Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Helicopters In Iraq  
User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 3914 times:

I was just wondering what kind of wear and tear do the helicopters in Iraq go through. I mean how often do they have to get new parts dew to the sand, and do they get hit with small arms fire much? I mean I know they get shot at and all but is it similar to Vietnam in that aspect?

26 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 3887 times:

Hmmm, alot of that might be restricted due to OPSEC, I might be wrong.


There was a recent Jane's article on UK helo's and brown outs- but if you're only looking at US, then I can't really help [:


User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 3879 times:



Quoting Highlander0 (Reply 1):
but if you're only looking at US, then I can't really help

No not at all. I am also interested in the UK's involvement. In fact I have been watching videos about British troops in Afghanistan and I must say I have earned a lot of respect for them. I do want to know the difference though between the British troops and the British Marines. Is it the same idea as it is with the US army and the United States Marines?


User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3869 times:

Essentially, the Royal Marines are the 'Troops' of the Royal Navy. They are (surprise surprise) primarily trained in amphibious assult. They are also the specialists in mountain and Arctic warfare.

[ur=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Marines]link[/url]


User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3865 times:

What are the standards in order to get into the British Military? How old do you have to be? What is the training like? How long are you required to stay in the Military?

User currently offlineJohnM From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 347 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3812 times:

I found that only a few items had accelerated wear and/or required extra maintenance in Iraq. Main rotor blade tip caps did did require replacement frequently, due to hitting airborne debris. Windshields due to MANY bird strikes ( Yes I know that sounds strange in Iraq), and windshield damage from sand and rocks being kicked up. Many quality hours bonding with our pressure washers, trying to keep the majority of the dust and sand off the birds (inside and out). Some days I had to plan for an early show time to pressure wash the aircraft before take off. Engines did pretty well, and we didn't use inlet barrier filters the whole time. Birds took out a few engines however, inlet barrier filters would have prevented that.

Some inspection intervals were actually extended during my tour, to include oil samples.

I found once the "bad actor" parts got replaced during maintenance, the aircraft (in my case the UH-60), flew very well and were reliable beyond my wildest imagination. Part of this was us getting better at our jobs, and fixing the beat up loaner aircraft that we received very shortly before we shipped over seas. We did have a bit of a rough start with some radio issues in the early part of our deployment, but those got resolved as well.

Of course putting gobs of hours on the aircraft meant periodic inspections also came around very quickly, that's why sometimes oil samples made me scratch my head thinking I just did the damn things on this bird just the other day. Which was true, but it comes around quickly when they start flying 6-8 hours a day.

Elastomeric bearings used on the UH-60 require no lubrication and are sealed. So the desert didn't cause big issues there. I think as the case with most aircraft, the more they flew, the less major malfunctions occurred.

Enemy small arms fire wasn't a big factor for me, I don't want to be too specific but some guy did put a hole in our only L model, which I didn't appreciate.

I consider the AH-64 a more complex aircraft than the UH-60. It took lots of work, but the -64s flew a lot, and they weren't hanger queens. Of course the OH-58s are always flying. All these aircraft are mature, and have been proven in past operations.


User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3800 times:



Quoting PJFlysFast (Thread starter):
I was just wondering what kind of wear and tear do the helicopters in Iraq go through. I mean how often do they have to get new parts dew to the sand, and do they get hit with small arms fire much? I mean I know they get shot at and all but is it similar to Vietnam in that aspect?

For the most part the wear and tear on components just comes from the much higher operation tempo over there. We typically were flying two to three times the number of flight hours a month there, than we did here state side training. As for "combat" damage, my unit never took any rounds through the airframe. Chock it up to good mission planning or luck, but we never saw it. I would venture to say that is the case with most helo units over there, especially on the Marine side. Cant speak too much for the Army, i know there lil Birds and Apaches fly low and slow a lot. Makes it easier to hit ya when you do that.
As for the enviromental side, the dust can really take a toll on the rotor blades and engines. We had this thin rubber tape that we put along the leading edge of our blades to help combat the rotor blade errosion from the sand, and we performed engine compressor washes and inspections twice as often. I would say that 80-90 percent of the places we flew to, were base to base moving people around. In which case you are landing on some type of improved surface, be it a road, runway, marshall matting, or maybe just some rock that was laid down to keep the dust down.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 7, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3656 times:



Quoting PJFlysFast (Reply 4):
What are the standards in order to get into the British Military? How old do you have to be? What is the training like? How long are you required to stay in the Military?

Well it depends on what job you do, whether you want to be an officer or soldier and if you are regular (full time) or territorial (part time) army.
But for regular army:

For fitness, everyone has to pass a series of fitness tests

Physical Standards Selection for Recruits (PSSR). This is done during your selection to see whether your are fit to go onto Phase one training.
These are 'best effort' tests that take place in the gymnasium. Recruits are required to complete the 1.5 mile (2.4km) run in 14 minutes or less.
Once you've been selected for the army, you do fitness during your phase one and beyond, you never stop !!
For infantry, the fitness is:

BFPA (Basic Personal Fitness Assessment) - Sit ups, press-ups and a 1.5 mile (2.4 km) run, all carried out against the clock. This tests individual fitness generally. The minimum fitness goals are: 54 continuous sit ups (with feet supported) and a 1.5 mile (2.4 km) run in 11 minutes 45 seconds.

ICFT (Infantry Combat Fitness Test) - A distance of three miles as a squad carrying 56 pounds of kit each, including your personal weapon. Timed to be completed in one hour, individuals must stay with the squad, or be failed.




Soldier: 16-33yrs old
Officer: 17-28yrs old

Soldier: No qualifications required except for techical jobs (engineer etc).
Officer: 2 A-levels (although most officers now have degrees too).

Soldier: 14 weeks basic trainin at a training regiment (Phase one, which is just learning basic infantry skills, how to march etc), followed by Phase two training, which can last anywhere between a few months and a few years depending on what trade you do (ythis is where you learn your trade, so engineers learn how to fix, military police learn how to arrest people etc)

Officer: 1yr (it's technically a 44 week couse but meh) at Sandhurst, which is the officer training place (it's our requivilant of West Point), after finishing Sandhurst, you do an officers version of phase two where they learn how to be an officer in their chosen Corps or Regiment etc.

Soldier: Minimum of 4yrs service
Officer: Minimum of 3yrs service after leaving Sandhust (so 4yrs).

Hope that helps, if you want to know more just ask
Wrighbrothers

P.S- To answer your question, yes helicopters do come under small arms fire, infact it's not unknow for bullets to go through into the cabin if fire is heavy. The helicopters have lots of strain and I'd assume that the engines and airframe take a good beating. They have to be fixed more often and this means troops like me end up sat out in the middle of the dessert waiting for a Chinook to come pick us up because there ain't one available.



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 3578 times:

Thanks for the insight by Wrightbrothers.

The Royal Marines, in their recruiting ads, stated that 95% need not apply , (I think!)
That's not hyperbole, the Commando training (including for Army units in support of 3 Commando Brigade), is extremely intensive.
They are not special forces as such, but not general infantry either, somewhere in between, they do have a SF unit, the Special Boat Squadron , really a more marine specialised version of the Army's Special Air Service .

The Army has 3 regular battalions of the Parachute Regiment , the 1st Battalion has now a more specialised SF support role, rather like the US Army Rangers.
To get the coveted Red Beret of the Paras, you have to pass another extremely hard training programme, not just in parachuting, but including the notorious P Company physical endurance and teamworking tests.
This also has a very high dropout rate, even with regular troops seeking a transfer into the supporting roles of the airborne forces.
A friend who is a career senior NCO, had to do this training to join 16th Air Assault Brigade , in his mid 30's, he reckons it by far the hardest thing he's ever had to do, including operational deployments in Iraq.

However, the fighting in Afghanistan has been so intense, normal, line infantry units are often undertaking tasks not long ago the more the role of SF.

The British forces do suffer from too few support choppers, this is not new, I remember an editorial in Flight International lamenting this fact, but this was in 1986!
However, there have been some improvements with more to come, though the direct result of operational need.
Such as reactivating 8 stored Chinooks, to a standard operational fit, after the programme to turn them into specialised SF support machines went tits up.
As well as getting 6 existing Merlins from Denmark, (and funding the replacements for the Danes).
And seriously upgrading the Lynx, in both it's Naval and light support/scout role, is underway, though more will be needed in the utility role than currently programmed.

The RAF operate medium/heavy support choppers, in the UK this means the Puma, Merlin and Chinook.
The RN also have a fleet of Sea King HC.4's, these are grouped together under Joint Helicopter Force , any asset can be deployed where needed regardless of what service it's from.
JHF has also effected the incremental upgrades to RAF Chinooks (and Army Apaches) for easier deployment from ships in the RN's Amphibious Ready Group .

The Army operate lighter helicopters and some fixed wing.
From the small Gazelle scout chopper, to the Lnyx, with the newest addition, licence built WAH-64D Apaches.
These Apaches's, built at Westlands, have R/R engines, UK specific equipment fits, but are basically similar to the US Army AH-64D.
Some BN Islanders are in Army service, initially for liaison, now also in surveillance and anti insurgent roles, such as jamming frequencies for IED detonation.
These will be joined by Beech King Airs, being fitted with equipment that is classified, presumably in the anti insurgent role.

Currently, Army Lynx and Apaches are in Afghanistan, with RAF Chinooks, to be reportedly joined by RAF Merlins.
RAF Chinooks, Pumas and Merlins are/have been, deployed in Iraq, along with Army Lynx, Islanders, Navy Sea King HC.4's.


User currently offlinePJFlysFast From United States of America, joined May 2006, 463 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3559 times:

Wow guys thanks for all this information! One more question though. How is the L-90 compared to the M-16/M4?

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16870 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

I was reading an article online about the Marines Osprey's in Iraq, the good:

The sand in Iraq is not a big problem for the Ospreys, the quote was the sand in Arizona where they were training prior to deployment was causing more headaches.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3476 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 10):
The sand in Iraq is not a big problem for the Ospreys, the quote was the sand in Arizona where they were training prior to deployment was causing more headaches.

I think that is because the sand in AZ has more rocks, which equals more dinged windscreens. That was their big issue during WTI in Yuma in 2000. The sand in Iraq sucks, its real fine and gets in the air blowing around when someone freaking sneezes. Crews just get used to whats safe and comfortable to fly in, the sand is not much of an issue for anyone else as well.
Not sure how many raids and other like missions the Osprey has been doing. The other reason the sand is not a big issue is flying the "bus route" from base to base to base you are always landing on improved surfaces. Less dust, less problems.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineHighlander0 From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2007, 165 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 7 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3394 times:

RE British Army info - remember- Google is your friend.



Also, Seaking Mk4+ (Carson blades) are to be deployed to Afghanistan.


There has been a report (in aviaition press) of a Merlin Mk3 on return to base, the riggers finding 2 bullet holes in the roots of the main rotor.


User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 13, posted (6 years 7 months 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 3198 times:

Not to take this too much off topic but meh..

Quoting PJFlysFast (Reply 9):
One more question though. How is the L-90 compared to the M-16/M4?

I presume you mean the L85 (more commonly known as the SA80)

The 'old' version of the SA80 (the SA80-A1) deserved its reputation, a stoppage with every magazine or so could be expected even in temperate climates but handles like a different weapon after H&K worked their magic to create the SA80-A2.

The L85 is without doubt superior in performance to the US AR-15 (M16). However, in saying this, we're not comparing like with like. The M16 first entered service with the US Air Force in 1964, with the M16A1 entering Army service in 1967. The SA80 and M16 are therefore different generation weapons, and direct comparisons are difficult to make.

My experience with the M16 is that it suffers far more stoppages in the desert and is generally less accurate, although not by much. It is long and unweildly in comparison with the SA80. Even the LSW (Light Support Weapon) version of the SA80 is still shorter than the M16. The SA80 rifle is shorter than the M4 carbine family while maintaining a barrel length longer than the full length M16. On the other hand, the M16 is very light and can be fired from both shoulders, whereas the bullpup design of the SA80 limits it to a right shoulder fired weapon only.


Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlinePhil K From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2001, 47 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3050 times:

Can I ask what the weapons you mentioned are like as opposed to the Russian AK-74, which is supposed to be the best in the world ?
(I am not even up to the level of newbie at this subject, so be reasonable !)


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 3043 times:

I think the AK series reputation is not for say, accuracy, rather it's for being very sturdy, plus the fact the Russians exported an untold number of them, as well as all the production, licenced or not, in many countries, including China-another massive exporter of them.
All since, in it's various versions, the late 1940's.
There are just so many of them out there.


User currently offlineWrighbrothers From United Kingdom, joined Jul 2005, 1875 posts, RR: 9
Reply 16, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3003 times:



Quoting Phil K (Reply 14):
Can I ask what the weapons you mentioned are like as opposed to the Russian AK-74, which is supposed to be the best in the world ?
(I am not even up to the level of newbie at this subject, so be reasonable !)

No worries, well as GDB said, the AK-47 (when compared to the SA-80 and M-16) is inaccurate, it's definately not a marksman weapon.
What it is mean for is to be reliable, sturdy and put down a lot of fire (which in doing so reduces its accuracy).
I mean its simplicity is why it was so mass produced and why infact it is used by child soldiers, I doubt many child soldiers could operate and maintain an SA80 out in the dessert for long.
It can withstand being a lot more dirty than our modern weapons, as our weapons need regular cleaning and don't like having dirt in any of the working parts, while the AK could probably go through a mud pit and still work. This is because of the large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design.

Basicaly, the AK47 is more reliable and robust then modern NATO weapons and can keep your head down, but our NATO weapons are more accurate and so if a guys in your sights, is a better bet.

Wrighbrothers



Always stand up for what is right, even if it means standing alone..
User currently offlineLAXPAX From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 7 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2983 times:



Quoting Phil K (Reply 14):
Can I ask what the weapons you mentioned are like as opposed to the Russian AK-74, which is supposed to be the best in the world ?

Excellent responses, but I have to wonder if Phil K's post wasn't a typo? Because there is of course such a weapon as the AK-74. Having said that, perhaps your responses apply equally to that weapon too!

Back on topic: The topic creator should do a search for every thread in which the user UH60FtRucker participated. That guy is a walking encyclopedia of in-theater rotorcraft performance.  Big grin



"Remember, no matter where you go... there you are." -- Buckaroo Banzai
User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 2838 times:

Seem like Turkey lost a Cobra in the North of Iraq, anyone knows if this is the first cobra to down in Iraq?

User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1203 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2816 times:



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 18):
Seem like Turkey lost a Cobra in the North of Iraq, anyone knows if this is the first cobra to down in Iraq?

Maybe the first for Turkey, the Marine Corps has lost a couple.



Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 2788 times:



Quoting Wrighbrothers (Reply 13):
The L85 is without doubt superior in performance to the US AR-15 (M16).

HA!!! I have seen way way too many photos and discriptions of SAS types running around with M-4's to buy that.



Still in both cases IMHO the M1 Garand is a better combat weapon.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2769 times:



Quoting L-188 (Reply 20):

HA!!! I have seen way way too many photos and discriptions of SAS types running around with M-4's to buy that.

Bah... the M4 is junk. And if we're going to compare the two, compare the L22 carbine against the M4, not the L85.

If there has been one thing that the US military has consistently dropped the ball on, it has been replacing the M16/M4. But alas, there is too much politics and special interests involved to drop it in favor of a better weapon.

-UH60


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2760 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 21):
If there has been one thing that the US military has consistently dropped the ball on, it has been replacing the M16/M4. But alas, there is too much politics and special interests involved to drop it in favor of a better weapon.

Well, I am not a big fan of directly injecting exhaust gasses into the chamber of a rifle, but that is the principal the Armalite AR-10/15 are built on. It is worth note that the concept was abandoned by no less then Stoner himself when he developed the AR-18.

I do like what I have read about the M-416 upper that H&K is pushing, especially when it could be procured as a drop in replacement for existant M-16/M-4 lowers.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13208 posts, RR: 77
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 2705 times:

That was when the SA80 was the A1, not the A2, L-188.
(And given the extreme intensity of the fighting it's users have been engaged in, if it was still a lemon, we'd know).

But SF, including in the US, have always been able to be picky with their weapons, the UK SF favour the Canadian variant of the M-16A2, since the late 1980's.
(They also got the Mimini SAW then, something the rest did not get until an urgent operational requirement changed that in early 2003).

Who outside the USN 'SEALS' used the radical Stoner system in the 60's?

Indeed, in the Borneo campaign in the early/mid 60's, the SAS/SBS used early model M-16's well before much of the US forces had them. They supplemented the FN FAL derived SLR's, really replacing SMG's, rather like the Aussies in Vietnam.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 2645 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 23):
That was when the SA80 was the A1, not the A2, L-188.

Still I wouldn't want to get in a bayonet fight with an SA80, your hands are a little bit too close to the action if you get what I mean.

Again a nice long rifle seems the way to go in that case.

Quoting GDB (Reply 23):
But SF, including in the US, have always been able to be picky with their weapons, the UK SF favour the Canadian variant of the M-16A2, since the late 1980's.

The Canadians AFAIK never went to the three round burst on their C7 rifles....full auto all the way!!!



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
25 GDB : Perhaps a factor in the SAS choosing it? Bayonets on the SA80A2 have been used, in Iraq and Afghanistan. True not ideal, but the Army were more conce
26 Wrighbrothers : That is true, but the parachute regiment, pathfinders, Ghurkurs and infact everybody else in the non special forces side of things (along with the sp
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Helicopters In Iraq
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Gordon Brown In Iraq On BAe 146. posted Mon Jun 11 2007 23:50:03 by Gilesdavies
RAF Hercules Destroyed In Iraq posted Tue Feb 13 2007 12:58:07 by RichardPrice
Question About F-18 Shot Down In Iraq posted Mon Jan 22 2007 02:28:39 by ZBBYLW
Russian Helicopters In DC Metro Area posted Sun Dec 17 2006 20:20:08 by Bingo
Usmc Looks To Revive OV-10s For Use In Iraq posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:16:32 by Papoose
140,000 US Troops In Iraq - How Many Troop Flights posted Fri Sep 1 2006 00:46:03 by Gh123
Ex-US Army UH-1H Helicopters In Lebanese Air Force posted Sat Mar 4 2006 03:08:56 by BA
US Helicopter Down In Iraq posted Sun Jan 8 2006 14:35:13 by Sean377
US Apache Crashes In Iraq posted Mon Jun 27 2005 16:07:44 by Gkirk
2 F-18 Missing In Iraq posted Tue May 3 2005 01:42:39 by CURLYHEADBOY

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format