Autopsy of a Near Disaster (2003)

[tw]

Posted back in 2003 in

For example, Ted Koppel accurately provided important details of that repelled Apache attack when he said every Apache suffered damage. This was confirmed by newspaper stories of how badly each chopper was hit - some having to eject their guns that had even caught fire. A fact they says thery are all lucky to be alive. Chopper crews got out and all hugged each other. That is how badly mauled those Apaches suffered. As Koppel then noted, 3rd Army would have to change tactics. What worked in the Gulf War no longer works in Iraq. The enemy learned. Perspective.

What resulted was a complete rewrite of Army operations and canceling of future weapons contracts. Ted got it completely correct in 2003 when the 11th Attack Helicopter Regiment was almost destroyed. From the San Antonio Express-News on Mar 2004:

The Boeing helicopters, the most advanced in the U.S. inventory, ... were turned back by a barrage of low-tech ground fire. The failed raid led the Army to change the way Apaches will be used in future conflicts. Instead of training for strikes deep behind enemy lines, Apache pilots now get drilled more for close-air support of ground troops, and for fighting in urban settings.

New training also stresses more coordination with Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter jets and aerial drones. Such coordination was lacking in the Karbala raid. Army aviators are now being taught speed and maneuverability, lessons dusted off from the Vietnam era, when choppers also faced a substantial threat from small-arms fire.

On the night of the failed Karbala raid, the Apache crews intended to destroy one of Saddam Hussein's best units, the Republican Guard Medina Division, and to clear a path for the Army's lead ground unit - the 3rd Infantry Division. ...

Shortly after leaving their base, the Apaches, ... were ambushed in a blizzard of gunfire and anti-aircraft flak. The pilots ... halted their advance and pulled into a hover to return fire. After all 30 Apaches had been raked by Iraqi fire, they broke off the fight and limped back to their desert base. One chopper was forced down, and its pilots ... were held captive for three weeks.

Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey, a retired commander from Gulf War I, said the failed attack "was nearly a modern day 'Charge of the Light Brigade,'... The Congressional Research Service, an investigative branch of Congress that conducted an assessment of last year's U.S. invasion, concluded Apache forces that night had come perilously close to "a near disaster."

After the failed raid, Army officials junked plans for most Apache deep-attack missions and instead emphasized armed reconnaissance and close-air support for ground troops. ...

The new tactics were on full display the night of the raid when the ambushers focused their fire at the exposed flanks and rear of the aircraft, forcing them to pull into a hover so they could find their attackers on the ground and return fire. But the hover mode made the Apaches potentially more vulnerable. ...

The experience of the Karbala raid loomed large last month when Army leaders terminated the $38 billion Comanche helicopter project. The Comanche was supposed to function alongside the Apache as a deep-strike attacker.

Some estimated that most of 31 choppers were lucky to have survived having retreated before total disaster occurred. Apache pilots were trained as if their aircraft were armored tanks. Now it is apparent that even the Apache is very dependent on the best airframe in the US inventory: A-10 Warthog.

[Hippikos]

I've always wondered about the Invicible Apache. The programs you see on Discovery Channel, where Product Managers rave about them like they can win the war on it's own because of all the Hi Tech aeronautics. Where were they tested? In the Mojave Desert? Surely not real battlefield, with AA flak and buzzing RPM's, Stingers.

[xoxoxoBruce]

The Apaches perform flawlessly doing what they were designed for. They were NOT designed to absorb incoming. Evading missiles and rockets from distant foe, are in their bag of tricks, but not ground fire, bullets, from close encounters.

Look at the construction of helicopters. It's the same, light as possible, construction as any aircraft. Trying to keep something airborne, weight is diametrically opposed to that end.
Military aircraft usually give the pilot/crew a little armor, if they plan on coming close to the ground. They also try to keep critical things like hydraulic lines, out of harms way.

The Apache is narrow, with the pilot sitting behind and slightly above the co-pilot, for a smaller head-on target. It's also pretty small when you remove all the weapons systems hung on the outside. There is damn little protection for the people and few places to tuck critical things, safely.

Certainly, up close and personal, barrages of small arms fire were not in the scenario when they designed this ship, although they made it quite capable of taking out large or small groups while "standing off". When the Apache was designed, in circa 1974, evidently the Army wasn't planning for the operations they're seeing now. But given a choice between a rifle or an Apache, I'd take the chopper.

Most aircraft are not designed to absorb a lot of punishment. The notable exception being the A-10 Warthog, with it's titanium bath tub the pilot sits in. The A-10 was designed and commissioned by the Army, much to the ire of the Air Force who were envisioning nuclear war and supersonic dogfights.

The Comanche design was composite sections like the new 787. Easier and cheaper to make and assemble. It's role was to be replace the myriad of light helicopters the government buys with a basic airframe that could be outfitted in different configurations for different roles.

The dirty little secret of helicopters, all of them, is that every hour they fly, requires many man-hours of maintenance. Some require many, many man-hours. The Comanche was to cut those hours down, plus ease the training and parts budget by having one airframe. They spent billions developing it then decided not to build it, but some of the technology is being transfered to other programs.

Added thought...When the military talks about winning ground battles, there always seems to be a defined enemy and more importantly, a front line. That's not the case in Iraq. I doubt it ever will be again.

[Hippikos]

The Apaches perform flawlessly doing what they were designed for.

The Apaches are described as attack-helicopter. Don't you expect incoming when attacking? When I think of light construction, I think of reconnaissance, stealth, high flying, not attacking.

Actually, the original Apache was designed to hid behind terrain and bushes (Iraq mostly don't have) and snipe Russian tanks. But then came the Product Managers and designed an attack helicopter behind their desks.

In Kosovo where much was expected from the Apaches, 2 immediately crashed during training and commanders decided not to send them into battle because they were too vulnerable to Serbian surface to air missiles.

Said that, the A-10 is a helluva plane and worth every penny of it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Hippikos

snip~Actually, the original Apache was designed to hid behind terrain and bushes (Iraq mostly don't have) and snipe Russian tanks.

Originally Posted by Bruce

The Apaches perform flawlessly doing what they were designed for. ~snip~ When the Apache was designed, in circa 1974, evidently the Army wasn't planning for the operations they're seeing now.~snip~ although they made it quite capable of taking out large or small groups while "standing off".

The Apache they are flying now is very different from the original design, in capability and avionics. But it's still the same airframe in design, some strengthening, not withstanding. That type construction is not conducive to taking punishment from flak. It's an attack helicopter but it's a sniper, not a grunt. The Longbow(later version) is designed to hit their targets from 5 miles away with no visability.

Unfortunately, you can't build a helicopter like an A-10 because of weight and if they tried to use the highly effective A-10 Gatling gun, the recoil would knock a chopper right out of the air.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The Apache they are flying now is very different from the original design, in capability and avionics. But it's still the same airframe in design, some strengthening, not withstanding.

Apache, as I recall, was another example of McDonnel Douglas engineering of that time. It took almost 20 years to get a working system (as was also true of the B-1, B-2, C-17, Osprey, etc also built by the same 'management' system). By the time it was 'corrected', Apache still would not work in Kosovo. Those Apaches mauled in Iraq were Longbows - best we had.

Notice in the artlcle how Apaches were attacking. First they would hover. Then site a target. That was a complete violation even in Nam. But as the article notes, the Army had to unlearn mistakes created by ignoring what was learned in Nam. Choppers no longer hover. They must attack while constantly moving - which was the mistake in Karbala.

Meanwhile, what is the most dangerous attack by any aircraft? Ground attack. Just another reason why the Air Force wants to dogfight - not support the troops. There was little glory in being shot down by small arms. And yet only those aircraft superior enough to ground attack can survive. F-15, F-15, F-22, etc. These glory aircraft are only support aircraft for the Air Force's best airframe: A-10 Warthog.

Meanwhile, did you here British soldiers complaining about their own RAF support? Also decribed by words such as shit and worse. Harriers - almost useless. British soldiers in Afghanistan were in such desperate situations - the Taliban threatening so much - that British soldiers only wanted A-10 support. Welcome to the little stories that really tell in spades what has been happening - in Afghanistan, in military 'glory' circles, and in what gets forgotten in Nam and from Patton in WWII. And look who was getting the story right early on - Ted Koppel.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Apache, as I recall, was another example of McDonnel Douglas engineering of that time. It took almost 20 years to get a working system (as was also true of the B-1, B-2, C-17, Osprey, etc also built by the same 'management' system). By the time it was 'corrected', Apache still would not work in Kosovo. Those Apaches mauled in Iraq were Longbows - best we had. ~snip

Different management.
The term, "Attack Helicopter" is misleading...... bordering on oxymoron. Elevated weapons platform would be more accurate.

The original design never was suitable for close cover, just stand off and shoot from a safe distance.
The longbow (recognized by the squashed globe mounted above the rotors) is an improved version that can target under much more adverse conditions and further away.

But that doesn't change the fact that helicopters don't endure flak as well as planes. It can't be done because the rotor blades which keep it in the air as well as propel it, are right out in harms way. There's no practical way to shield them and still work. They have to remain snipers.

aside...After years of nursing the A-10 fleet, duct tape and baling wiring them back together, and salvaging shot up junk because they were allowed to fix them, but not replace them..... somebody got their heads out of there butts, and approved an upgrade and refurbishment program. 'Bout time.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Different management.
The term, "Attack Helicopter" is misleading...... bordering on oxymoron. Elevated weapons platform would be more accurate.

The original design never was suitable for close cover, just stand off and shoot from a safe distance.
The longbow (recognized by the squashed globe mounted above the rotors) is an improved version that can target under much more adverse conditions and further away.

But that doesn't change the fact that helicopters don't endure flak as well as planes. It can't be done because the rotor blades which keep it in the air as well as propel it, are right out in harms way. There's no practical way to shield them and still work. They have to remain snipers.

aside...After years of nursing the A-10 fleet, duct tape and baling wiring them back together, and salvaging shot up junk because they were allowed to fix them, but not replace them..... somebody got their heads out of there butts, and approved an upgrade and refurbishment program. 'Bout time.

A-10's rock. Best damm attack aircraft in the sky. I have seen them in action and seen what they can take. As I recall rummy tried to have them retired. Now he is retired and they are still flying.

Someone please explain to me the purpose of posting an article about helo tactics and the weaknesses uncovered in an attack.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Correcting misperseptions.