Aviation

It's not just about simple SHP, the primary issue is high DA performance. The Army wants 6K/95 HOGE capability at MGW.

Yeah, we all remember the ARH and its vaunted Honeywell engine. We had to learn the hard way that the airframe couldn't cut hack it.

The bottom line in the KW community is that none of those guys has any faith in another attempt to replace it. Maybe the third time will be a charm.
 
There are plenty of government agencies besides police who hire former Army pilots "off the street." However, if all someone really wants to do is fly for a living, I would question why he would go to a SA. If you only want to be a pilot, become a warrant officer.

I think that's the salient point I should have mentioned to begin with. If you want to get hired off the street, you'll be facing a lot competition from former Warrant Officers who have many more hours than you do in most cases, especially if you have a short career.
 
Yeah, we all remember the ARH and its vaunted Honeywell engine. We had to learn the hard way that the airframe couldn't cut hack it.

The bottom line in the KW community is that none of those guys has any faith in another attempt to replace it. Maybe the third time will be a charm.

The reasons for the termination of the ARH program had absolutely nothing to do with the airframe. I could write at great length on the subject, but I am sure the topic has already lost/bored prospective young aviators. If you wish to discuss the details, we could do so privately.

Even if the Army wants to try a third time to replace the KW, I have serious doubts that Congress will write them another check--at least no time soon. Whether the Army wants an entirely new aircraft or not, I am quite certain that an upgraded KW (perhaps a significantly upgraded KW) is the path they will be forced to take in the near-term, which may be the best option anyway.
 
Yes, I meant "airframe" in terms of the whole shootin' match, i.e. the idea of the cost-effective COTS solution, not in terms of the actual structural airframe. Though to that end, I did hear of issues with the floorpan not holding up well when the UWPs were added. True?

At any length, you're right...I think we're just a couple older dudes prattling about helicopters now and the young guys don't care about that!

BUT, I would be very interested in whatever knowledge you have on the ARH subject. If you're so inclined, feel free to PM free. I'd love to hear it.
 
speaking of "older" people replying to this thread. My husband had the opportunity to request Aviation straight from WP shortly before it was an official branch. He waited, realizing it would make more sense to "assess" once Aviation was official.

As an OH-58D guy, Cobra guy prior to that he spent almost all of his career flying scout helicopters primarily for cavalry units. Several students have asked questions regarding Aviation from a family standpoint and that is what I could best answer. Yes, you are going to spend lots and lots of time away from home. More so, to do with the Operational Tempo of the military right now rather than your particular branch. But keep in mind that by the time you have finished flight school, the military will have millions of dollars invested in you and expect to recover their initial financial outlay in service.

As far as Aviation itself: it is a small branch. Do not make enemies and tick off people along the way because invariably you will meet up with them time and time again. Hope you enjoy hot weather and living in the South, particularly LA ( Not Los Angelos, Lower Alabama) because that is where you will live during flight school and other "transitions" to other helicopters that you receive. I am partial to the area myself; being a Southerner and all and have fond memories of our oldest daugther being born at Mother Rucker.

Promotion and advancement: Thankfully, for females , the Army does not care about your gender only that you can fly. Aviators have a challenging time however making it to the uppermost ranks. Other than the recently retired General Dick Cody ( of 101st Apache fame/Desert Storm) few aviators have made it to the top ranks/positions. Somehow aviators are not taken very seriously at times. Personally, I believe it has something to do with flight pay, overly large watches and sports cars. But that is just a personal rather than scientific assessment.

Post career flying: Yes aviators do get flying jobs outside of the military. But they are few and far in between. Generally officers do not get enough flying opportunities while active duty to secure those positions. After the Captain level, officers struggle to get in enough flight hours, in many assignments due to additional duties of command, staff jobs, school assignments, etc. Warrant officers whose primary duty is to fly often do much better landing flying jobs outside the military and even then is not a "sure" thing.

It is more likely that former aviation officers can secure positions working in the Aviation field, with aviation companies or as governmental project managers for aviation related projects. A West Point education coupled with a successful career as an aviation officer can go far in presenting such opportunities.

The bottom line is that ( from my perspective anyhow) Aviation is a highly competitve, challenging and extremely rewarding career path for both the service member and their family. I enjoyed every single moment that my husband and I spent in the Aviation family. And if I had to do it again, I would only enjoying the experience, twice as much- because it all ends, much too quickly.
 
Excellent post!

May I ask if your husband had a battalion/squadron command, and if so where?
 
Yes and no. Or rather, that doesn't tell the whole story. Very few departments or agencies will hire you off the street to fly for them. In general, most require that you become a police officer first and then spend x amount of time as a regular "beat cop" before the chance to move into their aviation unit occurs.

Oh of course. Generally it takes about 10 years to get there...but a military career is highly favored in the law enforcement world.
 
What is the primary mission of each of the Army's helicopters?
 
What is the primary mission of each of the Army's helicopters?

Ugh, well...I didn't want to type this much but the dog is being quiet and I have a full cup of coffee, so here you go. I'll try to avoid personal prejudices in my descriptions.

030829-A-2029M-002.jpg


UH-60A/L/M: Multirole utility helicopter. Used for primarily for the movement of troops and equipment in all areas of the battlefield and all threat environments. The aircraft has the capability to perform air assault (think insertion of troops in hostile territory), air movement, and slingload missions. A slingload is a load of eqipment suspended below the aircraft from an external cargo hook, as pictured above.

The UH-60A is also used in MEDEVAC missions, though it is finally being replaced by the HH-60M, which is a newer and more capable aircraft designed for the MEDEVAC mission.

db_CH47.jpg

061025c_lg.jpg


CH-47D/F: Heavy-lift cargo helicopter. Primarily used for bulk movement of cargo and outsized items, such as bridge spans or sea-land containers. The CH-47 currently operates only at night in Iraq to reduce vulnerability. They have shined in Afghanistan, as they are the only aircraft with the engine power to perform at certain high altitudes encountered by NATO forces. The top photo shows an iconic image from the early Afghanistan war (purportedly a USMA grad at the controls, but that may be a rumor), of a CH-47D. The F model is the newest iteration, and is basically an entirely new aircraft made by stripping old CH-47Ds down the bulkheads and rebuilding them as F models. You can identify an F model by the baby-poo green paint, instead of the olive drab of the D model pictured in the top photo.

AH-64D_DVD-1098-2_375x300.jpg


AH-64D: The Apache is the Army's primary heavy-attack platform. It is armed with a variety of weapons, from the entire range of HELLFIRE missiles, to 2.75" aerial rockets, to a 30mm articulated cannon. The 64D is known as the Apache Longbow because it features the Longbow Fire Control Radar, or FCR, which is the cheese-wheel-shaped item on the rotor mast. The AH-64D was originally designed as a deep attack and anti-armor aircraft, intended to /replace the AH-1 Cobra series. In the current conflicts, the 64D has assumed a new role of providing overwatch, security, and fires in support of ground maneuver elements, typically of platoon size and below. Apaches also fly armed escort for UH-60s and, in odd cases, fixed-wing aircraft on final approach. The lenses in the nose-turret are the PNVS (pilot night vision sysem) and the MTADS (modernized target acquistion & designation system). The systems allow the aircraft to fly and fight in less than ideal weather conditions, day or night.

OH-58D_1.jpg


OH-58D(R): The Kiowa Warrior is the small but beloved steed of the venerable scout aviator. The OH-58D is a single-engine dual-pilot armed reconnaissance platform. Originally conceived as an armed version of the OH-58A/C/D Kiowa prograrm, the Kiowa Warrior was fielded with Task Force 118 as part of Operation Prime Chance. It has since become a "big Army" aircraft. The OH-58D's primary mission is armed reconnaissance. In the current conflicts, the OH-58D has gained a reputation as the premiere airframe for close-in support of ground maneuver troops, usually company or platoon patrols or air assaults. The aircraft is generally flown without doors attached, except in the case of extreme adverse weather, giving the pilots full visib ility. The aircraft is armed with HELLFIRE missiles, 2.75" rockets, or the M-3P .50 cal heavy machine gun (which has replaced older .50 cal models). The large "ball" atop the rotor mast is the Mast-Mounted Sight, which features a daytime TV camera, a thermal imaging system, and a laser rangefinder/target designator.
 
Scoutpilot,

Interesting thread. Thanks for providing your insight. Any chance that Army Aviation in the future will include a fixed wing airframe?
 
Great info, SP - thanks for taking the time to write it :thumb:

I've considered Aviation as a branch but I have bad eyes. Do you need eye surgery to fly? Or can you fly with glasses/contacts?

You might not know the answer, but do you know anything about flying for the President/VIPs? I've always wondered about how difficult it is to get to fly a Marine One...
 
Great info, SP - thanks for taking the time to write it :thumb:

I've considered Aviation as a branch but I have bad eyes. Do you need eye surgery to fly? Or can you fly with glasses/contacts?

You might not know the answer, but do you know anything about flying for the President/VIPs? I've always wondered about how difficult it is to get to fly a Marine One...

To fly with uncorrected vision, you must have vision no worse than 20/50, correctable to 20/20 with issued eyewear. You can also have DA-approved laser corrective surgery.

I would assume that flying the president is an extremely, extremely competitive job, much like getting to fly Air Force One. Obviously, that is not an optionf for an Army pilot.
 
Scoutpilot,

Interesting thread. Thanks for providing your insight. Any chance that Army Aviation in the future will include a fixed wing airframe?

Army Aviation already includes many fixed-wing airframes. There is occasionally opportunity for LTs to get a fixed-wing airframe out of flight school, but it is far less common than rotary wing.
 
Scoutpilot,

Actually I should have been more specific. I was curious if the Army currently uses any fixed-wing aircraft (such as the A-10) in ground support or attack missions. About a year and a half ago I had heard that the Army was trying to get back into that type of aircraft and was wondering if there was any truth to it.

Thank You
 
Scoutpilot,

Actually I should have been more specific. I was curious if the Army currently uses any fixed-wing aircraft (such as the A-10) in ground support or attack missions. About a year and a half ago I had heard that the Army was trying to get back into that type of aircraft and was wondering if there was any truth to it.

Thank You

I'm not as tied-in to aviation as I used to be, but from the folks I know in acquisitions and my experiences around the Army, no the Army is not in the fixed-wing attack business, save for unmanned vehicles.
 
Scoutpilot,

Actually I should have been more specific. I was curious if the Army currently uses any fixed-wing aircraft (such as the A-10) in ground support or attack missions. About a year and a half ago I had heard that the Army was trying to get back into that type of aircraft and was wondering if there was any truth to it.

Thank You

There is a "roles and missions" issue that exists between the Army and Air Force, which keeps fixed-wing close air support under their umbrella.
 
There is a "roles and missions" issue that exists between the Army and Air Force, which keeps fixed-wing close air support under their umbrella.

I don't understand that really, wouldn't it be easier to let the army operate its own close air support aircraft than to deal with communicating and working with a different branch of service? Why not leave the air force jets the responsibility of air superiority, bomber escorts, etc.? The marine corps gets its own fixed wing close air support, why not the army?
 
I don't understand that really, wouldn't it be easier to let the army operate its own close air support aircraft than to deal with communicating and working with a different branch of service? Why not leave the air force jets the responsibility of air superiority, bomber escorts, etc.? The marine corps gets its own fixed wing close air support, why not the army?

The Marines are a different story, because their mission calls for them to be able to operate [largely] autonomously, at least for short periods.

While I may personally agree with you that CAS might be a better 'fit' for the Army as we operate today, the Air Force is not about to give up that mission (or any portion of it) to the Army. It would be a mistake to try to characterize it purely as a funding issue, but that is certainly a big part of it. No service wishes to give up any roles/missions, because that means loss of force structure and associated budget.
 
Thank you Gray Hog for weighing in.

Thurl
 
To fly with uncorrected vision, you must have vision no worse than 20/50, correctable to 20/20 with issued eyewear. You can also have DA-approved laser corrective surgery.

I would assume that flying the president is an extremely, extremely competitive job, much like getting to fly Air Force One. Obviously, that is not an optionf for an Army pilot.

The "issued eyewear" aren't BCGs, I hope? :rolleyes:

So, would contacts be not allowed?

Never mind about flying a helicopter for the President lol...just found out the responsibility of transporting the President is given to the Marine Corop :\
 
Back
Top