via ID.
Count me among those who see this as training that will be used in theater for action one day.
In the 1980s the US Army deployed small special forces helicopters on US vessels in dealing with Iran during the Tanker War. Those Army helicopters did very well against small boat combat, and it is worth the effort to put Apache's into that role today to see what Navy needs to do to support it.
Over the last decade there have been a number of sea base proposals that never panned out. One of the proposals I was always particularly found of was developing the capability to field the 101st Airborne division from a Sea Base. I'd like to think this activity helps the Army clarify what needs to be done in support of that eventual capability.
Yeah. Operations at sea are fun until the first mishap occurs.
Go to Information Dissemination website to read the whole article to get a flavor of where he's coming from.
I think we're still in the embryonic stage of all this. Consider.
* Riverine is struggling to find its footing. Every time it seems to settle on a concept of operations it finds itself drifting into Naval Special Warfare turf...especially Special Boat Team territory.
* Marine Aviation should be looking for every chance possible to guard its turf. They better be anyway (not their fault Amos has put the wing in a terrible position). Every mission set that can be accomplished by the MV-22, AH-1Z and UH-1Y better be one where Marine Aviation is fighting to get that slot.
* Naval Aviation should be looking for every chance possible to guard its turf. If Naval Rotorcraft want to be seen as more than simply a supply service to do shuttle runs between ships then it better get into the littoral fight in a big way.
* Naval Unmanned Rotary Aircraft are going to be taking up deck space. FireScout B or C will be taking up deckspace, flying longer missions and hitting as hard as their manned brethren Additionally for the space of two Fire Scout B's you can get one MH-60? Yeah. Some smart boy in the Surface Navy is going to do the math.
Long story short.
It might make a pretty picture, and everyone might be fired up about the image it presents but its waaaay different from what we'll actually see in a combat zone.
Why not the British did it with their AH-64 Apaches on HMS Ocean. We can do the same as well. I can see the US Navy getting Apache's for Surface attack, special ops support and littoral warfare.
ReplyDeletedid you even read the article?
Deletethe APACHE is jacked up for naval warfare for a number of reasons. how do you get out of it if you have a crash at sea? how do you make it suitable for shipboard operations? NAVAIR would throw a fit and with good reason.
the Marines don't operate APACHEs because NAVAIR would require major modifications to the airframe.
Back in the day, there was some work done on a Sea Apache concept. It could have been interesting.
Deletehttp://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/mcdonnell_sea_apache.php
yeah...covered it. but the thing is once you add all the toys and bells to it you're looking at fighter jet prices. correction, you're looking at legacy jet prices.
DeleteWhat could SeaApache do that the AH-1Z cannot be made to do?
DeleteI can see the prospect of the US Navy deploying AH-64 C & D's Apaches on LHA's, LHD's, LPD's and even on Aircraft carriers for Surface attack, littoral operations, ASUW and even supporting special operations air support. The British did it with their Apaches off of HMS Ocean and maybe the US Navy can copy the same uses as well. The US Navy Helicopter force can use that kind of leverage to get more work other than being a shuttle service and ASUW service. Even for countries like Thailand and Japan may find this idea very interesting as well. Imagine the US Navy Seals having Apaches supporting them on their missions at sea and providing air cover for them.
DeleteThe problem with the Bell AH-1Z Viper is that the design is reaching the end of it's life, and maybe it's time to find something better or get in on the Apaches.
DeleteI don't see the USMC needing Apaches. However, if the Army wants to get smart again on conducting operations from ships, this is a good start.
ReplyDeleteIf you could pack 4 Apaches on an old flat top boat (could even be a civilian cargo ship, which is big enough to hold a lot more than 4) to stage in an area where you were going to drop in a Battalion of paratroopers from the 4th BDE 25th IN Div (based out of Alaska) why wouldn't you?
Then again, maybe next time the Army will use its own ships, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USAV_Spearhead_(TSV-X1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Runnymede_class_large_landing_craft
If the Army can augment the USMC in support of the Air/Sea concept that the planners espouse, it would dumb to say no to that capability.
augment yes. replace no. i'm hearing concepts that have Army aviation replacing Marine. that won't float in my book.
DeleteAM the Army has been operating helos off USN ships for decades. MSC provided them a helo depot ship in "Nam. I had Army helos conduct training on my Amphibs any number of times.
DeleteThe US Army does not operate any HSV nor will they. What was to have been Army JHSVs has officially been transferred to MSC. The Army has repeatedly decided NOT to put helo platforms aka flight decks on ships it uses.
Sol, the Army helos operated on the Maritime Support Barges during the Tanker War, but those were chartered by NSW not a regular Navy thing. The Army has flown helos of CVNs for Haiti and other ops.
I don't know where you are getting your dope about the Riverines, but it is not what I am hearing.
I do NOT see anything significant is these reports.
I'll leave the rest of guessing about naval aviation to you~
Who is dumb enough to float that concpet? After WWII people were dumb enough to say "we don't need the USMC because the Army did just fine establishing beachheads and taking islands from the Japanese." And they were rightly shot down and told to sit in the corner and color.
ReplyDeleteCheck out the US Army 36th Engineer Brigade.
ReplyDeleteThe Army's seahorse amphib specialist.