35 Comments

1. Teresita:

That is truly the Right Stuff. What qualifies as derring-do for Chinese pilots is seeing how close they can get to the prop of a P-3 without getting chewed to bits. Sometimes they live to see another day.

Maybe 60 years from now, when the ideological debates have cooled…

Sixty years ago we would have been strafing the Germans, not saving them. Sixty years from now it might be our Afghan wingman helping us rescue an Iranian team in a Chinese box canyon.

Jul 22, 2008 - 5:37 pm 2. NahnCee:

Teresita, assuming the P-3 is not shooting back at the Chinese pilots?

Jul 22, 2008 - 6:51 pm 3. Lifeofthemind:

Hope that we clearly and publicly point out to the Germans that the same qualities that enabled the US to defeat the Wehrmacht are now being used to save German lives. Mobility, firepower and air-ground coordination are so easy to remember as essential and so hard to maintain that people keep looking for dazzling theoretical end runs. As the Master said “Everything in war is very simple, but the simplest thing is difficult.”

Jul 22, 2008 - 7:49 pm 4. Manny C:

Haha…back in my younger days, my Counterstrike handle was “Nightstalker”…definitely not in same league as these guys

Jul 22, 2008 - 8:01 pm 5. Wadeusaf:

I recall reading a report on a similar engagement in the desert, north and west of Baghdad. It may have been the same one. Those chopper jockeys are pure amazing, nothing short of supermen because unlike all those other super heroes, these guys can fly. The relief choppers had a story all their own that day, too. Also another F16 had been too long on standby, and running low on fuel had to return to a flat top in the gulf. Artillery of a different sort, from a different source could not be used, I cannot recall the reason, but I think it was similar to the troubles targeting the bad guys for the F16’s. But for the little bird and some aerial acrobatics a different ending would have been written. They are generally a quiet unassuming group of enlisted men that fly those birds, when the sequel to the HBO series gets done, some of the actors will have to be balding, pot bellied middle aged men from the heart of America.

Awesome!

Jul 22, 2008 - 9:32 pm 6. No Genuis:

Another article on this incident

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5902490.html

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:03 am 7. NahnCee:

Wish there was a comment from the Germans on the pilot with the brass gonads. A description of what it was like from their point of view. Ah well …

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:53 am 8. ElMondoHummus:

“Also another F16 had been too long on standby, and running low on fuel had to return to a flat top in the gulf.”

If by “flat top” you meant “aircraft carrier”, then I must submit a gentle, friendly correction: F16’s are Air Force attack aircraft, not Navy. They would have returned to one of the local airbases, not a ship.

But aside from that minor issue, I agree with the sentiment of your post. Those fellas are indeed incredible.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:58 am 9. Kaffir:

Wadeusaf said
“They are generally a quiet unassuming group of enlisted men that fly those birds,. . .”

Having taught at AFIT for 15 years, I am still trying to forgive USAF types for their provincial attitude about real pilots. Army rotary wing aircraft are flown by Commissioned and Warrant Officers, not Enlisted Men.
Most pilots in the USAF; in fact most officers in the USAF should be Warrants, since they are operators, not commanders.

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:04 am 10. Dave:

Kaffir: You just gave voice to one of my
personal theories. USAF should most definitely have fewer commissioned officers
and lots more warrants flying their planes.

Pilot is a technical skill most worthy of financial renumeration but does not inherently
require command skills.

Less brass amongst the zoomies just might eliminate the empire building that can be so problemsome.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:26 am 11. Old Blue:

Wow. Astounding stuff.

Amazing how unassuming heroes can be. I worked with one. He looks like a geologist.

Actually, he is a geologist. And, he’s a hero decorated with a BSMV.

Ummm… P-3’s don’t have any guns at all. Torpedoes, yes, guns; no. Minor point, but I just read some crap over at Time’s website and I felt a need to nitpick.

Jul 23, 2008 - 10:50 am 12. Annoy Mouse:

Guitar Heros by Michael Yon is an excellent read. Little Birds going eye to eye with the bad guys. One of the heros is a female pilot. Kind of puts an end to the theory that women should not be in combat.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=474:guitar-heroes&catid=34:dispatches&Itemid=55

Jul 23, 2008 - 12:27 pm 13. whiskey:

One data point does not equal data Annoy.

Broadly speaking, putting men and women together in Combat has been a disaster. Among the Israelis, it was stopped ASAP, because among other things the troops that lost women would inflict atrocities on any of the enemy, including civilians. At it’s worst, it creates Lyndie England and Sgt. Grainer type relations, leading to … Abu Graihb. England wanted “entertainment” and Grainer her superior and lover gave it to her.

The argument against women in the military is not their capacity but their disruptive effect on military discipline. You’re either interested in social work or an effective military. There is no middle ground.

Jul 23, 2008 - 3:07 pm 14. NahnCee:

Whiskey – are you SERIOUSLY blaming Abu Ghraib on the presence of women? I’m surprised you didn’t drag that dyke general who was supposed to be in charge in from left field kicking and screaming to also prove that it was all a female problem.

Be misogynist if you want to be, but please, don’t try to hide it under some kind of half-assed “scientific” or sociological argument. Just tattoo “woman hater” across your forehead and man up about it.

Jul 23, 2008 - 5:24 pm 15. Annoy Mouse:

Whiskey,
I have had serious doubts about women in combat roles. To say that “it puts an end to the theory” is stronger than I intended, but reading the article sure gave me a new perspective about women aviators in combat roles. I am definately not for military as a means of social advancement, but filling out roles where they fit strengthen our institutions considerably once you get over the his/hers facilities issues.

Jul 23, 2008 - 5:32 pm 16. RWE:

Many thanks to Wretchard for the two pieces he Ided and to Annoy Mouse for the Michael Yon “Guitar Hero piece.”

I am awed by the heroism and determination of our people, but I can’t help but think about one aspect. Guess I can’t shake my engineer/acquisition background.

The equipment our people are using is hardly the best possible for the job. The F-16 was designed originally as an air-to-air fighter; air-to-ground was added on to justify buying something in addition to the F-15. At least the A-10 as designed for ground attack, but the main target was tanks, and by the early 90’s the Air Force had decided they made a mistake even buying it in the first place. One Congressman stood up and called it a Turkey.

The Predator was designed for observation only. They later hung missiles on it and the USAF was reluctant to do even that. The Hellfire was not even designed to be fired from Predator altitudes, but I guess they fixed that in the later models.

The MH-6 was originally the OH-6 light observation chopper. The OH-58 was the same; I think it was bought when Hughes could not build enough OH-6’s. A friend of mine used to fly around in those in Vietnam, looking out the window to try to see Victor Charlie. Both birds date from the 60’s, although they have been updated with equipment like laser target designators and Hellfires. As for the Hellfire itself, it was designed to attack tanks.

It is hard to see how the chopper guys could not be better off with, say, a UH-1 with M-60 machine guns, 2.75 in FFAR pods, Hellfires added, and a door gunner with an M-60. Make it an N model with twin engines. And toss in one of those nose grenade launchers the Marine C models used to use. I guess that the 58’s and 6’s are way more maneuverable than the old Hueys, but other than that they seem to be behind what was normal 40 years ago. An AH-1 HueyCobra would be even better. Hanging out the window shooting an M-4 at someone is a tough way to do business.

I am fascinated by how we adapt equipment to new needs, but I’m disturbed by the fact that we still have to do it so much.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:39 pm 17. Richard Fernandez:

The problem is that the users get an average utility from the equipment, not necessarily the optimal. The average utility of my laptop includes how well it will do as a club if I have to use it in that capacity in a dark alley. It’s true that my laptop was optimized to process data, but if I had to fight in what I wore and carried, then I guess I’d be sharpening the edges of the Sony Vaio.

There is apparently a debate between those who believe the future of warfare is traditional combat and those who think that the small wars trend will continue. I guess a mix of equipment will be bought. If the future of warfare is high intensity, people will be fighting enemy armored divisions with COIN equipment. If it turns out to be low-intensity, then the day may come when F-22s are used for close air support.

Jul 23, 2008 - 6:54 pm 18. Wadeusaf:

ElMondoHummus, Kaffir

LOL, I apologize. The statement did not spring from any provincialism.

All the branches are significantly different from when I was in and I generally try not to put my hard won and stubborn ignorance on display. However my respect for and awe of their accomplishments bested me, my gaff should in no way take away from their achievements as officers or as pilots.

Jul 23, 2008 - 7:45 pm 19. exhelodrvr:

RWE,
Size (targetability, ease of transport, size of landing sites, ability to get into and out of tighter spaces), visibility from the cockpit, ability to carry passengers if necessary are tactical factors that enter into the equation, too. And cost (maintenance costs, training costs, purchase costs, spare parts) obviously also matters.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:43 pm 20. exhelodrvr:

Annoy Mouse,
“the article sure gave me a new perspective about women aviators in combat roles”

On carriers (or other ships), everyone is potentially involved in damage control/firefighting, even pilots. (In a second, after a missile hits or a mine explodes, a ship is suddenly fighting for it’s life, and radar operators are now carrying casualties up ladder, lugging around pumps, shoring up bulkheads with large timbers.) That will potentially involve much more physical activity, including upper body strength, than the typical “day-to-day” work. I question whether the average woman in the military is capable of that. They have lower physical standards for the women than the men. At some point I believe that will result in people dying unnecessarily. But the military will very likely be forced to cover that up if it does happen.

Jul 23, 2008 - 9:50 pm 21. RWE:

Exhelo:

The bru-ha-ha over the USAF “accidently” picking an H-47 varient for the rescue role, the cancellation of the RAH-66, and the decision by the Army to buy some European choppers (UH-113?) for “noncombat only” roles shows how hard it can be to acquire the right hardware.

Go over to wwww.aviationweek/extra and read what they have to say about the H-47 pick.

And does anyone really think that the UH-113 will only be used for noncombat roles? No way! When the shootin’ starts I really doubt they will run away. And I have no doubt that F/A-22’s will be used for CAS; they won’t run away, either.

I guess that the fact that you cannot predict what the equipment will be used for actually argues for the oft-condemned process of “gold plating” our hardware. Specifications can be overdone and usually are, but building in design margin is always a good idea.

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:32 am 22. exhelodrvr:

veryRWE,
Thanks – those were good. I never flew combat SAR, or the H-47, but some things to consider (in my opinion):

Most of the time, smaller is better. Quieter, harder to see, more manueverable,smaller landing sites. And the great majority of these rescues are not for large groups of people. Being able to carry extra troops on board can be beneficial, though.

Range is very important.

Speed is important.

Ability to operate at high altitudes (i.e. mountains)/very hot weather (which has the same effect on helos).

Twin rotors have some inherent advantages with not being as limited by the direction of the wind.

Downwash is an issue.

From what I know (and I have not paid especially close attention to this competition) the H-47 does very well in the range, speed, high altitude, twin rotor areas. Downwash and size are weaker areas.

Jul 24, 2008 - 8:23 am 23. RWE:

Exhelo:

Yes, it is difficult to see how you could sneak in and grab someone on the sly with a HH-47. A trifle obvious. I don’t know if it has the same “feel them before you can hear them” effect as the old UH-1, but it can’t be too quiet.

On the other hand, the MH-53 is not exactly a Bensen Gyrocopter in terms of size, and they do/did a lot of sneaking in those.

It is interesting what they had to say about the requirement to be able to transport in a C-17, offload, and set up quickly. That sounds like a new requirement to me, and it sounds War-On-Terror oriented.

Note also that “rescue” to the USAF is no longer just aircrew retrieval but such choppers are also used for special ops pick-up for any service. That could made it a whole new ball game, much more demanding than the old SAR mission. Thinking out of your own box is a good thing but you may just end up with a much bigger new box.

I think the later issues of Av Week have been pushing the idea that Sikorsky’s new rigid rotor concept looks more promising than either conventional choppers or tilt-wings, but it is still more or less in the “X” vehicle stage.

Jul 24, 2008 - 11:13 am 24. exhelodrvr:

RWE,
I think the Osprey, with it’s speed and range, overall would probably be the best platform for this. But it’s awfully expensive.

“Note also that “rescue” to the USAF is no longer just aircrew retrieval but such choppers are also used for special ops pick-up for any service.”
Yeah, that’s a two-edged sword. If you over-specialize, you end up having resources that don’t get used to their fullest capability. But if you over-generalize, you get resources that can’t do their mission adequately.
I would be curious to see how the Blackhawk/Nighthawk fared in the competition (I assume that some version of it was involved.) The Navy has been pretty successful with modularizing the equipment suites on the multiple versions of the Seahawk that they use; makes it relatively easy to switch from one mission to another.

Jul 24, 2008 - 11:57 am 25. NahnCee:

…carrying casualties up ladder, lugging around pumps, shoring up bulkheads with large timbers…

Oh. You mean sorta like lady firefighters have been doing in civilian life for decades now?

Jul 24, 2008 - 12:59 pm 26. exhelodrvr:

Nahncee,
Do you dispute the fact that average men have greater upper body strength than average women?

Jul 24, 2008 - 1:11 pm 27. RWE:

NahnCee: I once knew a lady in Calif who got a job as a forest fire fighter. On her first real mission she stumbled and fell – no big deal, she was unhurt – but every male fire fighter within sight came over to see if she was Okay.

She realized that is what would happen every time in the future and what that would in turn do to the unit’s effectivness. She quit.

Jul 24, 2008 - 4:22 pm 28. NahnCee:

Exhelodriver – yes, I think I would dispute that *if* your “averages” knew that in order to do their job they are required to build up their strength in certain areas. To be a firefighter men AND women are required to carry a certain amount of weight up a certain amount of stairs in a certain amount of time. They are expected to train until they can do that, and if they can not do it, they are invited to take their aspirations elsewhere.

I used to work in a fire department, and the interesting thing I observed is that the men and women could work together, could accomplish what needed to be done in rescuing people and putting out fires — surely that is almost the equal in stress as getting shot at. However, the people at that point who were the most vocally against this integration were the wives of the male firefighters. You know, those silly little blondes who didn’t have any upper body strength but had enormous yaps with lots and lots of whine built in.

I just can’t believe you guys are saying that if women CAN build up their strength and CAN do the same physical things as men can, and if they volunteer and actively want to play those games, they should be kept from it. Who are you listening to any way? Your own little timid blondes at home who don’t want you working too closely with competent females? (Female astronauts in diapers always excepted, of course.)

Jul 24, 2008 - 4:50 pm 29. exhelodrvr:

Nahncee,
“I think I would dispute that *if* your “averages” knew that in order to do their job they are required to build up their strength in certain areas”

As you know, that’s not what I asked. And I was not discussing being shot at. I was referring to specific tasks involved with damage control on ships.

“They are expected to train until they can do that, and if they can not do it, they are invited to take their aspirations elsewhere.”
And that is the nature of the problem; a certain level of physical conditioning should be a requirement, but because it would rule out the vast majority of average women – meaning women who have not gone to unusual lengths to improve their fitness level – they will not do it.

“Your own little timid blondes at home who don’t want you working too closely with competent females?”
That’s a pretty obnoxious statement. Where the f do you get off saying that?

Jul 24, 2008 - 5:14 pm 30. NahnCee:

We’re talking specifics here: the military and firefighters. YOU are the one who attempted to change the subject to some imaginary “average”. Yes, to answer your off-topic question, an “average” man will have more upper body strength than an “average” woman. So what?

And that is the nature of the problem; a certain level of physical conditioning should be a requirement, because it would rule out the vast majority of average women and average men. Isn’t that what boot camp is all about in the military: to make sure new soldiers *are* able to perform their duties?

Would a female sailor really be allowed on a ship if she weren’t able to pick up and lug a hose, or would a female soldier be allowed in Iraq if she couldn’t keep up hiking and carrying with the other guys she’s working with? I know in the fire department they’d certainly be shown the door if they couldn’t perform up to department standards, and that includes the psychological standards of going blind into a burning room and finding your way out without panicking.

I apologize for the obnoxious statement about timid wives, but the point I’m trying to make is that so often in discussions like this, there are outside factors people are considering and dancing around that have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a man or a woman is competent to do a certain job. And that’s just not right.

Jul 25, 2008 - 9:30 am 31. exhelodrvr:

Nahncee,
For the most part, training in the Navy does not specifically ensure that people are able to handle the physical aspects of those unlikely-to-occur, highly stressful, very physically demanding potential situations. My assumption is that there was an underlying assumption that people would be able to handle those situations. I don’t know about other services, but I am making an educated guess that it applies to them as well. (That does not apply to all of the sub-groups within the military.) I do not believe that the assumption applies to the great majority of women; certainly there are some who would be able to handle those situations, but the military does not make them meet those requirements. If they did, not enough women would get in, which does not sit well with the PC media/liberal politicians/etc.

My experience with women in the military was generally very positive (same as with the men) – some great, some average, some bad. During my tour as an instructor pilot, I had three female students (for varying numbers of flights). One was above average, one was average, and one was below average. So basically the same as the male students. One of the best chiefs I ever had work for me (the chiefs would probably dispute who worked for who!) was female – I would put her up against any of the others when it came to running a shop. But I wouldn’t want her being the one trying to carry me offthe flight deck after a missile hit the carrier.

BTW, my wife (who is blond, and very attractive) served an enlistment in the Navy prior to going to nursing school (which is when we met) and she agrees with me on this subject.

Jul 25, 2008 - 10:02 am 32. Al_Batross:

The Afghan A-10 mission was certainly at night and under adverse conditions, and reminded me of the 2-seat Night Adverse Weather version of that aircraft.
I had thought that only one prototype was ever built, but it seems there are rumours that more exist somewhere, see:

http://www.geocities.com/equipmentshop/aircommandos.htm

I can’t help wondering if there would have been fewer A-10 “friendly fire” incidents in the Kuwait war and thereafter if 2-seaters had been deployed.

Jul 25, 2008 - 1:53 pm 33. exhelodrvr:

Al_batross,
There are definitely inherent advantages to twin-seaters, but also inherent disadvantages. Increases in weight due to the increase in the cockpit size and associated equipment; that has an impact on the amount of ordnance/fuel, required runway length, max speed, engine size, landing gear requirements, etc.

Of course, having an extra pair of eyes is generally advantageous.

Jul 25, 2008 - 4:13 pm 34. NahnCee:

helo — told you so about the wife …

Jul 25, 2008 - 6:04 pm 35. exhelodrvr:

No, Nahncee, you said that she was timid and afraid of me working with competent females. Neither of which is true.

Sounds like you might have some issues to work out.

Jul 25, 2008 - 6:12 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.