Buying wings but operating rotorsIf I told you that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the leading cause of U.S. casualties in Iraq, you'd expect the Pentagon would have mounted a major R&D effort to defeat this threat. And you'd be right.
If I told you that helicopter crashes and shoot-downs were the leading cause of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, you'd expect the Pentagon would have mounted a major R&D to defeat that threat as well. But you'd be wrong.
Read on at KnoxNews.
Can't find it at Scripps Howard, but here's a version picked up by the Abilene Reporter-News. I liked my title better ;-)
Comments (7)
Does the V22 Osprey program count as a major R&D effort?
The initial tests in Iraq show that it has been quite effective at avoiding enemy ground fire and it requires a lot less maintenance than a helicopter (less than half as many man hours than the CH46 that it is replacing).
I agree with your basic point that the US Air Force is so good that nobody else dares to challenge air supremacy anywhere the US cares to establish it.
One caveat that I might make is that when serving in the US Army in Germany during the Cold War, I saw that German soldiers always parked their vehicles under trees or overpasses and they always put out their cammoflage nets whenever they stopped. The experience of not having air superiority made such an institutional impression that they were still hiding from enemy airplanes decades later. Either that or American "JaBos" had demonstrated Darwinian evolution by culling those Germans who were not scared of being strafed from the gene pool.
Posted by Mark in Texas | May 11, 2008 9:22 AM
What a great article. I couldn't agree more. I would go as far as to call the current era the "Century of the Helicopter." They are incredibly versatile machines and there are NEVER enough of them.
To reinforce Tom's point, the Air Force has just recently decommissioned the original stealth fighter. This aircraft (the F-117) probably cost more than $10 Billion to develop, and another $10 Billion to build and deploy. Yet, looking back at their history, you can count on ONE HAND the number of operations they flew in that required their stealth capabilities. This program was essentially a TOTAL WASTE! Other, far less expensive aircraft would have been able to do the job.
Then they made the F-22 Raptor, also a weapon in search of a mission. Now they want to build the "Joint Strike Fighter." What idiots! I want my money back!
I want to see more helicopters (including unmanned helicopters) and more UAVs. Lots more UAVs. They are far cheaper, don't require human pilots to risk their lives, can operate longer missions, and are a far more terrifying weapon to people on the ground. They are scary because they are CHEAP and UNMANNED. An insurgent/terrorist/enemy combatant may be able to shoot it down, but oh well... 10 more would be on the way.
Also, I agree that in so many important areas (foreign policy, environmental policy, energy policy, food policy, judicial policy with regards to the "War on Drugs") we are COMPLETELY WITHOUT A STRATEGY that has any basis in reality, if we have a strategy at all.
And being without a winning strategy, we will, of course, all be losers.
Posted by Michael Frager | May 11, 2008 10:41 AM
Helicopters are a neat way to get from A to B with a load . . as long as B (or A) isn't at angels 12 . . They don't do high altitude well . . and they fly slow and low most of the time . . Manned or unmanned . .
We sacked the A-10 program and apparently don't have any intention of bringing it back . . and according to most of the troops I have talked to (at Ft. Carson) the growl of one of them overhead was like mother talking to you at bedtime . . .
Face it Tom, the Generals who ask for the Aircraft we get, don't have to be where they need the protection of the aircraft they buy . . .
Posted by large | May 11, 2008 1:39 PM
As an ex AF guy I could say that it was because the fixed wing R&D is handled by the AF ... the the fling wing ... not.
However, seriously we gave fixed wing supremacy a bureaucratic home ... we created a group of people whose primary job it is to make sure we are the best in the world at that environment ... and they have done it .... rotary wing aircraft are NOBODYS primary job they are a step child everywhere ...
Just like the Sys Admin force ... if you want it to work ... make it someones first born ... not the ugly step child ...
Posted by Steve Knott | May 12, 2008 12:28 PM
If you want helicopter development to have a home, make it a central part of Sys Admin & initially staff it with knowledgeable Reservists from all branches. They can train the next generation of Sys Admin/Helicopter developers who will perpetuate the program.
Every branch has a sort of aircraft related to it. Make Sys Admin & the helicopter interrelated in the public vision.
Posted by Paul Cajka | May 13, 2008 6:08 AM
The point of Tom's article - he got his data from me - is that until we decide that rotorcraft are going to follow the same successful model as TACAIR (Vision - Plan - Investment - Continuous Improvement), they will continue to be vulnerable to the threat, less survivable than they could be, and we'll continue to watch rotorcraft technological leadership drain overseas to the Euros, Indians and eventually Chinese. The Long War can't be fought without rotorcraft - yet our most advanced one, the MV-22 Osprey, was designed over 35 years ago. Why is it OK to spend decimal dust on rotorcraft S&T and R&D when some of them carry 27-35 Marines and Soldiers into harm's way every day? Why is it OK to spend $189M for ONE TACAIR fighter carrying ONE pilot (against WHAT threat?), but it's "too expensive" to spend $69M on a tiltrotor carrying 27 Marines into combat? I'm not saying cancel TACAIR programs to fund rotorcraft ones. I'm saying TACAIR got it right - use their model and advance the state of rotorcraft for the sake of the men and women - our sons and daughters - who ride to war in them. So who in Congress, who in OSD, who in the Services will have the guts to say "I've got it for action?"
Posted by Irish | May 13, 2008 6:33 AM
This is only the tip of the iceberg in rotary wing Naval Aviation.... "Big Navy" has long neglected the helo community, despite our ever increasing role in critical missions around the globe. Another notorious oversight is in the area of Special Warfare Support where the special operators continue to ask for more Navy helo support, we try to provide it, but are met with roadblocks at nearly every step from Naval Air Forces. One of the most spectacular travesties was the decommissioning of HCS-5 while the need for rotary Spec Ops Support is at an all time high. Currently the navy has only one Spec Ops squadron, HSC-84, stationed in Norfolk, which leaves the west coast SEAL teams without nearby support for ops and training. Ultimately, the Navy needs a minimum of two reserve/active duty combined Special Operations squadrons to adequately meet the needs of our special warfare fighters. Many special operators (SEAL, Green Beret, etc.) have often commented that they prefer(ed) HCS-5/HSC-84 over even the Army's 160th, yet the Navy continues to downplay this vital role, leaving an emaciated capability where a robust one is needed more than ever. I'd be interested to see how many "bad guys" in Iraq/Afganistan have been nabbed with the aid of rotary support. This would be just as powerful of a statistic as the casualty rate of helicopters.
Posted by CJ | May 17, 2008 2:17 PM