Army eyes revolutionary new helicopter fleet

[Ought Six]

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/1...fleet-101611w/

[SSG Rex]

Here we go again...defense contractors trying to make money by replacing what works. The Army just got a brand new helicopter - the Lakota - and it's specifically meant to never be used outside the US, i.e. totally useless!.
Blackhawks have a new model, new mods for active defense against missile threats. Chinooks are more than capable, even if they have been around a while. Apaches, while designed to attack masses armor formations (the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap), are quite effective over here (and would be invaluable in a ground war against Iran). I can see adding a vertical-lift vehicle for high-altitude operations, since traditional rotor-wing craft do not function so well in thin air, thus the higher number of crashes in Afghanistan), but beyond that, what's wrong with keeping what we have?

The Commanche program did not "fail" as the article states - it was a fantastic aircraft according to all who flew it, including General Cody (who flew the first combat Apache missions). It was canceled because it was a money-hog. It would have been a tiny gain in capability for vast expense.
Now you've got Bell and Boeing wooing Pentagon VIPS (who probably have positions lined up at these companies) with the same thing. Small advances for immense expenditures.

[Glockd]

As I understood the Lakota purchase, it was intended as a CONUS Medivac bird, never intended to see combat. Like buying Impala's for MP vehicles, or Mod 1 Ambulances. They were never meant to be tactical assets, stuff that could be deployed away, and used for both civilian and military medical emergencies. In short, Life-Flight helo's for the Army, useful when rushing an injured victim to the best care available, and in most cases, onto LZ's that would not support a larger aircraft like a Blackhawk (dont think the LZ at the hospital my daughter works at could handle an H-60). Given the size of most Army Bases, the purchase made sense, especially when you consider that the UH-1 is pretty much gone from the fleet.

As the first article I read was written, the purchase of the Lakota made alot of sense.

[Ought Six]

Originally Posted by SSG Rex

Here we go again...defense contractors trying to make money by replacing what works.
---
Blackhawks have a new model, new mods for active defense against missile threats. Chinooks are more than capable, even if they have been around a while. Apaches, while designed to attack masses armor formations (the Soviets coming through the Fulda Gap), are quite effective over here (and would be invaluable in a ground war against Iran). I can see adding a vertical-lift vehicle for high-altitude operations, since traditional rotor-wing craft do not function so well in thin air, thus the higher number of crashes in Afghanistan), but beyond that, what's wrong with keeping what we have?
---
Now you've got Bell and Boeing wooing Pentagon VIPS (who probably have positions lined up at these companies) with the same thing. Small advances for immense expenditures.

This program is absolutely the smart thing to do. Helicopter technology, in its present basic form, has been with us since WWII. It has pretty much reached the limits of its development. The CH-47 Chinook is a 1950s design that has been improved over the years. So we are using a sixty year old design, with no replacement in sight.

It takes decades to bring new technologies online and actually produce and deploy them in the field. For example, the V-22 Osprey was developed from the Bell XV-15 program in the 1970s. The RfP for the V-22 was issued in 1982. The first prototype had its maiden flight in 1989. The first production model was delivered for military trials in 1998. The V-22 actually went into service in 2007. So from the first research model to in-service took over 30 years.

To say we should not invest in new technologies and stick with slow, vulnerable, low-altitude helos for the next few decades is simply insane. Looking at new technologies for the future and adequately funding the effort is exactly the right thing to do.
----------

The Army just got a brand new helicopter - the Lakota - and it's specifically meant to never be used outside the US, i.e. totally useless!.

Comments above address this point.
----------

The Commanche program did not "fail" as the article states - it was a fantastic aircraft according to all who flew it, including General Cody (who flew the first combat Apache missions). It was canceled because it was a money-hog. It would have been a tiny gain in capability for vast expense.

How is such a program not a failure?

[SSG Rex]

Originally Posted by Ought Six

----------How is such a program not a failure?

Because it would have been a great asset, save the fact that the defense contractors were dead-set on robbing the taxpayers blind.
I get to see the prices the Army pays for all the Apache components we replace out here - some of them over and over - from engines to bolts and nuts, and it sickens me. I understand an aviation part has to be made to strict standards, both in precise machining and reliability, but the prices I see are beyond astronomical...many many times the cost of manufacture.

Could we stand to get newer stuff? Sure, sometimes you have to get newer tech to keep a tactical advantage. But I highly suspect this isn't much different from car dealer trying to sell you this years model because it's so much better than your last year's model, just to make money off you.
My favorite example is the LMTV replacing the old 5-tons and deuce-and-a-halfs. It's one advantage it that it was designed to be slingload-ready (carried by helicopter), which might have made it acceptable for use by the 101st which operates airmobile. But in all other ways, it's far inferior to the vehicles it replaced. Yet it was foisted on the whole Army at great expense.

I'm just saying let's fill the need for new stuff when it arises, not just sign up to buy every shiny new toy the military-industrial complex wants to sell us.
This is exactly the thing that Ike warned would happen.

[Glockd]

You have your lightfighter buddies to blame for the LMTV, the same as you have those idiots to blame for not having a light tank for the QRF. We dont need no stinkin tanks. But what if the other guy has tanks? Uh, we dont need no stinkin tanks. But? I SAID WE DONT NEED NO STINKIN TANKS!

Oh fuck, send us some tanks. MOMMY!!!!