A helicopter for the USMC

[Burton K Wheeler]

Rather than finish up the Army parts of my Alternate New World Order TL, I dove deep into an area I admittedly know very little about and started looking into Naval and Air Force procurement. I had a vague idea of what I wanted to do with the USMC, but I'm starting to run into areas where I don't know enough to make an informed decision.

For background, POD is around 1990. The most significant change is that Saddam Hussein is killed in the immediate aftermath of Operation Desert Storm, necessitating a full-scale occupation of Iraq by US, British, and French forces. The occupation is much less bloody and chaotic than the 2003-present Iraq war, but it makes the Clinton administration aware that it can't reap a peace dividend at the level it did OTL. All U.S. services are pressed to streamline as much as possible and maintain a high-low mix of capacities like that endorsed by Elmo Zumwalt.

All services are directed organize into three-star operational headquarters and one-star tactical headquarters to improve joint operations and scale for variable contingencies.

The USMC takes the radical step of abandoning the three-MEF idea it had held onto since the Cold War. Two MEF headquarters are retained in the active component and one in the reserve, with divisions and wings as force provider headquarters, but the USMC acknowledges that any MEF-level deployment will be combined, joint, and task organized. The Marines instead establish six standing MEB headquarters. Three of those MEBs are associated with prepositioned equipment stocks and headquartered at Okinawa, Rota (Spain), and Bahrain. One each is located on the East and West coasts and intended to amphibiously assault. The sixth, in the USMCR, is intended to fall in on the prepositioned equipment set in Norway. The Navy will maintain enough amphibious shipping for the USMC to keep nine four-ship PHIBRONS (around 40 amphibs), with three MEUs afloat at all times and nine total MEUs. Also, mini MAGTFs with a company of Marines and an aviation detachment will be associated with each carrier strike group.

Another detail is that the Navy changes its carrier mix to be 10 total Nimitz-class mega-CVN and 6 smaller carriers like the old Essex or the America LHAs. Small carriers without a well deck are not considered a substitute for a LHD in the PHIBRON.

The Osprey and the concept of 50-mile standoff is pushed down the road for future procurement. Osprey development continues, with it being intended for the carrier-based Marine detachments as well as a potential replacement for the S-3/C-2/E-2 in the Navy, as well as AFSOC. The Marines instead procure the Sikorsky S-92 as their vertical envelopment option.

VMAs operate both AV-8B and A-10s, with the 4 A-10 (1 USMCR) squadrons intended for the prepositioned MEBs and the 5 Harrier squadrons intended to support the MEUs and amphibious MEBs.

The Navy procures Super Tomcats to replace the A-6 and F-14 instead of the F-18E/F or A-12, while development begins on a post-2015 replacement based on the F-22 or F-23 airframe. The F-18, AV-8, and A-10 are projected to be replaced by a subsonic STOL jet built around a gun, which will also replace the F-16 in Air Force service. The Air Force procures more F-22s and FB-22s to replace all its F-15C/D, F-15E, and some B-1 and B-52, as well as serving as the Wild Weasel option.

I'm only sharing this to give you an idea what the MAGTF looks like and what kind of air support it needs. The next post will give details on the poll question.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The question is, what should replace the AH-1/UH-1 mix of Vietnam-era helicopters in the HMLA? The HMLA provides direct support to the battalions of the MAGTF, with a normal allotment of four AH-1 and two UH-1 per battalion.

In 1996, the Marines signed a contract to replace their aging AH-1W Super Cobras. For reasons I'm not clear on, a navalized variant of the Army's AH-64 Apache was considered and rejected in favor of the AH-1Z Viper and UH-1Y Venom, updated versions of the ancient airframe for procurement starting around 2006. This 1990's USMC has a little more money to play around with, with larger defense budgets and no V-22 sucking up all its aviation budget.

The other relevant detail is that SOCOM grew a lot in the 1990's as the Clinton administration sought a cheap way to expand military capabilities. The Marine Corps took the opportunity to work closer with SOF, including their aviation. This 1996 Marine Corps has two options for the HMLA.

Option A: AH-60 SeaHawk

This would be a variant of the Blackhawk airframe with the engines of the larger S-92, a refuelling probe, extra armor, and weapons hardpoints for rockets, Hellfire, Sidewinder, gun pods, and external fuel tanks. Real variants of the AH-60 have the M230 chin turret from the AH-64 Apache, but the M197 from the AH-1 is a possibility. I'm not sure how possible it would be, but the GAU-12 pod from the Harrier could maybe be added?

The AH-60 would carry more fuel than the standard Blackhawk and be capable of air refuelling for extra range to support battalions farther from the ship, as well as carrying four-six troops (the limit is weight more than space) for medevac and special operations missions.

Essentially, what we have here is a USMC variant of Army Special Operation's Direct Action Penetrator or the MI-24 Hind. Six AH-60s would support each Marine battalion, capable of being reconfigured for either general support or fire support.

Option B: MH-6X/AH-6X Enhanced Little Bird

The Little Bird would be in many ways, more revolutionary than the AH-60. While the AH-60 is heavier and more expensive than the UH-1/AH-1 pair, the MH/AH-6 Little Bird is smaller, less survivable, and has much less range. Instead of operating off carriers, the Little Bird would be almost 100% focused on land-based operations, with a MTVR chase truck configured for each one to land on.

Proponents of the Little Bird will argue that survivability is overrated, since even the vaunted Apache struggles against Shilka-class AAGs and MANPADs. The flexibility of the Little Bird, which can land on rooftops, in narrow city streets, and can be carried deep inland on truck beds while using much less fuel than the AH-60, makes it a better choice. Anything the AH-60 can do would be much better done by fixed wing aircraft like the A-10 or AV-8. Let helicopters do what helicopters are good at.


Option C:

For the contrarians. Sell me on the Sea Apache and tell me what helicopter could accompany it in the utility role for direct support role in the HMLA.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

So maybe making this a poll was a mistake. I'd like to hear people justify their votes and which approach they think is better for the Marine Corps.

 

[SsgtC]

I voted option A. Mainly because the other options don't have the flexibility that the AH-60 does. Keep in mind, even with larger budgets, the Marine Corps has always been the red headed step child of the services. While they may have a larger budgets NOW, that doesn't mean they will in the future. The Corps has always been cost consious. Hence why we stuck with the M-60A3 long after the Army had converted to the M-1 Abrams. The Corps didn't get any M-1s until the Army stood down several Armored divisions and literally had thousands of tanks to spare.

Using the same logic on choppers, the Corps wants a platform that would allow them to standardize, as much as possible, on training, parts, operating requirements, etc. It's why we choose to upgrade the UH-1 and AH-1 instead of convert to the Blackhawk and Apache. If the Corps ITTL goes with the AH-60, they'll likely also convert to the UH-60. Though u notice you have both choppers using the same engine, so in that regard I think they would find that acceptable. And preferable to introducing an entirely new aircraft with zero commonality to anything else in their fleet.

 

[Archibald]

I voted for the Little Bird. The Apache is an expensive maintenance hog, while the blackhwak is too large and vulnerable.

 

[Planet of Hats]

See, if you had an earlier POD I'd cart out America's Hind: the S-67 Black Hawk. Development of it stopped after the prototype was destroyed in 1974 in a crash which killed the pilot. The concept could always be brought back from the grave as the US explores the need for a helicopter with both offensive punch and transport capacity.

 

[Matt]

The Little Bird would run into the same problems that you've highlighted for the Viper and Venom- at the end of the day you'd be cramming improvements into an ever aging air frame. The Little Bird also has the issues of limited endurance, appalling vulnerability to anything resembling modern counter-air, and extremely small payload.

I agree with @SsgtC on the Blackhawk/Seahawk platform. You'd standardized most of the first-level maintenance issues with the common air frames. In a pinch they can use the resources of the carriers HSC or HSM.

Getting to reality, the USMC went with the Viper/Venom to increase commonality between the two platforms of the OTL HMLA. They share over 80 percent of components. If they went with Apache they would had lost that.

 

[pdf27]

So to confirm, the USMC are procuring the S-92 as their main transport helicopter, filling the slot currently held by V-22 and UH-1Y? That takes out the commonality advantage of an S-60 - the Navy operate the Seahawk but the Marines don't - so it comes down to what the best attack helicopter for the expected role is. I suspect the answer to that is the Apache.

Having said that, if the S-92 fills the role of the V-22 and the S-60/UH-60 fills the role of the UH-1Y then I think the commonality arguments will push hard for the AH-60. Indeed, I wouldn't altogether be surprised to see one with a new slimmed down body in the role - the USMC will have quite a lot of money sloshing around in R&D with bigger budgets and no Huey/Cobra/Osprey programmes: more than enough to pay for a modified Seahawk attack helicopter that goes further than just hanging missiles on some stub wings.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The S-92 replaces the CH-46 in the HMM, the question is whether MH-6 or AH-60 replaces the UH-1Y. The AH-60 has as much cargo capacity as the UH-1 and can replace both the AH-1 and the UH-1 in the HMLA.

The S-92 is a close cousin of the S-70 (H-60) and the USASOC MH-60 uses the S-92's engines, so the AH-60 probably would as well. It's not the exact same airframe but a lot of components would be interchangeable. The Corps won't adopt the UH-60 as a CH-46 replacement because it can't carry the 17-18 man USMC reinforced rifle squad, which the S-92 can. S-92 in the HMM and the AH-60 in the HMLA (probably renamed to HMMA) would be as close as the Marines could come to standardizing helicopters (outside of the CH-53 and its replacement). Instead of two similar platforms in the HMLA, you have one platform in the HMLA and a related platform in the HMM.

I definitely lean towards @Matt 's point that the Little Bird airframe is as old as the H-1 airframe, but the age of the airframe doesn't matter that much if it's a new build, and I couldn't find another appropriate airframe that's small enough to offer the advantages of the MELB. The reasoning behind the Little Bird is that helicopters suck as attack aircraft anyway. No helicopter is truly survivable, and by making a more expensive and more complex helicopter, you're just putting lipstick on a pig. If the HMLA should be supporting the battalion commander, the truck-mounted Little Bird is there in his hip pocket and it's inherently somewhat expendable by virtue of being so cheap. If you make an armored helicopter with a big gun, you'll be tempted to use it like an attack aircraft instead of doing what an attack/utility helicopter should be using.

A bit outside the scope of this thread, but the Apache is a terrible idea that's been forced on us by the structure of U.S. defense. Helicopters are inherently more expensive and less capable than fixed-wing aircraft in the same way that the V-22 is inherently more expensive and less capable than a helicopter. The Apache/Hellfire mission should be done but a subsonic jet like the old A-4 Skyhawk, not a more expensive and more fragile helicopter. The Marines would be downright foolish to buy something like the AH-64 when they could buy a fixed wing airplane cheaper.

A-10 unit cost: $19 million
AV-8B unit cost: $24-30 million
AH-64E unit cost: $35.5 million
Super Tucano unit cost: $10-$15 million

 

[Cryhavoc101]

The British Westlands version of the Apache - WAH-1 - was developed from the word go to be capable of operating in a saltwater environment from a carrier or amphib / support ship

My understanding is that this lack of Salt water capability was the principal reason for the USMC not accepting the type while the USMC Cobras already had this legacy.

So given that development of the Westland Apache started in 1998 and that this might be too late for this POD but it still shows what might have been achieved as I don't think anything Westlands did, could not have been done earlier.

I am also assuming that Apache fits on existing vessels etc

As for building an F16/F18/A10 replacement built around a gun - I like the novel approach that the Russians have done with their 30 mm air gun - that is a relatively very light, high ROF gun that compromises itself with a relatively short 'life' but that is designed to be replaced easily with a new gun when it reaches its end of life.

This means that the weapon comes in at 46 Kilos (without ammo and drum etc) and is capable of 1800 RPM

Using this or even a pair of such weapons allows for fewer compromises that something like a GAU - 8 Avenger inflicts.

The complete GAU-8 Avenger weighs nearly 2 tons and is over 6 meters long and is quite bulky.

Using a lighter cannon or a pair of lighter cannon along the lines of the GSh - 30 - 1 allows for a less compromised design.

With the increasing utility effectiveness, range and accuracy of missiles such as the Maverick and usefulness of LGBs etc allowing AC in COIN ops to stand off and still deliver effective CAS must IMO mitigate against a large gun armed AC!

pdf27 - my understanding is that the S-92 share quite good commonality with the S60 and S70 'families'. Edit: Burton got in there already.

 

[SsgtC]

in the same way that the V-22 is inherently more expensive and less capable than a helicopter.

I know quite a few Osprey drivers who would vehemently disagree with you here. More expensive, absolutely. But calling it less capable is absurd. It's faster (by allot), has a longer range (by allot), a higher cargo capacity (excluding the CH-47, by allot) and it's more survivable (by not allot).

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I was originally 100% for the AH-60 as a sort of American Hind, but I got the idea for the OH/AH-6 in the HMLA from "Fighting Columns in Small Wars: An OMFTS Model" by USMC Major Michael Morris, which compared the battle of Cuito Cuanavale to a potential MEU mission. The Rangers use Little Birds in the exact same way Morris endorses the Marines doing it.

I shamefully admit I was thinking of replacing the Harrier with an AH-60 before slapping my forehead and realizing how dumb I was being. Then I started to think that if all that helicopters give us is flexibility and versatility, why not go all in on flexibility at the expense of capability?

 

[SsgtC]

With the increasing utility effectiveness, range and accuracy of missiles such as the Maverick and usefulness of LGBs etc allowing AC in COIN ops to stand off and still deliver effective CAS must IMO mitigate against a large gun armed AC!

That's standoff air support, not CAS. These two missions are almost always confused with each other. You can't use a hellfire or JDAM for CAS. Why? Because the enemy is too close to your own men and your side would take casualties from the resulting blast (hence the word "close" in Close Air Support). A CAS mission means minimal seperation between friendly and hostile forces, requiring the pilot to visually identify the target and engage with gun rounds.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

I know quite a few Osprey drivers who would vehemently disagree with you here. More expensive, absolutely. But calling it less capable is absurd. It's faster (by allot), has a longer range (by allot), a higher cargo capacity (excluding the CH-47, by allot) and it's more survivable (by not allot).

Faster and more survivable, yes, higher cargo capacity and range, only by comparison to the UH-60 or CH-46, not the S-92, which would cost a fraction as much. The V-22 is a spectacular platform for SOF-type missions that involve carrying not that much payload far and fast, but I'm not convinced that it's more useful than a helicopter to the MEU, and especially not for $72 million! It's also not an appropriate replacement for the C-2 Greyhound because it can't internally transport an F-18 engine.

The justification for replacing the CH-46 with it is STOM, which I think is a doctrinal abortion that only arose because the Navy didn't want to contest littorals. You simply cannot make the math work for sustaining a MEU ashore using LCAC and V-22 as connectors unless they're within 5-10 miles of the shore, at which point you might as well use helicopters anyway.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

The British Westlands version of the Apache - WAH-1 - was developed from the word go to be capable of operating in a saltwater environment from a carrier or amphib / support ship

My understanding is that this lack of Salt water capability was the principal reason for the USMC not accepting the type while the USMC Cobras already had this legacy.

So given that development of the Westland Apache started in 1998 and that this might be too late for this POD but it still shows what might have been achieved as I don't think anything Westlands did, could not have been done earlier.

I am also assuming that Apache fits on existing vessels etc

As for building an F16/F18/A10 replacement built around a gun - I like the novel approach that the Russians have done with their 30 mm air gun - that is a relatively very light, high ROF gun that compromises itself with a relatively short 'life' but that is designed to be replaced easily with a new gun when it reaches its end of life.

This means that the weapon comes in at 46 Kilos (without ammo and drum etc) and is capable of 1800 RPM

Using this or even a pair of such weapons allows for fewer compromises that something like a GAU - 8 Avenger inflicts.

The complete GAU-8 Avenger weighs nearly 2 tons and is over 6 meters long and is quite bulky.

Using a lighter cannon or a pair of lighter cannon along the lines of the GSh - 30 - 1 allows for a less compromised design.

With the increasing utility effectiveness, range and accuracy of missiles such as the Maverick and usefulness of LGBs etc allowing AC in COIN ops to stand off and still deliver effective CAS must IMO mitigate against a large gun armed AC!

pdf27 - my understanding is that the S-92 share quite good commonality with the S60 and S70 'families'. Edit: Burton got in there already.

The Apache is perfectly carrier capable, my only objection to it in this scenario is twofold. First, cost in comparison to the AV-8, and secondly the dual attack/utility function of the HMLA. The Marines would have to have a utility aircraft as a complement to the Apache, and no obvious candidate comes to mind.

 

[pdf27]

The S-92 replaces the CH-46 in the HMM, the question is whether MH-6 or AH-60 replaces the UH-1Y. The AH-60 has as much cargo capacity as the UH-1 and can replace both the AH-1 and the UH-1 in the HMLA.

The S-92 is a close cousin of the S-70 (H-60) and the USASOC MH-60 uses the S-92's engines, so the AH-60 probably would as well. It's not the exact same airframe but a lot of components would be interchangeable. The Corps won't adopt the UH-60 as a CH-46 replacement because it can't carry the 17-18 man USMC reinforced rifle squad, which the S-92 can. S-92 in the HMM and the AH-60 in the HMLA (probably renamed to HMMA) would be as close as the Marines could come to standardizing helicopters (outside of the CH-53 and its replacement). Instead of two similar platforms in the HMLA, you have one platform in the HMLA and a related platform in the HMM.

UH-1Y is a 3 tonne payload helicopter (the UH-1N was 2 tonnes), MH-6 can take rather less than a tonne and the UH-60 family are about 5 tonnes (3 tonnes for the Seahawk which may be more representative for a navalized helicopter). That means you can't replace the UH-1 family with MH-6s and have to use something else - realistically that means Seahawks of one stripe or another unless you're replacing UH-1s with a much bigger helicopter.
The question then is what you use for the attack helicopter component - either AH-60s and accepting some non-optimisation of the helicopters coupled with the ability to self-escort, or a customised attack helicopter based around the Blackhawk running gear.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

That's standoff air support, not CAS. These two missions are almost always confused with each other. You can't use a hellfire or JDAM for CAS. Why? Because the enemy is too close to your own men and your side would take casualties from the resulting blast (hence the word "close" in Close Air Support). A CAS mission means minimal seperation between friendly and hostile forces, requiring the pilot to visually identify the target and engage with gun rounds.

A helicopter isn't an appropriate platform for CAS anyway since it's vulnerable not only to AAGs and MANPADs but to small arms fire. A helicopter carrying Hellfire or similar weapons is a flying fire support platform.

 

[Burton K Wheeler]

UH-1Y is a 3 tonne payload helicopter (the UH-1N was 2 tonnes), MH-6 can take rather less than a tonne and the UH-60 family are about 5 tonnes (3 tonnes for the Seahawk which may be more representative for a navalized helicopter). That means you can't replace the UH-1 family with MH-6s and have to use something else - realistically that means Seahawks of one stripe or another unless you're replacing UH-1s with a much bigger helicopter.
The question then is what you use for the attack helicopter component - either AH-60s and accepting some non-optimisation of the helicopters coupled with the ability to self-escort, or a customised attack helicopter based around the Blackhawk running gear.

I guess the question is what the utility helicopters in the HMLA are going to be carrying anyway. If the battalion commander needs something lifted, he should be able to call on the S-92's in the HMM to do it, right? The utility MH-6 is doing things like emplacing/extracting scout sniper teams from mountainsides and rooftops and limited casualty evacuation. The AH-60 will probably not carry much more cargo than UH-1s because of the additional weapons and protection weight. You're correct that my idea is that versatility and flexibility is worth more than optimization.

The question isn't what helicopter is best so much as which one directly supports the battalion commander best.

 

[SsgtC]

A helicopter isn't an appropriate platform for CAS anyway since it's vulnerable not only to AAGs and MANPADs but to small arms fire. A helicopter carrying Hellfire or similar weapons is a flying fire support platform.

Oh no argument here. Choppers are terrible CAS platforms in anything other than the lowest of low risk environments. I was responding to his assertion that missiles and LGBs are the be all, end all of air support. I've found that people tend to conflate standoff and close air support as being one and the same. When in reality they're two very different missions

 

[Matt]

So are you replacing the MATGF structure if the battalion commander has the HMLA reporting directly to him? Would a battalion staff even be able to manage airspace?