Goodbye to the "Kiowa Warrior"?

[KODAK]

Some not so great news from the Army side of the house:


"Hopes Fade for US Army Armed Aerial Scout"
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131205/DEFREG02/312050025/

"58 News and its not good"
http://www.kiowapilots.net/index.php?threads/58-news-and-its-not-good.552/#post-3730

 

[Renegade One]

Not sure if I care about the aircraft…but who now does the "mission"?

 

[KODAK]

Not sure if I care about the aircraft…but who now does the "mission"?

According to the 'plan', the Apache. One interesting figure in that article to me was that the AH-64D costs $1mil more a year per aircraft to operate versus the OH-58D.. Obviously not the same mission but still a significant cost differential.

Here is another article which also mentions moving half of the LUH-72A down to Ft Rucker and retiring the entire TH-67 fleet along with all 300+ Kiowa Warriors. The Guard would also get UH60s from the active-duty side.

Army Plans To Scrap Kiowa Helo Fleet
New Missions for Apaches, Black Hawks
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20131209/NEWS04/312090006/Army-Plans-Scrap-Kiowa-Helo-Fleet

 

[lowflier03]

Lots of potential shuffling there. You've gotta wonder if the Lakota is as cheap to operate the Jetranger for training purposes...I'm guessing not. And using Apache's for the scout role? Sounds like replacing HMMV's and scout buggies with Abram's tanks. Now add in the extra wear and tear on the Apaches, and suddenly the Army will be looking to SLEP or replace those as well.

The Army has continually mismanaged their helo program on a scale only rivaled by their own Crusader and the Navy's A-12 program. Except they have managed to drag out the helo problem much longer.

 

[Hotdogs]

Lots of potential shuffling there. You've gotta wonder if the Lakota is as cheap to operate the Jetranger for training purposes...I'm guessing not. And using Apache's for the scout role? Sounds like replacing HMMV's and scout buggies with Abram's tanks. Now add in the extra wear and tear on the Apaches, and suddenly the Army will be looking to SLEP or replace those as well.

The Army has continually mismanaged their helo program on a scale only rivaled by their own Crusader and the Navy's A-12 program. Except they have managed to drag out the helo problem much longer.

I'm guessing the advent of UASs, it's lack of speed (relative), armor, armament, mediocre sensor, short range, horrible power margin, and barely any useful load had something to do with it too.

 

[Pags]

Lots of potential shuffling there. You've gotta wonder if the Lakota is as cheap to operate the Jetranger for training purposes...I'm guessing not. And using Apache's for the scout role? Sounds like replacing HMMV's and scout buggies with Abram's tanks. Now add in the extra wear and tear on the Apaches, and suddenly the Army will be looking to SLEP or replace those as well.

The Army has continually mismanaged their helo program on a scale only rivaled by their own Crusader and the Navy's A-12 program. Except they have managed to drag out the helo problem much longer.

I think the army uses h-60s for their "advanced" flight school. I imagine if the lakotas are to be used to replace the h-60s then there would be some savings. Sounds like a bit of a shell game, but I'm sure there was plenty of analysis that went into it.

Doesn't sound like the mission is going away, just that the kip was are at the end of their li and the army hasn't been able to successfully implement a replacement airframe.

 

[KODAK]

I think the army uses h-60s for their "advanced" flight school. I imagine if the lakotas are to be used to replace the h-60s then there would be some savings. Sounds like a bit of a shell game, but I'm sure there was plenty of analysis that went into it.

As I understand it you fly the TH-67 and then 'track select' to your final platform: OH-58D, UH-60, CH-47, or AH-64. Just had two friends go through the 60 and 58D courses down at Rucker and I believe that is the order they followed in 2011/ 2012.

Doesn't sound like the mission is going away, just that the kip was are at the end of their li and the army hasn't been able to successfully implement a replacement airframe.

I would agree with that logic in principal, but as I think we all know defense procurement is anything but logical.. The Army has really screwed up this replacement process (RAH-66 'Commanche', ARH-70 'Arapaho', Armed Aerial Scout, Kiowa A2D, OH-58F) but once the mission goes to Army drones, even temporarily, I would agree that it will stay there forever..

 

[lowflier03]

I'm guessing the advent of UASs, it's lack of speed (relative), armor, armament, mediocre sensor, short range, horrible power margin, and barely any useful load had something to do with it too.

Not saying the -58 didn't have issues and shouldn't have been replaced sooner. But it should have been replaced well before now. My point was that they have continued to mismanage that program and have royally screwed the pooch. How many times over the past 20 years has the retirement of the -58 been imminent, and instead they just keep flying them with very little money put into the program to modernize the airframe?

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Is this not an option? I would love to get an hour TOS with one of these bad boys.

 

[xmid]

Is this not an option? I would love to get an hour TOS with one of these bad boys.

You know there's a PEP tour for Cobra guys to fly these things with the 160th?...

 

[lowflier03]

Is this not an option? I would love to get an hour TOS with one of these bad boys.

Concur, what I wouldn't give to fly one.

 

[wink]

Is this not an option? I would love to get an hour TOS with one of these bad boys.

It was/is an option. The proposal is MD Helicopters provides a basic aircraft to Boeing Helicopters (they live next door to each other in Mesa, AZ) and then Boeing missionizes it to include optional pilot. So, we are back to the basic question, is the mission going away as a stand alone function, or is it just the current aircraft? BTW, I flew in OH-6s when I first started my airborne LE gig years ago. As much fun as it looks. Next county south actually has AH-6s from the 160th.

 

[Flash]

......I would agree with that logic in principal, but as I think we all know defense procurement is anything but logical.. The Army has really screwed up this replacement process (RAH-66 'Commanche', ARH-70 'Arapaho', Armed Aerial Scout, Kiowa A2D, OH-58F) but once the mission goes to Army drones, even temporarily, I would agree that it will stay there forever..

Not saying the -58 didn't have issues and shouldn't have been replaced sooner. But it should have been replaced well before now. My point was that they have continued to mismanage that program and have royally screwed the pooch. How many times over the past 20 years has the retirement of the -58 been imminent, and instead they just keep flying them with very little money put into the program to modernize the airframe?

I don't think the Army has gotten a new aircraft procurement program right since they bought the Apache. They screwed up the Aerial Common Sensor, the Comanche and now the 58 replacement yet again. I am not sure how you can screw up buying a 'proven' design (ARH-70), though if some Marine Cobra guys I knew are to be believed Bell isn't exactly the best company to work with either.

From an outsider's perspective it seems to me a combination of the Army's larger procurement issues and their relative neglect of their aviation branch.

 

[wink]

I think much of the problem is getting stuck in between technology generations ie manned or unmanned. The Army isn't yet ready (on a couple levels, I think) for an unmanned program for the armed scout mission, yet a manned option would be just about behind the tech curve by time it was operational. Going unmanned isn't so easy for them. They want an armed scout. The Army has no experience deploying weapons from UAVs. Their UAVs are run by enlisted as well, which is problematic if you are talking weapons release authority. Of course they have controlled UAVs with Apaches, and that may make sense in the scout role, but as I recall that requires extensive avionics mods to the Apaches in addition to the cost of a new unmanned air frame and a paradigm shift in ops and doctrine. I am curious what AWs Army bubbas think of an unmanned armed scout.

 

[bert]

None of the services have had much recent success* with programs that couldn't be billed as upgrades to already existing models.



*Though I suppose it is all in where you set the bar.