Vets Returning home having a tough time finding work?

I'm sure in retrospect the Karbala mission would have been flown at a much higher altitude. I know ZSU-23-4s were still a significant concern in the push towards Baghdad. When I got there at the end of 2003 we were finding abandoned ADA all over the place.

I can't remember if I practiced running fire at Fort Rucker in AQC in 2001 but every gunnery table I have done since incorporated running and diving fire. To me the way Littlebirds and Kiowas engage at point blank ranges carries a high level of risk as well. They would be swatted out of the sky going against armor with those techniques.
It was not done prior to Karbala and was not in the gunnery table. Also, from what I've read of the operation the -64's were trying to use hovering engagements.
Point blank range attack against armor may not be a good idea, but neither is hovering for 5 minutes while engaging and that is the way AHs were training prior to the invasion.
 
Did Cobra's use the same tactics as Apache's do now? In terms of Cobra's had to be stationary using TOW. Do Apache's have to be with Hellfire?
 
Doctrinally speaking, are Army aviation units (namely Apache) considered manuever units on their own? As in, do they normally get sent forward on interdiction missions past the FEBA/FLOT to hit targets far downrange independantly? Or are all their ops in direct support of some ground commander or ground unit in some way, and they don't go too far ahead of that? Does their Batallion or higher commander run his birds independantly in that way? Or again is it all tied to support of some ground element in some way/shape/form?
They are kind of considered maneuver units (or were), but use depends on who the asset is attached to, division, corps or army. Even that was argued as aviation can not hold ground... so are they really maneuver units? Prior to about the mid 1990s attach units were "mixed"- a combination of AH (I think 15), OH (10 if I remember correctly), and 3 UH's. The Army decided to go "pure" then. I think someone needed a Legion of Merit and came up with the idea. So the AH BNs lost their OHs as the older models were retired and the UH's were turned over to lift BNs. Most AH CO's were not too upset about the OHs but were pretty pissed about losing their UH support. In theory they were suppose to get UH support from the UH units... but did not always work out well.
At the division level AH's were doctrinally closer to the FLOT/FEBA to support divisional troops. Army Corps are headquarter command and control units normally with some support units- prior to OIF they included aviation assets. I don't know if it is still the case, but they also had some attach units, UH/CH units, plus some air cav. The Corps could either cut these units to divisions or use them for corps missions- such as the deep strike attack mission you mention. For WWH or World War Haiti I was cut to the 82nd Airborne division for the invasion even though I was a corps asset. My command, support, everything was from the 82nd for the duration. Did not interact at all with my "real" commander once we were locked down except when he came by to wish us good luck the day prior to our departure.
Personally I think large scale AH deep attack missions carry large risk due to the vulnerability of RW assets to air defense, especially during daylight. Not to say they should not be done, but if done should probably be done in conjunction with the Air Force, and/or at night and balanced against the risk. In those deep attack scenarios the corps or army would normally give the mission, then let the unit commander fights the unit as seen fit, although air routes obviously must often be coordinated and may even be dictated. Probably the biggest problem faced by Army Aviation is that we try to be like the other branches so our staff officers are normally poorly trained. When I attended the Army Officer Advanced course from 1990-1991 I was suppose to learn how to be an aviation staff officer- how to plan air assaults, attacks, etc. Yet I spent about 5% of my time doing that. The other 6 months were wasted studying the Battle of Chickamauga, learning about tank tactics, learning infantry tactics, learning about the development of the water cooled machine gun. It was so silly that while we were doing our walk of the Chickamauga battlefield the commander of Ft. Rucker asked the class how we could apply the Air/Land battle doctrine (it was the theory in vogue at the time), to the Battle of Chickamauga. I kid you not. All I could think of was the Kirk Douglas "Saturday Night Live" skit "What if Spartacus had a Piper Cub?" I had to turn away so he would not see me laughing.
Thirteen years later I had to do the same thing as a WO- they would not give me credit for having done it already. So I learned about the Soviet threat (yes, in 2003) and order of battle, how an infantry unit clears a trench, the operational skill identifier for a tank turret repair man, and how a Corps smoke unit gets their resupply of smoke. You know, useful stuff. So officers trained like this are then expected to plan large scale assault and attack missions.:)
Not sure of the exact make up of the aviation units now, but for the most part the Army has gone away from the "pure" unit concept as it was not the way we were fighting. I think Corps has been stripped of much of their assets and they have been pushed to divisions making the divisional aviation brigades more robust. The only army left is 8th Army in Korea. I think they still have their assets which can be used as the 8th Army commander sees fit. When I was there long ago our mission was to support the theater. I did not expect to live past day 3 based upon the missions I saw.
 
I see the Army is as screwed up as the USAF. Our staff-level courses are about as retarded in content.

In what you mention above, where does heavy lift, such as CH-47 or CH-54 lie? At what level, Division?

You last sentence........during the days of the Fulda Gap and the Warsaw Pact, due to the ZSU and SA-9/13 threat, A-10 pilots could expect no more than 30 seconds survival above 100' AGL, and at best, a sortie and a half.
 
Did Cobra's use the same tactics as Apache's do now? In terms of Cobra's had to be stationary using TOW. Do Apache's have to be with Hellfire?
Cobras did have to use the stationary hover technique. The initial use of the TOW was actually by UH-1s- they used them to knock out 50 North Vietnamese tanks during Lam Son 719. The Cobras knocked out six tanks, but I think they used antipersonnel rockets to do this as I don't think they had the TOW yet. The UH-1M attack helicopter was still in the National Guard when I first enlisted.
The initial Hellfire was laser designated and, as with Air Force laser designated munitions anyone can lase the target. Personally I think one of the best anti-tank helicopters against large tank formations would be an armed version of the UH-60 with just Hellfire missiles. The missile has a 5 mile range so a UH-60 (can carry up to 16 missiles on the ESSS plus another 16 in the cargo hold), could stand off and launch missiles on targets being lased by a FAC. I talked to an officer who was involved in the development of the AH-64 and he said the Army was kind of afraid someone would come up with that idea and it would cut into the AH funding. Not sure if that was true or not. Essentially that is what the 160th did when they came up with the MH-60 DAP although that is much more flexible.
The Longbow is a different system. I was never involved with a Longbow unit so I have no clue aside from what I've read on how it works.
 
I see the Army is as screwed up as the USAF. Our staff-level courses are about as retarded in content.

In what you mention above, where does heavy lift, such as CH-47 or CH-54 lie? At what level, Division?

You last sentence........during the days of the Fulda Gap and the Warsaw Pact, due to the ZSU and SA-9/13 threat, A-10 pilots could expect no more than 30 seconds survival above 100' AGL, and at best, a sortie and a half.
CH-54s are long gone. Well, maybe not long gone by our terms, but gone for a while- I think the Guard lost them in the early '80s.
The CH-47 use to be a Corps and Army asset, but I think with the reorganization they have been pushed to the division level.
Talking with Koreans about expected attrition rates was... well... about as one would expect. We had 15 aircraft to support the South Koreans. On day one they wanted 15... even though we could expect one to be in phase and... well... a 100% OR rate??? Okay, how many on day two. 15. Seriously? You think if we send 15 out on day one we will see 15 return based upon the targets? So how many on day 2? 15. Okay, how many on day 3? 15.
 
CH-54s are long gone. Well, maybe not long gone by our terms, but gone for a while- I think the Guard lost them in the early '80s.
The CH-47 use to be a Corps and Army asset, but I think with the reorganization they have been pushed to the division level.
Talking with Koreans about expected attrition rates was... well... about as one would expect. We had 15 aircraft to support the South Koreans. On day one they wanted 15... even though we could expect one to be in phase and... well... a 100% OR rate??? Okay, how many on day two. 15. Seriously? You think if we send 15 out on day one we will see 15 return based upon the targets? So how many on day 2? 15. Okay, how many on day 3? 15.

Wow! Awesome in-service rate there! :)

I remember the Reno ARNG having CH-54s at Stead.....I think they were the last user of them.

Interesting how aviation works in the Army, in relation to other maneuver units. Before aviation became it's own branch, were things the same as we see now?
 
Wow! Awesome in-service rate there! :)

I remember the Reno ARNG having CH-54s at Stead.....I think they were the last user of them.

Interesting how aviation works in the Army, in relation to other maneuver units. Before aviation became it's own branch, were things the same as we see now?
Aviation actually became a branch two months before I enlisted so I only read about how it operated. Some liked it, but I think it was just getting to be too hard with technology advancements. It is just too hard to take someone out of a cockpit for 10 years, then throw them back in as a commander.
 
Just to edit what I wrote last. The Medical Service Corps still runs the Army medivac aircraft, or at least did until recently. I know Aviation Branch keeps trying to get their hands on that asset and I'm not sure if they did. Also until about the late 1990s Transportation Corps owned some of the maintenance units above the unit level. Personnel within the units were aviation branch and the aircraft were "owned" by aviation branch but their brigade commanders were normally some kind of logistics branch and the brigade normally had a number of logistics functions, such as supply, vehicle and weapon maintenance. The unit had "float" aircraft that could be pushed down to units in war time to replace losses that the maintenance unit got to fly during peace time. My wife was in such a battalion twice in Korea. The first time she was assigned there as a laundry and bath platoon leader- yes, she ran the laundry, shower and water purification facilities when units went to the field. She still gets mad when I say she was an ajima. She was suppose to go to Korea to take over a rigger platoon, but the battalion commander of that unit said he did not want female lieutenants in his unit... so she went elsewhere and we ended up meeting. Lucky her.
The second time she was assigned to the aviation maintenance unit as a line UH-1 pilot- she was straight out of flight school and was not a maintenance pilot. Turned out to be one of those great jobs. She was there three weeks out of flight school and was made a PIC due to a shortage of pilots. Had her own UH-1 for a year. CO pretty much let her fly when she wanted as long as she flew the battalion commander when he needed her.
Up until post Desert Storm there were also a number of UH-1s and OH-58s scattered around the Army. Many airfield commanders had their own UH-1. Even the CH-47 commanders in Korea had their own UH-1. I remember an OH-58 was used as a kind of courier service in Korea when I was there- WO1s and LTs would fly these things around the country carrying oil samples and such. They got a ton of flight time.
 
I remember UH-1H/Vs as Dustoff in Desert Storm. Heck, the PHX ARNG was still running UH-1Ms when I was in gradeschool. 40 or so of them at Papago AAF. And the H-model was fun to fly at Rucker.

Still flying them strong at ELP and TUS, among some other locations, with the BP.
 
I remember UH-1H/Vs as Dustoff in Desert Storm. Heck, the PHX ARNG was still running UH-1Ms when I was in gradeschool. 40 or so of them at Papago AAF. And the H-model was fun to fly at Rucker.

Still flying them strong at ELP and TUS, among some other locations, with the BP.
Yeah, I think the Army made a mistake getting rid of all the UH-1s and OH-58 A/Cs. While they may not have been as useful in the tactical environment I think for small scale ash/trash missions they are still ideal. Of course the Army then went out a few years later and purchased the UH-72 Lakota when the realized they needed an aircraft that filled this role.
 
Yeah, I think the Army made a mistake getting rid of all the UH-1s and OH-58 A/Cs. While they may not have been as useful in the tactical environment I think for small scale ash/trash missions they are still ideal. Of course the Army then went out a few years later and purchased the UH-72 Lakota when the realized they needed an aircraft that filled this role.

Ive noticed that when the Army decides to get rid of a bird, like the UH-1 for example, it automatically becomes some kind of bastard child in the service. The Huey was the backbone of the Army, then it became the "get it the hell out of the service" bird. There were DACs still flying them out of HMN for White Sands range support too when I was there.

The UH-72, I wonder how its working out?
 
I think the UH-1 was kind of like the Tweets the Air Force assigned to units so pilots could maintain a level of proficiency without the expense of firing up a B-52. I think we lost something when we got rid of them. I love the Hawk and if I go to war I don't want to be in any other U- airframe. But I learned a lot from tooling around in a UH-1 as a 1LT/CPT.
 
Speaking of Hawks, Ive been noticing some weird-isms between the Army and the AF Hawks. For example, we have a Contingency Power Switch on the collective, where the engine trim incr-decr switch used to be. That switch allows us to physically switch into 2.5 min limiting on the 701C motors and gain 3% torque, without having to have one engine roll below 50% where it activates automatically. Only other birds I've seen this with are USN Hawks. We also have collective trim.

Ive noticed that the Army guys don't ever check the overspeed switches after startup or the fire warning system.....just not on the checklist. Many of the guys I see don't fly with the boost pumps on either inflight. Any particular reason for the differences?
 
Yeah, ovespeed check was a maintenance function. Never really had a problem with it. Same with the fire warning system.
Pilots are flying with boost off??? That was an IP thing in the Army. Do you mean flying with the trim turned off so you don't have to press the trim release switch all the time? Flying with the boost off can be a handful.
The Army collective does have an incr-decr switch, but it was used more to bring RPM R to 100% if for some reason it was not there when the EPCs were at fly. Never used it to bump up RPM to the 2.5 minute limit. Never thought about using it that way... but I can't think of a time where I needed it in a -L model.
 
The Army collective does have an incr-decr switch, but it was used more to bring RPM R to 100% if for some reason it was not there when the EPCs were at fly. Never used it to bump up RPM to the 2.5 minute limit. Never thought about using it that way... but I can't think of a time where I needed it in a -L model.

For us, the incr-decr switch is moved from the collective, to the ceiling next to the external lighting on the left side of the overhead panel. Where it used to be on the collective is where the contingency power switch is now, for us.
 
Aren't FAC2s at around 60? Insane.

Yup. Oddly enough -47 FAC 2 mins are higher than -60s even though 60s have higher FAC 1 mins.

I don't bother with the roll/pitch command bars or the toothbrush. Prefer the raw data just fine. The CIS is nice, but Im used to more of a flight director type system with steering bars, which the CIS doesn't necessarily do, so I don't bother with it.

Coming from 47s especially, the toothbrush is NOT altitude hold. That thing's a joke.

When I attended the Army Officer Advanced course from 1990-1991...

I went in 2005 - seems a lot more aviation directed these days. Planned a lot of BN-level aviation missions and executed them in the AVCATT. Mixed lift and attack guys so we could see what they too - a very interesting experience. Did the required bazillion hours of MDMP but you gotta slog through that stuff.

Speaking of Hawks, Ive been noticing some weird-isms between the Army and the AF Hawks. For example, we have a Contingency Power Switch on the collective, where the engine trim incr-decr switch used to be. That switch allows us to physically switch into 2.5 min limiting on the 701C motors and gain 3% torque, without having to have one engine roll below 50% where it activates automatically. Only other birds I've seen this with are USN Hawks. We also have collective trim.

Ive noticed that the Army guys don't ever check the overspeed switches after startup or the fire warning system.....just not on the checklist. Many of the guys I see don't fly with the boost pumps on either inflight. Any particular reason for the differences?

The collective switch you mentioned sounds interesting - so it essentially tells the DEC to change the TGT limiting value?

And collective trim? Does it have a trigger on the collective like the 47's thrust control? If so I would love that.

Like Blackhawk said - overspeed switches are purely maint functions for us. My understanding on why we don't fly with the boost pumps on is 1) the engine driven pumps do great at all pressure altitudes (unlike the 47 where you're supposed to have them on above 6000ft.) and 2) If a fuel like gets shot or ruptures we don't want the electric pumps pushing fuel everywhere. Our fuel pressure related EPs call for the fuel pumps to come on.
 
Oh... my bad. I thought you were talking hydraulic boost. Duh. Been a while.
When I initially flew Hawks if I remember correctly we did not have the fuel boost pumps. The idea was that the engine driven fuel pumps sucked enough fuel during the entire flight regime and the negative suction pressure was preferred to a positive pressure in a crash sequence. At some point there were issues, however, with the engine driven fuel pumps in the GE700s sucking enough fuel so the submerged fuel pumps were installed, decreasing the amount of fuel we had on board by a fraction. At first I think the pumps were only suppose to be on some of the time depending on the OAT. At some point it was determined to turn them on all the time but the Army still wanted to get to the point where the engine driven pumps were enough to cut down on the fuel problem during a crash sequence, so we got to the point where, in the 701Cs, the engine driven fuel pumps are good enough and the aux pumps are no longer used continuously. The only issue I really had with the EPs was the lack of a fuel pressure sensor. If the problem was a rupture in the fuel line turning on our fuel pumps would only aggravate the problem.
Good to hear the advanced course has changed. I don't really have an issue with MDMP, my issue was how we applied it. To me it would have been the ideal time to teach us how to operate in S-2/S-3 shops in an aviation unit, how to integrate the different pieces of aviation, how an air tasking order works, etc. Applying it to the Fulda Gap was silly, even in 1990. Our one "unconventional warfare" exercise was a Philippines scenario. Unfortunately our class had a filipino officer so that exercise was stopped quickly.
However as I wrote in 2003 the WO advanced course had not changed. Someone took the Armor Officer Advanced course, slapped Aviation Branch on it, thought it would be good for the WOs and made us do it. What a waste of time that was.
 
The collective switch you mentioned sounds interesting - so it essentially tells the DEC to change the TGT limiting value?

And collective trim? Does it have a trigger on the collective like the 47's thrust control? If so I would love that.

Like Blackhawk said - overspeed switches are purely maint functions for us. My understanding on why we don't fly with the boost pumps on is 1) the engine driven pumps do great at all pressure altitudes (unlike the 47 where you're supposed to have them on above 6000ft.) and 2) If a fuel like gets shot or ruptures we don't want the electric pumps pushing fuel everywhere. Our fuel pressure related EPs call for the fuel pumps to come on.

Yes, I can select the DEC to go into the 2.5 min limiting when I feel like it via the contingency power switch. It's a preemptive measure though. Say for example, Im going into an LZ where my power margin is thin or there is none. Switching it on beforehand will allow me to access 3% extra torque from the 2.5 min TGT limit. However, if Im in a situation where my rotor has already drooped or is drooping, flipping the switch on then won't save the situation. It's there as something to have prior to prevent decreasing NR.......the next thing being going to DEC lockout if it doesn't help.

Collective trim is a small pull-type button underneath the collective that you pull on with your index finger.....much like the release for some car parking brakes. It just trims the collective out when you release it. Haven't seen it on Army -60s.

The AF apparently had some accident where there was dual engine failure. We didn't used to fly with them on either apparently, and there was thought that the fuel lines had some sort of vapor lock or something? So they mandated that we fly with the boost pumps on at all times now; as well as it being in our fuel EPs. Kind of dumb as that's a completely rare thing, plus even if an engine driven pump fails, the low-pressure boost pump surely isn't going to keep it going.
 
Mike & Ian- I'm a week away from my final check in the 47D course. Our class was scheduled less than 10 days in instruments of which only 2 were in the A/C and the checkride was in the sim. I hear the Blackhawks guys get even less training for their instrument phase. Most of my piers really struggle through instruments both in primary and advanced courses because of the fire-hose effect. Instruments take awhile to understand and get proficient at, and when most everyone just worries about getting a 70 and moving on FSXX1 will continue to produce crappy RL3 pilots. But sad to say that I'd rather hang out with this crowd then go back to the Airlines! The grass isn't always greener, ya know.
So now, i'll be headed to Lewis as a 47D Reserve guy and looking for another full-time job....any ideas?
 
Back
Top