US Army Spy Blimp

So the U.S. Army is getting into the blimp business, at least according to a article posted on Wired.com.

US Army forked over $517 million to Northrop Grumman to develope the experimential airship known officially as Long Endurance Multi-Intelligence Vehicles. If successful, the blimp will have a airborne endurance of up to three weeks at a time. And it will carry lots and losts of sensors, to capture still and video images of civilians and our nation's adversaries.

Lifted up into the air by helium and propulsion will be provided by four diesel engines. One US Army official said that in Afghanistan, it would take 12 Reaper drones to duplicated the blimp's functions.

So far, the blimp has passed three tests that judge the feasibility of the airship design. Northrop Grumman stated that it will inflate the first blimp in the spring-summer of 2011. And flight testing to be completed by the end of 2010.

For more information, check out the article. The link is below.

___

Ref. Wired.com. "Northrop’s Huge Army Spy Blimp Floats On" by Spencer Ackerman. November 4, 2010. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/11/northrops-huge-army-spy-blimp-floats-on/).

image comes from same article,provided by Northrop Grumman.

Depend on Your Goverment - To Screw Things Up! DoD Buys Russian Helos

A very interesting article from the Washington Post by Craig Whitlock today. Entitled, "U.S. military criticized for purchase of Russian copters for Afghan air corps."

The Pentagon has spent $648 million dollars to buy or refurbish 31 Russian Mi-17 transport helicopters for the Afghan National Army Air Corps. NATO codename "Hip." Department of Defense wants to get ten more in 2011, and several dozen more over the next decade. The Mi-17 is an aircraft that is use in Iraq and Pakistan.

The Mi-8/17 "Hip" is a medium size, twin-turbine transport helicopter that can also act as a gunship. Specifically designed by the Russians for the condictions found in Afghanistan when they were there in the 1980s. The Mi-17 is the designation for the export version of the helicopter. Russian armed forces refer to it as the Mi-8MT. The two can be told apart because the Mi-17 has the tail rotor on the port side instead of the starboard side like the Russian military models do.

The type is used all over the world from Bangladesh, Croatia, Czech Republic, India, Kazan, Mexico, Pakistan, and several other nations. Even Canada leases these helicopters through SkyLink Aviation.

So of course when Senators Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.) and Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) heard about this - well they just had to stick their noses into it. Basically, Afghanistan should be buying U.S. built aircraft-period. Never mind there wrench that will be through into the "Afghanistanizing" (look ma, created a new word here I think!) of the war.

(Quote): U.S. and Afghan military officials who favor the Mi-17, which was designed for use in Afghanistan, acknowledge that it might seem odd for the Pentagon to invest in Russian military products. But they said that changing helicopter models would throw a wrench into the effort to train Afghan pilots, none of whom can fly U.S.-built choppers.

"If people come and fly in Afghanistan with the Mi-17, they will understand why that aircraft is so important to the future for Afghanistan," said Brig. Gen. Michael R. Boera, the U.S. Air Force general in charge of rebuilding the Afghan air corps. "We've got to get beyond the fact that it's Russian. . . . It works well in Afghanistan."

U.S. military officials have estimated that the Afghan air force won't be able to operate independently until 2016, five years after President Obama has said he intends to start withdrawing U.S. troops from Afghanistan. But Boera said that date could slip by at least two years if Congress forces the Afghans to fly U.S. choppers . "Is that what we really want to do?" he asked. (end quote).

And another quote for context as to WHY the US forces went this way on the Mi-17 helicopters. (Quote): Because Afghan airmen had historically trained on Russian choppers, the Pentagon decided to make the Mi-17s the backbone of Afghanistan's fleet. The Soviet Union specifically designed the Mi-17 for use in Afghanistan. U.S. officials say it is well-suited for navigating the altitudes of the Hindu Kush mountains, as well as Afghanistan's desert terrain.

With few reliable roads, helicopters are a primary mode of transport in Afghanistan. (end quote).

The Afghan National Army Air Corps has the following pieces of equipment and number of personnel: Russian-made attack helicopters Mi-35, Italian-designed C-27s (a fixed-wing aircraft used to transport troops and supplies). The air corps so far has 48 aircraft and 3,300 personnel.

Gen. Boera said plans are to expand the Air Corps up to 146 aircraft and 8,000 personnel by the year 2016. While there are Afghan pilots in the Unites States training, so far, only one has graduated. Afghan pilot recuits-many who are illiterate in their own language, have to learn English (which is the official language of flight to begin with).

(Quote): Gen. Mohammed Dawran, chief of the Afghan air corps, said most of those pilots are in their 40s and set in their ways. Requiring them to start fresh on U.S. copters would be an uphill battle.

"They learned the previous system and different ideas," he said in an interview. Most of the veterans also don't know how to fly at night or in poor visibility, when a pilot must rely on an aircraft's instrument panel to navigate. (end quote).

Another contruibing factor is that the Russian hardware is much more basic than the American equipment. Lack of GPS (Global Positioning System) to the maintenance crews using whatever they can get their hands on to make repairs.

Plus, U.S. military officials would like to operate their own Mi-17s for U.S. Special Operations Command for clandestine missions. And the Russians know that - so they have raised the prices for new and used Mi-17s.

But, because of politics, DoD is now "leaning away" from buying Russian hardware. (Quote): "As a 'Buy American' kind of individual, I think it's totally appropriate as we go forward that we continue to assess the program," Army Secretary John McHugh, whose service oversees foreign helicopter purchases, told the Senate Appropriations Committee in March. (end quote).

My take on this is Buy Russian! Go ahead. Seeing how the aerial refueling tanker deal, the F-22 production line stopping too soon, and F-35 deals have "save" the American tax payer so much money over the past 15-20 years... Hell, I say go ahead and buy some Su-27s while you're at it! Personally, I like that twin turbo-fan amphib the Russians have, the Be-200. I would love to see that in US Coast Guard markings.

__

Ref.

Washington Post, June 19, 2010. by Craig Whitlock (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061805630_pf.html).

Wikipedia, Mi-17 "Hip" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-17). image from Wiki also.

The Return of the OV-10! What about the F-7F Tigercat instead?

From a posting made on Springbored's Springboard, there was an article from Inside Defense breaking the news(to me anyway) that Boeing is offering to start up production of the OV-10 again for Counter-Insurgency Operations (COIN). Quote "While the twin-engine plane would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st Century edition would feature a computerized cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities, according to an OV-10(X) product card obtained by ITAF.

The Chicago defense-giant has quietly been circulating plans at military-sponsored events across the country that detail how the company could rebuild and modernize the Bronco, according to Pentagon and industry officials." And SS offered the following observation of his own, "That's a sweet plane, capable of serving in low-threat areas....and it can land on an amphibious flattop. Just don't go too crazy goldplating it. And build 'em fast."

Come on, the OV-10? Hows about restarting the production line on the A-10! The A-10 Warthog is the best gun platform ever in my personal opinion for attacking targets on the ground and killing them.

Then I thought about it a bit more and remembered that I had read an article in the U.S. Naval Proceedings sometime between 1994 and 2004 from a Marine officer who proposed that there be a OV-10 replacement and that the service should look at the World War Two design - the Grumman F-7F Tigercat.

The Tigercat was generally more armored than the Bronco. It could survive combat better than the OV-10. What this Marine officer was proposing was to replace the twin radial engines with twin turbo-props or twin turbo-fan engines. Have a internal bomb bay be designed for modern weapons. It would of course have the latest in electronics to survive in the modern combat environment.

Here are the specifications of the Tigercat. Two 2,100hp Pratt & Whitney R-2800-34W Double Wasp 18-cylinder radial piston engines. Max take-off weight of 25,720 pounds. Wingspan of 51 feet, 6 inches. Fuselage length is 45 feet, 4.5 inches. Height of 16 feet, 7 inches. Max speed at 22,200 feet is 435 mph. Cruise at 5,000 feet of 222 mph. It had a ceiling of 40,700 feet and a range of 1,200 miles. Armament was (4) 20mm cannon in the wing roots. Four .50 cal machine guns in the nose. One torpedo slung under the fuselage or 2,000 pounds of bombs (1,000 under each wing).

These are the specifications for the OV-10D. Twin Garrett T76-G-420/421 series turboprops delivering 1,040 horsepower each engine. Top speed of 288 miles-per-hour, a range of 1,382 miles and a service ceiling of up to 30,000 feet. The OV-10 last saw action in Desert Storm. The following is a quote from the military factory webpage on the type that saw action in that conflict:

"Nevertheless, the USMC sent their Broncos into Saudi Arabia making up USMC VMO-1 and VMO-2. In the conflict, the first aircraft lost to enemy fire was an OV-10A from VMO-2. Since this aircraft was an A-model lacking the infrared suppressors on its exhaust stacks, it made relatively easy pickings for shoulder-launched heat-seeking missiles. These shoulder-launched mobile missile platforms were not yet a technological threat in the Vietnam conflict so it was a new threat to original Broncos in the Persian Gulf.

Despite both pilots ejecting safely, they were captured an tortured as Iraqi POWs till the end of the war. Typical Bronco weapon loadouts in the conflict included a single AIM-9 Sidewinder to counter enemy aircraft threats as well as rocket armament and their standard machine gun arrangements to counter ground elements. Broncos also spent their time assisting A-6 Intruders and AV-8B Harriers along with marking targets via white phosphorous rockets as well as spotting for naval-based artillery guns. "

For me as a amateur, or "armchair historian" - I kinda like the idea of something old find a new lease on life. But the OV-10 as oppose to what I remembered reading in the Naval Proceedings just doesn't seem right. Also, there are those who would prefer that the OV-1 Mohawk rather than the Bronco would be the perfect candidate to relaunch. But the Mohawk (and the Tigercat) are Grumman products - not Boeings'. And Boeing is tyring to some up with programs to keeps its workforce employeed.

And in closing, as an example, please read the following article by David Axe entitled "Old is the New New again."

With the V-22 Osprey ready to enter operational service, the Marines are looking at new toys to take advantage of the tilt-rotor craft's range and versatility. One of these is a new 120-mm rifled mortar. But mortars need vehicles to haul them -- and guess what? The V-22's cabin is too small to fit a Humvee. So the Marines are seriously considering buying a new version of the old M-151 Jeep to move the mortar. Imagine that: the old Jeep back in production, 20 years after it got bumped off the battlefield by the Humvee. It's not the only case where the military is looking to old machines -- some decades out of service -- to meet its current and future needs.

The costs of new weapons are spiraling at an alarming rate. That goes double for adventurous new programs like Future Combat Systems, which are proving largely technologically impossible. But with a war going on, the Defense Department needs gear that's going to work -- now. It's no surprise, then, that the Pentagon is turning to equipment that proved its worth back when Rummy was Gerald Ford's SecDef.

Consider the Vietnam-era Light Anti-tank Weapon, or LAW. Finding modern rockets like Javelin too complicated and expensive for urban warfare, the Marines have begun issuing LAWs to units in Iraq. On the aviation side, the Marines have ordered the first UH-1Y Hueys, new-production updates of the 30-year-old UH-1N. The AH-1 Cobra fleet is getting a similar makeover, albeit in a rebuild program for old airframes. Both helos are coming in on time, on budget and with the capabilities the Marines need. Meanwhile, the CH-53 is about to go back into production in a new version to replace choppers worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Across the aisle, the Army is reissuing old M-14 rifles. And soon the UH-60 fleet will be replaced with -- you guessed it -- the UH-60, in an updated model.

In the Navy camp, skeptical old vets are leading a campaign to put two mothballed battleships back into service as alternatives to the Navy's $3-billion-per-copy DD(X) destroyer, which is being touted as a fire-support platform but, according to the Naval Fire Support Association, will provide only a fraction of the firepower of the old BBs at far greater cost, and much later.

My friend Jim Doner, a retired Marine warrant officer who flew forward air control missions over Vietnam, is not at all surprised at this development. He says the best weapons are the old proven ones ... paired with an experienced, courageous operator. In particular, he laments the premature retirement of the OV-10 Bronco, a rugged, slow, cheap little airplane that excelled at getting airborne controllers over the battlefield where they could direct artillery and bombs more accurately than even today's controllers with their whiz-bang targeting pods. Doner says the OV-10 went away (in 1995) in favor of hi-tech multi-role jets that aren't always good at the simple, dirty and dangerous missions that are important in low-intensity wars.

-end of David Axe's article-

___

Ref. (http://warisboring.com/?p=1600)

(http://springboarder.blogspot.com/2009/01/ultimate-coin-ov-10-bronco-comin-back.html)

(http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/001957.html)

picture reference: F-7f from (http://www.livingwarbirds.com/images/f7f-pics/f7f-3p_tigercat.jpg)