U.S. Army aviators in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun removing the Longbow radars from their AH-64D Apache helicopters. Which is funny, since the radar is pretty much the point of the $10-billion Longbow upgrade. 
The radar weighs 1,500 pounds and makes the Apache sluggish in hot and high-altitude environments — really the only places the Army fights anymore. Aviators are cool with flying without their radars since the things were designed for taking out Soviet tanks. “It was designed for a different fight than we’re finding ourselves in now,” Lt. Col. Mark Patterson told Defense News. He added that the A-model Apache (dating from 1983) is better suited to today’s fights.
This is old news. In Balad, Iraq, in February, Sgt. Erik Morrow told me that the M-1A1 Abrams tank was better for Iraq than the newer M-1A2 since the A1 tank is more reliable and starts up quicker. Earlier, the Marine Corps aviators of All-Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332, deployed to Al Asad in western Iraq, had told me their old $40-million F/A-18D Hornets equipped with sensor pods are better-suited to counter-insurgency combat than $130-million F-22A Raptors, which don’t even have hardpoints for pods. See my Flickr for pics.
The major impetus for the constant development of new and more high-tech weapons was the arms race with the Soviet Union and the need to counter massed tank armies with much smaller forces. Those things no longer apply, and now critics across the services are calling for a different way of doing things — namely, sticking with weapons that work, even if they’re old. In some cases, the Defense Department has listened, which is why we’re seeing M-14 rifles and Light Antitank Weapons pulled out of storage for troops in Iraq.
But old stuff doesn’t keep the defense industry flush with cash. And Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16 Fighting Falcon and an F-22 critic, told me that’s the point of most new weapons. More on that later.
–David Axe
P.S. — The excellent Daniel Robert Epstein interviewed me for Suicidegirls.com. Check it out.
UPDATE 06/27/06 8:44 AM: Eric Umansky looked at the Apache’s woes all the way back in ’99.
Older is Better
Previous post: Pentagon’s “Best Source of Intel”: TV
Next post: Rapid Fire 06/27/06
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Speaking of older versus newer, I would say that there are many places where the new technology would work just fine (like IT), but in many places as the DOD has found, older designs work better, perhaps with some improvements.
For instance, there is a fascinating story behind the Army’s search for a new common battlefield weapon. They have spent years and many, many millions looking at various designs from Heckler & Koch with the XM8 and other companies with their designs and have realized that with a few modifications (moving to a short stroke gas piston design instead of the M4/M16 direct gas blowback system), things work pretty well. And from a training perspective, other weapon calibers based on the same design that function and undergo maintenance with the same manual are the most efficient way to go.
It is a story I would love to see you guys cover here on defense tech from a variety of perspectives. Logistics, development, funding, performance, etc…etc…etc…
Hey Dave, how do the Marines know that the F/A 18 is better than the F-22, since, you know, the Marines don’t FLY the F-22? What’s next, interviewing an Army Ranger about the pros and cons of the new DDX?
Insurgents aren’t the only groups we could theoretically fight. We need to keep upgrading our forces to maintain our advantage over real militaries.
Brian,
Read more carefully next time. David quoted the Corps aviators as saying their F/A-18s have *hardpoints* that allow them to be configured for a variety of missions whereas the F-22s do *not* have hardpoints. While the F-22 *can* perform air to ground ops, they are optimized for air to air ops whereas the F/A-18 was designed and built from the ground up to be much more modular in the number and types of stores it can carry and deploy.
One does not have to be an Air Force aviator to understand or appreciate the issues associated with mission specific requirements.
Bryan
Bryan, Dave said:
“(Marines) had told me their old $40-million F/A-18D Hornets equipped with sensor pods are better-suited to counter-insurgency combat than $130-million F-22A Raptors, which don’t even have hardpoints for pods.”
He quoted this as if the marines had experience with both systems. The fact that the F-22 does not have hardpoints for pods does not mean jack squat about its performance. Have any of the marines ever flown an F-22? Nope.
That argument aside, this entire article is full of political spin.
“Oh, they’re taking off the longbow radar! Why are we paying 10 billion dollars to upgrade it when we aren’t even using what we have?” Maybe because the longbow radar is designed to destroy enemy tanks, and insurgents don’t have tanks.
“‘Oh, the F/A 18 is better at this sort of work than the F-22,’ said a couple of pilots who will never get to fly the new jet.” Regardless, that’s like saying that an F-150 is better than a Ferrari because it has more towing capacity. The Ferrari ain’t designed for towing capacity. The F-22 isn’t replacing the F/A 18 anyway.
Finally, we have the comment on the M1-A2 Abrams. That tank has a lot of new electronics built in, most of them NOT designed to fight insurgents. So the fact that the older version is easier to use when fighting a bunch of jackasses in turbans is not really newsworthy.
The point of the article is “Hey, all this new stuff is a waste of money.” I can sum it up in 3 sentences:
1) “Apache anti-tank radar useless when insurgents have no tanks.”
2) “New jet designed for air-to-air combat not as good at hunting guys on ground, says pilot who has never laid eyes on it.”
3) “Advanced electronics designed to link dozens of tanks together in massed combat not useful when using only one tank.”
Sadly, these sound like headlines from The Onion.
What some folks are missing, I think, is that we’re still fielding Cold War-style weapons when the fight we’re in now … and the mostly likely future fight … demands simpler, cheaper and more robust weapons. It’s not that an F-22 ain’t good at air-to-air (although Sprey would say it isn’t). The point is that the F-22 is pretty much useless when Iraq represents the present and future of armed conflict. Now, if you disagree with THAT, you might be right to say we need F-22s and M-1A2s and AH-64Ds.
Cheers.
Its funny that the plethora of equipment showing ability to do things they weren’t designed to origionally has instilled a mindset in some that ALL equipment should be able to do ALL things. An M9 and a M249 are both guns, but neither will do the other’s mission very well. Does that mean they’re bad equipment?
Sprey’s off the reservation, he’s painting the Raptor with shortcomings it doesn’t have, and attempting to cull worship in the infallibility of his own pet projects. I love the A-10 and F-16 as much as anyone, but any serious air-to-air threat force is going to be fielding contemporary designs. Against this our force-reduced, recruitment-trouble airforce isn’t going to be able to overwhlem with numbers, we need superior training equipment and, unlike the Me-262, to not have them bombed on the ground or kept out of the war by Hitler (don’t imagine that second one will be as much of a problem).
If you believe there will never be a conflict between the US and a developed military again, the Raptor seems like a tremendous waste. But, if you believe as I do that we might be mixing it up with Sukhois at some point, having the Raptor will be a welcome bit of foresight.
Just sticking with old designs becuase they get the job done isn’t an answer, even the Long War model demands adaption, he who doesn’t innovate is dead. Sure, the M14 is cheap and there’s backstock lying around. But put it and a Mk. 17 into a troopers hands and which would he rather have? Given a choice of an M113 and a Stryker, which does he want to roll through the Triangle in?
I’m sure the pilots of all those F-86s will wonder how they’d fare if they too had radar-guided missiles. If quantity were the ultimate factor then Sparta would have never made anyone’s history books. Rome would have beena pretentious city in the Latin league, and we’d have taken 20-30% casualties minimum in both Gulf Wars. The Raptor is the continuation of this doctrime: superior weapons and training used intelligently will defeat numbers.
Pierre Sprey, one of the designers of the F-16 Fighting Falcon and an F-22 critic, told me that’s the point of most new weapons.
David,
Of course we don’t need Apache Longbows in Iraq. The Longbows already did their job. We achieved air superiority over Iraq back in ’91, making most of the Raptor’s advanced capabilities moot. We don’t need them… in Iraq. The real question is, will we need these weapons against an enemy that DIDN’T have the majority of their forces cornholed 15 years ago.
Again, anti-tank weapons ARE useless, if the enemy has no tanks. Air to air fighters are useless, if the enemy has no fighters. And armored tanks are useless if the enemy has no guns. But unless our next war comes against Mrs. Jensen’s Special Ed class, I’d suggest we not throw away powerful new military equipment.
Really, this article was beneath you.
Anti-tank systems are good for other things besides tanks, like bunkers.
Also heat sensors can also pick up warm truck engines when not looking for tanks
I played RO that I used the first account was a girl number of wave, a knight. The number also has a little ro zeny. I still remember that the world has just stepped into the RO; I stood the door of Pulongdela South, I even have my own way can not see, I looked at the lawn in front of do not know how to operate. At that time, wave on the line, he stood outside and said: come out, come out to see, use a mouse.
Furnish your new home with all kinds of furniture and impress your fellow Tibia Gold with your stately home! Invite your friends and have parties! You will find that having a home of your own is a rewarding experience you would not want to miss once you have had it!
Now I love the Avenging Angel Preview very much and have more experience about this. Now I talk about something about the Avenging Angel Preview of Requiem Lant.
I only know that in the game the 2moons dil is very important.
we together to earn the dofus kamas, I think this lifetime I will never forget.
ow when I talked with them, I often told them how to bought the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold, they all said that I had a great changed, I am very happy
David Axe how would you know faggot have you ever been in the marines besides the f22 is an airforce plane the airforce are not tied with with the marines marines use their own planes