User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 12:06:48 AM EDT
[#1]
They gave up the Blackhawks so that they could get Ospreys.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 12:17:07 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They gave up the Blackhawks so that they could get Ospreys. Yep, we went away from Crash-hawks...to the Osprey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 12:32:55 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yep, we went away from Crash-hawks...to the Osprey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
They gave up the Blackhawks so that they could get Ospreys. Yep, we went away from Crash-hawks...to the Osprey. USMC never widely, if at all, operated 60s. Supposedly the UH-1 and AH-1 have parts commonality, which is a major reason for the Huey. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 1:15:04 AM EDT
[#4]
The only H-60s the Marine Corps ever operated were C4i birds at HMX-1 in support of POTUS.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 1:36:32 AM EDT
[#5]
I've wondered that too. I found out that even the marines don't know.
Hell they put two blackhawk engines in their hueys and cobras to better mesh with the navy's logistics trail, you'd think they'd just buy blackhawks. The biggest thing is that Bell has their claws in the marine corps - each of their incremental upgrades is sold as meeting the USMC's current need while being cheaper than replacing the fleet, so each small step is made. Next thing you know you end up with freakish aircraft that have all sorts of compromises. Sort of like institutional inertia - bell is all they know. I can almost see sticking with the cobras - apaches are way more expensive and making software changes to make an apache play nice with navy systems would be crazy $$$. But a blackhawk is better than a huey in every aspect, it would be an easy and effective upgrage. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 1:43:36 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
USMC never widely, if at all, operated 60s. Supposedly the UH-1 and AH-1 have parts commonality, which is a major reason for the Huey. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
They gave up the Blackhawks so that they could get Ospreys. Yep, we went away from Crash-hawks...to the Osprey. USMC never widely, if at all, operated 60s. Supposedly the UH-1 and AH-1 have parts commonality, which is a major reason for the Huey. I should have been more specific. I am aware that they were never adopted, it was of a tongue in cheek response about the perceived airworthiness of the Blackhawk and what the USMC ultimately decided to use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 2:11:22 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:23:19 AM EDT
[#8]
The way the USMC uses the Huey is a ton better than the Army blackhawks tho. Hunter killer teams, rockets and miniguns.
Yea, I know about the DAP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:34:12 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The way the USMC uses the Huey is a ton better than the Army blackhawks tho. Hunter killer teams, rockets and miniguns. Yea, I know about the DAP. I don't know the accident rate per flight hour to make an even comparison, but the Army has had a lot more crashes with BW's than the Marines with Huey's. Of course, the Army is larger and operates more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:39:42 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The way the USMC uses the Huey is a ton better than the Army blackhawks tho. Hunter killer teams, rockets and miniguns. Yea, I know about the DAP. Every blackhawk variant ever made can carry ESSS wings, and can mount weapons or external fuel tanks on them. It's just not a capability that the US Army has ever used, but many foreign militaries do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:41:41 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've wondered that too. I found out that even the marines don't know. Hell they put two blackhawk engines in their hueys and cobras to better mesh with the navy's logistics trail, you'd think they'd just buy blackhawks. The biggest thing is that Bell has their claws in the marine corps - each of their incremental upgrades is sold as meeting the USMC's current need while being cheaper than replacing the fleet, so each small step is made. Next thing you know you end up with freakish aircraft that have all sorts of compromises. Sort of like institutional inertia - bell is all they know. I can almost see sticking with the cobras - apaches are way more expensive and making software changes to make an apache play nice with navy systems would be crazy $$$. But a blackhawk is better than a huey in every aspect, it would be an easy and effective upgrage. The brits fly navalized Apaches already, it's not really a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:42:53 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The brits fly navalized Apaches already, it's not really a big deal. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I've wondered that too. I found out that even the marines don't know. Hell they put two blackhawk engines in their hueys and cobras to better mesh with the navy's logistics trail, you'd think they'd just buy blackhawks. The biggest thing is that Bell has their claws in the marine corps - each of their incremental upgrades is sold as meeting the USMC's current need while being cheaper than replacing the fleet, so each small step is made. Next thing you know you end up with freakish aircraft that have all sorts of compromises. Sort of like institutional inertia - bell is all they know. I can almost see sticking with the cobras - apaches are way more expensive and making software changes to make an apache play nice with navy systems would be crazy $$$. But a blackhawk is better than a huey in every aspect, it would be an easy and effective upgrage. The brits fly navalized Apaches already, it's not really a big deal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:43:05 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Every blackhawk variant ever made can carry ESSS wings, and can mount weapons or external fuel tanks on them. It's just not a capability that the US Army has ever used, but many foreign militaries do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The way the USMC uses the Huey is a ton better than the Army blackhawks tho. Hunter killer teams, rockets and miniguns. Yea, I know about the DAP. Every blackhawk variant ever made can carry ESSS wings, and can mount weapons or external fuel tanks on them. It's just not a capability that the US Army has ever used, but many foreign militaries do. Yes, I am totally aware. However, I am more enamored of the way the USMC uses their Hueys, vs what the Army uses them for. Almost every hawk in Korea has wing tanks. Korean 60s run the funny looking naval ones. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:46:22 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cobra's work better in shitty environments. It was shown in GW1 and again in the GWOT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've wondered that too. I found out that even the marines don't know. Hell they put two blackhawk engines in their hueys and cobras to better mesh with the navy's logistics trail, you'd think they'd just buy blackhawks. The biggest thing is that Bell has their claws in the marine corps - each of their incremental upgrades is sold as meeting the USMC's current need while being cheaper than replacing the fleet, so each small step is made. Next thing you know you end up with freakish aircraft that have all sorts of compromises. Sort of like institutional inertia - bell is all they know. I can almost see sticking with the cobras - apaches are way more expensive and making software changes to make an apache play nice with navy systems would be crazy $$$. But a blackhawk is better than a huey in every aspect, it would be an easy and effective upgrage. The brits fly navalized Apaches already, it's not really a big deal. You didn't have the Zulu super duper, so many avionics it's a rotary winged superbug variant back then. By the time you add all the functionality (and cost) of an Apache to it, you might as well just fucking buy what it is you are trying to emulate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:48:21 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cobra's work better in shitty environments. It was shown in GW1 and again in the GWOT. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've wondered that too. I found out that even the marines don't know. Hell they put two blackhawk engines in their hueys and cobras to better mesh with the navy's logistics trail, you'd think they'd just buy blackhawks. The biggest thing is that Bell has their claws in the marine corps - each of their incremental upgrades is sold as meeting the USMC's current need while being cheaper than replacing the fleet, so each small step is made. Next thing you know you end up with freakish aircraft that have all sorts of compromises. Sort of like institutional inertia - bell is all they know. I can almost see sticking with the cobras - apaches are way more expensive and making software changes to make an apache play nice with navy systems would be crazy $$$. But a blackhawk is better than a huey in every aspect, it would be an easy and effective upgrage. The brits fly navalized Apaches already, it's not really a big deal. I doubt the shiny new Zulu is any "Easier" to maintain than our shiny new 64E. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 4:53:50 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You didn't have the Zulu super duper, so many avionics it's a rotary winged superbug variant back then. By the time you add all the functionality (and cost) of an Apache to it, you might as well just fucking buy what it is you are trying to emulate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: You didn't have the Zulu super duper, so many avionics it's a rotary winged superbug variant back then. By the time you add all the functionality (and cost) of an Apache to it, you might as well just fucking buy what it is you are trying to emulate. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 5:00:30 AM EDT
[#17]
I asked the same question and was told by a Marine that they have to use aircraft that fit on the ship. The elevators, hanger bay, and so on...are designed for those aircraft and can't fit a blackhawk.
I don't know if that is true or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 5:02:55 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are... you butthurt about it or something? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You didn't have the Zulu super duper, so many avionics it's a rotary winged superbug variant back then. By the time you add all the functionality (and cost) of an Apache to it, you might as well just fucking buy what it is you are trying to emulate. Nope, I don't care either way. I just think it's hilarious the lengths the USMC goes to in order to justify retaining two aircraft that are completely ridiculous for their mission sets, but they have to keep them to be "different". It would be boring to take the most logical course and just buy blackhawks and apaches. They sold the Y/Z programs as upgrades, when they are actually costing as much per aircraft as brand spanking new blackhawks/apaches would. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 5:13:28 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I asked the same question and was told by a Marine that they have to use aircraft that fit on the ship. The elevators, hanger bay, and so on...are designed for those aircraft and can't fit a blackhawk. I don't know if that is true or not. Someone better tell the Navy... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 6:50:43 AM EDT
[#20]
The Marines use UHs in a different role than the Army, our CHs fill that role. The 60 was outright rejected as a CH46 replacement because the lack of a ramp and acquisition would prevent development and fielding of the Osprey
As analysis of alternative, the 60 was looked at as H1 replacement in skid squadrons but the AH-1 community rejected the UH-60 because it would break the link between the UH and adopted across the board and although it could be made into an AH variant they insisted on a tandem seated aircraft instead of a side by side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 9:44:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines use UHs in a different role than the Army, our CHs fill that role. The 60 was outright rejected as a CH46 replacement because the lack of a ramp and acquisition would prevent development and fielding of the Osprey As analysis of alternative, the 60 was looked at as H1 replacement in skid squadrons but the AH-1 community rejected the UH-60 because it would break the link between the UH and adopted across the board and although it could be made into an AH variant they insisted on a tandem seated aircraft instead of a side by side. This....and I'll add to it by saying that I remember some of the other sticking points at the time. It was considered for a CH-46 replacement but -the BH couldn't carry a T/O rifle squad -the BH did not have folding blades to fit on amphibious shipping. I know the Navy got the second point above so that's a mute point now but at the time it didn't fit our needs....plus we were hell bent on OMFTS and wanted the Osprey really bad. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 9:47:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Significant parts commonality with the Cobra is a factor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 9:56:19 AM EDT
[#23]
The Marine Corps doesn't do WO pilots. They use the Sea Knight and now the Osprey as transport Helos. The UH1 is used as General Officer Taxis and other small roles. The way they commission every pilot means that there will be less pilots to fly the numbers of troops they need to move.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 10:04:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Along with not crashing. I don't know the accident rate per flight hour to make an even comparison, but the Army has had a lot more crashes with BW's than the Marines with Huey's. Of course, the Army is larger and operates more. You make a ridiculous statement and then kill your own argument. Not sure what you're trying to say but your bias is obvious. Here's some publicly available numbers: USMC UH-1Y fleet: 100 aircraft total USMC AH-1Z fleet: 180 aircraft total The Army has around 3500 blackhawks and around 700 Apaches. The Army probably has more helicopters at Rucker alone than the entire USMC fleet world-wide. More hours flown daily at Rucker than the entire USMC also. Obviously the Army has more crashes since they have around 20 times as many aircraft. The accident rate per flight hour is similar across all branches for similar types of aircraft, none is significantly better than another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 11:19:52 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, I don't care either way. I just think it's hilarious the lengths the USMC goes to in order to justify retaining two aircraft that are completely ridiculous for their mission sets, but they have to keep them to be "different". It would be boring to take the most logical course and just buy blackhawks and apaches. They sold the Y/Z programs as upgrades, when they are actually costing as much per aircraft as brand spanking new blackhawks/apaches would. I mean, proven track record, and established worldwide basing and logistics aside, there's also the decades of experience of working on them and institutional memory in the wing. Replacing them with blackhawks and apache's is about as logical as the argument to replace 5.56 with 6.8. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 2:31:44 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nope, I don't care either way. I just think it's hilarious the lengths the USMC goes to in order to justify retaining two aircraft that are completely ridiculous for their mission sets, but they have to keep them to be "different". It would be boring to take the most logical course and just buy blackhawks and apaches. They sold the Y/Z programs as upgrades, when they are actually costing as much per aircraft as brand spanking new blackhawks/apaches would. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You didn't have the Zulu super duper, so many avionics it's a rotary winged superbug variant back then. By the time you add all the functionality (and cost) of an Apache to it, you might as well just fucking buy what it is you are trying to emulate. Nope, I don't care either way. I just think it's hilarious the lengths the USMC goes to in order to justify retaining two aircraft that are completely ridiculous for their mission sets, but they have to keep them to be "different". It would be boring to take the most logical course and just buy blackhawks and apaches. They sold the Y/Z programs as upgrades, when they are actually costing as much per aircraft as brand spanking new blackhawks/apaches would. This is the true answer to the question. We want to be different. Pretty much every Z/Y guy I know thinks we should have gone to Apaches/BHs.....not to say the Z/Y are super fucking terrible, we could have just skipped this whole breaking in period by going with proven A/C. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 2:32:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Double Tap |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 2:45:37 PM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 5:01:47 PM EDT
[#29]
Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more.
Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 7:07:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more. Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. Because that's a performance parameter that matters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 8:13:11 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool, how many blackhawks can you fit on a LHD replacing both the number of CH-46's/ Ospreys carried, and Huey's? Because that's a performance parameter that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more. Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. Because that's a performance parameter that matters. The question isn't Blackhawks instead of plopters (capabilities not even comparable) and Phrogs (not the same mission), it's Huey / Blackhawk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 10:16:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And I would argue that speed and range aren't that big of issues, CAS aircraft should already be close enough to the front that the Z wouldn't have that big of an advantage over the apache. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 11:22:44 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The question isn't Blackhawks instead of plopters (capabilities not even comparable) and Phrogs (not the same mission), it's Huey / Blackhawk. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more. Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. Because that's a performance parameter that matters. The question isn't Blackhawks instead of plopters (capabilities not even comparable) and Phrogs (not the same mission), it's Huey / Blackhawk. What do you think the mission of Huey's in the Marines is, anyways? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/8/2015 11:33:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Only thing the Apache has going for it...
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 1:40:31 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would you compare a Huey to a Blackhawk, they fill totally different roles. Ospreys and before them -46's do the role that the BH does for the Army. What do you think the mission of Huey's in the Marines is, anyways? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more. Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. Because that's a performance parameter that matters. The question isn't Blackhawks instead of plopters (capabilities not even comparable) and Phrogs (not the same mission), it's Huey / Blackhawk. What do you think the mission of Huey's in the Marines is, anyways? Because that is the question that the OP posed - why we operate UH-1s and not Blackhawks. I'm a FW pilot not a skid guy, but I doubt the UH-1 has a big (if any) advantage over a Blackhawk with two GAU-whatever's hanging out the sides and APKWS... and according to morgan the Blackhawk is even better performance wise. The Army and Navy may use them for different missions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't do the same thing as a UH-1 in USMC service. Infact, did the Blackhawk not replace the UH-1 in Army service? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 2:28:24 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because that is the question that the OP posed - why we operate UH-1s and not Blackhawks. I'm a FW pilot not a skid guy, but I doubt the UH-1 has a big (if any) advantage over a Blackhawk with two GAU-whatever's hanging out the sides and APKWS... and according to morgan the Blackhawk is even better performance wise. The Army and Navy may use them for different missions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't do the same thing as a UH-1 in USMC service. Infact, did the Blackhawk not replace the UH-1 in Army service? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Because that is the question that the OP posed - why we operate UH-1s and not Blackhawks. I'm a FW pilot not a skid guy, but I doubt the UH-1 has a big (if any) advantage over a Blackhawk with two GAU-whatever's hanging out the sides and APKWS... and according to morgan the Blackhawk is even better performance wise. The Army and Navy may use them for different missions, but that doesn't mean it couldn't do the same thing as a UH-1 in USMC service. Infact, did the Blackhawk not replace the UH-1 in Army service? Who needs a fancy BH flying mail back and forth during unreps? Why task a BH to be the BN CO's taxi? I've ridden in both, I like riding in Huey's a lot better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 8:26:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cool, how many blackhawks can you fit on a LHD replacing both the number of CH-46's/ Ospreys carried, and Huey's? Because that's a performance parameter that matters. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Your perf specs are relative and not accurate. A Basic army Blackhawk will destroy any Huey variant in every performance parameter. It will go higher, faster, farther, and carry more. Apache vs cobra is tough to compare - munitions make a huge drag and weight difference and they carry different munitions. I'm not sure which would have better performance. Because that's a performance parameter that matters. We have been folding Blackhawks and stuffing them on ships much smaller than an LHD since the early 80s. There is no difference in space with a folded blackhawk and huey. As mentioned before the blackhawk will rape the huey in every performance category and do it cheaper. Parts commonality is the major benefit when operating as a single squadron with 2 different airframes. Seahawk pilot |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:04:35 AM EDT
[#38]
There was an analysis of alternative done probably 15-20 years ago for the UH-60 as an H1 replacement. The major non-concurrence was the a non-tandem seat platform were not ideal for the AH role and hence it would mean there would still need to maintain the AH-1 so there would no longer be part commonality.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:09:05 AM EDT
[#39]
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1.
No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:09:07 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was an analysis of alternative done probably 15-20 years ago for the UH-60 as an H1 replacement. The major non-concurrence was the a non-tandem seat platform were not ideal for the AH role and hence it would mean there would still need to maintain the AH-1 so there would no longer be part commonality. I agree that tandem seating in an attack helo is almost a necessity. Doing gun patterns in a side by side configurations is more difficult for maintaining SA. Not impossible, but not ideal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:14:39 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:21:01 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:33:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. Did you keep all those parts on a ship, with limited resupply hits in the middle of the ocean? How many maintainers are qualified on multiple different airframes and do you have the berthing to support the extra ones? You do realize that the maintenance component is part of the same squadron as the operations. You just can't ship your aircraft down the flight line to a separate maintenance shop while deployed on ship. Room to store parts on a ship is limited and so is the space to house the maintainers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:46:19 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Did you keep all those parts on a ship, with limited resupply hits in the middle of the ocean? How many maintainers are qualified on multiple different airframes and do you have the berthing to support the extra ones? You do realize that the maintenance component is part of the same squadron as the operations. You just can't ship your aircraft down the flight line to a separate maintenance shop while deployed on ship. Room to store parts on a ship is limited and so is the space to house the maintainers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. Did you keep all those parts on a ship, with limited resupply hits in the middle of the ocean? How many maintainers are qualified on multiple different airframes and do you have the berthing to support the extra ones? You do realize that the maintenance component is part of the same squadron as the operations. You just can't ship your aircraft down the flight line to a separate maintenance shop while deployed on ship. Room to store parts on a ship is limited and so is the space to house the maintainers. You have a really funny idea of how we do aircraft maintenance, and how we deploy. I worked on helicopters in the AF for three years, we went TDY all over God's green earth (and yes, deployed), most of the time to bases with zero support. I was part of the flying squadron then, too. We have no backshops, no massive warehouses of parts, etc. with us either. Sometimes we deploy to large bases with all of that support, but we are just as self contained as you are on most deployments, granted with more physical space to work in. The fact remains, having some "special" aircraft that nobody else on earth flies is ridiculous and a whole lot more costly than buying COTS and modding it to suit your needs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:53:57 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have a really funny idea of how we do aircraft maintenance, and how we deploy. I worked on helicopters in the AF for three years, we went TDY all over God's green earth (and yes, deployed), most of the time to bases with zero support. I was part of the flying squadron then, too. We have no backshops, no massive warehouses of parts, etc. with us either. Sometimes we deploy to large bases with all of that support, but we are just as self contained as you are on most deployments, granted with more physical space to work in. The fact remains, having some "special" aircraft that nobody else on earth flies is ridiculous and a whole lot more costly than buying COTS and modding it to suit your needs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. Did you keep all those parts on a ship, with limited resupply hits in the middle of the ocean? How many maintainers are qualified on multiple different airframes and do you have the berthing to support the extra ones? You do realize that the maintenance component is part of the same squadron as the operations. You just can't ship your aircraft down the flight line to a separate maintenance shop while deployed on ship. Room to store parts on a ship is limited and so is the space to house the maintainers. You have a really funny idea of how we do aircraft maintenance, and how we deploy. I worked on helicopters in the AF for three years, we went TDY all over God's green earth (and yes, deployed), most of the time to bases with zero support. I was part of the flying squadron then, too. We have no backshops, no massive warehouses of parts, etc. with us either. Sometimes we deploy to large bases with all of that support, but we are just as self contained as you are on most deployments, granted with more physical space to work in. The fact remains, having some "special" aircraft that nobody else on earth flies is ridiculous and a whole lot more costly than buying COTS and modding it to suit your needs. It's a bit easier to fly in replacement parts when you are working out of an airfield as opposed to flying them onto a ship |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 9:58:05 AM EDT
[#46]
Some of you people are amazing. The marines are institutionally tied to bell, it's what they have and know and stick with.
When talking about the Huey/Blackhawk They are left with worse performance and less capability in every way but obviously feel they have the best solution for other reasons. If there was an option they felt was better they would go with it. You want common parts? Switch to 100% blackhawk. But they're Indoctrinated and feel you must have a traditional attack helicopter design to do the job. Bottom line is the Huey/cobra usmc uses is loaded with compromises required when they put new engines, transmissions, rotors, and avionics in them. They are not desirable aircraft as evidenced by the fact that nobody else uses them in the usmc configuration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 10:02:40 AM EDT
[#47]
probably has something to do with how many AH-1's and UH-1s can fit on navy boats.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 10:20:41 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You have a really funny idea of how we do aircraft maintenance, and how we deploy. I worked on helicopters in the AF for three years, we went TDY all over God's green earth (and yes, deployed), most of the time to bases with zero support. I was part of the flying squadron then, too. We have no backshops, no massive warehouses of parts, etc. with us either. Sometimes we deploy to large bases with all of that support, but we are just as self contained as you are on most deployments, granted with more physical space to work in. The fact remains, having some "special" aircraft that nobody else on earth flies is ridiculous and a whole lot more costly than buying COTS and modding it to suit your needs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If you want a good comparison, why does the USMC operate the Abrams? They could have kept their M-60s, and been on version Z with them, just put a turbine in them, re-gun them with a 120mm, and they'd be almost as good as an M-1. No? Why not? Because it's fucking stupid and would make them the only branch operating that abortion, just like they are with the H-1 fleet. The blackhawk family is the largest fleet of rotary wing aircraft on earth, what could be gained by operating a common aircraft? Operating an AH-64 and the UH-60 in an HMLA squadron would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare. You would need to separate the platforms into different squadrons, but probably lose some of the team effectiveness by not having all the pilots under one squadron. The "parts commonality" argument is weak at best. I've worked a lot of different aircraft and even the exact same assembly used in different locations on the same aircraft usually has different part/stock numbers. The components that actually matter (engines mostly) are common between all four platforms under discussion anyway. None of the attack/weapons systems on the Z are common to the Y, of course, and what breaks the most? If they are spending a few billion dollars it's a piece of cake to get common cockpit diplays, like the Army did on their entire fleet. Did you keep all those parts on a ship, with limited resupply hits in the middle of the ocean? How many maintainers are qualified on multiple different airframes and do you have the berthing to support the extra ones? You do realize that the maintenance component is part of the same squadron as the operations. You just can't ship your aircraft down the flight line to a separate maintenance shop while deployed on ship. Room to store parts on a ship is limited and so is the space to house the maintainers. You have a really funny idea of how we do aircraft maintenance, and how we deploy. I worked on helicopters in the AF for three years, we went TDY all over God's green earth (and yes, deployed), most of the time to bases with zero support. I was part of the flying squadron then, too. We have no backshops, no massive warehouses of parts, etc. with us either. Sometimes we deploy to large bases with all of that support, but we are just as self contained as you are on most deployments, granted with more physical space to work in. The fact remains, having some "special" aircraft that nobody else on earth flies is ridiculous and a whole lot more costly than buying COTS and modding it to suit your needs. I have been on detachments to remote places with minimal support as a self contained detachment, and maintenance was still much easier to do (not just a boat guy). The shear fact that physical space is not as limited compared to shipboard facilities. When you are hanging blades and gearboxes (only space for one) high in the rafters of a ship because that is the only place to put them parts commonality becomes a factor. Getting parts was a lot easier and quicker when co located with an actual runway. New blades need to be sling loaded to a ship, not just come on the next C130 that is passing by. If you want to argue whether the USMC needs the AH-1 or could get by with a 60 variant in the attack role, then moving to the 60 makes sense. If they feel they need the AH-1 then moving to the 60 doesn't make sense with the way the USMC uses the UH-1. As a 60 guy myself, I agree that the 60 is a much better platform then the UH-1, but not so much better to bring the logistical headaches if the the USMC is going to keep the AH-1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 10:36:13 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the fact that nobody else uses them in the usmc configuration. No one else in the world does anything like the MEU |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/9/2015 2:47:07 PM EDT
[#50]
I wonder how many senior aviation Marines go on to work for contractors, and what effect, if any, that employment has on the USMC.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
