As of this morning, we lost 17 Soldiers and two helicpoters in what appears to be a mid air collision. We lost the Chinook the other day. Combat losses are to be expected. This is a difficult war and painful losses are to be expected. Having said that, while the vulnerability of the helicopter has never been an item of dispute, my question is two fold:
1. how do you reduce their susceptibility to enemy fire, and
2. what the best way to employ them

Lot of experience within our ranks....let's hear from you.
thanks
DJ

DJ:
Your question got me to thinking.
Yes helos are suseptable, but not as much today as they were back when they were first being used. This can be argued about the electronics on board.
I think the main reasons that you hear so much of the incidents can be attributed to the enviorment these machines are operating in and the age of the craft itself.
The CH-46 is one of the oldest aircraft (40 years i think) and is slated to be replaced by the Osprey someday. There were many incidences with that craft here in Jacksonville before the war broke out. So one could argue age has something to do with that.

The Apache although a fine Helo in itself is very suseptable to the enviorment it operates in. Now I am by no means an engineer, but in GW1 I was an ordnanceman and I had to unjam many a nose gun on the Apache due to the sand that the beast would kick up. Plus flying as low as they would. Those four blades would kick up lots of debris and get sucked down the intake. That is why I could never figure out why the gun was expose as it is in the nose on the Apache. Whie talking to some Grunts from OIF they said the the sandstorms would ground the Apaches but not the Cobras.

Now the Cobra had the same problems, but not as often or as many. We had to clean the Cobra Nosegun housing out but the jams were less frequent. Now could that be because the only real part of the gun that is expose is the barrels itself while the working parts are encased?
I know this may not have answered your question directly, but maybe the Desert enviorment is more dangerous to these Machines than the enemy themselves. I think with all the technology that is on those machines that they are probably as safe from fire as the can be. The only thing that may be changed is to maybe make them faster and quieter, but that is easier said than done.
Paul

Just got home from drill, where I was working on a BCST (Battle Command Staff Training) exercise for, of all things: a National Guard aviation brigade! The exercise uses a scenario in a mountanious country in East Asia - a high intensity environment. It is a very different environment from that faced by aviators in Iraq and Afghanistan. There are several factors involved in what is happening in Iraq, in reference to helicopters and casualties. Now, I am just a dumb-ass tanker and part-time grunt, but here is my take:

1. Helicopter collisions - I live about 70 miles south of Ft. Campbell, and about every year their is a major helicopter accident during training - either in the 101st ABN or the 160th Aviation Regt. Some have had high causalties - such as two loaded Blackhawks colliding during a night air assault. The big difference: It only makes the news in Middle Tennesse and Central Kentucky, not worldwide!!

2. Apache losses vs Cobra losses. Apache tactics were developed for either staving off the hordes from the East, or for deep attack at "O-dark-30". The Apache is designed to operate from a masked position, in a hover and launch masses of Hellfire missles. Some have been lost due to equipment failure, and helicopters have the glide ratio of a rock!!! Though Apaches are better designed to survive an auto-rotation than a Cobra (At least that is the manufactor's propaganda). Others have been shot down by RPGs while engaging targets from a hover. Shades of Mogadishu. Hitting a hovering helicopter with an RPG is a fairly simple task. Cobras have been attacking in a shallow dive and then roll out of the area. Hitting a moving helicopter with an RPG is a much more difficult enterprise.

Remember the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Tanks were declared dead - long live the wire-guided AT missle Tankers studied the lessons and adapted. Army aviators need to adapt. ADAPT OR DIE!!!!

HOOAH!

Okay, so if the RPG is the weapons of choice for the bad guys, how do you protect your helicopter force? It's obviously not a heat seeker so popping flares is of limited value. Patrol the perimeter of your air base? Gunship escorts?

What do you think?
DJ

Most of the attacks by RPGs, that I have seen have been when helicopters were ambushed, usually over built-up areas or palm groves and orchards, etc. Now if they are being hit taking off and landing at an airfield, FARP, base, etc., the commanders are not doing their jobs of securing the immediate area.

I have had the luck to have been on both sides of this issue: As a young trooper (1970s) I was trained to conduct the dismounted recons, surviellance, raids and ambushes necessary to inflict pain and agony on the other guys. My more recent experience (92-95) was as base defence officer for the 101st ABN DIV where I had three major priorities: (1) Protect the division's 400 helicopters, (2) protect the CLASS III (fuel, and lubricants), and (3) CLASS V (ammo) [NOTE: An air assault division without fuel - WALKS, and AH-64 APACHEs without ammo and fuel just take up parking spaces].

OK, from the bad guy point of view - look for patterns and weaknesses - are there areas in which surviellance can be conducted? Are there ambush sites with covered and concealed escape routes? In this case, do the helicopters follow patterns? If it is an established airfield, they probably do - especially if fixed-wing aircraft also operate from the same field. What altitudes do the choppers enter and leave immediate airspace?

Now, how do you counter the bad guy? (1) When I developed bases and base clusters, I always placed the aviation battalions in the center of a base, where the perimeter was protected by other units. It is hard for aviation units to provide much of their own protection - Half the unit is flying, planning or resting (flight crews) and the other half is maintaining the aircraft and crews. This should push the perimeter well out of small arms & RPG range of the airfield/FARP. (2) Next, I am not an aviator, so take your shots: the helos should lift off and immediately get to an elevation above RPG range, use reverse when landing. A proper perimter should allow this be done safely. I know this may put you in harm from shoulder fired missles, however, at least there are counter measuers for these! (3) Unless mission requires flying NOE or low contour profiles (In Iraq and Afghanistan I cannot understand much reason for low level flight profiles), fly at higher altitude. I have continually watched, on TV, Apaches hovering at low altitude, over the site of a recent helicopter shoot down/crash, or ground engagement. WHY? Can any aviators enlighten me? I have not observed USMC Cobras or the little MH-6 and MH-58 Spec Ops birds hovering. Why are these guys continually moving? Its harder to hit a moving target!!! (4) Work extremely hard at eliminating patterns as far as flight times and flight paths. One problem in Mogadishu, was that the 160th AVN Regt aitcraft followed the same flight profiles when flying from the airport to the city of Mogadishu. The locals set up observation posts along the flight path and were able to raise the alarm whenever a mission was on. We learned, and have apparently forgot, during Vietnam, to use false insertions, deception flights, etc., to protect the insertion and pickup of long range patrols. (5) Increase mounted and dismounted patrols around the perimeter of the airfield, at irregular intervals and on changing routes. Set up counter-ambush patrols, as in Vietnam, near probable enemy firing positions - take the war to the enemy. Use the numeous electronic devices available to detect movement around the perimeter. The use of things like trip-wire rigged claymore mines is compromised by civilians and domestic animals in the areas. Unless the area is secured of local inhabinants, remote ambushes are difficult to implement.

That is a start.

Jeff

Rangwer has hit the nail on the head. I too have seen the Apache's hovering over a recent target's that have been hit. Why I guess they are gathering intel on what they hit. To report back.
While I was on FARPS in GW1 maily rearming these birds. We were consantly moving the area as the front moved. One thing I did notice though as we would rearm and refuel the Cobras was not more than one or two would be on the ground at the same time. We always had at least two birds in the air Orbiting over us.
If anything came two close that none could Identify the orbitting Cobras would "investigate" it. If they thought they couldn't handle it they would call in for support. All the while keeping their eyes on the "problem".
The Pilots used to tell us they hated these times because this is when they are the most vulerable. (a rearming Cobra is called a Target). They would get their fuel and rearm then head up and orbit while the others came in.
In all Ranger is right. Patterns are Dangerous they must be constantly changing. If you are in an area that the flight pattern couldn't be changed. We would move the FARP. We were never in the same place for more than 3 days in a row. I guess the Marine mentality is if the F in FARP stands for Foward then that is what you need to do is move foward. or the operative word being MOVE not stay in one place too long.

Paul

I am by no means an expert but America should have taken a lesson from Russian.
When in Afghanistan, the Russians used Hind's and experienced the same problems of heat sinking missiles. The Hinds had an exhaust system that was to the side of the aircraft so that it help dissipate the exhaust faster and hopefull elude the rocket.
Maybe the U.S. should look into more counter-measures, etc.?

Andrew

Andrew--- I'd like one of our knowledgeable helicopter experts to comment on the heta emissions for the Black Hawk. I am pretty sure that is a defensive measure on the helicopters. If it is, then the heat seeker threat is somewhat dissipated. However, the RPG is the killer. The NVA and VC used it with devastating effectiveness in Vietnam against loitering helicopters. The RPG is the threat. How do you counter that one?
DJ

I'm not expert on heliborne operations either DJ - but in my estimation the best way to protect the more vulnerable helicopter transports is to get more aggressive in their missions.

In Vietnam when the Truck Convoys began to get interdicted and taking heavy losses, Convoy Commanders demanded escorts. The escorts were few and far between, and the losses continued to rise. The Truckers came up with the idea to defend themselves, armored their trucks, and soon turned some of their trucks into combatants themselves. The Truckers won their war in Vietnam.

Today, it isn't beyond reasoning to envision Blackhawks and Chinooks being escorted in and out of areas by Apaches, since arming them is likely out of the question. Use Army Rangers ahead of the airborne force to scout travel routes ahead of time. Use them to laze targets for the Apaches - and let the Apaches cut it loose on suspected enemy troop nests in need be. Heck, sweep the area intended for overflight before the mission takes place! Anything but sending in the Blackhawks or Chinooks in alone. I don't think a US helicopter should fly anywhere in a war zone unarmed and unescorted. They're just as vulnerable as trucks are in a convoy - no matter what you do unless you spray the perimeter with weapons fire.

Perhaps the helicopters aren't flying in unescorted, but the news reports lead me to think so. I also begin to believe that the overflight routes are not pre-swept, and if so, too much time is allowed after the sweep and the bad guys have the time to setup again.

Gunnie--- totally agree. I believe we are starting to see the benefits of aggressive US combat patrolling and firepower. I would not let a helicopter take off without gunships overhead and guys on the ground patrolling like areas of enemy fire. These bandits are just criminals who will be scared off when they sense they will get their butts kicked if they try anything.
DJ

First let me say that I am with Gunny too on this sweep the intended area. I don't know if that will totally solve the RPG threat, but it will put a big damper on it.
That threat will always be there no matter what you do. Rpg's not being a heat seeking weapon negates the heat diplacement of the exhaust theory. I guess I am comparing it to how do you defend yourself against a sniper. Maybe I am wrong in this but it is the closest analogy I can come up with.
If you were going to negate the RPG threat totally you would have to look at the weakest and most vulerable parts of the helo itself.
The rotors and engine wells. now you could encase the engines with a Titanium tub like they do the cockpits to protect the crews from ground fire and fragments.
The rotors are a totaly different thing. That one would have to be considered by someone that is a whole lot smarter than me in that area.
The thing I have noticed though is the newer generation of Helo's is that the tail rotor is encased like a box fan. I.E the Commanche. Maybe that will offer more protection, If so maybe there is a way to do the same for the main rotor.
Now that would be an interesting looking bird. Just my 2 cents here though...
Paul

Paul--- my vivid recollection in seeing a clown shoot at a hovering helicopter is that he didn't need to do anyhting other that hit it to bring it down. Did not matter where he hit it, it came down and fast! I can not see any other way than to have gunships and Kiowa scouts out looking for the bad guys to preclude the catastrophic casualties we are taking.
DJ

As an old time S-2, I can tell you Ranger nailed it. RPG's are only good for ground vehicles and slow moving birds. I believe most of these helicopters have been popped at low speeds ad probably near an airfield. I would say extend the perimeter (level the freaking area around the bases) and increase the patroling. I also have other more aggressive ideas but that woud cause me to get the post removed. It also isn't just helicopters being popped, they nailed a cargo plane the other day Having watched helicopters grow during Viet Nam until now, I would definitely say they are still a weapon to be reckoned with. One of my bother rats (VMI) was one of the pilots of that Blackhawk crash at FT Campbell.

Aren't you forgetting something important here? Even though these recent losses are horrible, I think they are still pretty rare occurances given the total number of missions flown.

I certainly don't want to trivialize the casualties, but I think the media can be a bit over-dramatic as it points fingers. Watching TV, you'd think all helos are just falling from the sky.

We'd have to know how many helos are actually fired upon, how many are hit that don't go down, and what effect pilot error has. Plus about 1,000 other things I can't think of. Only when we know all of that could we begin to see if there really is a 'problem' and what can be done about it.

I don't want to seem cold, but I wouldn't consider the number of casulaties to be catastrophic. This is dangerous work.

Steve

Amigo--- I am surprised that you would think I would pull your post. While I have the right and duty as the moderator to eliminate a post , in the two years I have been here, I have never done so. You use your good judgement and common sense and let us know what other measures can be taken to protect our Soldiers. The loss of any one of them is a personal tragedy and cause for us to all put on our thinking caps. This is no time to either hold back or pull your punches.
DJ

I don't think I mentioned anything about removing my post. I expressed my opinion and don't really think that there is anything shocking in what I said.

From what I have heard, the Blackhawk is supposed to be the safest helo there is. Yet they still go down. Certainly these issues were addressed after what happened in '93 (at least I hope so).

My point is that I'm not sure that the losses are, at this point, excessive considering what these soldiers are facing. That's not to say I'm not sickened over the deaths. (We can't have wars where no one dies. Maybe that's why we need to avoid them in the first place.)

I've never thought that helicopters were the safest thing to begin with. It seems that we are always hearing about crashes during training.

Maybe if the V-22 was operational, some of these big Chinook crashes would have been avoidable...

Steve

All,

I think that the ground forces in Iraq have started, with Operation IRON HAND" (or something like that), to take care of staging areas and ammunition storage sites. They are hunting down the shooters, with help of intelligence from Iraqi citizens. As they have more success, but the better the intel will become. Evidence can be seen with the change of tactics by the bad guys - they are switching to attacking soft targets. First they attaked the combat units, had their heads handed back on platters, then thay have swithced to convoys and mortar and rocket attacks. Aggressive countermeasures are making these less effective, so they are now attacking Iraqi civilian targets - markets, schools, etc. They could not even hit the US command HQ in Badaghd with rockets yesterday - all three missing.

Just read an email from an Army Reserve Engineer Group HQs in northern Iraq. A convoy of HUMMVs was ambushed near Mosul, but wasa able to fight their way thru with no casualties and only some holes in the vehicles. The Group HQ had a reaction force ready to role in 2 minutes, but they became unnecessary.

We just have to keep the pressure on them

Steve-- accept my apologies. I meant to respond to Blasters e mail. Hit the wrong button.
Sorry.
DJ

Blaster-- please see my post that inadvertently went to Sniper in response to your posting.
DJ

What about the Osprey to replace the Chinook? Is the V22 as bad as they say it is?

I think that the key yo minimizing losses in Iraq NOW is to change tactics, i.e. flying low, fast, and in unpredictable routes. Of course, this presents it's own set of risks...

Steve

Steve-- my reading and discussion with flying folks indicates the V-22 is a long way if ever from going into active service.
DJ

Any else chime in with details on the V-22 Osprey.

My 2 cents.

I never read any technical thingy on the V-22, nor have I seen video of it transit from a hover to horizontal flight. So I don't know just how fast this thing can do the transition. For me, I see the transition time of the V-22 to be extremely dangerous.

Dave--I am going to start a thread on the V-22 to see if we can have the experts tell us anything new about it.
DJ