army aviation digest - mar 1982

7/27/2019 Army Aviation Digest - Mar 1982

1/52

USAARLSCfSUPPORTCENTRp.o. BOX 620577FORT RUCKER AL 36362 0577


2/52

MARCH 1982 VOLUME 28 NUMBER 3

rigadier General Ellis D. ParkerArmy Aviation OfficerODCSOPS, Headquarters,Department of the ArmyMajor General Carl H McNair Jr .Commander Brigadier General Richard D KenyoDeputy Commander

page 2-page 6 11

page 8

U.S Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, Alabama U.S. Army Aviation CenterFc;>rt Rucker, Alabama

2 Give Us Our Guns Optics, 1 L T Ronald M.Buffkin6 AHIP- Your New Aeroscout, How You Got It AndWhat You Got, LTC R A. Neuw ien Jr.11 AHIP-Aeroscout Of The Next War, MAJ Laur iePope4 When Does An IP Take The Controls?

The Problem With IPs7 Report ing Final20 PEARL's23 98 A viation Digest Coverage27 Threat: The Unit Threat Officer, CW3 Robert

E Browning28 What It's All About, CPT Ronald B. Brown30 We Can't Wait For Improvement, CW3 CliffordS Be rg Jr.32 DES Report To The Field: CrewmemberStandardization34 ALSE Or ELSE, LTC Clarence Suggs III35 GUARD SLOTS36 Hangar Talk: DOD FLIP General Planning, CW2Gary R We iland37 Views From Readers38 Keep ing The Apache Flying And Fight ing, MAJTroy J. Roop42 An Endangered Advantage , MAJ Everette LRoper J r48 ATC Action Line: FLIP Supplement: ' P' Fields,M r. Dennis Newport

Cover: This is an artist's conception of the AHIPaeroscout that is currently being developed forthe Army by Bell Helicopter Textron. The articleson pages 2,6 and 11 describe the need, employment and characteristics. Illustration by Paul Fretts

page 3

page 4

Honorable John O MarSecretary of the ArmRichard K. TierneEditor

The mission of th e U.S. Army Av lat l flDI . , t (USPS 4 15 350) IS to prOVideinfor mat ion o f an opera t lonat. functional nature concerning sa fety and aircraftaccident preven tion . trai ning , ma intenance , operations . research and development.avia t io n mediCine and oth er related data

Th is publication has been approved by The Ad jutant General HeadquarteDepartment of the Army 14 October 1981, in acco rdance wi th Arm y Regu latio310-1Ac tive Army units receive distributi on under the PinPOint distribution sys teas outlined In AR 310-1 Comple te DA Form 12-5 and send directly to CDR. APublications Center , 2800 Eastern Boulevard , Baltimore . MD 21220 For acha nge In distribution requirements , initiate a revised DA Form 12-5

The Dlg IS an o Hlc lal Departme nt o f the Ar my periodi cal published mo nt hlyunde r the supervISion of the Commanding General , U S A rmy AViation CenterViews expressed herein are no t necessari ly th ose of the Department of the Arm ynor the U S , Arm y AV iat IOn Center Photos are US Arm y unless otherwisespecif ied Use of the masculine, pronoun S n ,ended to Include both gendersunless ot herwise stated Mat erial may be reprinted provided credit IS given to th eDlg and to the authC'r , unless oth erWise indicated

A rtic les , photos and Items of interest on Army AV iatIOn are inVited Directcomm unicat io n IS authorized to Ed itor . U.S. Army Av lat l flDI , P O Drawerp , Fort Rucker , AL 36362 Manuscri pts returned upon request

National Guard and Arm y Reserve units under pinpOint distri butIOn also shousubmit DA For m 12-5 Other National Guard units should submit reques ts throutnelr state adjutant general

Those not eligible for offiCial distribution or who desire pe rso, ,,,I copies of tDlgfI.t can o rder the magazine from the Superintendent of Documents . UGovernment Print ing Office . Washington , DC 20 40 2 Annual subSCription ratare 26,00 domestic and 32.50 overseas ,


3/52

L T us HE R from you is a request Imake of you in the Digest. And I amwith the responses and your manyon ways in which we can enhanceAviation s contributions to the combined

In no other single area, however, has thereas much input as on the question of anscout helicopter. Your voices- ourhave now been heard, and the AH I Pis today a reality. As a testimony toand to bring you up to speed on this vital, this month 'sDigestfeatures articlesneed , its fulfillment and

First Lieutenant Ronald M. Buffkin is the authorGive Us Our Guns and Optics. In it, he veryrelates his reasons for believing thattheKiowa needs a target acquisition systemadequate armament. Further, he explainshe, as an aeroscout pilot, has a criticalhave the proper equipment tohis job.

Similar pleas were heard and recognized asas 1972, declares Lieutenant ColonelNeuwien in AHIP, Your New Aeroscout. describes the involved course of action which1978 and eventually led to the Army 'sg into full-scale engineering developmentyou , the user, with the Army

LTCalso gives detailed descriptions of theOnce we have the AH I P on station, how is it tor Laurie Pope answers that questionAH I Aeroscout of the Next War. AccordingMajor Pope, the improved aeroscout will fightthree organizations: attack helicopter compaair cavalry troops and division aviation, and he discusses each of those.Maintenance concepts are another importanta new aircraftprocured. Keeping the Apache Flying and by Major Troy J. Roop relates thoseforthe AH-64 , which is now in its testingWhen the final decision is made that a new

of equipment is necessary to enhance mission, it is not simply a matter of goingindustry source and making a selection.development and acquisition procedures

what do we do? MajorL. Roper Jr. addresses that point withto air-to-air combat in Helicopters- An

Endangered Advantage. He very appropriatelyaddresses improvements that can be made nowin training, tactics and equipment to help readyArmy Aviation for such combat- even before weget the more modern and more capable tools forthe task.As Major Roper notes, every iota of benefitmust be obtained from our aviation training. Webelieve visits by the Aviation Center TrainingAnalysis and Assistance Team (ACTAAT) are aboon to that achievement. Thus we are nowintroducing a new feature for the magazine,ACTAAT Connection . While our Aviation CenterACT AAT team is relatively new, there are fewunits worldwide that have not been touched byits presence. And significantly, the team's objectiveis not to inspect, but to assist- and much assistance has been given.In this new feature, issues acquired by theteam from aviation field units wi ll be commentedon as a timely means of sharing this informationwith the Army Aviation community. We hope thatall will benefit from this; for in reality, we don 'tfind any really new problems in our business-theyjust appear in different places. The ACTAATConnection will let you hear how other unitshave already overcome the challenges you arenow facing.

Another bonus for you this month is a subjectarea index of the Digest s articles for 1981. Th isis in response to the many requests we 've hadfor such a listing , and it has been placed at thecenterfold so it can be easily pulled out to save.Let us know if this meets your needs.

Major General Carl H. McNair Jr.Commander, U.S. Army Aviation CenterFort Rucker, AL

1


4/52

LT Buffkin s article below is aexcellent statement of the neefor a better scout helicopter, frothe user s standpoint. Readthen read the two following aticles on the Army s AH I P e rscout. Afterwards, judge for youself as to whether or not we aheaded in the right direction make a scout that can see, kand survive.Colonel Robert S. FairweatheTR DOC System ManagerScout HelicopterFort Rucker, AL

GIVEUSOUR UNSOPTI SAn aeroscout s urgentplea for increasingour combat effectivenes

First Lieutenant Ronald M. BuAeroscout Section LeaderB Company, 5 1st ABCAPO New York 9326photographs by the author

s YOUNG OFFICER cocerned with winning the first battof the next war, I've always betold, "Train the way you are goito fight " Like most aviators, I thiI had the best flight instructionthe world. This training preparme to do my job better than aopposing Soldier could do hishers. All this added up to me asArmy aviator fitting nicely into tcombined arms scheme

u.s. ARMY AVIATION DIGES


5/52

In the cavmy mission is the battle-commander. do thisof tasks such as con-

1982

and coordinate fires and evennr rn1 r l p cnl l ' r1h , for the AH-l Cobras

are ',. . J ... , .unot have an toenable aeroscouts to see.

To Field'ManualPriorities are: Detection and identification of the enemy at maximum

POSSlltJle distances from the friendlyto

scoutsfourthe enemy.

The first method is most commonaltlhOlH h :1 1 1 '1 1 limited. It's the

nr ' ' ' ' r I ' :> ,r I a much better view ofbattlefield since I'd taken the dooroff that and there was noto water. I stillthe APe whichabout the

their range.asks for scouts tosee the at the maximumdistance VV .:IJLHv, then the nakedeye falls short of the task.

At the and idealfor the engage-

ulars come inan aerial observer inmode with a of vu, . ' -""" ' , . . . . . .very sound effective L ''''' .... . ' - uhand-held binoculars are

not suitable for use from thecockpit of a Thefield of view is in thein most, it's about 40p'Trp,,,,,,, which does not lend itselfto aeroscout work.As a third we r l I , r r ' :> ,n t l l

have XM-21 Stabil ized Monoc-ulars.with lOx about aof view. These are

our best and most n r f tp r rp , t1of

activateand even then the . : I L ( ; I ,U l1LL ' - Uyou has be held rPI ->' ' ' ' ' ' ''still.

3


6/52

it's difficult to scan an area; and thepilot gets no visual input as to whatthe observer sees.Fourth is a technique we've foundto be very effective although it'sakin to putting the cart before themule. In a situation where the scoutsees a possible target or somethingout there that he can 't confirm, he'llhave his Cobra unmask and use thetelescopic sighting unit (TSU) tozoom in on the target. Althoughthis method can 't be used in everysituation, it clearly demonstrates thelack of the OH-58 to do its jo tosee or the Cobra. Let's face it , whena Cobra has to acquire its own targetsand look because the scout can't,something is wrong in the system.

The TSU, as used in the AH-1,would probably be too heavy tomount in the cockpit of an OH-58.t weighs about 176 pounds as asingle unit but a reconfiguration to

conform to the weight and balanceloading of an OH-58 would havegreat tactical implications for thescout. We would be able to seefarther, with better accuracy and agreater degree of security. Perhapsa similar, lighter system is the answer.

A fifth technique I didn't mentionwill probably be used often in combat. t is the old joke about markingthe target with the burning '58.Unless an adequate optical systemis provided for the aeroscout to meetthe demands of the modern battlefield, we'll be making contact onthe enemies' terms. The valid mission we should perform would benega ted by our inability to see.

The next area that prevents theaeroscout from being more effectiveis the total absence of armament.The OH-58 is essentially a combatvehicle expected to function in thebattle arena with no weapons. Weknow that the modern battlefield is ahighly lethal place where unarmedtargets won't last long. The OH-58 inits present configuration cannot provide active self-protection nor canit perform an active security rolefor a vulnerable Cobra while theCobra is firing.

Even if a Cobra is in a position tooverwatch the scout, there will btimes when having an armed scouwill make the difference betweethe aeroscout continuing his missioor being shot down. With just abouevery threat weapon system from foot Soldier with an AKM to aT 7battle tank as a likely air defensweapon , the scout with onboarweapons can best ensure his owsurvival.

Too many times in training I'vlooked down through my chin bubble to see an infantryman pointinan M-16 at me. In that situation, wneed firepower right then and therto break contact and continue oumission. The time it takes to maneuver away or go pick up a Cobrcould be fatal. With my own firepower, I can best deal with whaaffects me and influence the situation much more effectively than aan unarmed scout.In situations where I'm providinsecurity for a Cobra launching itmissiles, an armed scout is a musBecause the attack helicopter crewis so involved with the firing of ittu be -launched optically-trackedwire-guided (TOW) missile, theattention is divided among severatasks, including their own securityMy particular job in the unarmerole is to unmask when the Cobrdoes and alert him of any fire hmay not see directed at him. Evewith advance warning from its APR39 RWR against radar directethreat weapons and an active infrared (lR) countermeasure in thALQ-44 IR Jammer (on the AH-1Fully Modernized Cobra), the Cobris still in a dangerous position.Let's suppose that during a multple helicopter engagement by munit, I spot the signature from Swatter antitank guided missile thatfired at one of my Cobras. Now can do two things: I can say nothinto the Cobra and hope the TOWhits its target before the Swattehits the Cobra, or I can alert thCobra crew about the Swatter anif they respond quickly enough the

u s RMY VI TION DIGEST


7/52

avoid the Swatter as well astheir servicing of an enemyh the TOW. What I wouldhave happen is to be ablelayout suppressive fire on the

operator by using my own, thereby denying him visual

, I could keep similarCobra long enoughy fire his TOWs.

urity for the Cobra than is nowrmed role.Referring to FM 17 -5 again: Ifis desirable to maintain contact, this should be donehat tank killingare not exposed to enemy

is absolutelyWhat this is sayingis that aeroscouts areto remain in the battleonger than anybody else. Thats me that I'm going to be exposedother

but I'm supposed to dopossibly withouthelicopter support. I liketake myself seriously, and I'm

that to print th t advice foruse of unarmed scouts is not

In conclusion, there is an urgentto fill this void in my capabilitycout. I have a valid requirementbe able to see and provide myis not met by present

that I'll have to fight with. Ithat my job as an aeroscoutone of the most important in Annyviation today. I sincerely hope thatabou t theneeded ow will not have

wait on lives being needlessly

RIGHT: The author standing besidehis OH-58 during a training exercisein West Germany (FRG). 1 LT Buffkinis an aeroscout section leader in BCo. (Attack), 501 st Avn Bn CBn inAnsbach, FRG

BELOW: Sometimes it is necessaryto dismount the observer. Here, SGTD. Edwards, an aerial observer inthe scout platoon of B Co., 501 stAvn Bn (CBT), leaves his OH-58Aand uses his XM 21 Stabilized Monoculars to get a better look at theenemyBOTTOM: SGT Edwards uses theXM-21 from the cockpit of theOH-58

o>-0oo1::

_ . . . ; . ; ; ; ; ; : ; . . . 0


8/52

OWYOU GOT IT AND WHAT YOU GOTlieutenant Colonel

A A Neuwien JrAssistant TS Scout HelicoptersFort Rucker, AL

EARMY JUST entered intofull scale developmentyou, the user, an excellentthe

aeroscout.I can assure you that thehas gone to to ensurethe new will meet our aeroWhile there were a lotof involved in the selectionprocess for the I ll put myname down high on the user ssentative list for future blame

6

QuestloflS at thisnrr.. .-.p nllrp


9/52

r.:======ASHII PROJECTI I M N GER

RECORDINGSECRET RY

III

ATTACK HELICOPTER MISSION AIR CAVALRY MISSION

r = = = = = ~II IIPROCUREMENT II

ST FF II II~ J r : = = = = = ~

II LEG L IIDVISOR I I

II I I

IIj I ST FF SSIST NTM N GEMENT

SAFETY FIELD ARTILLERY AERIAL OBSERVERMISSION

MAN MACHINE INTERFACE TRAINING PERSONNEL MAINTAINABILITY TRANSPORTABILITY GROUND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT

: SSEB OPERATIONAL SUITABILITY

is the fonnal docThe AHIP ROC washe developer, DAR COM's

VR DCOM Program ManagerM) - ASH, to write the AHIP Ret for Proposal (RFP). The RFPe user's stated requirement against whichs. These proposals are eval-

uated by a Source Selection Evaluation Board (SSEB) and they arecontractually binding upon the winning contractor.The two key factors that ensuredevelopment of a system that willmeet the user's requirements are theaccurate translation of the ROC intothe RFP and the SSEB procedures.In the AHIP case, the close coordination and cooperation between the

TSM-Scout Helicopters and PMAdvanced Scout Helicopter ensuredthat the RFP reflected the AHIPROC.The SSEB is part of the procedureused to evaluate the contractors'

written proposals. (In the AHIP case,the RFP was a 31h-inch thick document and the proposals, one eachfor Bell Helicopter Textron (BHT)and Hughes Helicopters International (HHI), averaged more than80 pounds per copy.) The SSEBconducted a word by word evaluation of the proposals and reportedits findings to a Senior AdvisoryCouncil (SAC). The Council briefedthe Source Selection uthoritySSA), who made the award decision.

The AHIP SSEB convened on 1April 1981 and lasted for about 5months. During this time, an in-depth evaluation was conducted ofboth the BHT and HHI AHIP proposals. Figure 1 depicts the structureof the AHIP SSEB.As you can see, the Board has achairman, deputy chairman andfour areas of evaluation. Of the fourareas, Operational, Technical andLogistical are scored areas withthe Cost area being a straight evaluation and comparison of the cost foreach proposed system.My position was director of theOperational Suitability (Op Suit)Area. Figure 2 is the detailed structure of this area.

The Op Suit Area was staffed byhandpicked user representatives.The proponent centers for the AHIPAeroscout, U.S. Army Armor Center, Ft. Knox (Attack and Air Cavalry); U.S. Army Field ArtilleryCenter, Ft. Sill Field Artillery AerialObserver (FAAO); and U.S. ArmyAviation Center, Ft. Rucker (Aviation Systems), were well representedin the Op Suit Area. The range oftalent included majors with attackand cavalry backgrounds, to includeauthorship of the appropriate FMs;a former commander of the Aeroscout Branch, Department of FlightTraining, Directorate of Training andDoctrine, U.S. Army Aviation Center;

7


10/52

il proved thrust tail

scout Mission eOlRllu.icati81aid Ravilatiol syst lls

Mission tailored cockpitFIGURE 3: HIPtraining developers; combat developers; maintenance instructors; U.S.Army Forces Command air cavalryunit personnel; captains and chiefwarrant officers with maintenanceand training backgrounds; scout andattack SIPs; and personnel withcurrent unit experience. The AHIPSSEB used a four-step process toaccomplish the evaluation. The firststep was to ensure all the statedrequirements were met and that theproposals were clear and complete.During this step of the evaluation ,the Board communicated with thecontractors through written questions,which were then answered by thecontractors. The next step was factfinding sessions with the contractorsand Board members sitting acrossthe table to ask questions andprovide answers. After fact finding,the contractors updated their proposals whieh were re-evaluated bythe Board. The third step was negotiation, again across the table, todeal with the updated proposals.After negotiation (the fourth step),the contractors submitted their bestand final proposals, which the Boardagain evaluated and used as the

8

basis for their presentation to theSAC and for preparation of a finalwritten report.Time and space do not allow for

an in-depth discussion of the evaluation that the Op Suit Area conducted. However, a good exampleis the man/ machine interface factorof the configuration analysis element. The RFP required each contractor to include in his proposal acockpit mockup. This mockup wasused extensively to evaluate theman/ machine interface acceptabilityof each proposed AHIP. Some ofthe things that were done includedconducting dry run missions usingvarious size crewmembers, wearingdifferent degrees of flight gear toinclude night vision goggles, CBRequipment, chicken plate andarctic gloves. Based upon this partof the evaluation, both contractorsmade changes to their cockpit layout;and we were able to determine whichcockpit configuration best met ourrequirements. In the Mission Performance Element, we used fiveareas of performance (avionics,visionics, flight and handling, survivability and armament) to evaluate

@ TARGET ACQUISITION SYSTEM- MAST MOUNTED SIGHT TV, FUR ,LARANGEFINDER AND DESIGNATOR- AUTOMATIC TARGET HAND OFF ARMAMENT- SPACE, WEIGHT, POWER FOR AT SURVIVABILITY- RADAR WARNING RECEIVER- IR SUPPRESSION AND PAINT. COMMO- IFM, IFMIVHF, UHF , ANDPROVISIONS FOR HF /SSB NAVIGATION- DOPPLER AND LR-80- VISUAL NAVIGATION DISPLAY

FIGURE 4: M SS ON EQUIPMENT

@. VROC FPM)2000 170 650- 4000 /95 500. ENDURANCE HRS) 2 4. FORWARD FLIGHT KTS) 112

FIGURE 5: FLIGHT PERFORM NCECH R CTERISTICSthe capability of each proposeAHIP to complete the attack, aicavalry and Field Artillery AeriaObserver missions. Here again, mocmissions were conducted performineach of the aeroscout major functions.The competition between the twcontractors (BHT and HHI) wawell fought. Both did an excellenjob of presenting their r ~ p o s l s tthe SSEB. It was determined botthe BHT and HHI proposed AHIPcould accomplish the assignemissions. In the final analysis, thoverall operational capabilities othe BHT AHIP were judged to bsignificantly superior. On 21 September 1981, the U.S. Army signea contrac t with BHT for productioof five AHIPs for full scale engineeing development.Now the second question - Whaare the capabilities of the selecteAHIP aeroscout?FIgure 3 IS a drawmg of the AHIPThis drawing shows the major areaof improvement over the OH-5Kiowa.Figure 4 contains a list of thAHIP mission equipment. Th

U.S. RMY VI TION DIGES


11/52

multifuRctiea ispllYmISt mounted siEhlcentrol panel

: COCKPIT CONFIGURATIONdetection and desig

range for the TV, FLIR anddesignator are classified, butprovide adeq uate standoffand are compatible with AH

Cobra and AH-64 Apache heliThe automatic target handsystem provides a voice data

that contains all theneeded to complete ahandoff.Provisions for air-to-air armament

included in the AHIP. Thespace, weight and power

an air-to-air Stinger (ATAS)le system involve the incorporaof several hardpoints on bothof the helicopter, the missile

the fire contro l and sightingand two missiles. Communicaare greatly enhanced by the

of NOE specification radios.visual navigation system is comof a navigational doppler, an80 heading reference system and

The updating ofnavigational doppler is processedthe onboard dual mission com

and is presented on the multidisplays (MFD). The dataprovides checkpoints,

data entrykeyboard

stabilityand controlu g m e n t a t i D nsystem

current location and heading anddistance to the next checkpoint.Figure 5 contains the AHIP's lightperformance characteristics. Mostof the numbers in this figure are seIfexplanatory. All are at mission grossweight of 4,016 pounds. This weightincludes the space, weight and powerfor two air-to-air missiles and theassociated fire control systems.

Figure 6 is that of the AHIP cockpit control display system. The"guts" of this system are the twoMFDs. There are four primaryMFD modes. These are: TV orFLIR imagery, visual navigationdisplay, flight parameters andcommunication information. Inaddition, emergency procedures,preformat messages and maintenance data can be called up on theMFD. Both the pilot and copilotlobserver MFD have the same capabilities. Other items of interest, asshown, are: remote frequency display, vertical scale instruments, andstability and control augmentation(3 axis Stabilization Control Augmentation System). Also note onthe collective head the four keysthat allow hands-on radio channel

changing. While not shown, otherhuman factor improvements in thecockpit are: fore and aft adjustments of the cyclic, capability toadjust pedals farther forward thanOH-58 C adjustment of the rightside armor seat plate for elbowroom, and outward bowing of thegreenhouse for more headroom.

Figure 7 depicts the mast mountedsight (MMS) with its components.The round shape of the MMS (2'1.5" in diameter and weighing 125 +pounds) is the best design for lowradar cross section . The eyes (windows) are 32 inches above the topof the rotor hub.FIGURE 7: MAST MOUNTE SIGHT

laserrange finderk d e i g n a t o rdaysight _ \ I: .1o r e s i ~ h t ~ ~ ~ ~echaUlsm ~ gyros. UR

- nightsightstabilized platform assembly

9


12/52

mast mounted sight ,\

,Figure 8 presents the dynamicsystem of the AHIP. In part theoutstanding performance of theAHIP can be attributed to the 650SHP engine and larger tail rotorwith a 110 HP tail rotor gearbox.Figure 9 is the soft-in-plane mainrotor hub. Not only does it hold thefour main rotor blades, but notethe elastomeric bearing that eliminates our current OH-58 blade gripsand the associated leaking seals.Figure 10 shows the pretwisted,tapered, composite main rotor blade.This blade is a scaled down versionof the Bell 412.Figure 11 is of the AHIP engine.Note the 650 HP output and thedrive system that allows us to usethis power.This improved aeroscout reflectsthe absolute dedication of the developers to the requirements of theusers. The evolved modificationsto the OH-58 greatly improve thehandling qualities of the airframeand enhance the mission capabilitiesof the aeroscout crew.

For the first time in the history ofArmy Aviation, the scout will havea mount that matches the riders'(scout helicopter crew's) skill, courage and imagination.

10

FIGURE 8: DYNAMIC SYSTEM

110 hp tail rotor gearbox[)> ~ J

. ;: J ;