CW4 Private RallyPoint Member 60540 <div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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..<br> 2014-02-19T17:56:10-05:00 CW4 Private RallyPoint Member 60540

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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..<br>

2014-02-19T17:56:10-05:00 2014-02-19T17:56:10-05:00 CW4 Private RallyPoint Member 60854

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.<br>

2014-02-20T07:09:32-05:00 2014-02-20T07:09:32-05:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 80116

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir, day late and a dollar short on my end. I have been knee deep in my civilian instrument phase. I d like to way in this from a maintainers stand point, and the fact that I am also a previous FCST. <div><br></div><div>Having worked on both the Apache and the Kiowa A/C model airframes, I have mixed emotions about this. The Army has been talking about eliminating the T67/58 frame for years, but that marvelous piece of machinery just continues to inspire and amaze. It has well exceeded its service lifetime and performed admirably. While the TM s are somewhat archaic (I love me some IETMs), they let you be a mechanic. It gives you a chance to really put your skills to use, and honestly, stuff like balancing heads, track and balancing, and rotor smoothing somewhat becomes an art form. </div><div><br></div><div>At one point before I left the facility I had the heads to a point where it was under .02 IPS and required one tiny washer or no weight whatsoever. This was the beauty about the -58, and I took a tremendous amount of pride in being able to get her in limits.</div><div><br></div><div>With the advent of the LUH program coming on line, the computer will basically do the leg work for us. Our tolerances are spelled out, basically add this to here and you will be within this limit. I know it wont be perfect, but ambiguity is going out the window. The so called grey lines in maintenance side will become clearly black and white, and considering the size and shape of Eurocopter , its funding, and support packages it will be a simple drop and replace. No more attempting local unit repairs, AVIM maintenance, and the old ways will dissappear. </div><div><br></div><div>This creates an additional burden that the NG units fielding the bad boy are going to require A&amp;Ps. I am going to have mixed motions about this one as well-I think its great for professional development and will honestly assist someone in becoming marketable in the aviation field. However, the opportunities for us to pick those up will become few and far between. Myself as an example, I came in late enough to breach the 30 month full time requirement, but only enough to receive the P rating and not the A. Now that I am chasing the civilian ratings, I will not be seeking the A&amp;P path anymore. I will be more useful as a pilot with the amount of time and effort invested in to both. </div><div><br></div><div>What I do agree with is the current changes is the NGB wanting to take the Apache back into the active duty mission set. There is no need to keep Apaches in the Guard-I love the bird, easy to work on, and I learned everything I know on that aircraft. However, besides training and gunnery, what else are we going to use the Apache for? Especially here in Arizona, we are a border state, and those birds really can t be used with any such efficiency for SAR and other mission sets. Its a gunship, killing machine plain and simple. If the active duty side is willing to cut loose a few Chinooks and Blackhawks to trade us for these attack birds, its something I will be willing to accept with open arms.</div><div><br></div><div>This is just my .02 sir, and good question. I hope we can revive this one.</div><div><br></div>

2014-03-20T12:59:06-04:00 2014-03-20T12:59:06-04:00 SSG Rodney Farrar 84403

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Sir I think a lot of people that would weigh in on this<br />subject simply are not on rallypoint yet but my 2 cents is that it's a mistake<br />that will Weaken the military as I have never heard of, this along with cutting<br />the A-10 I think will make the US unable to claim air superiority in any force<br />on force conflict.  My opinion is that if<br />an army aircraft has to be canceled it should be the AH-64 because of how much<br />more it costs to operate but the government will not do that because they just<br />spent billions of dollars upgrading that along with every other airframe so if<br />they are going to cut one it will be the most outdated not the one that makes<br />since.<p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt;"><br /><br /><br></p><p style="margin:0in 0in 10pt;"><br></p><br /><br />

2014-03-25T01:25:40-04:00 2014-03-25T01:25:40-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 103235

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Well Sir I did a lill bit of reading the headlines and it seems to me that the Apache is kind of a machine in search of a mission.  In Iraq they got damaged pretty bad trying to complete the deep strike mission so I think that by using them in the armed reconnaissance role.  Then there are the medevac escorts that are supposed to be helping medical units out, but for some reason are not going over well.  The Apaches have got the teeth and most of them have the Longbow radar already so it sounds like a natural fit to me.  The thing I would like to see is a new helo transport to replace the Chinook, its been upgraded to the point there is not much left to improve on save for building something new.  I'm sure those ST6 Stealthhawks were not cheap either so gotta make up for that situation too.  The Commanche got canceled and I think that is a good call and so is turning in the Kiowas a few years before the service is ready.  However, just keep the high/low force mix between active, reserve, and guard that has been planned as far as Blackhawks go and I think Army Aviation will bounce back and deal with the changes appropriately. 

2014-04-15T21:13:14-04:00 2014-04-15T21:13:14-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 116804

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>This is just my opinion as well but I think it would be a bad idea to decommission the A-10. I don't know how many times they have bailed us out during a fire fight in Afghanistan. Hope they reevaluate that decision.

2014-05-01T22:24:33-04:00 2014-05-01T22:24:33-04:00 SFC Private RallyPoint Member 116914

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>In the 13 years that I have been apart of Army Aviation, we have been in a constant state of change and development. From the forming of the CAB to advancements in Aircraft technology, its been spend spend spend, change change change. Now with this budgetary constraints coming down the pike, and the aging of most of our airframes, something has to give. Now when you look at our current fleet of aircraft, they are all getting up in age<br />CH-47 First fielded in 1962 (52yrs) 5 Models<br />OH-58 First fielded in 1969 (45yrs) 4 Models<br />AH-64 First fielded in 1975 (39yrs) 3 Models<br />UH-60 First Fielded in 1979 (35yrs) 3 Models<br />UH-72 First fielded in 2007 (7yrs) 1 Model<br /><br />Now while each airframe is considered a specific mission set, you cant pigeonhole any aircraft and say it only has one mission. With the phasing out of the OH-58s, I do see a large gap being left behind. The OH-58 is an overweighted, underpowered workhorse in both the Aerial Reconnisance and Light attack roles. When it comes to urban conflict and fighting within buildings, the OH-58 is definitely more suited to that type of mission. The Apache is my baby, and I love it to death, but it does have its flaws, one being that the weapon loadout on the Apache is just too big...(Sounds wierd saying that), and can result in too much collateral damage. Now we have this ingenious plan to take all the AH-64s from the Guard and place them into the Active. As Im pretty low on the totem I dont know what the full plan is (Replace OHs with AHs, replace OHs with UAS), but I dont see this being a good idea in the long run. The AH’s can be used for SAR, FLIR sighting systems are great at locating bodies and what not, and Im failing to see how replacing entire fleets of Apaches with Blackhawks makes good sense. Now you have to train whole battalions of Pilots in the new airframe, or force them out and replace them with new pilots (Again, money spent training). And IMO while the addition of UAS tools is the future of the Army, I don’t agree with replacing human pilots in the aircraft with Human “Pilots” on the ground. Definitely not the same thing.<br /><br />Sorry if I rambled a bit.

2014-05-02T02:45:59-04:00 2014-05-02T02:45:59-04:00 1SG Steven Stankovich 117588

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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.

2014-05-03T05:39:12-04:00 2014-05-03T05:39:12-04:00 SGT Private RallyPoint Member 118158

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>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 .

2014-05-03T23:59:33-04:00 2014-05-03T23:59:33-04:00 CW5 Sam R. Baker 156650

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>Eric, it just seems that aviators are not speaking up as you have a lot of NCO and other replies. I think as with most AWO issues, they believe in flying and that is it. Not many take the time to professionally associate other than the line unit for things said and participation. I seriously think the last 12 pack of years has taken the outside development out of our guys. What I mean to say is that additional duties at BN and higher are not being done with WOs much in aviation anymore, WOPDs are far and few between and many do not know what prior to 2001 Army aviation was all about. We had serious officer creep going on where you performed a myriad of duties having nothing to do with flying. Those days are coming back and if aviators chose to not participate, then they will find themselves on the outside looking in. I know this is off subject a little, but my stool is response to the lack of Aviation WO input you have here in this question and on Rally Point in general. One merely has to look at membership of the professional organizations such as AAAA, AUSA, WOA and others to know that most do not take part in the profession other than flight hours. My two cents and push MilSuite participation to those folks coming through your courses!

2014-06-17T15:04:48-04:00 2014-06-17T15:04:48-04:00 CPT Private RallyPoint Member 239194

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>I fly the UH-60 A/L and do not want to weigh in on the OH-58D capabilities; I will say that I am not happy with the Army in its knee jerk reactions to the budget issues. It is hard to believe that this was not a forecasted issue and that we have no other choice but to cut the OH-58s and TH-67s and buy more LUH-72s. I personally loved flying the TH-67 and the OH-58 A/C during flight school; I also agree that switching to an airframe that is unable to withstand the abuse of touchdown auto rotations is a terrible idea. It was awesome when you were able to auto rotate to the ground and gain the sense of accomplishment that I may survive if my engine or engines take a dump. I have also never understood why the Army will not enhance the Blackhawk and use it in an attack support role when needed. The other big issue I have with this plan was taking all attack aircraft out of the National Guard. I feel it always comes down to the game of relevancy between Active Duty and the National Guard. The shift to a garrison Army will require some changes; however, I still feel the guard needs to be a proportionate scaled down version of Active duty. Stripping combat capabilities from the guard entirely is a bad idea and we will pay for it further down the road.

2014-09-13T02:13:55-04:00 2014-09-13T02:13:55-04:00 Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member 239237

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The Air Force is in the same boat, we are losing the entire KC-10 fleet the entire A-10 fleet possibly. I hear the reason is that the Air Force does not have the funds to buy new equipment. They are sacrificing a lot of good capability and aircraft so we can spend it on 1700 F-35 JSF's. I think we can blame it on the sequester. I am not happy with these decisions because it is making it harder to stay a pilot. I have been out of a flying job since separating from. I last flew UAV's and the air force does not consider them to be equivalent to manned platforms for obvious reasons. Now with all of the cutbacks I have to compete against someone that has currency to get a guard or reserve prior service flight slot.<br /><br />I do agree that some frames are aging and need replaced. But I question if we really need 1700 F-35's in the fleet while giving up logistics capabilities that the KC-10 provided. With the new KC-46 coming on line they are not doing a 1 to 1 swap for the 10's or the 135's, which is nuts. I flew the KC-135, they couldn't get enough tails to the theater to support the AR requirements while maintaining the day to day flight ops. I will be curious to see how we will be able to support 1700 new fighters without the AR support. <br />I think its a rotten situation all around.

2014-09-13T03:27:24-04:00 2014-09-13T03:27:24-04:00 SGT Mark Sullivan 402500

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>The AH-58D was supposed to be phased out back when I was in, 87-98. The Comanche was to take its place in the Scout Role, it never made it out of test phase. This is an Old Vietnam era Airframe, and was implemented because Lady-Bird Johnson owned stock in Bell, the better platform was, and still is the OH-6, same Airframe as the Littlebird of 160th fame. I honestly feel, the Army should have switched the OH role to a better Airframe years ago, but, in the same breath the upgrade from OH-58 to AH-58D was a fine upgrade, and kept that Platform useful these last several years. Its day has come and gone.

2015-01-05T09:19:51-05:00 2015-01-05T09:19:51-05:00 SPC Sheila Lewis 1874351

<div class="images-v2-count-0"></div>There will always be aviation, just not what most has always been use to.

2016-09-08T15:31:44-04:00 2016-09-08T15:31:44-04:00 2014-02-19T17:56:10-05:00