• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

What would the army want in a helicopter?

#1
Following on from the "does the RAF need a bomber" thread, what features would the army like in a helicopter?

It has been mentioned many times, that there is a desperate shortage of helicopters available to the army for current ops. If we were to get more helos, what should they be and/or what should the capabilities be?

I do not want to lead the answer but it has been suggested that the lynx is a little too small. How big should this type of helicopter be?

I would assume that large transport helos would be CH47 or EH101, just more of them. - How many more?

Ski.
 
#3
The lynx is too small, and far too much maintenance is required per flying hour.

Ideally, it should have two engines, excess power (to cope with Hot and High), enough space to carry a full section, with weapons and kit, and a basic weapons capability.

To be honest, a new Blackhawk-esque helicopter would be ideal.

But then we breach the terms dictated many moons ago, whereby the Army only operate Light aircraft - Anything like I've described would immediately be pounced on by the RAF as their domain. This issue would need to be resolved, as these days the Army, in my opinion, should have it's own helicopter capable of shifting sections of men with their kit around the battle space.
 
#4
sandy_boots said:
What would the army want in a helicopter - easy - some blokes, at least 4 bns worth.
Nice! I guess I asked for that! (thats a question I will ask in another forum!)

But seriously folks.. helicopter capabilities....

Ski.
 
#5
The_Goon said:
The lynx is too small, and far too much maintenance is required per flying hour.

Ideally, it should have two engines, excess power (to cope with Hot and High), enough space to carry a full section, with weapons and kit, and a basic weapons capability.

To be honest, a new Blackhawk-esque helicopter would be ideal.

But then we breach the terms dictated many moons ago, whereby the Army only operate Light aircraft - Anything like I've described would immediately be pounced on by the RAF as their domain. This issue would need to be resolved, as these days the Army, in my opinion, should have it's own helicopter capable of shifting sections of men with their kit around the battle space.
I am working from the position that helicopters of this size will be 'battlefield helicopters' which should come under TWA control.

Goon, my bold above. Please detail what this means in reality, no of seats, payload capacity etc, also door gunners or navigator controlled nose cannon?

ta ski.
 
#8
Don't think we would need or want a Hind, simply because of the age of the damend beast! ;)

Enough space = seats for at least 8 men, who would be wearing webbing and carrying weaponry, which equates to max 150Kg per pax, equalling 1200Kg altogether. Ideally, though, seating for 12 men is preferable, which would then allow a section to carry bergans, but this increases weight requirement. Altogether, if you wanted to allow the aircraft to carry lumps of kit around to, you may be looking at 5000Kg+ lift capacity.

Weapons = I'd say crew operated weapons for independence, but I'm no expert on weapons - someone else should be able to answer this with more detail.
 
#9
The_Goon said:
The lynx is too small, and far too much maintenance is required per flying hour.

Ideally, it should have two engines, excess power (to cope with Hot and High), enough space to carry a full section, with weapons and kit, and a basic weapons capability.

To be honest, a new Blackhawk-esque helicopter would be ideal.

But then we breach the terms dictated many moons ago, whereby the Army only operate Light aircraft - Anything like I've described would immediately be pounced on by the RAF as their domain. This issue would need to be resolved, as these days the Army, in my opinion, should have it's own helicopter capable of shifting sections of men with their kit around the battle space.

My bold

BRING BACK THE HUEY!!!!!!!!

now that was an alley helo!

I believe im right in saying that when the US army put out the request for what ultimately ended up as the Bell UH-1 they asked for a 'flying box'

in my humble, know nothing about helicopters, opinion I think something like the blackhawk or Merlin is what would be best!

better troop carrying ability but not completely taking over the SH role from the airforce


Red
 
#10
Sadly, Merlin is RAF, because of how it is classed, as would Black Hawk.

Army has a remit to operate Light helo's only. This is a fundamental block which would need to be lifted to allow the Army to operate such aircraft as standard.
 
#11
hornepils said:
How about a few of these!
Heavily Armed
Good troop carrying capability
Looks ally as f*ck!
Looks mean but they are under powered, a mantainance nightmare, and vulnerable from every aspect except the front. The tail is fricking practically fabric!

Bit of trivia for you... the most experienced (by number of flight hours) Hind pilots in the world at the moment are actually US Army contractors who fly them in support of the JRTC mission... :D
 
#12
Not sugesting we should buy the Hind! Just think that the spec is pretty impressive even now!
As for the age, ..what's changed massively in the field of helicopter design in the past 30 years? Engines, countermeasures,avionics..but the size/payloads/roles seem to be the same?
Guess it all depends on the mission. Multirole? Transport? CAS?AntiArmour? Recce? Similiar kind of thread about whethr or not we need a bomber on another page
Granted im not tech minded at all and it wouldnt be the first time ive spouted b*llocks on here! :D
 
#15
The_Goon said:
Don't think we would need or want a Hind, simply because of the age of the damend beast! ;)

Enough space = seats for at least 8 men, who would be wearing webbing and carrying weaponry, which equates to max 150Kg per pax, equalling 1200Kg altogether. Ideally, though, seating for 12 men is preferable, which would then allow a section to carry bergans, but this increases weight requirement. Altogether, if you wanted to allow the aircraft to carry lumps of kit around to, you may be looking at 5000Kg+ lift capacity.

Weapons = I'd say crew operated weapons for independence, but I'm no expert on weapons - someone else should be able to answer this with more detail.
My bold, when on ops, would a 'lynx type' helo with these 12 seats take off with 8 blokes and bergens, or 12 blokes?

It seems to me (from my position of near total ignorance on the subject) that commanders of current ops are very limited in the types of operations they can launch, due to the inability of moving men around the battlefield quickly. (that is, in helicopters). If we were to have a number of 'airborne battlefield taxis' how many would be required and how would they be used. E.G. 20x8seat helos used to allow inf 'hit and run' attacks on terry, with a quick RTB. or, once a minimum no. of aircraft are available, more will make little difference as ops will still be conducted in WMIKs.

Two possible situations. I would like to understand what justifications could be made for extra helos.

OBVIOUSLY NO POSTS WHICH MAY BREACH OPSEC!!!!!

Ski.
 
#16
The_Goon said:
Sadly, Merlin is RAF, because of how it is classed, as would Black Hawk.

Army has a remit to operate Light helo's only. This is a fundamental block which would need to be lifted to allow the Army to operate such aircraft as standard.
Sheesh! Why is there so much infighting concerning what should be Army territory eh?
 
#17
Moving by helicopter is far faster than on the ground, no matter where you are, and you have zero threat from IED's when flying. You are, however, at threat from MANPADS and small arm fire (depending what height you travel at). A good DAS suite can provide very good protection to helicopters and aircraft in general though.

On Ops, helicopters are employed as needed. If you have a 12 seat helo with 5000Kg lift capacity, then you can shift a section easily, you can use it in a Casevac role, you can shift equipment.

I suppose you could attach X number of these helo's to units/battalions etc. for there use, but the kind of funding required for this is quite large.

Khyros; It's not so much infighting as a legacy of decades ago. It was established that the army would operate helicopters of a "light" designation, for utility and recon purposes. These days that remit could be considered quite outdated. I have no idea how easy or difficult it would be to change the very fabric of the AAC and what it operates; My guess would be quite difficult.
 
#18
Your brass need to get off their collective stars then and start considering what their men require rather than wasting time marking their territory then... a decent medium lift helicopter is an integral must have for an Army in this day and age.
 
#19
Ideally we'd do the ******* lot as per the USMC (who have more blokes than the British army more surface ships than the RN, more combat aircraft than the RAF and more helis than all three of our services combined).

The USMC also has a very joined up way of doing things.
 
#20
Well, I, and many others, would agree with your view on this Khyros. These days, Medium lif aircraft are required for soldiers. However, again, money comes into it, and it's rather expensive to provide medium lift helicopters in the numbers required to ground units.

Very sad state of affairs.
 

Latest Threads