Even a blind Apache pilot can see at night

[Lawman]

I was more thinking about the odds of out-swimming all the flying metal: thus.

Related note: do -64 guys fly with bottles overwater?

Army requires Horse collars and bottles for any over water flight in all our Helos. Only guys that really use them regularly are the Korea and Hawaii units and any coastal Guard guys.

Riding the Helo into the water just scares the hell out of us though. Its hard enough to unass that aircraft wearing all your crap when its not trying to drown you. The book ditching procedure is for the Front Seater to get out, the pilot takes it a safe bit away, blow the canopy, and then does a hovering auto trying to bleed off as much rotor RPM as possible prior to it contacting the water and turning into a cartwheeling ball of metal and anger... I can tell you most people I know (myself included) are going to get it low, get the hold modes for a nice controlled 6-9 knot hover, get out on the EFAB, and jump. Where it "lands" is not my problem.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Interesting. All the "jump vs ditch" discussions I had in the Hummer eventually got to "at what point do we give up on a bailout and decide to ride it in?" Difficulty being once you release the PSE from the seat, you can't re-rig it and you're committed to jumping.

Are the Brit Apaches equipped any differently, since they've made flying off their 'phibs part of their mission set? Like, I dunno, float bags, or something else that'd make them at least theoretically more survivable in a ditch.

 

[Lawman]

Thats kinda the issue with the aircraft.

There is no room in the cockpit for any additional survival gear beyond what you can physically wear.

We had to rig them out with the full overwater kit (shark tacos, inflatable raft, etc) but all that stuff is 20 feet behind you locked in a tail compartment that doesnt have any sort of auto salt water deployment or anything cool like that. It goes with the bird, so if the bird is on the bottom of the Ocean, so is your boat. We just sent Apaches out to RIMPAC this year as part of the idea of being able to forward deploy in a Pacific AO off of an Amphib but its still a less than optimal idea. Like I said our main concern is a combination of buoyancy (we have none and the thing fills with water near instantly) and the fact that its so difficult to get out of our cockpit if the Canopy jettison isnt fired first.

Brits, Japan, Thai's, Etc all have the same problems. The aircraft just is not optimized for an over water survival situation.

 

[Hotdogs]

We just sent Apaches out to RIMPAC this year as part of the idea of being able to forward deploy in a Pacific AO off of an Amphib but its still a less than optimal idea.

What's the rationale behind this? and what were the challenges you guys faced based off of limited boat experience?

 

[Lawman]

What's the rationale behind this? and what were the challenges you guys faced based off of limited boat experience?

Bitchen Photo Op mostly...

I've heard a lot of "good theories" on why we would put 64s on a boat. Biggest one that made sense was rapid deployability. If I can just get ferried across a body of water it saves me days of pulling apart and putting back together for Strat-Air. Plus we are trying to build an institutional knowledge of how to do this Litorral thing in the Pacific.

Limitation wise? Night landing in a 64 creates wicked parallax due to the sensor being 11 feet in front of the pilots actual head (same problems in FARPs etc) plus the deck moves so you can't trust the velocity indicators we learn to fly off of. Day time could actually be worse because our cockpit visibility is so bad we can lose vis on the LSE really quick. That and culturally we have a lot of guys that have the F the Navy I like my way better mindset to combat.

I see it as "Prime Chance" from the 80s on steroids. Got trouble with the Iranians? Worried about ships going through the straits? Stick a couple 64s on the open deck space of an LPD or something else without organic gunships and we give them an over the horizon response for that small boat problem. But it comes with negatives like I completely eat the deck I'm on because I can't fold up. But that won't disrupt air operations any more than using the Non skid steel Parade deck for PT.

 

[pourts]

What's the rationale behind this? and what were the challenges you guys faced based off of limited boat experience?

Dog and pony show to get more funding from Congress.

 

[Hotdogs]

It's an interesting prospect coming from Army aviation. I don't see it really as encroaching on our mission set because the real strength of the MEU comes from the BLT and associated/flexible dets aboard - not just the skids. I think it'll be more of a pain in the ass for the Army to conform all of it's equipment for amphibs just from the logistics and maintenance standpoint. Can the 64 even fit below deck on a LHD? Everything from AVCALing the ships out, ordnance requirements (different LAUs, HERO req, HF, 30mm vs 20/25mm), saltwater corrosion, deck space/cycles, command relationships, who's comm fills/covers etc. I think there's a decent learning curve if it's ever to become a full time Army gig hanging out offshore. The actual flying and procedural portion of it is probably one of the easier things to overcome. It doesn't sound like big Army is fully aware of how much work it would actually take other than it just being a capability demonstration. Unfortunately a dog and pony show is probably all it would to take to get funding on board with out looking at the second and third order effects. Do apaches flying regularly with the FLIR image in the monocle or just standard HUD imagery?

 

[Lawman]

It was telling the first time I tried showing a Standardization Pilot (kind IP) a copy of the LHD specific NATOPS and getting a look of "why does this concern us?" Lots of institutional stupidity or unwillingness to realize we are guests on the boat. And yeah the monocle is our primary flight display. We have no HUD just the HMD and unless it's day time that pumping FLIR from the nose mounted TADS/PNVS is the primary sensor. We don't really use goggles in the community, and day time it's the same flight data minus the FLIR so I can't look through the cockpit with it like I can on sensor. Other problem... Nobody knows our deck landing limits. We have slope limits but even those aren't a hard fast number since the weight they used isn't reflective of any normal load catagory.

There is an MOA/joint pub on Litorral warfare but calling it a draft is being generous. I'm the first guy in line to say we don't know what we are doing and we bring just as many problems as we solve. Your question on fitting below decks, we can barely move above decks. Our rotor system doesn't fold easily (4 hours with an aircraft specific jig and a trained crew), our wings are 16'4"wide at the tip even if they did. It's 17 feet tall at the antenna with no quick way to disconnect. Fold the bird up and push it below and now you need to perform a maintenance test flight to make it up again.

I see the scenario of "hey we are sending an Army Ground Brigade to country X in the pacific and they need organic Air, embark and take a cruise and get off at your destination." Outside that or using you guys as a refuel stop while island hoping from the Philipines to Malaysia or something... Not a lot of good ideas here.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Plus, someone's going to ask why it's worth going through all that trouble when we've already got plenty of boat-capable gunships and proficient pilots. I could see using a boat as a staging base / lillypad for a one-off (like Haiti), but not as a regular thing.

The Brits had to do it because that's pretty much the only way they can have any sort of organic "strike" capability from their big decks now. Still, I'd be interested to hear how they adapted the helos and training for the mission.

 

[Coota0]

Bitchen Photo Op mostly...

I've heard a lot of "good theories" on why we would put 64s on a boat. Biggest one that made sense was rapid deployability. If I can just get ferried across a body of water it saves me days of pulling apart and putting back together for Strat-Air. Plus we are trying to build an institutional knowledge of how to do this Litorral thing in the Pacific.

Limitation wise? Night landing in a 64 creates wicked parallax due to the sensor being 11 feet in front of the pilots actual head (same problems in FARPs etc) plus the deck moves so you can't trust the velocity indicators we learn to fly off of. Day time could actually be worse because our cockpit visibility is so bad we can lose vis on the LSE really quick. That and culturally we have a lot of guys that have the F the Navy I like my way better mindset to combat.

I see it as "Prime Chance" from the 80s on steroids. Got trouble with the Iranians? Worried about ships going through the straits? Stick a couple 64s on the open deck space of an LPD or something else without organic gunships and we give them an over the horizon response for that small boat problem. But it comes with negatives like I completely eat the deck I'm on because I can't fold up. But that won't disrupt air operations any more than using the Non skid steel Parade deck for PT.

If only there was an aircraft that could quickly deploy anywhere in the world with only one part removed and not even require a test flight after unfolding the blades? Maybe an aircraft that has worked the Persian Gulf with the Navy before and does deck quals with the Navy. Wonder where we could find an aircraft like that? Probably doesn't exist anymore. Oh well...:/

 

[Lawman]

Plus, someone's going to ask why it's worth going through all that trouble when we've already got plenty of boat-capable gunships and proficient pilots. I could see using a boat as a staging base / lillypad for a one-off (like Haiti), but not as a regular thing.

The Brits had to do it because that's pretty much the only way they can have any sort of organic "strike" capability from their big decks now. Still, I'd be interested to hear how they adapted the helos and training for the mission.

We do have an advantage over the Skids in having a lot more gas and legs especially now with the 100 gallon wing tanks that are approved for combat missions, but again its a solution in search of a problem. The only place that would really make a difference would be somewhere that you somehow needed to send an all rotor package like 160th 47s deep into a country and they needed Rotary Fires for the risk approval. But again, niche type of mission trying to justify a whole change in mode of operation. Not really a high payoff for the Army other than being able to argue for dollars in front of Congress to spend on stuff other than Aviation.

 

[BigRed389]

We do have an advantage over the Skids in having a lot more gas and legs especially now with the 100 gallon wing tanks that are approved for combat missions, but again its a solution in search of a problem. The only place that would really make a difference would be somewhere that you somehow needed to send an all rotor package like 160th 47s deep into a country and they needed Rotary Fires for the risk approval. But again, niche type of mission trying to justify a whole change in mode of operation. Not really a high payoff for the Army other than being able to argue for dollars in front of Congress to spend on stuff other than Aviation.

Seems like potential for payoff going up against a FIAC swarm esp in straits transits. Don't know how skids compare when it comes to shwacking a whole lot of unarmored fast moving vehicles in a short period of time but that's a problem that still bugs big navy. I'd think shore based dets to lily pad off AFSBs to cover certain littoral areas might spark some interest.

 

[Lawman]

Seems like potential for payoff going up against a FIAC swarm esp in straits transits. Don't know how skids compare when it comes to shwacking a whole lot of unarmored fast moving vehicles in a short period of time but that's a problem that still bugs big navy. I'd think shore based dets to lily pad off AFSBs to cover certain littoral areas might spark some interest.

Two words to solve the boat problem.... Unitary Warhead. Find a way to mount something like ASROC with something like a unitary MLRS rocket. That or an air burst with the new 13X series LGBs Raytheon just briefed us on. Eventually there are just too many damn boats. Plus, A big warhead like that has more of a psychological effect to somebody driving toward a ship when all twenty of his buddies just explode at the same time vs picking individual fleas off the dog.

But yeah the Litorral transit was one of the big hey let's see how they do at this for RIMPAC. Theoretical flight time... Sea level with 2 wing tanks and a Roby in the belly.... Just shy of 5 hours. So lots of endurance to spend getting past a choke point.

 

[Gatordev]

It doesn't sound like big Army is fully aware of how much work it would actually take other than it just being a capability demonstration.

Having worked with the Army a couple of times, I wouldn't be surprised by this. And I'm not knocking the end-users like Lawman (although some of them obviously need to be educated, but as was said, that's fairly easy). The sheer amount of energy the Navy puts into CPC and PUKs/Supply is pretty amazing and I have a feeling Big Army doesn't quite understand what we do day-to-day.

We do have an advantage over the Skids in having a lot more gas and legs especially now with the 100 gallon wing tanks that are approved for combat missions, but again its a solution in search of a problem. The only place that would really make a difference would be somewhere that you somehow needed to send an all rotor package like 160th 47s deep into a country and they needed Rotary Fires for the risk approval. But again, niche type of mission trying to justify a whole change in mode of operation. Not really a high payoff for the Army other than being able to argue for dollars in front of Congress to spend on stuff other than Aviation.

I can think of one (or two) very specific reasons for you guys to have extra gas (and an extra missile or two) in the littoral environment. How likely will it be needed? Hopefully never, but there is a "requirement." Alas, we don't have a Secret Airwarriors, so I guess that discussion is over.

 

[Pags]

If only there was an aircraft that could quickly deploy anywhere in the world with only one part removed and not even require a test flight after unfolding the blades? Maybe an aircraft that has worked the Persian Gulf with the Navy before and does deck quals with the Navy. Wonder where we could find an aircraft like that? Probably doesn't exist anymore. Oh well...:/

So, you're talking about the 60?