Followed by- 2)A Marine Expeditionary Unit lands on the beach. Followed by- 3)Traditional Army heavy division or light infantry is deployed.

I can't see Army units being tasked out to these.

 

Yeah, same here really, which is unfortunate-we did supply the majority of troops for the island-hopping campaign in the Pacific, after all, and Normandy's biggest amphibious invasion of all time was thoroughly Army.

The main thing, I think, is the sheer amount of equipment a mechanized division comes with; you'd need alot of ships to force-land the To&E for one. A light-infantry division, not so much.

 

Most of the helicopter-related issues have been addressed, so I'll just point out that attack helicopters' ability to loiter and provide CAS outstrips any fixed-wing aricraft--again, they do different things altogether. But I felt compelled to comment on this:

From what I've read, the F-35C is in many ways the most capable of the JSF variants. It has larger wings (resulting in higher fuel capacity) and a more durable fuselage (resulting in greater durability) and a substantially larger internal weapons bay than the F-35B (which cannot equip 1,000 lb. bombs). The capabilities which you dismiss as wasted funds are capabilities that the Navy decided after extensive review that were important to their ability to carry out their missions.

Aside from STOVL capability, the F-35B is actually the weakest of the JSF aircraft types, with the shortest range, smallest internal weapons bay and overall payload, poorest handling characteristics, and most proprietary parts.

EDIT:

I, for one, would like to see some better supporting fire capability from the Navy. The Zumwalt-class is a step in the right direction, but with the arsenal ship dead in the water (no pun intended), and the Zumwalts tapped out at two or three, we need more.

 

I've been reading about the Marine desire to have the Iowas back, and while I don't necessarily think that's all that great an idea (they're very old ships that parts aren't made for anymore, after all) I do think they need to come up with something.

Rail guns seem to offer alot of promise here as well, with the potential velocities imparted to smaller-than-16-inch projectiles. When your projectiles are moving at hypersonic velocities, it doesn't really matter how much explosive you have in them-the sheer kinetic energy will vaporize just about whatever it hits. Think about the effect the 120mm sabot round for the M1 has, and then consider that it's a chemically-powered round that doesn't possess anything like the potential velocity a round from a railgun would have.

Plus you'd probably get way better range from a railgun compared to any current weapon-naval gunfire would no longer be limited to fifty or so miles inland anymore.

And for area targets-well, MLRS would seem to be fairly adaptable to shipboard use, I'd think.

 

Is there really that much need for naval bombardment anymore? I mean these days an AC-130 or a B-52 outfitted with JDAMs can deliver firepower pretty accurately AFAIK, and they're not limited by the coastline. Besides, the Zumwalts seem pretty expensive for only two guns' worth of artillery support, whereas the Littoral Combat Ship seems like it should do the job, as well as fulfilling other roles.

 

Well, just to point out:

If you'd talked to the Chairman of the JCS in 1970 and told him that the USSR wouldn't be a major threat anymore in 20 years, and that in 30 years terrorists, drug lords, peacekeeping, humanitarian missions, and pirates would be the primary focus for national defense, he'd probably look at you like he'd just spotted a unicorn.

Circumstances change, oftentimes quite rapidly, and as most of the world is accessible by sea, naval gunfire is still an important asset.

 

Not only that, but the main advantage shipborne fire has over air-dropped munitions is the sheer volume of fire support and the fact that they can hang around the battlefield for days.

The Iowa-class could launch a 2,000lb shell every 30 seconds per gun. Granted, not every gun was fired at once, but that's still an average of about 5-6 shells every minute. The 80's/Gulf War Iowas carried almost 3 dozen Tomahawk missiles.

(JDAMs also comes in 2,000lb versions, so think of the Iowa as firing volley after volley of JDAM's)

Of course, the Iowa isn't going to be coming back, but that's the rationale behind ships like the Zumwalt with its mixture of guns and missiles. It's a specialized role, and I don't think we need much more than the 3 Zumwalts that are budgeted for, but it is a role that can't be duplicated.

 

The big problem that I see--most specifically with the poor Navy--is that we tend to simply up and do away with capabilities without finding replacements for 'em. There simply is nothing else in the inventory that can do what the old Iowas could in terms of firepower. The Zumwalt-class doesn't even fit into the same bracket, though it's certainly billed as performing a similar job.

The Tomcat got the chop as well, and now we don't really have any carrier-based interceptors. Yes, there are still Super Hornets and eventually Lightning IIs, but neither platform is as fast, and neither has the capbility to engage as many targets at two-thirds the range. Come to think of it, I don't think there's a single aircraft in the inventory that is capable of equipping the Phoenix missile...

The Zumwalt-class is a step in the right direction, but I think we need to continue the trend and ensure that when we retire platforms, the capabilities of them don't die off completely.

 

Actually-there's a new version of the AMRAAM in the pipeline that's = to Phoenix in range.

And just a factoid that relates to conventional explosive shells v railgun-fired rounds with no explosive... :


The Space Rock From Hell

Granted, railguns aren't going to be firing asteroid-sized rounds, but I think it goes to show that sheer kinetic energy can absolutely destroy things, even if it doesn't directly hit them.

 

Well, it now seems that I'll rather have to eat my hat.

 

That's what you get.

 

Speaking of getting, I think I'm going to pick up an HSGI Woosatch... They're made with similar quality materials to the Eagle RRV, and it costs substantially less even with the soulder padding option.

 

Yeah, I own an HSGI Woosatch-I like the lack of integrated mag pouches; it's better IMO to set the vest up to you, instead of vice-versa.

 

I couldn't agree more. Besides, couldn't you stuff a spare mag or two into the admin pouch of the 'Woo? I mean, I don't foresee needing more than the 4-7 I usually carry, but the option's there if you need it, right? The vest is quite appealing, and I can't wait until payday rolls around so I can drop some coin and get the rig in the mail. Now I just need a new mag pouch (the Condor six-mag shingle I used during Javeling Thrust was...wanting), and I'll have a pretty solid 2nd line setup. Then, I work on a proper 1st line... And before anybody suggests it, I'm steadfastly NOT going to drop $400 on the bloody Crye belt! I don't care how Multicam-o-licious or padded it is, I refuse to spend more on a belt than I did on my PS3!

 

F-35/B can operate without a runway at all. It can even use its VSTOL ability to take off with a full weapons load in only 500 feet.

Aside from range, the F-35A is the variant with the greatest performance. And it is the cheapest. This is the best variant of the F-35 in most regards.

The Navy and Marine variants each sacrifice for being able to take off without the need for an airbase. They each sacrifice performance in climb rate, maximum speed, and thrust/weight ratio. The lift fan on the F-35 is dead weight. The reinforced landing gear of the Navy version are dead weight and the wings are added drag and weight. (wings have function, in flight though)

The marine version can't carry 2000 IB JDAM bombs internally, but when would you really carry such weapons anymore? Modern warfare isn't about sheer destructive power; it's precision. F-35's will more likely carry more bombs of smaller size than bunker busters.

And don't forget that the lifespan of Navy fighters are significantly shorter than that of the Air Force planes which land on runways. The stress put upon Navy planes by catapults and arrester hooks are extreme, which is another reason to use VSTOL instead. You also get the advent of being able to land almost anywhere, whereas Navy planes are dependent upon carriers or airstrips. This makes the F-35B the most versatile fighter with the F-35C being significantly less flexible and the F-35A being equal to that of a standard fighter.

 

But you're not really defining 'best,' sir. The Alpha is the cheapest because it doesn't have any of the additional capabilities of the other two. It does what the Air Force needs it to and nothing more; the other variants (generally-speaking) meet the requirements of the branches for which they are intended. The Charlie has the longest range and loiter capbility, the best low-speed handling characteristics, and the most durable construction of any of them. The Bravo makes lots of sacrifices in order to perform its STOVL role--among them, a greatly-reduced payload, substantially-shorter range, and poorer handling characteristics. It is very much a compromise aircraft (that has only gotten more compromised as time has gone on)... The incompatibility with JDAMs and the like is a relatively recent concession in oder to cut down the pricetag at the cost of capabilities. Same story with the reduced wing size.

I'm actually rather worried about the viability of the JSF design, as I think it purports to do too many things... The last aircraft I can recall that was intended to do everything under the sun and do it all equally well was the Aardvark, which was such a cluster that it wound up being viable for exactly two jobs (which lighter, cheaper, more reliable planes could do just as well)...

As is the case with the Bravo specifically, I'm afraid that the 'cost as a fixed requirement' mindset of the JSF acquisition process and congressional demand for 'multirole strike fighters' (over dedicated platforms for different jobs) will result in an aircraft that is a jack of all trades and master of none. And with bleeding-edge Su-30MKIs turning up in India and possibly the PRC, I don't know if that's going to cut it.