4
4
0
With the economy in its current state many organizations in the military are being forced to cut back their budgets. There are currently a bunch of changes being implemented throughout Army Aviation. These include the elimination of the OH-58D scout helicopter and decommissioning the TH-67 Creek as the primary trainer and going with the LUH. Anyone care to way in or your thoughts? I would love to hear what my fellow aviators are thinking..
Aviation
Future
Army
Warrant Officers
Downsizing
Edited 11 y ago
Posted 11 y ago
Responses: 13
6
6
0
As a former ground scout, I will miss the KWs. Those birds and the awesome folks who flew them provided my platoon and I cover and support on every mission we performed in Afghanistan back in 04-05. In my humble, and probably biased opinion, that was air-ground integration at its best.
(6)
(0)
4
4
0
Since the inception of this thread I wanted to point something put. While I am praying cooler heads prevail over Ukraine, think about this... Russia is staging aggression with armor the same time the Army wants to transition Guard birds ( armor killers) to Active duty, and the Air Force wants to kill its tailor made tank killer. The A-10 was specifically designed to kill tanks... Entirely stop a Russian spearhead through the Fulda gap. With that being said, things are being rushed without people considering long term effects. Multi role is garbage, and I'm positive the a-10 is the only real true heavy ordinance multi role fighter .
(4)
(0)
SrA Ronald Moore
I say Keep,The A-10,And stop counting your Chicken before they hatch,Just like the B-52, it is still needed,Along Side of C-5A Galaxy.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Wow, nobody wants to weigh in on this one. I am an instructor at the Aviation Warrant Officer Advanced Course and the students can't stop talking about these issues. I figured this would of drummed up some thoughts. I guess not.
(4)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
It's not about being reluctant to weigh in... I think that a lot of good questions tend to slip through the cracks... It is also about the fact that I ended up on this dated discussion years after the fact :)
"With the economy in its current state, many organizations in the military are being forced to cut back their budgets. There are currently a bunch of changes being implemented throughout Army Aviation. "
Yes, there are changes, and being six months into retirement, I can only provide commentary about that which I was seeing before I received that wonderful slip of paper allowing me to slip the surly bonds of Army Aviation. Old habits for me – aviation and soapboxes – die hard for me, however.
The May 2014 issue of Flightfax offered an article titled "Defragging the Hard Drive: A Change in Aviation Training Philosophy” written by LTC Josh Sauls. In this article, he posed the question “Why are we not spending more time requiring our aviators to know and understand aviation doctrine and tactics?” This question, along with yours about the audience’s overall thoughts on the “future of Army Aviation” are going to be the bigger issues in the times to come for Army Aviation, however.
Does Standardization, as a field, need to re-think how we train and evaluate? Absolutely. How do we get there? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. We exist within a culture which is extremely resistant to change and at times not very well suited for non-linear thinking. Over the last 45 years, rotary-wing doctrine has shifted from asymmetric or “other than war” warfare in Vietnam, to conventional “Red Hoard/Fulda Gap” theory like a massive pendulum of “threat reorientation”. Each time, it seems, we readily shun that which worked for that which we think will work, yet we presently find ourselves in a strange limbo between fundamentally different threats – either Russia, ISIS, or even ourselves (fiscally, not literally)…
Does Aviation, as a Branch, need to re-consider the process for identifying requirements and potential capabilities of future replacement platforms as opposed to the fiscal vortex of programs like the RAH-66 and ARH-70? Sure. I would love to say more flexibility in looking towards commercial-off-the-shelf systems and airframes, but we are already doing that. However, there always seems to be a mad scientist in the backroom somewhere trying to concoct a “one-size-fits-all-yet-still-not-quite-a-good-fit” approach towards tactical and strategic aircraft. Instead of designing towards a mission set, design for simplicity, economics, and potential – after all, no one at Bell probably envisioned the multitude of uses for the Huey when it was first drawn up...
You essentially asked “what is the future of Army Aviation” and you received a several very good points – especially those offered by Mr. Baker. I don’t have a definite answer for you, but I can only suggest that if you want to see the future, look around you at the new pilots you are training and the kids in college. Take a look at the line NCO’s trying to get birds up, backshops folks quietly teaching their arts, SI/FI’s training non-stop for the next major event, the task-saturated junior warrants, and the near-panic 2LT’s. Look hard at these folks, because if you only look at those with the “right” answers and the “appropriate credentials”, you are only going to see the future they are selling you.
…Then again, I know you Eric – I know you’ve already seen the future.
[End Rant]
"With the economy in its current state, many organizations in the military are being forced to cut back their budgets. There are currently a bunch of changes being implemented throughout Army Aviation. "
Yes, there are changes, and being six months into retirement, I can only provide commentary about that which I was seeing before I received that wonderful slip of paper allowing me to slip the surly bonds of Army Aviation. Old habits for me – aviation and soapboxes – die hard for me, however.
The May 2014 issue of Flightfax offered an article titled "Defragging the Hard Drive: A Change in Aviation Training Philosophy” written by LTC Josh Sauls. In this article, he posed the question “Why are we not spending more time requiring our aviators to know and understand aviation doctrine and tactics?” This question, along with yours about the audience’s overall thoughts on the “future of Army Aviation” are going to be the bigger issues in the times to come for Army Aviation, however.
Does Standardization, as a field, need to re-think how we train and evaluate? Absolutely. How do we get there? Unfortunately, there is no easy answer. We exist within a culture which is extremely resistant to change and at times not very well suited for non-linear thinking. Over the last 45 years, rotary-wing doctrine has shifted from asymmetric or “other than war” warfare in Vietnam, to conventional “Red Hoard/Fulda Gap” theory like a massive pendulum of “threat reorientation”. Each time, it seems, we readily shun that which worked for that which we think will work, yet we presently find ourselves in a strange limbo between fundamentally different threats – either Russia, ISIS, or even ourselves (fiscally, not literally)…
Does Aviation, as a Branch, need to re-consider the process for identifying requirements and potential capabilities of future replacement platforms as opposed to the fiscal vortex of programs like the RAH-66 and ARH-70? Sure. I would love to say more flexibility in looking towards commercial-off-the-shelf systems and airframes, but we are already doing that. However, there always seems to be a mad scientist in the backroom somewhere trying to concoct a “one-size-fits-all-yet-still-not-quite-a-good-fit” approach towards tactical and strategic aircraft. Instead of designing towards a mission set, design for simplicity, economics, and potential – after all, no one at Bell probably envisioned the multitude of uses for the Huey when it was first drawn up...
You essentially asked “what is the future of Army Aviation” and you received a several very good points – especially those offered by Mr. Baker. I don’t have a definite answer for you, but I can only suggest that if you want to see the future, look around you at the new pilots you are training and the kids in college. Take a look at the line NCO’s trying to get birds up, backshops folks quietly teaching their arts, SI/FI’s training non-stop for the next major event, the task-saturated junior warrants, and the near-panic 2LT’s. Look hard at these folks, because if you only look at those with the “right” answers and the “appropriate credentials”, you are only going to see the future they are selling you.
…Then again, I know you Eric – I know you’ve already seen the future.
[End Rant]
(3)
(0)
LTJG (Join to see)
As a Marine weather forecaster with a college degree, 71 on SIFT, and 28 flight hours, do you think Army Aviation would be interested in picking me up? I've been trying to get in the cockpit for ages. I'm also eyeing that Sikorsky S-97 raider program with interest.
(2)
(0)
SrA Ronald Moore
Listen keep the A-10, cause while it is thought to be a instrument of the Past,it is still needed.Just like Most jets care Smaller And more Maneuverable,But you still need troop carriers,Equipment planes.Just recently Did anyone seem to see that Russia has a version of lot of what we got,Mocking is, but also taking note.It may not be the same but you have to consider has back up of everything t j.g at works incase you need to have multiple back ups,
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google