This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.
Positive reports are streaming in from U.S. Marines flying newly remanufactured AH-1Z Cobra and UH-1Y Huey helicopters, but the program office is not losing focus on its substantial legacy fleet.
The pace of new aircraft deliveries has been aggressive, with the most recent AH-1Z delivered more than three months ahead of schedule. That aircraft was the first built after a yearlong break to speed production of the UH-1Y, said Col. Harry Hewson, H-1 Upgrade program manager. The latest Y-model of the 23 delivered so far was more than two months ahead of schedule. Nine UH-1Ys are flying in combat in Afghanistan. Although Hewson is now focused on getting the AH-1Z through operational testing, “we still have lots of [AH-1W] helicopters that will fly for a long time. We’re trying not to shortchange those guys.”
The W-model Cobra will soon benefit from a night targeting system upgrade. The early 1990’s-era forward-looking infrared and nose camera will be vastly improved, Hewson said. “We didn’t invest a huge amount of money, but we got lots of bang for our buck.”
Seven of the upgraded aircraft have already been fielded and deployed in Afghanistan, with two per month being upgraded until all the deployed aircraft are retrofitted. Also coming this spring, Hewson said, is a tactical video data link to improve the targeting process.
Read the rest of this story, see the A400M in the air (Av Week is OBSESSED!), …on the ground … Aaaand a write up on the whole thing from our friends at Aviation Week, exclusively on Military.com.
– Christian
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
This is the clearest example of they might be old and they might not be flashy, but they still work! Give the Marines some credit here. They found 2 platforms that are tried and true and can still keep up with all the newest technology and remain relevant.
It also says a ton about the capabilities of those designs!
Have to say when the basic design of something last till its almost out of letters of the alphabet you've done something right.
Look at the other legacy equipment & weapons platforms we have dumped. Was there a legitimate reason to dump the OV-10 Bronco,especially since they could have provided gunship support for the Osprey & the need for COIN aircraft? Also,I understand the clear differences between the Marine & Army Cobras & Hueys,but did the army have to dump their [single engine] Cobras & Hueys? The list could go on & on about legacy equipment we scrapped without them being replaced with all of the promised new weapons we're told are coming on line,or [I love this one] people stating we are still the mightiest military power in the world even after emasculating ourselves so badly.
Roy's right. However, hanging on to legacy platforms for the wrong reasons, is just as bad as dumping a old, perfectly serviceable platform for the wrong reasons.
It's neat to see that the Marines are still using the Huey and Cobra, but I thought the Hueys had issues with survivability and the redundancy issues associated with having a single engine?
All USMC hueys and snakes are twin engine variants with single engine flight capabilities.
To Charles: All Marine Corps Rotary Wing Aircraft have 2 engines. That is standard to the process for the Marines. Nothing would be worse than to have your single engine fail on the way to or from the ship.
As for Legacy,
Lets see, B-52, a design created in the late 40s, the M-16, designed around the 50s, The UH-1, 50s-60s design, CH-46 and 47, Vietnam Era designs. AH-1 was based off the UH-1. Lets not forget the venerable A-10 either. These platforms go to show you that good platforms stand the test of time and continue to be useful long after their times.
Charles, I don't know how far back it goes, but the UH-1 got a second engine some time ago.
Hate to disagree but imagine the commonality that has been lost because the Marines didn't move to the UH-60. I love the capability of the V-22 and the UH-1Y but this boutique airwing thing is going to bankrupt the Marine Corps. Think about this. The Marines are buying new
UH-1Y/AH-1Z
V-22
CH-53K
F-35B…
That's alot of money just going to the airwing. Nothing wrong with that but if this keeps up then the force will be incorrectly biased toward aviation.
It's a lot of money well spent. As an former CH46 crewchief, I can tell you that nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing in the USMC airwing inventory goes unused or underused, especially aircraft. The Marine Corps knows that the long wishlist shopping mode will not last and is gearing up for the next 30-40 years.
Mark my words, these platforms will be around for decades to come, and then they will serve at least a few more years in training and reserve units before being mothballed!
Finally, you forget that in modern warfare air superiority is king. Yes, troops on the ground win battles and wars but they need angels overhead when the poop hits the fan.
Never understood why the marines did not buy navalized H-60's. Same reason they needed the SMAW, did not think optics were indicated on standard rifles (until Iraq), put off buying M-1 tanks until after the first iraq war, took forever to recognize the usefulness of special operations forces, etc.
Why does the navy need Seals, the army need Rangers, and the air force need aircraft when we have the marine corps? Because if someone wants a pack of somali pirates taken down, an airfield seized, or more than a couple of F-18's on target, the marines will claim it is "Not our mission" or "we lack sufficient assets."
Wish I had a nickel every time I heard that from a former or current marine. Whether speaking about why bin laden got away, falluja, or OPFOR augmentation units for a JRTC rotation.
Joe,
Your post has so many inaccuracies and misconceptions in it that
I don't even have the time to answer. Lets just say that the Corps has legitimate reasons for doing things the way we do.
Which inaccuracy or misconception screams the loudest? The corps legitimate reasons for doing things are purely bureaucratic in nature, ie focused on larger budgets and force levels rather than real operational need.
Is the idea that both seals and rangers do what should essentially be marine corps jobs too out of the box to handle?
Or that I was told by a serving marine major quote, "You army guys fight too sneaky" To which I replied, "Sir the object of warfare is deception, so deceive the enemy, not yourself".
Marine aviation makes as much sense as having officers fly UAV's. Maintains a billet, not a capability.
The Corps maintains its own aviation component because it doesn't want to depend on anyone else for air support. There is always a ship on the ocean with a reinforced infantry battalion, a logistics element, and an aviation element. When the Corps needs an aircraft for something, the commander picks up the phone and another Marine answers and says "I'll be right there" rather than waiting on the Air Force to fly halfway around the world or the Navy to park one of its few carriers nearby. The Corps has different aircraft for different uses. Their choices in equipment come from: smaller budget than other services, it has to fit on the ship, and you can't always use the same tool for every job.
As for the Rangers somehow doing what the Corps does – there are a couple thousand rangers, and 200,000 Marines. And for the charge that it took the Corps forever to see the usefulness of Special Ops, they're still divided on that issue. You're worried about the SEALs and Rangers being able to do what the Marines do, but at the same time you think the Marines need their own Special Ops guys. Which is it?
To Joe;
All the information you are going to read is coming from a former US Army NCO.
First off the Job of the SEALS, the main task, is underwater demolition. They are still called UDTs for this reason. They work in small groups, to take out pinpoint targets. Their work is similar to that of the SBS of the UK. The rangers are used in numerous roles but their main focus is that of shock troops. They can hit targets hard and in more sufficient numbers than most of the Special Forces branches can muster. The Marines do some of the following missions: Armed assault team to protect Navy ships from armed assailants, NEO missions, Embassy Guards, the Ground branch of the US Navy. Ever wonder why they have F-18s? They are still part of the Navy. As for the equipment, the V-22 is designed to replace the CH-46 and CH-53. The F-35 is designed to replace the F-18 and the AV-8B. The UH-60 doesn't fit as well in an LHD Hangar as the UH-1 does. Do some research next time!
Ok, I get it. The whole Army-Marine thing. Well all I got to say about this is, what truly make the Corps the most effective conventional fighting force on the planet is the MAGTF. Along with the “espre de corps,” that is instilled in every marine. Not to mention better traing from day one. However I’m a realistic fellow and understand full well that the marines cannot do it all on there own. And I’m fully aware of all the army accomplishments and the roll they fill. The Army is the go to force when there is an epic large scale war to fight. Just like the marines are the US’s expiditionary force to preserve our vital interest. When the sh!t hits the fan there’s a MEU(SOC) some were. And again there’s not enough Rangers or SEALS to hand that role over to anyway.
Besides I really don’t get this whole argument anyways… It’s the same blood in the same mud. (that last part I got from the Rock, holds true though)
To Ed, the Marine Corps is not part of the Navy, we are a part of the Department of the Navy meaning the Commandant answers to the Sec Nav but he does not report to the CNO. You also forgot to mention that we are an expeditionary force capable of getting anywhere with a coastline within 48 hours or less with at least a reinforced battalion with armor, artillery, and its own air support and we are completely self sufficient once we reach our objective.
To Randall, it's esprit de corps with an "it".
To Riceball;
I hope you realize I was trying to compliment the Marine Corps and dispell the incorrect information Joe had put in his post. We do have a limit in how many characters we can type in one post. I'm not doing interservice rivalry stuff here.
I realize that, I just wanted to clear up the misconception that many people have regarding the Marine Corps and the Dept. of the Navy. As a former Marine I hate it when people say that the Marine Corps is a part of the Navy like the Commandant is somehow subordinate and answers to the CNO, which he doesn't. No harm no foul.
Riceball, the USMC is a part of the department of the navy, the men's department.
Army,Navy, Airforce,marines coast guard.
All have positives and negatives to how they fight. But in my veiw all are needed. All perform a job the others might be able to do but not as well.
As far as land battles go. The difference bettween the army and marines is pretty big. The marines have shown they can take ther forces anywhere faster than the army with less men and less logistics.
Theyve shown that many times in the past. Also the marines are just plane basterds who dont quit. :)
Or to put it another way the Army is the Anvil the marines the hammer.
No kidding, try to get the Army to commit any number of troops of diverse military specialties before year's end, not just training brigades (?) to the fight in Afghanistan. Not to mention that the same young devil dogs fixing and flying choppers are also pulling security detail and patrolling perimeters after 12-14 hour days… the daily life of an airwinger in a theater of operations.
Hammer and Anvil… I like that analogy. Couldn’t have put it better myself.