Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 672

Contents

Air superiority ghter

1.1

Evolution of the term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1.1

Lessons in combat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.1.2

Air superiority ghters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.2

Examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.3

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.4

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1.5

External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Anti-submarine warfare

2.1

History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.1

World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.2

Inter-war period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.3

World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2.1.4

Post-war . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Modern warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

2.2.1

Current technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10

2.2.2

Platforms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

2.3

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

2.4

References & notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11

2.5

External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12

2.2

Attack helicopter

13

3.1

Background and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13

3.1.1

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

3.1.2

Soviet Union and its successor states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14

3.1.3

Peoples Republic of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15

3.1.4

France, Germany and Spain

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16

3.1.5

India

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

3.1.6

Italy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

3.1.7

South Africa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17

3.2

In action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18

3.3

Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

ii

CONTENTS
3.4

Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.4.1

Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.4.2

Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.5

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.6

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19

3.6.1

20

Bell AH-1 SuperCobra

22

4.1

Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

22

4.2

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

4.2.1

United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

4.2.2

Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23

4.2.3

Taiwan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

4.2.4

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

4.3.1

Single-engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

4.3.2

Twin-engine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24

4.4

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.5

Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.6

Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.6.1

AH-1J SeaCobra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25

4.6.2

AH-1W SuperCobra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26

4.7

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

4.8

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27

4.9

External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

4.3

Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Bell AH-1Z Viper

29

5.1

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

5.1.1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

5.1.2

H-1 upgrade program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

5.2

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

5.3

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30

5.3.1

Foreign interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

5.4

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

5.5

Specications (AH-1Z) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

31

5.6

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

5.7

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32

5.8

External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

33

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

34

6.1

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

34

6.1.1

34

Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONTENTS
6.1.2

Flight testing and design changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35

6.1.3

Controversy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

6.1.4

Production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

6.2.1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

37

6.2.2

Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

6.2.3

Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38

6.2.4

Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

6.2.5

Refueling capability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

6.3.1

U.S. Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40

6.3.2

U.S. Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

41

6.3.3

Potential operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42

6.4

Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

6.5

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44

6.6

Notable accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

6.7

Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

6.8

Specications (MV-22B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45

6.9

Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

6.10 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

6.11 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

6.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46

6.11.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

52

6.12 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

Bell OH-58 Kiowa

54

7.1

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

7.1.1

Light Observation Helicopter (LOH) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

7.1.2

Advanced Scout Helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54

7.1.3

Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

7.2.1

Mast mounted sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55

7.2.2

Wire Strike Protection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

7.3.1

Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

7.3.2

Operation Prime Chance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

7.3.3

RAID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56

7.3.4

Operation Just Cause and action in the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

7.3.5

Afghanistan and Iraq . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

7.3.6

Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57

Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

7.4.1

58

6.2

6.3

iii

7.2

7.3

7.4

Design

OH-58A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

CONTENTS
7.4.2

OH-58B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

7.4.3

OH-58C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

7.4.4

OH-58D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58

7.4.5

OH-58F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59

7.4.6

OH-58F Block II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

7.4.7

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

60

7.5.1

Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

7.6

Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

7.7

Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

7.7.1

OH-58A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61

7.7.2

OH-58D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

7.7.3

OH-58F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

62

7.8

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

7.9

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

7.9.1

Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

7.9.2

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

63

7.9.3

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

7.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

66

Bell UH-1 Iroquois

67

8.1

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

8.1.1

Model 204 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

67

8.1.2

Model 205 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

8.1.3

Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68

8.1.4

Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

8.1.5

Twin engine variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

8.2

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

69

8.3

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

8.3.1

U.S. Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

70

8.3.2

U.S. Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

8.3.3

U.S. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71

8.3.4

Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

8.3.5

New Zealand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

72

8.3.6

Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.7

El Salvador . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.8

Lebanon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.9

Rhodesia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.10 Argentina . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.11 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

8.3.12 Operation Enduring Freedom (2001present) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

73

Variant overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

7.5

8.4

CONTENTS

8.4.1

U.S. Military variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

74

8.4.2

Other military variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

75

8.5

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

8.6

Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

8.7

Specications (UH-1D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

76

8.8

Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

8.9

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

8.10 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

8.10.1 Footnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

8.10.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

77

8.10.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

8.11 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

79

Boeing AH-64 Apache

81

9.1

Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

9.1.1

Advanced Attack Helicopter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

81

9.1.2

Into production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

9.2.1

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82

9.2.2

Avionics and targeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

9.2.3

Armaments and congurations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

83

Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

9.3.1

United States Army . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

84

9.3.2

Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

85

9.3.3

United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

9.3.4

Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

86

9.3.5

Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

9.3.6

Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

87

9.3.7

Other users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

9.3.8

Future and possible users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

9.4.1

AH-64A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

88

9.4.2

AH-64B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

9.4.3

AH-64C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

9.4.4

AH-64D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

9.4.5

AH-64E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

89

9.4.6

AH-64F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

9.4.7

Sea Apache . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

9.4.8

Export Apaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

9.4.9

Block modication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

9.5

Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

90

9.6

Specications (AH-64A/D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

91

9.2

9.3

9.4

vi

CONTENTS
9.7

Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

9.8

See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

92

9.9

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

93

9.10 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

99

10 Boeing B-52 Stratofortress

100

10.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100


10.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
10.1.2 Design eort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
10.1.3 Pre-production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.1.4 Production and improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
10.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.2.2 Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
10.2.3 Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
10.2.4 Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
10.2.5 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
10.3.2 Cold War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.3.3 Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
10.3.4 Post Vietnam service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.3.5 Gulf War and later . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
10.3.6 Continued service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
10.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
10.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
10.6 Notable accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
10.7 Survivors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
10.8 Specications (B-52H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
10.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10.11.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
10.11.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
10.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
11 Boeing C-17 Globemaster III

125

11.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125


11.1.1 Background and design phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
11.1.2 Development diculties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
11.1.3 Production and deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

CONTENTS

vii

11.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127


11.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
11.3.1 United States Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
11.3.2 Royal Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
11.3.3 Royal Australian Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
11.3.4 Royal Canadian Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
11.3.5 NATO (Strategic Airlift Capability Program) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
11.3.6 Indian Air Force . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
11.3.7 Others

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

11.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132


11.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
11.6 Accidents and notable incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
11.7 Specications (C-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
11.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
11.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
11.9.1 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
11.9.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
11.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
12 Boeing C-32

142

12.1 Development and operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142


12.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
12.3 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
12.4 Specications (C-32A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
12.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
12.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
12.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
13 Boeing CH-47 Chinook

145

13.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145


13.1.1 Early development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
13.1.2 Improved and later versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
13.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
13.2.1 Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
13.2.2 Iran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
13.2.3 Falklands War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
13.2.4 Afghanistan and Iraq wars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
13.2.5 Disaster relief and other roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
13.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
13.3.1 HC-1B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
13.3.2 CH-47A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
13.3.3 ACH-47A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

viii

CONTENTS
13.3.4 CH-47B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
13.3.5 CH-47C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
13.3.6 CH-47D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
13.3.7 MH-47D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
13.3.8 MH-47E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
13.3.9 CH-47F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
13.3.10 MH-47G . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
13.3.11 CH-47J . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
13.3.12 HH-47 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
13.3.13 Other export models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
13.3.14 Civilian models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
13.3.15 Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
13.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
13.5 Notable accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
13.6 Specications (CH-47F) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
13.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
13.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
13.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

14 Boeing E-4

159

14.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159


14.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
14.2.1 Middle and Upper decks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
14.2.2 Lower Lobe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
14.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
14.3.1 September 11, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.3.2 Recent history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.6 Specications (E-4B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
14.7 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
14.9 References

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

14.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164


15 Boeing E-6 Mercury

165

15.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165


15.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
15.3 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
15.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.5 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
15.5.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

CONTENTS

ix

15.5.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166


15.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
16 Boeing VC-25

167

16.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167


16.2 Design and conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
16.2.1 The White House . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
16.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
16.3.1 Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.5 Specications (VC-25A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.6 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
16.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
17 Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight

172

17.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172


17.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
17.1.2 Further developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172
17.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
17.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
17.3.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
17.3.2 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
17.3.3 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
17.3.4 Civilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
17.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
17.4.1 American versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
17.4.2 Canadian versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
17.4.3 Swedish versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
17.4.4 Japanese versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
17.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
17.5.1 Military and Government operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
17.5.2 Civilian operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
17.5.3 Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
17.6 Notable accidents and incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
17.7 Specications (CH-46E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
17.8 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
17.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
17.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
17.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

CONTENTS

18 Close air support

184

18.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184


18.1.1 World War I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
18.1.2 Inter-war period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
18.1.3 World War II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186
18.1.4 Korean War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
18.1.5 Vietnam and the CAS role debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
18.2 Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
18.3 Technological enhancement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
18.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
18.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
18.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
18.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
19 Delta IV

194

19.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194


19.1.1 Recent history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
19.1.2 2012 upper stage anomaly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
19.1.3 Planned successor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
19.2 Vehicle description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
19.2.1 Delta IV rst stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
19.2.2 Delta Cryogenic Second Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.2.3 Guidance, navigation, control and communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.2.4 Payload encapsulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.3.1 Delta IV Small . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.3.2 Delta IV Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
19.3.3 Delta IV Heavy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
19.3.4 RS-68A upgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
19.3.5 Future variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
19.4 Launch sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
19.5 Vehicle processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
19.6 Delta IV launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
19.6.1 Notable past launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198
19.6.2 Planned launches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
19.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
19.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
19.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
20 Electronic-warfare aircraft

202

20.1 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202

CONTENTS
21 Eurocopter HH-65 Dolphin

xi
203

21.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203


21.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
21.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
21.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
21.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
21.6 Specications (MH-65C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
21.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
21.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
21.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
22 Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota

207

22.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207


22.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
22.1.2 LUH Program and UH-145 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
22.1.3 Proposed uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
22.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
22.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
22.3.1 Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
22.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
22.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
22.6 Specications (UH-72A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210
22.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
22.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
22.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 212
23 Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

213

23.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213


23.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
23.1.2 A-X program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213
23.1.3 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214
23.1.4 Other uses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
23.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
23.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
23.2.2 Durability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
23.2.3 Weapons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
23.2.4 Modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 217
23.2.5 Colors and markings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
23.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
23.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
23.3.2 Gulf War and Balkans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
23.3.3 Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and recent deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 219

xii

CONTENTS
23.3.4 Proposed retirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
23.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
23.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221
23.5.1 Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
23.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
23.7 Specications (A-10A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 223
23.8 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
23.9 Nicknames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
23.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
23.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
23.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
23.11.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
23.11.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 228
23.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229

24 General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon

230

24.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230


24.1.1 Lightweight Fighter program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230
24.1.2 Air Combat Fighter competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
24.1.3 Into production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
24.1.4 Improvements and upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
24.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
24.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
24.2.2 General conguration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
24.2.3 Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
24.2.4 Negative stability and y-by-wire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234
24.2.5 Cockpit and ergonomics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
24.2.6 Fire-control radar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
24.2.7 Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236
24.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
24.3.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
24.3.2 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
24.3.3 Pakistan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
24.3.4 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238
24.3.5 Egypt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
24.3.6 Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
24.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239
24.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
24.5.1 Former operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
24.6 Notable accidents and incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
24.7 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242
24.8 Specications (F-16C Block 50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

CONTENTS

xiii

24.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246


24.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
24.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
24.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
24.11.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
24.12Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
24.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
25 Global Positioning System

253

25.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253


25.1.1 Predecessors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
25.1.2 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
25.1.3 Timeline and modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
25.1.4 Awards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256
25.2 Basic concept of GPS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
25.2.1 Fundamentals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
25.2.2 More detailed description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
25.2.3 User-satellite geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
25.2.4 Receiver in continuous operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
25.2.5 Non-navigation applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
25.3 Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
25.3.1 Space segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258
25.3.2 Control segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259
25.3.3 User segment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
25.4 Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
25.4.1 Civilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261
25.4.2 Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262
25.5 Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
25.5.1 Message format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
25.5.2 Satellite frequencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 263
25.5.3 Demodulation and decoding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
25.6 Navigation equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
25.6.1 Problem description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264
25.6.2 Geometric interpretation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
25.6.3 Solution methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
25.7 Error sources and analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
25.8 Accuracy enhancement and surveying . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
25.8.1 Augmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
25.8.2 Precise monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
25.8.3 Timekeeping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
25.8.4 Carrier phase tracking (surveying) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
25.9 Regulatory spectrum issues concerning GPS receivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 268

xiv

CONTENTS
25.10Other systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
25.11See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
25.12Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
25.13References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
25.14Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
25.15External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

26 Light Observation Helicopter


26.1 History

275

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275

26.1.1 LOH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275


26.2 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
26.3 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 276
27 Lockheed AC-130

277

27.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277


27.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
27.1.2 Recent and planned upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
27.1.3 Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.2.2 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.3.1 Vietnam War . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 279
27.3.2 Cold War and later action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
27.3.3 Gulf War and the 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
27.3.4 Operations since 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281
27.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
27.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
27.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282
27.7 Specications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
27.7.1 Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
27.7.2 Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
27.8 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
27.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
27.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 286
27.11Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
27.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288
28 Lockheed C-130 Hercules

289

28.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289


28.1.1 Background and requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
28.1.2 Design phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

CONTENTS

xv

28.1.3 Improved versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290


28.1.4 Refueling versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290
28.1.5 More improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
28.1.6 Later models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
28.1.7 Next generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
28.1.8 Upgrades and changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
28.1.9 Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
28.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
28.2.1 Military . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
28.2.2 Civilian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
28.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
28.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
28.5 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298
28.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.1 Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.2 Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.3 Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.4 Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.5 Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.6 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.6.7 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
28.7 Specications (C-130H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300
28.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
28.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
28.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
29 Lockheed C-5 Galaxy

305

29.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305


29.1.1 CX-X and Heavy Logistics System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
29.1.2 Into production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
29.1.3 Continued production and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
29.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
29.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
29.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
29.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
29.4.1 C-5A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
29.4.2 C-5B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
29.4.3 C-5C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
29.4.4 C-5 AMP and C-5M Super Galaxy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
29.4.5 L-500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
29.4.6 C-5 Shuttle Carrier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
29.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311

xvi

CONTENTS
29.6 Incidents and accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
29.6.1 Notable accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
29.7 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
29.8 Specications (C-5B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
29.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
29.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
29.10.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
29.10.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
29.10.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
29.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

30 Lockheed EC-130H Compass Call


30.1 Development
30.2 Design

318

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318

30.2.1 Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318


30.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
30.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
30.5 Specications (EC-130H) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 318
30.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
30.7 References

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319

30.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319


31 Lockheed Martin C-130J Super Hercules

320

31.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 320


31.1.1 Harvest HAWK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
31.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
31.2.1 Civilian use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
31.3 Orders and deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
31.3.1 International orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322
31.3.2 Deliveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
31.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
31.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
31.6 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
31.7 Specications (C-130J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
31.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326
31.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
31.9.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
31.9.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327
31.9.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
31.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
32 Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor

330

CONTENTS

xvii

32.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330


32.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330
32.1.2 Production and procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
32.1.3 Ban on exports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
32.1.4 Production termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332
32.1.5 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
32.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
32.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
32.2.2 Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
32.2.3 Cockpit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
32.2.4 Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
32.2.5 Stealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 336
32.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
32.3.1 Designation and testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337
32.3.2 Introduction into service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
32.3.3 Deployments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
32.3.4 Maintenance and training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339
32.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
32.4.1 Derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
32.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
32.6 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
32.7 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
32.8 Specications (F-22A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342
32.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
32.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
32.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
32.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
32.11.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
32.11.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
32.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
33 Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II

351

33.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351


33.1.1 JSF program requirements and selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351
33.1.2 Design phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
33.1.3 Program cost increases and delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 352
33.1.4 Concerns over performance and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 356
33.1.5 PentagonLockheed Martin relation issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
33.1.6 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
33.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
33.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 359
33.2.2 Engines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361

xviii

CONTENTS
33.2.3 Armament . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 361
33.2.4 Stealth and signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
33.2.5 Cockpit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
33.2.6 Sensors and avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 364
33.2.7 Helmet-mounted display system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
33.2.8 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366

33.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366


33.3.1 Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 366
33.3.2 Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 367
33.3.3 Basing plans for future US F-35s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
33.4 Procurement and international participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 368
33.4.1 Procurement costs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369

33.5 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369


33.5.1 F-35A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
33.5.2 F-35B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 370
33.5.3 F-35C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
33.5.4 Other versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
33.6 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
33.6.1 Planned purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
33.7 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
33.8 Specications (F-35A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
33.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
33.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
33.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
33.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
33.11.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 377
33.11.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
33.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
34 McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II

394

34.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394


34.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
34.1.2 Designing and testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 395
34.1.3 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 396
34.1.4 End of production and further improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
34.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
34.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
34.2.2 Airframe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
34.2.3 Dierences between versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398
34.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
34.3.1 United States Marine Corps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
34.3.2 Italian Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 401

CONTENTS

xix

34.3.3 Spanish Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402


34.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
34.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
34.6 Incidents and accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
34.7 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 403
34.8 Specications (AV-8B Harrier II Plus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 404
34.9 Popular culture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
34.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
34.11Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
34.12References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 405
34.13Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409
34.14External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 411
35 McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle

412

35.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412


35.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412
35.1.2 Smaller, lighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
35.1.3 Focus on air superiority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
35.1.4 Final design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
35.1.5 Further development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 414
35.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
35.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
35.2.2 Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
35.2.3 Weaponry and external stores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
35.2.4 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
35.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
35.3.1 Introduction and early service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
35.3.2 Gulf War and aftermath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
35.3.3 Structural defects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 418
35.3.4 Recent service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
35.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
35.4.1 Basic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
35.4.2 Prototypes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 420
35.4.3 Research and test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
35.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
35.6 Notable accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
35.7 Specications (F-15C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 423
35.8 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.8.1 Germany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.8.2 Netherlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.8.3 Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.8.4 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425

xx

CONTENTS
35.8.5 United Kingdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.8.6 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
35.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
35.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
35.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
35.12Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
35.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431

36 McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle

432

36.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432


36.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
36.1.2 Enhanced Tactical Fighter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
36.1.3 Upgrade programs and replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
36.1.4 ALASA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 433
36.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 434
36.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
36.3.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 435
36.3.2 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
36.3.3 Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 439
36.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
36.4.1 F-15E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
36.4.2 F-15I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
36.4.3 F-15K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
36.4.4 F-15S and SA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
36.4.5 F-15SG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
36.4.6 Proposed variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 441
36.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442
36.6 Accidents and losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
36.7 Specications (F-15E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443
36.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
36.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
36.9.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
36.9.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
36.9.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
36.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 448
37 McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet

449

37.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449


37.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
37.1.2 Redesigning the YF-17 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
37.1.3 Northrops F-18L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
37.1.4 Into production . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451

CONTENTS

xxi

37.1.5 Improvements and design changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451


37.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
37.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
37.3.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
37.3.2 Non-U.S. service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 454
37.3.3 Potential operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
37.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
37.4.1 A/B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
37.4.2 C/D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 457
37.4.3 E/F Super Hornet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
37.4.4 G Growler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
37.4.5 Other US variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
37.4.6 Export variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 458
37.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
37.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
37.7 Notable Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
37.8 Specications (F/A-18C/D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463
37.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
37.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
37.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
37.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
37.11.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
37.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 468
38 MD Helicopters MH-6 Little Bird

469

38.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469


38.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
38.2.1 Task Force 160 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 469
38.2.2 Operation Credible Sport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
38.2.3 Operation Urgent Fury (Grenada) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
38.2.4 Nicaragua . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
38.2.5 Operation Prime Chance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
38.2.6 Operation Just Cause (Panama) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470
38.2.7 Operation Gothic Serpent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
38.2.8 Operation Iraqi Freedom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
38.2.9 Operation Celestial Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
38.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
38.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
38.5 Specications (MH-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472
38.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
38.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473
38.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473

xxii

CONTENTS

39 Military helicopter

474

39.1 Types and roles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474


39.1.1 Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 474
39.1.2 Attack helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
39.1.3 Transport helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
39.1.4 Observation helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
39.1.5 Maritime helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
39.1.6 Multi-mission and rescue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
39.1.7 Training helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
39.2 Tactics and operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
39.2.1 High intensity warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
39.2.2 Low intensity warfare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 477
39.3 Manufacturers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
39.4 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
39.5 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
39.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 478
39.6.1 Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
39.7 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 479
40 Military transport aircraft

480

40.1 Fixed-wing transport aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480


40.1.1 Active xed-wing transport aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
40.1.2 Active xed-wing tanker aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 480
40.1.3 Commercial aircraft used in military role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
40.2 Transport helicopters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
40.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 482
41 Multirole combat aircraft

483

41.1 History . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483


41.2 Multirole . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483
41.3 Swing-role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
41.4 Gallery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
41.4.1 Active . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
41.5 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
41.6 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 484
42 Next-Generation Bomber

485

42.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485


42.1.1 2018 Bomber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485
42.1.2 Long-range strike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
42.1.3 Further developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486
42.1.4 Competitive phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488

CONTENTS

xxiii

42.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488


42.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
42.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489
42.5 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
42.6 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
43 Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit

492

43.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492


43.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492
43.1.2 ATB program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
43.1.3 Secrecy and espionage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493
43.1.4 Program costs and procurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
43.1.5 Opposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 494
43.1.6 Further developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 495
43.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
43.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
43.2.2 Armaments and equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 496
43.2.3 Avionics and systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
43.2.4 Flight controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 497
43.2.5 Stealth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498
43.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 499
43.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500
43.5 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
43.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
43.7 Specications (B-2A Block 30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
43.8 Individual aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
43.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 502
43.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
43.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
43.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503
43.11.2 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 506
43.12Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
43.13External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 507
44 Northrop Grumman E-8 Joint STARS

508

44.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508


44.1.1 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
44.1.2 Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 508
44.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
44.2.1 Radar and systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 509
44.2.2 Battle management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510
44.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 510

xxiv

CONTENTS

44.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511


44.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
44.6 Specications (E-8C) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
44.7 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
44.8 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 512
44.9 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 513
45 Rockwell B-1 Lancer

514

45.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514


45.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 514
45.1.2 Design studies and delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
45.1.3 B-1A program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 515
45.1.4 New problems and cancellation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
45.1.5 Shifting priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
45.1.6 B-1B program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
45.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
45.2.1 Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 518
45.2.2 Avionics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 519
45.2.3 Upgrades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
45.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
45.3.1 Strategic Air Command . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 520
45.3.2 Conventional role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 521
45.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 522
45.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523
45.6 Aircraft on display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 524
45.7 Accidents and incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
45.7.1 Crashes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
45.7.2 Other accidents and notable incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
45.8 Specications (B-1B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 526
45.9 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
45.10See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
45.11References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
45.11.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
45.11.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 528
45.11.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 532
45.12External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533
46 Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallion

534

46.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534


46.1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
46.1.2 H-53E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534
46.1.3 CH-53K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535

CONTENTS

xxv

46.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 535


46.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
46.3.1 1980s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 536
46.3.2 1990s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
46.3.3 2000s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
46.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
46.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 537
46.6 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 538
46.7 Specications (CH-53E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 539
46.8 Notable appearances in media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
46.9 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
46.10References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 540
46.11External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 541
47 Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk

542

47.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542


47.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 542
47.2.1 Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 543
47.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
47.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 544
47.5 Specications (HH-60G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
47.5.1 Onboard systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 545
47.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
47.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 546
47.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 547
48 Sikorsky MH-60 Jayhawk

548

48.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548


48.1.1 MH-60T upgrade program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 548
48.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
48.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
48.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
48.5 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 549
48.6 Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
48.7 Specications (HH-60J) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 550
48.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
48.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 551
48.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 552
49 Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk

553

49.1 Design and development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553


49.1.1 Origins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553

xxvi

CONTENTS
49.1.2 SH-60B Seahawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553
49.1.3 SH-60F . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
49.1.4 HH-60H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
49.1.5 MH-60R . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554
49.1.6 MH-60S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555

49.2 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556


49.2.1 U.S. Navy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
49.2.2 Other and potential users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 556
49.3 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
49.3.1 U.S. versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557
49.3.2 Export versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
49.4 Operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 558
49.5 Specications (SH-60B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 559
49.6 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
49.7 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 560
49.8 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 562
50 Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

563

50.1 Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563


50.1.1 Initial requirement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563
50.1.2 Upgrades and variations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
50.2 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564
50.3 Operational history . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
50.3.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
50.3.2 Peoples Republic of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565
50.3.3 Taiwan (Republic of China) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
50.3.4 Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
50.3.5 Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
50.3.6 Israel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
50.3.7 Brazil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 566
50.3.8 Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
50.3.9 Sweden . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
50.3.10 Other and potential users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
50.4 Variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
50.4.1 Utility variants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
50.4.2 Special purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 568
50.4.3 Export versions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
50.4.4 S-70A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 570
50.5 Military operators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571
50.6 Specications (UH-60L) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 573
50.7 Accidents and incidents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574
50.8 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574

CONTENTS

xxvii

50.9 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575


50.9.1 Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
50.9.2 Citations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 575
50.9.3 Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
50.10External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 578
51 Special operations

579

51.1 Use and eciency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579


51.1.1 United States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
51.2 Special operations forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 579
51.3 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
51.4 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
51.5 External links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 580
52 Utility aircraft

581

52.1 See also . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581


52.2 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 581
52.3 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
52.3.1 Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 582
52.3.2 Images . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 604
52.3.3 Content license . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644

Chapter 1

Air superiority ghter

Sukhoi Su-27
F-22 Raptor, a fth generation stealth ghter jet featuring
supercruise and thrust vectoring.

Shenyang J-11

1.1 Evolution of the term


During World War II and through the Korean War, ghters were classied by their role: heavy ghter, interceptor,
escort ghter, night ghter, and so forth. With the development of guided missiles in the 1950s, design diverged
between ghters optimized to ght in the beyond visual range (BVR) regime (interceptors), and ghters optimized to ght in the within visual range (WVR) regime
(air superiority ghters). In the United States, the inuential proponents of BVR developed ghters with no
forward-ring gun, such as the original F-4 Phantom II,
as it was thought that they would never need to resort
to WVR combat. These aircraft would sacrice high
maneuverability, and instead focus on remaining performance characteristics, as they presumably would never

Euroghter Typhoon, Western Europes rst air superiority


ghter.

An air superiority ghter, also spelled air-superiority


ghter, is a type of ghter aircraft designed for entering
and seizing control of enemy airspace as a means of establishing complete dominance of one sides air forces over
the other sides (air supremacy). Air superiority ghters
are designed to eectively engage enemy ghters, more
than other types of aircraft. They are usually more expensive and procured in smaller numbers than multirole
ghters.
1

CHAPTER 1. AIR SUPERIORITY FIGHTER

engage in a dogght with enemy ghters.

1.1.1

Lessons in combat

Combat experiences during the Vietnam War proved


BVR proponents wrong. Owing to restrictive rules of engagement and the failings of 1960s missile and radar technology, air combat often devolved into close-range dogghts, one for which American ghters and pilots were
unprepared. The lessons from this conict spurred a rethinking of design priorities for ghter aircraft, in which
the U.S. Navys TOPGUN and the U.S. Air Forces Red U.S. F-16C Fighting Falcon and Polish Mikoyan-Gurevich MiGFlag programs, developed specically to teach pilots the 29A over Krzesiny air base, Poland - 20050615
lessons of dogghting, were created.
In order to maximize their combat eectiveness and
strategic usefulness, air superiority ghters usually operate under the control/co-ordination of an Airborne early
warning and control (AEW&C) aircraft.

Sukhoi Su-27

1.1.2

Shenyang J-11B

Air superiority ghters

Sukhoi Su-33
Sukhoi Su-30MKI

Shenyang J-15

1.3 See also


Interceptor aircraft
Fighter aircraft

1.4 Notes
F-15 Eagle

After lessons learned from combat experiences involving modern military air capacity, the U.S. Navys
VFAX/VFX and U.S. Air Forces F-X (Fighter Experimental) reassessed their tactical direction which resulted
in the U.S. Navys F-14 Tomcat and US Air Forces F-15
Eagle.[1] The two designs were built to achieve air superiority and signicant consideration was given during the
development of both aircraft to allow them to excel at the
shorter ranges of ghter combat.[2][3]

[1] Davies, Steve. (2005). F-15C Eagle Units in Combat. Osprey Publishing Ltd. pp. 6-9. ISBN 978-1-84176-730-7.
[2] Spick, Mike. (1985). Modern Fighting Aircraft: F-14.
Arco Publishing Inc. p. 8. ISBN 0-668-06406-4.
[3] Gillcrist, Paul T. (1994). Tomcat! The Grumman F-14
Story. Schier Publishing Ltd. pp. 10, 195. ISBN 088740-664-5 .

1.5 External links


Glossary of Nato Denitions

1.2 Examples
Euroghter Typhoon
Grumman F-14 Tomcat
McDonnell Douglas F-15 Eagle
Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
Mikoyan MiG-29

Rand: Revival of the Air-Superiority Fighter

Chapter 2

Anti-submarine warfare
start of the First World War nearly 300 submarines were
in service. Some warships were tted with an armoured
belt as protection against torpedoes.
There were, however, no means to detect submerged Uboats, and attacks on them were limited at rst to eorts
to damage their periscopes with hammers.[1] The Royal
Navy torpedo establishment, HMS Vernon, studied explosive grapnel sweeps; these sank four or ve U-boats
in the First World War.[2] A similar approach featured a
string of 70 lb (32 kg) charges on a oating cable, red
electrically; an unimpressed Louis Mountbatten considered any U-boat sunk by it deserved to be.[3]
Also tried were dropping 18.5 lb (8.4 kg) hand-thrown
guncotton bombs.[4] The Lance Bomb was developed,
also; this featured a 3540 lb (1618 kg) cone-shaped
steel drum on a 5 ft (1.5 m) shaft, intended to be thrown
at a submarine.[5] Firing Lyddite shells, or using trench
mortars, was tried.[6] Use of nets to ensnare U-boats was
also examined, as was a destroyer, HMS Starsh, tted
with a spar torpedo.[7] To attack at set depths, aircraft
bombs were attached to lanyards which would trigger
their charges; a similar idea was a 16 lb (7.3 kg) guncotton charge in a lanyarded can; two of these lashed together became known as the Depth Charge Type A.[8]
Problems with the lanyards tangling and failing to function led to the development of a chemical pellet trigger
as the Type B.[9] These were eective at a distance of
around 20 ft (6.1 m).[10]

Royal Navy ocers on the bridge of a destroyer on convoy escort


duties keep a sharp look out for enemy submarines during the
Battle of the Atlantic, October 1941

Anti-submarine warfare (ASW, or in older form A/S)


is a branch of underwater warfare that uses surface
warships, aircraft, or other submarines to nd, track and
deter, damage or destroy enemy submarines.

Successful anti-submarine warfare depends on a mix of


sensor and weapon technology, training, experience and
luck. Sophisticated sonar equipment for rst detecting,
then classifying, locating and tracking the target submarine is a key element of ASW. To destroy submarines both
the torpedo and mine are used, launched from air, surface
and underwater platforms. Other means of destruction
have been used in the past but are now obsolete. ASW
The best concept arose in a 1913 RN Torpedo School
also involves protecting friendly ships.
report, describing a device intended for countermining, a
dropping mine. At Admiral John Jellicoe's request, the
standard Mark II mine was tted with a hydrostatic pistol
(developed in 1914 by Thomas Firth & Sons of Sheeld)
2.1 History
preset for 45 ft (14 m) ring, to be launched from a stern
The rst attacks on a ship by an underwater vehicle are platform. Weighing 1,150 lb (520 kg), and eective at
generally believed to have been during the American Rev- 100 ft (30 m), the cruiser mine was a potential hazard
[11]
olutionary War, using what would now be called a naval to the dropping ship, but was also on the right track.
mine but what then was called a torpedo, though various
attempts to build submarines had been made before this.
The rst self-propelled torpedo was invented in 1863 and
launched from surface craft. The rst submarine with a
torpedo was Nordenfelt I built in 1884-1885, though it
had been proposed earlier. In the Russo-Japanese War
of 1904-5, the submarine was a signicant threat. By the

2.1.1 World War I


During the First World War, submarines were a major menace. They operated in the Baltic, North Sea,
Black Sea and Mediterranean as well as the North At3

CHAPTER 2. ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE


Ireland 22 March 1916.[13] By early 1917, the Royal
Navy had also developed indicator loops which consisted
of long lengths of cables lain on the seabed to detect the
magnetic eld of submarines as they passed overhead. At
this stage they were used in conjunction with controlled
mines which could be detonated from a shore station once
a 'swing' had been detected on the indicator loop galvanometer. Indicator loops used with controlled mining
were known as 'guard loops. By July 1917, depth charges
had developed to the extent that settings of between 50
200 ft (1561 m) were possible.[14] This design would
remain mainly unchanged through the end of World War
II.[15] While dipping hydrophones appeared before wars
end, the trials were abandoned.[16]

An example of an anti-submarine net, once protecting Halifax


Harbour, Canada.

lantic. Previously they had been limited to relatively calm


and protected waters. The vessels used to combat them
were a range of small, fast surface ships using guns and
good luck. They mainly relied on the fact a submarine
of the day was often on the surface for a range of reasons, such as charging batteries or crossing long distances.
The rst approach to protect warships was chainlink nets
strung from the sides of battleships, as defense against
torpedoes. Nets were also deployed across the mouth of
a harbour or naval base to stop submarines entering or to
stop torpedoes of the Whitehead type red against ships.
British warships were tted with a ram with which to sink
submarines, and U-15 was thus sunk in August 1914.

Seaplanes and airships were also used to patrol for submarines. A number of successful attacks were made,[17]
but the main value of air patrols was in driving the U-boat
to submerge, rendering it virtually blind and immobile.[18]
However, the most eective anti-submarine measure was
the introduction of escorted convoys, which reduced the
loss of ships entering the Germans War Zone around the
British Isles from 25% to less than 1%.

To attack submerged boats a number of anti-submarine


weapons were derived, including the sweep with a
contact-fused explosive. Bombs were dropped by aircraft
and depth charge attacks were made by ships. Initially
these were simply dropped o the back of a ship but then
depth charge throwers were introduced. The Q-ship, a
warship disguised as a merchant ship, was used to attack
surfaced U-boats while the R1 was the rst ASW submarine. A major contribution was the interception of GerRN in June 1915 began operational trials of the Type
man submarine radio signals and breaking of their code
D depth charge, with a 300 lb (140 kg) charge of TNT
by Room 40 of the Admiralty.
(amatol, as TNT supplies became critical) and a hydrostatic pistol, ring at either 40 or 80 ft (12 or 24 m), and 178 of the 360 U-boats were sunk during the war, from
believed to be eective at a distance of 140 ft (43 m); the a variety of ASW methods:
Type D*, with a 120 lb (54 kg) charge, was oered for
smaller ships.[12]
Mines 58
In July 1915, the British Admiralty set up the Board of
Depth charges 30
Invention and Research to evaluate suggestions from the
Submarine torpedoes 20
public as well as carrying out their own investigations.
Gunre 20
Some 14,000 suggestions were received about combating
submarines. In December 1916, the RN set up its own
Ramming 19
Anti-Submarine Division (from which came the term
Unknown 19
Asdics) but relations with the BIR were poor. AfAccidents 7
ter 1917 most ASW work was carried out by ASD. In
the U.S., a Naval Consulting Board was set up in 1915
Sweeps 3
to evaluate ideas. After American entry into the war
Other (including bombs) 2[19]
in 1917, they encouraged work on submarine detection.
The U.S. National Research Council, a civilian organization, brought in British and French experts on underwa2.1.2 Inter-war period
ter sound to a meeting with their American counterparts
in June 1917. In October 1918, there was a meeting in This period saw the development of active sonar
Paris on supersonics, a term used for echo-ranging, but (ASDIC) and its integration into a complete weapons systhe technique was still in research by the end of the war. tem by the British, as well as the introduction of radar.
The rst recorded sinking of a submarine by depth charge During the period there was a great advance due to the inwas U-68, sunk by Q-ship HMS Farnborough o Kerry, troduction of electronics for amplifying, processing and

2.1. HISTORY

display of signals. In particular the range recorder


was a major step that provided a memory of target position. New materials for sound projectors were developed. Both the Royal Navy and the US Navy tted their
destroyers with ASDIC. In 1928 a small escort ship was
designed and plans made to arm trawlers and to massproduce ASDIC sets. Depth sounders were developed
that allowed measurement by moving ships and an appreciation obtained of the properties of the ocean aecting
sound propagation. The bathythermograph was invented
in 1937, which was soon tted to ASW ships.
There were few major advances in weapons. However,
the performance of torpedoes continued to improve.

2.1.3

World War II

Battle of the Atlantic


Main article: Battle of the Atlantic (1939-1945)
During the Second World War, the submarine men-

A Leigh Light tted to a Liberator of Royal Air Force Coastal


Command, 26 February 1944.

A depth charge thrower being loaded, aboard corvette HMS Dianthus, 14 August 1942.

ace revived, threatening the survival of island nations like


Britain and Japan which were particularly vulnerable because of their dependence on imports of food, oil, and
other vital war materials. Despite this vulnerability, little
had been done to prepare sucient anti-submarine forces
or develop suitable new weapons. Other navies were sim- Hedgehog, a 24-barreled anti-submarine mortar, mounted on the
ilarly unprepared, even though every major navy had a forecastle of the destroyer HMS Westcott.
large, modern submarine eet, because all had fallen in
the grip of Mahanian doctrine which held guerre de course
could not win a war.
of long lengths of cable lain on the oor of the harbour.
At the beginning of the war, most navies had few ideas Indicator loop technology was quickly developed further
how to combat submarines beyond locating them with and deployed by the US Navy in 1942. By then there were
sonar and then dropping depth charges on them. Sonar dozens of loop stations around the world. Sonar was far
proved much less eective than expected, and was no use more eective and loop technology died straight after the
at all against submarines operating on the surface, as U- war.
boats routinely did at night.[20] The Royal Navy had continued to develop indicator loops between the wars but
this was a passive form of harbour defense that depended
on detecting the magnetic eld of submarines by the use

The use and improvement of radar technology was one


of the most important proponents in the ght against submarines. Locating submarines was the rst step in being able to defend against and destroy them. Throughout

CHAPTER 2. ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE


huge range of new technologies, weapons and tactics to
counter the submarine danger. These included:
Vessels
Allocating ships to convoys according to speed, so
faster ships were less exposed.
Adjusting the convoy cycle. Using operations research techniques, analysis of convoy losses over the
rst three years of the war showed that the overall
size of a convoy was less important than the size of
its escorting force. Therefore, escorts could better
protect a few large convoys than many small ones.

A Vought SB2U Vindicator from the USS Ranger (CV-4) ies


anti-submarine patrol over Convoy WS12 en route to Cape Town,
27 November 1941.

Huge construction programmes to mass-produce the


small warships needed for convoy defense, such as
corvettes, frigates, and destroyer escorts. These
were more economical than using destroyers, which
were needed for eet duties. Corvettes were small
enough to be built in merchant shipyards and used
triple expansion engines. They could be built without using up scarce turbine engines, reduction gears
and thus not interfering with larger warship production.
Ships that could carry aircraft, such as the CAM
ships, the merchant aircraft carrier, and eventually
the purpose-built escort carriers.

The USS Mission Bay (CVE-59) operated primarily as an ASW


carrier in the Atlantic. She is shown in August, 1944 o the
East Coast, wearing Measure 32 Design 4A camouage. Note
the Grumman F6F Hellcats on deck and the large SK air search
radar antenna on the mast.

Support groups of escort ships that could be sent


to reinforce the defense of convoys under attack.
Free from the obligation to remain with the convoys,
support groups could continue hunting a submerged
submarine until its batteries and air supplies were
exhausted and it was forced to surface.

the war, Allied radar technology was much better than


Hunter-killer groups, whose job was to actively seek
their German counterparts. German U-Boats struggled
out enemy submarines, as opposed to waiting for the
to have proper radar detection capabilities and keep up
convoy to come under attack. Later hunter-killer
with the successive generations of Allied airborne radar.
groups were centered around escort carriers.
The rst generation of Allied airborne radar used a 1.7
meter wavelength and had a limited range. By the sec Huge construction programmes to mass-produce
ond half of 1942 the "Metox" radar detector was used by
the transports and replace their losses, such as the
U-boats to give some warning from airborne attack. In
American Liberty Ships. Once shipbuilding had
1943 the Allies began to deploy aircraft equipped with
ramped up to full eciency, transports could be
new cavity magnetron-based 10-centimeter wavelength
built faster than U-boats could sink them, playing a
radar (ASV III), which was undetectable by Metox, in
crucial role in the Allies winning the "Tonnage war".
sucient numbers to yield good results. Eventually the
Naxos radar detector was elded that could detect 10Aircraft
cm wavelength radar, but it had a very short range and
only gave a U-Boat limited time to dive.[21] From 1943 Air raids on the German U-boat pens at Brest and
1945 radar equipped aircraft would account for the bulk
[22]
La Rochelle.
of Allied kills against U-Boats. Allied anti-submarine
tactics developed to defend convoys (the Royal Navy's
Long-range aircraft patrols to close the Mid-Atlantic
preferred method), aggressively hunt down U-boats (the
gap.
U.S. Navy approach), and to divert vulnerable or valuable
ships away from known U-boat concentrations.
Escort carriers to provide the convoy with air cover,
as well as close the mid-Atlantic gap.
During the Second World War, the Allies developed a

2.1. HISTORY

High frequency direction nding (HF/DF), includ- Tactics


ing shipborne sets, to pinpoint the location of an enemy submarine from its radio transmissions.
Many dierent aircraft from airships to four-engined sea The introduction of seaborne radar which could en- and land-planes were used. Some of the more successful
were the Lockheed Ventura, PBY (Catalina or Canso, in
able the detection of surfaced U-boats.
British service), Consolidated B-24 Liberator (VLR Lib Airborne radar.
erator, in British service), Short Sunderland, and Vickers
The Leigh light airborne searchlight, in conjunction Wellington. As more patrol planes became equipped with
with airborne radar to surprise and attack enemy radar, U-Boats began to be surprised at night by aircraft attacks. U-Boats were not defenseless, since their
submarines on the surface at night.
deck guns were a very good anti-aircraft weapon. They
Magnetic anomaly detection
claimed 212 Allied aircraft shot down for the loss of 168
U-boats to air attack. The German naval command strug Diesel exhaust sniers
gled to nd a solution to the aircraft attacks. 'U-Flak' submarines, equipped with extra anti-aircraft weapons, were
Sonobuoys
tried unsuccessfully. At one point in the war, there was
even a 'shoot back order' requiring U-boats to stay on the
Weaponry
surface and ght back, in the absence of any other op Depth Charges, the most used weapon, were im- tion. Some commanders started charging batteries durproved during the course of the war. Starting with ing the day to gain more warning from air attack, and
WW1 vintage 300 lb depth charges, a 600 lb ver- perhaps gain time to submerge. One solution was the
sion was developed. Torpex explosive, which is a snorkel, which allowed a U-boat to stay submerged and
50% more powerful explosive than TNT, was intro- still charge its batteries. A snorkel made a U-boat more
duced in 1943. Y-guns and K-guns were used to survivable and losses to aircraft went down. However the
throw depth charges to the side of the escort vessel, low snorkeling speeds of 5 to 6 knots greatly limited the
augmenting the charges rolled o the stern and let- mobility of the U-Boats.[23]
ting the escort vessel lay a pattern of depth charges The provision of air cover was essential. The Germans
at the time had been using their Focke-Wulf Fw 200
Condor long range aircraft to attack shipping and provide reconnaissance for U-boats, and most of their sorties occurred outside the reach of existing land-based
aircraft that the Allies had; this was dubbed the Mid The FIDO (Mk 24 'mine') air-dropped homing tor- Atlantic gap. At rst, the British developed temporary
pedo.
solutions such as CAM ships and merchant aircraft carri When the German Navy developed an acoustic ers. These were superseded by mass-produced, relatively
homing torpedo, torpedo countermeasures such as cheap escort carriers built by the United States and operated by the US Navy and Royal Navy. There was also
the Foxer acoustic decoy were deployed.
the introduction of long-ranged patrol aircraft. Many Uboats feared aircraft, as the mere presence would often
Intelligence
force them to dive, disrupting their patrols and attack
One of the best kept Allied secrets was the break- runs.
ing of enemy codes including some of the German The Americans favored aggressive hunter-killer tactics
Naval Enigma codes (information gathered this way using escort carriers on search and destroy patrols,
was dubbed Ultra) at Bletchley Park in England. whereas the British preferred to use their escort carriers to
This enabled the tracking of U-boat packs to allow defend the convoys directly. The American view was that
convoy re-routings; whenever the Germans changed defending convoys did little to reduce or contain U-boat
their codes (and when they added a fourth rotor to numbers, while the British were constrained by having to
the Enigma machines in 1943), convoy losses rose ght the battle of the Atlantic alone for the early part of
signicantly. By the end of the war, the Allies were the war with very limited resources. There were no spare
regularly breaking and reading German naval codes. escorts for extensive hunts, and it was only important to
To prevent the Germans from guessing that Enigma neutralize the U-boats which were found in the vicinity
had been cracked, the British planted a false story of convoys. The survival of convoys was critical, and if
about a special infrared camera being used to locate a hunt missed its target a convoy of strategic importance
U-boats. The British were subsequently delighted to could be lost. The British also reasoned that since sublearn that the Germans responded by developing a marines sought convoys, convoys would be a good place
special paint for submarines that exactly duplicated to nd submarines.
The development of forward-throwing antisubmarine weapons such as Hedgehog and the
Squid. This allowed the escort vessel to stay in
contact with the submarine during an attack.

the optical properties of seawater.

Once America joined the war, the dierent tactics were

8
complementary, both suppressing the eectiveness of and
destroying U-boats. The increase in Allied naval strength
allowed both convoy defense and hunter-killer groups to
be deployed, and this was reected in the massive increase
in U-boat kills in the latter part of the war. The British
developments of centimetric radar and the Leigh Light,
as well as increased numbers of escorts, reached the point
of being able to support U-boat hunting towards the end
of the war, while earlier on, the advantage was denitely
on the side of the submarine. Commanders such as F. J.
Johnnie Walker of the Royal Navy were able to develop
integrated tactics which made the deployment of hunterkiller groups a practical proposition. Walker developed
a creeping attack technique, where one destroyer would
track the U-boat while another attacked. Often U-boats
would turn and increase speed to spoil the depth charge
attack, as the escort would lose sonar contact as it steamed
over the submarine. With the new tactic, one escort vessel
would attack while another would track the target. Any
course or depth change could be relayed to the attacking
destroyer. Once a U-boat was caught, it was very dicult
to escape. Since Hunter-Killer groups were not limited
to convoy escort, they could continue an attack until a UBoat was destroyed or had to surface from damage or lack
of air.
The earliest recorded sinking of one submarine by another while both were submerged occurred in 1945
when HMS Venturer torpedoed U-864 o the coast of
Norway. The captain of Venturer tracked U-864 on hydrophones for several hours and manually calculated a
three-dimensional ring solution before launching four
torpedoes.

Mediterranean

CHAPTER 2. ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE


Pacic Theatre
Main articles: World War II and Pacic War
Main article: Submarines of the Imperial Japanese Navy
Japanese submarines pioneered many innovations, being
some of the largest and longest range vessels of their type
and were armed with the Type 95 torpedo. However, they
ended up playing little impact, especially in the latter half
of the war. Instead of commerce raiding like their U-boat
counterparts, they followed the Mahanian doctrine, serving in oensive roles against warships, which were fast,
maneuverable and well-defended compared to merchant
ships. In the early part of the Pacic War, Japanese subs
scored several tactical victories, including two successful
torpedo strikes on the US eet carrier Wasp, the latter of
which was sunk abandoned and scuttled as a result of the
attack.[24] However, these are mostly considered incidental successes, due to limited resources in the US Navy at
the time.
Once the US was able to ramp up construction of destroyers and destroyer escorts, as well as bringing over
highly eective anti-submarine techniques learned from
the British from experiences in the Battle of the Atlantic,
they would take a signicant toll on Japanese submarines,
which tended to be slower and could not dive as deep
as their German counterparts. Japanese submarines, in
particular, never menaced the Allied merchant convoys
and strategic shipping lanes to any degree that German
U-boats did. One major advantages the Allies had was
the breaking of the Japanese Purple code by the US,
so allowing friendly ships to be diverted from Japanese
submarines and allowing Allied submarines to intercept
Japanese forces.
In 1942 and early 1943, US submarines posed little threat
to Japanese ships, whether warships or merchant ships.
They were initially hampered by poor torpedoes, which
often failed to detonate on impact, ran too deep, or even
ran wild. As the US submarine menace was slight in
the beginning, Japanese commanders became complacent and as a result did not invest heavily into ASW measures or upgrade their convoy protection to any degree
to what the Allies in the Atlantic did. Often encouraged
by the Japanese not placing a high priority on the Allied
submarine threat, US skippers were relatively complacent
and docile compared to their German counterparts, who
understood the life and death urgency in the Atlantic.

Italian and German submarines operated in the Mediterranean on the Axis side while French and British submarines operated on the side of the Allies. The German Navy sent 62 U-Boats to the Mediterranean, all were
lost in combat or scuttled. German subs rst had to pass
through the highly defended Straits of Gibraltar, where
9 were sunk, and a similar number damaged so severely
they had to limp back to base. The Mediterranean is
calmer than the Atlantic, which made escape for U-Boats
more dicult and was ringed with Allied air bases. Similar ASW methods were used as in the Atlantic but an
additional menace was the use by Italians of midget sub- However, US Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood presmarines.
sured the ordnance department to replace the faulty torpeOperating under the same clear-water conditions in does; famously when they initially ignored his complaints,
the Mediterranean - such that British submarines were he ran his own tests to prove the torpedoes unreliability.
painted dark blue on their upper surfaces to make them He also cleaned out the deadwood, replacing many cauless visible from the air when submerged at periscope tious or unproductive submarine skippers with younger
depth - the Royal Navy, mostly operating from Malta, (somewhat) and more aggressive commanders. As a relost 41 submarines to the opposing German and Italian sult, in the latter half of 1943, US subs were suddenly
forces, including HMS Upholder and HMS Perseus.
sinking Japanese ships at a dramatically higher rate, scor-

2.1. HISTORY
ing their share of key warship kills and accounting for almost half of the Japanese merchant eet. Japanese naval
command was caught o guard, as they had not the antisubmarine technology or doctrine, nor did the production
capability to withstand a tonnage war of attrition, nor did
they develop the organizations needed (unlike the Allies
in the Atlantic).

9
Zulu classes. Britain tested hydrogen peroxide fuels in
Meteroite, Excalibur, and Explorer, with less success.
To deal with these more capable submarines new ASW
weapons were essential. This new generation of diesel
electric submarine, like the Type XXI before it, had
no deck gun and a streamlined hull tower for greater
underwater speed, as well as more storage battery capacity than a comparable WW2 submarine; in addition, they recharged their batteries using a snorkel and
could complete a patrol without surfacing.[29] This led to
the introduction of longer-ranged ATWs, such as Ikara,
Weapon Alpha, ASROC, and to improved homing torpedoes. Nuclear submarines, even faster still, and without the need to snorkel to recharge batteries, posed an
even greater threat; in particular, shipborne helicopters
(recalling the blimps of World War I)[30] have emerged
as essential anti-submarine platforms. A number of
torpedo carrying missiles were developed, combining
ahead-throwing capability (or longer-range delivery) with
torpedo homing.

Japanese antisubmarine forces consisted mainly of their


destroyers, with sonar and depth charges. However,
Japanese destroyer design, tactics, training, and doctrine
emphasized surface nightghting and torpedo delivery
(necessary for eet operations) over anti-submarine duties. By the time Japan nally developed a destroyer escort which was more economical and better suited to convoy protection, it was too late; coupled to incompetent
doctrine and organization,[25] it could have had little effect in any case. Late in the war, the Japanese Army
and Navy used Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD) gear
in aircraft to locate shallow submerged submarines. The
Japanese Army also developed two small aircraft carriers
and Ka-1 autogyro aircraft for use in an antisubmarine Since the introduction of submarines capable of carrywarfare role.
ing ballistic missiles, great eorts have been made to
The Japanese depth charge attacks by its surface forces counter the threat they pose; here, maritime patrol airinitially proved fairly unsuccessful against U.S. eet sub- craft (as in World War II) and helicopters have had a large
marines. Unless caught in shallow water, a U.S. sub- role. The use of nuclear propulsion and streamlined hulls
marine commander could normally escape destruction, has resulted in submarines with high speed capability and
sometimes using temperature gradients (thermoclines). increased maneuverability, as well as low indiscretion
Additionally, IJN doctrine emphasized eet action, not rates when a submarine is exposed on the surface. This
convoy protection, so the best ships and crews went has required changes both to the sensors and weapons
elsewhere.[26] Moreover, during the rst part of the war, used for ASW. Because nuclear submarines were noisy,
the Japanese tended to set their depth charges too shal- there was an emphasis on passive sonar detection. The
low, unaware U.S. submarines could dive below 150 feet torpedo became the main weapon (though nuclear depth
(45m). Unfortunately, this deciency was revealed in a charges were developed). The mine continued to be an
June 1943 press conference held by U.S. Congressman important ASW weapon.
Andrew J. May, and soon enemy depth charges were In some areas of the ocean, where land forms natural
set to explode as deep as 250 feet (76m). Vice Admi- barriers, long strings of sonobuoys, deployed from surral Charles A. Lockwood, COMSUBPAC, later estimated face ships or dropped from aircraft, can monitor marMays revelation cost the navy as many as ten submarines itime passages for extended periods. Bottom mounted
and 800 crewmen.[27][28]
hydrophones can also be used, with land based processMuch later in the war, active and passive sonobuoys were
developed for aircraft use, together with MAD devices.
Toward the end of the war, the Allies developed much
better ATWs, such as Squid, Limbo and Mousetrap, in
the face of new, much better German submarines, such
as the Type XVII and Type XXI.

ing. A system like this SOSUS was deployed by the USA


in the GIUK gap and other strategically important places.

Airborne ASW forces developed better bombs and depth


charges, while for ships and submarines a range of towed
sonar devices were developed to overcome the problem
of ship-mounting. Helicopters can y courses oset from
British and Dutch submarines also operated in the Pacic, the ships and transmit sonar information to their combat
mainly against coastal shipping.
information centres. They can also drop sonobuoys and
launch homing torpedoes to positions many miles away
from the ships actually monitoring the enemy submarine.
2.1.4 Post-war
Submerged submarines are generally blind to the actions
of a patrolling aircraft until it uses active sonar or res a
In the immediate postwar period, the innovations of the weapon, and the aircrafts speed allows it to maintain a
late war U-boats were quickly adopted by the major fast search pattern around the suspected contact.
navies. The United States studied the German Type XXI
Increasingly anti-submarine submarines, called attack
and used the information to modify WW2 eet boats
submarines or hunter-killers, became capable of destroywith the GUPPY program. The Soviets launched new
ing, particularly, ballistic missile submarines. Initially
submarines patterned on Type XXIs, the Whiskey and

10

CHAPTER 2. ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

these were very quiet diesel-electric propelled vessels but 2.2.1 Current technologies
they are more likely to be nuclear-powered these days.
The development of these was strongly inuenced by the There are a large number of technologies used in modern
duel between Venturer and U-864.
anti-submarine warfare:
A signicant detection aid that has continued in service
is the Magnetic Anomaly Detector (MAD), a passive de- Sensors
vice. First used in World War II, MAD uses the Earths
magnetosphere as a standard, detecting anomalies caused
Acoustics particularly in active and passive sonar,
by large metallic vessels, such as submarines. Modern
sonobuoys, and xed hydrophones aid in the detecMAD arrays are usually contained in a long tail boom
tion of radiated noise. Sonar can be mounted on the
(xed-wing aircraft) or an aerodynamic housing carried
hull or in a towed array.
on a deployable tow line (helicopters). Keeping the sensor away from the planes engines and avionics helps elim Pyrotechnics in the use of markers, ares and
inate interference from the carrying platform.
explosive devices
At one time, reliance was placed on electronic warfare
detection devices exploiting the submarines need to perform radar sweeps and transmit responses to radio messages from home port. As frequency surveillance and
direction nding became more sophisticated, these devices enjoyed some success. However, submariners soon
learned not to rely on such transmitters in dangerous waters. Home bases can then use extremely low frequency
radio signals, able to penetrate the oceans surface, to
reach submarines wherever they might be.

2.2 Modern warfare

Searchlights
Radar, for surfaced parts
Hydrodynamic pressure wave (wake) detection
Laser detection and ranging of surfaced vessels; airborne and satellite
Electronic countermeasures and acoustic countermeasures such as noise and bubble makers
Passive acoustic countermeasures such as concealment and design of sound-absorbing materials to
coat reecting underwater surfaces
Magnetic anomaly detection (MAD)
Active and (more commonly) passive infra-red detection of surfaced parts.

Royal Navy Type 23 frigate is an anti-submarine vessel.

The military submarine is still a threat, so ASW remains


a key to obtaining sea control. Neutralizing the SSBN has
been a key driver and this still remains. However, nonnuclear-powered submarines have become increasingly
important. Though the diesel-electric submarine continues to dominate in numbers, several alternative technologies now exist to enhance the endurance of small submarines. Previously the emphasis had been largely on
deep water operation but this has now switched to littoral
operation where ASW is generally more dicult.

An MH-60R conducts an airborne low frequency sonar (ALFS)


operation during testing and evaluation.

In modern times forward looking infrared (FLIR) detectors have been used to track the large plumes of heat that
fast nuclear-powered submarines leave while rising to the
surface. FLIR devices are also used to see periscopes or
snorkels at night whenever a submariner might be incautious enough to probe the surface.

2.4. REFERENCES & NOTES


The active sonar used in such operations is often of midfrequency, approximately 3.5 kHz. Because of the quietening of submarines, resulting in shorter passive detection ranges, there has been interest in low frequency active for ocean surveillance. However, there have been
protests about the use of medium and low frequency highpowered active sonar because of its eects on whales.
Others argue the high power level of some LFA (Low
Frequency Active) sonars is actually detrimental to sonar
performance in that such sonars are reverberation limited.
Weapons

11
Naval tactics in the Age of Steam
Anti-submarine weapon

2.4 References & notes


[1] McKee, Fraser M. An Explosive Story: The Rise and Fall
of the Depth Charge, in The Northern Mariner (III, #1,
January 1993), p.46: citing a letter by Stanley M. Woodward.
[2] McKee, p.48.

Mines,

[3] McKee, p.48.

Torpedoes, acoustic, wire-guided, and wake homing.

[4] McKee, p.47.

Depth charges

[6] McKee, p.48.

Rockets

[7] McKee, p.47.

Missiles

[8] McKee, p.49.

Anti-submarine net

[9] McKee, p.49.

Ramming

[5] McKee, p.48.

[10] McKee, p.49.


[11] McKee, p.49.

2.2.2

Platforms

Satellites have been used to image the sea surface using


optical and radar techniques, and it is claimed these might
be used for indirect detection of submarines, as could
thermal imaging. Fixed-wing aircraft, such as the P-3
Orion & Tu-142 provide both a sensor and weapons platform similar to some helicopters like the SH-60 Seahawk,
with sonobuoys and/or dipping sonars as well as aerial
torpedoes. In other cases the helicopter has been used
solely for sensing and rocket delivered torpedoes used as
the weapon. Surface ships continue to be a main ASW
platform because of their endurance, now having towed
array sonars. Submarines are the main ASW platform because of their ability to change depth and their quietness,
which aids detection.

[12] McKee, p.49.


[13] McKee, p.50.
[14] McKee, p.49.
[15] McKee, p.49.
[16] Price, Alfred. Aircraft versus the Submarine
[17]

French Foucault bombed and sunk by Austrian aircraft,15 Sept 1915.


British B 10 sunk at moorings by Austrian aircraft,
9 August 1916.
German UC 32 bombed and sunk by RNAS seaplane, 22 September 1917.
British D 3 bombed in error by French airship, 12
March 1918.

In the future unmanned vehicles may be used in the ASW


role. In early 2010 DARPA began funding the ACTUV [18] Price, Alfred, Aircraft versus the Submarine (William
Kimber, 1973)
programme to develop a semi-autonomous oceangoing
unmanned naval vessel.
[19] Preston, p134
Today some nations have seabed listening devices capable [20] In fact, Otto Kretschmer expressly forbade diving to avoid
of tracking submarines. It is known to be possible to debeing detected by sonar. See The Golden Horseshoes.
tect man-made marine noises across the southern Indian
Ocean from South Africa to New Zealand. Some of the [21] Gordon Williamson Wolf Pack - the story of the U=boats
in World War II p.216-217 Osprey Publishing 2005
SOSUS arrays have been turned over to civilian use and
[31]
are now used for marine research.
[22] Langford, Thomas, and Spencer C. Tucker. Anti-

2.3 See also


Modern Naval tactics

Submarine Warfare.in Encyclopedia of World War II: A


Political, Social, and Military History, edited by Spencer
C. Tucker, 105-108. Oxford : ABC-CLIO,2005.
[23] Hutchinson, Robert Janes Submarines: War Beneath the
Waves page 100, 110, Harper Collins 2001

12

[24] http://www.combinedfleet.com/type_b1.htm
[25] Masahaya, Pearl Harbor Papers, himself calls IJN ASW
eorts shiftless.
[26] Parillo, Japanese Merchant Marine in World War II. U.S.
Naval Institute Press, 1993
[27] Blair, Clay, Silent Victory (Vol.1), The Naval Institute
Press, 2001
[28] Lanning, Michael Lee (Lt. Col.), Senseless Secrets: The
Failures of U.S. Military Intelligence from George Washington to the Present, Carol Publishing Group, 1995
[29] Hutchinson, Robert Janes Submarines: War Beneath the
Waves page 114-115 Harper Collins 2001
[30] Price, Alfred. Aircraft versus the Submarine. (London:
William Kimber, 1973).
[31] National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration VENTS
project Website

Abbbatiello, John, ASW in World War I, 2005.


Blair, Clay, Silent Victory . Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1975.
Compton-Hall, Richard, Submarine Boats, the beginnings of underwater warfare, Windward, 1983.
Franklin, George, Britains ASW Capability, 2003.
Lanning, Michael Lee (Lt. Col.), Senseless Secrets: The Failures of U.S. Military Intelligence from
George Washington to the Present, Carol Publishing
Group, 1995.
Llewellyn-Jones, Malcolm, The RN and ASW
(1917-49), 2007.
Parillo, Mark. Japanese Merchant Marine in World
War II. Annapolis: U.S. Naval Institute Press, 1993.
Preston, Anthony, The Worlds Greatest Submarines,
2005.
Price, Alfred. Aircraft versus the Submarine. London: William Kimber, 1973.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) VENTS Website

2.5 External links


Bob Zimmerman, Antisubmarine Warfare, September 1969
Innovation in the U.S. Navys Silent Cold War Struggle with Soviet Submarines

CHAPTER 2. ANTI-SUBMARINE WARFARE

Chapter 3

Attack helicopter

A British Apache res rockets at insurgents in Afghanistan in


2008.

An attack helicopter is an armed helicopter with the primary role of an attack aircraft, with the capability of engaging targets on the ground, such as enemy infantry and
armoured ghting vehicles. Due to their heavy armament
they are sometimes called helicopter gunships.
Weapons used on attack helicopters can include
autocannons, machine guns, rockets, and guided
anti-tank missiles such as the Hellre. Many attack helicopters are also capable of carrying air-to-air missiles,
though mostly for purposes of self-defense. Todays
attack helicopter has two main roles: rst, to provide
direct and accurate close air support for ground troops,
and the second, in the anti-tank role to destroy enemy
armor concentrations. Attack helicopters are also used
to supplement lighter helicopters in the armed scout role.
In combat, an attack helicopter is projected to destroy
around 17 times its own production cost before it is
destroyed.[1]

3.1 Background and development


Low-speed, xed wing Allied aircraft like the Soviet
Polikarpov Po-2 training and utility biplane had been
used as early as 1942 to provide night harassment attack
capability against the Wehrmacht Heer on the Eastern
Front, most eectively in the Battle of the Caucasus as
exemplied by the Night Witches all-female Soviet air
unit.[2] Following Operation Overlord in 1944, the military version of the similarly slow-ying Piper J-3 Cub

high-wing civilian monoplane, the L-4 Grasshopper, begun to be used in a light anti-armor role by a few U.S.
Army artillery spotter units over France; these aircraft
were eld-outtted with either two or four bazooka rocket
launchers attached to the lift struts,[3] against German armored ghting vehicles. During the summer of 1944,
U.S. Army Major Charles Carpenter managed to successfully take on an anti-armor role with his rocket-armed
Piper L-4. His L-4, named Rosie the Rocketeer, armed
with six bazookas, had a notable anti-armor success during an engagement during the Battle of Arracourt on
September 20, 1944, knocking out at least four German
armored vehicles,[4] as a pioneering example of taking
on heavy enemy armor from a slow-ying aircraft.[5] This
role was something that was also likely to be achievable
after World War II, from the increasing numbers of postwar military helicopter designs. The only American helicopter in use during the war years, the Sikorsky R-4,
was only being used for rescue and were still very much
experimental in nature.
In the early 1950s various countries around the world
started to make increased use of helicopters in their operations in transport and liaison roles. Later on it was
realised that these helicopters, successors to the World
War II-era Sikorsky R-4, could be armed with weapons
in order to provide them with limited combat capability.
Early examples include armed Sikorsky H-34s in service
with the US Air Force and armed Mil Mi-4 in service
with the Soviet Air Forces. This trend continued into
the 1960s with the deployment of armed Bell UH-1s and
Mil Mi-8s during the Vietnam War, to this day the pair
of most produced helicopter designs in aviation history.
These helicopters proved to be moderately successful in
these congurations, but due to a lack of armor protection
and speed, they were ultimately ineective platforms for
mounting weapons in higher-threat ground combat environments.
Since the 1960s various countries around the world
started to design and develop various types of helicopters
with the purpose of providing a heavily armed and protected aerial vehicle that can perform a variety of combat
roles, from reconnaissance to aerial assault missions.
By the 1990s, the missile-armed attack helicopter
evolved into a primary anti-tank weapon. Able to quickly

13

14

CHAPTER 3. ATTACK HELICOPTER

move about the battleeld and launch eeting pop-up attacks, helicopters presented a major threat even with the
presence of organic air defenses. The helicopter gunship
became a major tool against tank warfare, and most attack helicopters became more and more optimized for the
antitank mission.[6]

completed its rst ight and initial ight evaluations. And


while the Cheyenne program suered setbacks over the
next few years due to technical problems, the Cobra was
establishing itself as an eective aerial weapons platform,
despite its performance shortcomings compared to the
AH-56[7] and design issues of its own. By 1972, when
the Cheyenne program was eventually cancelled to make
way for the Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH),[7] the
interim AH-1 Snake had built a solid reputation as an
3.1.1 United States
attack helicopter. In June 1972 the USMC began deployIn the mid-1960s the U.S. Army concluded that a ing AH-1J SeaCobra Attack Helicopters for combat oppurpose-built attack helicopter with more speed and re- erations in South Vietnam.
power than current armed helicopters was required in the During the late 1970s the U.S. Army saw the need of
face of increasingly intense ground re (often using heavy more sophistication within the attack helicopter corps,
machine guns and anti-tank rockets) from Viet Cong and allowing them to operate in all weather conditions.[8]
NVA troops. Based on this realization, and with the With that the Advanced Attack Helicopter program was
growing involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. Army devel- started.[9] From this program the Hughes YAH-64 came
oped the requirements for a dedicated attack helicopter, out as the winner. The prototype YAH-64 was rst own
the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS). The on 30 September 1975. The U.S. Army selected the
aircraft design selected for this program in 1965, was YAH-64 over the Bell YAH-63 in 1976, and later apLockheeds AH-56 Cheyenne.[7]
proved full production in 1982. After purchasing Hughes
Helicopters in 1984, McDonnell Douglas continued AH64 production and development. The helicopter was introduced to U.S. Army service in April 1986.
Today, the US attack helicopter has been further rened,
and the AH-64D Apache Longbow demonstrates many
of the advanced technologies being considered for deployment on future gunships. The US Marine Corps also
continued to employ attack helicopters in the direct re
support role, in the form of the AH-1 Super Cobra. While
helicopters were eective tank-killers in the Middle East,
attack helicopters are being seen more in a multipurpose
role. Tactics, such as tank plinking, showed that xedPrototype of the AH-1, the rst dedicated attack helicopter, and wing aircraft could be eective against tanks, but helicopters retained a unique low-altitude, low-speed caa canonical example to this day
pability for close air support. Other purpose-built heliAs the Army began its acquisition of a dedicated attack copters were developed for special operations missions,
helicopter, it sought options to improve performance over including the MH-6 for extremely close support.
the continued use of improvised interim aircraft (such as
the UH-1B/C). In late 1965, a panel of high-level ocers was selected to evaluate several prototype versions 3.1.2 Soviet Union and its successor states
of armed and attack helicopters to determine which provided the most signicant increase in capability to the
UH-1B. The three highest-ranked aircraft, the Sikorsky
S-61, Kaman H-2 Tomahawk, and the Bell AH-1 Cobra, were selected to compete in ight trials conducted
by the Armys Aviation Test Activity. Upon completion
of the ight evaluations, the Test Activity recommended
Bells Huey Cobra to be an interim armed helicopter until the Cheyenne was elded. On 13 April 1966, the U.S.
Army awarded Bell Helicopter Company a production
contract for 110 AH-1G Cobras.[7] The Cobra had a tandem cockpit seating arrangement (vs UH-1 side-by-side)
to make the aircraft a smaller frontal target, increased armor protection, and greater speed.
In 1967, the rst AH-1Gs were deployed to Vietnam, Mil Mi-24P, a later production variant of the Mi-24. These heli[10]
around the same time that the Cheyenne successfully copters were used extensively in the Soviet war in Afghanistan.

3.1. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT

15

During the early 1960s, Soviet engineers started experimenting with various designs aimed at producing an
aerial vehicle that can provide battleeld mobility for infantry and provide re support to army forces on the
ground. The rst of these concepts was a mock-up unveiled in 1966 in the experimental shop of the Ministry
of Aircrafts factory number 329 where Soviet designer,
Mikhail Leont'yevich Mil, was head designer. The mockup, which was designated V-24, was based on another
project, the V-22 utility helicopter, which itself never entered production. The V-24 had an infantry transport
compartment that could hold eight troops sitting back to
back, and a set of small wings positioned to the top rear
of the passenger cabin, capable of holding up to six mis- A Russian Mil Mi-28N. The Mil Mi-28 along with the Ka-50
represented the rst dedicated attack helicopter of the Soviet Air
siles or rocket pods and a twin-barrel GSh-23L cannon
Forces in the 1980s.
xed to the landing skid.
These designs were proposed by Mil to the Soviet armed
forces, and while he had the support of a number of
strategists, he was opposed by several more senior members of the armed forces who believed that conventional
weapons were a better use of resources. Despite the opposition, Mil managed to persuade the defence ministers
rst deputy, Marshal Andrey A. Grechko, to convene an
expert panel to look into the matter. While the panels
opinions were mixed, supporters of the project eventually held sway and a request for design proposals for a
battleeld support helicopter was issued.[11]

sign work on the Mi-28 began under Marat Tishchenko


in 1980.[13] In 1981, a design and a mock-up were accepted. The prototype (no. 012) was rst own on 10
November 1982.[13] In this same time frame, Kamov was
also attempting to submit its own designs for a new helicopter to the military, which they had designed throughout the early and mid 1980s. In 1984, the Mi-28 completed the rst stage of state trials, but in October 1984
the Soviet Air Force chose the more advanced Kamov
Ka-50 as the new anti-tank helicopter. The Mi-28 development was continued, but given lower priority. In December 1987 Mi-28 production in Rosvertol in Rostov on
Don was approved. After several prototypes were built,
production ceased in 1993 with additional development
continuing into the 21st century. Changes in the military
situation after the Cold War made specialized anti-tank
helicopters less useful. The advantages of the Mi-28N,
like all-weather action ability, lower cost, and similarity
to the Mi-24, have become more important. In 2003, the
head of Russian Air Force stated that the Mi-28N and
Ka-50 attack helicopters will become the standard Russian attack helicopter.[14] The rst serial Mi-28N was delivered to the Army on 5 June 2006.

The development of gunships and attack helicopters by


the US Army during the Vietnam War convinced the Soviets of the advantages of armed helicopter ground support doctrine, which had a positive inuence on moving
forward with the development of the Mil Mi-24. After
several mock-ups were produced, a directive was issued
on 6 May 1968 to proceed with development of a twinengine design of the helicopter. Work proceeded under
Mil until his death in 1970. Detailed design work began
in August 1968 under the codename Yellow 24. A fullscale mock-up of the design was reviewed and approved
in February 1969. Flight tests with a prototype began on
15 September 1969 with a tethered hover, and four days
later the rst free ight was conducted. A second prototype was built, followed by a test batch of ten helicopters. 3.1.3
A number of other design changes were made until the
production version Mi-24A entered production in 1970,
obtaining its initial operating capability in 1971 and was
ocially accepted into the state arsenal in 1972.

Peoples Republic of China

In 1972, following completion of the Mi-24, development


began on a unique attack helicopter with transport capability. The new design had a reduced transport capability
(3 troops instead of 8) and was called the Mil Mi-28, and
that of the Ka-50 attack helicopter, which is smaller and
more maneuverable and does not have the large cabin for
carrying troops.[12]
In 1977, a preliminary design of the Mil Mi-28 was chosen, in a classic single-rotor layout. Its transport capability was removed and it lost its similarity to the Mi-24. De- A CAIC WZ-10 attack helicopter at the 2012 Zhuhai Airshow

16

CHAPTER 3. ATTACK HELICOPTER


on the light helicopters then in service. The 602nd and
608th Research Institutes started development of the 6ton class China Medium Helicopter (CHM) program[15]
in 1994. The program was promoted as a civilian project,
and was able to secure signicant Western technical assistance, such as from Eurocopter (rotor installation design consultancy), Pratt & Whitney Canada (PT6C turboshaft engine) and Agusta Westland (transmission).[16]
The Chinese concentrated on areas where it could not obtain foreign help. The 602nd Research Institutes called
its proposed armed helicopter design the WZ-10 (Wu Zhi
( , literally Armed Helicopter)10).

A Harbin Z-19 at the China Helicopter Exposition, Tianjin 2013

In 1979, the Chinese military studied the problem of


countering large armor formations. It concluded that the
best conventional solution was to use attack helicopters.
Eight Arospatiale Gazelle armed with Euromissile HOT
were procured for evaluation. By the mid-1980s, the Chinese decided a dedicated attack helicopter was required.
At the time, they used civilian helicopters converted for
the military; these were no longer adequate in the attack
role, and suitable only as scouts. Following this, China
evaluated the Agusta A129 Mangusta, and in 1988 secured an agreement with the USA to purchase AH-1 Cobras and a license to produce BGM-71 TOW missiles;
the latter was cancelled following the Tiananmen Square
protests of 1989 and the resulting arms embargo. The
color revolutions prevented the purchase of attack helicopters from Eastern Europe in 1990 and 1991; Bulgaria
and Russia rejected Chinese oers to purchase the Mil
Mi-24.
While attempting to import foreign designs failed, war
games determined that attack helicopters had to be commanded by the army, rather than the air force. This led
to the formation of the Peoples Liberation Army Ground
Force Aircraft (PLAGFAF), with an initial strength of 9
Harbin Z-9s. The PLAGFAF conducted tactical experiments that would help dene the future Z-10s requirements. Research also decided that anti-tank missiles like
the BGM-71 TOW were inadequate, and favored an analogue to the AGM-114 Hellre.

The 602nd Research Institute was assigned as the chief


designer, while Harbin Aircraft Manufacturing Corporation (HAMC) of China Aviation Industry Corporation
II (AVIC II) was assigned as the primary manufacturer.
Nearly four dozen other establishments participated in
the program. According to Chinese sources, the initial test ights were concluded on December 17, 2003,
whereas according to other sources they were completed
nine months earlier in March 2003. According to Janes
Information Group, a total of 3 prototypes had completed
over 400 hours of test ights by this time. By 2004, 3
more prototypes were built, for a total of 6, and a second stage of test ights were concluded on December 15,
2004. In one of the test ights the future commanderin-chief of the Peoples Liberation Army Ground Force
Air Force (PLAGAF), Song Xiangsheng (
), was on
board the prototype. A third stage of intensive test ights
followed, taking place during both day and night. By January 2006 weaponry and sensor tests, including ring of
live ammunition, had taken place. The helicopter was
introduced to the general public in December 2010 and
subsequently entered service with the Peoples Liberation
Army.[17]

3.1.4 France, Germany and Spain


In 1984, the French and West German governments issued a requirement for an advanced multirole battleeld
helicopter. A joint venture consisting of Arospatiale
and MBB was subsequently chosen as the preferred
supplier.[18] According to statements by the French
Defence Minister Andr Giraud in April 1986, the collaborative eort had become more expensive than an individual national programme and was forecast to take
longer to complete as well. In July 1986, a government
report into the project alleged that the development had
become distanced from the requirements and preferences
of the military customers the Tiger was being developed
for.[18]

The Gulf War highlighted the urgent need for attack helicopters, and revalidated the assessment that a purposebuilt design was needed. (At the time, the Chinese military depended on armed utility helicopters such as the
Changhe Z-11 and Harbin Z-9.) Also, it demonstrated
that the new attack helicopter would need to be able to
defend itself against other helicopters and aircraft. The
military perceived that once the new attack helicopter en- Both France and Germany reorganised the programme.
tered service, the existing helicopters would be used as Thomson CSF also took over the majority of the Tigers
scouts.
electronic development work, such as the visual systems
The Armed Helicopter Developmental Work Team and sensors.[18] Despite the early development problems
(
) was formed to develop a new medium and the political uncertainty between 1984 and 1986, the
helicopter design, as opposed to basing the new design program was formally relaunched in November 1987; it

3.1. BACKGROUND AND DEVELOPMENT

17

was at this point that a greater emphasis on the attack helicopters anti-tank capabilities came about.[19] Much of
the projects organisational framework was rapidly redeveloped between 1987 and 1989; such as the installation
of a Franco-German Helicopter Oce to act as a program executive agency in May 1989.[20]

Indias HAL Light Combat Helicopter under development

Air Force and the Indian Army found that there was a
need for helicopters that can operate at such high-altitude
conditions with ease.[28] Limitations from operating with
high payloads and restricted maneuverability of Mil Mi35 led India to the develop the HAL Light Combat Helicopter and HAL Rudra for multi-role high-altitude combat operations.[29] These helicopters will be used by the
Indian Air Force and the Indian Armys Aviation Corps.
A
French
Eurocopter
(Panzerabwehrhubschrauber)

Tiger

attack

helicopter

Due to the end of the Cold War and subsequent defence


budgets decreases in the 1990s, nancial pressures led
to further questions regarding the necessity for the entire
program. In 1992, Arospatiale and MBB, among other
companies, merged to form the Eurocopter Group; this
led to considerable consolidation of the aerospace industry and the Tiger project itself.[21] A major agreement was
struck in December 1996 between France and Germany
that cemented the Tigers prospects and committed the
development of supporting elements, such as a series of
new generation missile designs for use by the new combat
helicopter.[22]

3.1.6 Italy
In 1972, the Italian Army began forming a requirement for a light observation and anti-tank helicopter.
Agusta had initially studied the development of a combatorientated derivative of their existing A109 helicopter,
however they decided to proceed with the development of
a more ambitious helicopter design.[30] In 1978, Agusta
formally began the design process on what would become the Agusta A129 Mangusta.[31] On 11 September
1983, the rst of ve A129 prototypes made the types
maiden ight; the fth prototype would rst y in March
1986. The Italian Army placed an order for a total of 60
A129s.[30]

On 18 June 1999, both Germany and France publicly


placed orders for an initial batch of 160 Tiger helicopters, 80 for each nation, valued at 3.3 billion.[23] 3.1.7
On 22 March 2002, the rst production Tiger was rolled
out in a large ceremony held at Eurocopters Donauworth factory; although production models began initial acceptance trials in 2003, the rst ocial delivery
to the French Army took place on 18 March 2005; the
rst ocial Tiger delivery to the Germany followed on
6 April 2005.[24] Germany reduced its order to 57 in
March 2013.[25] In 2008 OCCAR estimated the project
cost at 7.3 billion.[26] Frances FY2012 budget put
their share of the project at 6.3bn (~US$8.5bn),[27] implying a programme cost of 14.5bn (~US$19.5bn) to
the three main partners. At FY2012 prices, their 40
HAP cost 27m/unit (~US$36m) and their 40 HAD
35.6m/unit (~US$48m), including development costs
the French Tigers cost 78.8m (~US$106m) each.[27]

3.1.5

India

South Africa

A Denel Rooivalk attack helicopter, in service with the South


African Air Force

The Indian Army deploys the Mil Mi-35 and HAL Rudra The Rooivalk project began in early 1984 under the ausas of 2014. During the Kargil War in 1999, the Indian pices of the Atlas Aircraft Corporation, a predecessor

18

CHAPTER 3. ATTACK HELICOPTER

of Denel Aviation. Faced with the increasingly conventional nature of the South African Border War, the South
African Defence Force recognised the need for a dedicated attack helicopter and accordingly set along the process of developing a suitable aircraft.
The Atlas XH-1 Alpha was the rst prototype to emerge
from the program. It was developed from an Arospatiale
Alouette III airframe, retaining that helicopters engine
and dynamic components, but replacing the original
cockpit with a stepped tandem one, adding a 20 mm cannon on the nose and converting the undercarriage to taildragger conguration. The XH-1 rst ew on 3 February
1985. The results were ultimately good enough to convince Atlas and the SAAF that the concept was feasible, Above, a U.S Army's AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and below,
opening the door for the development of the Rooivalk.
an OH-58D armed scout helicopter
During the Rooivalks development it was decided to
base the aircraft on the dynamic components of the
Arospatiale Super Puma,[32] a larger and more powerful helicopter. These components were already used on
the Atlas Oryx, a local upgrade and modication of the
Arospatiale Puma.[33]

troops. Hellre missile and cannon attacks by Apache helicopters destroyed many enemy tanks and armored cars.

The deep attack role of independently operating attack


helicopters came into question after a failed mission, dur[39]
Unfortunately the development of the Rooivalk contin- ing the 2003 Gulf War attack on the Karbala Gap. A
but coorued until after the conclusion of the South African Bor- second mission in the same area, four days later,
[40]
dinated
with
artillery
and
xed-wing
aircraft,
was far
der War and defence budgets were slashed due to parmore
successful
with
minimal
losses.
liamentary changes to the requirements of the national
air force. This resulted in an extensive development and
production period beginning in 1990 until 2007, during
which 12 aircraft were produced for use by the South
African Air Force. These aircraft were subsequently upgraded to the Block 1F standard by 2011. The upgrade
involves improved targeting systems and other avionics
which enable the helicopter to use guided missiles for the
rst time. The Mokopa ATGM was qualied as part of
the upgrade process.[34] Gearbox components were improved and cooling problems with the F2 20 mm cannon
were also addressed.
On 1 April 2011, the South African Air Force received
the rst ve of eleven (one of the twelve aircraft originally
delivered to the SAAF was written o after an accident)
Block 1F upgraded Rooivalk.[35][36] The ninth and tenth
Rooivalk attack helicopters were delivered in September
2012 following their upgrade to the Block 1F initial operating standard.[37] The eleventh and nal Rooivalk was
delivered on 13 March 2013.[38]

European Eurocopter Tiger of the German Army

In 2011, France and Britain sent Eurocopter Tiger and


AgustaWestland Apache attack helicopters to Libya. The
primary objective of the 2011 military intervention was
to protect civilians in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 1973. Within days of the Apaches deployment, it had completed a variety of tasks such as destroying tanks, checkpoints held by pro-Gadda forces and ve3.2 In action
hicles carrying ammunitions loyal to Muammar Gadda.
The 1990s could be seen as the coming-of-age for the The attack helicopters were reported to be far more eecU.S. attack helicopter. The AH-64 Apache was used ex- tive than the ghter jets which had previously been given
tensively during Operation Desert Storm with great suc- the task of completing the aforementioned tasks.
cess. Apaches red the rst shots of the war, destroy- In 2013, the South African National Defence Force aning enemy early warning radar and SAM sites with their nounced that it would deploy Denel Rooivalk attack heliHellre missiles. They were later used successfully in copters to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to supboth of their operational roles, to direct attack against port the United Nations Organization Stabilization Misenemy armor and as aerial artillery in support of ground sion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This

3.4. COMPARISON
was the rst combat deployment for the helicopter.[41]
Three helicopters from 16 Squadron SAAF were deployed to the region and since November 2013 it was
involved in heavy ghting alongside the United Nations
Force Intervention Brigade, against rebels operating in
North Kivu, in particular the M23 militia, which consisted of hardened former government troops equipped
with relatively heavy weaponry such as main battle tanks
and anti-aircraft weaponry. During its rst ever combat mission it proved to be instrumental in routing the
rebels from their hilltop strongholds during an oensive
by the United Nations Force Intervention Brigade and the
Military of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.[42][43]

3.3 Types

19

Boeing AH-64 Apache

AgustaWestland Apache

CAIC WZ-10

Denel Rooivalk

HAL Light Combat Helicopter

Harbin Z-19

Kamov Ka-50/Ka-52

Mil Mi-28

Eurocopter Tiger

Mil Mi-24 Hind

3.4 Comparison
3.4.1 Dimensions
3.4.2 Performance

3.5 See also


Armed helicopter
Army aviation
Gunship

A Russian Ka-50

3.6 References
[1] Frank
Barnaby
(2010).
main+battle+tank"#v=onepage&q="main
battle
tank"&f=false The role and control of weapons in the
1990s. Psychology Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-203-16831-3.
Retrieved 14 February 2011.
[2] Noggle, Anne; White, Christine (2001). A Dance with
Death: Soviet Airwomen in World War II. Texas A&M
University Press. pp. 2021. ISBN 1-58544-177-5.

Above, an Indian HAL Light Combat Helicopter at Aero India


show 2011

Modern examples include:

AgustaWestland AW129

TAI/AgustaWestland T129
Bell AH-1 Cobra

Bell AH-1 SuperCobra

Bell AH-1Z Viper

[3] Francis, Devon E., Mr. Piper and His Cubs, Iowa State
University Press, ISBN 0-8138-1250-X, 9780813812502
(1973), p. 117.
[4] Gantt, Marlene, Riding His Piper Cub Through The Skies
Over France, Bazooka Charlie Fought A One-man War,
World War II Magazine, September 1987
[5] Fountain, Paul, The Maytag Messerschmitts, Flying Magazine, March 1945, p. 90
[6] Mazarella, Mark N. Adequacy of U.S. Army Attack Helicopter Doctrine to Support the Scope of Attack Helicopter Operations in a Multi-Polar World. Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: U.S. Army Command and General Sta
College, 1994. Accessed on 12 December 2007.

20

[7] An Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter


Program. Oce of the Assistant Vice Chief of Sta of
the Army (Department of the Army). 1973.
[8] ADVANCED ATTACK HELICOPTER OPERATIONS
IN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTS - Ocial US Army
video at Real Military Flix
[9] Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) (1970-1981). Global
Security
[10] Glantz, David M. The Triumph of Maneuver War - Soviet Operational Art Since 1936. US Army Center of
Military History. Retrieved July 24, 2012.
[11] Culhane, Kevin V. (1977). Student research report: The
Soviet attack helicopter (PDF). DTIC. Retrieved 1 July
2011.
[12] Yem Gordon & Dmitry Komissarov (2001). Mil Mi-24,
Attack Helicopter. Airlife.
[13] Frawley, Gerald. Mil Mi-28. The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 2002/2003, p. 128. Aerospace
Publications, 2002. ISBN 1-875671-55-2.
[14] " " 28 October 2004.
Lenta.ru
[15] Hewson, Robert, Chinas Z-10 helicopter built on Western expertise, Janes Defence Weekly, 13 April 2005
[16] Janes Helicopter Markets & Systems.
[17] Chinas 1st attack helo goes operational? - The DEW Line

CHAPTER 3. ATTACK HELICOPTER

[31] Frawley, Gerald. AgustaWestland A129 Mangusta.


The International Directory of Military Aircraft,
2002/2003. Aerospace Publications, 2002. ISBN
1-875671-55-2.
[32] Dely, Frans (2004). Soaring with Eagles (no page numbers, section on 16 Sqdn). Avpix Publishing Pty Ltd. ISBN
0-620-32806-1.
[33] Campbell, Keith (2007-06-08). What went wrong with
the Rooivalk?". Engineering News.
[34] Denels Mokopa PGM ready for market. DefenceWeb.
2011-01-26. Retrieved 2013-03-15.
[35] SAAF ceremonially receives Rooivalk. DefenceWeb.
2011-04-01. Retrieved 2013-03-15.
[36] First ve Rooivalk now in service. DefenceWeb. 201104-04. Retrieved 2013-03-15.
[37] David Donald (2012-09-28). Gripen, Rooivalk Deliveries Bring SAAF up to Strength | Aviation International
News. Ainonline.com. Retrieved 2013-03-15.
[38] Final Rooivalk Handover Cements Relationship Between
Denel and SAAF. defenceweb.co.za. Retrieved 201303-15.
[39] Scarborough, Ryan (April 2003). Apache operation a
lesson in defeat; Army choppers hit without air cover.
Washington Times
[40] O'Rourke, Ryan (June 4, 2003). Iraq War: Defense Program Implications for Congress (PDF). Congressional
Research Service. p. CRS36. Retrieved 2007-12-12

[18] Krotz 2001, p. 130.


[19] Krotz 2011, p. 131.
[20] Krotz 2011, p. 133.
[21] Krotz 2011, pp. 133-135.
[22] Krotz 2011, p. 147.
[23] Krotz 2011, pp. 132, 149.

[41] Exclusive: Rooivalk is going to DRC. DefenceWeb.


2013-10-11. Retrieved 2013-10-13.
[42] Mohlaoli, Tumaole. ""It was clear that the rebels didn't
expect us -- SANDF pilot. eNCA report. eNCA. Retrieved 14 May 2014.
[43] Olivier, Darren (2013-11-05). Rooivalk attack helicopters perform well in rst combat action against M23.
African Defence Review. Retrieved 2013-11-05.

[24] Krotz 2011, p. 154.


[25] Germany nalises cuts to NH90, Tiger helicopter orders. Flightglobal.com, 18 March 2013.
[26] Tran, Pierre. Eurocopter: Despite Slow Economy, Tiger
Helo Deliveries On Track. Defense News, 29 Jan 2013.
[27] Projet de loi de nances pour 2013 : Dfense :
quipement des forces (in French). Senate of France. 22
November 2012. Retrieved 2013-11-07.

3.6.1 Further reading


Duke, R.A., Helicopter Operations in Algeria [Trans.
French], Dept. of the Army (1959)
France, Operations Research Group, Report of the
Operations Research Mission on H-21 Helicopter
(1957)

[29] Aero India: Indias indigenous combat chopper

Leuliette, Pierre, St. Michael and the Dragon: Memoirs of a Paratrooper, New York:Houghton Miin
(1964)

[30] Donald, David, ed. Agusta A 129 Mangusta. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Barnes & Noble
Books, 1997. ISBN 0-7607-0592-5.

Riley, David, French Helicopter Operations in Algeria Marine Corps Gazette, February 1958, pp. 21
26.

[28] Light combat copters maiden ight a success

3.6. REFERENCES
Shrader, Charles R. The First Helicopter War: Logistics and Mobility in Algeria, 1954-1962 Westport,
CT: Praeger Publishers (1999)
Spenser, Jay P., Whirlybirds: A History of the
U.S. Helicopter Pioneers, Seattle, WA: University of
Washington Press (1998)

21

Chapter 4

Bell AH-1 SuperCobra


This article is about the twin-engine models of the Bell
Cobra family. For the single-engine models, see Bell
AH-1 Cobra.
For an overview of the whole Huey family of aircraft,
see Bell Huey family.
The Bell AH-1 SuperCobra is a twin-engine attack helicopter based on the United States Army's AH-1 Cobra.
The twin Cobra family includes the AH-1J SeaCobra,
the AH-1T Improved SeaCobra, and the AH-1W SuperCobra. The AH-1W is the backbone of the United
States Marine Corps's attack helicopter eet, but it will
be replaced in service by the Bell AH-1Z Viper upgrade. An AH-1T Sea Cobra prepares to land aboard the amphibious
assault ship Iwo Jima.

4.1 Design and development

with an upgraded transmission and engines from the 309.


Bell designed the AH-1T to be more reliable and easier
to maintain in the eld. The version was given full TOW
missile capability with targeting system and other sensors.
An advanced version, known as the AH-1T+ with more
powerful T700-GE-700 engines and advanced avionics
was proposed to Iran in the late 1970s, but the overthrow
of the Shah of Iran resulted in the sale being canceled.[4]

The AH-1 Cobra was developed in the mid-1960s as an


interim gunship for the U.S. Army for use during the
Vietnam War. The Cobra shared the proven transmission, rotor system, and the T53 turboshaft engine of the
UH-1 Huey.[2] By June 1967, the rst AH-1G HueyCobras had been delivered. Bell built 1,116 AH-1Gs for
the U.S. Army between 1967 and 1973, and the Cobras In the early 1980s, the U.S. Marine Corps sought a new
chalked up over a million operational hours in Vietnam.[2]
navalized helicopter, but it was denied funding to buy
The U.S. Marine Corps was very interested in the AH-1G the AH-64 Apache by Congress in 1981. The Marines
Cobra, but it preferred a twin-engine version for improved in turn pursued a more powerful version of the AH-1T.
safety in over-water operations, and also wanted a more Other changes included modied re control systems to
potent turret-mounted weapon. At rst, the Department carry and re AIM-9 Sidewinder and AGM-114 Hellre
of Defense had balked at providing the Marines with a missiles. The new version was funded by Congress and
twin-engine version of the Cobra, in the belief that com- received the AH-1W designation.[4] Deliveries of AHmonality with Army AH-1Gs outweighed the advantages 1W SuperCobras totaled 179 new-built helicopters plus
of a dierent engine t. However, the Marines won out 43 upgrades of AH-1Ts.[5]
and awarded Bell a contract for 49 twin-engine AH-1J The AH-1T+ demonstrator and AH-1W prototype was
SeaCobras in May 1968. As an interim measure, the U.S. later tested with a new experimental composite four blade
Army passed on 38 AH-1Gs to the Marines in 1969.[3] main rotor system. The new system oered better perforThe AH-1J also received a more powerful gun turret. It mance, reduced noise and improved battle damage tolerfeatured a three barrel 20 mm XM197 cannon that was ance. Lacking a USMC contract, Bell developed this new
based on the six barrel M61 Vulcan cannon.[4]
design into the AH-1Z with its own funds. By 1996, the
The Marine Corps requested greater load carrying capability in high temperatures for the Cobra in the 1970s.
Bell used systems from its Model 309 to develop the AH1T. This version had a lengthened tailboom and fuselage

Marines were again not allowed to order the AH-64.[4]


Developing a marine version of the Apache would have
been expensive and it was likely that the Marine Corps
would be its only customer.[2] They instead signed a con-

22

4.2. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


tract for upgrading 180 AH-1Ws into AH-1Zs.[4]
The AH-1Z Viper features several design changes. The
AH-1Zs two redesigned wing stubs are longer with each
adding a wing-tip station for a missile such as the AIM-9
Sidewinder. Each wing has two other stations for 70 mm
(2.75 in) Hydra rocket pods, or AGM-114 Hellre quad
missile launcher. The Longbow radar can be mounted on
a wing tip station.[2]

23
losses. However, three AH-1s were lost to accidents during and after the combat operations. The AH-1W units
were credited with destroying 97 tanks, 104 armored personnel carriers and vehicles, and two anti-aircraft artillery
sites during the 100-hour ground campaign.[4]

4.2 Operational history


4.2.1

United States

U.S. Marine AH-1W SuperCobras refuel in April 2003, during


the invasion of Iraq.

A Super cobra ies past the USS Fort McHenry during a Search
and Seizure (VBSS) drill

During the closing months of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War, the Marine Corps embarked the AH-1J SeaCobra assigned to HMA-369
(now HMLA-369) aboard Denver, Cleveland, and later
Dubuque, for sea-based interdiction of the Ho Chi
Minh Trail in North Vietnam in the vicinity of Hon La
(Tiger) Island. These were termed Marine Hunter-Killer
(MARHUK) Operations and lasted from June to December 1972.[6]
Marine Cobras took part in the invasion of Grenada, during Operation Urgent Fury in 1983, ying close-support
and helicopter escort missions. Two Marine AH-1Ts
were shot down and three crew members killed.[4] The
Marines also deployed the AH-1 o the coast of Beirut,
Lebanon in 1983, during that nations civil war. The AH1s were armed with Sidewinder missiles and guns as an
emergency air defense measure against the threat of light
civil aircraft employed by suicide bombers.[7]

Marine Cobras provided support for the US humanitarian


intervention in Somalia, during Operation Restore Hope
in 1992-1993. They were also employed during the U.S.
invasion of Haiti in 1994. USMC Cobras were used in
U.S. military interventions in the former Yugoslavia in
the 1990s, and assisted in the rescue of USAF Captain
Scott O'Grady, after his F-16 was shot down by a SAM
in June 1995.
AH-1 Cobras continue to operate with the U.S. Marine Corps. USMC Cobras were also used in operations
throughout the 1990s.[4] USMC Cobras have also served
in Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and in
Operation Iraqi Freedom in the conict in Iraq. While
new replacement aircraft were considered as an alternative to major upgrades of the AH-1 eet, Marine Corps
studies showed that an upgrade was the most aordable,
most supportable and most eective solution for the Marine Corps light attack helicopter mission.[9]
During the March 2003 Iraq campaign, 46 of 58 USMC
Cobras took battle damage, mostly from infantry-type
weapons.[10]

On 19 September 2011, an AH-1W crashed during training exercises at Camp Pendleton, California, killing the
two Marine crewmembers on board.[11] An investigation into the crash determined that it was caused by bird
strike.[12] The aircraft collided with a Red-tailed Hawk,
the impact damaging the pitch change link which in turn
USMC Cobras provided escort in the Persian Gulf in the produced vibrations to the rotors so erce that they caused
and rotors to break o from the helilate 1980s while the IranIraq War was ongoing. The Co- the transmission
[12]
copter
body.
bras sank three Iranian patrol boats while losing one AH1T to Iranian anti-aircraft re.[4] USMC Cobras from
Saipan ew top cover during an evacuation of Amer4.2.2 Iran
ican and other foreign nationals from Liberia in 1990.[4]
During the Gulf War, 78 Marine SuperCobras deployed, In 1971, Iran purchased 202 of an improved AH-1J,
and ew a total of 1,273 sorties in Iraq[8] with no combat named AH-1J International, from the United States.[13]

24

CHAPTER 4. BELL AH-1 SUPERCOBRA


public of Iran Army and have undergone indigenous upgrade programs.

4.2.3 Taiwan

Iranian AH-1Js during the 1970s

In 1984, the Republic of China (Taiwan) announced


a requirement for attack helicopters and evaluated the
MBB Bo 105 and MD 500 helicopters. The requirement formed into an order for 42 AH-1W SuperCobras
by 1992. Deliveries of these went from 1993-1997. Another 21 AH-1Ws was ordered in 1997. The Ministry
of National Defense assigned the helicopters to the ROC
Army Aviation Training Centre and two Army Aviation
attack helicopter brigades.[21]

This improved Cobra featured an uprated P&WC T400WV-402 engine and stronger drivetrain. Recoil damping
gear was tted to the 20 mm gun turret, and the gunner
was given a stabilized sight and even a stabilized chair. 4.2.4 Turkey
Of the AH-1Js delivered to the Shahs Imperial Iranian
Army, 62 were TOW-capable.[14]
Turkey bought ten AH-1W SuperCobras in the early
1990s, and supplemented with 32 ex-US Army AH1 Cobras.[21] The AH-1s have been used against the
Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) rebels.[22] In late 2011,
Turkey requested the purchase of three AH-1Ws from
the USMC inventory.[23][24]

4.3 Variants
4.3.1 Single-engine

An AH-1J of the Islamic Republic of Iran Army in ight

For AH-1G, AH-1Q through AH-1S/P/E/F


and other single-engine variants, see Bell AH-1
Cobra.

Iranian AH-1Js participated in the IranIraq War. The


helicopters engaged in air-to-air combat with Iraqi Mil 4.3.2 Twin-engine
Mi-24s on several, separate occasions during the war.
The results of these engagements are disputed. One document cited that Iranian AH-1Js took on Iraqi Mi-8 and
Mi-24 helicopters.[15] Sources report that the Iranian AH1 pilots achieved a 10:1 kill ratio over the Iraqi helicopter
pilots during these engagements (1:5). Additionally, Iranian AH-1 and Iraqi xed-wing aircraft engagements also
occurred. One source states that 10 Iranian AH-1Js were
lost in combat, compared to six Iraqi Mi-24s during the
eight-year war. The skirmishes are described as fairly
evenly matched in another source.[16] Iranian AH-1Js destroyed hundreds of Iraqi armored vehicles and other
targets in the war.[17] AGM-65 Maverick missiles were
used in some operations.[18][19] Ali Akbar Shiroodi and
Ahmad Keshvari were two distinguished SeaCobra pilots AH-1W on a training mission at the Mojave Spaceport
during Iran-Iraq War and are considered wartime heroes
in Iran.
In 1988, two Soviet MiG-23s shot down a pair of Iranian AH-1J SeaCobra Original twin engine version.
AH-1Js[20] that had strayed into western Afghan airspace. AH-1J International Export version of the AH-1J SeaIranian AH-1Js are in service today with the Islamic ReCobra.

4.5. AIRCRAFT ON DISPLAY

25

AH-1T Improved SeaCobra Improved version with For operators of AH-1G, AH-1Q through AH-1S/P/E/F
extended tailboom and fuselage and an upgraded and other single-engine variants, see Bell AH-1 Cobra.
transmission and engines.
AH-1W SuperCobra (Whiskey Cobra), day/night
version with more powerful engines and advanced
weapons capability.
AH-1(4B)W Viper Four-Bladed Whiskey test version
with a 4-bladed bearingless composite main rotor
based on Bell 680 rotor. A prototype was converted
from AH-1T 161022.[25]
AH-1Z Viper A new variant nicknamed Zulu Cobra,
and developed in conjunction with the UH-1Y
Venom for the H-1 upgrade program. The variant
includes an upgraded 4-blade main rotor and adds
the Night Targeting System (NTS).
Model 309 King Cobra Experimental all-weather version based on the AH-1G single-engine and AH1J twin-engine designs.[26] Two Bell 309s were produced; the rst was powered by a PW&C T400-CP400 Twin-Pac engine set and the second was powered by a Lycoming T-55-L-7C engine.[27]
CobraVenom Proposed
Kingdom.[2]

version

for

the

United

AH-1RO Dracula Proposed version for Romania.[28]


AH-1Z King Cobra AH-1Z oered for Turkeys
ATAK program; selected for production in 2000,
but later canceled when Bell and Turkey could not
reach an agreement on production.[29]
Panha 2091 Unlicensed Iranian upgrade of the AH-1J
International.
IAIO Toufan (Iran Aviation Industries Organization),
Iranian copy / re-manufactured AH-1, with locally
sourced avionics, and weapons.

4.4 Operators

Iran
Imperial Iranian Army (former operator)[30]
Islamic Republic of Iran Army[31]
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Republic of China Army[31]
Turkey
Turkish Army[31]
United States
United States Marine Corps[31]
HMLA-167[32]
HMLA-169[33]
HMLA-269[34]
HMLA-367[35]
HMLA-369[36]
HMLA-467[37]
HMLA-469[38]
HMLA-773[39]
HMLAT-303[40]

4.5 Aircraft on display


An AH-1J Sea Cobra is on display at the Prairie Aviation Museum, Bloomington, Illinois.[41]

4.6 Specications
4.6.1 AH-1J SeaCobra
Data from Verier,[42] Modern Fighting Aircraft,[43]
General characteristics
Crew: 2: pilot, co-pilot/gunner (CPG)
An AH-1W Super Cobra with the Taiwanese Army

Length: 53 ft 5 in (16.3 m) (with both rotors turning)

26

CHAPTER 4. BELL AH-1 SUPERCOBRA

Rotor diameter: 43 ft 11 in (13.4 m)


Height: 13 ft 5 in (4.1 m)
Empty weight: 6,610 lb (2,998 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 10,000 lb (4,540 kg)
Powerplant: 1 Pratt & Whitney Canada T400CP-400 (PT6T-3 Twin-Pac) turboshaft, 1,800 shp
(1,342 kW)
Total engine output: 1,530 shp (1,125 kW) limited by helicopter drivetrain[4]
Rotor systems: 2 blades on main rotor, 2 blades on
tail rotor
Fuselage length: 45 ft 9 in (13.5 m)
Stub wing span: 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m)
Performance

Head-on view of a USMC AH-1W carrying full armament

Never exceed speed: 190 knots (219 mph, 352


km/h)

4.6.2 AH-1W SuperCobra

Maximum speed: 152 knots (175 mph, 282 km/h)

Data from Verier,[42] Modern Fighting Aircraft,[43] International Directory of Military Aircraft [44]

Range: 311 nmi (358 mi, 576 km)

General characteristics

Service ceiling: 10,500 ft (3,215 m)


Rate of climb: 1,090 ft/min (5.54 m/s)
Armament

Crew: 2: pilot, co-pilot/gunner (CPG)


Length: 58 ft (17.7 m) (with both rotors turning)
Rotor diameter: 48 ft (14.6 m)
Height: 13 ft 9 in (4.19 m)

20 mm (0.787 in) M197 3-barreled Gatling cannon


in the M97 turret (750 rounds ammo capacity)
2.75 in (70 mm) Mk 40, or Hydra 70 rockets - 14
rockets mounted in a variety of launchers

Disc area: 1809 ft (168.1 m)


Empty weight: 10,200 lb (4,630 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 14,750 lb (6,690 kg)

5 in (127 mm) Zuni rockets - 8 rockets in two 4round LAU-10D/A launchers

Powerplant: 2 General Electric T700-401


turboshaft, 1,690 shp (1,300 kW) each

AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles - 1


mounted on each hardpoint

Rotor systems: 2 blades on main rotor, 2 blades on


tail rotor

4.8. REFERENCES

27

Fuselage length: 45 ft 7 in (13.9 m)

Eurocopter Tiger

Stub wing span: 10 ft 9 in (3.28 m)

TAI T-129

Performance
Maximum speed: 190 knots (218 mph, 352 km/h)
Range: 317 nmi (365 mi, 587 km)
Service ceiling: 12,200 ft (3,720 m)
Rate of climb: 1,620 ft/min (8.2 m/s)
Armament

CAIC WZ-10
HAL Light Combat Helicopter
Harbin WZ-19
Related lists
List of attack aircraft
List of helicopters
List of active military aircraft of the United States

20 mm (0.787 in) M197 3-barreled Gatling cannon


in the A/A49E-7 turret (750 rounds ammo capacity)

4.8 References

2.75 in (70 mm) Hydra 70 or APKWS II[45] rockets


- Mounted in LAU-68C/A (7 shot) or LAU-61D/A Notes
(19 shot) launchers
5 in (127 mm) Zuni rockets - 8 rockets in two 4round LAU-10D/A launchers

[1] AH-1W Cobra, USMC HQ, retrieved 2007-09-11.


[2] Donald 2004.

TOW missiles - Up to 8 missiles mounted in two


4-round XM65 missile launchers, one on each outboard hardpoint

[3] Marine AH-1J SeaCobra. vectorsite.net,

AGM-114 Hellre missiles - Up to 8 missiles


mounted in two 4-round M272 missile launchers,
one on each outboard hardpoint

[5] Eden, Paul, ed. Bell AH-1 HueyCobra. Encyclopedia of


Modern Military Aircraft. London: Amber Books, 2004.
ISBN 1-904687-84-9.

AIM-9 Sidewinder anti-aircraft missiles - 1


mounted on each outboard hardpoint (total of 2)

[6] Verier 1990, pp. 104111.

4.7 See also

[4] Bishop 2006.

[7] John Pike (1992-04-06). AH-1W Air Combat Maneuver Training - Why It Must Be Reinstated. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
[8] AH-1 Super Cobra, U.S. Navy. Retrieved 2 January 2008.

U.S. Helicopter Armament Subsystems, AH-1


Related development
Bell AH-1 Cobra
Bell AH-1Z Viper
Bell 309
Bell YAH-63
Bell UH-1N Twin Huey
Bell UH-1Y Venom
Panha 2091
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Boeing AH-64 Apache

[9] PMA-276 - USMC Light/Attack Helicopter Upgrade


Program. Headquarters Marine Corps. Retrieved 200711-18.
[10] John Gordon IV et al. Assessment of Navy Heavy-Lift
Aircraft Options p87. RAND Corporation, 2005. Accessed: 18 March 2012. ISBN 0-8330-3791-9 Quote:
46 of 58 USMC Cobras) took battle damage, mostly
from infantry-type weapons, such as machine guns, RPGs,
and small arms re.
[11] Loewy, Tom. Galesburg Marine killed during training
exercise - Peoria, IL. pjstar.com. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
[12] Bird strike caused fatal US Marine helicopter crash in
California: investigators. NYPOST.com. 18 May 2012.
Retrieved 2012-05-25.
[13] John Pike. Iranian Ground Forces Equipment. Globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 2012-05-25.
[14] Pike, John. . globalsecurity.org

28

CHAPTER 4. BELL AH-1 SUPERCOBRA

[15] Major R.M. Brady, AH-1W Air Combat Maneuver


Training Why It Must Be Reinstated, 1992.
[16] Arabian Peninsula & Persian Gulf Database, ACIG
Journal.

[40] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Training Squadron 303


HMLA/T-303 Atlas"". tripod.com. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
[41] Bell AH-1J SeaCobra display. prairieaviationmuseum.org

[17]

[42] Verier 1990, p. 184.

[18]

[43] Richardson 1987, p. Appendix.

[19]

[44] Frawley, Gerard. The International Directory of Military


Aircraft, p. 148. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2002.
ISBN 1-875671-55-2.

[20] Soviet Air-to-Air Victories of the Cold War ACIG Journal, 23 October 2008.

[45] Marine helicopters deploy with laser-guided rocket NAVAIR.Navy.mil, 17 April 2012

[21] Donald 2004, p. 195.


[22] Bishop 2006, p. 42.

Bibliography

[23] U.S. giving Turkey 3 helicopters. UPI


[24] Allport, Dave. Turkey To Acquire Three ex-USMC AH1W Super Cobras. Key Publishing, 31 October 2011.

Bishop, Chris. Huey Cobra Gunships. Osprey Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-84176-984-3.

[25] Bell AH-1(4B)W Viper (United States), Aircraft Rotary-Wing - Military. Janes Information Group, 15
July 1992. Retrieved: 9 August 2011.

Donald, David: Modern Battleeld Warplanes.


AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-765.
Gunston, B.; Spick, M. (1986). Modern Fighting
Helicopters. New York: Crescent Books. pp. 104
05. ISBN 0-517-61349-2.

[26] Verier 1990, p. 57.


[27] Richardson 1987, pp. 89.
[28] IAR (BELL) AH-1RO DRACULA (Romania). Janes
Information Group, 15 June 2000.
[29] Back to square one in attack helicopter plan. Turkish
Daily News, 2 December 2006.
[30] World Air Forces 1977 pg. 52. ightglobal.com. Retrieved 10 August 2014.
[31] World Air Forces 2014 (PDF). Flightglobal Insight.
2014. Retrieved 12 August 2014.
[32] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 167 HML/A167 Warriors"". tripod.com. Retrieved 12 February
2013.

International Air Power Review, Volume 12. AIRtime Publishing. 2004. ISBN 1-880588-77-3.
Nolan, Keith, W. Into Laos, operation Lam Son
719 and Dewey Canyon II. 1986. Presidio Press.
(An account of the US Armys nal oensive of the
Vietnam War, in 1971.)
Richardson, Doug. Modern Fighting Aircraft, Volume 13, AH-1 Cobra. New York: Prentice Hall,
1987. ISBN 0-13-020751-9.
Verier, Mike. Bell AH-1 Cobra. Osprey Publishing,
1990. ISBN 0-85045-934-6.

[33] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron-169 [HMLA169]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
[34] Marine Light/Attack Helicopter
[HML/A-269]".
globalsecurity.org.
February 2013.

Squadron-269
Retrieved 12

[35] MARINE
LIGHT
ATTACK
HELICOPTER
SQUADRON 367 HMLA-367 Scarface"". tripod.com.
Retrieved 12 February 2013.
[36] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron-369 [HMLA369]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
[37] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 467 HMLA467 Sabers. tripod.com. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

4.9 External links


AH-1 Super Cobra on Navy.mil
AH-1 Cobra page and AH-1W Air Combat Maneuver Training on GlobalSecurity.org
AH-1W/AH-1Z
Technology.com

SuperCobra

on

Army-

AH-1W Super Cobra page on fas.org


AH-1 Cobra page on GlobalAircraft.org

[38] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron 469 HMLA469 Vengeance"". tripod.com. Retrieved 12 February
2013.

AH-1 Cobra brieng room on AirCav.com

[39] Marine Light Attack Helicopter Squadron-773 [HMLA773]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 12 February 2013.

AH-1 Cobra Photo Galleries on MidwaySailor.com

AH-1 HueyCobra page on Rotorhead.org

Chapter 5

Bell AH-1Z Viper


For an overview of the whole Huey family of aircraft, The AH-1Z and UH-1Y share a common tail boom, ensee Bell Huey.
gines, rotor system, drive train, avionics architecture,
software, controls and displays for over 84% identical
components.[7]
[3]
The Bell AH-1Z Viper is a twin-engine attack helicopter based on the AH-1W SuperCobra, that was devel- Bell participated in a joint Bell-Government integrated
oped for the United States Marine Corps. The AH-1Z test team during the engineering manufacturing developfeatures a four-blade, bearingless, composite main rotor ment (EMD) phase of the H-1 program. The AH-1Z prosystem, uprated transmission, and a new target sighting gram progressed slowly from 1996 to 2003 largely as a
system.[4] The AH-1Z is part of the H-1 upgrade pro- research and development operation.[5] The existing twogram. It is also called Zulu Cobra in reference to its blade semi-rigid, teetering rotor system is being replaced
with a four-blade, hingeless, bearingless rotor system.
variant letter.
The four-blade conguration provides improvements in
ight characteristics including increased ight envelope,
maximum speed, vertical rate-of-climb, payload and re5.1 Development
duced rotor vibration level.[8]

5.1.1

Background

Aspects of the AH-1Z date back to the Bell 249 in


1979, which was basically an AH-1S equipped with the
four-blade main rotor system from the Bell 412. This
helicopter demonstrated Bells Cobra II design at the
Farnborough Airshow in 1980. The Cobra II was to be
equipped with Hellre missiles, a new targeting system
and improved engines. Later came the Cobra 2000 proposal which included General Electric T700 engines and
a four-blade rotor. This design drew interest from the US
Marine Corps, but funding was not available. In 1993,
Bell proposed an AH-1W-based version for the UKs new
attack helicopter program. The derivative design, named
CobraVenom, featured a modern digital cockpit and could
carry TOWs, Hellre or Brimstone missiles. The CobraVenom design was altered in 1995 by changing to a
four-blade rotor system. The design lost to the AH-64D
later that year however.[5]

5.1.2

H-1 upgrade program

The AH-1Z rst ew on 8 December 2000.[9] Bell delivered three prototype aircraft to the United States Navy's
Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) at Naval Air
Station Patuxent River in July 2002, for the ight test
phase of the program. Low-rate initial production began in October 2003,[5] with deliveries to run through
2018.[10] In late 2006 NAVAIR awarded a contract to
Meggitt Defense Systems to develop a new linkless 20
mm ammunition handling system to improve on the
gun feed reliability of the existing linked feed system.
These systems are now being retrotted into the AH1W and AH-1Z eets with good results during combat
in Afghanistan.
In February 2008, the U.S. Navy adjusted the contract
so the last 40 AH-1Zs are built as new airframes instead of the previously planned rebuild of AH-1Ws.[11]
In September 2008, the Navy requested an additional
46 airframes for the Marine Corps, bringing the total
number ordered to 226.[12] In 2010, the Marine Corps
planned to order 189 AH-1Zs with 58 of them being new
airframes,[13] with deliveries to continue until 2019.[14]
On 10 December 2010, the Department of the Navy approved the AH-1Z for full-rate production.[15][16]

In 1996, the USMC launched the H-1 upgrade program


by signing a contract with Bell Helicopter for upgrading
180 AH-1Ws into AH-1Zs and upgrading 100 UH-1Ns
into UH-1Ys.[5][6] The H-1 program created completely
modernized attack and utility helicopters with considerable design commonality to reduce operating costs.
29

30

CHAPTER 5. BELL AH-1Z VIPER


navigation suite includes an embedded GPS inertial navigation system (EGI), a digital map system and Meggitts
low-airspeed air data subsystem, which allows weapons
delivery when hovering.[8]

An AH-1Z at an air show displaying four-blade rotors and longer


stub wings.

The crew are equipped with the Thales Top Owl


helmet-mounted sight and display system.[4] The Top Owl
has a 24-hour day/night capability and a binocular display with a 40 eld of view. Its visor projection provides forward looking infrared (FLIR) or video imagery.
The AH-1Z has survivability equipment including the
Hover Infrared Suppression System (HIRSS) to cover engine exhausts, countermeasure dispensers, radar warning,
incoming/on-way missile warning, and on-fuselage laser
spot warning systems.[7]

The Lockheed Martin target sight system (TSS) incorporates a third-generation FLIR sensor. The TSS provides
5.2 Design
target sighting in day, night, or adverse weather conditions. The system has various view modes and can track
The AH-1Z incorporates new rotor technology with up- with FLIR or by TV.[7] The same system is also used on
graded military avionics, weapons systems, and electro- the UH-1Y Venom and the KC-130J Harvest HAWK.[18]
optical sensors in an integrated weapons platform. It
has improved survivability and can nd targets at longer
ranges and attack them with precision weapons.[7]
The AH-1Zs new bearingless, hingeless rotor system has
75% fewer parts than that of four-bladed articulated systems. The blades are made of composites, which have
an increased ballistic survivability, and there is a semiautomatic folding system for storage aboard amphibious
assault ships.[7] Its two redesigned wing stubs are longer,
with each adding a wing-tip station for a missile such as
the AIM-9 Sidewinder. Each wing has two other stations
for 2.75-inch (70 mm) Hydra 70 rocket pods, or AGM114 Hellre quad missile launchers. The AN/APG-78
Longbow re control radar can also be mounted on a wing
tip station.[5][17]

5.3 Operational history

A U.S. Marine AH-1Z lands on the USS Makin Island (LHD-8)


in 2010.

The AH-1Z completed sea-trial ight testing in May


2005.[19] On 15 October 2005, the USMC, through the
Naval Air Systems Command, accepted delivery of the
rst AH-1Z production helicopter to enter the eet.[20]
The AH-1Z and UH-1Y completed their developmental
AH-1Z pilots wear helmet mounted displays.
testing in early 2006.[21] During the rst quarter of 2006
The Z-models integrated avionics system (IAS) has been the aircraft were transferred to the Operational Test Unit
they began operational
developed by Northrop Grumman. The system includes at the NAS Patuxent River, where
[22]
evaluation
(OPEVAL)
testing.
two mission computers and an automatic ight control
system. Each crew station has two 86-inch multi- In February 2008, the AH-1Z and UH-1Y began the secfunction liquid crystal displays (LCD) and one 4.24.2- ond and nal portion of OPEVAL testing.[23] AH-1Z testinch dual function LCD display. The communications ing was stopped in 2008 due to issues with its targeting
suite combines a US Navy RT-1824 integrated radio, systems.[12] The AH-1Z was later declared combat-ready
UHF/VHF, COMSEC and modem in a single unit. The in September 2010.[24]

5.5. SPECIFICATIONS (AH-1Z)

5.3.1

31

Foreign interest

On 21 September 2012, the U.S. Congress was notied


of the possible Foreign Military Sales (FMS) for 36 AH1Z Vipers by South Korea. The request included 84 engines, 288 AGM-114K3 Hellre missiles, 72 AIM-9M8 Sidewinder missiles, integrated missiles launchers, targeting systems, and radar jammers. The order would
be worth a maximum of $2.6 billion.[25] The Viper was
competing against the Boeing AH-64 Apache and the
TAI/AgustaWestland T-129 for the order; a decision was
expected by the end of 2012.[26] In April 2013, South Korea announced they had selected the AH-64E Apache.[27]
In April 2015, the U.S. State Department approved a possible FMS sale to Pakistan for 15 AH-1Z Vipers with
Hellre missiles, associated equipment and support worth
up to $952 million.[28][29]

5.4 Operators
United States

United States Marine Corps[30]

5.5 Specications (AH-1Z)

Front view of AH-1Z at the MCAS Miramar Air Show

Empty weight: 12,300 lb (5,580 kg)


Useful load: 5,764 lb (2,620 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 18,500 lb (8,390 kg)
Powerplant: 2 General Electric T700-GE-401C
turboshaft, 1,800 shp (1,340 kW) each
Rotor systems: 4 blades on main rotor, 4 blades on
tail rotor
Performance
Never exceed speed: 222 knots (255 mph, 411
km/h) in a dive

Data from Bell Specications,[7] The International Directory of Military Aircraft, 20022003,[31] Modern Battleeld Warplanes[5]
General characteristics
Crew: 2: pilot, co-pilot/gunner (CPG)
Capacity: 6,661 lb (3,021 kg)
Length: 58 ft 3 in (17.8 m)

Cruise speed: 160 kn (184 mph, 296 km/h)


Range: 370 nmi (426 mi, 685 km)
Combat radius: 125 nmi (144 mi, 231 km) with
2,500 lb (1,130 kg) payload
Service ceiling: 20,000+ ft (6,000+ m)
Rate of climb: 2,790 ft/min (14.2 m/s)
Armament

Rotor diameter: 48 ft (14.6 m)


Height: 14 ft 4 in (4.37 m)
Disc area: 1,808 ft (168.0 m)

Guns: 1 20 mm (0.787 in) M197 3-barreled


Gatling cannon in the A/A49E-7 turret (750 round
ammo capacity)

32

CHAPTER 5. BELL AH-1Z VIPER

Hardpoints: Up to 6 pylon stations on stub wing


Rockets: 2.75 in (70 mm) Hydra 70 or APKWS
II[32] rockets Mounted in LAU-68C/A (7 shot) or
LAU-61D/A (19 shot) launchers
Missiles:
AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles 1
mounted on each wing tip station (total of 2)
AGM-114 Hellre air-to-surface missiles
Up to 16 missiles mounted in four 4-round
M272 missile launchers, two on each wing

5.6 See also


U.S. Helicopter Armament Subsystems, AH-1
Related development
Bell AH-1 SuperCobra
Bell YAH-63
Bell UH-1Y Venom

[3] 4120-15L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace


Vehicles (PDF). USA: DoD. 12 May 2004.
[4] Bell AH-1Z page. Bell Helicopter. Retrieved 3 January
2008.
[5] Donald, David. Modern Battleeld Warplanes. AIRTime
Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-76-5.
[6] Bishop, Chris. Huey Cobra Gunships. Osprey Publishing,
2006. ISBN 1-84176-984-3.
[7] . Bell Helicopter, Retrieved: 16 July 2012.
[8] AH-1W/AH-1Z Super Cobra Attack Helicopter, USA.
Airforce-Technology.com. Retrieved: 14 January 2008.
[9] AH-1Z completes rst ight. Bell Helicopter, 7 December 2000.
[10] AH-1Z/UH-1Y complete developmental testing. US
Navy, 6 March 2006.
[11] Warwick, Graham. Bell AH-1Z upgrade to switch to new
airframes. Flightglobal.com, 15 February 2008.
[12] Trimble, Stephen. US Navy proposes more UH-1Ys,
AH-1Zs despite test phase setback. Flight International,
22 August 2008.
[13] Butler, Amy. U.S. Marines Propose AH-1Z Production
Boost Aviation Week, 13 October 2010. Retrieved: 13
October 2010.

Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era

[14] Bell Helicopter AH-1Z Earns Navy Recommendation for


full Fleet Introduction. Bell Helicopter, 4 October 2010.

A129 International/TAI/AgustaWestland T-129

[15] Bell Helicopter AH-1Z earns Navy approval for full rate
production. Shephard Group Limited. 10 December
2010. Retrieved 11 December 2010.

Boeing AH-64 Apache


CAIC WZ-10
Eurocopter Tiger
Harbin WZ-19
Mil Mi-28
HAL Light Combat Helicopter
Related lists
List of attack aircraft
List of helicopters
List of active military aircraft of the United States

[16] Snakes and Rotors: The USMCs H-1 Helicopter Program. Defense Industry Daily. 30 December 2010.
Archived from the original on 14 February 2011. Retrieved 2 January 2011.
[17] AN/APG Equipment Listing. designation-systems.net
[18] Cpl. Samantha H. Arrington. From Hueys to Harvest
Hawk: Ordnance Marine arms aircraft in Afghanistan.
DVIDS. 19 May 2011.
[19] AH-1Z/UH-1Y complete rst sea trials, US Navy, 13
June 2005.
[20] Bell 449 SuperCobra and KingCobra. Janes Information Group, 7 December 2005.
[21] Milliman, John. AH-1Z/UH-1Y complete developmental testing. US Navy, 1 March 2006.
[22] AH-1Z/UH-1Y Start OPEVAL. US Navy, 6 May 2006.

5.7 References
[1] AH-1Z Viper enters production as substantially new aircraft (article). Flight global. 2010-12-20.
[2] Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 Budget Estimates, Aircraft Procurement, Vol. I, BA 14 (PDF). USA: Department of
the Navy. February 2010. p. 27.

[23] Warwick, Graham. US Marine Corps Bell AH-1Z


and UH-1Y enter nal test phase. Flightglobal.com, 20
February 2008.
[24] Trimble, Stephen (30 September 2010). USMC declares AH-1Z Viper combat ready. Flight International.
Archived from the original on 2 October 2010. Retrieved
1 October 2010.

5.8. EXTERNAL LINKS

[25] Korea 36 AH-1Z Cobra Attack Helicopters. Pacicsentinel.com, 26 September 2012.


[26] Korea helicopter bids. Flightglobal.com, 26 September
2012.
[27] Song, Sang-ho (17 April 2013). Seoul to Purchase 36
Apache Helicopters. Korea Herald.
[28] http://www.defensenews.com/story/
defense/air-space/strike/2015/04/07/
pakistan-ah-1z-deal-dsca-hellfire-taliban-tribal-area-waziristan/
25409157/
[29] US okays attack helicopters, hellre missiles for Pakistan
under $1 billion sale. Daily Times. 2015. Retrieved 7
April 2015.
[30] World Air Forces 2013 (PDF). Flightglobal Insight.
2013. Retrieved 12 February 2013.
[31] Frawley, Gerard: The International Directory of Military
Aircraft, p. 37. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2002.
ISBN 1-875671-55-2.
[32] BAEs APKWS rockets integrated on Bells new Model
407GT - Flightglobal.com, March 5, 2013

5.8 External links


AH-1Z page on Bell Helicopter Textron web site
AH-1Z Viper page on US Navy RDA site
AH-1Z page on GlobalSecurity.org
Bell AH-1Z Super Cobra Bell 449 on helis.com
First Production H-1 Helicopters Rollout, Bell
Helicopter, 27 September 2006
" AH-1Z Super Cobra Completes Envelope Expansion Testing, U.S. Navy, 9 January 2003.

33

Chapter 6

Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey


V-22 redirects here. For other uses, see V22 (disambiguation).
The Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey is an American multimission, tiltrotor military aircraft with both a vertical
takeo and landing (VTOL), and short takeo and landing (STOL) capability. It is designed to combine the
functionality of a conventional helicopter with the longrange, high-speed cruise performance of a turboprop aircraft.
The V-22 originated from the United States Department
of Defense Joint-service Vertical take-o/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft program started in 1981. The
team of Bell Helicopter and Boeing Helicopters was
awarded a development contract in 1983 for the tiltrotor aircraft. The Bell Boeing team jointly produce the
aircraft.[5] The V-22 rst ew in 1989, and began ight
testing and design alterations; the complexity and diculties of being the rst tiltrotor intended for military service
in the world led to many years of development.
The United States Marine Corps began crew training for
the Osprey in 2000, and elded it in 2007; it supplemented and then replaced their Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea
Early concept illustrations of V-22
Knights. The Ospreys other operator, the U.S. Air Force,
elded their version of the tiltrotor in 2009. Since entering service with the U.S. Marine Corps and Air Force, the
Osprey has been deployed in transportation and medivac perform an amphibious landing, and they were particularly interested in the JVX program. They realized that
operations over Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Kuwait.
a concentrated strike force was vulnerable to a single
nuclear weapon, airborne solutions with good speed and
range allowed for signicant dispersal;[10] and their CH6.1 Development
46s were wearing out;[11] without replacement, the threat
of a merger between the Marine Corps and the Army
lingered,[12][13] similar to President Truman's proposal
6.1.1 Origins
following World War II.[14] The OSD and Navy adminisThe failure of the Iran hostage rescue mission in 1980 tration were against the tiltrotor project, but congressional
demonstrated to the United States military a need[6][7] pressure eventually proved persuasive.[15]
for a new type of aircraft, that could not only take o The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps were given the lead in
and land vertically but also could carry combat troops, 1983.[9][16][17] The JVX combined requirements from the
and do so at speed.[8] The U.S. Department of Defense U.S. Marine Corps, Air Force, Army and Navy.[18][19]
began the Joint-service Vertical take-o/landing Experi- A request for proposals (RFP) was issued in Decemmental (JVX) aircraft program in 1981, under U.S. Army ber 1982 for preliminary design work. Interest was exleadership.[9]
pressed by Arospatiale, Bell Helicopter, Boeing Vertol,
The dening mission of the Marine Corps has been to Grumman, Lockheed, and Westland. Contractors were
34

6.1. DEVELOPMENT

35

encouraged to form teams. Bell partnered with Boeing


Vertol to submit a proposal for an enlarged version of the
Bell XV-15 prototype on 17 February 1983. Being the
only proposal received, a preliminary design contract was
awarded on 26 April 1983.[20][21]
The JVX aircraft was designated V-22 Osprey on 15
January 1985; by that March, the rst six prototypes
were being produced, and Boeing Vertol was expanded
to deal with the project workload.[22][23] Work has been
split evenly between Bell and Boeing. Bell Helicopter
manufactures and integrates the wing, nacelles, rotors,
drive system, tail surfaces, and aft ramp, as well as integrates the Rolls-Royce engines and performs nal assembly. Boeing Helicopters manufactures and integrates the
fuselage, cockpit, avionics, and ight controls.[5][24] The
USMC variant of the Osprey received the MV-22 designation and the U.S. Air Force variant received CV-22;
this was reversed from normal procedure to prevent Marine Corps Ospreys from having a conicting designation
with aircraft carriers (CV).[25] Full-scale development of
the V-22 tilt-rotor aircraft began in 1986.[26] On 3 May
1986, the Bell Boeing partnership was awarded a $1.714
billion contract for V-22 aircraft by the U.S. Navy. At
this point, all four U.S. military services had acquisition
plans for V-22 versions.[27]
The rst V-22 was rolled out with signicant media attention in May 1988.[28][29] The project suered several blows. That year, the U.S. Army left the program,
citing a need to focus its budget on more immediate
aviation programs.[9] In 1989, the project survived two
separate votes in the Senate that could have resulted in
cancellation.[30][31] Despite the Senates decision, the Department of Defense instructed the U.S. Navy not to
spend more money on the V-22.[32] When the V-22s
projected development budget greatly increased in 1988,
Defense Secretary Dick Cheney tried to remove funding
from 1989 to 1992 in an eort to cancel it. He was eventually overruled by Congress,[16][33] which provided unrequested funding for the program.[34] Multiple studies
of alternatives found the V-22 provided more capability
and combat eectiveness with similar operating costs.[35]
The Clinton Administration was supportive of the V-22
and helped it attain funding.[16]

6.1.2

Flight testing and design changes

The rst of six MV-22 prototypes rst ew on 19 March


1989 in the helicopter mode,[36] and on 14 September
1989 in xed-wing mode.[37] The third and fourth prototypes successfully completed the Ospreys rst sea trials on USS Wasp in December 1990.[38] The fourth and
fth prototypes crashed in 199192.[39] From October
1992 April 1993, Bell and Boeing redesigned the V22 to reduce empty weight, simplify manufacture, and
reduce production costs. This redesigned version became the V-22B model.[40] V-22 ights resumed in June
1993 after safety improvements were incorporated in the

U.S. Marines jump from an Osprey.

prototypes.[41] Bell Boeing was awarded a contract for the


engineering manufacturing development (EMD) phase in
June 1994.[40] The prototypes also received changes to
better match the B-model conguration. Flight testing
at the stage focused on expanding the ight envelope,
measuring ight loads, and supporting the EMD redesign.
This and further ight testing with the early V-22s continued into 1997.[42]
Flight testing of four full-scale development V-22s began in early 1997 when the rst pre-production V-22 was
delivered to the Naval Air Warfare Test Center, Naval
Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland. The rst EMD
ight took place on 5 February 1997. Testing fell behind schedule.[43] The rst of four low rate initial production aircraft, ordered on 28 April 1997, was delivered on 27 May 1999. Osprey number 10 completed the
programs second sea trials, this time from USS Saipan
in January 1999.[26] During external load testing in April
1999, Boeing used a V-22 to lift and transport the lightweight M777 howitzer.[44][45]
In 2000, there were two further fatal crashes, killing a
total of 19 marines, and the aircraft was again grounded
while the cause of these crashes was investigated and various parts were redesigned.[33] As of 2012, changes have
been made to the V-22s hardware, software, and procedures in response to hydraulic res in the nacelles, vortex
ring state control issues, and opposed landings.[46]
The V-22 completed its nal operational evaluation in
June 2005. The evaluation had included long range
deployments, high altitude, desert and shipboard operations, and was deemed successful. The problems
identied in various accidents had reportedly been
addressed.[47]
U.S. Naval Air Systems Command worked on software
upgrades to increase the maximum speed from 250 knots
(460 km/h; 290 mph) to 270 knots (500 km/h; 310 mph),
increase helicopter mode altitude limit from 10,000 feet
(3,000 m) to 12,000 feet (3,700 m) or 14,000 feet (4,300
m), and increase lift performance.[48] Implementation of

36

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

these upgrades began in September 2011[49] and proved eld of aircraft.[56] In 2011, it was reported by the conlargely eective.[50]
troversial defense industry supported Lexington Institute[57][58][59] that the average V-22 mishap rate per ight
hour over the past 10 years was approximately half of the
6.1.3 Controversy
average accident rate for the USMC eet; the V-22s accident rate was the lowest of any Marine rotorcraft.[60] In
The V-22s development process has been long and con- 2011 Wired Magazine reported that the safety record was
troversial, partly due to its large cost increases.[51] The achieved by excluding ground incidents;[61] the USMC
development budget was rst planned for $2.5 billion responded that MV-22 reporting were to the same stanin 1986, which increased to a projected $30 billion in dards as other aircraft in the Department of the Navy.[62]
1988.[33] By 2008, $27 billion had been spent on the
By 2012, the USMC reported eetwide readiness rate
program and another $27.2 billion was required to comhad risen to 68 percent;[63] however, the DODs Inspector
plete planned production numbers.[26] Between 2008 and
General later found 167 of 200 reports had improperly
2011, the estimated lifetime cost for maintaining the Vrecorded information.[64] Captain Richard Ulsh blamed
22 grew by 61 percent, mostly allocated to maintenance
these errors on incompetence and said that they were not
and support.[52]
malicious or deliberate.[65] The required mission capable rate was 82%, but the average was 53% from June
Its [The V-22s] production costs are
2007 to May 2010.[66] In 2010, Naval Air Systems Comconsiderably greater than for helicopters with
mand aimed for an 85% reliability rate by 2018.[67] From
equivalent capabilityspecically, about
2009 to 2014, readiness rates rose 25 percent to the high
twice as great as for the CH-53E, which has a
80s, while cost per ight hour had dropped 20 percent
greater payload and an ability to carry heavy
to $9,520 through a rigorous maintenance improvement
equipment the V-22 cannot... an Osprey unit
program that focused on diagnosing problems before failwould cost around $60 million to produce, and
ures occur.[68] As of 2015, although the Osprey requires
$35 million for the helicopter equivalent.
higher maintenance and has lower availability (62%) than
Michael E. O'Hanlon, 2002.[53]
traditional helicopters, it also has a lower incidence rate.
The average cost per ight hour is US$9,156.[69]
While technically capable of autorotation if both engines
fail in helicopter mode, performance is poor and a safe
landing is dicult.[70] In 2005, a director of the Pentagons testing oce stated that in a loss of power while
hovering below 1,600 feet (490 m), emergency landings
"...are not likely to be survivable. V-22 pilot Captain
Justin Moon McKinney stated that: We can turn it into
a plane and glide it down, just like a C-130.[55] A complete loss of power requires the failure of both engines,
as one engine can power both proprotors via interconnected drive shafts.[71] Though vortex ring state (VRS)
contributed to a deadly V-22 accident, ight testing found
the aircraft to be less susceptible to the condition than
conventional helicopters.[6] A GAO report stated that
the V-22 is less forgiving than conventional helicopters
[72]
Several test ights to explore
A V-22 in a compact storage conguration during the navys during this phenomenon.
the V-22s VRS characteristics in detail were canceled.[73]
evaluation, May 2002
The USMC trains pilots in the recognition of and reIn 2001, Lieutenant Colonel Odin Lieberman, comman- covery from VRS, and has instituted operational enveand instrumentation to help pilots avoid VRS
der of the V-22 squadron at Marine Corps Air Station lope limits [33][74]
conditions.
New River, was relieved of duty after allegations that he
instructed his unit to falsify maintenance records to make As of 2015, opinions dier on the combat survivability
the aircraft appear more reliable.[26][54] A total of three and resilience to bullet impacts.[69]
USMC ocers were later implicated as having played a
role in the falsication scandal.[51]
In October 2007, Time Magazine ran an article condemning the V-22 as unsafe, overpriced, and completely
inadequate;[55] the Marine Corps responded by arguing
that parts of the articles data were dated, obsolete, inaccurate, and reected expectations too high for any new

6.1.4 Production
On 28 September 2005, the Pentagon formally approved
full-rate production for the V-22,[75] from 11 a year to between 24 and 48 a year by 2012. Of the 458 total planned,

6.2. DESIGN

37

A CV-22 o the coast of Greenland receiving fuel from a MC130H

360 are for the U.S. Marine Corps, 48 for the Navy, and
50 for the Air Force at an average cost of $110 million per
aircraft, including development costs.[26] The V-22 had
an incremental yaway cost of $67 million per aircraft in
2008,[76] The U.S. Navy had hoped to shave about $10
million o that cost after a ve-year production contract
in 2013.[77] The cost for each CV-22 was $73 million in
the FY 2014 budget.[78]
On 15 April 2010, the Naval Air Systems Command
awarded Bell Boeing a $42.1 million contract to design
an integrated processor in response to avionics obsolescence and add new network capabilities.[79] By 2014,
Raytheon will provide an avionics upgrade that includes
Situational awareness and Blue Force Tracking.[80] In late
2009, a contract for Block C upgrades upon the V-22 was
awarded to Bell Boeing.[81] In February 2012, the Marine
Corps received the rst Block C Ospreys; these aircraft
feature a new radar, along with additional mission management and electronic warfare equipment.[82]

Closeup of rotor and engine of a MV-22B

6.2.1 Overview
The Osprey is the worlds rst production tiltrotor aircraft, with one three-bladed proprotor, turboprop engine,
and transmission nacelle mounted on each wingtip. It is
classied as a powered lift aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.[90] For takeo and landing, it typically operates as a helicopter with the nacelles vertical
and rotors horizontal. Once airborne, the nacelles rotate forward 90 in as little as 12 seconds for horizontal
ight, converting the V-22 to a more fuel-ecient, higher
speed turboprop aircraft. STOL rolling-takeo and landing capability is achieved by having the nacelles tilted
forward up to 45.[91][92] Other orientations are possible,
such as the 80 Jump takeo which uses nacelles at 80
to quickly achieve high altitude and speed.[93]

Composite materials make up 43% of the airframe, and


the proprotor blades also use composites.[91] For storage,
the V-22s rotors fold in 90 seconds and its wing rotates
to align, front-to-back, with the fuselage.[94] Due to the
requirement for folding rotors, their 38-foot diameter is
5 feet less than optimal for vertical takeo, resulting in
high disk loading.[93] Most missions use xed wing ight
75% or more of the time, reducing wear and tear and
operational costs. This xed wing ight is higher than
In 2013, the U.S. was reportedly hoping to sell up to typical helicopter missions allowing longer range line-ofcommunications for improved command and con100 V-22s internationally with up to 15 interested na- sight[26]
trol.
tions identied; prospective customers included Israel,
the United Arab Emirates, and Japan.[86][87] In 2013, Bell Heat from the V-22s engines can potentially damage
began to lay o workers on the V-22 production line fol- the ight decks of ships. Naval Air Systems Comlowing the implementation of defense cuts, which had re- mand (NAVAIR) devised a temporary x of portable
duced the US order to about half the originally planned heat shields placed under the engines, and determined
number of aircraft.[2][88] Production rate went from 40 in that a long-term solution would require redesigning decks
2012 to 22 planned for 2015.[89]
with heat resistant coating, passive thermal barriers, and
ship structure changes. Similar changes are required
for F-35B operations.[95] In 2009, DARPA requested
solutions for installing robust ight deck cooling.[96] A
heat-resistant anti-skid material called Thermion is being
6.2 Design
tested on USS Wasp.[97]
On 12 June 2013, the U.S. DoD awarded a $4.9 billion
contract to Bell and Boeing for 99 V-22s in production
Lots 17 and 18, including 92 MV-22s for the Marine
Corps. Work is expected to be completed in September
2019.[83] A provision gives NAVAIR the option to order
23 more Ospreys.[84] The combined cost of the June 2013
contract and other associated contracts for the order totaled $6.5 billion.[85]

In March 2014, Air Force Special Operations Command

38

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

(AFSOC) issued a Combat Mission Need Statement to


develop armor plates to protect passengers. NAVAIR
worked with a Florida-based composite armor company
and the Army Aviation Development Directorate to develop an armor solution and begin deliveries in October
2014. The Advanced Ballistic Stopping System kit consists of 66 plates sized to t along the V-22s interior bulkheads and deck, adding 800 lb (360 kg) of weight to the
aircraft, aecting payload and unrefueled range, so it can
be installed or removed when needed in hours and partially assembled in pieces to only protect certain areas. A
full kit costs $270,000. As of May 2015, 16 kits had been
delivered to the USAF.[98][99]

6.2.2

Propulsion

power by up to 26 percent, producing close to 10,000 hp,


and improve fuel consumption.[104]
In August 2014, the U.S. military issued a request for information (RFI) for a potential drop-in replacement for
the AE-1107C engines. Submissions must have a power
rating of no less than 6,100 shp (4,548.78 kW) at 15,000
rpm, operate at up to 25,000 ft (7,600 m) at up to 130
degrees Fahrenheit (54.4 degrees Celsius), and t into
the existing nacelles on the wings with minimal structural or external modications.[105] In September 2014,
the US Navy was considering contracting for an alternative engine supplier in order to reduce costs. In the V-22
program, the Navy purchases engines separately from the
aircraft themselves.[106] The General Electric GE38 has
been considered as a replacement, providing commonality with the CH-53K King Stallion.[107]

The V-22s two Rolls-Royce AE 1107C engines are connected by drive shafts to a common central gearbox so
that one engine can power both proprotors if an engine 6.2.3
failure occurs.[71] However, if a proprotor gearbox fails
that proprotor cannot be feathered, and both engines must
be stopped before an emergency landing.[70] The aircrafts autorotation characteristics are poor partly because
the rotors have low inertia.[70]

Avionics

A MV-22 Osprey cockpit on display at 2012 Wings Over Gillespie

V-22 with rotors tilted, condensation trailing from propeller tips

The V-22 has a maximum rotor downwash speed above


80 knots, more than the 64 knots lower limit of a
hurricane.[100][101] The rotorwash usually prevents usage
of the starboard door in hover, instead the rear ramp is
used for rappelling and hoisting.[70][102] Boeing has stated
the V-22 design loses 10 percent of its vertical lift over
a tiltwing design when operating in helicopter mode because of airow resistance due to the wings, but that
the tiltrotor design has better short takeo and landing
performance.[103]
In September 2013, Rolls-Royce announced it had increased the AE-1107C engines power by 17 percent via
the adoption of a new Block 3 turbine, an increase in
fuel valve ow capacity, and accompanying software updates. The upgrade should increase the reliability in highaltitude, high-heat conditions and boost maximum payload limitations from 6,000 ft to 8,000 ft. A Block 4 upgrade is reportedly being examined, which may increase

The V-22 is equipped with a glass cockpit, which incorporates four Multi-function displays (MFDs, compatible
with night-vision goggles)[70] and one shared Central Display Unit (CDU), to display various images including:
digimaps, imagery from the Turreted Forward Looking
Infrared System[108] primary ight instruments, navigation (TACAN, VOR, ILS, GPS, INS), and system status. The ight director panel of the Cockpit Management
System (CMS) allows for fully coupled (autopilot) functions that take the aircraft from forward ight into a 50
ft (15 m) hover with no pilot interaction other than programming the system.[109] The glass cockpit of the canceled CH-46X was derived from the V-22.[110] The fuselage is not pressurized, and personnel must wear on-board
oxygen masks above 10,000 feet.[70]
The V-22 has triple-redundant y-by-wire ight control
systems.[111] With the nacelles pointing straight up in conversion mode at 90 the ight computers command the
aircraft to y like a helicopter, with cyclic forces being applied to a conventional swashplate at the rotor hub. With
the nacelles in airplane mode (0) the aperons, rudder,

6.2. DESIGN
and elevator y the aircraft like an airplane. This is a
gradual transition and occurs over the rotation range of
the nacelles. The lower the nacelles, the greater eect of
the airplane-mode control surfaces.[112] The nacelles can
rotate past vertical to 97.5 for rearward ight.[113][114]
The aircraft also has computerized damage control that
automatically isolates damaged elements.[115] The controls so automate and simplify aspects of the V-22s ight
that without wind it can hover with no hands on the controls; according to some who have own the aircraft, former xed-wing pilots may be preferable because they, unlike those with helicopter experience, are not trained to
constantly adjust the controls while hovering.[93][70]

6.2.4

Armament

39
to provide an all-quadrant defensive weapon system including nose guns, door guns, and nonlethal countermeasures to work with the current ramp-mounted machine
gun and the IDWS.[121]
In 2014, the USMC revealed plans for new V-22 weapons
to increase all-axis, stand-o, and precision capabilities, which may be potentially operated by additional crew members. Armament increases are for enhanced oensive capabilities to special purpose Marine
rapid crisis response task forces, rather than as an attack platform. The V-22 could be adapted for various precision weapons, including the AGM-114 Hellre, AGM-176 Grin, Joint Air-to-Ground Missile, and
GBU-53/B SDB II. Fuselage-based hardpoints for the
weapons would be used to clear the proprotors.[122] In
November 2014, Bell and Boeing conducted self-funded
weapons tests using a V-22 equipped with a small pylon on the front port-side fuselage and the AN/AAQ27A EO camera replaced with an L-3 Wescam MX-15
sensor/laser designator. 26 unguided Hydra 70 rockets,
two guided APKWS rockets, and two Grin B missiles
were red over ve ights. The USMC and USAF seek a
traversable nose-mounted weapon connected to a helmetmounted sight; recoil would complicate integrating a desired forward-facing gun.[123] A weapons pylon on either side of the fuselage can carry 300 lb (140 kg) of
munitions.[124]

The Osprey can be armed with one 7.62x51mm NATO


(.308 in caliber) M240 machine gun or .50 in caliber
(12.7 mm) M2 machine gun on the loading ramp, that
can be red rearward when the ramp is lowered. A .50
in GAU-19 three-barrel Gatling gun mounted below the
V-22s nose was studied for future upgrade.[116] BAE
Systems developed a belly-mounted, remotely operated
gun turret system for the V-22,[117] named the Interim
Defense Weapon System (IDWS).[118] The IDWS is remotely operated by a gunner inside the aircraft, who acquires targets via a separate pod using color television and
forward looking infrared imagery.[119] The IDWS was installed on half of the rst V-22s deployed to Afghanistan 6.2.5 Refueling capability
in 2009,[118] but found limited use due to its 800 lb (360
kg) weight and restrictive rules of engagement.[120]
Boeing is developing a roll-on/roll-o aerial refueling kit,
which would give the V-22 the ability to refuel other
aircraft. Having an aerial refueling capability that can
be based o Wasp-class amphibious assault ships would
increase the striking power of Marine F-35Bs, as they
would not rely on refueling assets that could only be
based on full-sized Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or from
land bases. The roll-on/roll-o kit can also be applicable to intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance
functions.[125] Boeing funded a non-functional demonstration on a VMX-22 aircraft; a prototype kit was successfully tested with an F/A-18 on 5 September 2013.[126]

M240 machine gun mounted on V-22 loading ramp

As of June 2012, 32 IDWSs were available to the Marine


Corps. The system had not been red in combat as V-22s
were routinely escorted by helicopter gunships and close
air support aircraft, allowing them to focus on their transport role; squadrons also often ew without the belly gun,
as the added weight reduced its cargo-carrying capacity.
The Ospreys speed means it can outrun supporting conventional helicopters, requiring a self-defense capability
on long-range missions and operate independently. The
infrared gun camera has proven valuable for reconnaissance and surveillance. Other weapons are being studied

The high-speed version of the hose/drogue refueling system is designed to be deployed at 185 kn (213 mph; 343
km/h) and function at up to 250 kn (290 mph; 460 km/h).
Onboard tanks and a roll-on/roll-o bladder can contain
up to 12,000 lb (5,400 kg) of fuel. The operator must
open the ramp to extend the refueling hose, then raise the
ramp once extended, with the top ramp door left open.
The V-22 could refuel rotary-wing aircraft, but it would
require a separate drogue used specically by helicopters
and a partially converted nacelle. Bell and Boeing are
hoping for funding for additional testing to include contact between the refueler and receiver and eventually the
passage of fuel.[127] Since many Marine Corps ground vehicles can run on aviation fuel, a refueling V-22 could also
service them. In late 2014, it was stated that such tankers

40

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

could be operational by 2017.[128] As of 2015, the Navy


has no immediate plans to use the V-22 Aerial Refueling
System (VARS) on its planned COD eet, but it may be
leveraged in the future.[129]

6.3 Operational history


6.3.1

U.S. Marine Corps

visit troops around Iraq on Christmas Day 2007;[139] as


did then-presidential candidate Barack Obama during
his 2008 tour of Iraq.[140] Obtaining spare parts proved
problematic.[141] By July 2008, the V-22 had own 3,000
sorties totaling 5,200 hours in Iraq.[142] General George
J. Trautman, III praised the V-22s increased speed and
range over legacy helicopters, stating that it turned his
battle space from the size of Texas into the size of Rhode
Island.[143] Through 2009, V-22s had been red upon
several times by man-portable air-defense systems, and
small arms with none lost to enemy re.[144]

Crew members refuel an MV-22 before a night mission in Iraq,


2008

Since March 2000, VMMT-204 has conducted Marine


Corps crew training for the V-22. On 3 June 2005, Marine Corps helicopter squadron Marine Medium Helicopter 263 (HMM-263) stood down to transition to the
MV-22.[130] On 8 December 2005, Lieutenant General
James Amos, commander of II Marine Expeditionary
Force, accepted delivery of the rst eet of MV-22s, delivered to HMM-263. The unit reactivated on 3 March
2006 as the rst MV-22 squadron, redesignated as VMM263. On 23 March 2007, HMM-266 became Marine
Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 (VMM-266) at Marine
Corps Air Station New River, North Carolina.[131]

A MV-22 of VMM-162 in Iraq, 2008

On 13 April 2007, the Marine Corps announced the


rst V-22 combat deployment at Al Asad Airbase,
Iraq.[136][137] On 17 September 2007, 10 MV-22Bs of
VMM-263 left for Iraq aboard USS Wasp. The decision
to use a ship instead of self-deploying was made because
of concerns over icing during the North Atlantic portion
of the trip, lack of available KC-130s for mid-air refueling, and the Wasp's availability.[138]

Province in southern Afghanistan to disrupt Taliban communication and supply lines.[118] On 18 February 2011,
Marine Commandant General James Amos indicated
MV-22s deployed to Afghanistan had surpassed 100,000
ight hours and were noted as the safest airplane, or close
to the safest airplane in the Marine Corps inventory.[149]

A Government Accountability Oce study reported that


by January 2009, 12 MV-22s were operating in Iraq
and they completed all assigned missions; mission capable rates averaged 57% to 68%, and an overall full
mission capable rate of 6%. The report also stated that
the aircraft had shown weakness in situational awareness, maintenance, shipboard operations and transport
capability.[145][146] The study concluded that "...deployments conrmed that the V-22s enhanced speed and
range enable personnel and internal cargo to be transThe MV-22 reached initial operational capability (IOC) ported faster and farther than is possible with the legacy
with the U.S. Marine Corps on 13 June 2007.[1] The helicopters it is replacing.[145]
Osprey has been replacing the CH-46 Sea Knight
The MV-22 deployed to Afghanistan in November 2009
since 2007; the Sea Knight was retired in October with VMM-261,[147][148] and saw its rst oensive com2014.[132][133][134] On 10 July 2007, an MV-22 landed
bat mission, Operation Cobras Anger, on 4 December
aboard the Royal Navy aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, 2009. Ospreys assisted in inserting 1,000 Marines and
the rst time a V-22 had landed on a non-U.S. vessel.[135] 150 Afghan troops into the Now Zad Valley of Helmand

In January 2010, the MV-22 was sent to Haiti as part of


Operation Unied Response relief eorts after the earthOn arrival, they were used in Iraqs western Anbar quake there, the types rst humanitarian mission.[150] In
province for cargo and troop movements, as well as March 2011, two MV-22s from Kearsarge participated in
riskier aero-scout missions. General David Petraeus, a mission to rescue a downed USAF F-15E crew memthe top U.S. military commander in Iraq, used one to ber during Operation Odyssey Dawn.[151][152] On 2 May

6.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


2011, following Operation Neptunes Spear, the body
of Osama bin Laden, founder of the al-Qaeda terrorist
group, was own by a MV-22 to the aircraft carrier Carl
Vinson in the Northern Arabian Sea, prior to his burial at
sea.[153]

Marines boarding an MV-22 at Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms in 2010

41
From 25 August 2013, two MV-22s completed the
longest distance Osprey tanking mission to date. Flying from Marine Corps Air Station Futenma in Okinawa
alongside two KC-130J tanker aircraft, the Ospreys ew
to Clark Air Base in the Philippines on 2 August, then
to Darwin, Australia on 3 August, Townsville, Australia
on 4 August, and nally rendezvoused with Bonhomme
Richard on 5 August.[163]
In 2013, the USMC formed an intercontinental response
force, the Special Purpose Marine Air-Ground Task
Force for Crisis Response (SPMAGTF-CR-AF),[164]
equipped with V-22s outtted with specialized communications equipment.[165] In 2013, following Typhoon
Haiyan, 12 MV-22s of the 3rd Marine Expeditionary
Brigade were deployed to the Philippines for disaster
relief operations.[166] The V-22s capabilities were described as uniquely relevant, being able to y faster and
with greater payload while moving essential supplies to
remote sites throughout the island archipelago.[167]
The V-22 deployment to Afghanistan was set to conclude
in late 2013 with the drawdown of combat operations;
however VMM-261 was directed to extend operations for
a new role, casualty evacuation, for which it was better
suited than helicopters as its speed better enabled casualties to reach a hospital within the 'golden hour'; they were
tted with medical equipment such as heart-monitors and
basic triage supplies.[168]
In 2014, the SPMAGTF-CR-AF supported the timecritical eort against the Ebola virus epidemic in Liberia,
ying 1,200 people and 78,000 lb (35 t) of cargo in V22s.[69]

Marine Corps MV-22B Ospreys arrive at Tribhuvan International Airport in Kathmandu, Nepal, May 3, 2015 as a part of
the U.S. response to the 2015 Nepal earthquake.

In November 2014, three MV-22Bs were placed on alert


at Al Jaber Air Base in Kuwait to be ready within 30 minutes to recover downed pilots during the Military intervention against ISIL. On 29 occasions between 1 November and 24 April 2015, two Ospreys and a KC-130J aerial
tanker assigned to this Tactical Recovery of Aircraft and
Personnel (TRAP) mission spent 145 ight hours loitering, ready to perform rescue missions if required. The
only pilot that was downed was a Jordanian, but he did
not have a radio on him when he ejected and landed too
close to ISIL forces.[169]

In 2013, several MV-22s received communications and


seating modications to support the Marine One presidential transport squadron due to the urgent need for CH53Es in Afghanistan.[154][155] On 11 August 2013, two
MV-22s from Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX1) made their debut ferrying Secret Service agents, White
House sta, and press members from CGAS Cape Cod to
Marthas Vineyard during the Presidents vacation.[156] In
May 2010, Boeing announced plans to submit the V-22
6.3.2
for the VXX presidential transport replacement.[157]
Several Japanese politicians and Okinawa residents opposed a V-22 deployment to Japan in July 2012, mainly
due to several high-prole accidents.[158][159] On 14 June
2013, an MV-22 landed on the JDS Hyga o the coast
of California, the rst time a V-22 had landed on a
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force vessel.[160] In January 2014, a MV-22 landed aboard the French Mistralclass amphibious assault ship Dixmude.[161] A Marine
MV-22 landed on the ROKS Dokdo (LPH-6111) on 26
March 2015, marking the rst landing of an Osprey on a
Republic of Korea Navy amphibious ship.[162]

U.S. Air Force

The Air Forces rst operational CV-22 was delivered


to the 58th Special Operations Wing (58th SOW) at
Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico on 20 March 2006.
This and subsequent aircraft became part of the 58th
SOWs eet of aircraft used for training pilots and crew
members for special operations use.[170] On 16 November 2006, the Air Force ocially accepted the CV-22 in
a ceremony conducted at Hurlburt Field, Florida.[171] The
Air Force rst used the V-22 on a non-training mission to
perform search and rescue from Kirtland Air Force Base
on 4 October 2007.[172]

42

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY


hit 119 times, causing ight control failures and hydraulic
and fuel leaks on all three aircraft. Due to fuel leaks, multiple air-to-air refuelings were performed en route.[179]
Following the South Sudan incident, AFSOC developed
optional armor oor panels for the V-22.[98]

Two USAF CV-22s, landing at Holloman AFB, New Mexico in


2006.

The U.S. Air Forces rst operational deployment of


the Osprey sent four CV-22s to Mali in November
2008 in support of Exercise Flintlock. The CV-22s
ew nonstop from Hurlburt Field, Florida with in-ight
refueling.[6] AFSOC declared that the 8th Special Operations Squadron reached Initial Operational Capability on
16 March 2009, with six CV-22s in service.[173]

On 3 July 2014, V-22 aircraft carried Delta Force commandos to a campsite in eastern Syria where Islamic State
militants had held American and other hostages. The
commandos quickly eliminated the militants at the site,
but found that the hostages had been moved elsewhere
and returned home empty handed.[180]
The Air Force is looking to congure the CV-22 to perform combat search and rescue in addition to its primary
long-range special operations transport mission. The Osprey would act as a complement to Air Force HH-60G
Pave Hawk and planned HH-60W rescue helicopters, being employed in scenarios were its ability to cover more
ground quickly would be better suited to search and rescue than more nimble but slower helicopters.[181]

In June 2009, CV-22s of the 8th Special Operations


Squadron delivered 43,000 pounds (20,000 kg) of hu- 6.3.3 Potential operators
manitarian supplies to remote villages in Honduras that
were not accessible by conventional vehicles.[174] In U.S. Navy
November 2009, the 8th SO Squadron and its six CV22s returned from a three-month deployment in Iraq.[175]

V-22 Osprey USAF video

In August 2012, the USAF found that CV-22 wake modeling is inadequate for a trailing aircraft to make accurate estimations of safe separation from the preceding
aircraft.[176]
On 21 December 2013, three CV-22s came under small
arms re while on a mission to evacuate American civilians in Bor, South Sudan during the 2013 South Sudanese political crisis. The three aircraft were damaged
and four crew wounded; the mission was aborted and
the aircraft ew 500 mi (800 km) to Entebbe, Uganda.
South Sudanese ocials stated that the attackers were
rebels.[177][178] The CV-22s, of the 8th Special Operations Squadron, had own to Bor over three countries
across 790 nmi (910 mi; 1,460 km). The formation was

A U.S. Marine MV-22 landing on the ight deck of aircraft carrier Nimitz

The United States Navy could potentially employ the V22 in search and rescue, transport and anti-submarine

6.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

43

warfare roles.[182][183] The V-22 program included navy


48 HV-22s, but none have been ordered.[26] One proposal is to replace the C-2 Greyhound with the V-22
for Carrier Onboard Delivery duties. One specic advantage of the V-22 in this role is the ability to deliver
supplies and people between non-carriers ships beyond
helicopter range.[184][185] A MV-22 landed and refueled
onboard Nimitz as part of an evaluation for COD in October 2012.[186] Further cargo handling trials took place
in 2013 on Harry S. Truman.[187]

Israel

V-22 proponents have said that it is capable of similar


speed, payload capacity and lift performance as the C2, the V-22 can also carry greater payloads over short
ranges; up to 20,000 lb, and can also carry suspended external loads. The C-2 can only land on carriers, requiring
further distribution to smaller vessels via helicopters; the
Osprey has been certied for operating upon amphibious ships, aircraft carriers, and logistics ships. The V22 could also take the roles of some helicopters, with a
600 lb hoist tted to the ramp and a cabin conguration
for 12 non-ambulatory patients and ve seats for medical
attendants.[188] Boeing designed a special frame for the V22 to carry the Lockheed Martin F-35's F135 engine to
ships.[189] Bell and Boeing have pitched the V-22 to the
Navy as a platform for various missions, such as communications, electronic warfare, or aerial refueling; the
Navy have a known gap in tactical aerial refueling, currently handled by Marine KC-130s, Air Force KC-10 Extenders, and KC-135 Stratotankers with hose-and-drogue
delivery systems.[87]

On 22 April 2013, an agreement was nalized to sell the


V-22 to the Israel Air Force.[201] The Israeli aircraft are to
be moved to the front of the production queue, jumping
ahead of some USMC deliveries.[202] They were expected
to arrive as early as 2015.[203] These aircraft are to be
optimized for special operations and rescue missions.[204]
Israel is interested in doubling the purchase from six MV22B Ospreys to 12 aircraft.[189] The initial order of six
aircraft could cost up to $1.13 billion including additional
equipment and support.[205] In October 2014, media reports indicated that Israel is deferring or canceling its procurement of the V-22 due to budget restraints and changing policies.[206][207][208][209] However, although the Letter of Agreement oering a $400 million discount[210]
and early delivery formally expired, the deal is still on
and the Defense Minister decided to wait until elections
form a new cabinet in March 2015 to push for cabinet
approval for it.[211]

On 5 January 2015, the Navy and Marines signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to buy the V-22 for
the COD mission, and was conrmed in the Navys FY
2016 budget.[190] Designated HV-22, four aircraft would
be initially bought each year from 2018-2020.[191][192]
The Navys variant will incorporate an extended-range
fuel system, a high-frequency radio for over-the-horizon
communications, and a public address system to communicate with passengers. While the MV-22 has a range of
428 nmi (493 mi; 793 km) when carrying 24 Marines,
the Navy has a requirement for an 1,150 nmi (1,320 mi;
2,130 km) unrefueled range a lower passenger/payload
capacity.[193]

India
The Indian Aviation Research Centre (ARC) is interested
in acquiring four V-22 Ospreys for the purposes of personnel evacuation in hostile conditions, logistic supplies,
and deployment of the Special Frontier Force (SFF) on
the border. India had seen the Ospreys utility in relief
operations of the 2015 Nepal earthquake. The deal could
be worth some $300 million.[194] Elements of the Indian Navy also look at the V-22 rather than the E-2D for
Airborne early warning and control to replace the shortrange Kamov Ka-31.[195]

Israel has shown interest in the V-22.[196][197] In 2009,


Israel reportedly favored the Sikorsky CH-53K over the
V-22.[198] In 2011, Israel was interested in using the V22 to support special operations and search & rescue
missions.[199] In 2013, Israel was reportedly interested in
a possible lease of six to eight aircraft for special operations missions; the type is not to act as a replacement for
existing rotorcraft.[200]

Japan
In 2012, former Defense Minister Satoshi Morimoto ordered an investigation of the costs of V-22 operations.
The V-22 exceeds current Japan Self-Defense Forces helicopters in terms of range, speed, and payload. The ministry anticipates deployments to the Nansei Islands and
the Senkaku Islands, as well as in multinational cooperation with the U.S.[212] Japan is considering plans to
have V-22s in service in a maritime role by as early as
2015.[213] On 21 November 2014, the Japanese Ministry
of Defense ocially decided to procure 17 V-22s,[214]
with deliveries planned from FY 2014 to FY 2019.[215]
In January 2015, Japans parliament approved a defense
budget with funding for ve V-22s.[216]
South Korea
In February 2015, the South Korean Army showed interest in the V-22 for delivering special forces to islands in
the Yellow Sea near North Korean territory; talks are to
be held during 2015 on a possible Osprey buy.[217]
United Arab Emirates
In May 2012, it was reported that the United Arab Emirates was in the nal negotiation stages to purchase sev-

44

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

eral V-22s. The UAE intends to use the Osprey to sup- EV-22 Proposed airborne early warning and control
port special forces. Both UAE and the Pentagon seek a
variant. The Royal Navy studied this AEW variant
$58 million unit cost.[218][219]
as a replacement for its current eet of carrier-based
Sea King ASaC.7 helicopters.[227]

6.4 Variants

HV-22 The U.S. Navy considered an HV-22 to provide


combat search and rescue, delivery and retrieval
of special warfare teams along with eet logistic
support transport. It chose the MH-60S for this
role in 2001.[182] Naval Air Systems Commands
2011/2012 V-22 Osprey Guidebook lists the HV22 for the U.S. Navy with the USAF and USMC
variants.[228]
SV-22 The proposed anti-submarine warfare variant.
The U.S. Navy studied the SV-22 in the 1980s to
replace S-3 and SH-2 aircraft.[183]

A V-22 Osprey ies a test mission.

6.5 Operators

A CV-22 of 8th Special Operations Squadron ies over Floridas


Emerald Coast.

V-22A Pre-production full-scale development aircraft


used for ight testing. These are unocially conAn Osprey delivers a Humvee to the USNS Sacagawea
sidered A-variants after the 1993 redesign.[220]
CV-22B U.S. Air Force variant for the U.S. Special Operations Command (USSOCOM). It conducts longrange special operations missions, and is equipped
with extra wing fuel tanks, an AN/APQ-186 terrainfollowing radar, and other equipment such as the
AN/ALQ-211,[221][222] and AN/AAQ-24 Nemesis
Directional Infrared Counter Measures.[223] The
fuel capacity is increased by 588 gallons (2,230 L)
with two inboard wing tanks; three auxiliary tanks
(200 or 430 gal) can also be added in the cabin.[224]
The CV-22 replaced the MH-53 Pave Low.[26]
MV-22B U.S. Marine Corps variant. The Marine
Corps is the lead service in the V-22s development.
The Marine Corps variant is an assault transport for
troops, equipment and supplies, capable of operating from ships or expeditionary airelds ashore;
replacing the Marine Corps CH-46E and CH-53D
eets.[225][226]

United States

United States Air Force[229]


7th Special Operations Squadron[230]
8th Special Operations Squadron[231]
20th Special Operations Squadron[232]
71st Special Operations Squadron[233]
418th Flight Test Squadron[234]
United States Marine Corps[229]
HMX-1[235]
VMX-22[236]
VMM-161[237]
VMM-162[238]

6.8. SPECIFICATIONS (MV-22B)


VMM-165[239]

45

6.8 Specications (MV-22B)

VMM-166

[240]

VMMT-204[241]
VMM-261[242]
VMM-263[243]
VMM-264[244]
VMM-266[245]
VMM-363[246]
VMM-365[247]
VMM-561[248]

6.6 Notable accidents


Main article: Accidents and incidents involving the V-22
Osprey
The V-22 Osprey has had seven hull-loss accidents with
a total of 36 fatalities. During testing from 1991 to 2000,
there were four crashes resulting in 30 fatalities.[33] Since
becoming operational in 2007, the V-22 has had three
crashes resulting in six fatalities, and several minor incidents. The aircrafts accident history has generated some
controversy over its perceived safety issues.[249]

6.7 Aircraft on display

Data from Norton,[252] Boeing,[253] Bell guide,[91] Naval


Air Systems Command,[254] and USAF CV-22 fact
sheet [221]
General characteristics
Crew: Four (pilot, copilot and two ight engineers/crew chiefs)
Capacity:
24 troops (seated), 32 troops (oor loaded), or
20,000 lb (9,070 kg) of internal cargo, or up
to 15,000 lb (6,800 kg) of external cargo (dual
hook)
1 Growler light internally transportable
ground vehicle[255][256]
Length: 57 ft 4 in (17.5 m)
Rotor diameter: 38 ft 0 in (11.6 m)
Wingspan: 45 ft 10 in (14 m)

The V-22 Osprey on display at the American Helicopter Museum


& Education Center

The third of six V-22A prototypes is on display


at the American Helicopter Museum & Education
Center in West Chester, Pennsylvania.[250]
CV-22B 99-021 - National Museum of the United
States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in
Dayton, Ohio.[251]

Width with rotors: 84 ft 7 in (25.8 m)


Height: 22 ft 1 in/6.73 m; overall with nacelles vertical (17 ft 11 in/5.5 m; at top of tailns)
Disc area: 2,268 ft (212 m)
Wing area: 301.4 ft (28 m)
Empty weight: 33,140 lb (15,032 kg)
Loaded weight: 47,500 lb (21,500 kg)

46
Max. takeo weight: 60,500 lb (27,400 kg)

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

6.10 See also

Powerplant: 2 Rolls-Royce Allison T406/AE Related development


1107C-Liberty turboshafts, 6,150 hp (4,590 kW)
each
Bell XV-15
Performance

AgustaWestland AW609
Bell Boeing Quad TiltRotor

Maximum speed: 275 knots (509 km/h, 316


mph[257] ) at sea level / 305 kn (565 km/h; 351 mph)
at 15,000 ft (4,600 m)[258]
Cruise speed: 241 kn (277 mph, 446 km/h) at sea
level
Stall speed: 110 kn[70] (126 mph, 204 km/h) in airplane mode
Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with
auxiliary internal fuel tanks

Bell V-280 Valor


Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Canadair CL-84
LTV XC-142
Related lists
List of military aircraft of the United States
List of VTOL aircraft

6.11 References

Service ceiling: 25,000 ft (7,620 m)


Rate of climb: 2,3204,000[70] ft/min (11.8 m/s)

6.11.1 Notes

Glide ratio: 4.5:1[70]

[1] Osprey Deemed Ready for Deployment. U.S. Marine


Corps, 14 June 2007.

Disc loading: 20.9 lb/ft at 47,500 lb GW (102.23


kg/m)

[2] Berard, Yamil. "Bell to lay o 325 workers as V-22 orders


decline". Fort Worth Star-Telegram, 5 May 2014. Accessed: 8 May 2014.

Power/mass: 0.259 hp/lb (427 W/kg)


Armament

1 7.62 mm (0.308 in) M240 machine gun or 0.50


in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine gun on ramp,
removable
1 7.62 mm (.308 in) GAU-17 minigun, bellymounted, retractable, video remote control in the
Remote Guardian System [optional][119][259]

[3] Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Presidents Budget Submission, Aircraft Procurement, Navy,
Vol. 157. U.S. Department of the Navy, February 2012.
Retrieved: 10 May 2013.
[4] Department of Defense, Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Presidents Budget Submission, Aircraft Procurement, Navy,
Vol. 1, p. 33. U.S. Department of the Navy, March 2014.
Retrieved: 11 January 2015.
[5] V-22 Osprey Backgrounder. Boeing Defense, Space &
Security, February 2010. Retrieved: 26 March 2010.
[6] Kreisher, Otto. Finally, the Osprey. Air Force magazine,
February 2009.
[7] Whittle 2010, p. 62.

6.9 Notable appearances in media


Main articles: Aircraft in ction V-22 Osprey and List
of ctional aircraft V-22 Osprey
(For V-22 appearances in ction, and for ctional V-22based aircraft, respectively.)

[8] Mackenzie, Richard (writer). Flight of the V-22 Osprey (Television production). Mackenzie Productions for
Military Channel, 7 April 2008. Retrieved: 29 March
2009.
[9] Norton 2004, p. 35.
[10] Whittle 2010, p. 55.
[11] Whittle 2010, p. 91.

6.11. REFERENCES

[12] Whittle 2010, p. 87: As Kelly saw it, the future of the
Marine Corps was riding on it.
[13] Whittle 2010, p. 155.
[14] Whittle 2010, pp. 53, 5556.
[15] Scroggs, Stephen K. Army Relations with Congress :
Thick Armor, Dull Sword, Slow Horse page 232. Greenwood Press, 2000. eISBN 9780313019265.

47

[33] Berler, Ron. Saving the Pentagons Killer ChopperPlane. Wired (CondNet, Inc), Volume 13, Issue 7, July
2005. Retrieved: 8 February 2008.
[34] Norton 2004, p. 49.
[35] Norton 2004, p. 52.
[36] Revolutionary plane passes rst test. Toledo Blade, 20
March 1989.

[16] Moyers, Al (Director of History and Research). The


Long Road: AFOTECs Two-Plus Decades of V-22 Involvement. Headquarters Air Force Operational Test and
Evaluation Center, United States Air Force, 1 August 2007.
Retrieved: 30 December 2010.

[37] Mitchell, Jim. V-22 makes rst ight in full airplane


mode. Dallas Morning News, 15 September 1989.

[17] Chapter 9: Research, Development, and Acquisition.


Department of the Army Historical Summary: FY 1982.
Center of Military History (CMH), United States Army,
1988. ISSN 0092-7880.

[39] Navy halts test ights of V-22 as crash investigated. Fort


Worth Star-Telegram, 13 June 1991.

[18] Norton 2004, pp. 2230.


[19] AIAA-83-2726, Bell-Boeing JVX Tilt Rotor Program. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
(AIAA), 1618 November 1983.

[38] Jones, Kathryn. V-22 tilt-rotor passes tests at sea. Dallas Morning News, 14 December 1990.

[40] Norton 2004, pp. 5254.


[41] Norton 2004, p. 55.
[42] Norton 2004, pp. 5557.
[43] Schinasi 2008, p. 23.

[20] Norton 2004, pp. 3133.

[44] M777: He Aint Heavy, Hes my Howitzer. Defense Industry Daily, 18 July 2012. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.

[21] Kishiyama, David. Hybrid Craft Being Developed for


Military and Civilian Use. Los Angeles Times, 31 August
1984.

[45] Lots Riding on V-22 Osprey Defense Industry Daily, 12


March 2007. Retrieved: 22 July 2012.

[22] Adams, Lorraine. Sales Talk Whirs about Bell Helicopter. Dallas Morning News,10 March 1985.
[23] Boeing Vertol launches Three-Year, $50 Million Expansion Program. Philadelphia Inquirer, 4 March 1985.
[24] Military Aircraft: The Bell-Boeing V-22. Bell Helicopter, 2007. Retrieved: 30 December 2010.
[25] Norton 2004, p. 30.
[26] RL31384, V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft: Background
and Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service,
22 December 2009.
[27] Goodrich, Joseph L. Bell-Boeing team lands contract to
develop new tilt-rotor aircraft, 600 jobs expected from
$1.714-billion project for Navy. Providence Journal, 3
May 1986.

[46] Pappalardo, Joe. The Ospreys Real Problem Isn't


SafetyIts Money. Popular Mechanics, 14 June 2012.
[47] Castelli, Christopher J. Pentagon Testing Oce Concurs
With Naval Testers, Supports MV-22. Naval Air Systems Command, United States Navy via Inside the Navy,
12 September 2005.
[48] Chavanne, Bettina H. V-22 To Get Performance Upgrades. Aviation Week, 25 June 2009.
[49] Software Change Gives V-22 Pilots More Lift Options.
thebaynet.com. Retrieved: 24 April 2012.
[50] Capaccio, Tony. V-22 Osprey Aircrafts Reliability Improves in Pentagon Testing. Bloomberg News, 13 January
2012.
[51] Bryce, Robert. Review of political forces that helped
shape V-22 program. Texas Observer, 17 June 2004.

[28] Belden, Tom. Vertical-takeo plane may be the 21st centurys intercity bus. Toronto Star, 23 May 1988.

[52] Capaccio, Tony. Lifetime cost of V-22s rose 61% in


three years. Bloomberg News, 29 November 2011.

[29] Tilt-rotor craft ies like copter, plane. Milwaukee Sentinel, 24 May 1988.

[53] O'Hanlon 2002, p. 119.

[30] 2 Senators key to fate of Boeings V-22 Osprey.


Philadelphia Inquirer, 6 July 1989.
[31] Mitchell, Jim. Gramm defends Ospreys budget cost:
Senator makes pitch for V-22 as president stumps for B-2
bomber. Dallas Morning News, 22 July 1989.
[32] Pentagon halts spending on V-22 Osprey. Chicago Tribune, 3 December 1989.

[54] Ricks, Thomas E. Marines Fire Commander Of Ospreys;


Alleged Falsication Of Data Investigated. Washington
Post, 19 January 2001. Retrieved: 8 August 2011.
[55] Thompson, Mark. V-22 Osprey: A Flying Shame.
Time, 26 September 2007. Retrieved: 8 August 2011.
[56] Hoellwarth, John. Leaders, experts slam Time article
on Osprey. Marine Corps Times (Army Times Publishing
Company), 16 October 2007. Retrieved: 8 August 2011.

48

[57] DiMascio, Jen (December 9, 2010). Playing defense but at a price?". Politico.
[58] Ackerman, Spencer (April 12, 2012). Defense Industrys Favorite Think Tank Daydreams of Obama Defeat.
Wired (magazine).
[59] Silverstein, Ken (April 1, 2010). Mad men - Introducing
the defense industrys pay-to-play ad agency. Harpers
Magazine.
[60] V-22 Is The Safest, Most Survivable Rotorcraft The
Marines Have. LexingtonInstitute.org, February 2011.
Retrieved: 16 February 2011.
[61] Axe, David. Marines: Actually, Our Tiltrotor Is Effective And Reliable (Never Mind Those Accidents).
Wired, 13 October 2011.
[62] USMC Statement in Response to Article on the Safety
Record of the Marine V-22 Osprey. USMC, 13 October
2011.
[63] Pentagon watchdog to release classied audit on V-22
Osprey. Marine Corps Times. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
[64] Capaccio, Tony (25 October 2013). Pentagons Inspector General Finds V-22 Readiness Rates Flawed. www.
businessweek.com. Bloomberg News. Retrieved 25 October 2013.
[65] Lamothe, Dan (2 November 2013). Are the Marines faking the reliability record of their $79 million superplane?".
stripes.com. Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2 November 2013.
[66] Shalal-Esa, Andrea. U.S. eyes V-22 aircraft sales to
Israel, Canada, UAE. Reuters, 26 February 2012. Retrieved: 27 February 2012.
[67] Reed, John. Boeing to make new multiyear Osprey offer. Navy Times, 5 May 2010.
[68] Homan, Michael. "Osprey Readiness Rates Improved
25% over 5 years" DODbuzz , April 9, 2014. Accessed:
April 9, 2014.
[69] Whittle, Richard. "Osprey Shows Its Mettle" page 23-26.
American Helicopter Society / VERTIFLITE May/June
2015, Vol. 61, No. 3.
[70] McKinney, Mike. Flying the V-22 Vertical (Magazine),
28 March 2012. Retrieved: 29 April 2014.
[71] Norton 2004, pp. 9899.
[72] Schinasi 2008, p. 16.

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

[77] Christie, Rebecca. DJ US Navy Expects Foreign Interest In V-22 To Ramp Up Next Year. Naval Air Systems
Command, United States Navy via Dow Jones Newswires,
31 May 2007.
[78] John T. Bennett (14 January 2014). War Funding Climbs
in Omnibus Bill for First Time Since 2010. defensenews.com. Retrieved 31 March 2014.
[79] Keller, John. Bell-Boeing to design new integrated avionics processor for V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft. Militaryaerospace.com, 18 April 2010.
[80] Raytheon wins $250 million contract for V-22 aircraft
avionics from US. defenseworld.net. Retrieved: 30 December 2010.
[81] DOD Contracts. Defense.gov, 24 November 2009. Retrieved: 23 June 2010.
[82] McHale, John. Block C V-22 Osprey with new radar,
cockpit displays, and electronic warfare features delivered
to Marines. Military Embedded Systems, 15 February
2012. Retrieved: 24 February 2012.
[83] Bell-Boeing award V-22 multi-year contract Flightglobal.com, 12 June 2013
[84] US military orders additional V-22 Ospreys Shephardmedia.com, 13 June 2013
[85] Pentagon Signs Multiyear V-22 Deal Aviationweek.com, 13 June 2013
[86] V-22 Sees Up To 100 Foreign Sales; Drives Flight Costs
Down, Boosts Readiness Breakingdefense.com, 17 June
2013
[87] Osprey Team Eyes Aerial Refueling, Comms Options
Aviationweek.com, 9 September 2013
[88] Berard, Yamil (5 May 2014). Bell to lay o 325 workers as V-22 orders decline. www.star-telegram.com (The
McClatchy Company). Retrieved 17 May 2014.
[89] Huber, Mark (25 February 2015). New Programs at Full
Speed. Aviation International News. Retrieved 12 March
2015.
[90] Croft, John. Tilters. Air & Space/Smithsonian, 1
September 2007.
[91] V-22 Osprey Guidebook, 2013/2014. Bell-Boeing,
2013. Retrieved: 6 February 2014.

[73] Schinasi 2008, p. 11.

[92] Chavanne, Bettina H. USMC V-22 Osprey Finds Groove


In Afghanistan. Aviation Week, 12 January 2010. Retrieved: 23 June 2010.

[74] Gross, Kevin, Lt. Col. U.S. Marine Corps and Tom Macdonald, MV-22 test pilot and Ray Dagenhart, MV-22 lead
government engineer. Dispelling the Myth of the MV22. Proceedings: The Naval Institute, September 2004.
Retrieved: 9 April 2009.

[93] Whittle, Richard. "Flying The Osprey Is Not Dangerous, Just Dierent: Veteran Pilots" defense.aol.com, 5
September 2012. Retrieved: 16 September 2012.

[75] Osprey OK'd. Defense Tech, 28 September 2005.


[76] FY 2009 Budget Estimates (PDF), p. 133. United States
Air Force, February 2008.

[94] Currie, Major Tom P., Jr., USAF. A Research Report


Submitted to the Faculty, In Partial Fulllment of the
Graduation Requirements: The CV-22 'Osprey' and the
Impact on Air Force Combat Search and Rescue (PDF).
Air Command and Sta College, April 1999.

6.11. REFERENCES

[95] Tenacious Eorts to Accomplish Another V-22 Mile- [113]


stone. U.S. Navy, 17 June 2009.
[114]
[96] Lazarus, Aaron. DARPA-BAA 10-10, Thermal Management System (TMS) DARPA, 16 November 2009. Ac- [115]
cessed: 18 March 2012. Quote: MV-22 Osprey has resulted in ship ight deck buckling that has been attributed
[116]
to the excessive heat impact from engine exhaust plumes.
Navy studies have indicated that repeated deck buckling
will likely cause deck failure before planned ship life.

49

Markman and Holder 2000, p. 58.


Norton 2004, p. 97.
An Afghan Report: The Osprey Returns from
Afghanistan, 2012. SLD, 13 September 2012.
Defensive Armament for the V-22 Selection, Integration,
and Development. Bell Helicopter and General Dynamics.
Retrieved: 30 December 2010.

[97] Butler, Amy (5 September 2013). F-35B DT 2 Update: [117] BAE Systems Launches New V-22 Defensive Weapon
System, Begins On-The-Move Testing. BAE Systems, 2
A few hours on the USS Wasp. Aviation Week & Space
October 2007.
Technology. Archived from the original on 3 September
2014. Retrieved 4 April 2015.
[118] McCullough, Amy. Ospreys, with boost in repower, enter Afghanistan. Marine Corps Times, 7 December 2009,
[98] Air Force special ops looks to add armor, repower to Osp. 24. Retrieved: 10 December 2009.
preys - Airforcetimes.com, 17 September 2014
[99] Whittle, Richard. "AFSOC Ospreys Armor Up After [119] Whittle, Richard. BAE Remote Guardians Join Osprey
Fleet. Rotor & Wing Magazine, 1 January 2010.
Painful Lessons Learned In South Sudan" Breaking Defense 15 May 2015. Archive
[120] Lamothe, Dan. Ospreys leave new belly gun in the dust.
Marine Corps Times, 28 June 2010. Retrieved: 28 June
[100] John Gordon IV et al. Assessment of Navy Heavy-Lift
2010.
Aircraft Options p39. RAND Corporation, 2005. Retrieved: 18 March 2012. ISBN 0-8330-3791-9.
[121] Corps seeks better weaponry on Ospreys. Marinecorpstimes.com, 13 February 2012.
[101] Hurricanes... Unleashing Natures Fury: A Preparedness Guide. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration|, National Weather Service, September 2006. Re- [122] Corps aviation plan calls for armed Ospreys MarineCorpstimes.com, 23 November 2014
trieved: 26 February 2008.
[102] Waters, USMC Cpl. Lana D. V-22 Osprey Fast rope 1 [123] Osprey Fires Guided Rockets And Missiles In New Trials
- Aviationweek.com, 8 December 2014
USMC, 6 November 2004. Retrieved: 18 March 2012.
[103] Trimble, Stephen. Boeing looks ahead to a 'V-23' Os- [124] V-22 demonstrates forward-ring missile capability Flightglobal.com, 23 December 2014
prey. Flight Global, 22 June 2009.
[104] Rolls-Royce Boosts Power for V-22 Engines Defense- [125] Boeing developing Osprey aerial refueling kit Flightglobal.com, 10 April 2013
news.com, 16 September 2013.
[105] US military seeking replacement V-22 engines - Flight- [126] Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey Deploys Refueling Equipment
in Flight Test. Boeing.com. Boeing. 5 September 2013.
global.com, 29 August 2014
Retrieved 4 April 2015.
[106] Wall, Robert, US mulls engine options for its Osprey air[127] New Pics: MV-22, Hornet in Refueling Tests. Aviacraft, Wall Street Journal, 2 September 2014, p.B3
tionweek.com, 3 September 2013.
[107] US Navy developing early plans for V-22 mid-life up[128] V-22 to get a tanker option - Militarytimes.com, 28 Degrade - Flightglobal.com, 15 April 2015
cember 2014.
[108] V-22 Osprey Boeing
[129] Navy Not Following Marines Lead in Developing V-22
[109] Ringenbach, Daniel P. and Scott Brick. Hardware-inOsprey Tanker - News.USNI.org, 4 May 2015
the-loop testing for development and integration of the
V-22 autopilot system, pp. 2836 (PDF). Technical Pa- [130] Kreisher, Otto. After decades of tragedy, Osprey may be
pers (A95-39235 1001): AIAA Flight Simulation Techready for combat. San Diego Tribune, 15 July 2000.
nologies Conference Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD, 3
[131] Marine Medium Tiltrotor Squadron 266 History. U.S.
August 2008.
Marine Corps. Retrieved: 16 October 2011.
[110] Beaver, Donald B. Marine Corps Aviation Assault Support for the 21st Century: Is There a Case for the MV-22. [132] Carter, Chelsea J. Miramar Base to Get Osprey
Squadrons. USA Today (Associated Press), 18 March
Defense Technical Information Center, 8 April 1992.
2008.
[111] Landis, Kenneth H., et al. Advanced ight control
technology achievements at Boeing Helicopters. Interna- [133] Venerable 'Sea Knight' Makes Goodbye Flights - Military.com, 3 October 2014
tional Journal of Control, Volume 59, Issue 1, 1994, pp.
263290.
[134] CH-46 Phrogs Phinal Pharewell Approaches - Defense[112] Norton 2004, pp. 69, 9596.
medianetwork.com, 3 October 2014.

50

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

[135] MV-22 Osprey Lands On UK Aircraft Carrier For First [152] Lamothe, Dan. Reports: Marines rescue downed pilot in
Time. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR), United
Libya. U.S. Navy Times, 22 March 2011.
States Navy, 11 July 2007. Retrieved: 26 November 2008.
[153] Ki Mae Heussner) (2 May 2011). USS Carl Vinson:
Osama Bin Ladens Burial at Sea. Technology. ABC
[136] Mount, Mike. Marines to deploy tilt-rotor aircraft to
News. Retrieved 2012-05-02.; Jim Garamone (2 May
Iraq. CNN.com, 14 April 2007. Retrieved: 19 April
2011). Bin Laden Buried at Sea. NNS110502-22.
2007.
American Forces Press Service. Retrieved 2011-05-02.;
[137] Controversial Osprey aircraft heading to Iraq; Marines
and Richard Whittle (April 6, 2012). Marines Push Quibullish on hybrid helicopter-plane despite past accidents.
etly, But Hard, For Navy to Replace C-2s With V-22s.
MSNBC, 13 April 2007. Retrieved: 3 August 2008.
Defense. AOL. Retrieved 2012-10-09..
[138] Whittle, Richard. Military/Utility: Osprey Heads to [154] Revelos, Andrew. HMX-1s Super Stallions reassigned
Iraq. Rotor & Wing, 1 October 2007.
to operating forces. USMC, 15 April 2011.
[139] Mount, Mike. Maligned aircraft nds redemption in [155] Munoz, Carlo. Osprey to take on White House transport
mission in 2013. The Hill, 24 May 2012.
Iraq, military says. CNN.com, 8 February 2008.
[140] Hambling, David. Ospreys 'Excellent Photo Op'. Wired [156] Osprey aircraft deployed for rst time in support of Marine One. CNN.com. Retrieved 12 August 2013.
(CondNet, Inc.), 31 July 2008. Retrieved: 6 August
2008.
[157] Reed, John. Boeing to make new multiyear Osprey offer. Marine Corps Times, 5 May 2010. Retrieved: 6 May
[141] Warwick, Graham. US Marine Corps says V-22 Osprey
2010.
performing well in Iraq. Flightglobal, 7 February 2008.
Retrieved: 10 February 2008.

[158] Spitzer, Kirk. No Love For The Marines V-22 In Japan.


TIME Battleland, 14 June 2012. Retrieved: 17 June 2012.
[142] Hoyle, Craig. USMC eyes Afghan challenge for V-22
Osprey. Flight International, 22 July 2008. Retrieved: [159] US military Osprey aircraft arrive in Japan amid
25 November 2008.
protests. BBC, 23 July 2012.
[143] Department of Defense Bloggers Roundtable with Lieu- [160] US Marines land Osprey aircraft on Japanese ship.
tenant General George Trautman, Deputy Commandant
Newsdaily.com, 15 June 2013.
of the Marines for Aviation via teleconference from Iraq.
U.S. Department of Defense, 6 May 2009. Retrieved: 4 [161] USMC V22 Osprey conducted deck trials onboard French
September 2011.
Navys Mistral Class LHD Dixmude Navyrecognition.com, 11 February 2014.
[144] Gertler, Jeremiah. (quoting USMC Karsten Heckl) V22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft: Background and Issues for [162] USMC Osprey lands on Korean amphibious ship - Shephardmedia.com, 31 March 2015
Congress, p. 30. Congressional Research Service reports,
22 December 2009. Accessed: 15 March 2012.
[163] Two MV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft completed longest
distance ight in the Pacic region Airrecognition.com,
[145] GAO-09-482: Defense Acquisitions, Assessments
8 August 2013
Needed to Address V-22 Aircraft Operational and Cost
Concerns to Dene Future Investments (summary).
[164] Marines, Army form quick-strike forces for Africa.
gao.gov. Retrieved: 30 December 2010.
www.app.com. USA Today. 15 June 2013. Retrieved
23 June 2013.
[146] GAO-09-482: Defense Acquisitions, Assessments

[147]
[148]
[149]
[150]

[151]

Needed to Address V-22 Aircraft Operational and Cost


[165] "Marines want new technology for post-Benghazi crisisConcerns to Dene Future Investments (full report).
response missions" Accessed: April 9, 2014.
U.S. Government Accountability Oce, 11 May 2009.
[166] Hoyle, Craig. Flight International, November 20, 2013.
McLeary, Paul. Trial By Fire. Aviation Week, March
Accessed: November 24, 2013.
15, 2010. Retrieved: 28 June 2010.
[167] Assistant commandant: MV-22 key to Marines PhilipSchanz, Marc V. V-22s Got Dirty in Anbar. Air Force
pines mission Militarytimes.com, 13 November 2013
magazine, Daily Report, 25 February 2009.
[168] Casevac, the new Osprey mission in Afghanistan MV-22 Logs 100,000 Flight Hours. defensetech.org,
MarineCorpstimes.com, 17 May 2014
February 2011. Retrieved: 18 February 2011.
[169] SP-MAGTF Commander Details ISIL Strikes; Notes 1st
Talton, Trista. 24th MEU joining Haiti relief eort.
Marines Could Clear Iraq - Breakingdefense.com, 20
Marine Corps Times, 20 January 2010. Retrieved: 21 JanMay 2015
uary 2010.
[170] CV-22 delivered to Air Force. Air Force Special OperMulrine, Anna. How an MV-22 Osprey rescued a
ations Command News Service via Air Force Link (United
downed US pilot in Libya. Christian Science Monitor, 22
States Air Force), 21 March 2006. Retrieved: 3 August
March 2011.
2008.

6.11. REFERENCES

51

[171] CV-22 arrival. Hulbert Field, United States Air Force, 20 [192] Navy and Marines Sign MOU for Bell-Boeing Osprey to
April 2006. Retrieved: 20 November 2006.
be Next Carrier Delivery Aircraft - News.USNI.org, 13
January 2015
[172] Osprey sees rst action in search and rescue. Airforce
Times, 26 October 2007.
[193] NAVAIR Details Changes in Navy V-22 Osprey Variant
- News.USNI.org, 2 April 2015
[173] Sirak, Michael. Osprey Ready for Combat. Air Force
Magazine, Volume 92, Issue 5, May 2009, pp. 1112. [194] India; ARC mulls OV-22 Osprey buy - Dmilt.com, 11
Retrieved: 10 May 2009.
May 2015
[174] Lazane, 2nd Lt. Mark. Osprey delivers for Honduran [195] http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/
villagers. U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command, 11
2015-05-07/india-outlines-new-carrier-ambitions
June 2009. Retrieved: 13 March 2011.
[196] Alon, Ben-David. Israel considers V-22 acquisition
[175] Moore, Mona. CV-22s return from rst deployment with
(subscription article). Janes Defence Weekly (Janes In8th SOS Homecoming. nwfdailynews.com, 12 November
formation Group ), 25 January 2006.
2009.
[197] Israel conrms interest in Bell Boeing V-22 tiltrotor.
[176] AFSOC Crash Report Faults Understanding Of Osprey
Flight International, 25 October 2007.
Rotor Wake. AOL Defense, 30 August 2012.
[198] Egozi, Arie. Israel drops interest in V-22, eyes CH-53K
[177] Gordon, Michael R. "Attack on U.S. Aircraft Foils Evacevaluation. Flight International, 12 November 2009.
uation in South Sudan" New York Times, December 21,
2013. Accessed: December 22, 2013.
[199] Egozi, Arie. IAF ups pressure for V-22 buy. Flight
Global, 2 August 2011. Retrieved: 4 September 2011.
[178] Four U.S. soldiers injured in South Sudan after their
aircraft CV-22 Osprey came under re. Armyrecogni[200] Israeli pilots give detailed assessment of V-22 tiltrotor.
tion.com, 22 December 2013.
Flight,
[179] CV-22 crews save lives. Globalavaiationreport.com, 4
[201] Hagel, Yaalon Finalize New Israel Military Capabilities.
August 2014.
U.S. DoD, 22 April 2013.
[180] Entous, Adam, Julian Barnes and Siobhan Gorman, Intelligence gaps crippled mission to rescue hostages, Wall [202] WEISGERBER, MARCUS (31 October 2013). Hagel:
US To Fast-Track V-22 Sale to Israel. defensenews.com.
Street Journal, September 67, 2014, p. A1.
Gannett Government Media Corporation. Retrieved 31
October 2013.
[181] Air Force looking at using Ospreys for search and rescue
- Militarytimes.com, 22 April 2015
[203] Israel Could Receive V-22 Ospreys by 2015 Tamir Eshel,
[182] Norton 2004, pp. 2628, 48, 8384.
November 1, 2013, Defense Update
[183] Norton 2004, pp. 2830, 35, 48.

[204] Egozi, Arie (15 January 2014). Israel requests sixaircraft V-22 purchase. www.flightglobal.com. Flight
[184] Tilghman, Andrew. Tilt-rotor helicopter still looking for
International. Retrieved 15 January 2014.
mission. Navy Times, 20 September 2009.
[205] Eshel, Tamir (January 15, 2014). Pentagon Details Is[185] Thompson, Loren B. "'V' For Versatility: Osprey Reaches
raels MV-22 Osprey Package. defense-update.com. DeFor New Missions. Lexington Institute, 29 March 2010.
fense Update. Retrieved 15 March 2014.
[186] Mass Communication Specialist 3rd Class Renee Can[206] Purchase of the V-22 Boeing helicopter-plane is o for
delario, USN (8 October 2012). MV-22 Osprey Flight
the moment. Globes, 28 October 2014.
Operations Tested Aboard USS Nimitz". NNS121008-13.
USS Nimitz Public Aairs. Retrieved 2011-10-09.
[207] Israel cancels plan to purchase US V-22 Ospreys. Press
TV, 31 October 2014.
[187] Butler, Amy (18 April 2013). Osprey on the Truman,
Fishing for COD. Aviation Week. The McGraw-Hill
[208] Ya'alon Dropping V-22 Osprey Purchase From America.
Companies. Retrieved 18 April 2013. Video
israelnationalnews.com, 30 October 2014.
[188] The Future COD Aircraft Contenders: The Bell Boeing
[209] Reed Business Information Limited. Budget pressures
V-22 Defensemedianetwork.com, 2 August 2013
threaten Israeli V-22 deal. ightglobal.com. Retrieved 6
April 2015.
[189] Israel could double V-22 order size, Bell says Flightglobal.com, 25 February 2014
[210] "Heli Expo 2015 Preview", page 124. Helicopter International, Volume 38 Number 4 January - February 2015.
[190] Navy 2016 Budget Funds V-22 COD Buy, Carrier Refuel
ISSN 0143-1005. Archive
- Breakingdefense.com, 2 February 2015
[191] Whittle, Richard. "Navy Decides to Buy V-22 Ospreys [211] Israeli $800M V-22 Deal Not Dead: Just Hovering for Carrier Delivery" Breaking Defense, 13 January 2015.
Breakingdefense.com, 11 December 2014

52

CHAPTER 6. BELL BOEING V-22 OSPREY

[212] Defense Ministry studies Osprey use by Self-Defense [238] VMM-165. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
Forces. AJW by The Asahi Shimbun. Retrieved 6 April
[239] VMM-165. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
2015.
[213] Japan Seeks V-22 Ospreys For Naval Ops Armedforces- [240] VMM-166. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
Int.com, 20 August 2013
[241] VMMT-204. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[214] Japan Ocially Selects Osprey, Global Hawk, E-2D - De[242] VMM-261. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
fensenews.com, 21 November 2014
[243] VMM-263. usmc.mil. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[215] A lot of new equipment purchases in latest 5-year defense
plan Asahi.com, 14 December 2013
[244] VMM-264. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[216] Japan defence budget calls for 20 P-1s, 5 V-22s. ight- [245] VMM-266. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
global.com. Retrieved 12 January 2015.
[246] VMM-363. helis.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[217] Seoul Reportedly Plans to Buy US' Osprey V-22 Aircraft
[247] VMM-365. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
- Sputniknews.com, 23 February 2015
[218] UAE V-22 Deal Nears Closure. Aviation Week, 3 May [248]
2012.
[249]
[219] United Arab Emirates Steps Up Arms Deals With US.
Al-Monitor.com, 14 May 2012.
[250]
[220] Norton 2004, p. 54.

VMM-561. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

[221] CV-22 Osprey Fact Sheet. United States Air Force, 7 July [251]
2006. Retrieved: 21 August 2013.
[252]
[222] Norton 2004, pp. 7172.
[253]
[223] Bell-Boeing V-22 Guidebook Bell Helicopter

NMUSAF CV-22. YouTube. Retrieved 6 March 2015.

[224] Norton 2004, pp. 10001.

Axe, David. General: My Career Was Done When I


Criticized Flawed Warplane. Wired, 4 October 2012.
Aircraft on display. American Helicopter Museum & Education Center, 2008. Retrieved: 24 April 2012.

Norton 2004, pp. 110111.


V-22 Osprey: Technical Specications. Boeing Defense,
Space and Security. Retrieved: 3 July 2011.

[254] V-22 Characteristics. Naval Air Systems Command. Retrieved: 25 November 2008.

[225] Norton 2004, p. 77.


[226] US Marine Corps retires CH-53D. Rotorhub, 24 February 2012.

[255] Pincus, Walter. Marines New Ride Rolls Out Years


Late. Washington Post, 3 February 2009.

[256] White, Andrew. USAF seeks special operations CSAR


[227] Richard Beedall (October 9, 2012). Maritime Airvehicle. Shephard Group, 24 June 2010.
borne Surveillance and Control (MASC)". NNS12100813. Naval Matters. Retrieved 2011-10-09.
[257] Wall, Robert. U.S. Marines See MV-22 Improvements.
Aviation Week, 24 June 2010.
[228] V-22 Osprey Guidebook. Naval Air Systems Command,
United States Navy, 2011/2012, p. 5.
[258] Norton 2004, p. 111.
[229] World Air Forces 2014, Flightglobal, January 2014.
[230] 352ND SPECIAL OPERATIONS GROUP.
soc.af.mil. Retrieved 7 January 2014.

[259] Remote Guardian System (RGS) (United States), Guns


Integral and mounted. Janes Information Group, 28
afApril 2010.

[231] Fact Sheet: 8 Special Operations Squadron. U.S. Air


Force, 8 August 2008.
[232] CV-22 commencement of operations ceremony held.
U.S. Air Force, 21 June 2010.
[233] Fact Sheet: 71 Special Operations Squadron. U.S. Air
Force, 3 January 2012.
[234] 418th FLTS tests CV-22 terrain-following radar in East
Coast fog. af.mil. Retrieved 6 April 2015.
[235]
[236] VMX-22 Argonauts. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.
[237] VMM-161. tripod.com. Retrieved 5 November 2013.

6.11.2 Bibliography
Markman, Steve and Bill Holder. Bell/Boeing V22 Osprey Tilt-Engine VTOL Transport (U.S.A.)".
Straight Up: A History of Vertical Flight. Atglen,
Pennsylvania: Schier Publishing, 2000. ISBN 07643-1204-9.
Norton, Bill. Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey, Tiltrotor Tactical Transport. Earl Shilton, Leicester, UK: Midland Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-85780-165-2.
O'Hanlon, Michael E. Defense Policy Choices for the
Bush Administration. Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8157-6437-5.

6.12. EXTERNAL LINKS


Schinasi, Katherine V. Defense Acquisitions: Readiness of the Marine Corps V-22 Aircraft for Full-Rate
Production. Darby, Pennsylvania: Diane Publishing, 2008. ISBN 1-4289-4682-9.
Whittle, Richard. The Dream Machine: The Untold
History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey. New York:
Simon & Schuster, 2010. ISBN 1-4165-6295-8.

6.12 External links


Ocial Boeing V-22 site
Ocial Bell V-22 site
V-22 Osprey web
V-22 Osprey history on Navy.mil
CV-22 fact sheet on USAF site
V-22 page on GlobalSecurity.org
The V-22 Osprey, Documentary on the V-22 In
Iraq
Flight of the Osprey, U.S. Navy video of V-22 operations
Cutaway drawing of V-22 prototype
Newer cutaway drawing of V-22

53

Chapter 7

Bell OH-58 Kiowa


The Bell OH-58 Kiowa is a family of single-engine,
single-rotor, military helicopters used for observation,
utility, and direct re support. Bell Helicopter manufactured the OH-58 for the United States Army based on its
Model 206A JetRanger helicopter. The OH-58 has been
in continuous use by the U.S. Army since 1969.

adding 16 cubic feet (0.45 m3 ) of cargo space in the


process.[9] The redesigned aircraft was designated as the
Model 206A, and Bell President Edwin J. Ducayet named
it the JetRanger denoting an evolution from the popular
Model 47J Ranger.

The latest model, the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, is primarily operated in an armed reconnaissance role in support
of ground troops. The OH-58 has been exported to Austria, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Taiwan, and Saudi
Arabia. It has also been produced under license in Australia.

7.1 Development
On 14 October 1960, the United States Navy asked 25
helicopter manufacturers on behalf of the Army for proposals for a Light Observation Helicopter (LOH). Bell
Helicopter entered the competition along with 12 other
manufacturers, including Hiller Aircraft and Hughes Tool
Co., Aircraft Division.[3] Bell submitted the D-250 design, which would be designated as the YHO-4.[4] On 19
May 1961, Bell and Hiller were announced as winners of
the design competition.[5][6]

YOH-4A LOH in ight.

In 1967, the Army reopened the LOH competition for


bids because Hughes Tool Co. Aircraft Division could
not meet the contractual production demands.[10] Bell
resubmitted for the program using the Bell 206A.[4]
Fairchild-Hiller failed to resubmit their bid with the
YOH-5A, which they had successfully marketed as the
FH-1100.[11] In the end, Bell underbid Hughes to win the
7.1.1 Light Observation Helicopter (LOH) contract and the Bell 206A was designated as the OH58A. Following the U.S. Armys naming convention for
Bell developed the D-250 design into the Model 206 air- helicopters, the OH-58A was named Kiowa in honor of
craft, redesignated as YOH-4A in 1962, and produced the Native American tribe.[12]
ve prototype aircraft for the Armys test and evaluation
phase. The rst prototype ew on 8 December 1962.[7]
The YOH-4A also became known as the Ugly Duckling 7.1.2 Advanced Scout Helicopter
in comparison to the other contending aircraft.[7] Following a yo of the Bell, Hughes and Fairchild-Hiller pro- In the 1970s, the U.S. Army began evaluating the need
totypes, the Hughes OH-6 Cayuse was selected in May to improve the capabilities of their scout aircraft. The
1965.[8]
OH-58A lacked the power for operations in areas that exWhen the YOH-4A was rejected by the Army, Bell went posed the aircraft to high altitude and hot temperatures,
about solving the problem of marketing the aircraft. In areas where the ability to acquire targets was a critical
in the tactical warfare capabilities of Army
addition to the image problem, the helicopter lacked deciency
[13]
aviation.
cargo space and only provided cramped quarters for the
planned three passengers in the back. The solution was The power shortcoming caused other issues as the Army
a fuselage redesigned to be more sleek and aesthetic, anticipated the AH-64A's replacement of the venerable
54

7.2. DESIGN
AH-1 in the Attack battalions of the Army. The Army
began shopping the idea of an Aerial Scout Program to
industry as a prototype exercise to stimulate the development of advanced technological capabilities for night
vision and precision navigation equipment.[13] The stated
goals of the program included prototypes that would:

...possess an extended target acquisition


range capability by means of a long-range stabilized optical subsystem for the observer, improved position location through use of a computerized navigation system, improved survivability by reducing aural, visual, radar, and
infrared signatures, and an improved ight
performance capability derived from a larger
engine to provide compatibility with attack
helicopters.[13]

In early March 1974, the Army created a special task


force at Fort Knox to develop the system requirements for
the Aerial Scout Helicopter program,[14] and in 1975 the
task force had formulated the requirements for the Advanced Scout Helicopter (ASH) program. The requirements were formulated around an aircraft capable of performing in day, night, and adverse weather and compatible with all the advanced weapons systems planned for
development and elding into the 1980s. The program
was approved by the System Acquisition Review Council and the Army prepared for competitive development
to begin the next year.[15] However, as the Army tried to
get the program o the ground, Congress declined to provide funding for it in the scal year 1977 budget and the
ASH Project Managers Oce (PM-ASH) was closed on
30 September 1976.[16]
While no development occurred during the next few
years, the program survived as a requirement without
funding. On 30 November 1979, the decision was made
to defer development of an advanced scout helicopter in
favor of pursuing modication of existing airframes in
the inventory as a near term scout helicopter (NTSH) option. The development of a mast-mounted sight would be
the primary focus to improve the aircrafts ability to perform reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition
missions while remaining hidden behind trees and terrain.
Both the UH-1 and the OH-58 were evaluated as NTSH
candidates, but the UH-1 was dropped from consideration due to its larger size and ease of detection. The OH58, on the other hand demonstrated a dramatic reduction
in detectability with a Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS).
On 10 July 1980, the Army decided that the NTSH would
be a competitive modication program based on developments in the commercial helicopter industry, particularly
Hughes Helicopters development of the Hughes 500D
which provided signicant improvements over the OH6.[17]

55

7.1.3 Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP)


The Armys decision to acquire the NTSH resulted in the
Army Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP)". Both
Bell Helicopter and Hughes Helicopters redesigned their
scout aircraft to compete for the contract. Bell oered
a more robust version of the OH-58 in their model 406
aircraft,[18] and Hughes oered an upgraded version of
the OH-6. On 21 September 1981, Bell Helicopter Textron was awarded a development contract.[19][20] The rst
prototype ew on 6 October 1983,[2] and the aircraft entered service in 1985 as the OH-58D.[21]
Initially intended for attack, cavalry and artillery roles,
the Army only approved a low initial production level
and conned the role of the OH-58D to eld artillery observation. The Army also directed that a follow-on test
be conducted to further evaluate the aircraft due to perceived deciencies. On 1 April 1986, the Army formed
a task force at Fort Rucker, Alabama, to remedy deciencies in the AHIP.[21] In 1988, the Army had planned
to discontinue the OH-58D and focus on the LHX; however, Congress approved $138 million to expand the program, calling for the AHIP to operate with the Apache as
a hunter/killer team; the AHIP would locate targets and
the Apache would destroy them in a throwback to the traditional OH-58/AH-1 relationship.[22]
The Secretary of the Army directed instead that the aircrafts armament systems be upgraded, based on experience with Task Force 118s performance operating armed
OH-58D helicopters in the Persian Gulf in support of
Operation Prime Chance, and that the aircraft be used
primarily for scouting and armed reconnaissance.[23] The
armed aircraft would be known as the OH-58D Kiowa
Warrior, denoting its new armed conguration. Beginning with the production of the 202nd aircraft (s/n 890112) in May 1991, all remaining OH-58D aircraft were
produced in the Kiowa Warrior conguration. In January
1992, Bell Helicopter received its rst retrot contract to
convert all remaining OH-58D Kiowa helicopters to the
Kiowa Warrior conguration.[2]

7.2 Design
7.2.1 Mast mounted sight
The OH-58D introduced the most distinctive feature of
the Kiowa family the Mast Mounted Sight (MMS),
which resembles a beach ball perched above the rotor system. The MMS by Ball Aerospace & Technologies has
a gyro-stabilized platform containing a TeleVision System (TVS), a Thermal Imaging System (TIS), and a Laser
Range Finder/Designator (LRF/D). These new features
gave the aircraft the additional mission capability of target acquisition and laser designation in both day or night,

56

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

and in limited-visibility and adverse weather.

his aircraft came under machine gun re and exploded.


Sergeant Philip Taylor, both
The Mast Mounted Sight system was developed by the Knuckey and his observer,
[30]
died
in
the
explosion.
McDonnell Douglas Corp. in Huntington Beach, CA.
Production took place primarily at facilities in Monrovia,
CA. As a result of a merger with Boeing, and a later sale
of the business unit, the program is currently owned and 7.3.2 Operation Prime Chance
managed by DRS Technologies, with engineering support based in Cypress, CA, and production support taking In early 1988, it was decided that armed OH-58D (AHIP)
helicopters from the 118th Aviation Task Force would
place in Melbourne, FL.[24]
be phased in to replace the SEABAT (AH-6/MH-6)
teams of Task Force 160th to carry out Operation Prime
Chance, the escort of oil tankers during the IranIraq
7.2.2 Wire Strike Protection System
War. On 24 February 1988, two AHIP helicopters reOne distinctive feature of operational OH-58s are the ported to the Mobile Sea Base Wimbrown VII, and the
knife-like extensions above and below the cockpit which helicopter team (SEABAT team after their callsign)
are part of the passive Wire Strike Protection System. It stationed on the barge returned to the United States. For
can protect 90% of the frontal area of the helicopter from the next few months, the AHIP helicopters on the Wimwire strikes that can be encountered at low altitudes by brown VII shared patrol duties with the SEABAT team
directing wires to the upper or lower blades before they on the Hercules. Coordination was dicult, but despite
can entangle the rotor blade or landing skids. The OH-58 frequent requests from TF-160, the SEABAT team on the
was the rst helicopter to test this system, after which the Hercules was not replaced by an AHIP detachment until
[31]
system was adopted by the US Army for the OH-58 and June 1988. The OH-58D helicopter crews involved in
[25]
the operation received deck landing and underwater surmost of their other helicopters.
vival training from the Navy.

7.3 Operational history


Major General John Norton, commanding general of the
Army Aviation Materiel Command (AMCOM),[26] received the rst OH-58A Kiowa at a ceremony at Bell Helicopters Fort Worth plant in May 1969. Two months
later, on 17 August 1969, the rst production OH-58A
Kiowa helicopters were arriving in Vietnam,[27] accompanied by a New Equipment Training Team (NETT)
from the Army and Bell Helicopters.[28] Although the
Kiowa production contract replaced the LOH contract
with Hughes, the OH-58A did not automatically replace
the OH-6A in operation. Subsequently, the Kiowa and
the Cayuse would continue operating in the same theater
until the end of the war.

7.3.1

Vietnam War

On 27 March 1970, an OH-58A Kiowa (s/n 68-16785)


was shot down over Vietnam, one of the rst OH-58A
losses of the war. The pilot, Warrant Ocer Ralph
Quick, Jr., was ying Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Benoski,
Jr. as an artillery spotter. After completing a battle damage assessment for a previous re mission, the aircraft
was damaged by .51 cal (13 mm) machine gun re and
crashed, killing both crew members. Approximately 45
OH-58A helicopters were destroyed during the Vietnam
War due to combat losses and accidents.[29] One of the
last combat losses was of an OH-58A (s/n 68-16888)
from A Troop, 3-17th Cavalry, own by First Lieutenant
Thomas Knuckey. On 27 May 1971, Lieutenant Knuckey
was also ying a battle damage assessment mission when

In November 1988, the number of OH-58D helicopters


that supported Task Force 118 was reduced. However,
the aircraft continued to operate from the Navys Mobile
Sea Base Hercules, the frigate Underwood, and the destroyer Conolly. OH-58D operations primarily entailed
reconnaissance ights at night, and depending on maintenance requirements and ship scheduling, Army helicopters usually rotated from the mobile sea base and other
combatant ships to a land base every seven to fourteen
days. On 18 September 1989, an OH-58D crashed during night gunnery practice and sank, but with no loss of
personnel. When the Mobile Sea Base Hercules was deactivated in September 1989, all but ve OH-58D helicopters redeployed to the continental United States.[32]

7.3.3 RAID
In 1989, Congress mandated that the Army National
Guard would take part in the countrys War on Drugs,
enabling them to aid federal, state and local law enforcement agencies with special congressional entitlements. In response, the Army National Guard Bureau
created the Reconnaissance and Aerial Interdiction Detachments (RAID) in 1992, consisting of aviation units in
31 states with 76 specially modied OH-58A helicopters
to assume the reconnaissance/interdiction role in the ght
against illegal drugs. During 1994, 24 states conducted
more than 1,200 aerial counterdrug reconnaissance and
interdiction missions, conducting many of these missions
at night.[33] Eventually, the program was expanded to
cover 32 states and consisting of 116 aircraft, including
dedicated training aircraft at the Western Army Aviation
Training Site (WAATS) in Marana, Arizona.[34]

7.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


The RAID programs mission has now been expanded
to include the war against terrorism and supporting U.S.
Border Patrol activities in support of homeland defense.
The National Guard RAID units Area of Operation
(AO) is the only one in the Department of Defense that
is wholly contained within the borders of the United
States.[34]

7.3.4

57
pilots killed.[40] Their presence has also been anecdotally
credited with saving lives, having been used to rescue
wounded despite their small size.[41] In Iraq, OH-58Ds
ew 72 hours per month, while in Afghanistan, they ew
80 hours per month.[42] In 2013, Bell stated that the OH58 had 820,000 combat hours, and 90% mission capable
rate.[43]

Operation Just Cause and action in 7.3.6 Future


the 1990s

During Operation Just Cause in 1989, a team consisting


of an OH-58 and an AH-1 were part of the Aviation Task
Force during the securing of Fort Amador in Panama.
The OH-58 was red upon by Panama Defense Force soldiers and crashed 100 yards (91 m) away, in the Bay of
Panama. The pilot was rescued but the co-pilot died.[35]
On 17 December 1994, Army Chief Warrant Ocers
(CWO) David Hilemon and Bobby Hall left Camp Page,
South Korea on a routine training mission along the
Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). Their ight was intended to
be to a point known as Checkpoint 84, south of the DMZ
no-y zone, but the OH-58C Kiowa strayed nearly four
miles (6.4 km) into the Kangwon Province, inside North
Korean airspace, due to errors in navigating the snowcovered, rugged terrain. The helicopter was shot down
by North Korean troops and CWO Hilemon was killed.
CWO Hall was held captive and the North Korean government insisted that the crew had been spying. Five
days of negotiations resulted in the North Koreans turning over Hilemons body to U.S. authorities. The negotiations failed to secure Halls immediate release. After
13 days in captivity, Hall was freed on 30 December,
uninjured.[36][37]

The rst attempt to replace the OH-58 was the RAH66 Comanche of the Light Helicopter Experimental program, which was cancelled in 2004. Airframe age and
losses led to the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program to procure a new aircraft, the Bell ARH-70, which
was later cancelled in 2008 due to cost overruns. The
third replacement eort for the OH-58 was the Armed
Aerial Scout program.[44] Due to uncertainty in the AAS
program and scal restraints, planned retirement of the
OH-58F Kiowa has been extended from 2025 to 2036.[45]
The Kiowas role as a scout aircraft is being supplemented by tactical unmanned aerial vehicles, the two
platforms often act in conjunction to provide reconnaissance to expose crews to less risk. The OH-58F has the
ability to control UAVs directly to safely perform scout
missions.[42] In 2011, the Kiowa was scheduled to be replaced by the light version of the Future Vertical Lift aircraft in the 2030s.[46]

As of December 2013, the U.S. Army has 338 Kiowas in


its active-duty force and 30 in the Army National Guard.
The Army is considering retiring the Kiowa as part of a
wider restructuring to cut costs and reduce the various
types of helicopters in service. The Analysis of Alternatives (AoA) for the AAS program found that the Kiowa
operating alongside RQ-7 Shadow UAVs was the most
aordable and capable solution; it also said that the AH64E Apache Guardian was the most capable immedi7.3.5 Afghanistan and Iraq
ate solution for the scout helicopter role. It is proposed
that all OH-58s be divested and all National Guard and
Army Reserve Apaches would be transferred to the active Army to serve as scouts. The Apache costs 50 percent more than the Kiowa to operate and requires more
maintenance; studies showed that if the Apache had been
used in place of the Kiowa in Iraq and Afghanistan, total
operating costs would have been $4 billion greater, but
would save $1 billion per year in operating and sustainment costs. UH-60 Black Hawks would be transferred
from the active eet to reserve and Guard units. The proposal aims to retire older helicopters to save money and
retain those with the greatest capabilities.[47] The 2010
AoA that found that Apaches teamed with UAVs was the
optimal choice; with a reduced service size a total of 698
Shrink wrapped OH-58 Kiowa helicopters to be shipped to Iraq.
Apaches could ll the role. Funds for Apache upgrades
[48]
The United States Army has employed the OH-58D dur- would be released from the Kiowas termination. Meing Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq and Operation En- dia expects the OH-58s to go to foreign military[49]rather
during Freedom in Afghanistan.[38][39] Due to combat than civilian operators due higher operating cost.
and accidents, over 35 airframes have been lost, with 35 The Army will place 26 out of 335 OH-58Ds in non-

58

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

yable storage during 2014. In anticipation of divesting


the Kiowa, the Army is looking to see if other military
branches, government agencies, and foreign customers
would be interested in buying the aircraft. The Kiowas
are considered in a good price range for foreign countries
with limited resources. Bell has not yet agreed to support the helicopters if sold overseas. In November 2014
Croatia sent a letter of intent for the acquisition of 16
OH-58Ds.[50][51]

CA-32 was the equivalent of the 206B-1 (upgraded engine and longer rotor blades). The rst twelve of 56 were
built in the U.S. then partially disassembled and shipped
to Australia where they were reassembled.[55] Helicopters
in the naval eet were retired in 2000.[55]

7.4.3 OH-58C

7.4 Variants

OH-58C operated by the National Test Pilot School at the Mojave


Airport. Note the at windscreen and the IR exhaust suppressors

Equipped with a more robust engine, the OH-58C was


supposed to solve many issues and concerns regarding the
An OH-58 Kiowa.
Kiowas power. In addition to the upgraded engine, the
OH-58C had unique IR suppression systems mounted on
its turbine exhaust. Early C models featured at-panel
windscreens as an attempt to reduce glint from the sun,
7.4.1 OH-58A
which could give away the aircrafts location to an enemy.
The OH-58A Kiowa is a 4-place observation helicopter. The windscreens had a negative eect of limiting the forThe Kiowa has two-place pilot seating, although the con- ward view of the crew, a previous strength of the original
trols in the left seat are designed to be removed to carry design.
a passenger up front. During its Vietnam development, The aircraft was also equipped with a larger instrument
it was tted with the M134 Minigun, a 7.62 mm electri- panel, roughly a third bigger than the OH-58A panel,
cally operated machine gun. A total of 74 OH-58A he- which held larger ight instruments. The panel was also
licopters were delivered to the Canadian Armed Forces equipped with Night Vision Goggle (NVG) compatible
as COH-58A and later redesignated as CH-136 Kiowa cockpit lighting. The lights inside the aircraft are modhelicopters.[52]
ied to prevent them from interfering with the aircrews
[56]
In 1978, OH-58A aircraft began to be converted to use of NVGs. OH-58C aircraft were also the rst U.S.
the same engine and dynamic components as the OH- Army scout helicopter to be equipped with the AN/APR58C.[53] And, in 1992, 76 OH-58A were modied with 39 radar detector, a system which allowed the crew to
anti-aircraft radar systems in proxanother engine upgrade, a thermal imaging system, a know when there were
[57]
imity
to
the
aircraft.
communications package for law enforcement, enhanced
navigational equipment and high skid gear as part of the Some OH-58C aircraft were armed with two AIM-92
Army National Guards (ARNG) Counter-Drug RAID Stingers. These aircraft are sometimes referred to as OHprogram.
58C/S, the S referring to the Stinger installation.[58]
Called Air-To-Air Stinger (ATAS), the weapon system
was intended to provide an air defense capability.

7.4.2

OH-58B

The OH-58B was an export version for the Austrian Air


Force.[54] The Australian Government also procured the
OH-58A for the Australian Army and Royal Australian
Navy as the CAC CA-32. Produced under contract in
Australia by Commonwealth Aircraft Corporation, the

7.4.4 OH-58D
The OH-58D (Bell Model 406) was the result of the Army
Helicopter Improvement Program (AHIP). An upgraded
transmission and engine gave the aircraft the power it

7.4. VARIANTS

59
7-shot 2.75 in (70 mm) Hydra-70 rocket pods,[65] and an
M296 .50 caliber machine gun. The standard of performance for aerial gunnery from an OH-58D is to achieve
at least one hit out of 70 shots red at a wheeled vehicle 800 to 1,200 m (2,625 to 3,937 ft) away.[66][67] The
Kiowa Warrior upgrade also includes improvements in
available power, navigation, communication and survivability, as well as modications to improve the aircrafts
deployability.[68]

7.4.5 OH-58F
A OH-58D assigned to 2nd Squadron, 6th Cavalry Regiment,
lands on the deck of the USS Lake Erie

Bell Helicopter OH-58F test aircraft in ight


OH-58D with cockpit airbags

needed for nap-of-the-earth ight proles, and a fourbladed main rotor made it much quieter than the twobladed OH-58C. The OH-58D introduced the distinctive
Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS) above the rotor system, and
a mixed glass cockpit, with traditional instruments identied as standby for emergency use.
The Bell 406CS Combat Scout was based on the OH58D (sometimes referred to as the MH-58D). Fifteen
aircraft[7][59] were sold to Saudi Arabia.[60] A roofmounted Saab HeliTOW sight system was opted for in
place of the MMS.[61] The 406CS also had detachable
weapon hardpoints on each side.
The AH-58D was an OH-58D version operated by Task
Force 118 (4th Squadron, 17th Cavalry) and modied
with armament in support of Operation Prime Chance.
The weapons and re control systems would become the
basis for the Kiowa Warrior. AH-58D is not an ocial
DOD aircraft designation, but is used by the Army in reference to these aircraft.[62][63][64]

The OH-58F is the designation for an upgrade of the


OH-58D. The Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade Program
(CASUP) features a nose-mounted targeting and surveillance system in addition to the OH-58Ds mast-mounted
sensor. The AAS-53 Common Sensor Payload (CSP)
includes an advanced infrared camera, color ElectroOptical camera, and image intensier; it is expected to
improve ight performance by 1-2% through weight and
drag reductions.[69] Cockpit upgrades include the Control
and Display Subsystem version 5, for more processing
and storage power, three color multi-function displays,
and dual-independent advanced moving maps. The OH58F shall have Level 2 Manned-Unmanned (L2MUM)
teaming, the Force Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) display screen, with future improvement
to Blue Force Tracker 2. Survivability enhancements
include ballistic oor armor and the Common Missile
Warning System (CMWS). Other features include improved situational awareness, digital inter-cockpit communications, HELLFIRE future upgrades, redesigned
wiring harness, Health and Usage Monitoring (HUMS),
and enhanced weapons functionality via 1760 digital
interface. It has a dual-channel, full-authority digital
engine-controller to ensure operations at required power
levels in all environments.[70][71][72] The OH-58F did not
address engine power requirements; Rolls-Royce proposed adaptions of the Model 250-CR30 engine to increase output by 12%.[73]

The Kiowa Warrior, sometimes referred to by its acronym


KW, is the armed version of the OH-58D Kiowa. The
main dierence that distinguishes the Kiowa Warrior
from the original AHIP aircraft is a universal weapons
pylon found mounted on both sides of the aircraft. These
pylons are capable of carrying combinations of AGM- In October 2012, the rst OH-58F was nished. Unlike
114 Hellre missiles, air-to-air Stinger (ATAS) missiles, most military projects, the Army designed and built the

60

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

new variant itself, which lowered developmental costs.


It weighed 3,590 lb, 53 lb below the target weight and
about 200 lb lighter than the OH-58D. The weight savings are attributed to more ecient wiring and a lighter
sensor. The rst production aircraft will start being built
in January 2013 and will be handed over to the Army
by the end of the year. Low rate production was to start
in March 2015, with the rst operational squadron being
fully equipped by 2016. The Army is to buy 368 OH58Fs, older A, C and D-model OH-58s were to be remanufactured into F-models.[74] Because of battle damage and combat attrition, total OH-58F numbers will be
about 321 aircraft.[75] The rst ight of the OH-58F occurred on 26 April 2013.[76]

the Block II was seen as the performance upgrade. This


gave the Army exibility in times of shrinking budgets,
as they had the option of upgrading the Kiowa to the Fmodel and then continuing to the Block II later when there
were sucient funds.[81] Shortly before December 2012,
the Army decided they would recommend proceeding
with the AAS program.[44][45] The Army ended the AAS
program in late 2013.[82] With the onset of sequestration
budget cuts in early 2013, it was decided that the $16 billion cost of buying new armed scout helicopters was too
expensive.[77]

The Army plans to retire its Kiowa eet and end the Fmodel CASUP upgrades. CASUP and SLEP upgrades
would cost $3 billion and $7 billion respectively, totaling
$10 billion for features that the Army cannot aord to
allocate money to. The OH-58D can reach 20 percent
of armed aerial scout mission requirements, upgrading to
OH-58F standard would raise that to 50 percent. Replacing the Kiowa with Apaches and unmanned systems in
scout roles would meet 80 percent of requirements.[77] In
the rst quarter of 2014, Bell received a stop-work order
for the Kiowa F-model CASUP program.[78]

The OH-58X was a modication of the fourth development OH-58D (s/n 69-16322) with partial stealth features and a chin-mounted McDonnell-Douglas Electronics Systems turret as a night piloting system; including
a Kodak FLIR system with a 30-degree eld of view.
Avionics systems were consolidated and moved to the
nose, making room for a passenger seat in the rear. No
aircraft were produced.[2]

7.4.7 Others

7.5 Operators
Austria
Austrian Armed Forces[83]

OH-58X Kiowa. Modied OH-58D prototype. Note nose, pitch


link cover and engine cowl area
Australian Army Kiowa

7.4.6

OH-58F Block II

On April 14, 2011, Bell performed the successful rst


ight of their OH-58F Block II variant. The Block II
was Bells entry in the Armed Aerial Scout program.[79] It
built on the improvements of the F-model, and added features including the Honeywell HTS900 turboshaft engine,
the transmission and main rotors of the Bell 407, and the
tail and tail rotor of the Bell 427. Bell started voluntary
ight demonstrations in October 2012, and the Army had
to decide by December if it would even proceed with the
AAS program.[80] Bell hoped for the Army to go with
their service life extension models instead of the program.
The F-model Kiowa is an obsolescence upgrade, while

Republic of China (Taiwan)


Republic of China Army[83]
Dominican Republic
Dominican Air Force[83]
Saudi Arabia

7.6. AIRCRAFT ON DISPLAY

61

Royal Saudi Land Forces[83]


Turkey
Turkish Army[83]
United States
United States Army[83]
Canadian CH-136 Kiowa with 408 Tactical Helicopter
Squadron, 1984

7.6 Aircraft on display


68-16940 - International Airport in Palm Springs,
California. Transformed into a sculpture.[98]
69-16112 - Pima Air and Space Museum in Tucson,
Arizona[99]

An Austrian Armed Forces OH-58, during AirPower 2013

7.5.1

69-16123 - Kansas Museum of Military History in


Augusta, Kansas[100]
69-16153 - MAPS Air Museum in North Canton,
Ohio[101]

Former operators

69-16338 - Point Alpha Museum in Hesse, Germany[102]

Australia

71-20475 - Veterans Memorial Museum,


Huntsville, Alabama, United States[103][104]

Australian Army

[84]

72-21256 - The Aviation Museum of Kentucky in


Lexington, Kentucky[105]

161 Reconnaissance Squadron [84]


Canada

Polish Aviation Museum, Krakw, Poland - CH136[106]

Canadian Forces[85]

7.7 Specications

400 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[86]


3 Canadian Forces Flying Training School[87]
401 Tactical
Squadron[88]

and

403 (Helicopter)
Squadron[89]

Training

Helicopter 7.7.1

Operational

Training

408 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[90]


411 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[91]
422 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[92]
427 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[93]
430 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[94]
438 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[95]
444 Tactical Helicopter Squadron[96]
Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment[97]

OH-58A

62

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

Data from U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947[107]

Main rotor diameter: 35 ft 0 in (10.67 m)

General characteristics

Height: 12 ft 105 8 in (3.93 m)

Crew: 1 pilot, 2 pilots, or 1 pilot and 1 observer

Main rotor area: 14.83 ft2 (1.38 m2 )

Length: 32 ft 2 in (9.80 m)

Empty weight: 3,829 lb (1,737 kg)

Rotor diameter: 35 ft 4 in (10.77 m)

Gross weight: 5,500 lb (2,495 kg)

Height: 9 ft 7 in (2.92 m)

Powerplant: 1 Rolls-Royce T703-AD-700A or


250-C30R3 turboshaft, 650 hp (485 kW) each

Empty weight: 1,583 lb (718 kg)


Max. takeo weight: 3,000 lb (1,360 kg)
Powerplant: 1 Allison T63-A-700 turboshaft,
317 shp (236 kW)
Fuselage length: 34 ft 4.5 in (10.48 m)
Performance
Maximum speed: 120 knots (222 km/h, 138 mph)
Cruise speed: 102 knots (188 km/h, 117 mph)

Performance
Maximum speed: 149 mph (240 km/h)
Cruise speed: 127 mph (204 km/h)
Range: 161 miles (556 km)
Endurance: 2.0 hours
Service ceiling: 15,000 ft (4,575 m)
Armament

Range: 299 mi (481 km, 260 nmi)


Service ceiling: 19,000 ft (5,800 m)
Armament

Guns: M134 six-barreled 7.62mm minigun


mounted on the M27 Armament Subsystem
OR
M129 grenade launcher mounted on the XM8
Armament Subsystem

Each pylon (two total) can carry one of the following:


1x M3P (or M296) .50 cal (12.7 mm) machine
gun[108]
1x LAU-68 rocket launcher w/ seven 2.75 Hydra
70 rockets
2x AGM-114 Hellre missiles

7.7.3 OH-58F
7.7.2

OH-58D

Data from Bell Helicopter [109][110]


General characteristics
Crew: 2 pilots
Empty weight: 3,496 lb (1,586 kg)
Gross weight: 5,500 lb (2,495 kg)
Powerplant:
1 Rolls-Royce 250-C30R3
turboshaft, 650 hp (485 kW) each
Performance

Data from Janes,[2] U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947[107]

Cruise speed: 109 (with weapons) mph (176 km/h)

General characteristics

Range: 161 miles (260 km)

Crew: 2 pilots
Length: 42 ft 2 in (12.85 m)

Endurance: 2.0 hours


Armament

7.9. REFERENCES

63

Each pylon (two total) can carry one of the fol- 7.9.2
lowing:
1x M3P .50 cal (12.7mm) machine gun
1x M260 rocket launcher w/ seven 2.75 Hydra 70
rockets

Notes

[1] Donald, David, ed. Bell Model 206 JetRanger, The


Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Barnes & Nobel Books, 1997. ISBN 0-7607-0592-5.

2x AGM-114 Hellre missiles

[2] Jackson, Paul, Lindsay T. Peacock, Kenneth Munson, and


John W. R. Taylor. Janes All the Worlds Aircraft, 1996
97. Coulsdon, Surrey, UK: Janes Information Group,
1996. ISBN 978-0-7106-1377-6.

2x JAGM (Joint Air-to-Ground Missile)

[3] Remington, Steve. The Cessna CH-1 Helicopter. CollectAir.com

7.8 See also


Related development
Bell YOH-4
Bell 206
Bell 400
Bell 407
Bell ARH-70
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
OH-6 Cayuse
MBB Bo 105
Cicar CH-14
Mil Mi-36
Changhe Z-11
Arospatiale Gazelle
Related lists
List of active United States military aircraft

7.9 References
7.9.1

Footnotes

[1] The last new build aircraft were delivered to the U.S.
Army in 1989. The subsequent arming of the AHIP and
the System Safety Enhancement Program (SSEP) caused
aircraft to be steadily retted until 1999.

[4] Beechy, Robert. U.S Army Aircraft Acquisition Programs. Uncommon Aircraft 2006. 18 November 2005.
Accessed on 19 September 2006.
[5] See Light Observation Helicopter. The Navy, who was assisting the Army in the selection phase, recommended the
Hiller Model 1100, while the Army team preferred the
Bell D-250, and then the 1100. The Selection Board selected both aircraft. Afterwards, the acting Army Chief of
Sta directed the Selection Board to include the Hughes
369 in the y-o competition.
[6] Spangenberg, George A. George A. Spangenberg Oral
History. georgespangenberg.com. Judith SpangenbergCurrier, ed. pp. 187-190. Accessed on 29 April 2008.
[7] Visschedijk, Johan. Bell 206 JetRanger. 1000AircraftPhotos.com. 16 October 2003. Accessed on 19 September 2006.
[8] Spenser, Jay P. Bell Helicopter. Whirlybirds, A History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers, p. 263. University
of Washington Press, 1998. ISBN 0-295-98058-3.
[9] Aastad, Andy. The Introduction to the JetRanger. Rotor
Magazine. Helicopter Association International. Winter
2006-2007. Accessed on 29 April 2008.
[10] Holley and Sloniker, p. 8.
[11] Hirschberg, Michael J. and David K. Daley. Bell. US
and Russian Helicopter Development In the 20th Century.
American Helicopter Society. 7 July 2000. Accessed on
20 April 2007.
[12] Holley and Sloniker, p. 90.
[13] Department of the Army Historical Summary.
army.mil. 1974. Retrieved 17 January 2014.
[14] Cocke, Karl E. (1978). XI Research, Development and
Acquisition. Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1974. United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
[15] Cocke, Karl E. (1978). X Research, Development and
Acquisition. Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1975. United States Army Center of Military History. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
[16] Cocke, Karl E. (1977). Research, Development and Acquisition. Department of the Army Historical Summary,
1976. United States Army Center of Military History.
Retrieved 2007-04-14.

64

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

[17] 11. Research Development and Acquisition. Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1980 url
= http://www.history.army.mil/books/DAHSUM/1980/
index.htm#Contents''. United States Army Center of
Military History. 1983. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
[18] Historic U.S. Army Helicopters. Archived from the
original on 2007-02-24. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
[19] COL Robert S. Fairweather Jr. and MAJ Grant Fossum
(JulyAugust 1982). The AHIP: Field Artillery Aerial
Observer Platform of the Future (PDF). Field Artillery
Magazine.
[20] Research Development and Acquisition. Department of
the Army Historical Summary, 1981. United States Army
Center of Military History. 1988. Retrieved 2007-04-14.
[21] Gough, Terrence J. (1995). http://www.history.army.
mil/books/DAHSUM/1986/ch04.htm |chapterurl= missing title (help). Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1986. United States Army Center of Military History.
[22] Webb, William Joe (1993). Modernizing and Equipping
the Army. Department of the Army Historical Summary,
1988. United States Army Center of Military History.
[23] Demma, Vincent H. (1998). 11. Modernization: Research, Development and Acquisition. Department of
the Army Historical Summary, 1989. United States Army
Center of Military History.
[24] DRS Technologies, Inc. - Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS)".
Drs.com. Retrieved 2013-02-11.
[25] Bristol Aerospace.

[35] Operation Just Cause: The Incursion into Panama. United


States Army Center of Military History. CMH Pub No.
70-85-1. Retrieved 1 September 2006.
[36] Oce of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs). OH-58C Helicopter Down in North Korea. Press
Release. United States Department of Defense. 19 December 1994. Accessed 30 December 2007.
[37] Miles, Donna. Drama Along the DMZ. Soldiers. 45
February 1995. Accessed on 3 November 2006. (archive
copy).
[38] OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Reconnaissance / Attack Helicopter, USA. SPG Media Limited. 2007-11-27.
Archived from the original on 4 July 2008. Retrieved
2008-08-04.
[39] Sayah, Reza with Barbara Starr and Jamie McIntyre. U.S., Pakistan exchange shots at volatile border.
CNN.com, 25 September 2008. Accessed on 15 January
2009.
[40] Hastings, Michael, Americas New Cavalry, Mens Journal, September 2010, p. 128.
[41] Thackary, Lorna. Injured Red Lodge soldier recounts blast, dramatic rescue in Afghanistan.
BillingsGazette.com, 18 April 2010.
Accessed on
31 May 2013.
[42] Another Old Warrior Too Good To Replace - Strategypage.com, May 14, 2013
[43] "Bell Helicopter Provides OH-58 Kiowa Warrior Program
Update" Bell/Textron, April 12, 2013. Accessed: December 8, 2013.

[26] Lieutenant General John Norton. Army Aviation Hall of


Fame. Army Aviation Association of America. Accessed
on 22 October 2008.

[44] U.S. Army ocials said to back new scout helicopter Reuters.com, November 30, 2012

[27] Historic U.S. Army Helicopters. October 5, 2005.

[45] U.S. Army Conrms AAS Will Be New Start Or OH-58


SLEP - Aviationweek.com, May 10, 2013

[28] Bell Helicopter News information. Vietnam Helicopter


Pilots Association. Accessed on 22 October 2008.

[46] Superfast Helicopters - Defensemedianetwork.com, 25


October 2011

[29] Roush, Gary. Helicopter Losses During the Vietnam


War. VHPA.org. Accessed on 4 January 2009.

[47] Army Plans To Scrap Kiowa Helo Fleet - MarineCorpstimes.com, 9 December 2013

[30] Kiowa crewmember line of duty deaths.


crews.com. Accessed on 4 January 2009.

armyair-

[48] Army aviation ying smarter into scal squeeze Army.mil, 14 January 2014

[31] Operations EARNEST WILL and PRIME CHANCE.


Night Stalker History. Retrieved 2007-03-25.

[49] Host, Pat (April 2015). Armys aviation restructuring not


to aect civil helicopter market. Rotor & Wing. p. 3842. Retrieved 12 April 2015.

[32] Demma, Vincent H. (1998).


6.
Operations.
Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1989.
United States Army Center of Military History. CMH
Pub 101-21. Retrieved 2007-03-25.
[33] Kaplan, L. Martin (2000). 5. Reserve Forces.
Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1994.
United States Army Center of Military History. CMH
Pub 101-25.
[34] Doug Nelms (1 November 2002). Homeland Defense: Fighting Homeland Wars. Rotor & Wing (www.
aviationtoday.com).

[50] http://www.jutarnji.hr/
jutarnji-doznaje--ministar-kotromanovic-pisao-pentagonu-hrvatska-trazi-od
1236155/
[51] US Army begins grounding Kiowas, seeks buyers - Flightglobal.com, 7 May 2014
[52] Bell CH-136 Kiowa. Air Force Public Aairs, Department of National Defence. 15 April 2004.
[53] Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1978.
United States Army Center of Military History.

7.9. REFERENCES

65

[54] OH-58B Kiowa. GlobalSecurity.org.


[55] History of Bell OH58-A Kiowa Helicopter. 161 Possums. 161 Recce Association.

[78] Bell receives stop work order for Kiowa upgrades - Flightglobal.com, 5 May 2014
[79] Bell Flies OH-58 Block II Candidate for AAS - Military.com, April 19, 2011

[56] Bell OH-58C Kiowa. Flight Research, Inc.


[57] Department of the Army Historical Summary, 1977.
United States Army Center of Military History.
[58] Team Redstones Role in Operation DESERT
SHIELD/DESERT STORM. Redstone Arsenal.
[59] MH-58D Combat Scout.

[80] Bell starts OH-58 Block II ight demo - Flightglobal.com,


October 23, 2012
[81] Scout Helicopter Competitors to Army: Its Time for a
Flyo - Nationaldefensemagazine.com, December 2012
[82] Outgoing General: US Army Must Continue To Fund Research and Development - Defensenews.com, 14 January
2014

[60] Royal Saudi Air Arms. Scramble. Dutch Air Society.


[61] Bell Model 406 CS Combat Scout. Janes All the
Worlds Aircraft 1992-1993. Janes Information Group,
1992. subscription article, dated 15 July 1992.
[62] OH-58 series Kiowa Photo Gallery
[63] XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS CHRONOLOGY - OPERATION DESERT STORM - 16- 31 January 1991
[64] XVIII AIRBORNE CORPS HISTORY OFFICE PHOTOGRAPHS - Gulf War Photo Sampler - Operations
DESERT SHIELD and DESERT STORM
[65] Hydra-70 Rocket System. Federation of American Scientists.
[66] ASP Motion Base for Stabilized Mounts Department of
Defense Small Business Innovation Research. Retrieved:
June 2012.
[67] Helicopter gunnery tables GlobalSecurity.org.
trieved: June 2012.

Re-

[68] OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Federation of American Scientists. Retrieved 2006-10-04.


[69] Colucci, Frank (MayJune 2013). Stretching the Scout.
Vertiite 59 (3): 4245.
[70] Army News Service by Kris Osborn, 15 March 2011
[71] OH-58F - Army.mil/Stand-To, 18 May 2011.
[72] The Bell OH-58F: Your Mission (PDF). Bell Helicopter. Retrieved March 2011.
[73] Trimble, Stephen. "US Army announces new Fox model
for Kiowa Warrior". Flight International. 26 October
2010. Flightglobal.com (online), 26 October 2010.
[74] US Army completes rst OH-58F test aircraft - Flightglobal.com, 25 October 2012
[75] Given Budget Uncertainty, Armed Aerial Scout Hovering
in Limbo - Nationaldefensemagazine.com, April 2013
[76] US Army OH-58F makes rst ight - Flightglobal.com,
30 April 2013
[77] Army Debates Divestment of Kiowa Warrior; Replacement Program in Doubt - Nationaldefensemagazine.com,
14 January 2014

[83] World Air Forces 2014 (PDF). Flightglobal Insight.


2014. Retrieved 17 January 2014.
[84] History of Bell OH58-A Kiowa Helicopter. .webcitation.org. Retrieved 29 January 2013.
[85] Bell CH-136 KIOWA. canadianwings.com. Retrieved
17 January 2014.
[86] Canadian Forces (November 2008). 400 Sqn History.
Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[87] Canadian Forces (April 2004). Bell CH-136 Kiowa.
Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[88] Canadian Forces (December 2008). 400 Series. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
[89] Canadian Forces (November 2008). 403 Squadron History. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
[90] Canadian Forces (September 2011). 408 Squadron History. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[91] Canadian Forces (December 2008). 400 Series. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
[92] Canadian Forces (December 2008). 400 Series. Retrieved 2009-07-14.
[93] Canadian Forces (May 2010). 427 Squadron History.
Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[94] Canadian Forces (November 2008).
[http://www.
rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/1w-1e/sqns-escs/page-eng.asp?
id=379 430 Squadron History"]. Retrieved 30 January
2013.
[95] Canadian Forces (November 2008). 438 Squadron History. Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[96] Canadian Forces (April 2012). 444 Squadron History.
Retrieved 30 January 2013.
[97] Shaw, Robbie: Superbase 18 Cold Lake- Canadas Northern Guardians, p. 86. Osprey Publishing, London, 1990.
ISBN 0-85045-910-9.
[98] Airframe Dossier - Bell OH-58C (FG) Kiowa, s/n
68-16940 US, c/n 40254. Aerial Visuals. www.
AerialVisuals.ca. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
[99] KIOWA. Pima Air & Space Museum. pimaair.org. Retrieved 20 May 2015.

66

CHAPTER 7. BELL OH-58 KIOWA

[100] Aerial Visuals - Airframe Dossier - Bell OH-58 Kiowa,


s/n 69-16123 US. Aerial Visuals. AerialVisuals.ca. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
[101] History - OH-58 Kiowa. Google Sites. Retrieved 20
May 2015.
[102] de Vries, Wim. Memorial / Gedenksttte Point Alpha Bell OH-58A Kiowa"". Panoramio. Google. Retrieved
20 May 2015.
[103] Administrator. OH58 Kiowa Helicopter. memorialmuseum.org. Retrieved 10 March 2015.
[104] Aircraft Data 71-20475, 1971 Bell OH-58C Kiowa C/N
41336. Airport-Data.com. Airport-Data.com. Retrieved
20 May 2015.
[105] Aircraft Data 72-21256, 1972 Bell OH-58A Kiowa C/N
41922. Airport-Data.com. Airport-Data.com. Retrieved
20 May 2015.
[106] Bell CH-136 Kiowa. http://www.muzeumlotnictwa.pl''.
[107] Harding, Stephen. Bell H-58 Kiowa. U.S. Army Aircraft Since 1947. Schier Publishing Ltd., 1997. ISBN
0-7643-0190-X.
[108] van Geete, Stephanie. 6-6 Cavalry aircrews eld new
Kiowa Warrior weapons system. www.army.mil Published 6 Apr 2009. Accessed 16 Sep 2013.
[109] The Bell OH-58F. Bell Helicopter. [Brochure]. 2011.
[110] OH-58F: Next Generation Kiowa.
Web. Accessed 16 Sept 2013.

7.9.3

Bell Helicopter.

Bibliography

Holley, Charles, and Mike Sloniker. Primer of the


Helicopter War. Grapevine, Tex: Nissi Publ, 1997.
ISBN 0-944372-11-2.
Spenser, Jay P. Bell Helicopter. Whirlybirds, A
History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers. University
of Washington Press, 1998. ISBN 0-295-98058-3.
World Aircraft information les Brightstar publishing London File 424 sheet 2
This article incorporates public domain material from
websites or documents of the United States Army Center of Military History.

7.10 External links


OH-58 Kiowa Warrior and OH-58D fact sheets on
Army.mil
OH-58D armament systems page on Army.mil
Kiowa Warrior Mast-Mounted Sight (MMS) Sensor
Suite on northropgrumman.com

Chapter 8

Bell UH-1 Iroquois


This article is about the single-engine military versions
and operators of the Bell Model 204 and 205. For the
civil versions and operators, see Bell 204/205. For an
overview of the whole Huey family of aircraft, see Bell
Huey family.
The Bell UH-1 Iroquois (unocially Huey) is a military
helicopter powered by a single turboshaft engine, with
two-bladed main and tail rotors. The helicopter was developed by Bell Helicopter to meet the United States
Army's requirement for a medical evacuation and utility
helicopter in 1952, and it rst ew on 20 October 1956.
Ordered into production in March 1960, the UH-1 was
the rst turbine-powered helicopter to enter production
for the United States military, and more than 16,000 have
been built.[1]

In 1952, the Army identied a requirement for a new helicopter to serve as medical evacuation (MEDEVAC), instrument trainer, and general utility aircraft. The Army
determined that current helicopters were too large, underpowered, or complex to maintain easily. In November
1953, revised military requirements were submitted to
the Department of the Army.[3] Twenty companies submitted designs in their bid for the contract, including Bell
Helicopter with the Model 204 and Kaman Aircraft with
a turbine-powered version of the H-43. On 23 February
1955, the Army announced its decision, selecting Bell to
build three copies of the Model 204 for evaluation, designated as the XH-40.[4]

The rst combat operation of the UH-1 was in the service 8.1.1 Model 204
of the U.S. Army during the Vietnam War. The original
designation of HU-1 led to the helicopters nickname of Main article: Bell 204/205
Huey.[2] In September 1962, the designation was changed
to UH-1, but Huey remained in common use. ApproxPowered by a prototype Lycoming YT53-L-1 (LTC1Bimately 7,000 UH-1 aircraft saw service in Vietnam.
1) engine producing 700 shp (520 kW), the XH-40 rst
ew on 20 October 1956[5] at Fort Worth, Texas, with
Bells chief test pilot, Floyd Carlson, at the controls. Two
8.1 Development
more prototypes were built in 1957, and the Army had
previously ordered six YH-40 service test aircraft, even
before the rst prototype had own.[3][6] In March 1960,
the Army awarded Bell a production contract for 100 aircraft, which was designated as the HU-1A and ocially
named Iroquois after the Native American nations.[7]
The helicopter quickly developed a nickname derived
from its designation of HU-1, which came to be pronounced as Huey. The reference became so popular
that Bell began casting the name on the helicopters antitorque pedals.[2] The ocial U.S. Army name was almost
never used in practice.[8] After September 1962, the designation for all models was changed to UH-1 under a unied Department of Defense (DOD) designation system,
but the nickname remained.
A Bell XH-40, a prototype of the UH-1

Main article: Bell UH-1 Iroquois variants

While glowing in praise for the helicopters advances


over piston-engined helicopters, the Army reports from
the service tests of the YH-40 found it to be underpowered with the production T53-L-1A powerplant produc67

68
ing a maximum continuous 770 shaft horsepower (570
kilowatts).[N 1] The Army indicated the need for improved follow-on models even as the rst UH-1As were
being delivered. In response, Bell proposed the UH-1B,
equipped with the Lycoming T53-L-5 engine producing
960 shp (720 kW) and a longer cabin that could accommodate either seven passengers or four stretchers and a
medical attendant. Army testing of the UH-1B started in
November 1960, with the rst production aircraft delivered in March 1961.[3]

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS


the transmission, facing out. Seating capacity increased
to 15, including crew.[9] The enlarged cabin could also
accommodate six stretchers and a medic, two more than
the earlier models.[9] In place of the earlier models sliding side doors with a single window, larger doors were
tted which had two windows, plus a small hinged panel
with an optional window, providing access to the cabin.
The doors and hinged panels were quickly removable, allowing the Huey to be own in a doors o conguration.
The Model 205 prototype ew on 16 August 1961.[10][11]
Seven pre-production/prototype aircraft had been delivered for testing at Edwards AFB starting in March 1961.
The 205 was initially equipped with a 44-foot (13.4 m)
main rotor and a Lycoming T53-L-9 engine with 1,100
shp (820 kW). The rotor was lengthened to 48 feet (14.6
m) with a chord of 21 in (53 cm). The tailboom was
also lengthened, in order to accommodate the longer rotor
blades. Altogether, the modications resulted in a gross
weight capacity of 9,500 lb (4,309 kg). The Army ordered production of the 205 in 1963, produced with a
T53-L-11 engine for its multi-fuel capability.[N 2][12] The
prototypes were designated as YUH-1D and the production aircraft was designated as the UH-1D.

Bell commenced development of the UH-1C in 1960 in


order to correct aerodynamic deciencies of the armed
UH-1B. Bell tted the UH-1C with a 1,100 shp (820 kW)
T53-L-11 engine to provide the power needed to lift all
weapons systems in use or under development. The Army
would eventually ret all UH-1B aircraft with the same
engine. A new rotor system was developed for the UH1C to allow higher air speeds and reduce the incidence
of retreating blade stall during diving engagements. The
improved rotor resulted in better maneuverability and a
slight speed increase.[6] The increased power and a larger
diameter rotor required Bells engineers to design a new
tail boom for the UH-1C. The longer tail boom incorporated a wider chord vertical n on the tail rotor pylon and In 1966, Bell installed the 1,400 shp (1,000 kW) Lylarger synchronized elevators.
coming T53-L-13 engine to provide more power for the
Bell also introduced a dual hydraulic control system for aircraft. The pitot tube was relocated from the nose to the
redundancy as well as an improved inlet lter system for roof of the cockpit, to prevent damage during landing.
the dusty conditions found in southeast Asia. The UH- Production models in this conguration were designated
1C fuel capacity was increased to 242 US gallons (920 as the UH-1H.[8][13]
liters), and gross weight was raised to 9,500 lb (4,309 kg),
giving a nominal useful load of 4,673 lb (2,120 kg). UH1C production started in June 1966 with a total of 766 8.1.3 Marine Corps
aircraft produced, including ve for the Royal Australian
Navy and ve for Norway.
In 1962, the United States Marines Corps held a competition to choose an assault support helicopter to replace
the Cessna O-1 xed-wing aircraft and the Kaman OH8.1.2 Model 205
43D helicopter. The winner was the UH-1B, which was
already in service with the Army. The helicopter was
Main article: Bell 204/205
designated the UH-1E and modied to meet Marine reWhile earlier short-body Hueys were a success, the quirements. The major changes included the use of allaluminum construction for corrosion resistance,[N 3] radios compatible with Marine Corps ground frequencies,
a rotor brake for shipboard use to stop the rotor quickly
on shutdown and a roof-mounted rescue hoist.
The UH-1E was rst own on 7 October 1963, and deliveries commenced 21 February 1964, with 192 aircraft
completed. Due to production line realities at Bell, the
UH-1E was produced in two dierent versions, both with
the same UH-1E designation. The rst 34 built were
essentially UH-1B airframes with the Lycoming T53-L11 engine producing 1,100 shp (820 kW). When Bell
Ventura County Sheris Department Air Unit Fire Support Bell switched production to the UH-1C, the UH-1E production beneted from the same changes. The Marine Corps
HH-1H
later upgraded UH-1E engines to the Lycoming T53Army wanted a version that could carry more troops. L-13, which produced 1,400 shp (1,000 kW), after the
Bells solution was to stretch the HU-1B fuselage by 41 in Army introduced the UH-1M and upgraded their UH-1C
(104 cm) and use the extra space to t four seats next to helicopters to the same engine.

8.2. DESIGN

8.1.4

69

Air Force

steel later in the UH-1Hs life, due to cracking on hightime airframes. The semi-monocoque tail boom attaches
The United States Air Force's (USAF) competition for to the fuselage with four bolts.[17]
a helicopter to be used for support on missile bases in- The UH-1Hs dynamic components include the engine,
cluded a specic requirement to mandate the use of the transmission, rotor mast, main rotor blades, tail rotor
General Electric T58 turboshaft as a powerplant. The Air driveshaft, and the 42-degree and 90-degree gearboxes.
Force had a large inventory of these engines on hand for The transmission is of a planetary type and reduces the
its eet of HH-3 Jolly Green Giant rescue helicopters and engines output to 324 rpm at the main rotor. The
using the same engine for both helicopters would save two-bladed, semi-rigid rotor design, with pre-coned and
costs. In response, Bell proposed an upgraded version of under-slung blades, is a development of early Bell model
the 204B with the T58 engine. Because the T58 output designs, such as the Bell 47 with which it shares comshaft is at the rear, and was thus mounted in front of the mon design features, including a dampened stabilizer bar.
transmission on the HH-3, it had to have a separate oset The two-bladed system reduces storage space required for
gearbox (SDG or speed decreaser gearbox) at the rear, the aircraft, but at a cost of higher vibration levels. The
and shafting to couple to the UH-1 transmission.
two-bladed design is also responsible for the characteristic 'Huey thump' when the aircraft is in ight, which is
particularly evident during descent and in turning ight.
8.1.5 Twin engine variants
The tail rotor is driven from the main transmission, via
the two directional gearboxes which provide a tail rotor
The single engine UH-1 variants were followed by the
speed approximately six times that of the main rotor to
twin-engine UH-1N Twin Huey and later the UH-1Y
increase tail rotor eectiveness.[17]
Venom. Bell began development of the UH-1N for
Canada in 1968. It changed to the more powerful Pratt The UH-1H also features a synchronized elevator on the
& Whitney Canada PT6T twin-engine set. The U.S. also tail boom, which is linked to the cyclic control and allows
ordered the helicopter with the U.S. Air Force receiving a wider center of gravity range. The standard fuel system
it in 1970. Canadas military, the U.S. Marine Corps, and consists of ve interconnected fuel tanks, three of which
are mounted behind the transmission and two of which
the U.S. Navy rst received the model in 1971.[6]
are under the cabin oor. The landing gear consists of
In 1996, the USMC began the H-1 upgrade program by
two arched cross tubes joining the skid tubes. The skids
awarding a contract to Bell Helicopter for developing the
have replaceable sacricial skid shoes to prevent wear of
improved UH-1Y and AH-1Zs variants.[14] The UH-1Y
the skid tubes themselves. Skis and inatable oats may
includes a lengthened cabin, four-blade rotor and two
be tted.[17]
more powerful GE T700 engines.[1] The UH-1Y entered
service with the USMC in 2008.[15]

8.2 Design
The UH-1 has a metal fuselage of semi-monocoque construction with tubular landing skids and two rotor blades
on the main rotor.[16] Early UH-1 models featured a single Lycoming T53 turboshaft engine in versions with
power ratings from 700 shp (522 kW) to 1,400 shp (1,040
kW).[6] Later UH-1 and related models would feature
twin engines and four-blade rotors.
All aircraft in the UH-1 family have similar construction.
The UH-1H is the most-produced version, and is representative of all types. The main structure consists of
two longitudinal main beams that run under the passenger cabin to the nose and back to the tail boom attachment point. The main beams are separated by transverse
bulkheads and provide the supporting structure for the
cabin, landing gear, under-oor fuel tanks, transmission,
engine and tail boom. The main beams are joined at the
lift beam, a short aluminum girder structure that is attached to the transmission via a lift link on the top and
the cargo hook on the bottom and is located at the aircrafts center of gravity. The lift beams were changed to

Typical armament for UH-1 gunship

Internal seating is made up of two pilot seats and additional seating for up to 13 passengers or crew in the cabin.
The maximum seating arrangement consists of a fourman bench seat facing rearwards behind the pilot seats,

70

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS

facing a ve-man bench seat in front of the transmission


structure, with two, two-man bench seats facing outwards
from the transmission structure on either side of the aircraft. All passenger seats are constructed of aluminum
tube frames with canvas material seats, and are quickly
removable and recongurable. The cabin may also be
congured with up to six stretchers, an internal rescue
hoist, auxiliary fuel tanks, spotlights, or many other mission kits. Access to the cabin is via two aft-sliding doors
and two small, forward-hinged panels. The doors and
hinged panels may be removed for ight or the doors
may be pinned open. Pilot access is via individual hinged
doors.[17]

operational service and Hueys with the 57th Medical Detachment arrived in Vietnam in March 1962.[13]
The UH-1 has long been a symbol of US involvement in
Southeast Asia in general and Vietnam in particular, and
as a result of that conict, has become one of the worlds
most recognized helicopters. In Vietnam primary missions included general support, air assault, cargo transport, aeromedical evacuation, search and rescue, electronic warfare, and later, ground attack. During the conict, the craft was upgraded, notably to a larger version
based on the Model 205. This version was initially designated the UH-1D and ew operationally from 1963.

While the ve main fuel tanks are self-sealing, the UH1H was not equipped with factory armor, although armored pilot seats were available.[17]
The UH-1Hs dual controls are conventional for a helicopter and consist of a single hydraulic system boosting the cyclic stick, collective lever and anti-torque pedals. The collective levers have integral throttles, although
these are not used to control rotor rpm, which is automatically governed, but are used for starting and shutting down the engine. The cyclic and collective control
the main rotor pitch through torque tube linkages to the
swash plate, while the anti-torque pedals change the pitch
of the tail rotor via a tensioned cable arrangement. Some
UH-1Hs have been modied to replace the tail rotor control cables with torque tubes similar to the UH-1N Twin A rie squad from the 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry exiting from a
UH-1D
Huey.[17]

8.3 Operational history


8.3.1

U.S. Army

During service in the Vietnam War, the UH-1 was used


for various purposes and various terms for each task
abounded. UH-1s tasked with a ground attack or armed
escort role were outtted with rocket launchers, grenade
launchers, and machine guns. As early as 1962, UH-1s
were modied locally by the companies themselves, who
fabricated their own mounting systems.[18] These gunship
UH-1s were commonly referred to as Frogs or Hogs
if they carried rockets, and Cobras or simply Guns
if they had guns.[19][20][N 4][21] UH-1s tasked and congured for troop transport were often called Slicks due to
an absence of weapons pods. Slicks did have door gunners, but were generally employed in the troop transport
and medevac roles.[8][13]

UH-1s also ew hunter-killer teams with observation


helicopters, namely the Bell OH-58A Kiowa and the
Hughes OH-6 Cayuse (Loach).[8][13] Towards the end of
the conict, the UH-1 was tested with TOW missiles, and
two UH-1B helicopters equipped with the XM26 ArmaUH-1Ds airlift members of the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Reg- ment Subsystem were deployed to help counter the 1972
iment from the Filhol Rubber Plantation area to a staging area,
Easter Invasion.[22] USAF Lieutenant James P. Fleming
in 1966
piloted a UH-1F on a 26 November 1968 mission that
[23]
The HU-1A (later redesignated UH-1A) rst entered ser- earned him the Medal of Honor.
vice with the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Camp- In Cavalry troops (companies), there were three plabell, Kentucky, the 82nd Airborne Division, and the 57th toons. The Blue platoon had aero-rie soldiers and their
Medical Detachment. Although intended for evaluation organic UH-1 troop transports for feet-on-the ground
only, the Army quickly pressed the new helicopter into reconnaissance and to support other platoons. The

8.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

71
During the war 7,013 UH-1s served in Vietnam and of
these 3,305 were destroyed. In total 1,074 Huey pilots
were killed, along with 1,103 other crew members.[24]
The US Army phased out the UH-1 with the introduction of the UH-60 Black Hawk, although the Army UH-1
Residual Fleet had around 700 UH-1s that were to be retained until 2015, primarily in support of Army Aviation
training at Fort Rucker and in selected Army National
Guard units. Army support for the craft was intended to
end in 2004. The UH-1 Huey was retired from active
Army service in 2005.[25] In 2009, Army National Guard
retirements of the UH-1 accelerated with the introduction
of the UH-72 Lakota.[26][27][28]

8.3.2 U.S. Air Force

Two UH-1B Huey gunships from HAL-3 Seawolf sit on the


deck of the USS Garrett County in Mekong Delta, South Vietnam

reconnaissance or observation helicopter platoon was


known as the Whites. The attack helicopter platoon
was called the Reds. The red platoon had Huey or Huey
Cobra attack helicopters. Mixed-platoon teams were often used. Purple teams had one or two Blue slicks
dropping o scout troops, while one or two Red attack
helicopters provided protection. Another highly eective
team was the Pink Recon/Attack team, which had a single scout helicopter and a single attack helicopter to defend the scout and to attack discovered enemy troops.[8]

VNAF UH-1H lands during a combat mission in Southeast Asia


in 1970

In October 1965, the USAF 20th Helicopter Squadron


was formed at Tan Son Nhut Air Base in South Vietnam,
equipped initially with CH-3C helicopters. By June 1967
the UH-1F and UH-1P were also added to the units inventory, and by the end of the year the entire unit had
shifted from Tan Son Nhut to Nakhon Phanom Royal
Thai Air Force Base, with the CH-3s transferring to the
21st Helicopter Squadron. On 1 August 1968, the unit
was redesignated the 20th Special Operations Squadron.
The 20th SOSs UH-1s were known as the Green Hornets, stemming from their color, a primarily green twotone camouage (green and tan) was carried, and radio
call-sign Hornet. The main role of these helicopters
were to insert and extract reconnaissance teams, provide
cover for such operations, conduct psychological warfare,
and other support roles for covert operations especially in
Laos and Cambodia during the so-called Secret War.[29]

During the course of the war, the UH-1 went through several upgrades. The UH-1A, B, and C models (short fuselage, Bell 204) and the UH-1D and H models (stretchedfuselage, Bell 205) each had improved performance and
load-carrying capabilities. The UH-1B and C performed
the gunship, and some of the transport, duties in the early
years of the Vietnam War. UH-1B/C gunships were replaced by the new AH-1 Cobra attack helicopter from
1967 to late 1968. The increasing intensity and sophistication of NVA anti-aircraft defenses made continued use
of UH-1 gunships impractical, and after Vietnam the Cobra was adopted as the Armys main attack helicopter.
Devotees of the UH-1 in the gunship role cite its ability
to act as an impromptu dusto if the need arose, as well as 8.3.3 U.S. Navy
the superior observational capabilities of the larger Huey
cockpit, which allowed return re from door gunners to The US Navy began acquiring UH-1B helicopters from
the Army and these aircraft were modied into gunships
the rear and sides of the aircraft.[8][13]

72

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS

with special gun mounts and radar altimeters and were


known as Seawolves in service with Navy Helicopter Attack (Light) (HA(L)3). UH-1C helicopters were also
acquired in the 1970s.[30][31] The Seawolves worked as a
team with Navy river patrol operations.[32]

sequently transferred to the 171st Aviation Squadron in


Darwin, Northern Territory and the 5th Aviation Regiment based in Townsville, Queensland following the decision that all battleeld helicopters would be operated
by the Australian Army.[36] On 21 September 2007, the
Four years after the disestablishment of HA(L)3, the Australian Army retired the last of their Bell UH-1s. The
Navy determined that it still had a need for gunships, last ight occurred in Brisbane on that day with the airhelicopters and Tiger
establishing two new Naval Reserve Helicopter Attack craft replaced by MRH-90 medium[37]
armed reconnaissance helicopters.
(Light) Squadrons as part of the newly formed Commander, Helicopter Wing Reserve (COMHELWINGRES) The Royal Australian Navy's 723 Squadron also operated
in 1976. Helicopter Attack Squadron (Light) Five seven UH-1B from 1964 to 1989, with three of these air(HA(L)5), nicknamed the Blue Hawks, was estab- craft lost in accidents during that time.[38] 723 Squadron
lished at Naval Air Station Point Mugu, California on the deployed Iroquois aircraft and personnel as part of the
11 June 1977 and its sister squadron, Helicopter Attack Experimental Military Unit during the Vietnam War.[39]
Squadron (Light) Four (HA(L)4), known as the Red
Wolves, was formed at Naval Air Station Norfolk, Virginia on 1 July 1976.[33]
8.3.5 New Zealand

8.3.4

Australia

A Royal New Zealand Air Force No. 3 Squadron UH-1H Iroquois in November 2009
A 9 Sqn UH-1D in Vietnam, 1970.

The Royal Australian Air Force employed the UH-1H until 1989. Iroquois helicopters of No. 9 Squadron RAAF
were deployed to South Vietnam in mid 1966 in support of the 1st Australian Task Force. In this role they
were armed with single M60 doorguns. In 1969 four
of No. 9 Squadrons helicopters were converted to gunships (known as 'Bushrangers), armed with two xed
forward ring M134 7.62 mm minigun (one each side)
and a 7 round rocket pod on each side. Aircrew were
armed with twin M60 exible mounts in each door. UH1 helicopters were used in many roles including troop
transport, medevac and Bushranger gunships for armed
support.[34] No. 35 Squadron and No. 5 Squadron also
operated the Iroquois in various roles through the 1970s
and 1980s. Between 1982 and 1986, the squadron contributed aircraft and aircrew to the Australian helicopter
detachment which formed part of the Multinational Force
and Observers peacekeeping force in the Sinai Peninsula,
Egypt.[34] In 1988 the RAAF began to re-equip with S70A Blackhawks.[35]

The Royal New Zealand Air Force had an active eet of


13 Iroquois serving with No. 3 Squadron RNZAF.[40]
The rst delivery was ve UH-1D in 1966 followed in
1970 by nine UH-1H and one more UH-1H in 1976. All
of the UH-1D aircraft were upgraded to 1H specication during the 1970s. Two ex-U.S. Army UH-1H attrition airframes were purchased in 1996, one of which
is currently in service. Three aircraft have been lost in
accidents.[41]

The RNZAF is currently in the process of retiring the Iroquois. The NHIndustries NH90 has been chosen as its replacement, eight active NH90 helicopters plus one spare
are being procured. This process was expected to be completed by the end of 2013, but has since been pushed out
to 2016. Individual aircraft were retired as they reach
their next major 'group' servicing intervals; the UH-1H
is to be retired as the NH90 eet is stood up.[42] On 21
May 2015, the remaining UH-1H eet of six helicopters
conducted a nal tour of the country ahead of its planned
retirement on 1 July. During 49 years of service the type
had seen service in areas including the U.K., Southeast
In 1989 and 1990 the RAAFs UH-1H Iroquois were sub- Asia, Timor, the Solomon Islands, various South Pacic

8.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


nations, and the Antarctic.[43]

8.3.6

Germany

73
Force and took part as troop transports in the counterinsurgency ght. One was lost in combat in September
1979, when hit in Mozambique by a RPG. At least another three were lost. The survivors were put up for sale
in 1990.[46]

8.3.10 Argentina

German UH-1D

The 352 licensed German UH-1D variants built by


Dornier between 1967 and 1981 saw service with the
military (Bundeswehr) by the German Army and German Air Force as light utility as well as search and rescue (SAR) helicopters.[8] In addition the German Federal
Police (Bundespolizei) made extensive use of the UH-1
before replacing them with newer Eurocopter EC135 helicopters.

8.3.7

El Salvador

UH-1s were operated by El Salvador Air Force, being at


its time the biggest and most experienced combat helicopter force in Central and South America, ghting during 10 years and being trained by US Army in tactics developed during the Vietnam War. UH-1M and UH-1H
helicopters used by El Salvador were modied to carry
bombs instead of rocket pods.[44]

UH-1Hs at Port Stanley Airport. These were transported to the


islands by C-130H Hercules and did not have their rotors reattached yet

Nine Argentine Army Aviation UH-1Hs and two


Argentine Air Force Bell 212 were included with the
aircraft deployed during the Falklands War. They performed general transport and SAR missions and were
based at Port Stanley (BAM Puerto Argentino). Two of
the Hueys were destroyed and, after the hostilities had
ended, the balance were captured by the British.[47]

8.3.11 Israel

Israel withdrew its UH-1s from service in 2002, after


thirty three years of service. They were replaced by
Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk helicopters beginning with
an initial batch of 10 delivered in 1994. While some
were passed on to pro-Israeli militias in Lebanon, eleven
8.3.8 Lebanon
other UH-1Ds were reportedly sold to a Singapore based
logging company but were, instead, delivered in October
During the Battle of Nahr el-Bared camp in North 1978 to the Rhodesian Air Force to skirt the UN endorsed
Lebanon, the Lebanese army, lacking xed-wing aircraft, embargo imposed during the Rhodesian Bush War.[48][49]
modied the UH-1H to carry 500 lb (227 kg) Mark 82
bombs to strike militant positions, i.e. helicopter bombing. Special mounts engineered by the Lebanese army
8.3.12 Operation Enduring Freedom
were added to the sides of each Huey to carry the high
(2001present)
explosive bombs.[45]

8.3.9

Rhodesia

Very late in the Rhodesian Bush War the Rhodesian Air


Force was able to obtain and use eleven former Israeli
Agusta-Bell 205As, known in service as Cheetahs. After
much work these then formed No. 8 Sqn Rhodesian Air

UH-1Hs have been used by the American Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in counter-narcotics raids in
the ongoing conict in Afghanistan. Operated by contractors, these Hueys provide transportation, surveillance,
and air support for DEA FAST teams. Four UH-1Hs and
two Mi-17s were used in a raid in July 2009 which led to
the arrest of an Afghan Border Police commander.[50]

74

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS

8.4 Variant overview


Main article: UH-1 Iroquois variants

YH-40: Six aircraft for evaluation, as XH-40 with


12-inch (300 mm) cabin stretch and other modications.
Bell Model 533: One YH-40BF rebuilt as a
ight test bed with turbofan engines and wings.

8.4.1

U.S. Military variants

HU-1A: Initial Bell 204 production model, redesignated as the UH-1A in 1962.[13] 182 built.[51]
TH-1A: UH-1A with dual controls and blindying instruments, 14 conversions.[51]
XH-1A: A single UH-1A was redesignated for
grenade launcher testing in 1960.[13]
HU-1B: Upgraded HU-1A, various external and
rotor improvements.
Redesignated UH-1B in
1962.[13] 1014 built plus four prototypes designated
YUH-1B.[51]
NUH-1B: a single test aircraft, serial number
64-18261.[13]

UH-1A Iroquois in ight.

UH-1C: The UH-1B gunship lacked the power necessary to carry weapons and ammunition and keep
up with transport Hueys, and so Bell designed yet another Huey variant, the UH-1C, intended strictly
for the gunship role. It is an UH-1B with improved
engine, modied blades and rotor-head for better
performance in the gunship role.[13] 767 built.[51]
YUH-1D: Seven pre-production prototypes of the
UH-1D.
UH-1D: Initial Bell 205 production model (long
fuselage version of the 204). Designed as a troop
carrier to replace the CH-34 then in US Army
service.[13] 2008 built many later converted to UH1H standard.[51]

NASA's UH-1H returns to Langley after supporting space shuttle


operations at Kennedy Space Center.

HH-1D: Army crash rescue variant of UH1D.[13]


UH-1E: UH-1B/C for USMC with dierent avionics and equipment.[13] 192 built.[51]
NUH-1E: UH-1E congured for testing.
TH-1E: UH-1C congured for Marine Corps
training. Twenty were built in 1965.[13]
UH-1F: UH-1B/C for USAF with General Electric
T58-GE-3 engine of 1,325 shp (988 kW).[13] 120
built.[51]
TH-1F: Instrument and Rescue Trainer based
on the UH-1F for the USAF.[13] 26 built.[51]

A USAF TH-1H out of Randolph Air Force Base in 2005

XH-40: The initial Bell 204 prototype. Three prototypes were built, equipped with the Lycoming XT53-L-1 engine of 700 shp (520 kW).[13]

UH-1G: Unocial name applied locally to at least


one armed UH-1H by the Khmer National Air Force
in Cambodia.[52]

8.4. VARIANT OVERVIEW

75
HH-1K: Purpose built SAR variant of the Model
204 for the US Navy with USN avionics and
equipment.[13] 27 built.[51]
TH-1L: Helicopter ight trainer based on the HH1K for the USN. A total of 45 were built.[13]
UH-1L: Utility variant of the TH-1L. Eight
were built.[13]

Base Rescue Moose Jaw CH-118 Iroquois helicopters at CFB


Moose Jaw, 1982

UH-1H: Improved UH-1D with a Lycoming T53L-13 engine of 1,400 shp (1,000 kW).[13] 5435
built.[51]
CUH-1H: Canadian Forces designation for
the UH-1H utility transport helicopter. Redesignated CH-118.[13][53] A total of 10 built.[51]
EH-1H: Twenty-two aircraft converted by installation of AN/ARQ-33 radio intercept and
jamming equipment for Project Quick Fix.

UH-1M: Gunship specic UH-1C upgrade with


Lycoming T53-L-13 engine of 1,400 shp (1,000
kW).[13]
UH-1N: Initial Bell 212 production model, the Bell
Twin Pac twin-engined Huey powered by Pratt &
Whitney Canada T400-CP-400.[13]
UH-1P: UH-1F variant for USAF for special operations use and attack operations used solely by
the USAF 20th Special Operations Squadron, the
Green Hornets.[13]
EH-1U: No more than 2 UH-1H aircraft modied for Multiple Target Electronic Warfare System
(MULTEWS).[56]

HH-1H: SAR variant for the USAF with rescue hoist.[13] A total of 30 built.[51]

UH-1V: Aeromedical evacuation, rescue version for


the US Army.[13]

JUH-1: Five UH-1Hs converted to SOTAS battleeld surveillance conguration with


belly-mounted airborne radar.[13]

EH-1X: Ten Electronic warfare UH-1Hs converted


under Quick Fix IIA.[13]

TH-1H: Recently modied UH-1Hs for use as


basic helicopter ight trainers by the USAF.

UH-1Y: Upgraded variant developed from existing


upgraded late model UH-1Ns, with additional emphasis on commonality with the AH-1Z.
Note: In U.S. service the G, J, Q, R, S, T, W and Z model
designations are used by the AH-1. The UH-1 and AH1 are considered members of the same H-1 series. The
military does not use I (India) or O (Oscar) for aircraft
designations to avoid confusion with one and zero respectively.

8.4.2 Other military variants

JGSDF UH-1J in Okadama STA, 2007

UH-1J: An improved Japanese version of the UH1H built under license in Japan by Fuji was locally
given the designation UH-1J.[54] Among improvements were an Allison T53-L-703 turboshaft engine providing 1,343 kW (1,800 shp), a vibrationreduction system, infrared countermeasures, and a
night-vision-goggle (NVG) compatible cockpit.[55]

Bell 204: Bell Helicopters company designation,


covering aircraft from the XH-40, YH-40 prototypes to the UH-1A, UH-1B, UH-1C, UH-1E, UH1F, HH-1K, UH-1L, UH-1P and UH-1M production aircraft.
Agusta-Bell AB 204: Military utility transport helicopter. Built under license in Italy by
Agusta.
Agusta-Bell AB 204AS: Anti-submarine
warfare, anti-shipping version of the AB 204
helicopter.

76

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS


Fuji-Bell 204B-2: Military utility transport 8.6 Aircraft on display
helicopter. Built under license in Japan by Fuji
Heavy Industries. Used by the Japan Ground Main article: List of displayed Bell UH-1 Iroquois
Self-Defense Force under the name Hiyodori.

Bell 205: Bell Helicopters company designation of


the UH-1D and UH-1H helicopters.

8.7 Specications (UH-1D)

Bell 205A-1: Military utility transport helicopter version, initial version based on the
UH-1H.
Bell 205A-1A: As 205A-1, but with armament hardpoints and military avionics. Produced specically for Israeli contract.
Agusta-Bell 205: Military utility transport
helicopter. Built under license in Italy by
Agusta.
AIDC UH-1H: Military utility transport helicopter.
Built under license in Taiwan by Aerospace Industrial Development Corporation.[57]
Dornier UH-1D: Military utility transport helicopter. Built under license in Germany by Dornier General characteristics
Flugzeugwerke.[57]
Crew: 14
Fuji-Bell 205A-1: Military utility transport
Capacity: 3,880 lb (1,760 kg) including 14 troops,
helicopter. Built under licence in Japan by
or 6 stretchers, or equivalent cargo
Fuji. Used by the Japanese Ground Self De[58]
fense Force under the designation HU-1H.
Length: 57 ft 1 in (17.40 m) with rotors
Bell 211 Huey Tug With up-rated dynamic system and larger wide chord blades, the Bell 211 was
oered for use as the US Armys prime artillery
mover, but not taken up.[8]

Width: 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m) (Fuselage)


Height: 14 ft 5 in (4.39 m)
Empty weight: 5,215 lb (2,365 kg)

Gross weight: 9,040 lb (4,100 kg)


Bell Huey II: A modied and re-engined UH Max takeo weight: 9,500 lb (4,309 kg)
1H, improvements were an Allison T53-L-703 turboshaft engine providing 1,343 kW (1,800 shp),
Powerplant: 1 Lycoming T53-L-11 turboshaft,
a vibration-reduction system, infrared countermea1,100 shp (820 kW)
sures, and a night-vision-goggle (NVG) compatible
Main rotor diameter: 48 ft 0 in (14.63 m)
cockpit.signicantly upgrading its performance, and
its cost-eectiveness. Currently oered by Bell in
cooperation with the Philippine Air Force to all cur- Performance
rent military users of the type.
Maximum speed: 135 mph (217 km/h; 117 kn)
UH-1/T700 Ultra Huey: Upgraded commercial
version, tted with a 1,400-kW (1900-shp) General
Electric T700-GE-701C turboshaft engine.[59]

8.5 Operators
Main article: List of Bell UH-1 Iroquois operators

Cruise speed: 125 mph (109 kn; 201 km/h)


Range: 315 mi (274 nmi; 507 km)
Service ceiling: 19,390 ft (5,910 m) (Dependent on
environmental factors such as weight, outside temp.,
etc)
Rate of climb: 1,755 ft/min (8.92 m/s)
Power/mass: 0.15 hp/lb (0.25 kW/kg)

8.10. REFERENCES
Armament
Variable, but may include a combination of:
2 7.62 mm M60 machine gun, or 2 7.62 mm
GAU-17/A machine gun
2 7-round or 19-round 2.75 in (70 mm) rocket
pods

77
Bell 204/205
Bell 212
Bell 214
Bell 412
Bell 533
Panha Shabaviz 2-75

2 7.62 mm Rheinmetall MG3 (German Army and


Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
German Luftwae)
2 .303 Browning Mk II (Rhodesian, twin machine
guns mounted on port side)
Further information: U.S. helicopter armament subsystems

8.8 Notable appearances in media


Main article: Aircraft in ction Bell H-1 Iroquois
The image of American troops disembarking from a
Huey has become an iconic image of the Vietnam War,
and can be seen in many lms, video games and television shows on the subject, as well as more modern settings. The UH-1 is seen in many lms about the Vietnam
War, including The Green Berets, Platoon, Hamburger
Hill, Apocalypse Now, Casualties of War, and Born on the
Fourth of July. It is prominently featured in We Were Soldiers as the main helicopter used by the Air Cavalry in the
Battle of Ia Drang. Author Robert Mason recounts his career as a UH-1 Slick pilot in his memoir, Chickenhawk.
The 2002 journey of Huey 091, displayed in the Smithsonian American History Museum, is outlined in the documentary In the Shadow of the Blade.[60]

8.9 See also

Sikorsky XH-39
Related lists
List of active United States military aircraft

8.10 References
8.10.1 Footnotes
[1] The total power rating of the T53-L-1A is 860 shp (640
kW). Military engines are often derated to improve reliability of the aircraft powertrain and to provide a temporary period of higher power output without exceeding the
limits of the engine.
[2] The 7 January 1965-edition of Flight International magazine states that the L-11 engine is similar to the L-9 in
power, but with a multi-fuel capability.
[3] Earlier UH-1s had some magnesium components.
[4] Quote: The UH-1B was the rst helicopter gunship to
achieve widespread combat use. It was also the rst to
carry the name Cobra

8.10.2 Citations
[1] Bell UH-1Y pocket guide. Bell Helicopter, March 2006.
Retrieved: 20 January 2010.

UH-1 Iroquois variants

[2] Bell UH-1V Huey. Delaware Valley Historical Aircraft


Association, March 2008. Retrieved: 25 February 2009.

Bell Huey overview of all models

[3] Weinert 1991, p. 203.

US Helicopter Armament Subsystems


Related development

[4] Chapman, S. Up from Kitty Hawk: 195463 (pdf). Air


Force Magazine, Air Force Association. Retrieved: 5 October 2008.

Bell AH-1 Cobra

[5] Aeroengines 1957 (pdf). Flight, 26 July 1957 . Retrieved: 10 August 2009.

Bell AH-1 SuperCobra


Bell UH-1N Twin Huey

[6] Donald, David, ed. Bell 204"; Bell 205. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. New York: Barnes
& Noble Books, 1997. ISBN 0-7607-0592-5.

Bell UH-1Y Venom

[7] H-40. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved: 16 February 2010.

78

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS

[8] Drendel 1983, pp. 921.

[32] River Patrol Force. Navy News Release, 1969.Retrieved:


3 March 2012.

[9] Apostolo 1984, pp. 4748.

[33] BLUEHAWKS of HAL-5. bluehawksofhal-5.org. Retrieved 10 March 2015.

[10] McGowen 2005, p. 100.


[11] Pattillo 2001, p. 208.
[12] Dobson, G. Helicopter powerplants: The world scene.
Flight, 7 January 1965. Retrieved: 10 August 2009.

[34] No. 9 Squadron RAAF UH-1H. Academic.ru. Retrieved: 20 May 2009.


[35] Eather 1995, p. 40.

[13] Mutza 1986

[36] Eather 1995, pp. 150151.

[14] Donald, David. Modern Battleeld Warplanes. London:


AIRTime Publishing, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-76-5.

[37] Stackpool, Andrew (22 July 2010). 40 Years of Top Service. Army. Canberra, Australia: Directorate of Defence Newspapers. p. 10. Retrieved 28 February 2013.

[15] Trimble, Stephen. UH-1Y declared operational after


12-year development phase. Flightglobal.com, 18 August
2008. Retrieved: 24 January 2010.

[38] RAAF/Army A2/N9 Bell UH-1B/D/H Iroqois. ADF Serials. Retrieved: 31 July 2012.

[16] Endres, Gunter, ed. Janes Helicopter Markets and Systems. London: Janes Information Group, 2006. ISBN
978-0-7106-2684-4.
[17] DAOT 5: C-12-118-000/MB-000 Operating Instructions
CH118 Helicopter (unclassied), Change 2, 23 April
1987. Department of National Defence
[18] Price, Major David H. The Army Aviation Story Part XI:
The Mid-1960s. rucker.army.mil. Retrieved: 3 March
2012.
[19] Bishop, Chris. Huey Cobra Gunships. London: Osprey
Publishing, 2006. ISBN 1-84176-984-3.
[20] Drendel 1974, p. 9.
[21] Mason, Robert. Chickenhawk. New York: Viking Penguin Books, 1984, ISBN 0-14-303571-1.
[22] U.S. Army Helicopter Weapon Systems: Operations
with XM26 TOW missile system in Kontum (1972).
army.mil. Retrieved: 25 August 2010.
[23] Col. James P. Fleming. United States Air Force, 29 May
2012.
[24] Helicopter Losses During the Vietnam War. Vietnam
Helicopter Pilots Association. Retrieved: 5 September
2007.
[25] Death Traps No More - Strategypage.com, April 11, 2013
[26] Mehl, Maj. Thomas W. A Final LZ. Army National
Guard. Retrieved: 25 August 2010.
[27] Sommers, Larry Huey Retirement. Army National
Guard, 4 May 2009. Retrieved: 25 August 2010.
[28] Soucy, Sta Sgt. Jon. " New Helicopters Delivered
to District of Columbia National Guard. Army National
Guard, 3 December 2009. Retrieved: 25 August 2010.

[40] RNZAF 3 Squadron History. Airforce.mil.nz, 31 October 2005. Retrieved: 4 September 2012.
[41] RNZAF Aircraft UH-1H Iroquois. Airforce.mil.nz,
Retrieved: 18 October 2012.
[42] NH90. Royal New Zealand Air Force. Retrieved: 30
January 2012.
[43] RNZAF Huey embarks on nal domestic tour - Flightglobal.com, 21 May 2015
[44] Cooper, Tom. El Salvador, 19801992. Air Combat
Information Group, 1 September 2003. Retrieved: 3
September 2007.
[45] Kahwaji, Riad. The victory Lebanon developed helicopter bombers. Ya Libnan, 3 September 2007. Retrieved: 3 September 2007.
[46] Zimbabwe Air Force Aircraft Types. Aeroight. Retrieved: 20 May 2009.
[47] Bell 212. fuerzaaerea.mil.ar. Retrieved: 25 August
2010.
[48] "Israel:UH-1" aeroight.co. Retrieved: 4 October 2009.
[49] Brent 1988, p. 14.
[50] Afghan hash bust underscores ocial corruption. www.
wired.com. Retrieved: 4 October 2009.
[51] Andrade 1987, p. 125.
[52] Forsgren, Jan. Aviation Royale Khmere/Khmer Air
Force Aircraft. Aeroight, 22 April 2007. Retrieved: 28
October 2008.
[53] Bell CH-118 Iroquois. Canadian DND webpage. Retrieved: 30 August 2007.
[54] (Japanese)UH-1J
ber 2007.

[29] Mutza 1987, pp. 2231.


[30] Navy Seawolves. seawolf.org.
2012.

[39] Australian Naval Aviation Museum (ANAM) 1998, p.


179.

Retrieved: 3 March

[31] History of US Navy Combat Search and Rescue

. Retrieved: 11 Decem-

[55] Goebel, Greg. "[7] Foreign-Build Hueys. The Bell UH-1


Huey. airvectors.net, 1 December 2007. Retrieved: 16
August 2009.

8.11. EXTERNAL LINKS

79

[56] Buley, Dennis. Aeroight. 29 December 1999. US


Armys Fleet of Special Electronic Mission Aircraft. Retrieved: 28 October 2008

Eden, Paul, ed. Bell UH-1 Iroquois. Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. London: Amber
Books, 2004. ISBN 1-904687-84-9.

[57] Goebel. Greg. The Bell UH-1 Huey. Vector site. Retrieved: 3 March 2012.

Francillon, Ren, J. Vietnam: The War in the Air.


New York: Arch Cape Press, 1987. ISBN 0-51762976-3.

[58] " UH-1B/H


, UH-1J
. (in Japanese).
nifty.com. Retrieved: 11 December 2007.
[59] The UH-1/T700 Ultra Huey helicopter powered by General Electric engines demonstrated high altitude/hot day
capabilities during a series of ight demonstrations. Defense Daily, October 1994. Retrieved: 29 October 2008.
[60] In The Shadow of The Blade. In The Shadow of The
Blade, 2004. Retrieved: 5 August 2009.

8.10.3

Bibliography

Andrade, John M. U.S. Military Aircraft Designations and Serials since 1909. Hersham, Surrey, UK:
Midland Counties Publications, 1979. ISBN 0904597-22-9.
Apostolo, Giorgio. Bell 204, Bell 205. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters. New York:
Bonanza Books, 1984. ISBN 0-517-43935-2.
Australian Naval Aviation Museum (ANAM). Flying Stations: A Story of Australian Naval Aviation.
St Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin. 1998. ISBN
1-86448-846-8
Brent, W. A. Rhodesian Air Force A Brief History
19471980. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Freeworld
Publications, 1988. ISBN 0-620-11805-9.
Chant, Christopher.
Fighting Helicopters of
the 20th Century (20th Century Military Series).
Christchurch, Dorset, UK: Graham Beehag Books,
1996. ISBN 1-85501-808-X.
Debay, Yves. Combat Helicopters. Paris: Histoire
& Collections, 1996. ISBN 2-908182-52-1.
Donald, David, ed. Bell Model 212 Twin TwoTwelve. The Complete Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1997.
ISBN 0-7607-0592-5.
Drendel, Lou. Gunslingers in Action. Carrollton,
Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1974. ISBN
0-89747-013-3.
Drendel, Lou.
Huey.
Carrollton, Texas:
ISBN
Squadron/Signal Publications, 1983.
0-89747-145-8.
Eather, Steve (1995). Flying Squadrons of the
Australian Defence Force. Weston Creek, ACT:
Aerospace Publications. ISBN 1-875671-15-3.

Guilmartin, John Francis and Michael O'Leary. The


Illustrated History of the Vietnam War, Volume 11:
Helicopters. New York: Bantam Books, 1988.
ISBN 0-553-34506-0.
McGowen, Stanley S. Helicopters: An Illustrated
History of Their Impact. Santa Barbara, California:
ABC-CLIO, 2005. ISBN 978-1-85109-468-4.
Mesko, Jim. Airmobile: The Helicopter War in Vietnam. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1984. ISBN 0-89747-159-8.
Mikesh, Robert C. Flying Dragons: The South Vietnamese Air Force. London: Osprey Publishing,
1988. ISBN 0-85045-819-6.
Mutza, Wayne. UH-1 Huey In Action. Carrollton,
Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1986. ISBN
0-89747-179-2.
Mutza, Wayne. Covertly to Cambodia. Air Enthusiast, Thirty-two, December 1986 April 1987,
pp. 2231. Bromley, UK: Pilot Press. ISSN 01435450.
Mutza, Wayne. UH-1 Huey in Color. Carrollton,
Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992. ISBN
0-89747-279-9.
Pattillo, Donald M. Pushing the Envelope: The
American Aircraft Industry. Ann Arbor, Michigan:
University of Michigan Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0472-08671-9;.
Specications for Bell 204, 205 and 214 Huey Plus

8.11 External links


Ocial Huey II page on BellHelicopter.com
UH-1N USAF fact sheet
UH-1D/UH-1H Iroquois utility helicopter and UH1 Factsheet on Army.mil
UH-1 history on Navy Air web site
The Bell UH-1 Huey at Greg Goebels AIR VECTORS
Philippine Air Force Huey II Project
An account of a Medal of Honor rescue ying a
Green Hornet

80
History of the Huey on timothypruittphoto.com
HA(L)3 Seawolf
HUEY 509 The Only Flying HUEY in U.K.
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-2A (1966)
is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-5A (1966)
is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-8A (1966)
is available for free download at the Internet Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-1OA
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-1OB
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-12A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-13A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-17A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-18A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-19A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-20A
(1966) is available for free download at the Internet
Archive

CHAPTER 8. BELL UH-1 IROQUOIS

Chapter 9

Boeing AH-64 Apache


The Boeing AH-64 Apache is a four-blade, twinturboshaft attack helicopter with a tailwheel-type landing
gear arrangement, and a tandem cockpit for a two-man
crew. It features a nose-mounted sensor suite for target
acquisition and night vision systems. It is armed with a
30 mm (1.18 in) M230 chain gun carried between the
main landing gear, under the aircrafts forward fuselage.
It has four hardpoints mounted on stub-wing pylons, typically carrying a mixture of AGM-114 Hellre missiles
and Hydra 70 rocket pods. The AH-64 has a large amount
of systems redundancy to improve combat survivability.
The Apache originally started as the Model 77 developed by Hughes Helicopters for the United States Army's
Advanced Attack Helicopter program to replace the AH1 Cobra. The prototype YAH-64 was rst own on 30
September 1975. The U.S. Army selected the YAH64 over the Bell YAH-63 in 1976, and later approved
full production in 1982. After purchasing Hughes Helicopters in 1984, McDonnell Douglas continued AH-64
production and development. The helicopter was introduced to U.S. Army service in April 1986. The rst production AH-64D Apache Longbow, an upgraded Apache
variant, was delivered to the Army in March 1997. Production has been continued by Boeing Defense, Space
& Security; over 2,000 AH-64s have been produced to
date.[3]

9.1.1 Advanced Attack Helicopter


Main article: Advanced Attack Helicopter
Following the cancellation of the AH-56 Cheyenne in
1972, in favor of U.S. Air Force and Marine Corps
projects like the A-10 Thunderbolt II and Harrier, the
United States Army sought an aircraft to ll an anti-armor
attack role that would still be under Army command;[6][7]
the 1948 Key West Agreement forbade the Army from
owning combat xed-wing aircraft. The Army wanted
an aircraft better than the AH-1 Cobra in repower, performance and range. It would have the maneuverability
for terrain following nap-of-the-earth (NoE) ying.[8] To
this end, the U.S. Army issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for an Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH) on
15 November 1972.[9][10] As a sign of the importance of
this project, in September 1973 the Army designated its
ve most important projects, the Big Five with AAH
included.[11]

The U.S. Army is the primary operator of the AH-64; it An early Hughes YAH-64A prototype with T-tail
has also become the primary attack helicopter of multiple
nations, including Greece, Japan, Israel, the Netherlands
and Singapore; as well as being produced under license
in the United Kingdom as the AgustaWestland Apache.
U.S. AH-64s have served in conicts in Panama, the
Persian Gulf, Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Israel used
the Apache in its military conicts in Lebanon and the
Gaza Strip; British and Dutch Apaches have seen deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A YAH-64A prototype in 1982

9.1 Development

Proposals were submitted by Bell, Boeing Vertol/Grumman team, Hughes, Lockheed, and Sikorsky.
In July 1973, the U.S. Department of Defense selected
nalists Bell and Hughes Aircrafts Toolco Aircraft Division (later Hughes Helicopters). This began the phase
1 of the competition.[12] Each company built prototype
helicopters and went through a ight test program.
81

82
Hughes Model 77/YAH-64A prototype rst ew on 30
September 1975, while Bells Model 409/YAH-63A
prototype rst ew on 1 October 1975. After evaluating
the test results, the Army selected Hughes YAH-64A
over Bells YAH-63A in 1976. Reasons for selecting the
YAH-64A included its more damage tolerant four-blade
main rotor and the instability of the YAH-63s tricycle
landing gear arrangement.[13][14]

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE


tem and other upgrades. In 1988, funding was approved
for a multi-stage upgrade program to improve sensor
and weapon systems.[22] Technological advance led to
the programs cancellation in favor of more ambitious
changes. In August 1990, development of the AH-64D
Apache Longbow was approved by the Defense Acquisition Board. The rst AH-64D prototype ew on 15 April
1992,[23] prototype testing ended in April 1995. During
testing, six AH-64D helicopters were pitted against a numerically superior group of AH-64A helicopters; the results demonstrated the AH-64D to have a seven times increase in survivability and four times increase in lethality
compared to the AH-64A.[24][25][26] On 13 October 1995,
full-scale production was approved;[27] a $1.9-billion veyear contract was signed in August 1996 to rebuild 232
AH-64As to AH-64D standard.[28] On 17 March 1997,
the rst production AH-64D rst ew, it was delivered
on 31 March.[29]

The AH-64A then entered phase 2 of the AAH program under which three pre-production AH-64s would
be built, additionally, the two YAH-64A ight prototypes and the ground test unit were upgraded to the same
standard.[13] Weapons and sensor systems were integrated
and tested during this time, including the laser-guided
AGM-114 Hellre missile.[15] Development of the Hellre missile had begun in 1974, originally known by the
name of Helicopter Launched, Fire and Forget Missile
('Hellre' being a shortened acronym),[16] for the purpose
of arming helicopter platforms with an eective anti-tank Portions of the Apache are produced by various
aerospace rms. AgustaWestland has produced nummissile.[17][18]
ber of components for the Apache, both for the international market and for the British Army's AgustaWestland
9.1.2 Into production
Apache.[30] Since 2004, Korea Aerospace Industries
has been the sole manufacturer of the Apaches
In 1981, three pre-production AH-64As were handed fuselage.[31][32][33] Fuselage production had previously
over to the U.S. Army for Operational Test II. The Army been performed by Teledyne Ryan Aeronautical; the
testing was successful, but afterward it was decided to transfer of fuselage production led to a prolonged legal
upgrade to the more powerful T700-GE-701 version of dispute between Teledyne Ryan and Boeing.[34]
engine, rated at 1,690 shp (1,260 kW). The AH-64 was
The AH-64D program cost a total of $11bn through
named the Apache in late 1981, keeping with the Armys
2007.[35] In April 2006, Boeing was awarded a $67.6M
traditional use of American Indian tribal names for its
xed-price contract for the remanufacture of several exhelicopters and it was approved for full-scale production
isting U.S. AH-64As to the AH-64D conguration; bein 1982.[19] In 1983, the rst production helicopter was
tween May 2009 and July 2011, a further ve contracts
rolled out at Hughes Helicopters facility at Mesa, Ariwere issued to remanufacture batches of AH-64As to the
zona. Hughes Helicopters was purchased by McDonnell
upgraded D variant.[36] Since 2008, nations operating the
Douglas for $470 million in 1984.[20] The helicopter
older AH-64A have been urged to undertake modernizaunit later became part of The Boeing Company with
tion programs to become AH-64Ds, as Boeing and the
the merger of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas in August
U.S. Army plans to terminate support for the A-variants
1997.[21] In 1986, the incremental or yaway cost for the
in the near future.[37]
AH-64A was $7M and the average unit cost was approximately $13.9M based on total costs.[20]

9.2 Design
9.2.1 Overview
The AH-64 Apache has a four-blade main rotor and a
four-blade tail rotor.[41] The crew sits in tandem, with
the pilot sitting behind and above the copilot/gunner.[42]
Both crew members are capable of ying the aircraft and performing methods of weapon engagements
independently.[43] The AH-64 is powered by two General
Electric T700 turboshaft engines with high-mounted exhausts on either side of the fuselage.[44][45] Various models of engines have been used on the Apache; those in
A YAH-64A in 1984
British service use engines from Rolls-Royce instead of
During the 1980s, McDonnell Douglas studied an AH- General Electric. In 2004, General Electric Aviation be64B, featuring an updated cockpit, new re control sys- gan producing more powerful T700-GE-701D engines,

9.2. DESIGN
rated at 2,000 shp (1,500 kW) for AH-64Ds.[46]
The crew compartment has shielding between the cockpits, such that at least one crew member can survive
hits. The compartment and the rotor blades are designed to sustain a hit from 23 mm (0.91 in) rounds. The
airframe includes some 2,500 lb (1,100 kg) of protection and has a self-sealing fuel system to protect against
ballistic projectiles.[47] The aircraft was designed to meet
the crashworthiness requirements of MIL-STD-1290,[48]
which species minimum requirement for crash impact
energy attenuation to minimize crew injuries and fatalities. This was achieved through incorporation of increased structural strength, crashworthy landing gear,
seats and fuel system.

9.2.2

Avionics and targeting

83
vironments, and to operate at night or day and during
adverse weather conditions.[57] Various sensors and onboard avionics allows the Apache to perform in these
conditions; such systems include the Target Acquisition and Designation System, Pilot Night Vision System (TADS/PNVS), passive infrared countermeasures
,[58] GPS, and the IHADSS.[51][57] In August 2012, 24
U.S. Army AH-64Ds were equipped with the Ground
Fire Acquisition System (GFAS), which detects and targets ground-based weapons re sources in all-light conditions and with a 120 Visual eld. The GFAS consists of
two sensor pods working with the AH-64s other sensors,
a thermographic camera precisely locates ground-based
threats.[59]
In 2014, it was announced that new targeting and surveillance sensors were under development to provide highresolution color imagery to crews, replacing older low
denition black-and-white imaging systems.[60] In 2014,
the U.S Army was adapting its Apaches for increased
maritime performance as part of the Pentagons rebalance to the Pacic. Additional avionics and sensor improvements includes an extended-range radar capable of
detecting small ships in littoral environments, software
adaptions to handle maritime targets, and adding Link
16 data-links for better communications with friendly
assets.[61]

One of the revolutionary features of the Apache was


its helmet mounted display, the Integrated Helmet and
Display Sighting System (IHADSS);[49][50] among its
capabilities, either the pilot or gunner can slave the
helicopters 30 mm automatic M230 Chain Gun to
their helmet, making the gun track head movements
to point where they look. The M230E1 can be alternatively xed to a locked forward ring position, or
controlled via the Target Acquisition and Designation
System (TADS).[51][52] On more modern AH-64s, the
TADS/PNVS has been replaced by Lockheed Martin's 9.2.3 Armaments and congurations
Arrowhead (MTADS) targeting system.[53]
The AH-64 is adaptable to numerous dierent roles
within its context as Close Combat Attack (CCA), it has
a customizable weapons loadout mounted on stub-wings
for the role desired.[41] In addition to the 30 mm M230E1
Chain Gun, the Apache carries a range of external stores
on its stub-wing pylons, typically a mixture of AGM-114
Hellre anti-tank missiles, and Hydra 70 general-purpose
unguided 70 mm (2.756 in) rockets.[62] Since 2005, the
Hellre missile is sometimes outtted with a thermobaric
warhead; designated AGM-114N, it is intended for use
against ground forces and urban warfare operations.[63]
The use of thermobaric enhanced blast weapons such
as the AGM-114N has been a point of controversy.[64]
AH-64 Apache in ight

U.S. Army engagement training is performed under the


Aerial Weapons Scoring System Integration with Longbow Apache Tactical Engagement Simulation System
(AWSS-LBA TESS), using live 30 mm and rocket ammunition as well as simulated Hellre missiles. The Smart
Onboard Data Interface Module (SMODIM) transmits
Apache data to an AWSS ground station for gunnery
evaluation.[54] The AH-64s standard of performance for
aerial gunnery is to achieve at least 1 hit for every 30
shots red at a wheeled vehicle at a range of 8001,200
m (8701,310 yd).[55][56]
The AH-64 was designed to perform in front-line en-

Starting in the 1980s, the Stinger and AIM-9 Sidewinder


air-to-air missiles and the AGM-122 Sidearm antiradiation missile were evaluated for use upon the AH64.[65][66] The Stinger was initially selected; the U.S.
Army was also considering the Starstreak air-to-air
missile.[65][67] External fuel tanks can also be carried on
the stub wings to increase range and mission time.[41] The
stub-wing pylons have mounting points for maintenance
access; these mountings can be used to secure externally
personnel for emergency transportation.[68] Stinger missiles are often used on non-U.S. Apaches as foreign forces
did not have as many air superiority aircraft to control
the skies.[69] The AH-64E initially lacked the ability to
use the Stinger to make room for self-defense equipment, the capability was readded following a South Ko-

84

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

rean demand.[70][71]
The AH-64E Apache has the ability to control unmanned
aerial vehicles, used by the U.S. Army to perform aerial
scouting missions previously performed by the OH-58
Kiowa. Apaches can request to take control of an RQ-7
Shadow or MQ-1C Grey Eagle from ground control stations to safely scout via datalink communications. There
are four levels of UAV interoperability (LOI): LOI 1 indirectly receives payload data; LOI 2 receives payload data
through direct communication; LOI 3 deploys the UAVs
armaments; and LOI 4 takes over ight control. UAVs
can search for enemies and, if equipped with a laser
designator, target them for the Apache or other friendly AH-64 during an extraction exercise at Camp Bondsteel, Kosovo,
2007. Note the soldier on the avionics bay
aircraft.[72][73]
hour ground war a total of 277 AH-64s took part, destroying 278 tanks, numerous armored personnel carriers and
other Iraqi vehicles.[84][87][88] One AH-64 was lost in the
war, to an RPG hit at close range, the Apache crashed but
9.3.1 United States Army
the crew survived.[89] To maintain operations, the U.S.
Army unocially grounded all other AH-64s worldwide;
The U.S. Army formally accepted its rst production AHtheatre ew only one-fth of the planned
64A in January 1984 and training of the rst pilots began Apaches in the
[90]
ight-hours.
[74][75]
later that year.
The rst operational Apache unit,
7th Battalion, 17th Cavalry Brigade, began training on The AH-64 played roles in the Balkans during separate
the AH-64A in April 1986 at Fort Hood, Texas.[76][77] conicts in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990s.[91][92] During
Two operational units with 68 AH-64s rst deployed to Task Force Hawk, 24 Apaches were deployed to a land
Europe in September 1987 and took part in large military base in Albania in 1999 for combat in Kosovo. These reexercises there.[76][78] The Apache was rst used in com- quired 26,000 tons of equipment to be transported over
bat in 1989, during Operation Just Cause, the invasion of 550 C-17 ights, at a cost of US$480 million.[93] DurPanama. The AH-64 participated in over 240 hours of ing these deployments, the AH-64 encountered problems
combat attacking various targets, mostly at night.[79][80] such as deciencies in training, night vision equipment,
General Carl Stiner, the commander of the operation, fuel tanks, and survivability.[94][95] On 27 April 1999, an
commented that: You could re that Hellre missile Apache crashed during training in Albania due to a failthrough a window from four miles away at night.[81]
ure with the tail rotor,[96] causing the eet in the Balkans
[97]
Upon elding the Apache, capabilities such as using the to be grounded in December 2000.

9.3 Operational history

FLIR for extensive night operations made it clear that it


was capable of operating beyond the forward line of own
troops (FLOT) that previous attack helicopters were normally restricted to.[82] It was discovered that the Apache
was coincidentally tted with the Have Quick UHF radio system used by the U.S. Air Force, allowing interservice coordination and joint operations such as the joint
air attack teams (JAAT). The Apache have operated extensively with close air support (CAS) aircraft such as
the USAFs Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II and
the USMCs McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II, often acting as a target designator to conserve the Apaches
own munitions.[83]
Nearly half of all U.S. Apaches were deployed to Saudi
Arabia following Iraqs invasion of Kuwait.[81] During
Operation Desert Storm on 17 January 1991, eight AH64As guided by four MH-53 Pave Low IIIs destroyed part
of Iraqs radar network in the operations rst attack,[84]
allowing aircraft to evade detection.[85] The Apaches each
carried an asymmetric load of Hydra 70 echette rockets,
Hellres, and one auxiliary fuel tank.[86] During the 100-

In 2000, Major General Dick Cody, 101st Airbornes


commanding ocer, wrote a strongly worded memo
to the Chief of Sta about training and equipment
failures.[98] No pilots were qualied to y with night
vision goggles, preventing nighttime operations.[99] The
Washington Post printed a front-page article on the failures, commenting: The vaunted helicopters came to
symbolise everything wrong with the Army as it enters
the 21st century: Its inability to move quickly, its resistance to change, its obsession with casualties, its postCold War identity crisis.[100] No Apache combat missions took place in Kosovo due to fears of casualties.[99]
U.S. Apaches served in Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan from 2001.[101] The Apache was the only
Army platform capable of providing accurate CAS duties for Operation Anaconda, regularly taking re during the intense early ghting, they were typically repaired
quickly.[102] U.S. AH-64Ds typically ew in Afghanistan
and Iraq without the Longbow Radar in the absence of armored threats.[103] On 21 December 2009, a pair of U.S.
Apaches attacked a British-held base in a friendly re in-

9.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


cident, killing one British soldier.[104] In 2006, Thomas
Adams noted that Apaches often fought in small teams
with little autonomy to react to threats and opportunities,
requiring lengthy dialogue with command structures in an
eort to centrally micromanage each unit.[105]

AH-64D Apache ying over Baghdad, Iraq in 2007, on a reconnaissance mission

In 2003, the AH-64 participated in the invasion of Iraq


during Operation Iraqi Freedom.[106] On 24 March 2003,
31 Apaches were damaged, and one shot down and captured, in an unsuccessful attack on an Iraqi Republican Guard armored brigade near Karbala.[107] Iraqi tank
crews had set up a ak trap among terrain and eectively employed their guns.[108][109] Iraqi ocials claimed
a farmer with a Brno rie shot down the Apache,[110] but
the farmer denied involvement.[111] The helicopter came
down intact and both the pilot and co-pilot were captured.[108] The AH-64D was destroyed via air strike the
following day.[112][113]
By the end of U.S. military operations in Iraq in December 2011, several Apache helicopters had been shot down
by enemy re, and others lost in accidents. In 2006, an
Apache was downed by a Soviet-made Strela 2 (SA-7) in
Iraq, despite the Apache being typically able to avoid such
missiles.[114] In 2007, four Apache helicopters were destroyed on the ground by insurgent mortar re using webpublished geotagged photographs taken by soldiers.[115]
Several AH-64s were lost to accidents in Afghanistan as
of 2012.[116][117][118][119] Most Apaches that took heavy
damage were able to continue their missions and return
safely.[109]
As of 2011, the U.S. Army Apache eet had accumulated
more than 3 million ight hours since the rst prototype
ew in 1975.[120] A DOD audit released in May 2011,
found that Boeing had signicantly overcharged the U.S.
Army on multiple occasions, ranging from 33.3 percent
to 177,475 percent for routine spare parts in helicopters
like the Apache.[121]

85
achieved initial operating capability (IOC).[123] In March
2014, the 1st-229th Attack Reconnaissance Battalion deployed 24 AH-64Es to Afghanistan in the type' rst combat deployment.[124] From March to June 2014, the AH64E ew 1,700 hours in Afghanistan at what Boeing described as a higher tempo than the D-model would
be capable of.[125] As of 14 October 2014, AH-64E
Apaches had own almost 9,600 combat hours. From
April through September 2014, AH-64E in combat maintained an 88 percent readiness rate.[126]
The Army is implementing a plan to move all Apaches
from the Army Reserve and National Guard to the active
Army to serve as scout helicopters to replace the OH58 Kiowa. Using the AH-64 to scout would be less expensive than Kiowa upgrades or purchasing a new scout
helicopter. AH-64Es can control unmanned aerial vehicles like the MQ-1C Grey Eagle to perform aerial scouting missions; a 2010 study found the teaming of Apaches
and UAVs was the most cost-eective alternative to a new
helicopter and would meet 80 percent of reconnaissance
requirements, compared to 20 percent with existing OH58s and 50 percent with upgraded OH-58s. National
Guard units, who would lose their attack helicopters,
criticized the proposal.[127][128] In March 2015, the rst
heavy attack reconnaissance unit was formed, comprising 24 attack Apaches, 24 reconnaissance Apaches, and
12 Shadow UAVs.[129]
In July 2014, the Pentagon announced that Apaches had
been dispatched to Baghdad to protect embassy personnel
from Islamic State militant attacks. On 4 October 2014,
Apaches began performing missions in Operation Inherent Resolve against Islamic State ground forces.[130]

9.3.2 Israel
The Israeli Air Force (IAF) rst received AH-64As in
1990,[131] for a total eet of 42.[132] There was some
controversy over the Air Forces choice to purchase
Apaches over upgrading existing AH-1 Cobra attack
helicopters.[133] In 2000, Israel was interested in acquiring up to 48 AH-64Ds, but U.S. reluctance to share
the software source code complicated the prospect.[132]
In April 2005, Boeing delivered the rst AH-64D to
the IAF.[134] In 2001, the U.S. government was allegedly investigating misuse of the Apache and other USsupplied military equipment against Palestinian leaders
and facilities.[135] In 2009, an arranged sale of six AH64Ds was reportedly blocked by the Obama Administration, pending interagency review, over concerns the
helicopters may pose a threat to civilian Palestinians in
Gaza.[136][137] In IAF service, the AH-64A was named as
the Peten (Hebrew: , for Cobra[N 1] ), while the AH64D was named Saraph[131] (, also as Seraph, Hebrew for venomous/ery winged serpent).[139]

On 21 February 2013, the 1st Battalion (Attack), 229th


Aviation Regiment at Joint Base Lewis-McChord became the rst U.S. Army unit to eld the AH-64E Apache
Guardian; a total of 24 AH-64E were received by mid- During the 1990s, Israeli AH-64As frequently attacked
2013.[122] On 27 November 2013, the Apache Guardian Hezbollah outposts in Lebanon.[140][141][142] On 13 April

86

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE


standard.[157]

9.3.3 United Kingdom

Israeli Air Force AH-64D Saraph during an exercise with the


Hellenic Air Force in 2011.

1996, during Operation Grapes of Wrath, an Apache


red two Hellre missiles at an ambulance in Lebanon,
killing six civilians.[143] During the al-Aqsa Intifada in
2000, AH-64s were used to kill senior Hamas gures,
such as Ahmed Yassin and Adnan al-Ghoul.[144][145] On
24 May 2001, a privately owned Lebanese-registered
Cessna 152 ew into Israeli airspace, it was intercepted
by two AH-64s and shot down by a Hellre missile,
killing the pilot.[146] On 22 March 2004, an Israeli
AH-64 used a Hellre missile to kill Hamas leader
Ahmed Yassin, also killing his two bodyguards and nine
bystanders.[147][148] IAF Apaches played a prominent role
in the 2006 Lebanon War, launching strikes into Lebanon
targeting Hezbollah forces.[149][150]

UK Army Air Corps Westland WAH-64D Apache Longbow displays at a UK airshow

Main article: AgustaWestland Apache

The UK operates a modied version of the Apache


Longbow initially called the Westland WAH-64 Apache,
and is designated Apache AH1 by the British Army.
Westland built 67 WAH-64 Apaches under license
from Boeing,[162] following a competition between the
Eurocopter Tiger and the Apache for the British Armys
new Attack Helicopter in 1995.[163][164] Important deviations made by AgustaWestland from the U.S. Apache
There have also been accidents involving the Apache he- variants include changing to more powerful Rolls-Royce
licopter in Israeli service. During the Lebanon War in engines,[165] and the addition of a folding blade assembly
2006, two IAF AH-64A helicopters collided, killing one for use on naval ships.[166]
pilot and critically wounding three.[151] In another incident in the conict an IAF AH-64D crashed due to a
malfunction in the main rotor, killing the two crew.[152] 9.3.4 Netherlands
In late 2007, the Israeli Air Force put further purchases
and deliveries of AH-64Ds on hold during an investiga- The Dutch government initially showed an interest in action upon the aircrafts performance envelope.[139] How- quiring Apache helicopters in the late 1980s, where it
ever, Israeli ocials have since praised the Apache for stated that it may purchase as many as 52.[167] A compeits role in Operation Cast Lead in 2008, against Hamas in tition held in 1994 against the Eurocopter Tiger and the
Gaza.[153] In recent years, Israeli Apaches have been used Bell AH-1 SuperCobra led to the Royal Netherlands Air
to patrol the skies over Gaza; strike operations against in- Force ordering 30 AH-64D Apaches in 1995.[168][169][170]
surgents using these helicopters has become a frequent Deliveries began in 1998[171] and ended in 2002.[172][173]
The RNLAF Apaches are equipped with the Apache
occurrence.[154][155][156]
Since recent orders of new AH-64Ds have been blocked, Modular Aircraft Survivability Equipment (AMASE)
system to counter infrared (IR) missile
Israel has pursued upgrades to its AH-64A eet.[157][158] self-protection
[174][175]
threats.
In June 2010, Israel decided not to upgrade all AH-64As
to D conguration, due to funding constraints and lack
of U.S. cooperation.[159][157] In December 2010, the IAF
was examining the adoption of a new missile system as
a cheaper and lightweight complement to the Hellre
missile, either the American Hydra 70 or the Canadian
CRV7.[160] In 2013, Israeli AH-64As had been receiving a comprehensive upgrade of their avionics and electrical systems.[161] The AH-64As are being upgraded to
the AH-64Ai conguration, which is near the AH-64D

The RNLAF Apaches rst deployment was in 2001 to


Djibouti, Africa.[176] They were also deployed alongside
U.S. AH-64s in support of NATO peacekeeping forces in
Bosnia and Herzegovina.[177] In 2004, six Dutch AH-64s
were deployed as part of the Netherlands contribution to
Multinational force in Iraq to support the Dutch ground
forces.[178] The Apaches performed close combat support
and display of force missions, along with providing reconnaissance information to ground forces. In February

9.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

87

9.3.5 Saudi Arabia


Following the 1991 Gulf War, during which many
U.S. Apaches operated from bases within Saudi
territory,[183][184] Saudi Arabia purchased twelve AH64As for the Royal Saudi Land Force.[185][186] It has
been speculated that the Saudi purchase had motivated
Israel to also procure the Apaches.[187] In August 2006,
the Saudi Arabian government began negotiations for
Apache upgrades worth up to $400M, possibly remanufacturing their AH-64As to the AH-64D Longbow
conguration.[188] In September 2008, the U.S. Government approved the purchase of 12 AH-64Ds requested
by Saudi Arabia.[189] In October 2010, Saudi Arabia
requested a further 70 AH-64Ds as part of a possible,
massive arms deal.[190][191]
In November 2009, the Royal Saudi Land Force, as part
of a military eort against insurgent intrusions of the
kingdoms border, started using the Apache in Operation
Scorched Earth; this involved launched air strikes against
rebels operating inside neighboring Yemen as
Royal Netherlands Air Force AH-64D at the Farnborough Air- Houthi
[192][193]
well.
In January 2010 the rebels claimed to have
show, 2006
shot down an Apache; this was denied by the Saudi
military.[194] In late January 2010, the leader of the Shiite
rebels announced their withdrawal from Saudi territory,
2006, the Netherlands contribution to NATO forces in this announcement followed a key battle on 12 January
took control of the border
Afghanistan was increased from 600 to 1,400 troops and when Saudi forces reportedly
[195]
village
of
Al
Jabiri.
[179]
6 AH-64s were sent in support.

9.3.6 Egypt
In 1995, the Egyptian Air Force placed an order for 36
AH-64A helicopters.[196] These Apaches were delivered
with most of the advanced avionics used on the U.S.
eet at that time, with the exception of localized radio equipment.[197] In 2000, Boeing announced an order to remanufacture Egypts existing Apache eet to
the AH-64D conguration.[198] Notably, the AH-64D upA Royal Netherlands Army AH-64D Apache
grade did not include the procurement of the Longbow
radar, the supply of which had been refused by the U.S.
government.[199] Egypt requested a further 12 AH-64D
II Apaches through a Foreign Military Sale in
Shortly after Apaches were deployed to Hamid Karzai In- Block[200][201]
2009.
ternational Airport, as part of the Netherlands contribution to ISAF, on 10 April 2004 a pair of Dutch Apaches In August 2012, the Egyptian Armed Forces undertook
came under light gunre close to the Afghan capital.[180] a large-scale military operation to regain control of the
On 17 December 2007, an RNLAF Apache ew into Sinai Peninsula from armed militants. Air cover throughpowerlines during a night ying exercise in the Nether- out the operation was provided by the Egyptian Air
lands, forcing an emergency landing and causing a lengthy Forces Apache helicopters; reportedly the Apaches deblackout in the region.[181] On 17 March 2015 a RNLAF stroyed three vehicles and killed at least 20 militants.[202]
Apache crashed during a training mission in Mali. Both Up to ve Egyptian Apaches were temporarily stationed
pilots died. The ministry of defence opened an investiga- in the Sinai following an agreement between Egypt and
tion into the cause of the crash.[182]
Israel.[203]

88

9.3.7

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

Other users

The United Arab Emirates purchased 30 AH-64A helicopters in 1991 and 1994,[204] which they are now upgrading to AH-64D specication.[205] In 2005, Kuwait
purchased 16 Longbow helicopters.[206]
In September 2003, Greece ordered 12 AH-64D in addition to existing eet of 20 AH-64A+.[207] By 1995
they had received 20 AH-64As; another 12 AH-64Ds
were ordered in 2003.[196] Singapore purchased 20 AH64D Longbow Apache aircraft in two batches between
1999 and 2001;[208] during October 2010 Apache training was suspended following the forced crash-landing of
an Apache.[209]
Japan ordered 50 AH-64Ds,[196] which are being built
under license by Fuji Heavy Industries, designated AH64DJP. The rst helicopter was delivered to the JGSDF
in early 2006.[210]
Taiwan (Republic of China) reached an agreement with
the U.S. to purchase 30 AH-64D Block III Apaches with
weapons, and associated equipment in June 2011.[211][212]
On 5 November 2013, Taiwan received the rst 6 AH64E Apaches. A second batch arrived in December
2013, with all 30 to be delivered by the end of 2014.[213]
By early April 2014, 18 had been delivered. On 25
April 2014, a Taiwanese AH-64E crashed into a threestory building during a training ight in bad weather
conditions.[214] Power loss was also being considered as a
cause. The crash is the rst airframe loss of an AH-64E
model.[215] An investigation ruled out mechanical failure
and concluded human error as responsible, that the pilots
descended too fast through clouds at low altitude without checking ight panels to maintain adequate height;
the Army responded by stepping up simulator training
for pilots.[216] In October 2014, the fth and nal batch
of AH-64Es was delivered to Taiwan, completing the
order.[217]

9.3.8

April 2013, the Indian Ministry of Defence (MoD) decided that the IAF would receive the 22 AH-64s as it
was an ongoing acquisition.[226] In May 2013, the Indian
Army requested 11 AH-64Es;[227] and has a requirement
for 39 Apaches.[228] In August 2014, the Indian Ministry of Defence approved the AH-64 procurement, nal approval from the Cabinet Committee on Security is
required.[229]
In 2009, South Korea showed interest in acquiring
Apaches.[230][231] This move may be related to U.S. plans
to withdraw many of its Apaches from South Korea.[232]
On 21 September 2012, the U.S. Congress was notied of
the possible purchase of 36 AH-64D Block III Apaches,
along with associated equipment and armament.[233] The
Apache competed against the Bell AH-1Z Viper and the
TAI/AgustaWestland T-129;[234] in April 2013, South
Korea announced that it is to purchase 36 AH-64Es.[235]
The Apaches are to be delivered from 2016 to 2018.[236]
On 26 August 2013, the U.S. and Indonesia formalized a
$500 million deal for 8 AH-64E Apaches.[237]
Iraq requested the sale of 24 AH-64s in April 2013;[238]
In January 2014, a sale, including the helicopters, associated parts, maintenance, and training, was cleared
by Congress.[239][240] However, the proposal was not accepted by the Iraqi government and expired in August
2014.[241] In July 2012, Qatar requested the sale of 24
AH-64D Apache Block III helicopters, with associated
equipment, training, and support.[242] The sale was approved on 27 March 2014.[243]

9.4 Variants
9.4.1 AH-64A

Future and possible users

In 2008, the Indian Air Force (IAF) released a tender for 22 attack helicopters; there were six contending submissionsSikorskys UH-60 Black Hawk, the
AH-64D, Bells AH-1 Super Cobra, Eurocopter's Tiger,
Mils Mi-28 and AgustaWestlands A129 Mangusta.[218]
In October 2008, Boeing and Bell withdrew.[219] In 2009,
the competition was restarted and a new Apache proposal was submitted.[220][221] In December 2010, India
requested the possible sale of 22 AH-64Ds and associated equipment.[222] On 5 October 2012, IAF Chief NAK
Browne conrmed the AH-64D Block IIIs selection.[223]
In October 2012, India transferred most armed helicopters from the IAF to the Army Aviation Corps.[224]
The IAF sought to maintain control of the 22 proposed
Apaches for air combat missions, the Indian Army argued
that they would be better used in army operations.[225] In

IAF AH-64A Peten

The AH-64A is the original production attack helicopter.


The crew sit in tandem in an armored compartment. It
is powered by two GE T700 turboshaft engines. The Amodel was equipped with the 701 engine version until
1990 when the engines were switched to the more powerful 701C version.[244]

9.4. VARIANTS

89

U.S. Army AH-64As are being converted to AH-64Ds.


The services last AH-64A was taken out of service in
July 2012 before conversion at Boeings facility in Mesa,
Arizona.[245] On 25 September 2012, Boeing received a
$136.8M contract to remanufacture the last 16 AH-64As
into the AH-64D Block II version, to be completed by
December 2013.[246]

which being the AN/APG-78 Longbow millimeter-wave


re-control radar (FCR) target acquisition system and
the Radar Frequency Interferometer (RFI), housed in a
dome located above the main rotor.[249][250] The radome's
raised position enables targets detection while the helicopter is behind obstacles (e.g. terrain, trees or buildings). The AN/APG-78 is capable of simultaneously
tracking up to 128 targets and engaging up to 16 at once,
an attack can be initiated within 30 seconds.[251][252] A ra9.4.2 AH-64B
dio modem integrated with the sensor suite allows data to
be shared with ground units and other Apaches; allowing
In 1991 after Operation Desert Storm, the AH-64B was a them to re on targets detected by a single helicopter.[253]
proposed upgrade to 254 AH-64As. The upgrade would
have included new rotor blades, a Global Positioning System (GPS), improved navigation systems and new radios.
Congress approved $82M to begin the Apache B upgrade.
The B program was canceled in 1992.[247] The radio, navigation, and GPS modications, were later installed on
most A-model Apaches through other upgrades.

9.4.3

AH-64C

Additional funding from Congress in late 1991 resulted


in a program to upgrade AH-64As to an AH-64B+ version. More funding changed the plan to upgrade to AH64C. The C upgrade would include all changes to be included in the Longbow except for mast-mounted radar
and newer 700C engine versions. However, the C designation was dropped after 1993.[248] With AH-64As receiving the newer engine from 1990, the only dierence
between the C model and the radar-equipped D model
was the radar, which could be moved from one aircraft to
another; thus the decision was made to simply designate
both versions AH-64D.[248]

9.4.4

Israeli AH-64D

The aircraft is powered by a pair of uprated T700GE-701C engines. The forward fuselage was expanded
to accommodate new systems to improve survivability,
navigation, and 'tactical internet' communications capabilities. In February 2003, the rst Block II Apache
was delivered to the U.S. Army, featuring digital communications upgrades. The Japanese Apache AH-64DJP
variant is based on the AH-64D;[131] it can be equipped
with the AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles for selfdefense.[254][255]

AH-64D
9.4.5 AH-64E

Formerly known as AH-64D Block III, in 2012, it was


redesignated as AH-64E Guardian to represent its increased capabilities.[256][257][258] The AH-64E features
improved digital connectivity, the Joint Tactical Information Distribution System, more powerful T700-GE-701D
engines with upgraded face gear transmission to accommodate more power,[259] capability to control Unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAVs), full IFR capability, and improved
landing gear.[260][261] New composite rotor blades, which
successfully completed testing in 2004, increase cruise
speed, climb rate, and payload capacity.[262] Deliveries
began in November 2011,[263] full rate production was
approved on 24 October 2012.[264] 634 AH-64Ds will
Republic of Singapore Air Force AH-64D on static display, note be upgraded to AH-64E standard; a production run of
the swept wing tip on the main rotor blades
56 new-build AH64Es will start in 2019/20.[265] Changes
in production lots 4 through 6 shall include a cognitive
The AH-64D Apache Longbow, is equipped with a glass decision aiding system, new self-diagnostic abilities, and
cockpit and advanced sensors, the most noticeable of Link-16 data-links. The updated Longbow radar has an

90

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

oversea capacity, potentially enabling naval strikes; an Apache (assembled from kits purchased from Boeing)
AESA radar is under consideration.[266] The E model is is based on the AH-64D Block I with several dierent
to be t for maritime operations.[267]
systems, including more powerful engines, folding rotor
blades, and other modications for operation from Royal
Navy vessels.

9.4.6

AH-64F

In 2014, Boeing conceptualized an Apache upgrade prior


to the introduction of the U.S. Armys anticipated attack
version of the Future Vertical Lift aircraft, forecast to
replace the Apache by 2040. The conceptual AH-64F
would have greater speed via a new 3,000 shp turboshaft
engine from the improved turbine engine program, retractable landing gear, stub wings to ooad lift from the
main rotor during cruise, and a tail rotor that can articulate 90 degrees to provide forward thrust;[268] resembling
the pusher propeller of the canceled 1970s era Lockheed
AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopter.

9.4.7

Sea Apache

9.4.9 Block modication


While a major change in design or role will cause the
type designator sux to change, for example from AH64D to AH-64E the helicopters are also subject to Block
modication. Block modication is the combining of
equipment changes into blocks of modication work orders, the modications in the block (sometimes called a
block package) are all done to the helicopter at the same
time.[275]

9.5 Operators
Egypt

Egyptian Air Force (AH-64D)[276]

A U.S. Army AH-64A Apache aboard USS Nassau during Joint


Shipboard Weapons and Ordnance training

During the 1980s Naval versions of the AH-64A


for the United States Marine Corps and Navy were
examined.[269][270] Multiple concepts were studied with
A Hellenic Army AH-64A
altered landing gear arrangements, improved avionics and
weapons.[269] Funding for a naval version was not provided; the Marine Corps continued to use the AH-1.[271]
Greece
The Canadian Forces Maritime Command also examined
[272]
In 2004, British Army AgustaWesta naval Apache.
land Apaches were deployed upon the Royal Navy's HMS
Hellenic Army (AH-64A/D)[276]
Ocean, a Landing Platform Helicopter, for suitability
testing; there was U.S. interest in the trials.[166] During the 2011 military intervention in Libya, the British
Indonesia
Army extensively used Apaches from HMS Ocean.[273]
In 2013, U.S. 36th Combat Aviation Brigade AH-64Ds
were tested on a variety of U.S. Navy ships.[274]
Indonesian Army (AH-64E: 8 on order)[276]

9.4.8

Export Apaches

Several models have been derived from both AH-64A and


AH-64D for export. The British-built AgustaWestland

Israel
Israeli Air Force (AH-64A/D)[276]

9.6. SPECIFICATIONS (AH-64A/D)

91

Japan

Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (AH-64D)[276]


Kuwait

Kuwait Air Force (AH-64D)[276]


A US Army Apache res o Hydra 70 rockets during a live re
exercise at Grafenwhr training area

United Kingdom

See AgustaWestland Apache


United States
Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF) AH-64D

United States Army (AH-64D/E)[276]

Netherlands

9.6 Specications (AH-64A/D)

Royal Netherlands Air Force (AH-64D)[276]


Saudi Arabia
Royal Saudi Land Forces (AH-64A/D/E)[276]
Singapore

Republic of Singapore Air Force (AH-64D)[276]


Republic of Korea

Data from Janes Information Group,[51][67] Bishop[277]


General characteristics

Republic of Korea Army (AH-64E: 36 on order)

[276]

Republic of China

Republic of China Army (AH-64E)[276]

Crew: 2 (pilot, and co-pilot/gunner)


Length: 58.17 ft (17.73 m) (with both rotors turning)
Rotor diameter: 48 ft 0 in (14.63 m)
Height: 12.7 ft (3.87 m)

United Arab Emirates

Disc area: 1,809.5 ft (168.11 m)


Empty weight: 11,387 lb (5,165 kg)

United Arab Emirates Air Force (AH-64D)[276]

Loaded weight: 17,650 lb (8,000 kg)

92

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE


Hardpoints: Four pylon stations on the stub wings.
Longbows also have a station on each wingtip for an
AIM-92 Stinger twin missile pack.[65]
Rockets: Hydra 70 70 mm, and CRV7 70 mm airto-ground rockets
Missiles: Typically AGM-114 Hellre variants;
AIM-92 Stinger may also be carried.
Avionics

Weapon loadout of the AH-64 Apache

Max. takeo weight: 23,000 lb (10,433 kg)

Lockheed Martin / Northrop Grumman AN/APG78 Longbow re-control radar[278] (Note: can only
be mounted on the AH-64D/E)

9.7 Notable appearances in media

Powerplant: 2 General Electric T700-GE701 and later upgraded to T700-GE-701C (1990 Main article: AH-64 Apache in ction
present) & T700-GE-701D (AH-64E) turboshafts,
701: 1,690 shp, 701C: 1,890 shp, 701D: 2,000
shp (701: 1,260 kW, 701C: 1,409 kW, 701D:
1,490 kW) each
9.8 See also
Fuselage length: 49 ft 5 in (15.06 m)
Rotor systems: 4 blade main rotor, 4 blade tail rotor in non-orthogonal alignment
Performance

Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and


Engineering Center
Desert Strike: Return to the Gulf
United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
Related development

Never exceed speed: 197 knots (227 mph, 365


km/h)

AgustaWestland Apache

Maximum speed: 158 knots (182 mph, 293 km/h) Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Cruise speed: 143 knots (165 mph, 265 km/h)
Range: 257 nmi (295 mi, 476 km) with Longbow
radar mast
Combat radius: 260 nmi (300 mi, 480 km)
Ferry range: 1,024 nmi (1,180 mi, 1,900 km)
Service ceiling: 21,000 ft (6,400 m) minimum
loaded
Rate of climb: 2,500 ft/min (12.7 m/s)
Disc loading: 9.80 lb/ft (47.9 kg/m)
Power/mass: 0.18 hp/lb (0.31 kW/kg)
Armament

Agusta A129 Mangusta and TAI/AgustaWestland


T-129
Bell AH-1Z Viper
Bell YAH-63
CAIC WZ-10
Denel Rooivalk
Eurocopter Tiger
Kamov Ka-50
Mil Mi-24/25/35
Mil Mi-28
Related lists
List of active military aircraft of the United States
List of helicopters

Guns: 1 30 mm (1.18 in) M230 Chain Gun with


1,200 rounds as part of the Area Weapon Subsystem

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the


Iraq War

9.9. REFERENCES

9.9 References
Notes
[1] Israel had already used Tzefa (), Hebrew for Viper to
name its Bell AH-1 Cobras.[138] Donald 2004 states Peten
translates to Viper.[131]

Citations
[1] Boeing Marks 25th Anniversary of Apache First Flight
Sept. 30. Boeing. 2 October 2000.
[2] Haynes, Mary L. and Cheryl Morai Young, ed.
Department of the Army Historical Summary, FY 1987,
Chapter 5: Modernizing and Equipping the Army. Center of Military History, United States Army, 1995.
[3] Sterling, Robert. Apache helicopters roar ahead. Boeing.com. Boeing. Retrieved 16 July 2014.
[4] Modernizing the Armys Rotary-Wing Aviation Fleet.
Congressional Budget Oce. November 2007.
[5] United States Department Of Defense Fiscal Year 2015
Budget Request Program Acquisition Cost By Weapon
System (PDF). Oce Of The Under Secretary Of Defense (Comptroller)/ Chief Financial Ocer. March
2014. p. 18.

93

[22] Helicopter Contract Awarded. Prescott Courier. 17 August 1988.


[23] Donald 2004, pp. 150153.
[24] Great Planes: Apache Helicopter. Military Channel
[25] Foote, Sheila (4 April 1995). DOD Halts Apache Longbow Tests Early. Defense Daily.
[26] Donald 2004, pp. 156158.
[27] Foote, Sheila (16 October 1995). DoD Approves Production Of Longbow Apache Attack Helicopter. Defense Daily.
[28] Caires, Greg (19 August 1996). Army Inks $1.9 Billion
AH-64D Apache Deal. Defense Daily.
[29] Eden, Paul, ed. Boeing AH-64 Apache. Encyclopedia
of Modern Military Aircraft. Amber Books, 2004. ISBN
1-904687-84-9.
[30] Ensure Israel arms curbs, say MPs. BBC News. 30
March 2010.
[31] KAI Signs Cooperation Agreement With Boeing, To
Produce Apache Fuselages. Defense Daily. 20 February 2003. Retrieved 21 January 2012.
[32] F-15/Apache Fuselage Monopolization Program. Korea Aerospace Industries. Retrieved 21 January 2012.

[6] Army Cancels Helicopter Contract. Victoria Advocate.


10 August 1972.

[33] Lisa, Dunbar (2009). Boeing celebrates milestone:


100th AH-64D Apache fuselage delivery. Boeing.

[7] Army Decides To Scrap Cheyenne Helicopter Gunship.


Boca Raton News. 3 September 1972.

[34] Arbitrator will rule on AH-64 fuselage production dispute. Flight International. 8 April 1998.

[8] Bishop 2005, pp. 56.

[35] AH-64D Apache Longbow. Deagel.com. Retrieved 28


October 2010.

[9] OAVCSA 1973, p. 10.


[10] Army Seeking Bids On New Helicopter. New York
Times. 16 November 1972.

[36] Boeing Remanufactures AH-64A Apaches to AH-64D


Block II. defenseindustrydaily.com. 21 July 2011.

[12] Bishop 2005, p. 7.

[37] Hoyle, Craig (15 October 2008). Greece urged to commit to Apache upgrade, as air force eyes new utility
model. Flight International.

[13] Richardson and Peacock 1992, p. 8.

[38] Model T700-701C. GE Aviation

[14] Donald 2004, p. 114.

[39] Model T700-701D. GE Aviation

[15] Bishop 2005, p. 8.

[40] RTM 322. Turbomeca

[16] AGM-114 Hellre missile. Boeing. Retrieved 30 July


2011.

[41] Hudson, Joel B. (2 April 1997). Attack Helicopter Operations (PDF). Department of the Army. p. 166.

[17] AGM-114 Hellre Variants. Retrieved 27 September


2011.

[42] Donald 2004, pp. 11011.

[11] New Army Tactic. Reading Eagle. 11 September 1973.

[18] AGM-114 Hellre Chronology. Retrieved 27 September 2011.


[19] Bishop 2005, pp. 89.

[43] How Apache Helicopters Work. HowStuWorks. Retrieved 10 October 2013.


[44] Donald 2004, pp. 111112.

[20] Donald 2004, p. 119.

[45] GE Says T700 Operating Well in Gulf. Defense Daily.


20 December 1990.

[21] Wilson, Cynthia; Dale Singer (13 January 2004).


McDonnell-Boeing Merger. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

[46] T700-GE-701D Engine Awarded U.S. Army Qualication. GE Aviation. 4 November 2004.

94

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

[47] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 1617.

[70] Weapon, sensor upgrades coming for Apache eet Flight


Global, 31 March 2015.

[48] The History of Helicopter Safety.


[49] Rash, Clarence E.; Martin, John S. (August 1988). The
Impact of the U.S. Armys AH-64 Helmet Mounted
Display on Future Aviation Helmet Design. Army
Aeromedical Research Lab Fort Rucker.
[50] Casey, Curtis J. (5 August 2002). Emergence Of
Solid State Helmet-Mounted Displays In Military Applications. SPIE.
[51] Boeing AH-64 Apache. Janes Information Group. 13
October 2000. Archived from the original on 25 February
2008. Retrieved 1 April 2010.
[52] Boeing To Develop Electric Gun Turret For The AH64D. Boeing. 5 May 1999.
[53] "$262.4M In Arrowheads For Apaches. Defense Daily.
2 May 2005.

[71] Raytheon gets Stinger contract for Korean Apaches Shephardmedia.com, 3 April 2015.
[72] Apache-UAV teaming combines 'best capabilities of
man, machine'". Army.mil, 8 May 2014
[73] Boeing Apache demonstrates UAV Control.
mag.com, 12 April 2006.

giz-

[74] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 1415.


[75] Apache news 2004, pp. 3334. Boeing, 2004.
[76] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 4748.
[77] Bernsteein 2005, p. 6.
[78] Donald 2004, p. 121.
[79] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 5152.

[54] PEO STRI AWSS LBA TESS. PEO STRI. Retrieved


2014-03-20.

[80] Bishop 2005, pp. 1617.

[55] ASP Motion Base for Stabilized Mounts. Department


of Defense Small Business Innovation Research. Retrieved June 2012.

[82] Williams 2005, pp. 212213.

[56] FM 1140, Appendix B Helicopter gunnery tables. U.S.


Army via GlobalSecurity.org. Retrieved June 2012.

[84] Bishop 2005, pp. 1718.

[81] Bernstein 2005, p. 7.

[83] Williams 2005, pp. 215218.

[85] Donald 2004, pp. 144145.

[57] Harris, Tom. How Apache Helicopters Work: Apache


Sensors. howstuworks.com. Retrieved 2 February
2010.

[86] Taylor, Thomas. Lightning in the Storm. Hippocrene


Books, 2003. ISBN 0-7818-1017-5.

[58] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 2631.

[87] Apache Helicopter Was Considered Eective in Combat,


but Reliability Problems Persist

[59] Ground Fire Acquisition System - Armedforces-int.com,


26 October 2012.
[60] Shalal-Esa, Andrea. Lockheed tech lets U.S. Apache helicopter pilots aim in color. Reuters, 19 February 2014.

[88] Ference, Edward W. (December 2002). Case Study of


the Development of the Apache Attack Helicopter (AH64)" (PDF). Naval Postgraduate School.
[89] Donald 2004, p. 147.

[61] Army Congures Apaches for Sea Duty - DoDBuzz.com,


13 October 2014

[90] High Tech Weapons In Desert Storm: Hype or Reality?".


Project on Government Oversight. 1 July 1992.

[62] Donald 2004, pp. 124127.

[91] Bishop 2005, pp. 2124, 33.

[63] US approves full new warhead production.


Zealand Herald. 25 August 2005.

New

[64] Smith, Michael (22 June 2008). Army 'vacuum' missile


hits Taliban. The Times (London).
[65] Donald 2004, pp. 134135.
[66] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 4041, 60.
[67] Boeing AH-64 Apache. Janes All the Worlds Aircraft.
Janes Information Group, 2010. subscription article, 1
February 2010.

[92] U.S. Mulls More Copters In Bosnia The Aircraft Were


Requested For U.N. Troop Reinforcement. Sarasota
Herald-Tribune. 18 July 1995.
[93] Adams 2006, p. 60.
[94] Bowman, Tom (16 July 1999). Army Hunts For Answers As Apaches Fail In Kosovo; Readiness, Training
Faulted As 21st-century Helicopter Stumbles. The Baltimore Sun.
[95] Thompson, Mark (20 June 1990). Army Defends Troubled Copter. Spokesman-Review.

[68] Helicopter rescue bid for Marine. BBC News. 17 January 2007.

[96] Repairs Planned For Army Helicopters. New York


Press. 10 November 1999.

[69] Raytheon Sells Stingers for Apaches Abroad - DoDBuzz.com, 23 October 2013

[97] Some Apaches To Be Grounded 10 Months. Fayetteville Observer. 11 November 1999.

9.9. REFERENCES

95

[98] Anderson, Jon R. (19 December 2000). Apaches Are [122] Paulsboe, Jesse (March 12, 2013). "'Guardian' rises at
Ailing Warriors. European Stars and Stripes.
Joint Base Lewis-McChord. US Army. Retrieved March
15, 2013.
[99] Luttwak 2001, pp. 7880.
[123] US Armys AH-64Es reach initial operating capability [100] Adams 2006, p. 61.
Flightglobal.com, 27 November 2013
[101] Bishop 2005, pp. 3335.
[102] Bernstein 2005, pp. 1617.
[103] Afghan Field Report: British WAH-64Ds. Defense Industry Daily. 26 November 2007.
[104] Christopher Roney inquest: 'Failures led to friendly re
death'". BBC News. 7 September 2012.
[105] Adams 2006, pp. 223224.
[106] Bishop 2005, pp. 3537.
[107] Schechter, Erik (13 June 2003). Choppers On The
Chopping Block?". Jerusalem Post.

[124] Armys First AH-64E Unit Deploys to Afghanistan DoDBuzz.com, 5 May 2014
[125] US Army Gearing Up for Apache Link 16 Test - Defensenews.com, 26 June 2014
[126] US Army details combat experience with AH-64E Flightglobal.com, 14 October 2014
[127] Budgets & 'Betrayal': National Guard Fights To Keep
Apache Gunships - Breakingdefense.com, 23 January
2014
[128] Head, Elan. "Arizona Guard leader blasts Army plan to
'seize' Apaches" Vertical Magazine, 28 April 2014. Accessed: 3 May 2014.

[108] U.S. Apache Pilots Taken Prisoner. CNN. 24 March [129] First of 10 Apache units converts, adds 12 Shadow UASs
2003.
- Armytimes.com, 16 March 2015
[109] Fred Kaplan (23 April 2003). Chop The Chopper: [130] Army Apache helos used in strikes against Islamic State.
The Armys Apache Attack-Helicopter Had A Bad War.
Military Times, 5 October 2014
Slate. Retrieved 10 March 2007.
[131] Donald 2004, p. 157.
[110] A City And Regime Steel For Reckoning To Come.
[132] Orme, William A. (3 February 2000). Israeli Says U.S.
Sydney Morning Herald. 26 March 2003.
Fears Endanger Major Purchase of Apache Copters.
[111] The 'Apache' Farmers Tale. BBC News. 23 April
New York Times.
2003. Retrieved 21 October 2009.
[133] Pinkas, Alon (23 March 1994). IA Experts Criticize
Air Force For Preferring Apache Over Upgraded Cobra.
[112] Downed Apache Blown Up To Keep Secrets From Iraq.
Jerusalem Post.
Evening Times. 25 March 2003.
[113] Downed US Apache Blown Up With Missile. New [134] Israel Accepts First AH-64D Apache Longbows. Boeing. 11 April 2005.
Straits Times. 26 March 2003.
[114] Surface-to-Air Missile Downed U.S. Chopper In Iraq. [135] Powers 2002, pp. 11, 49.
ABC News. 17 January 2006.
[136] Bryen, Shoshana (23 January 2010). QME, Part II:
U.S. Arms Sales To The Arabs, And Will There Be Help
[115] Geotagging poses security risks
For Israel. Right Side News. Indeed, Israels request
[116] Helicopter crashes in eastern Afghanistan. ISAF Infor six AH-64D Apache Longbow attack helicopters was
ternational Security Assistance Force. 6 January 2012.
blocked by the Obama Administration in June-the same
Retrieved 28 February 2012.
time the Egyptian sale was approved. U.S. sources reported that the request was undergoing an interagency
[117] Marlborough Soldier Dies In Helicopter Crash In
review to determine whether additional Longbow heliAfghanistan. Wmur.com. 2011-05-28. Retrieved 2013copters would threaten Palestinian civilians in the Gaza
11-16.
Strip.
[118] Army Chief Warrant Ocer 3 William T. Flanigan. [137] Administration Blocks Helicopters for Israel due to
militarytimes.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
Civilian Casualties in Gaza. World Tribune. 27 May
2009.
[119] Amputee Combat Vet Daniel McConnells Inspiring
Story. celebdirtylaundry.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015. [138] Donald 2004, p. 191.
[120] AH-64D Apache Overview (PDF). Boeing. Retrieved [139] Alon, Ben-David (18 October 2007). Performance Dis30 July 2011.
pute Puts Israeli Apache Buy On Hold. Janes Information Group.
[121] Leaked Audit: Boeing Overcharged Army Up to
177,000 Percent on Helicopter Spare Parts. Project On [140] Smolowe, Jill (2 March 1992). Vengeance Is Mine.
Government Oversight (POGO). 28 June 2011.
Time.

96

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

[141] Kampeas, Ron (25 July 1993). Thousands Flee Fleet, [163] Cook, Nick (1 May 1995). High Noon For Tiger And
Fickle Missiles. Lakeland Ledger.
Apache. Interavia Business & Technology.
[142] Three Killed In Hizbollah, Israeli Retaliatory Attacks. [164] Flannery, William (14 July 1995). Mac Lands $3.5 BilNew Straits Times. 24 December 1994.
lion Copter Order British Buying 67 Antitank Craft.
St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
[143] Fisk 2005, pp.773788.
[165] RTM 322. Turbomeca. Retrieved 29 January 2010.
[144] Urquhart, Conal; Gaby Hinsli (18 April 2004). Israeli
Missile Attack Kills New Hamas Chief. The Guardian [166] Apache Moves Closer To Front Line. Navy News. 11
(London, UK).
May 2004.
[145] Philps, Alan (24 August 2001). Second Israeli Rocket [167] McDonnell In Talks With Dutch On Apache Role. St.
Attack Misses Target. The Telegraph (London, UK).
Louis Post-Dispatch. 13 April 1989.
[146] Israeli Air Victories. jewishvirtuallibrary.org. 30 Au[168] Dutch May Buy McDonnell Copter. St. Louis Postgust 2004.
Dispatch. 14 December 1994.
[147] Whitaker, Brian (23 March 2004). Assassination
[169] Fitchett, Joseph (13 April 1995). Ignoring EU Solidarity,
method: surveillance drone and a Hellre missile. The
The Dutch Opt For U.S. Helicopters. New York Times.
Guardian (London).
[148] The Life And Death Of Shaikh Yasin. Al Jazeera. [170] Flannery, William (8 April 1995). McDonnell Wins Big
Helicopter Contract But Layos Are Looming At ComArchived from the original on 16 August 2007.
mercial Air Arm. St. Louis Post-Dispatch.
[149] Blanford, Nicholas (8 August 2006). Hezbollahs Hidden
Stronghold Sends Death Across The Border. The Times [171] First AH-64D Apache Pilots From The Netherlands
Complete Training At Boeing. Boeing. 29 March 1999.
(UK).
[150] Ilsemann, Siegesmund von (31 July 2006). Israelis Puz- [172] Boeing Delivers 30th AH-64D Apache to Royal Netherlands Air Force. Boeing. 10 June 2002.
zling Military Strategy. Der Spiegel.
[151] Hezbollah Dees Israeli Pressure. BBC News. 21 July [173] News: Last dutch Apache delivered. helis.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
2006.
[152] Egozi, Arie (1 August 2006). Israeli Air Power Falls [174] Aircraft Survivability Equipment (PDF). TERMA. July
Short As Oensive In Southern Lebanon Fails To Halt
2004.
Hezbollah Rocket Attacks. Flight International.
[175] AMASE/DIRCM Pod During Flight Certication Test[153] Egozi, Arie (27 February 2009). Israel seeks more
ing in the Netherlands (PDF). TERMA. July 2006.
Apache attack helicopters. Flight International.
[176] Strass, Marc (6 March 2002). Army Conducts First De[154] Israeli choppers blast Gaza City. oil.co.za. 3 December
ployment of AH-64D Apache Longbows To Kuwait. De2001.
fense Daily.
[155] Israeli airstrike in Gaza kills one, wounds 2.
glish.eastday.com. 6 November 2011.

en- [177] Atkinson, Rick (4 December 1995). U.S. Bound for


Bosnia By Train, Truck, Air. Washington Post.

[156] Israel expands Gaza oensive. euronews.com. 6 Jan[178] Six Apaches to Iraq to Boost Security. Government.nl.
uary 2009.
24 May 2004.
[157] Israels AH-64A Attack Helos Get Custom Upgrades
[179] More Dutch troops for Afghanistan. BBC News. 3
Despite the USA. Defense Industry Daily, 17 March
February 2006.
2014.
[158] Israel Upgrades Apache Helicopters After US Blocked [180] Two Peacekeeping Helicopters Fired on in Kabul. CTV
News. 10 April 2004.
Their Modernization. World Tribune, 14 March 2014.
[159] Egozi, Arie (30 June 2010). Israel ditches Apache up- [181] Gravemaker, Anno (18 December 2007). Dutch Apache
Accident Leaves 50,000 Homes Without Power. Flight
grade plan, commits to CH-53K. Flight International.
International.
[160] Katz, Yaajov (31 December 2010). Rapid-re rocket
system aims to reduce civilian casualties. Jerusalem Post. [182] 2 Apache-vliegers omgekomen in Mali. defensie.nl.
Retrieved 1 April 2015.
[161] Egozi, Arie Israeli Apache upgrade adds avionics pod.
[183] Apache Copters All Set if Iraqis Make a Move. Eugene
Flight International, 8 October 2013.
Register-Guard. 25 August 1990.
[162] British Army receives 67th Apache in ceremony held at
the Farnborough Airshow 2004. AgustaWestland. 21 [184] Jehl, Douglas (22 January 1991). Desert Air, Sands
July 2004.
Alive With Modern Warriors. Los Angeles Times.

9.9. REFERENCES

97

[185] Koenig, Robert L. (3 June 1992). Bush Endorses Sale [207] Fiszer, Michal (1 October 2003). Greece Buying New
Of Arms To Saudis...McDonnell Douglas Could Benet
Helicopters (12 AH-64D Longbow helicopters)". Journal
from Pact. St Louis Post-Dispatch.
of Electronic Defense.
[186] U.S. Plans $1.8 Billion Saudi Military Sale. Washington [208] Singapore to Purchase 12 Additional Boeing AH-64D
Apache Longbows. Boeing. 23 August 2001.
Post. 3 June 1992.
[187] Friedman, Thomas L. (15 September 1992). U.S. and [209] Apache training suspended. The Straits Times. 1 October 2010.
Israel Working Out Deal To Oset Warplane Sale to
Saudis. New York Times.
[210] Fuji Heavy Industries Delivers First Apache Longbow
Helicopter to Japanese Government Under Boeing Li[188] The 2006 Saudi Shopping Spree: $400M to Upgrade
censing Agreement. Boeing. 15 March 2006.
AH-64A Apache Helicopters. Defense Industry Daily.
1 August 2006.
[211] Trimble, Stepehen (10 June 2011). Taiwan buys 30 AH64 Apaches. Flight International.
[189] Shalal-Esa, Andrea (12 September 2008). US OKs sale
of Boeing helicopters to Saudi Arabia. Reuters.

[212] Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Oce in


the United States AH-64D Apache Helicopters and
[190] Lakshman, Narayan (21 October 2010). Huge U.S.Related Weapons (PDF). Defense Security Cooperation
Saudi arms deal. The Hindu (Chennai, India).
Agency (DSCA). 3 October 2007. Retrieved 24 July
2009.
[191] Saudi Arabia AH-64D APACHE, UH-60M BLACKHAWK, AH-6i Light Attack, and MD-530F Light Turbine Helicopters. US Defense Security Cooperation [213] Taiwan receives rst batch of AH-64E Apaches - Flightglobal.com, 5 November 2013
Agency, 20 October 2010.
[192] Saudi troops combing Yemen border; security stepped
up. BBC News. 20 November 2009.
[193] Saudi Apache gunships prevent incursion by inltrators"". Saudi Gazette. 6 December 2009.

[214] Taiwans AH-64Es Grounded After Apache Crash Armedforces-Int.com, 25 April 2014
[215] Crash destroys Taiwanese AH-64E Apache - Flightglobal.com, 26 April 2014

[216] Pilots Blamed for Taiwan Apache Crash - Defense[194] Saudi Military Operations along the Yemen Border Renews.com, 15 July 2014
pel Houthist Incursion. The Jamestown Foundation. 28
January 2010.
[217] Taiwan received fth and last batch of AH-64E Apache
attack helicopters - Airrecognition.com, 20 October 2014
[195] Yemen rebels announce pullout from Saudi land. The
Jordan Times. 26 January 2010.
[218] IAF conducting trials for attack helicopters. Hindustan
Times. 2010-07-22. Retrieved 2013-11-16.
[196] Bishop 2005, pp. 4044.
[219] Govindasamy, Siva (10 October 2008). Bell, Boeing
[197] Bishop 2005, p. 42.
Quit Indian Attack Helicopter Contest. Flight International.
[198] Egypt to Upgrade 35 Apaches to AH-64D Conguration. Boeing, 25 September 2000.
[220] Boeing Submits Proposals To India For Apache And
Chinook Helicopters. Boeing. 23 October 2009.
[199] Feldman 2004, p. 106.
[221] US government details AH-64D bid for Indian air force
[200] AH-64D Apache Longbow helicopters for Egypt. Decontract. Flight International. 4 January 2011.
fence Talk. 29 May 2009.
[222] India Support for Direct Commercial Sale of AH-64D
[201] Egypt Aims to Add AH-64D Block II Attack HeliBlock III APACHE Helicopters (PDF). US Defense Secopters. Defense Industry Daily. 28 May 2009.
curity Cooperation Agency. 27 December 2010.
[202] Egypt launches airstrikes in Sinai after troop massacre. [223] IAF getting 22 Apache helicopters: NAK Browne. InCNN, 8 August 2012.
dian Express, 5 October 2012.
[203] Friedman, Ron. Israel allows Egypt to keep attack heli- [224] The Indian Army Wins A Big One. Strategypage.com,
copters in Sinai. Times of Israel, 9 August 2012.
19 October 2012.
[204] US Copters Set For Middle East. Toledo Blade. 4 June [225] Going To War Over Gunships. Strategypage.com, 3
1991.
January 2013
[205] UAEs 30-Helicopter Apache Upgrade Program Under- [226] IAF, not Army, will get Apache attack helicopters.
way. Defense Industry Daily. 10 May 2009.
Times Of India. 2013-04-02. Retrieved 2013-11-16.
[206] Kuwait Runs Apache Longbow Contract To $262.2 M. [227] India; Army Wing request its own Apache Squadron
Defense Industry Daily. 26 August 2005.
Dmilt.com, 14 May 2013.

98

CHAPTER 9. BOEING AH-64 APACHE

[228] India; Army Aviation requests additional Apache heli- [252] Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS Janes
copters - Dmilt.com, 4 July 2014
- IHS. janes.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
[229] New Delhi approves Apache buy. ightglobal.com. 29 [253] Helicopter prole: Boeing AH-64 Apache. Flight InterAugust 2014. Retrieved 1 September 2014.
national. Retrieved 2 February 2010.
[230] Jung, Sung-ki (14 January 2009). Seoul Seeks To Deploy [254] Apache Stinger Testing in Holding Pattern until
Apaches In 2012. Korea Times. Retrieved 29 December
Starstreak Integration Finished. Defense Daily. 15 June
2013.
2000.
[231] South Korea Dithers Over Apaches. United Press Inter- [255] Taylor, Ed (21 December 2005). Japan to get rst Boeing
national. 7 August 2009.
copter. East Valley Tribune.
[232] Sung-ki, Jung (8 February 2009). US May Withdraw [256] Whittle, Richard Army Loves AH-64D Block III enough
More Apache Helos From Korea by 2012. Korea Times.
to call it Echo; will Taliban call it the Echo Monster?".
AOL Defense, 22 October 2012.
[233] Republic of Korea (ROK) AH-64D APACHE Attack
Helicopters. DSCA.mil, 25 September 2012.
[257] Bledsoe, Sophia. Team Apache announces nickname for
[234] Korea helicopter bids. Flightglobal.com, 26 September
2012.

the Apache Echo Model. U.S. Army, 14 January 2013.

[237] USA and Indonesia formalise AH-64E Apache deal - [260]


Flightglobal.com, 26 August 2013
[261]
[238] Quarterly Report to the United States Congress (PDF).
sigir.mil. 30 April 2013.
[262]
[239] Congress Clears Apache Sale to Iraq. Foreign Policy, 27
January 2014.
[263]
[240] Agreement reached to sell billions in Apache helicopters
to Iraq. Militarytimes.com, 28 January 2014

. Boeing Press Release, 2 November 2011.

[258] Army Renames Apache Block III Helicopters. National


Defense Magazine.
[235] Song, Sang-ho (17 April 2013). Seoul to Purchase 36
Apache Helicopters. Korea Herald.
[259] "Interlocking gears used in clocks give Army helicopters
more power", HeliHub, 28 October 2013. Accessed: 17
[236] South Korean Boeing AH-64E Apache Order June 2014. Archived on 20 February 2014.
Armedforces-Int.com, April 19, 2013

Technology gives Apache block III more lift, capability,


landing ability. U.S. Army.
Boeing-Developed Composite Rotor Blade Spins Forward. Boeing, 10 May 2004.
Trimble, Stephen From Albania to Afghanistan, US
Army integrates lessons into latest Apache. Flight International, 3 November 2011.

[241] Iraq passes on Apache buy. Janes, 25 September 2014. [264] John Pike. Upgraded Apache helicopter OK'd for production. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
[242] Qatar AH-64D APACHE Block III LONGBOW Attack Helicopters. US Defense Security Cooperation [265] Jennings, Gareth (30 October 2013). ADEX 2013: US
Agency, 12 July 2012.
sequestration buys time for UK Apache decision makers.
IHS Janes Defence Weekly.
[243] $23.9B in Deals Announced on Last Day of DIMDEX Defensenews.com, 27 March 2014
[266] Majumdar, Dave. US Army elds rst AH-64E unit, but
[244] Bishop 2005, p. 12.

more improvements to come. Flight International, 9 January 2013.

[245] Bledsoe, Soa. Army 'retires last A model Apache heli[267] Drwiega , Andrew. "U.S. Armys Apache Maritime
copter. Defense Video & Imagery Distribution System.
Role" Aviation Today, 10 November 2014. Accessed: 16
Retrieved 18 July 2012.
November 2014.
[246] Boeing Remanufactures AH-64A Apaches to AH-64D
[268] Boeing proposes high-speed Apache, heavier Chinook Block II. Defenseindustrydaily.com
Flightglobal.com, 26 June 2014
[247] Bishop 2005, p. 10.
[269] Richardson and Peacock 1992, pp. 6061.
[248] Donald 2004, p. 153.
[270] Donald 2004, p. 150.
[249] McDonnell-Bell plan Longbow-radar for LHX. Defense
[271] Donald 2004, p. 170.
Daily. 22 February 1990.
[250] AN/APR-48A Radar Frequency Interferometer (PDF). [272] Curran, Peggy (6 August 1986). Local rms hope
for spin-os from big naval aircraft project. Montreal
Lockheed Martin. Retrieved 20 July 2011.
Gazette.
[251] Defense & Security Intelligence & Analysis: IHS Janes
- IHS. janes.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
[273] HMS Ocean. Royal Navy/MOD.

9.10. EXTERNAL LINKS

[274] Myers, Meghann (5 September 2013). Army helicopters


y from Navy ships, test joint ops. Army Times.

99

9.10 External links

[275] Army Regulation 750-10 Army Modication Program

AH-64 Apache page on Boeing.com

[276] World Air Forces 2014 (PDF). Flightglobal Insight.


2014. Retrieved 17 January 2014.

AH-64 Apache U.S. Army fact le (archived from


the original on 2011-05-01)

[277] Bishop 2005.

Apache overview with supporting images on HowStuWorks.com

[278] AN/APG Equipment Listing. designation-systems.net

Bibliography

Top 10: Helicopters AH-64D Apache. Discovery


Channel, 8 May 2007.

TM 1-1520-251-10 Technical Manual for Helicopter, Attack, AH-64D Longbow Apache, U.S.
Army.

AH-64E U.S. Army video describing Apache Block


III technologies

Bernstein, Jonathan. AH-64 Apache units of operations: Enduring Freedom an Iraqi Freedom. Oxford
: Osprey Publishing, 2005. ISBN 1-84176-848-0.

Boeing eyes X-49A technology for Apache attack


helicopter.

Bishop, Chris. Apache AH-64 Boeing (McDonnell


Douglas) 19762005. Osprey Publishing, 2005.
ISBN 1-84176-816-2.
Donald, David. AH-64A/D Apache and AH-64D
Longbow Apache. Modern Battleeld Warplanes.
AIRtime Publishing Inc, 2004. ISBN 1-880588-765.
Feldman, Shai. The Middle East Strategic Balance,
20032004. Sussex Academic Press, 2004. ISBN
1-8451-9003-3.
Fisk, Robert. The Great War for Civilisation: The
Conquest of the Middle East. Fourth Estate, 2005.
ISBN 978-1-4000-7517-1
Government Accounting Oce. Sta Study: Advanced Attack Helicopter. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Accounting Oce, 1974.
Luttwak, Edward. Strategy: the Logic of War and
Peace. Harvard University Press, 2001. ISBN 0674-00703-4.
Oce of the Assistant Vice Chief of Sta of the
Army (OAVCSA). An Abridged History of the Army
Attack Helicopter Program. Washington, DC: Department of the Army. 1973.
Powers, Adam. United States Israeli relations. Nova
Publishers, 2002. ISBN 1-59033-133-8.
Richardson, Doug and Lindsay Peacock. Combat
Aircraft: AH-64 Apache. London: Salamander
Books, 1992. ISBN 0-86101-675-0.
Thomas, Adams K. The Army After Next: The First
Postindustrial Army. Greenwood Publishing Group,
2006. ISBN 0-275-98107-X.
Williams, James W. A History of Army Aviation:
From its Beginnings to the War on Terror. iUniverse,
2005. ISBN 0-595-36608-2.

Apache Helicopter Acoustic Analysis

Chapter 10

Boeing B-52 Stratofortress


B-52 redirects here. For other uses, see B52 (disam- 10.1.1
biguation).
BUFF redirects here. For other uses, see Bu.

Origins

The Boeing B-52 Stratofortress is a long-range,


subsonic, jet-powered strategic bomber. The B-52 was
designed and built by Boeing, which has continued to
provide support and upgrades. It has been operated by
the United States Air Force (USAF) since the 1950s.
The bomber is capable of carrying up to 70,000 pounds
(32,000 kg) of weapons.[4]
Beginning with the successful contract bid in June 1946,
the B-52 design evolved from a straight wing aircraft powered by six turboprop engines to the nal prototype YB- Models 462 (1946)[11] to 464-35 (1948)[11]
52 with eight turbojet engines and swept wings. The B-52
took its maiden ight in April 1952. Built to carry nuclear weapons for Cold War-era deterrence missions, the
B-52 Stratofortress replaced the Convair B-36. A veteran
of several wars, the B-52 has dropped only conventional
munitions in combat. The B-52s ocial name Stratofortress is rarely used; informally, the aircraft has become commonly referred to as the BUFF (Big Ugly Fat
Fucker).[5][Note 1]
The B-52 has been in active service with the USAF since
1955. As of 2012, 85 were in active service with nine in
reserve. The bombers ew under the Strategic Air Command (SAC) until it was inactivated in 1992 and its aircraft absorbed into the Air Combat Command (ACC);
in 2010 all B-52 Stratofortresses were transferred from
the ACC to the new Air Force Global Strike Command
(AFGSC). Superior performance at high subsonic speeds
and relatively low operating costs have kept the B-52 in
service despite the advent of later, more advanced aircraft, including the canceled Mach 3 B-70 Valkyrie, the
variable-geometry B-1 Lancer, and the stealth B-2 Spirit.
The B-52 completed fty years of continuous service
with its original operator in 2005; after being upgraded
between 2013 and 2015, it is expected to serve into the
2040s.[Note 2]

10.1 Development

Models 464-49 (1949)[11] to B-52A (1952)

On 23 November 1945, Air Materiel Command (AMC)


issued desired performance characteristics for a new
strategic bomber capable of carrying out the strategic
mission without dependence upon advanced and intermediate bases controlled by other countries.[12] The aircraft
was to have a crew of ve or more turret gunners, and
a six-man relief crew. It was required to cruise at 300
mph (260 knots, 480 km/h) at 34,000 feet (10,400 m)
with a combat radius of 5,000 miles (4,300 nautical miles,
8,000 km). The armament was to consist of an unspecied number of 20 mm cannon and 10,000 pounds (4,500
kg) of bombs.[13] On 13 February 1946, the Air Force

100

10.1. DEVELOPMENT

101

issued bid invitations for these specications, with Boe- design was capable of being adapted to new aviation teching, Consolidated Aircraft, and Glenn L. Martin Com- nology and more stringent requirements.[26] In January
pany submitting proposals.[13]
1948 Boeing was instructed to thoroughly explore recent
including aerial refueling and
On 5 June 1946, Boeings Model 462, a straight-wing technological innovations,
[27]
the
ying
wing.
Noting
stability
and control problems
aircraft powered by six Wright T35 turboprops with a
Northrop
was
experiencing
with
their
YB-35 and YB-49
gross weight of 360,000 pounds (160,000 kg) and a comying
wing
bombers,
Boeing
insisted
on a conventional
bat radius of 3,110 miles (2,700 nmi, 5,010 km), was
aircraft,
and
in
April
1948
presented
a US$30 million
[14]
declared the winner.
On 28 June 1946, Boeing was
(US$294 million today[28] ) proposal for design, construcissued a letter of contract for US$1.7 million to build
[29]
a full-scale mock-up of the new XB-52 and do prelim- tion, and testing of two Model 464-35 prototypes. The
Model 464-35 design had a similar conguration as a later
inary engineering and testing.[15] However, by October
Union, the
1946, the air force began to express concern about the Tupolev design that was built for the Soviet
Tupolev Tu-95 Bear strategic bomber.[30] Further revisheer size of the new aircraft and its inability to meet
the specied design requirements.[16] In response, Boe- sions during 1948 resulted in an aircraft with a top speed
of 513 miles per hour (445 kn, 825 km/h) at 35,000 feet
ing produced Model 464, a smaller four-engine version
with a 230,000 pound (105,000 kg) gross weight, which (10,700 m), a range of 6,909 miles (6,005 nmi, 11,125
km), and a 280,000 pounds (125,000 kg) gross weight,
was briey deemed acceptable.[16][17]
which included 10,000 pounds (4,500 kg) of bombs and
Subsequently, in November 1946, the Deputy Chief of 19,875 US gallons (75,225 L) of fuel.[31][32]
Air Sta for Research and Development, General Curtis
LeMay, expressed the desire for a cruise speed of 400
miles per hour (345 kn, 645 km/h), to which Boeing re- 10.1.2 Design eort
sponded with a 300,000 lb (136,000 kg) aircraft.[18] In
December 1946, Boeing was asked to change their design
to a four-engine bomber with a top speed of 400 miles per
hour, range of 12,000 miles (10,000 nmi, 19,300 km),
and the ability to carry a nuclear weapon; in total, the aircraft could weigh up to 480,000 pounds (220,000 kg).[19]
Boeing responded with two models powered by the T35 turboprops. The Model 464-16 was a nuclear only
bomber with a 10,000 pound (4,500 kg) payload, while
the Model 464-17 was a general purpose bomber with a
9,000 pound (4,000 kg) payload.[19] Due to the cost associated with purchasing two specialized aircraft, the air
force selected Model 464-17 with the understanding that
it could be adapted for nuclear strikes.[20]
In June 1947, the military requirements were updated and XB-52 Prototype on ight line (X-4 in foreground)
the Model 464-17 met all of them except for the range.[21]
It was becoming obvious to the air force that, even with
the updated performance, the XB-52 would be obsolete
by the time it entered production and would oer little
improvement over the Convair B-36; as a result, the entire project was postponed for six months.[22] During this
time, Boeing continued to perfect the design, which resulted in the Model 464-29 with a top speed of 455 miles
per hour (395 kn, 730 km/h) and a 5,000-mile range.[23]
In September 1947, the Heavy Bombardment Committee was convened to ascertain performance requirements
for a nuclear bomber. Formalized on 8 December 1947,
these requirements called for a top speed of 500 miles
per hour (440 kn, 800 km/h) and an 8,000 mile (7,000
nmi, 13,000 km) range, far beyond the capabilities of
Side view of YB-52 bomber, with bubble canopy similar to that
464-29.[22][24]
of the B-47
The outright cancellation of the Boeing contract on 11
December 1947 was staved o by a plea from its pres- In May 1948, AMC asked Boeing to incorporate the preident William McPherson Allen to the Secretary of the viously discarded, but now more fuel-ecient, jet engine
[33]
Air Force Stuart Symington.[25] Allen reasoned that the into the design. That resulted in the development of yet
another revision in July 1948, Model 464-40 substituted

102
Westinghouse J40 turbojets for the turboprops.[34] The
air force project ocer who reviewed the Model 46440 was favorably impressed, especially since he had already been thinking along similar lines. Nevertheless, the
government was concerned about the high fuel consumption rate of the jet engines of the day, and directed that
Boeing still use the turboprop-powered Model 464-35 as
the basis for the XB-52. Although he agreed that turbojet propulsion was the future, General Howard A. Craig,
Deputy Chief of Sta for Material, was not very keen
on a jet-powered B-52, since he felt that the jet engine
had not yet progressed suciently to permit skipping an
intermediate turboprop stage. However, Boeing was encouraged to continue turbojet studies even without any
expected commitment to jet propulsion.[35][36]
On Thursday, 21 October 1948, Boeing engineers
George S. Schairer, Art Carlsen and Vaughn Blumenthal
presented the design of a four-engine turboprop bomber
to the chief of bomber development, Colonel Pete Warden. Warden was disappointed by the projected aircraft
and asked if the Boeing team could come up with a proposal for a four-engine turbojet bomber. Joined by Ed
Wells, Boeing vice president of engineering, the engineers worked that night in the Hotel Van Cleve in Dayton,
Ohio, redesigning Boeings proposal as a four-engine turbojet bomber. On Friday, Colonel Warden looked over
the information and asked for a better design. Returning
to the hotel, the Boeing team was joined by Bob Withington and Maynard Pennell, two top Boeing engineers who
were in town on other business.[37]
By late Friday night, they had laid out what was essentially
a new airplane. The new design (464-49) built upon the
basic layout of the B-47 Stratojet with 35 degree swept
wings, eight engines paired in four underwing pods, and
bicycle landing gear with wingtip outrigger wheels.[38] A
notable feature of the landing gear was the ability to pivot
the main landing gear up to 20 from the aircraft centerline to increase safety during crosswind landings.[39]
After a trip to a hobby shop for supplies, Schairer set
to work building a model. The rest of the team focused
on weight and performance data. Wells, who was also a
skilled artist, completed the aircraft drawings. On Sunday, a stenographer was hired to type a clean copy of the
proposal. On Monday, Schairer presented Colonel Warden with a neatly bound 33-page proposal and a 14-inch
scale model.[37] The aircraft was projected to exceed all
design specications.[40]
Although the full-size mock-up inspection in April 1949
was generally favorable, range again became a concern since the J40s and early model J57s had excessive fuel consumption.[41] Despite talk of another revision of specications or even a full design competition
among aircraft manufacturers, General LeMay, now in
charge of Strategic Air Command, insisted that performance should not be compromised due to delays in engine
development.[42][43] In a nal attempt to increase range,
Boeing created the larger 464-67, stating that once in

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS


production, the range could be further increased in subsequent modications.[44] Following several direct interventions by LeMay,[45] Boeing was awarded a production
contract for thirteen B-52As and seventeen detachable reconnaissance pods on 14 February 1951.[46] The last major design changealso at General LeMays insistence
was a switch from the B-47 style tandem seating to a more
conventional side-by-side cockpit, which increased the
eectiveness of the copilot and reduced crew fatigue.[47]
Both XB-52 prototypes featured the original tandem seating arrangement with a framed bubble-type canopy.[48]

10.1.3 Pre-production
The YB-52, the second XB-52 modied with more operational equipment, rst ew on 15 April 1952 with
Tex Johnston as pilot.[49][50] During ground testing
on 29 November 1951, the XB-52s pneumatic system
failed during a full-pressure test; the resulting explosion
severely damaged the trailing edge of the wing, necessitating considerable repairs. A two-hour, 21-minute proving ight from Boeing Field, King County, in Seattle,
Washington to Larson AFB was undertaken with Boeing test pilot Johnston and air force Lieutenant Colonel
Guy M. Townsend.[51] The XB-52 followed on 2 October 1952.[52] The thorough development,[Note 3] including
670 days in the wind tunnel and 130 days of aerodynamic
and aeroelastic testing, paid o with smooth ight testing. Encouraged, the air force increased its order to 282
B-52s.[54]

10.1.4 Production and improvements


Only three of the 13 B-52As ordered were built.[62]
All were returned to Boeing, and used in their test
program.[55] On 9 June 1952, the February 1951 contract was updated to order the aircraft under new specications. The nal 10, the rst aircraft to enter active
service, were completed as B-52Bs.[55] At the roll out
ceremony on 18 March 1954, Air Force Chief of Sta
General Nathan Twining said:
The long rie was the great weapon of its
day. ... today this B-52 is the long rie of the
air age.[63][64]
The B-52B was followed by progressively improved
bomber and reconnaissance variants, culminating in the
B-52G and turbofan B-52H. To allow rapid delivery, production lines were set up both at its main Seattle factory
and at Boeings Wichita facility. More than 5,000 companies were involved in the massive production eort, with
41% of the airframe being built by subcontractors.[65]
The prototypes and all B-52A, B and C models (90
aircraft)[66] were built at Seattle. Testing of aircraft built
at Seattle caused problems due to jet noise, which led to

10.2. DESIGN
the establishment of curfews for engine tests. Aircraft
were ferried 150 miles (240 km) east on their maiden
ights to Larson Air Force Base near Moses Lake, where
they were fully tested.[67]

103
Pacer Plank reskinning, completed in 1977.[72][80] The
wet wing introduced on G and H models was even more
susceptible to fatigue, experiencing 60% more stress during ight than the old wing. The wings were modied by
1964 under ECP 1050.[81] This was followed by a fuselage skin and longeron replacement (ECP 1185) in 1966,
and the B-52 Stability Augmentation and Flight Control
program (ECP 1195) in 1967.[81] Fuel leaks due to deteriorating Marman clamps continued to plague all variants of the B-52. To this end, the aircraft were subjected to Blue Band (1957), Hard Shell (1958), and nally QuickClip (1958) programs. The latter tted safety
straps that prevented catastrophic loss of fuel in case of
clamp failure.[82]

As production of the B-47 came to an end, the Wichita


factory was phased in for B-52D production, with Seattle responsible for 101 D-models and Wichita 69.[68] Both
plants continued to build the B-52E, with 42 built at Seattle and 58 at Wichita,[69] and the B-52F (44 from Seattle and 45 from Wichita).[70] For the B-52G, it was decided in 1957 to transfer all production to Wichita, which
freed up Seattle for other tasks (in particular the production of airliners).[71][72] Production ended in 1962 with
the B-52H, with 742 aircraft built, plus the original two
prototypes.[73]
In September 2006, the B-52 became one of the rst
US military aircraft to y using alternative fuel. It took
o from Edwards Air Force Base with a 50/50 blend of
Fischer-Tropsch process (FT) synthetic fuel and conven10.2 Design
tional JP-8 jet fuel, which burned in two of the eight
engines.[83] On 15 December 2006, a B-52 took o from
10.2.1 Overview
Edwards with the synthetic fuel powering all eight engines, the rst time an air force aircraft was entirely powThe B-52 shared many technological similarities with the ered by the blend. The seven-hour ight was considered
preceding Boeing B-47 Stratojet strategic bomber. The a success.[83] This program is part of the Department of
two aircraft used the same basic design, such as swept Defense Assured Fuel Initiative, which aims to reduce
wings and podded jet engines,[74] and the cabin included crude oil usage and obtain half of its aviation fuel from
the crew ejection systems.[75] On the B-52D, the pilots alternative sources by 2016.[83] On 8 August 2007, Air
and electronic countermeasures (EDM) operator ejected Force Secretary Michael Wynne certied the B-52H as
upwards, while the lower deck crew ejected downwards; fully approved to use the FT blend.[84]
until the B-52G, the gunner had to jettison the tail gun to
bail-out.[76]

10.2.2 Avionics

B-52H (61-0023), congured at the time as a testbed to investigate structural failures, still ying after its vertical stabilizer
sheared o in severe turbulence on 10 January 1964. The aircraft landed safely[77]

Structural fatigue was accelerated by at least a factor of


eight in a low-altitude ight prole over that of highaltitude ying, requiring costly repairs to extend service
life. In the early 1960s, the three-phase High Stress program was launched to counter structural fatigue, enrolling
aircraft at 2,000 ying hours.[78][79] Follow-up programs
were conducted, such as a 2,000-hour service life extension to select airframes in 19661968, and the extensive

A view of the lower deck of the B-52, dubbed the battle station

Ongoing problems with avionics systems were addressed


in the Jolly Well program, completed in 1964, which improved components of the AN/ASQ-38 bombing navigational computer and the terrain computer. The
MADREC (Malfunction Detection and Recording) upgrade tted to most aircraft by 1965 could detect failures in avionics and weapons computer systems, and
was essential in monitoring the Hound Dog missiles.
The electronic countermeasures capability of the B-52
was expanded with Rivet Rambler (1971) and Rivet Ace

104

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

(1973).[85]
To improve operations at low altitude, the AN/ASQ151 Electro-Optical Viewing System (EVS), which consisted of a Low Light Level Television (LLLTV) and a
Forward looking infrared (FLIR) system mounted in blisters under the noses of B-52Gs and Hs between 1972
and 1976.[86] The navigational capabilities of the B-52
were later augmented with the addition of GPS in the
1980s.[87] The IBM AP-101, also used on the Rockwell
B-1 Lancer bomber and the Space Shuttle, was the B-52s
main computer.[88]
In 2007 the LITENING targeting pod was tted, which
increased the eectiveness of the aircraft in the attack
of ground targets with a variety of stando weapons, using laser guidance, a high-resolution forward-looking infrared sensor (FLIR), and a CCD camera used to obtain target imagery.[89] LITENING pods have been tted to a wide variety of other US aircraft, such as the
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet, the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon and the McDonnell Douglas AV8B Harrier II.[90]

10.2.3

Armament

The ability to carry up to 20 AGM-69 SRAM nuclear


missiles was added to G and H models, starting in
1971.[91] To further improve its oensive ability, airlaunched cruise missiles (ALCMs) were tted.[92] After testing of both the air force-backed Boeing AGM-86
and the navy-backed General Dynamics AGM-109 Tomahawk, the AGM-86B was selected for operation by the
B-52 (and ultimately by the B-1 Lancer).[93] A total of
194 B-52Gs and Hs were modied to carry AGM-86s,
carrying 12 missiles on underwing pylons, with 82 B52Hs further modied to carry another eight missiles on
a rotary launcher tted in the bomb-bay. To conform
with SALT II Treaty requirements that cruise missilecapable aircraft be readily identiable by reconnaissance
satellites, the cruise missile armed B-52Gs were modied with a distinctive wing root fairing. As all B-52Hs
were assumed modied, no visual modication of these
aircraft was required.[94] In 1990, the stealthy AGM-129
ACM cruise missile entered service; although intended to
replace the AGM-86, a high cost and the Cold Wars end
led to only 450 being produced; unlike the AGM-86, no
conventional (non-nuclear) version was built.[95] The B52 was to have been modied to utilize Northrop Grumman's AGM-137 TSSAM weapon; however, the missile
was canceled due to development costs.[96]
Those B-52Gs not converted as cruise missile carriers
underwent a series of modications to improve conventional bombing. They were tted with a new Integrated
Conventional Stores Management System (ICSMS) and
new underwing pylons that could hold larger bombs or
other stores than could the external pylons. Thirty B-52s
were further modied to carry up to 12 AGM-84 Har-

A B-52D with anti-ash white on the under side.

poon anti-ship missiles each, while 12 B-52Gs were tted


to carry the AGM-142 Have Nap stand-o air-to-ground
missile.[97] When the B-52G was retired in 1994, an urgent scheme was launched to restore an interim Harpoon
and Have Nap capability,[Note 4] the four aircraft being
modied to carry Harpoon and four to carry Have Nap
under the Rapid Eight program.[100]
The Conventional Enhancement Modication (CEM)
program gave the B-52H a more comprehensive conventional weapons capability, adding the modied underwing weapon pylons used by conventional-armed B52Gs, Harpoon and Have Nap, and the capability to carry
new-generation weapons including the Joint Direct Attack Munition and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser
guided bombs, the AGM-154 glide bomb and the AGM158 JASSM missile. The CEM program also introduced
new radios, integrated Global Positioning System into the
aircrafts navigation system and replaced the under-nose
FLIR with a more modern unit. Forty-seven B-52Hs
were modied under the CEM program by 1996, with
19 more by the end of 1999.[101][102]
Starting in 2016, Boeing is to upgrade the internal rotary launchers to the MIL-STD-1760 interface to enable
the internal carriage of smart bombs, which can currently
only be carried on the wings.[103]

10.2.4 Engines
For a study for the U.S. Air Force in the mid-1970s,
Boeing investigated replacing the engines, changing to
a new wing, and other improvements to upgrade B52G/H aircraft as an alternative to the B-1A, then in
development.[104] Boeing later suggested re-engining the
B-52H eet with the Rolls-Royce RB211 535E-4.[105]
This would involve replacing the eight Pratt & Whitney
TF33s (total thrust 8 17,000 lb) with four RB211s (total thrust 4 37,400 lb)which would increase range
and reduce fuel consumption, at a cost of approximately
US$2.56 billion for the whole eet (71 aircraft at $36 million each). A Government Accountability Oce study
concluded that Boeings estimated savings of US$4.7 bil-

10.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

105
March 1956. The training for B-52 crews consisted of
ve weeks of ground school and four weeks of ying, accumulating 35 to 50 hours in the air. The new B-52Bs
replaced operational B-36s on a one-to-one basis.[111]

USAF B-52H Stratofortress Engines

lion would not be realized and that it would cost US$1.3


billion over keeping the existing engines, citing signicant up-front procurement and re-tooling expenditure, as
well as the RB211s higher maintenance cost. The GAO
report was subsequently disputed in a Defense Sciences
Board report in 2003; the Air Force was urged to reengine the aircraft without delay.[106] Further, the DSB
report stated the program would have signicant savings,
reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase aircraft
range and endurance, in line with the conclusions of a
separate Congress-funded study conducted in 2003.[107]
In 2014, the U.S. Air Force was reviewing industry studies of engine replacement.[108] The re-engining has not
been approved as of 2014. In late 2014, it was reported
that the DOD and unnamed private companies were exploring a leasing program where private lease companies
would purchase new engines and lease them to the USAF.
DOD costs would be determined by depreciation and actual usage with no up-front lump payments.[109]

10.2.5

Costs

Costs per aircraft.

Early operations were problematic;[112] in addition to supply problems, technical issues also struck.[113] Ramps and
taxiways deteriorated under the aircrafts weight, the fuel
system was prone to leaks and icing,[114] and bombing and
re control computers were unreliable.[113] The split level
cockpit presented a temperature control problem the
pilots cockpit was heated by sunlight while the observer
and the navigator on the bottom deck sat on the ice-cold
oor. Thus, a comfortable temperature setting for the
pilots caused the other crew members to freeze, while
a comfortable temperature for the bottom crew caused
the pilots to overheat.[115] The J57 engines proved unreliable. Alternator failure caused the rst fatal B-52
crash in February 1956;[116] as a result the eet was briey
grounded. In July, fuel and hydraulic issues grounded the
B-52s again. In response to maintenance issues, the air
force set up Sky Speed teams of 50 contractors at each
B-52 base to perform maintenance and routine checkups,
taking an average of one week per aircraft.[117]

Three B-52Bs of the 93rd Bomb Wing prepare to depart March


AFB for Castle AFB, California, after their record-setting roundthe-world ight in 1957.

Note: The original costs were in approximate 1955


United States dollars.[110] Figures in tables noted with On 21 May 1956, a B-52B (52-0013) dropped a Mk-15
current have been adjusted for ination to the current cal- nuclear bomb over the Bikini Atoll in a test code-named
Cherokee. It was the rst air-dropped thermonuclear
endar year.[28]
weapon.[118] From 24 to 25 November 1956, four B52Bs of the 93rd BW and four B-52Cs of the 42nd
BW ew nonstop around the perimeter of North Amer10.3 Operational history
ica in Operation Quick Kick, which covered 15,530 miles
(13,500 nmi, 25,000 km) in 31 hours, 30 minutes. SAC
10.3.1 Introduction
noted the ight time could have been reduced by 5 to
6 hours if the four inight refuelings were done by fast
Although the B-52A was the rst production variant, jet-powered tanker aircraft rather than propeller-driven
these aircraft were used only in testing. The rst oper- Boeing KC-97 Stratofreighters.[119] In a demonstration
ational version was the B-52B that had been developed of the B-52s global reach, from 16 to 18 January 1957,
in parallel with the prototypes since 1951. First ying in three B-52Bs made a non-stop ight around the world
December 1954, B-52B, AF Serial Number 52-8711, en- during Operation Power Flite, during which 24,325 miles
tered operational service with 93rd Heavy Bombardment (21,145 nmi, 39,165 km) was covered in 45 hours 19
Wing (93rd BW) at Castle Air Force Base, California, minutes (536.8 smph) with several in-ight refuelings by
on 29 June 1955. The wing became operational on 12 KC-97s.[120][Note 5]

106

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

The B-52 set many records over the next few years. On
26 September 1958, a B-52D set a world speed record of
560.705 miles per hour (487 kn, 902 km/h) over a 10,000
kilometers (5,400 nmi, 6,210 mi) closed circuit without
a payload. The same day, another B-52D established a
world speed record of 597.675 miles per hour (519 kn,
962 km/h) over a 5,000 kilometer (2,700 nmi, 3,105
mi) closed circuit without a payload.[80] On 14 December 1960, a B-52G set a world distance record by ying
unrefueled for 10,078.84 miles (8,762 nmi, 16,227 km);
the ight lasted 19 hours 44 minutes (510.75 mph).[121]
From 10 to 11 January 1962, a B-52H set a world distance record by ying unrefueled, surpassing the prior B52 record set two years earlier, from Kadena Air Base,
Okinawa, Japan, to Torrejon Air Base, Spain, which covered 12,532.28 miles (10,895 nmi, 20,177 km).[61] The
ight passed over Seattle, Fort Worth and the Azores.

10.3.2

Cold War

Main article: Cold War


When the B-52 entered into service, the Strategic Air
Command (SAC) intended to use it to deter and counteract the vast and modernizing Soviet military. As the
Soviet Union increased its nuclear capabilities, destroying or countering the forces that would deliver nuclear
strikes (bombers, missiles, etc.) became of great strategic importance.[122] The Eisenhower administration endorsed this switch in focus; the President in 1954 expressing a preference for military targets over those of civilian
ones, a principle reinforced in the Single Integrated Operation Plan (SIOP), a plan of action in the case of nuclear
war breaking out.[123]

of the USs nuclear deterrent, which would act to prevent


the breakout of a large-scale war between the US and the
Soviet Union under the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction.[125]
Due to the late 1950s-era threat of surface-to-air missiles
(SAMs) that could threaten high-altitude aircraft,[126][127]
seen in practice in the 1960 U-2 incident,[128] the intended use of B-52 was changed to serve as a low-level
penetration bomber during a foreseen attack upon the
Soviet Union, as terrain masking provided an eective
method of avoiding radar and thus the threat of the
SAMs.[129] Although never intended for the low level role,
the B-52s exibility allowed it to outlast several intended
successors as the nature of aerial warfare changed. The
B-52s large airframe enabled the addition of multiple
design improvements, new equipment, and other adaptations over its service life.[85]
In November 1959, to improve the aircrafts combat capabilities in the changing strategic environment, SAC initiated the Big Four modication program (also known
as Modication 1000) for all operational B-52s except
early B models.[78][129] The program was completed by
1963.[130] The four modications were the ability to
launch AGM-28 Hound Dog stando nuclear missiles
and ADM-20 Quail decoys, an advanced electronic countermeasures (ECM) suite, and upgrades to perform the
all-weather, low-altitude (below 500 feet or 150 m) interdiction mission in the face of advancing Soviet missilebased air defenses.[130]
In the 1960s, there were concerns over the eets capable
lifespan. Several projects beyond the B-52, the Convair
B-58 Hustler and North American XB-70 Valkyrie, had
either been aborted or proved disappointing in light of
changing requirements, which left the older B-52 as the
main bomber as opposed to the planned successive aircraft models.[131][132] On 19 February 1965, General Curtis E. LeMay testied to Congress that the lack of a
follow-up bomber project to the B-52 raised the danger
that, The B-52 is going to fall apart on us before we can
get a replacement for it.[133] Other aircraft, such as the
General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark, later complemented
the B-52 in roles the aircraft was not as capable in, such
as missions involving high-speed, low-level penetration
dashes.[134]

10.3.3 Vietnam War


Southerly route of the "Operation Chrome Dome" airborne nuclear alert

Throughout the Cold War, B-52s and other US strategic bombers performed airborne alert patrols under code
names such as Head Start, Chrome Dome, Hard Head,
Round Robin, and Giant Lance. Bombers loitered at high
altitude near the borders of the Soviet Union to provide
rapid rst strike or retaliation capability in case of nuclear
war.[124] These airborne patrols formed one component

Main article: Vietnam War


With the escalating situation in Southeast Asia, 28 B52Fs were tted with external racks for 24x 750 pound
(340 kg) bombs under project South Bay in June 1964; an
additional 46 aircraft received similar modications under project Sun Bath.[70] In March 1965, the United States
commenced Operation Rolling Thunder. The rst combat mission, Operation Arc Light, was own by B-52Fs
on 18 June 1965, when 30 bombers of the 9th and 441st

10.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

107
pound bombs or from 27 to 42 750 pound bombs.[139] The
modication created enough capacity for a total of 60,000
pounds (27,215 kg) in 108 bombs. Thus modied, B52Ds could carry 22,000 pounds (9,980 kg) more than
B-52Fs.[140] Designed to replace B-52Fs, modied B52Ds entered combat in April 1966 ying from Andersen
Air Force Base, Guam. Each bombing mission lasted
10 to 12 hours with an aerial refueling by KC-135 Stratotankers.[49] In spring 1967, the aircraft began ying
from U Tapao Aireld in Thailand giving the aircraft the
advantage of not requiring in-ight refueling.[139]

The B-52s were restricted to bombing suspected Communist bases in relatively uninhabited sections, because their
Soviet specialists inspect the wreckage of the B-52 Stratofortress potency approached that of a tactical nuclear weapon.
shot down near Hanoi 23 December 1972
A formation of six B-52s, dropping their bombs from
30,000 feet, could take out... almost everything within
Bombardment Squadrons struck a communist stronghold a box approximately ve-eights mile wide by two miles
near the Bn Ct District in South Vietnam. The rst long. Whenever Arc Light struck ... in the vicinity of
wave of bombers arrived too early at a designated ren- Saigon, the city woke from the tremor..
dezvous point, and while maneuvering to maintain sta- Neil Sheehan, war correspondent, writing before the mass
tion, two B-52s collided, which resulted in the loss of both attacks to heavily populated cities including North Vietnams
bombers and eight crewmen. The remaining bombers, capital.[141]
minus one more that turned back due to mechanical
problems, continued toward the target.[135] Twenty-seven
Stratofortresses dropped on a one-mile by two-mile tar- On 22 November 1972, a B-52D (55-0110) from Uget box from between 19,000 and 22,000 feet, a little Tapao was hit by a surface-to-air missile (SAM) while
more than 50% of the bombs falling within the target on a raid over Vinh. The crew was forced to abandon the
This was the rst B-52
zone.[136] The force returned to Andersen AFB except damaged aircraft over Thailand.
[142]
destroyed
by
hostile
re.
In
total,
31 B-52s were lost
for one bomber with electrical problems that recovered
during
the
war,
which
included
10
B-52s
shot down over
to Clark AFB, the mission having lasted 13 hours. Post[143]
North
Vietnam.
strike assessment by teams of South Vietnamese troops
with American advisors found evidence that the VC had The zenith of B-52 attacks in Vietnam was Operation
departed the area before the raid, and it was suspected Linebacker II (sometimes referred to as the Christmas
that inltration of the souths forces may have tipped o Bombing) which consisted of waves of B-52s (mostly D
the north because of the ARVN troops involved in the models, but some Gs without jamming equipment and
post-strike inspection.[137]
with a smaller bomb load). Over 12 days, B-52s ew
729 sorties[144] and dropped 15,237 tons of bombs on
Hanoi, Haiphong, and other targets.[87][145] Originally 42
B-52s were committed to the war; however, numbers
were frequently twice this gure.[146] During Operation
Linebacker II, fteen B-52s were shot down, ve were
heavily damaged (one crashed in Laos), and ve suered
medium damage. A total of 25 crewmen were killed in
these losses.[147] North Vietnam claimed 34 B-52s were
shot down.[148]
Air-to-air victories

B-52F releasing its payload of bombs over Vietnam

Beginning in late 1965, a number of B-52Ds underwent Big Belly modications to increase bomb capacity
for carpet bombings.[138] While the external payload remained at 24 500 pound (227 kg) or 750 pound (340 kg)
bombs, the internal capacity increased from 27 to 84 500

During the Vietnam War, B-52D tail gunners were credited with shooting down two MiG-21 Fishbeds. On
18 December 1972, tail gunner Sta Sergeant Samuel
O. Turners B-52 had just completed a bomb run for
Operation Linebacker II and was turning away when a
North Vietnamese Air Force MiG-21 approached.[169]
The MiG and the B-52 locked onto one another. When
the ghter drew within range, Turner red his quad (four
guns on one mounting) .50 caliber machine guns.[170] The

108

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

MiG exploded aft of the bomber,[169] a victory conrmed


by Master Sergeant Louis E. Le Blanc, the tail gunner in a
nearby Stratofortress. Turner received a Silver Star for his
actions.[171] His B-52, tail number 55-0676, is preserved
on display with air-to-air kill markings at Fairchild AFB
in Spokane, Washington.[169]
On 24 December 1972, during the same bombing campaign, the B-52 Diamond Lil was headed to bomb the
Thi Nguyn railroad yards when tail gunner Airman
First Class Albert E. Moore spotted a fast-approaching
MiG-21.[172] Moore opened re with his quad fties at
4,000 yd (3,700 m), and kept shooting until the ghter
disappeared from his scope. Technical Sergeant Clarence
W. Chute, a tail gunner aboard another Stratofortress,
watched the MiG catch re and fall away. The Diamond
Lil is preserved on display at the United States Air Force
Academy in Colorado.[172] Moore was the last recorded
bomber gunner to shoot down an enemy aircraft with
machine guns in aerial combat.[170] However, these airto-air kills were not conrmed by VPAF.[173]
Vietnamese sources have attributed a third air-to-air victory to a B-52, a MiG-21 shot down on 16 April 1972.[174]
These victories make the B-52 the largest aircraft credited with air-to-air kills.[Note 6] The last Arc Light mission without ghter escort took place on 15 August 1973,
as U.S. military action in Southeast Asia was wound
down.[175]

10.3.4

Post Vietnam service

B-52Bs reached the end of their structural service life by


the mid-1960s and all were retired by June 1966, followed by the last of the B-52Cs on 29 September 1971;
except for NASA's B-52B "008" which was eventually retired in 2004 at Edwards AFB, California.[176] Another of
the remaining B Models, "005" is on display at the Wings
Over the Rockies Air and Space Museum in Denver,
Colorado.[177]

1968, but the bulk (82) were retired between May 1969
and March 1970. Most F models were also retired between 1967 and 1973, but 23 survived as trainers until
late 1978. The eet of D models served much longer; 80
D models were extensively overhauled under the Pacer
Plank program during the mid-1970s.[178] Skinning on
the lower wing and fuselage was replaced, and various
structural components were renewed. The eet of D
models stayed largely intact until late 1978, when 37
not already upgraded Ds were retired.[179] The remainder
were retired between 1982 and 1983.[180]
The remaining G and H models were used for nuclear standby (alert) duty as part of the United States
nuclear triad. This triad was the combination of nucleararmed land-based missiles, submarine-based missiles and
manned bombers. The B-1, intended to supplant the B52, replaced only the older models and the supersonic FB111.[181] In 1991, B-52s ceased continuous 24-hour SAC
alert duty.[182]
After the fall of the Soviet Union, all B-52Gs remaining
in service were destroyed per the terms of the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaty (START). The Aerospace Maintenance and Regeneraton Center (AMRC) cut the 365 B52G bombers into pieces. Completion of the destruction
task was veried by Russia via satellite and rst-person
inspection at the AMARC facility.[183]

10.3.5 Gulf War and later


See also: Gulf War
B-52 strikes were an important part of Operation Desert

Retired B-52s are stored at the 309th AMARG (formerly


AMARC), a desert storage facility often called the Boneyard
at Davis-Monthan AFB near Tucson, Arizona.[184]

Storm. Starting on 16 January 1991, a ight of B52Gs ew from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, refueled in
the air en route, struck targets in Iraq, and returned
B-52H modied to carry two D-21 drones
home a journey of 35 hours and 14,000 miles round
trip. It set a record for longest-distance combat mission,
A few time-expired E models were retired in 1967 and breaking the record previously held by an RAF Vulcan

10.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

109

bomber in 1982; however, this was achieved using forward refueling.[185][186] B-52Gs operating from the King
Abdullah Air Base at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom; Morn Air Base, Spain; and
the island of Diego Garcia in the British Indian Ocean
Territory ew bombing missions over Iraq, initially at low
altitude. After the rst three nights, the B-52s moved to
high-altitude missions instead, which reduced their eectiveness and psychological impact compared to the low
altitude role initially played.[187]
The conventional strikes were carried out by three
bombers, which dropped up to 153 750-pound bombs
over an area of 1.5 by 1 mi (2.4 by 1.6 km). The bombings demoralized the defending Iraqi troops, many of
whom surrendered in the wake of the strikes.[188] In 1999,
the science and technology magazine Popular Mechanics described the B-52s role in the conict: The Bus
value was made clear during the Gulf War and Desert
Fox. The B-52 turned out the lights in Baghdad.[189]
During Operation Desert Storm, B-52s ew about 1,620
sorties, and delivered 40% of the weapons dropped by
coalition forces.[3]
During the conict, several claims of Iraqi air-to-air successes were made, including an Iraqi pilot, Khudai Hijab, who allegedly red a Vympel R-27R missile from
his MIG-29 and damaged a B-52G on the opening night
of the Gulf War.[190] However, the U.S. Air Force disputes this claim, stating the bomber was actually hit by
friendly re, an AGM-88 High-speed, Anti-Radiation
Missile (HARM) that homed on the re-control radar of
the B-52s tail gun; the jet was subsequently renamed In
HARMs Way.[191] Shortly following this incident, General George Lee Butler announced that the gunner position on B-52 crews would be eliminated, and the gun turrets permanently deactivated, commencing on 1 October
1991.[192]

A B-52H Stratofortress of the 2d Bomb Wing takes o from


Andersen Air Force Base, Guam

An additional B-52H is controlled by NASA as part


of the Heavy-lift Airborne Launch program.[194]
On 24 March 1999, when Operation Allied Force began, B-52 bombers bombarded Serb targets throughout
the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, including during the
Battle of Kosare.[195]
The B-52 contributed to Operation Enduring Freedom in
2001 (Afghanistan/Southwest Asia), providing the ability to loiter high above the battleeld and provide Close
Air Support (CAS) through the use of precision guided
munitions, a mission which previously would have been
restricted to ghter and ground attack aircraft.[196] In late
2001, ten B-52s dropped a third of the bomb tonnage in
Afghanistan.[197] B-52s also played a role in Operation
Iraqi Freedom, which commenced on 20 March 2003
(Iraq/Southwest Asia). On the night of 21 March 2003,
B-52Hs launched at least one hundred AGM-86C CALCMs at targets within Iraq.[198]
In August 2007, a B-52H ferrying AGM-129 ACM
cruise missiles from Minot Air Force Base to Barksdale Air Force Base for dismantling was mistakenly
loaded with six missiles with their nuclear warheads. The
weapons did not leave USAF custody and were secured
at Barksdale.[199][200]

From 2 to 3 September 1996, two B-52H bombers conducted a mission as part of Operation Desert Strike.
The B-52s struck Baghdad power stations and communications facilities with 13 AGM-86C conventional airlaunched cruise missiles (CALCM) during a 34-hour,
As of January 2013, 78 of the original 744 B-52 aircraft
16,000-mile round trip mission from Andersen AFB,
were operational in the U.S. Air Force.[201] Four of 18 BGuam the longest distance ever own for a combat
52Hs from Barksdale AFB being retired are in the bonemission.[193]
yard of 309th AMARG at Davis-Monthan AFB as of 8
Since the mid-1990s, the B-52H has been the only vari- September 2008.[202]
ant remaining in military service;[Note 7] it is currently stationed at:

10.3.6 Continued service

Minot Air Force Base, ND 5th Bomb Wing

B-52s are periodically refurbished at USAF maintenance


[203]
Barksdale Air Force Base, LA 2nd Bomb Wing depots such as Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma.
(active Air Force) & 307th Bomb Wing (Air Force Even while the air force works on its Next-Generation
Bomber and 2037 Bomber projects, it intends to keep the
Reserve Command)
B-52H in service until 2045, nearly 90 years after the B One B-52H is assigned to Edwards Air Force Base 52 rst entered service, an unprecedented length of serand is used by Air Force Material Command at the vice for any aircraft, civilian or military.[3][204][205][Note 8]
Air Force Flight Test Center.
The USAF continues to rely on the B-52 because it re-

110

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

mains an eective and economical heavy bomber, particularly in the type of missions that have been conducted since the end of the Cold War against nations that
have limited air defense capabilities. The B-52 has the
capacity to "loiter" for extended periods over (or even
well outside) the battleeld, and deliver precision stando and direct re munitions. It has been a valuable asset
in supporting ground operations during conicts such as
Operation Iraqi Freedom.[207] The B-52 had the highest
mission capable rate of the three types of heavy bombers
operated by the USAF in 2001. The B-1 averaged a
53.7% ready rate and the Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit
achieved 30.3%, while the B-52 averaged 80.5% during
the 20002001 period.[184] The B-52s $72,000 cost per
hour of ight is more than the B-1Bs $63,000 cost per
hour, but less than the B-2s $135,000 per hour.[208]

JASSM-ER and the ADM-160C MALD-J. All 1760 IWBUs should be online by October 2017. As opposed to
three B-52s carrying 36 weapons, two bombers will have
the ability to carry 40 weapons, lowering the number of
crews and amounts of fuel needed for a mission, and
gives the option of putting more weapons on target with
the same number of aircraft.[214] The 1760 IWBU allows
precision-guided weapons to be deployed from inside the
weapons bay, increasing the number of guided weapons a
B-52 can carry and reducing the need for guided bombs to
be carried externally on wing hardpoints. The rst phase
will allow a B-52 to carry 24 500-pound JDAMs or 20
2,000-pound JDAMs, with later phases accommodating
the JASSM and MALD family of missiles.[215] In addition to carrying more smart bombs, moving them internally from the wings results in a 15 percent fuel savings
[216]
Additionally, a proposed variant of the B-52H was the and greater range from less drag.
EB-52. This version would have modied and augmented The Long Range Strike Bomber program is expected to
16 B-52H airframes with additional electronic jamming yield a stealthy B-52 and B-1 successor that would begin
capabilities.[209][210] This new aircraft would have given service in the 2020s. Two competitors, Northrop Grumthe USAF an airborne jamming capability that it has man and a joint team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin,
lacked since retiring the EF-111 Raven. The program submitted proposals in 2014. A contract to the winning
was canceled in 2005 following the removal of funds for team will be awarded in mid-2015. About 80100 airthe stand-o jammer. The program was revived in 2007, craft will be produced.[217]
but funding was again cut in early 2009.[211]
In 2012, it was announced that USAF engineering studies
suggest that the lifespan of the B-52 could extend beyond
2040.[212]
In July 2013, the Air Force began a eet-wide technological upgrade of its B-52 bombers called Combat Network
Communications Technology (CONECT) to modernize
electronics, communications technology, computing, and
avionics on the ight deck. CONECT upgrades include
software and hardware such as new servers, modems, radios, data-links, receivers, and digital workstations for
the crew. One piece is the ARC-210 Warrior beyondline-of-sight software programmable radio able to transmit voice, data, and information in-ight between B-52s
and ground command and control centers, allowing for
the transmission and receipt of data with updated intelligence, mapping, or targeting information; previous inight target changes required copying down coordinates,
while the ARC-210 allows machine-to-machine transfer
of data, useful on long-endurance missions where targets
may have changed locations when the B-52 was traveling.
The aircraft will be able to receive information through
Link-16. CONECT upgrades will cost $1.1 billion overall and take several years. Funding has been secured for
30 B-52s and the Air Force hopes for 10 CONECT upgrades per year, but the rate has yet to be determined.[213]

10.4 Variants
The B-52 went through several design changes and variants over its 10 years of production.[110]
XB-52 Two prototype aircraft with limited operational
equipment, used for aerodynamic and handling tests
YB-52 One XB-52 modied with some operational
equipment and re-designated

B-52A Only three of the rst production version, the


B-52A, were built, all loaned to Boeing for ight
testing.[49] The rst production B-52A diered from
prototypes in having a redesigned forward fuselage.
The bubble canopy and tandem seating was replaced
by a side-by-side arrangement and a 21 in (53 cm)
nose extension accommodated more avionics and a
new sixth crew member.[Note 9] In the rear fuselage,
a tail turret with four 0.50 inch (12.7 mm) machine
guns with a re-control system, and a water injection
system to augment engine power with a 360 US gallon (1,363 L) water tank were added. The aircraft
also carried a 1,000 US gallon (3,785 L) external
fuel tank under each wing. The tanks damped wing
utter and also kept wingtips close to the ground for
Weapons upgrades include the 1760 Internal Weapons
ease of maintenance.[218]
Bay Upgrade (IWBU), which gives a 66 percent increase
in carriage capability using a digital interface and rotary
launcher to increase the weapons payload. The IWBU
eort is expected to cost roughly $313 million.[213] The NB-52A The last B-52A (serial 52-0003) was modied and redesignated NB-52A in 1959 to carry the
1760 IWBU will allow the B-52 to carry the AGM-158B
North American X-15. A pylon was tted under the

10.4. VARIANTS

111
(the crew was increased to eight in these
aircraft).[49] The 300 pound (136 kg) pod contained radio receivers, a combination of K-36,
K-38, and T-11 cameras, and two operators on
downward-ring ejection seats. The pod required only four hours to install.[116]
Seven B-52Bs were brought to B-52C standard
under Project Sunower.[221]

NB-52A carrying an X-15

NB-52B The NB-52B was B-52B number 52-0008 converted to an X-15 launch platform. It subsequently
ew as the "Balls 8" in support of NASA research
until 17 December 2004, making it the oldest ying
B-52B. It was replaced by a modied B-52H.[222]

right wing between the fuselage and the inboard engines with a 6 feet x 8 feet (1.8 m x 2.4 m) section B-52C The B-52Cs fuel capacity (and range) was inremoved from the right wing ap to t the X-15 tail.
creased to 41,700 US gallons by adding larger 3000
Liquid oxygen and hydrogen peroxide tanks were
US gallon underwing fuel tanks. The gross weight
installed in the bomb bays to fuel the X-15 before
was increased by 30,000 pounds (13,605 kg) to
launch. Its rst ight with the X-15 was on 19 March
450,000 pounds. A new re control system, the
1959, with the rst launch on 8 June 1959. The NBMD-9, was introduced on this model.[141] The belly
52A, named The High and Mighty One carried the
of the aircraft was painted with antiash white paint,
X-15 on 93 of the programs 199 ights.[219]
which was intended to reect thermal radiation away
after a nuclear detonation.[223]
RB-52C The RB-52C was the designation initially given
to B-52Cs tted for reconnaissance duties in a similar manner to RB-52Bs. As all 35 B-52Cs could
be tted with the reconnaissance pod, the RB52C designation was little used and was quickly
abandoned.[223]

NASAs NB-52B Balls 8 (lower) and its replacement B-52H on


the ight line at Edwards Air Force Base in 2004

B-52B/RB-52B
The B-52B was the rst version to enter service with
the USAF on 29 June 1955 with the 93rd Bombard- B-52D dropping 500-lb bombs
ment Wing at Castle AFB in California.[218] This version included minor changes to engines and avionics,
enabling an extra 12,000 pounds of thrust using water B-52D The B-52D was a dedicated long-range bomber
injection.[220] Temporary grounding of the aircraft after
without a reconnaissance option. The Big Belly
a crash in February 1956 and again the following July
modications allowed the B-52D to carry heavy
caused training delays, and at mid-year there were still
loads of conventional bombs for carpet bombing
no combat-ready B-52 crews.[116]
over Vietnam,[220] while the Rivet Rambler modication added the Phase V ECM systems, which
Of the 50 B-52Bs built, 27 were capable of
was better than the systems used on most later Bcarrying a reconnaissance pod as RB-52Bs
52s. Because of these upgrades and its long range

112

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS


capabilities, the D model was used more extensively in Vietnam than any other model.[141] Aircraft assigned to Vietnam were painted in a camouage colour scheme with black bellies to defeat
searchlights.[68]

B-52E The B-52E received an updated avionics and


bombing navigational system, which was eventually
debugged and included on following models.[220]
One E aircraft (AF Serial No. 56-0631) was
modied as a testbed for various B-52 systems. Redesignated NB-52E, the aircraft was
tted with canards and a Load Alleviation and
Mode Stabilization system (LAMS) which reduced airframe fatigue from wind gusts during low level ight. In one test, the aircraft
ew 10 knots (11.5 mph, 18.5 km/h) faster
than the never exceed speed without damage
because the canards eliminated 30% of vertical and 50% of horizontal vibrations caused by
wind gusts.[224]

were eliminated. Instead, spoilers provided roll control. The tail n was shortened by 8 feet (2.4 m),
water injection system capacity was increased to
1,200 US gallons (4,540 L), and the nose radome
was enlarged.[226] The tail gunner manning the 4
.50 caliber machine guns (quad mounted in a remote controlled tail turret on the G-model (ASG15), the guns were later removed from all operational aircraft) was relocated to the main cockpit and
was provided with an ejection seat.[225] Dubbed the
Battle Station concept, the oensive crew (pilot
and copilot on the upper deck and the two bombing navigation system operators on the lower deck)
faced forward, while the defensive crew (tail gunner
and ECM operator) on the upper deck faced aft.[141]
The B-52G entered service on 13 February 1959 (a
day earlier, the last B-36 was retired, making SAC
an all-jet bomber force). 193 B-52Gs were produced, making this the most produced B-52 variant.
Most B-52Gs were destroyed in compliance with the
1992 Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty; the last B52G, number 58-0224, was dismantled under New
START treaty requirements in December 2013.[227]
A few examples remain on display for museums.[228]

B-52F This aircraft was given J57-P-43W engines with


a larger capacity water injection system to provide
greater thrust than previous models.[220] This model B-52H The B-52H had the same crew and structural
changes as the B-52G. The most signicant upgrade
had problems with fuel leaks which were eventually
was the switch to TF33-P-3 turbofan engines which,
solved by several service modications: Blue Band,
despite the initial reliability problems (corrected by
Hard Shell, and QuickClip.[82]
1964 under the Hot Fan program), oered considerably better performance and fuel economy than the
J57 turbojets.[141][226] The ECM and avionics were
updated, a new re control system was tted, and
the rear defensive armament was changed from machine guns to a 20 mm M61 Vulcan cannon (later
removed in 199194).[225] The nal 18 aircraft were
manufactured with provision for the ADR-8 countermeasures rocket, which was later retrotted to the
remainder of the B-52G and B-52H eet.[229] A provision was made for four GAM-87 Skybolt ballistic
missiles. The aircrafts rst ight occurred on 10
B-52G on static display at Langley Air Force Base in Hampton,
July 1960, and it entered service on 9 May 1961.
Virginia
This is the only variant still operational. A total of
102 B-52Hs were built. The last production aircraft,
B-52H AF Serial No. 61-0040, left the factory on
B-52G The B-52G was proposed to extend the B-52s
26 October 1962.[230]
service life during delays in the B-58 Hustler program. At rst, a radical redesign was envisioned
with a completely new wing and Pratt & Whit- XR-16A Allocated to the reconnaissance variant of the
ney J75 engines. This was rejected to avoid slowB-52B but not used and the aircraft were designated
downs in production, although a large number of
RB-52B instead.[231]
changes were implemented.[220] The most signicant of these was the brand-new wet wing with
integral fuel tanks which considerably increased
the fuel capacity; gross aircraft weight went up by 10.5 Operators
38,000 pounds (17,235 kg) compared with prior
variants. In addition, a pair of 700 US gallon Main article: List of B-52 Units of the United States Air
(2,650 L) external fuel tanks was tted under the Force
wings.[225] In this model, the traditional ailerons

10.6. NOTABLE ACCIDENTS


United States
NASA
United States Air Force
Air Combat Command
57th Wing Nellis AFB, Nevada
340th Weapons Squadron (Barksdale)
Global Strike Command
2d Bomb Wing Barksdale AFB, Louisiana
11th Bomb Squadron
20th Bomb Squadron
96th Bomb Squadron
5th Bomb Wing Minot AFB, North Dakota
23d Bomb Squadron
69th Bomb Squadron
Air Force Materiel Command
412th Test Wing Edwards AFB, California

113
On 11 February 1958, a B-52D crashed in South
Dakota because of ice blocking the fuel system,
leading to an uncommanded reduction in power
to all eight engines. Three crew members were
killed.[233]
On 8 September 1958, two B-52s collided in midair
near Fairchild AFB, Washington; all 13 crew members on the 2 aircraft are killed [234]
On 15 October 1959, a B-52 from the 492d Bomb
Squadron at Columbus AFB, Mississippi carrying 2
nuclear weapons collided in midair with a KC-135
tanker near Hardinsburg, Kentucky; 4 of the 8 crew
members on the bomber and all 4 crew on the tanker
were killed. One of the nuclear bombs was damaged
by re but both weapons were recovered.[234]
On 10 August 1959, a B-52 crashed in the Spruce
Swamp at Fremont, New Hampshire. The bomber
was on a routine training mission from Chicopee,
Mass., when its air speed indicator and altimeter
failed, which led to more serious malfunctions. The
B-52 was attempting to make an emergency landing
at Goose Bay, the only landing option not aected
by foggy weather conditions. However, it crashed
before making the landing. The U.S. Air Force reported that it was the rst B-52 crash where the entire crew survived; the crew parachuted to safety.
Debris from the crash covered a quarter-mile of
densely wooded swampland.[235]

419th Flight Test Squadron


Air Force Reserve Command
307th Bomb Wing (Associate) Barksdale AFB,
LA
93d Bomb Squadron
343d Bomb Squadron

10.6 Notable accidents


See also: Category:Accidents and incidents involving
the Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
On 10 January 1957, a B-52 returning to Loring
Air Force Base from a routine instrument training mission broke apart in midair and crashed near
Morrell, New Brunswick, killing eight of the nine
crew on board. Co-pilot Captain Joseph L. Church
parachuted to safety. The crash was believed to have
been caused by overstressing the wings and/or airframe during an exercise designed to test the pilots
reexes. This was the fourth crash involving a B-52
in 11 months.[232]

On 24 January 1961, a B-52G broke up in midair


and crashed after suering a severe fuel loss, near
Goldsboro, North Carolina, dropping two nuclear
bombs in the process without detonation.[236]
On 14 March 1961, a B-52F from Mather AFB[237]
carrying two nuclear weapons experienced an
uncontrolled decompression, necessitating a descent
to 10,000 feet to lower the cabin altitude. Increased
fuel consumption at the lower altitude and unable
to rendezvous with a tanker in time, the aircraft
ran out of fuel. The crew ejected safely, while the
unmanned bomber crashed 15 miles (24 km) west
of Yuba City, California.[238]
On 7 April 1961, B-52B (53-0380) was accidentally
shot down by a New Mexico Air National Guard
F-100 on an intercept training mission. The F100 was carrying live missiles whose launch capability was supposed to be disabled, but a wiring fault
caused one of them to re and strike the bombers
left wing. The aircraft crashed near Mount Taylor, killing three of the eight crew members on
board.[239]
On 24 January 1963, a B-52C on a training mission out of Westover Air Force Base, Massachusetts,

114

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS


men ejected successfully before the aircraft crashed
near Cumberland, Maryland.[244] Two crewmen
subsequently perished on the ground because of
hypothermia, while another, who was unable to
eject, died in the aircraft; both weapons were recovered. This was one of several incidents caused by
failure of the vertical stabilizer.[245]
On 17 January 1966, a fatal collision occurred between a B-52G and a KC-135 Stratotanker over
Palomares, Spain. The two unexploded B-28 FI
1.45-megaton-range nuclear bombs on the B-52
were eventually recovered; the conventional explosives of two more bombs detonated on impact, with
serious dispersion of both plutonium and uranium,
but without triggering a nuclear explosion. After the
crash, 1,400 metric tons (3,100,000 lb) of contaminated soil was sent to the United States.[246] In 2006,
an agreement was made between the U.S. and Spain
to investigate and clean the pollution still remaining
as a result of the accident.[247]

MK 39 nuclear bomb after the January 1961 Goldsboro B-52


crash. The weapons parachute deployed, resulting in a soft landing and recovery of the weapon intact. Five of the six stages of
the arming sequence had completed.

lost its vertical stabilizer due to bueting during lowlevel ight, and crashed on the west side of Elephant
Mountain near Greenville, Maine. Of the nine crewmen aboard, two survived the crash.[240][241]
On 30 January 1963, a B-52E of the 6th Bomb Wing
from Walker Air Force Base, New Mexico, crashed
in snow-covered mountains in northern New Mexico
after turbulence tore o the vertical n. The ECM
operator and tail gunner were killed but at least
three crew (pilot, radio operator and one other crew
member) survived. Three Lockheed T-33 Shooting Stars and, later, three Douglas C-54 Skymaster
transports, circled the area trying to locate survivors;
the pilots reported that they saw two other survivors
after the rst man walked to safety.
On 10 January 1964, a B-52H own by Boeing test
pilots lost its vertical stabilizer to turbulence near
East Spanish Peak. It was able to land at Blytheville
Air Force Base.[242][243]
On 13 January 1964, a B-52D carrying two nuclear bombs suered a structural failure in ight
that caused the tail section to shear o. Four crew-

On 18 November 1966, a B-52G Serial No. 580228 deployed from Barksdale Air Force Base
crashed and was destroyed when it ew into the
ground in swampland south of Stone Lake, Sawyer
County, Wisconsin. The crew was on a low level terrain avoidance night mission, before SAC stopped
such ights, and had just entered low altitude and
were calibrating their terrain avoidance radar, when
they ew too low, clipped the tops of the forest and
crashed.[248][249]
On 8 July 1967, B-52D AF Serial No. 56-0601
overran the runway due to loss of brakes during an
emergency landing at Da Nang Air Base, Vietnam
with the loss of ve of her six crew. The aircraft
had suered an electrical malfunction that led to the
ameout of two engines.[250]
On 21 January 1968, a B-52G, with four nuclear bombs aboard as part of Operation Chrome
Dome, crashed on the ice of the North Star Bay
while attempting an emergency landing at Thule
Air Base, Greenland.[251] The resulting re caused
extensive radioactive contamination, the cleanup
(Project Crested Ice) lasting until September of that
year.[246] Following closely on the Palomares incident, the cleanup costs and political consequences
proved too high to risk again, so SAC ended the airborne alert program the following day.[252][253]
On 3 April 1970 a B-52D assigned to the 28th
Bomb Wing caught re and crashed while landing at
Ellsworth AFB, South Dakota; sliding to a halt and
burning atop a 25,000 gallon fuel storage tank. Efforts by re department personnel saved the 9 man
crew and prevented a catastrophic explosion of the
fuel tank.[234]

10.7. SURVIVORS

115

On 31 March 1972, B-52D, AF Serial No. 560625, departed McCoy Air Force Base, Florida on
a routine training mission. Assigned to the 306th
Bombardment Wing, the unarmed aircraft sustained
multiple engine failures and engine res on engines
No.7 and No.8 shortly after takeo. The aircraft
immediately attempted to return to the base, but
crashed just short of Runway 18R in a residential area of Orlando, Florida, approximately 1 mile
north of McCoy AFB, destroying or damaging eight
homes. The ight crew of 7 airmen and 1 civilian on
the ground were killed.[254]
On 30 July 1972, B-52D, AF Serial No. 56-0677,
assigned to the 307th Strategic Bomb Wing, operating out of U-Tapao Royal Thai Navy Aireld on a
combat mission as part of Operation Linebacker was
hit by lightning. The strike knocked out the planes
instruments and started a re on the port wing. Five
of the six crewmen were killed in the crash[255]
On 30 October 1981, B-52D, AF Serial No. 55078, assigned to the 22d Bomb Wing, March AFB,
CA, impacted the ground nine miles east of La
Junta, CO during a night low-level training mission.
All eight crew members on board were killed (six
crew and two maintainers). Sortie departed March
AFB with a planned recovering at Carswell AFB,
TX.[256]

B-52H 61-0026 Czar 52 seconds before crashing during practice


for an airshow on 24 June 1994. The copilots escape hatch,
detached during the incomplete ejection sequence, can be seen
near the tip of the vertical stabilizer.

while returning from a bombing mission in Iraq during the Persian Gulf War. The crash was eventually blamed on a catastrophic failure of the aircrafts
electrical system. Three of the six crew members on
board were killed.[260][261]
On 24 June 1994, B-52H Czar 52, AF Serial
No. 61-0026 crashed at Fairchild Air Force Base,
Washington, during practice for an airshow. All four
crew members died in the accident.[262]

On 16 December 1982, B-52G, AF Serial No. 576482, assigned to 328th BS, 93rd BW, Castle AFB,
On 21 July 2008, a B-52H, Raidr 21, AF SeCA, was participating in a Minimum Interval Takerial No. 60-0053, deployed from Barksdale Air
O (MITO; 12 seconds between each aircraft on
Force Base, Louisiana to Andersen Air Force Base,
takeo) from Mather AFB, CA. The incident airGuam crashed approximately 25 miles (40 km) o
craft was in the number two position of a three ship
the coast of Guam. All six crew members were
cell. The B-52G was equipped with water injection
killed (ve standard crew members and a ight surto give additional thrust on take-o. The lead air[263]
geon).
craft was dry and did not utilize thrust agumentation. The incident aircraft was wet and did use
the thrust augmentation system. During the take-o,
the incident aircraft rapidly started to overtake the 10.7 Survivors
lead aircraft. The incident aircraft pilot retarded the
throttles rapidly causing ameout of four engines. See also: List of displayed Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
The aircraft then stalled leading to impact with the
ground. Nine crew members were killed. There
There are many B-52s still in use and others on static diswere no fatalities on the ground.[257]
play at USAF bases and museums around the world.
On 16 October 1984, B-52G, AF Serial No. 576479, assigned to the 92d Bomb Wing, Fairchild
10.8 Specications (B-52H)
AFB, WA, clipped its wing on Hunts Mesa, an
outcropping in Monument Valley, Arizona, and
[264]
USAF fact sheet,[3] Quest for
crashed, sending a reball high into the air. Two Data from Knaack,
[265]
of the seven crew perished in the crash, including Performance
Col. William Ivy, the wings deputy commander for General characteristics
operations.[258][259]
On 2 February 1991, B-52G Hulk 46, assigned to
the 4300th Bomb Wing (Provisional), Diego Garcia, British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) crashed

Crew: 5 (pilot, copilot, Weapon Systems Ocer,


navigator, Electronic Warfare Ocer, and tail gunner until the removal of the tail gun in 1991)

116

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS


Zero-lift drag coecient: 0.0119 (estimated)
Drag area: 47.60 sq ft (4.42 m)
Aspect ratio: 8.56
Performance
Maximum speed: 560 kn (650 mph, 1,047 km/h)
Cruise speed: 442 kn (525 mph, 844 km/h)
Combat radius: 4,480 mi (3,890 nmi, 7,210 km)
Ferry range: 10,145 mi (8,764 nmi, 16,232 km)
Service ceiling: 50,000 ft (15,000 m)

B-52H prole

Rate of climb: 6,270 ft/min (31.85 m/s)


Wing loading: 120 lb/ft (586 kg/m)
Thrust/weight: 0.31
Lift-to-drag ratio: 21.5 (estimated)
Armament

Boeing B-52H static display with weapons, Barksdale AFB 2006.


A second B-52H can be seen in ight in the background

Length: 159 ft 4 in (48.5 m)


Wingspan: 185 ft 0 in (56.4 m)

Guns: 1 20 mm (0.787 in) M61 Vulcan cannon


originally mounted in a remote controlled tail turret on the H-model, removed from all current operational aircraft in 1991
Bombs: Approximately 70,000 lb (31,500 kg)
mixed ordnance; bombs, mines, missiles, in various
congurations

Height: 40 ft 8 in (12.4 m)
Wing area: 4,000 sq ft (370 m)
Airfoil: NACA 63A219.3 mod root, NACA
65A209.5 tip
Empty weight: 185,000 lb (83,250 kg)
Loaded weight: 265,000 lb (120,000 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 488,000 lb (220,000 kg)
Powerplant: 8 Pratt & Whitney TF33-P-3/103
turbofans, 17,000 lbf (76 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 47,975 U.S. gal (39,948 imp gal;
181,610 L)

Avionics

Electro-optical viewing system that uses platinum


silicide forward looking infrared and high resolution
low-light-level television sensors
ADR-8 cha rocket (1965-1970)[229]
LITENING Advanced Targeting System[266]
Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod[267]
IBM AP-101 computer[88]

10.11. REFERENCES

117

10.9 Notable appearances in media


Main article: B-52 Stratofortress in ction
The B-52 has been featured in a number of major lms,
most notably: Bombers B-52 (1957),[268] A Gathering of
Eagles (1963),[269] Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned
to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964),[270] and
By Dawns Early Light (1990).[271] It has also been featured in numerous novels, such as most of the early
Patrick McLanahan novels by Dale Brown, which feature one or more heavily modied B-52 bombers, nicknamed the EB-52 Megafortress.[272] A 1960s hairstyle,
the beehive, is also called a B-52 for its resemblance to
the aircrafts distinct nose.[273] The popular band The B52s was subsequently named after this hairstyle.[273]

10.10 See also

[2] Other aircraft with similarly long service include the


English Electric Canberra, Tupolev Tu-95, Lockheed C130 Hercules, Boeing KC-135 Stratotanker, Lockheed P3 Orion and Lockheed U-2.[7][8][9][10]
[3] Quote:"Designing the B-29 had required 153,000 engineering hours; the B-52, 3,000,000.[53]
[4] The Have Nap missile, carried only by the B-52, enabled
stand-o attacks on targets while maintaining a man-inthe-loop guidance system capability.[98][99]
[5] The 93rd Bomb Wing received the Mackay Trophy for accomplishing their round-the-world non-stop ight in January 1957.[118]
[6] The following military aircraft are the only aircraft larger
than the B-52 in some manner (parameter listed in parenthesis may not be the only gure that exceeds the corresponding parameter of the B-52) and possess an air-toair capability; none has a combat kill: B-36 Peacemaker
(wingspan), Convair YB-60 (wingspan), Ilyushin Il-76D
(payload).
[7] A B-52B, Balls 8, was in use by NASA, a civilian US government entity, until 17 December 2004.

Related development
Boeing B-47 Stratojet

[8] At least one B-52 aviators father and grandfather also ew


the bomber.[206]

Conroy Virtus

[9] The electronic warfare ocer sat behind the pilot facing
to the rear.[218]

Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era

10.11.2 Citations

Avro Vulcan
Convair B-36

[1] Knaack 1988, p. 291.

Convair YB-60

[2] Knaack 1988, p. 241.

Handley Page Victor

[3] Fact Sheet: B-52 Stratofortress. United States Air Force,


20 September 2005. Retrieved: 11 August 2013.

Myasishchev M-4
Tupolev Tu-95

[4] Fact Sheet: B-52 Superfortress. Minot Air Force Base,


United States Air Force, October 2005. Retrieved: 12
January 2009.

Vickers Valiant

[5] BUF. Wordorigins.org. Retrieved: 3 November 2009.


[6] Flynn 1997, p. 138.

Related lists

[7] " (Return of the Flying Bear) in Russian. Lenta. 3 November 2009.

List of bomber aircraft


List of active military aircraft of the United States
Accidents and incidents involving the B-52

[8] RAAF C-130 Hercules 50 Years of Outstanding Service. defenseworld.net, 3 November 2008.
[9] Lombardi, Michael. The rst KC-135 tanker aircraft
rolled out 50 years ago this month. Boeing, July 2006.

10.11 References

[10] Karl, Jonathan. So high, so fast. ABC News, 17 August


2007. Retrieved: 3 November 2009.

10.11.1

[11] Greenwood 1995, p. 201.

Notes

[1] Fellow
is
substituted
for
Fucker
bowdlerized/sanitized versions of the acronym.[6]

in

[12] Knaack 1988, pp. 206207.


[13] Knaack 1988, p. 207.

118

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

[14] Knaack 1988, pp. 207208.

[45] Knaack 1988, pp. 217219.

[15] Tagg 2004, p. 19.

[46] Knaack 1988, p. 219.

[16] Tagg 2004, p. 21.

[47] Knaack 1988, p. 221.

[17] Knaack 1988, p. 208.

[48] Cooke 1956, pp. 2428.

[18] Tagg 2004, p. 22.

[49] Donald 1997, pp. 161162.

[19] Tagg 2004, p. 23.

[50] The Boeing Logbook: 19521956 15 April 1952. Boeing. Retrieved: 13 August 2009.

[20] Knaack 1988, p. 209.


[21] Tagg 2004, p. 30.
[22] Tagg 2004, p. 34.
[23] Knaack 1988, p. 210.
[24] Knaack 1988, pp. 210211.
[25] Knaack 1988, p. 212.
[26] Tagg 2004, pp. 3536.
[27] Tagg 2004, pp. 3639.
[28] Consumer Price Index (estimate) 18002014. Federal
Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved February 27,
2014.
[29] Tagg 2004 pp. 4044.
[30] Simonsen, Erik. Dueling bombers: Boeings YB-52 beat
out Convairs YB-60and continues to serve. Boeing
Frontiers, June 2006. Retrieved: 17 July 2010.
[31] Knaack 1988, p. 213.
[32] Tagg 2004, pp. 4547.
[33] Tagg 2004, pp. 4445.
[34] Knaack 1988, pp. 214215.
[35] Baugher, Joe. Origin of the B-52. USAF Bombers:
American Military Aircraft, 30 June 2000. Retrieved: 9
August 2011.
[36] Mandeles, Dr. Mark D. The Development of the B-52
and Jet Propulsion; A Case Study in Organizational Innovation. Maxwell AFB, Alabama: Air University Press,
March 1998. LCCN 98014703
[37] B-52 Design: Dayton Hotel Birthplace of Jet-powered
Bomber. Boeing, 11 April 2002. Retrieved: 3 August
2011.
[38] Tagg 2004, pp. 4850.
[39] Tagg 2004, pp. 5859.
[40] Knaack 1998, pp. 215216.
[41] Tagg 2004, p. 57.
[42] Knaack 1988, pp. 217218.
[43] Tagg 2004, p. 60.
[44] Knaack 1988, p. 218.

[51] Knaack 1988, p. 222.


[52] Tagg 2004, p. 82.
[53] Knaack 1988, p. 227.
[54] Knaack 1988, p. 229.
[55] Knaack 1988, p. 230.
[56] Knaack 1988, p. 247.
[57] Knaack 1988, p. 258.
[58] Knaack 1988, p. 262.
[59] Knaack 1988, p. 269.
[60] Knaack 1988, p. 280.
[61] Knaack 1988, p. 289.
[62] Tagg 2004, p. 85.
[63] Knaack 1988, pp. 229230.
[64] Tagg 2004, p. 5.
[65] Gunston Flight 1957, p. 776.
[66] Lake International Air Power Review Spring 2003, pp.
117121.
[67] Bowers 1989, p. 379.
[68] Lake International Air Power Review Summer 2003, pp.
100101.
[69] Lake International Air Power Review Summer 2003, p.
102.
[70] Lake International Air Power Review Summer 2003, p.
103.
[71] Gunston Flight 1957, p. 778.
[72] Lake International Air Power Review, Summer 2003, p.
101.
[73] Eden 2004, p. 71.
[74] Tegler 2000, p. xiii.
[75] Tegler 2000, pp. 8485.
[76] Higham 2005, pp. 4344.
[77] Tinker, Frank A. Who Will Bell the Invisible CAT?"
Popular Mechanics, August 1969, pp. 9497.

10.11. REFERENCES

[78] Tagg 2004, p. 87.


[79] Knaack 1988, pp. 254255.
[80] Knaack 1988, p. 259.
[81] Knaack 1988, pp. 276277.
[82] Knaack 1988, pp. 266267.

119

[107] Defense Science Board Task Force on B-52H ReEngining. Oce of the Under Secretary of Defense. Retrieved: 10 July 2010.
[108] Sweetman, Bill. B-52 Re-engine resurfaces as USAF
reviews studies. Aviation Week, 10 October 2014, Retrieved: 16 October 2014.

[109]
[83] Zamorano, Marti, B-52 synthetic fuel testing: Center
commander pilots rst Air Force B-52 ight using solely
synthetic fuel blend in all eight engines. Aerotech News [110]
and Review, 22 December 2006.
[111]
[84] Hernandez, Jason, SECAF certies synthetic fuel blends
[112]
for B-52H. Aerotech News and Review, 10 August 2007.
[85] Knaack 1988, pp. 279280.

Sweetman, Bill. B-52 Re-engine Resurfaces As USAF


Reviews Studies. Aviation Week, 10 October 2014.
Knaack 1998.
Knaack 1988, pp. 234237.
Boyne 2001, p. 216.

[113] Knaack 1988, p. 237.

[86] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, pp. 41 [114] Boyne 2001, p. 220.
43.
[115] Knaack 1988, p. 238.
[87] Condor, 1994, p. 38.

[116] Lake International Air Power Review Spring 2003, p. 119.


[88] Computers in Spaceight: The NASA Experience.
[117] Knaack 1988, p. 240.
NASA. Retrieved: 2 October 2011.
[89] Hopper, David. Upgraded B-52 Still on Cutting Edge. [118] Knaack 1988, p. 243.
WSTIAC, 31 April 2008. Retrieved: 17 July 2010.
[119] Knaack 1988, p. 244.
[90] Neuenswander, David. Joint Laser Interoperability, To[120] Condor 1994, p. 42.
morrows Answer to Precision Engagement. Air & Space
Power Journal, 28 June 2001.
[121] Knaack 1988, p. 282.
[91] Knaack 1988, pp. 277278.

[122] Tillman 2007, p. 100.

[92] Tagg 2004, p. 89.

[123] Rosenberg, David A. The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear


Weapons and American Strategy, 19451960. International Security, Spring 1983.

[93] Polmar 2005, p. 529.

[94] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, pp. 44


[124] Kristensen, Hans M. The Airborne Alert Program Over
45.
Greenland. The Nuclear Information Project. Retrieved:
2 October 2011.
[95] Dorr and Rogers 1996, pp. 6566.
[125] Parrington, Alan J. Mutually Assured Destruction Revisited, Strategic Doctrine in Question. Airpower Journal,
Lake International Air Power Review Summer 2003, pp.
Winter 1997.
108109.
[126] Jenkins 1999, p. 21.
Dorr and Rogers 1996, pp. 7879.
[127] Spick 1986, pp. 45.
Lake Air International May 2001, p. 290.
[128] May 1960 The U-2 Incident. Soviet and American
Lake International Air Power Review Summer 2003, p.
Statements. Keesings Record of World Events, Volume 6,
114.
1960.

[96] Polmar 2005, p. 532.


[97]
[98]
[99]
[100]

[101] Lake Air International May 2001, pp. 290291.

[129] Spick 1986, pp. 68.

[102] Dorr and Rogers 1996, pp. 8182.

[130] Knaack 1988, pp. 252254.


[103] Raatz, Joseph. Upgrade gives B-52 more teeth. af.mil,
[131] Miller 1985, pp. 6970.
20 September 2013, Retrieved: 23 September 2013.
[104] Jenkins 1999, p. 39.

[132] Greenwood 1995, p. 289.

[105] Trimble, Stephen. Boeing pushing B-52H re-engining. [133] NASA SP-4006, Astronautics and Aeronautics, 1965:
Chronology on Science, Technology, and Policy. NaFlight International, 25 November 2003.
tional Aeronautics and Space Administration via NASA
[106] Trimble, Stephen. Air Force Widens Review Of B-52
Historical Sta, Oce of Policy Analysis. Retrieved: 5
Re-Engining Options. Aviation Week, 7 July 2003.
June 2010.

120

[134] Schwartz 1998, p. 119.

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

[170] McCarthy 2009, p. 19.

[135] Anderson, William. Guam Jets Bomb S. Viet. Chicago [171]


Tribune, 18 June 1965.
[172]
[136] Hobson 2001, pp. 2223.
[173]
[137] Schlight 1988, p. 52.
[174]
[138] Lake 2004, p. 30.
[139] Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 161.
[140] Knaack 1988, p. 256.
[141] Condor 1994, p. 37.
[142] Reds Down First B-52 of War. Los Angeles Times, 22
November 1972.
[143] McCarthy and Allison 2009, p. 172.
[144] Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 187.
[145] Budiansky 2004, p. 394.
[146] Lake 2004, p. 32.

Futrell 1976.
McCarthy 2009, p. 141.
Toperczer #29 2001.
Toperczer, Dr. Istvan. Air War Over North Viet Nam;
The Vietnamese Peoples Air Force 19491977. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1998. ISBN
978-0-89747-390-3.

[175] Cambodia is a key to Vietnam peace. Rock Hill Herald,


24 August 1973.
[176] Creech, Gray. End of an Era: NASAs Famous B52B Retires. NASA, 14 December 2004. Retrieved: 3
November 2009.
[177] Online Exhibit of Aircraft: 1955 B-52B Stratofortress.
Wings Over the Rockies Air & Space Museum. Retrieved:
3 November 2009.
[178] Holder, William G. The Ever-changing Fleet. Air University Review , JulyAugust 1978. Retrieved: 22 July
2010.

[147] Robert F. Dorr and Lindsay Peacock. Boeings Cold War


Warrior: B-52 Stratofortress, 1995.
[179] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, p. 39.
[148] Pribbenow, p. 327.

[180] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, p. 41.

[149] Hobson 2001, p. 22.

[181] Anderton, David. B-1B: Out of the Shadows. Popular


Mechanics, Volume 162, Issue 11, November 1985, pp.
9899, 174. Retrieved: 13 November 2009.

[150] Hobson 2001, pp. 107, 108.


[151] Hobson 2001, p. 108.
[152] Hobson 2001, p. 168.
[153] Hobson 2001, p. 169.
[154] Hobson 2001, p. 181.
[155] Hobson 2001, p. 185.
[156] Hobson 2001, p. 186.
[157] Hobson 2001, p. 231.
[158] Hobson 2001, p. 233.

[182] Bailey, Carl E. Fact Sheet: 325 Weapons Squadron


(ACC). National Museum of the United States Air Force.
Retrieved: 5 June 2010.
[183] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, pp. 51
52.
[184] Arana-Barradas, Louis A. "'BUFF' and Tough: the B-52
bomber has been a valuable and eective member of the
Air Force since 1955. Airman, June 2001. Retrieved: 16
October 2007.
[185] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, p. 50.

[160] Hobson 2001, p. 240.

[186] Factsheets: 2nd Bomb Wing History. Barksdale Air


Force Base, United States Air Force. Retrieved 19 September 2011.

[161] Hobson 2001, p. 242.

[187] Cordesman and Wagner 1996, p. 451.

[162] Hobson 2001, p. 243.

[188] Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 225.

[163] Hobson 2001, pp. l, 243.


[164] Hobson 2002, p. 244.

[189] Garvey, William. New Life for Bu: Older than its pilots, the B-52 gets ready to y for 100 years. Popular
Mechanics, March 1999.

[165] Hobson 2001, p. 245.

[190] Lake 2004, p. 48.

[166] Hobson 2001, pp. 245, 246.

[191] Lake 2004, pp. 4748.

[167] Hobson 2001, p. 246.

[192] Condor 1994, p. 44.

[168] Hobson 2001, p. 247.

[193] Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 222.

[169] McCarthy 2009, p. 139.

[194] B-52H. NASA. Retrieved: 3 November 2009.

[159] Hobson 2001, p. 238.

10.11. REFERENCES

121

[195] Steele, Johnathan. Ghost village marks the battle that [216] Szondy, David. The B-52 gets upgraded weapons bay
ended the war. The Guardian, 17 July 1999.
- Gizmag.com, 23 January 2015. Retrieved 25 January
2015.
[196] Willis Air Enthusiast November/December 2005, pp. 56
57.
[217] Dillow, Clay (5 March 2015). This single Pentagon program is going to upend the combat jet industry. Fortune.
[197] Smart Bombs Keep B-52s In Business - StrategyRetrieved 16 April 2015. The program will produce 80 to
page.com, 10 October 2013
100 aircraft (at roughly $550 million per copy), replacing
the Air Forces legacy eet of B-52 and B-1 bombers with
[198] Dick and Patterson 2006, p. 242.
a stealthy, long-range, nuke-capable strike aircraft entering service around 2020.
[199] Warrick, Joby and Walter Pincus. Missteps in the
Bunker. Washington Post, 23 September 2007. Re[218] Dorr 1990, p. 26.
trieved: 3 November 2009.
[200] Homan, Michael. Wing decertied, COs sacked for [219] Willis Air Enthusiast, September/October 2005, p. 70.
nuke mistake. Air Force Times, 21 October 2007. Re[220] Boyne, Walter J. The B-52 Story. Air University Review,
trieved: 3 November 2009.
NovemberDecember 1982.
[201] World Air Forces 2013. Flightglobal Insight, 2013. Re[221] Willis Air Enthusiast September/October 2005, p. 59.
trieved: 11 August 2013.
[202] Hopper, David. B-52 Stratofortress. Air Force, 15 April [222] NASA 'Balls 8': B-52B 'Mothership' Launch Aircraft.
NASA. Retrieved: 2 October 2007.
2011. Retrieved: 15 April 2011.
[203] Air Force Depot Maintenance: Information on the Cost- [223] Lake International Air Power Review Spring 2003, p. 121.
Eectiveness of B-1 and B-52 Support Options (Brieng
[224] Hewitt Phillips, W. Chapter 13: Gust Alleviation. JourReport, 09/12/97, GAO/NSIAD-97-210BR). fas.org.
ney in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA LangRetrieved: 3 November 2009.
ley Research Center, Monographs in Aerospace History,
Number 12, November 1998, p. 132. Washington, D.C:
[204] USAF Fact Sheet B-52 Stratofortress. United States Air
NASA Historical Oce.
Force. Retrieved 13 November 2011.
[205] Hebert, Adam J. Strategic Force. Air Force Magazine, [225] Tagg 2004, p. 86.
Volume 90, Issue 2, February 2007, pp. 3843. Re[226] Boyne 2001, p. 221.
trieved: 13 November 2009.
[206] Ogden, Eloise. Third generation B-52 ight ocer. [227] Last B-52G eliminated under nuclear arms treaty. militarytimes.com, 28 December 2013.
Minot Daily News, 19 September 2011. Retrieved: 2 October 2011.
[228] A roaring farewell at Wurtsmith air base. Chicago Tribune, 4 December 1992.
[207] Cortes, Lorenzo. B-52 Crew Credits Arsenal, Loiter Capability During Operation Iraqi Freedom. Defense Daily,
[229] Dorr and Peacock 2000, p.52.
9 May 2003. Retrieved: 13 November 2009.
[230]
[208] Axe, David. Why Can't the Air Force Build an Aordable Plane?" The Atlantic, 26 March 2012. Retrieved: 30 [231]
June 2012.
[232]
[209] Tagg 2004, p. 91.
[210] USAF Radar Jamming Technology. Proxify.org. Retrieved: 9 April 2010.

Dorr 1990, p. 27.


Andrade 1979, p. 55.
Crash Site of a B-52 Bomber, East of Trans-Canada
Highway near Morrill Siding. The New Brunswick Military Heritage Project: Victoria County. Retrieved: 19 December 2010.

[211] Trimble, Stephen. US Air Force cancels SAM-jamming [233] Report on the accident to Boeing 777-236ER, GYMMM, at London Heathrow Airport on 17 January
EB-52 for second time. Flight International, 3 March
2008. AAIB, 9 February 2010, p. 123, Retrieved: 9
2009.
February 2010.
[212] Sixty years on, the B-52 is still going strong. CNET Mil[234] Listing of B-52 crashes since 1957, ksla.com, 21 July
itary Tech News, 15 April 2012.
2008. Retrieved: 1 April 2015.
[213] Air Force Begins Massive B-52 Overhaul. DoD[235] Booth, B. J. Towns history: B52 crash to UFO visits,
Buzz.com, 12 July 2013.
UFO Casebook Files. ufocasebook.com. Retrieved: 1
[214] USAF B-52 Bomber Internal Weapons Bay to Increase its
April 2015.
Capability - Deagel.com, 23 September 2013
[236] Schneider, Barry. Big Bangs from little bombs. Bulletin
[215] Ray, Mike W. B-52 upgrade to increase smart-weapons
of Atomic Scientists, May 1975, p. 28..
capacity. Air Force Global Strike Command, 8 January
2014. Retrieved 25 January 2015.
[237] Oskins & Maggelet 2007, p. 174.

122

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS

[238] Joint Nuclear Accident Co-ordinating Center: Record of [259] ASN Aircraft accident 16-Oct-1984 Boeing B-52G-80Events. United States Department of Defense, 14 April
BW Stratofortress 57-6479. Aviation safety ner. Re1961. Retrieved: 15 June 2010.
trieved: 16 August 2013.
[239] Shootdown: the death of the B-52 Ciudad Juarez. an- [260] B-52 Crash kills Chelan County man. The Seattle Times,
gelre.com. Retrieved: 1 April 2015.
5 February 1991. Retrieved: 20 December 2001.
[240] B-52C
53-0406
mewreckchasers.com.
2010.

Elephant
Mountain
1963. [261] Karaim, Reed. B-52 crash in Gulf War was eerie repeat;
Retrieved:
16 September
Three died, late in bailing out just as in the simulation.
Philly.com, 20 May 2011. Retrieved: 16 August 2013.

[241] Nemitz, Bill. Crash site tells of Cold War tragedy. Press [262] Schaefer, David. Pilot in fatal B-52 crash may have vioHerald Maine Today, 30 August 2006.
lated rules: Dicks cites Ssigns of 'acrobatic' Flying'. The
Seattle Times, 28 June 1994.
[242] Even With no tail, B-52 Finest I ever ew, says pilot.
Boeing. Retrieved: 12 January 2013.
[263] U.S. B-52 bomber with 6 crew members crashes o
Guam. CBC News, 21 July 2008.
[243] B-52 with no tail. AV media (USAF). Retrieved: 12
April 2015.
[264] Knaack 1988, pp. 29294.
[244] Narrative Summaries of Accidents Involving U.S. Nu- [265] Loftin, L. K. Jr. NASA SP-468, Quest for performance:
clear Weapons. United States Department of Defence.
The evolution of modern aircraft. NASA, 1985. Retrieved:
Retrieved: 7 February 2010.
22 April 2006.
[245] Maier 2002, p. 36.
[246] Knaack 1988, p. 279.

[266] Upgraded B-52 still on cutting edge 'U.S. Air Force. Retrieved: 11 April 2013.

[247] Spain, U.S. Agree to Radioactivity Cleanup 40 Years Af- [267] Lockheed Martins Sniper ATP Continues Successful
B-52 Integration Test Program. Lockheed Martin. Reter Atomic Accident. Fox News, 8 October 2006. Retrieved: 7 February 2010.
trieved: 23 September 2007.
[248] Boettcher, Terrell. Forester nds pieces of crashed B-52 [268] Bombers B-52 (1957). Turner Classic Movies, 2010.
Retrieved: 30 April 2010.
bomber. Sawyer County Record, 18 June 2010.
[249] ASN Aircraft accident 18-NOV-1966 Boeing B-52G- [269] Sick SAC. Time, 26 July 1963. Retrieved: 15 February
2010.
105-BW Stratofortress 58-0228. Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved: 12 April 2015.
[270] Southern, Terry. Checkup with Dr Strangelove. lmmakermagazine.com,, 2009. Retrieved: 11 January 2010.
[250] Chapin, J.T. Bad night at Da Nang. The crash of Brown
2. Aeroplane, March 2012, pp. 1620. ISSN 0143[271] Tucker. Ken. " 'By Dawns Early, Ken. Light'. Enter7240.
tainment Weekly, Issue No. 17, 8 June 1990. Retrieved:
11 January 2010.
[251] Butterknife V Thule Route. nukestrat.com. Retrieved:
13 November 2009.
[272] May, Scott A. Megafortress computer game evaluation.
COMPUTE! (Atari Magazines), Issue 139, April 1992, p.
[252] Lake and Styling 2004, p. 19.
104.
[253] Christensen, Svend Aage. The Marshals Baton. Danish
Institute for International Studies, DIIS Report 2009:18. [273] The B-52s. MTV. Retrieved: 18 July 2010.
Retrieved: 9 March 2010.
[254] Chancellor, John. Orlando Plane Crash NBC News
broadcast. Vanderbilt Television News Archive. Retrieved: 3 November 2009.
[255] Ranter, Harro. ASN Aircraft accident 30-JUL-1972
Boeing B-52D-35-BW Stratofortress 56-0677. aviationsafety.ne. Retrieved: 1 April 2015.
[256] ""Crew of 8 killed in crash of B-52 training ight. The
New York Times, 31 October 1981.
[257] Ranter, Harro.
ASN Aircraft accident 16-DEC1982 Boeing B-52G Stratofortress 57-6482. aviationsafety.net. Retrieved: 1 April 2015.
[258] Yozwiak, Steve. Monument Valley: Return to Hunts
Mesa. The Republic, 16 October 2009.

10.11.3 Bibliography
Andrade, John. U.S. Military Aircraft Designations
and Serials since 1909. Hinckley, UK: Midland
Counties Publications, 1979. ISBN 978-0-90459722-6.
Bowers, Peter M. Boeing B-52A/H Stratofortress.
Aircraft in Prole, Volume 13, pp. 241265. Windsor, Berkshire, UK: Prole Publications Ltd., 1973.
ISBN 978-0-85383-022-1.
Bowers, Peter M. Boeing Aircraft since 1916. London: Putnam, Third edition, 1989. ISBN 978-085177-804-4.

10.11. REFERENCES

123

Boyne, Walter J. The Best of Wings Magazine.


Aircraft in Prole, Volume 13. New York: Brasseys,
2001. ISBN 978-1-57488-368-8.

Flynn, Kelly J. Proud to Be: My Life, The Air Force,


The Controversy. New York: Random House, 1997.
ISBN 978-0-375-50109-8.

Budiansky, Stephen. Air Power: The Men, Machines, and Ideas that Revolutionized War, from Kitty
Hawk to Iraq. New York: Penguin Books, 2004.
ISBN 978-0-670-03285-3.

Futrell, R.F., et al. The United States Air Force


in Southeast Asia: Aces and Aerial victories, 1965
1973. Washington, D.C.: Oce of Air Force History, 1976. ISBN 978-0-89875-884-9.

Condor, Albert E. Air Force Gunners (AFGA):


The Men Behind the Guns, The History of Enlisted
Aerial Gunnery, 19171991. Nashville, Tennessee:
Turner Publishing, 1994. ISBN 978-1-56311-1679.

Greenwood, John T., ed. Milestones of Aviation.


Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution NASM,
1995. ISBN 978-0-88363-661-9.

Cordesman, Anthony H. and Abraham R. Wagner.


The Lessons of Modern War: The Gulf War. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 1996. ISBN 978-08133-8601-0.
Cooke, David C. How Airplanes are Made. New
York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1956. OCLC
1577826.
Davis, Larry. B-52 Stratofortress in action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1992.
ISBN 978-0-89747-289-0.
Dick, Ron and Dan Patterson. Aviation Century:
War & Peace In The Air. Eden Prairie, Ontario:
Boston Mills Press, 2006. ISBN 978-1-55046-4306.
Donald, David. The Encyclopedia of World Aircraft. Etobicoke, Ontario, Canada: Prospero Books,
1997. ISBN 978-1-85605-375-4.
Dorr, Robert F. Stratofortress The Big One from
Boeing. Air Enthusiast. No. Forty-one, Midsummer 1990, pp. 2237. Bromley, Kent, UK: Pilot
Press. ISSN 0143-5450.
Dorr, Robert F. and Brian C. Rogers. Boeing B-52H: The Ultimate Warrior. World Air
Power Journal, Volume 27, Winter 1996, pp. 54
101. London: Aerospace Publishing. ISBN 978-1874023-83-8. ISSN 0959-7050.
Dorr, Robert F. and Lindsay T. Peacock. B-52
Stratofortress: Boeings Cold War Warrior. Oxford,
UK: Osprey Publishing, 2000. ISBN 978-1-84176097-1.
Drendel, Lou. B-52 Stratofortress in action. Carrollton, Texas: Squadron/Signal Publications, 1975.
ISBN 978-0-89747-022-3.
Ethell, Jerey L. B-52 Stratofortress. London: Arms
and Armour Press, 1989. ISBN 978-0-85368-9379.
Eden, Paul, ed. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress. Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. London: Amber Books, 2004. ISBN 978-1-904687-84-9.

Gunston, Bill. Boeing B-52:The Strategic Stratofortress. Flight, Vol. 72, No 2547, 15 November
1957, pp. 771778.
Higham, Robin S. D. Flying American Combat Aircraft: The Cold War. Stackpole Books, 2005. ISBN
978-0-8117-3238-3.
Hobson, Chris. Vietnam Air Losses, USAF, USN,
USMC, Fixed-Wing Aircraft Losses in Southeast Asia
19611973. North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty
Press, 2001. ISBN 978-1-85780-115-6.
Jenkins, Dennis R. B-1 Lancer: The Most Complicated Warplane Ever Developed. New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1999. ISBN 978-0-07-134694-8.
Knaack, Marcelle Size. Post-World War II Bombers,
19451973. Washington, D.C.: Oce of Air Force
History, 1988. ISBN 978-0-16-002260-9.
Lake, Jon. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: Towards
the Octogenarian Bomber. Air International, May
2001, Vol 60 No 5. Stamford, Lincs, UK: Key Publishing. ISSN 0306-5634. pp. 286293.
Lake, Jon. Boeing B-52 variants: Part 2 B-52D to
'B-52J'". International Air Power Review. Volume
Nine, Summer 2003, pp. 100115. Norwalk, Ct,
USA: AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 978-1-88058856-7. ISSN 1473-9917.
Lake, Jon. Variant Brieng: Boeing B-52 Stratofortress: Part 1. International Air Power Review. Volume Eight, Spring 2003, pp. 106121.
Norwalk, Connecticut, USA:AIRtime Publishing.
ISBN 978-1-880588-54-3. ISSN 1473-9917.
Lake, Jon. B-52 Stratofortress Units in Operation
Desert Storm. London: Osprey Publishing, 2004.
ISBN 978-0-85045-026-2.
Lake, Jon and Mark Styling. B-52 Stratofortress
Units in Combat 195573. London: Osprey Publishing, 2004. ISBN 978-1-84176-607-2.
Lloyd, Alwyn T. B-52 Stratofortress in Detail and
Scale, Volume 27. Blue Ridge Summit, Pennsylvania: Tab Books Inc., 1988. ISBN 978-0-83068037-5.

124
Maier, Lothar Nick. B*U*F*F: Big Ugly Fat
F*****. Bloomington, Indianna: Traord Publishing, 2002. ISBN 978-1-55395-049-3.
Marshall, L. Michel. The Eleven Days of Christmas:
Americas Last Vietnam Battle. San Francisco: Encounter Books, 2002. ISBN 978-1-893554-24-5.
McCarthy, Donald J. Jr. MiG Killers: A Chronology
of US Air Victories in Vietnam 19651973. North
Branch, Minnesota: Speciality Press, 2009. ISBN
978-1-58007-136-9.
McCarthy, James R. and George B. Allison.
Linebacker II: A View from the Rock. Darby, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing, 1985. ISBN 978-0912799-31-5.
Mehuron, Tamar A., Assoc. Editor. 2007 USAF
Almanac Equipment. Air Force Magazine: Journal of the Air Force Association, Volume 90, Number 5, May 2007. ISSN 0730-6784.
Miller, Jay. Convair B-58 Hustler (Aerograph 4).
Midland, UK: Aerofax, 1985. ISBN 978-0-94254826-6.
Oskins, James C. and Michael H. Maggelet. Broken Arrow: The Declassied History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents. Raleigh, North Carolina:
Lulu.com, 2008. ISBN 978-1-4357-0361-2.
Polmar, Norman. The Naval Institute Guide to the
Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet. Annapolis,
Maryland: Naval Institute Press, 2005. ISBN 9781-59114-685-8.
Schlight, John. The War in South Vietnam: The
Years of the Oensive, 19651968 (The United
States Air Force in Southeast Asia). Washington,
D.C.: Oce of Air Force History, United States Air
Force, 1988. ISBN 978-0-912799-51-3.
Spick, Mike. Modern Fighting Aircraft, B-1B.
New York: Prentice Hall, 1986. ISBN 978-0-13055237-2.
Tagg, Lori S. Development of the B-52: The Wright
Field Story. Dayton, Ohio: History Oce Aeronautical Systems Center, Air Force Materiel Command,
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, United States Air
Force, 2004.
Tegler, Jan. B-47 Stratojet: Boeings Brilliant
Bomber. McGraw-Hill, 2000. ISBN 978-0-07135567-4.
Tillman, Barrett. LeMay. Basingstoke, Hampshire,
UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007. ISBN 978-1-40397135-7.

CHAPTER 10. BOEING B-52 STRATOFORTRESS


Willis, David. Boeings Timeless Deterrent, Part 1:
B-52 Stratofortress From Conception to Hanoi.
Air Enthusiast, No. 119, September/October 2005,
pp. 5073. Stamford, Lincs, UK: Key Publishing.
ISSN 0143-5450.
Willis, David. Boeings Timeless Deterrent, Part 2:
B-52 The Permanent Spear Tip. Air Enthusiast,
No. 120, November/December 2005, pp. 3861.
Stamford, Lincs, UK: Key Publishing. ISSN 01435450.
Winchester, Jim, ed. Boeing B-52 Stratofortress
(SAC)". Military Aircraft of the Cold War (The Aviation Factle). London: Grange Books plc, 2006.
ISBN 978-1-84013-929-7.

10.12 External links


USAF B-52 Fact Sheet
B-52 page on GlobalSecurity.com
B-52 Stratofortress history on fas.org
B-52 prole on AerospaceWeb.org
Analysis of Fairchild AFB crash
B-52 Stratofortress Association website
Boeing B-52 - the Strategic Stratofortress a 1957
Flight article by Bill Gunston

Chapter 11

Boeing C-17 Globemaster III


For other aircraft with this designation, see C-17 (disambiguation).
The Boeing C-17 Globemaster III is a large military
transport aircraft. It was developed for the United States
Air Force (USAF) from the 1980s to the early 1990s by
McDonnell Douglas. The C-17 carries forward the name
of two previous piston-engined military cargo aircraft,
the Douglas C-74 Globemaster and the Douglas C-124
Globemaster II. The C-17 commonly performs strategic
airlift missions, transporting troops and cargo throughout
the world; additional roles include tactical airlift, medical
evacuation and airdrop duties.
Boeing, which merged with McDonnell Douglas in the
1990s, continued to manufacture C-17s for export customers following the end of deliveries to the U.S. Air
Force. Aside from the United States, the C-17 is in service with the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Qatar,
United Arab Emirates, NATO Heavy Airlift Wing, India,
and Kuwait. The nal C-17 was completed in May 2015.

11.1 Development
11.1.1

Background and design phase

In the 1970s, the U.S. Air Force began looking for a


replacement for its Lockheed C-130 Hercules tactical
cargo aircraft.[3] The Advanced Medium STOL Transport (AMST) competition was held, with Boeing proposing the YC-14, and McDonnell Douglas proposing the
YC-15.[4] Though both entrants exceeded specied requirements, the AMST competition was canceled before
a winner was selected. The Air Force started the C-X
program in November 1979 to develop a larger AMST
with longer range to augment its strategic airlift.[5]

The McDonnell Douglas YC-15 design was used as the basis for
the C-17.

the YC-15; Boeing bid an enlarged three-engine version


of its AMST YC-14. Lockheed submitted two designs, a
C-5-based design and an enlarged C-141 design. On 28
August 1981, McDonnell Douglas was chosen to build
its proposed aircraft, then designated C-17. Compared
to the YC-15, the new aircraft diered in having swept
wings, increased size, and more powerful engines.[6] This
would allow it to perform the work done by the C-141,
and also fulll some of the duties of the Lockheed C-5
Galaxy, freeing the C-5 eet for outsize cargo.[6]

Alternate proposals were pursued to ll airlift needs after the C-X contest. These were lengthening of C-141As
into C-141Bs, ordering more C-5s, continued purchases
of KC-10s, and expansion of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet.
Limited budgets reduced program funding, requiring a
delay of four years. During this time contracts were
awarded for preliminary design work and for the completion of engine certication.[7] In December 1985, a
full-scale development contract was awarded.[8] At this
[7]
Air Force
By 1980, the USAF found itself with a large eet of ag- time, rst ight was planned for 1990. The
[9]
had
formed
a
requirement
for
210
aircraft.
ing C-141 Starlifter cargo aircraft. Compounding matters, USAF needed increased strategic airlift capabilities Development problems and limited funding caused deto fulll its rapid-deployment airlift requirements. The lays in the late 1980s.[10] Criticisms were made of the
USAF set mission requirements and released a request developing aircraft and questions were raised about more
for proposals (RFP) for C-X in October 1980. McDon- cost-eective alternatives during this time.[11][12] In April
nell Douglas elected to develop a new aircraft based on 1990, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reduced the or125

126

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

der from 210 to 120 aircraft.[13] The maiden ight of the


C-17 took place on 15 September 1991 from the McDonnell Douglass plant in Long Beach, California, about a
year behind schedule.[14][15] The rst aircraft (T-1) and
ve more production models (P1-P5) participated in extensive ight testing and evaluation at Edwards Air Force
Base.[16] Two complete airframes were built for static and
repeated load testing.[15]

11.1.2

tions suggested 5,000 ft (1,500 m) was required.[28] The


YC-15 was transferred to AMARC to be made ightworthy again for further ight tests for the C-17 program in
March 1997.[29] In 1995, most of the problems had been
reportedly resolved.[30][31] The rst C-17 squadron was
declared operational by the USAF in January 1995.[32]

11.1.3 Production and deliveries

Development diculties

A static test of the C-17 wing in October 1992 resulted


in the wing failing at 128% of design limit load, which
was below the 150% requirement. Both wings buckled
rear to the front and failures occurred in stringers, spars
and ribs.[17] Some $100 million was spent to redesign the
wing structure; the wing failed at 145% during a second
test in September 1993.[18] A careful review of the test
data however, showed that the wing was not loaded correctly and did indeed meet the requirement.[19] The C-17
received the Globemaster III name in early 1993.[6] In
late 1993, the Department of Defense gave the contractor
two years to solve production and cost overrun problems Paratroopers dropping from a C-17 during a training exercise in
or face termination of the contract after the delivery of 2010.
the 40th aircraft.[20] By accepting the 1993 terms, McDonnell Douglas incurred a loss of nearly US$1.5 billion
on the development phase of the program.[16]
In April 1994, the C-17 program remained over budget,
and did not meet weight, fuel burn, payload and range
specications. It failed several key criteria during airworthiness evaluation tests.[21][22][23] Technical problems
were found with the mission software, landing gear, and
other areas.[24] In May 1994, it was proposed to cut production to as few as 32 aircraft; these cuts were later
rescinded.[25] A July 1994 GAO document revealed that
Air Force and DoD studies from 1986 and 1991 stated
the C-17 could use 6,400 more runways outside the U.S.
than the C-5; it was discovered that these studies only
considered runway dimensions, but not runway strength
or Load Classication Numbers (LCN). The C-5 has a
lower LCN, but the USAF classies both in the same
broad Load Classication Group (LCG). When considering runway dimensions and load ratings, the C-17s
worldwide runway advantage over the C-5 shrank from
6,400 to 911 airelds.[26] The C-17s ability to use low
quality, austere airelds was not considered.[26]

C-17s from the 517th Airlift Squadron dropping equipment and


airborne infantry during joint training in September 2010.

In 1996, DoD ordered another 80 aircraft for a total of


120.[33] In 1997 McDonnell Douglas merged with its former competitor, Boeing. In April 1999, Boeing proposed
to cut the price of the C-17 if the Air Force bought 60
more,[34] and in August 2002, the order was increased to
180 aircraft.[35] In 2007, 190 C-17s were on order for
the USAF.[36] On 6 February 2009, Boeing was awarded
a $2.95 billion contract for 15 additional aircraft, increasing the total USAF C-17 eet to 205 and extending production from August 2009 to August 2010.[37] On
6 April 2009, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates
stated that there would be no more C-17s ordered beyond the 205 planned.[38] However, on 12 June 2009, the
House Armed Services Air and Land Forces Subcommittee added a further 17 C-17s.[39]

A January 1995 GAO report revealed that, over the original cost of $41.8 billion for 210 C17s, the 120 aircraft on
order were costing $39.5 billion.[27] In March 1994, the
U.S. Army decided it did not need the 60,000 lb (27,000
kg) Low Altitude Parachute Extraction System (LAPES)
delivery with the C-17 and that the C-130s 42,000 lb
(19,000 kg) capability was sucient; C-17 testing was
limited to this lower weight. Airow issues prevented the
C-17 from meeting airdrop requirements. A February
1997 GAO report revealed that a C-17 with a full payload In 2010, Boeing transitioned to a production rate of 10
could not land on 3,000 ft (910 m) wet runways; simula- C-17s per year from a high of 16 per year, this was due

11.2. DESIGN

127

to dwindling orders and to extend the life of the pro- rate descents. In vortex surng tests performed by C-17s,
duction line while additional international orders were up to 10% fuel savings were reported.[54]
sought. The workforce was reduced by approximately
1,100 through 2012, and a second shift at the Long Beach
assembly plant was also eliminated.[40] By April 2011,
230 production C-17s had been delivered, including 210
to the USAF.[41] The C-17 prototype T-1 was retired
in 2012 after being used by the USAF for testing and
development.[42] In January 2010, the USAF announced
the end of Boeings performance-based logistics contracts
to maintain the aircraft.[43] On 19 June 2012, the USAF
ordered its 224th and nal C-17, as a replacement for an
aircraft that crashed in Alaska in July 2010.[44]
In September 2013, Boeing announced that C-17 production was starting to close down. In October 2014,
the main wing spar of the 279th and last aircraft was
completed, this C-17 shall be delivered in 2015, after
which Boeing will close the Long Beach plant.[45][46] Production of spare components shall continue until at least
2017. The C-17 is projected to be in service for several decades.[47][48] In February 2014, Boeing was engaged in sales talks with ve or six countries for the
remaining 15 C-17s, two to four of which are not current operators,[49] and Boeing decided to build 10 aircraft
without conrmed buyers in anticipation of future purchases. As of April 2015, ve aircraft found buyers, including two for the Middle East, two for Australia and
one for Canada.[50]
In May 2015, the Wall Street Journal reported that Boeing expected to book a charge of less than $100 million and eliminate 3,000 positions associated with the C17 program. According to Teal Group analyst Richard
Aboulaa, Airbus introduction of the cheaper A400M
Atlas undercut international sales of the C-17.[51]

A Royal Australian Air Force C-17 landing at Kharkiv International Airport, showing its landing gear

The aircraft requires a crew of three (pilot, copilot,


and loadmaster) for cargo operations. Cargo is loaded
through a large aft ramp that accommodates rolling stock,
such as a 69-ton (63-metric ton) M1 Abrams main battle
tank, other armored vehicles, trucks, and trailers, along
with palletized cargo. The cargo compartment is 88 feet
(26.82 m) long by 18 feet (5.49 m) wide by 12 feet 4
inches (3.76 m) high. The cargo oor has rollers for palletized cargo that can be ipped to provide a at oor
suitable for vehicles and other rolling stock.

Sources: C-17 Globemaster III Pocket Guide,[52] Boeing


IDS Major Deliveries[53]

11.2 Design
The C-17 is 174 feet (53 m) long and has a wingspan of
about 170 feet (52 m). It can airlift cargo fairly close to
a battle area. The size and weight of U.S. mechanized
repower and equipment have grown in recent decades
from increased air mobility requirements, particularly for
large or heavy non-palletized outsize cargo.
The C-17 is powered by four Pratt & Whitney F117-PW100 turbofan engines, which are based on the commercial Pratt and Whitney PW2040 used on the Boeing 757.
Each engine is rated at 40,400 lbf (180 kN) of thrust.
The engines thrust reversers direct engine exhaust air upwards and forward, reducing the chances of foreign object damage by ingestion of runway debris, and providing enough reverse thrust to back the aircraft up on the
ground while taxiing. The thrust reversers can also be
used in ight at idle-reverse for added drag in maximum-

C-17 Globemaster III cockpit

Maximum payload of the C-17 is 170,900 lb (77,500 kg),


and its Maximum takeo weight is 585,000 lb (265,350
kg). With a payload of 160,000 lb (72,600 kg) and an
initial cruise altitude of 28,000 ft (8,500 m), the C-17
has an unrefueled range of about 2,400 nautical miles
(4,400 km) on the rst 71 aircraft, and 2,800 nautical
miles (5,200 km) on all subsequent extended-range models that include a sealed center wing bay as a fuel tank.
Boeing informally calls these aircraft the C-17 ER.[55] The
C-17s cruise speed is about 450 knots (833 km/h) (Mach
0.74). It is designed to airdrop 102 paratroopers and their
equipment.[56] The U.S. Armys Ground Combat Vehicle
is to be transported by the C-17.

128

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as


3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate from unpaved, unimproved
runways (although with greater chance of damage to the
aircraft).[56] The thrust reversers can be used to back the
aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using
a three- (or more) point turn. The plane is designed for
20 man-hours of maintenance per ight hour, and a 74%
mission availability rate.[56]

11.3 Operational history


11.3.1

172nd Airlift Wing of the Mississippi Air National Guard


at Jackson-Evers International Airport/ANGB, Mississippi.
In FY 2006, eight C-17s were delivered to March Joint
Air Reserve Base, California; controlled by the Air Force
Reserve Command (AFRC), assigned to the 452d Air
Mobility Wing; and subsequently assigned to AMCs
436th Airlift Wing and its AFRC associate unit, the
512th Airlift Wing, at Dover Air Force Base, Delaware,
supplementing the Lockheed C-5 Galaxy.[62] In 2011, the
New York Air National Guard's 105th Airlift Wing at
Stewart Air National Guard Base, New York, transitioned
from the C-5 to the C-17.[63]

United States Air Force

The U.S. Presidential Limousine is transported by C-17 for long


distance trips
USAF C-17s in ight over the Blue Ridge Mountains in the eastern
U.S.

The rst production model was delivered to Charleston


Air Force Base, South Carolina on 14 July 1993. The
rst C-17 squadron, the 17th Airlift Squadron, became
operationally ready on 17 January 1995.[57] The C-17 has
broken 22 records for oversized payloads.[58] The C-17
was awarded U.S. aviations most prestigious award, the
Collier Trophy in 1994.[59] A Congressional report on
operations in Kosovo and Operation Allied Force noted
One of the great success stories...was the performance
of the Air Forces C-17A[60] The C-17 ew half of the
strategic airlift missions in the operation, the type could
use small airelds, easing operations; rapid turnaround
times also led to ecient utilization.[61]
The U.S. Air Force originally planned to buy a total of
120 C-17s, with the last one being scheduled for delivery
in November 2004. The scal 2000 budget funded another 14 aircraft, primarily for Air Mobility Command
(AMC) support of the United States Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM). Basing of the original 120 C17s was with the 437th Airlift Wing and 315th Airlift Wing at Charleston AFB, South Carolina, the 62nd
Airlift Wing and 446th Airlift Wing at McChord Air
Force Base, Washington, the Air Education and Training Command's (AETC) 97th Air Mobility Wing at Altus
AFB, Oklahoma, and the Air Mobility Command-gained

The C-17 have been used to deliver military goods and


humanitarian aid during Operation Enduring Freedom in
Afghanistan as well as Operation Iraqi Freedom in Iraq.
On 26 March 2003, 15 USAF C-17s participated in the
biggest combat airdrop since the United States invasion
of Panama in December 1989: the night-time airdrop
of 1,000 paratroopers from the 173rd Airborne Brigade
occurred over Bashur, Iraq. The airdrop of paratroopers were followed by C-17s ferrying M1 Abrams, M2
Bradleys, M113s and artillery.[64] USAF C-17s have also
been used to assist allies in their airlift requirements, including Canadian vehicles to Afghanistan in 2003 and
Australian forces during the Australian-led military deployment to East Timor in 2006. In 2006, USAF C-17s
ew 15 Canadian Leopard C2 tanks from Kyrgyzstan into
Kandahar in support of NATOs Afghanistan mission. In
2013, ve USAF C-17s supported French operations in
Mali, operating with other nations C-17s (RAF, NATO
and RCAF deployed a single C-17 each).
A C-17 accompanies the President of the United States
on his visits to both domestic and foreign arrangements, consultations, and meetings. The C-17 is used
to transport the Presidential Limousine and security
detachments.[65] There have been several occasions when
a C-17 has been used to transport the President himself,
temporarily gaining the Air Force One call sign while doing so.[66]
There was debate over follow-on C-17 orders, Air

11.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY


Force having requested line shutdown while Congress attempted to reinstate production. In FY2007, the Air
Force requested $1.6 billion in response to excessive
combat use on the C-17 eet.[67] In 2008, USAF General Arthur Lichte, Commander of Air Mobility Command, indicated before a House of Representatives subcommittee on air and land forces a need to extend production to another 15 aircraft to increase the total to 205.
Pending the delivery of the results of two studies in 2009,
Lichte observed that the production line may remain open
for further C-17s to satisfy airlift requirements.[68] The
USAF eventually decided to cap its C-17 eet at 223 aircraft, the nal delivery was accepted on 12 September
2013.[69]

11.3.2

Royal Air Force

Boeing has marketed the C-17 to many European nations


including Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, Spain and
the United Kingdom. The Royal Air Force (RAF) has
established an aim of having interoperability and some
weapons and capabilities commonality with the USAF.
The 1998 Strategic Defence Review identied a requirement for a strategic airlifter. The Short-Term Strategic Airlift (STSA) competition commenced in September of that year, however tendering was canceled in August 1999 with some bids identied by ministers as too
expensive, including the Boeing/BAe C-17 bid, and others unsuitable.[70] The project continued, with the C-17
seen as the favorite.[70] In the light of Airbus A400M delays, the UK Secretary of State for Defence, Geo Hoon,
announced in May 2000 that the RAF would lease four C17s at an annual cost of 100 million[67] from Boeing for
an initial seven years with an optional two-year extension.
The RAF had the option to buy or return the aircraft to
Boeing. The UK committed to upgrading its C-17s in line
with the USAF so that if they were returned, the USAF
could adopt them.

129
fourth C-17 was delivered on 24 August 2001. The RAF
aircraft were some of the rst to take advantage of the new
center wing fuel tank found in Block 13 aircraft. In RAF
service, the C-17 has not been given an ocial service
name and designation (for example, C-130J referred to
as Hercules C4 or C5), but is referred to simply as the
C-17 or C-17A Globemaster.
The RAF declared itself delighted with the C-17. Although the Globemaster eet was to be a fallback for the
A400M, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) announced on
21 July 2004 that they had elected to buy their four C17s at the end of the lease,[71] even though the A400M
appeared to be closer to production. The C-17 gives the
RAF strategic capabilities that it would not wish to lose,
for example a maximum payload of 169,500 lb (77,000
kg) compared to the A400Ms 82,000 lb (37,000 kg).[67]
The C-17s capabilities allow the RAF to use it as an airborne hospital for medical evacuation missions.[72]
Another C-17 was ordered in August 2006, and delivered on 22 February 2008. The four leased C-17s were
to be purchased later in 2008.[73] Because of fears that the
A400M may suer further delays, the MoD announced
in 2006 that it planned to acquire three more C-17s, for
a total of eight, with delivery in 20092010. On 26 July
2007, Defence Secretary Des Browne announced that the
MoD intended to order a sixth C-17 to boost operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan.[74] On 3 December 2007, the MoD
announced a contract for a sixth C-17,[75] which was received on 11 June 2008.[76]
On 18 December 2009, Boeing conrmed that the RAF
had ordered a seventh C-17,[77][78] which was delivered
on 16 November 2010.[79] The UK announced the purchase of its eighth C-17 in February 2012.[80] The RAF
showed interest in buying a ninth C-17 in November
2013.[81]
On 13 January 2013, the RAF deployed two C-17s of
No. 99 Squadron from RAF Brize Norton to the French
vreux Air Base. The aircraft transported French armored vehicles to the Malian capital of Bamako during
the French Intervention in Mali.[82]

11.3.3 Royal Australian Air Force


Main article: Boeing C-17 Globemaster III in Australian
service
The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) began investigating an acquisition of heavy lift aircraft for strategic
transport in 2005.[83] In late 2005 the then Minister for
Defence Robert Hill stated that such aircraft were being
considered due to the limited availability of strategic airlift aircraft from partner nations and air freight compaRAF C-17 at RAF Lakenheath, August 2010
nies. The C-17 was considered to be favored over the
A400M as it was a proven aircraft and in production.
The rst C-17 was delivered to the RAF at Boeings Long One major RAAF requirement was the ability to airlift
Beach facility on 17 May 2001 and own to RAF Brize the Armys M1 Abrams tanks; another requirement was
Norton by a crew from No. 99 Squadron. The RAFs immediate delivery. Though unstated, commonality with

130

A RAAF C-17 in Afghanistan, December 2010

the USAF and the United Kingdoms RAF was also considered advantageous. RAAF aircraft were ordered directly from the USAF production run and are identical
to American C-17 even in paint scheme, the only dierence being the national markings. This allowed delivery
to commence within nine months of commitment to the
program.[84]
On 2 March 2006, the Australian government announced
the purchase of three aircraft and one option with an entry into service date of 2006.[67] In July 2006 a xed
price contract was awarded to Boeing to deliver four C17s for US$780M (A$1bn).[85] Australia also signed a
US$80.7M contract to join the global 'virtual eet' C-17
sustainment program[86] and the RAAFs C-17s will receive the same upgrades as the USAFs eet.[87]
The Royal Australian Air Force took delivery of its rst
C-17 in a ceremony at Boeings plant at Long Beach,
California on 28 November 2006.[88] Several days later
the aircraft ew from Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii to
Defence Establishment Fairbairn, Canberra, arriving on
4 December 2006. The aircraft was formally accepted
in a ceremony at Fairbairn shortly after arrival.[89] The
second aircraft was delivered to the RAAF on 11 May
2007 and the third was delivered on 18 December 2007.
The fourth Australian C-17 was delivered on 19 January
2008.[90] All the Australian C-17s are operated by No.
36 Squadron and are based at RAAF Base Amberley in
Queensland.[91]

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III


signed an agreement with the U.S. government to acquire
a fth C-17 due to an increased demand for humanitarian
and disaster relief missions.[92] The aircraft was delivered
to the RAAF on 14 September 2011.[93] On 23 September 2011, Australian Minister for Defence Materiel Jason
Clare announced that the government was seeking information from the U.S. about the price and delivery schedule for a sixth Globemaster.[94] In November 2011, Australia requested a sixth C-17 through the U.S. FMS program; it was ordered in June 2012, and was delivered on
1 November 2012.[95][96]
Australias C-17s have supported ADF operations around
the world, including supporting Air Combat Group training deployments to the U.S., transporting Royal Australian Navy Sea Hawk helicopters and making fortnightly supply missions to Australian forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. The C-17s have also carried humanitarian supplies to Papua New Guinea during Operation
Papua New Guinea Assist in 2007, supplies and South
African Puma helicopters to Burma in 2008 following
Cyclone Nargis,[97] relief supplies to Samoa following the
2009 earthquake, aid packages around Queensland following the 20102011 oods and Cyclone Yasi, and rescue teams and equipment to New Zealand following the
February 2011 Christchurch earthquake, and equipment
after the 2011 Thoku earthquake and tsunami from
Western Australia to Japan. In July 2014, an Australian
C-17 transported several bodies of victims of Malaysia
Airlines Flight 17 from Ukraine to the Netherlands.[98]
In August 2014, Defence Minister David Johnston announced the intention to purchase one or two additional C-17s.[99] On 3 October 2014, Johnston announced the governments approval to buy two C-17s
at a total cost of US$770 million.[50] The United States
Congress approved the sale under the Foreign Military
Sales program.[100][101] Prime Minister Tony Abbott conrmed in April 2015 that two additional aircraft are to be
ordered, with delivery in late 2015;[102] these are to add
to the six C-17s it has as of 2015.[50]

11.3.4 Royal Canadian Air Force


Canadas air arm has had a long-standing need for
strategic airlift for humanitarian and military operations
around the world. It had followed a pattern similar to
the German Air Force in leasing Antonovs and Ilyushins
for many of its needs, including deploying the Disaster
Assistance Response Team (DART) to tsunami-stricken
Sri Lanka in 2005. The air service was forced to rely
entirely on leased An-124 Ruslan for a Canadian Army
deployment to Haiti in 2003. The service has also used
a combination of leased Ruslans, Ilyushins and USAF
Wing Commander Linda Corbould, commander of No. 36 C-17s for moving heavy equipment into Afghanistan.
Squadron RAAF, training in a USAF C-17
In 2002, the Canadian Forces Future Strategic Airlifter
Project began to study alternatives, including long-term
On 18 April 2011, Boeing announced that Australia had leasing arrangements.[103]

11.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

131
support to a variety of missions, including humanitarian
assistance, peace support and combat.[116]

11.3.5 NATO (Strategic Airlift Capability


Program)

RCAF CC-177 on approach to CFB Trenton

On 5 July 2006, the Canadian government issued a notice that it intended to negotiate directly with Boeing
to procure four airlifters for the Canadian Forces Air
Command (renamed Royal Canadian Air Force in August 2011).[104] On 1 February 2007, Canada awarded a
contract for four C-17s with delivery beginning in August 2007.[105] Like Australia, Canada was granted airframes originally slated for the U.S. Air Force, to accelNATO Strategic Airlift Capability's C-17
erate delivery.[106]
On 16 June 2007, the rst Canadian C-17 rolled o the
assembly line at Long Beach, California and into the paint
hangar for painting and addition of Canadian markings
including the national logo and air force roundel. The
rst Canadian C-17 made its initial ight on 23 July.[107]
It was turned over to Canada on 8 August,[108] and participated at the Abbotsford International Airshow on 11
August prior to arriving at its new home base at 8 Wing,
CFB Trenton, Ontario on 12 August.[109] Its rst operational mission was delivery of disaster relief to Jamaica
in the aftermath of Hurricane Dean.[110] The second C17 arrived at 8 Wing, CFB Trenton on 18 October 2007.
The last of four aircraft was delivered in April 2008.[111]
The ocial Canadian designation is CC-177 Globemaster III.[112] The aircraft are assigned to 429 Transport
Squadron based at CFB Trenton.
On 14 April 2010, a Canadian C-17 landed for the rst
time at CFS Alert, the worlds most northerly airport.[113]
Canadian Globemasters have been deployed in support
of numerous humanitarian and military missions worldwide, including Operation Hestia after the earthquake in
Haiti, providing airlift as part of Operation Mobile and
support to the Canadian mission in Afghanistan. After
Typhoon Haiyan hit the Philippines in 2013, Canadian
C-17s established an air bridge between the two nations,
deploying Canadas DART Team and delivering humanitarian supplies and equipment. In 2014, they supported
Operation Reassurance and Operation Impact.
On 19 December 2014, it was reported that Canadas
Defence Department intended to purchase one more C17.[114][115] On 30 March 2015, Canadas fth C-17
landed at Canadas largest air base, CFB Trenton. Lt.
Gen. Yvan Blondin, commander of the Royal Canadian
Air Force (RCAF), noted the new military plane will improve the Canadian Armed Forces response capability to
both domestic and international emergencies and provide

At the 2006 Farnborough Airshow, a number of NATO


member nations signed a letter of intent to jointly purchase and operate several C-17s within the NATO Strategic Airlift Capability.[117] Strategic Airlift Capability
members are Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Lithuania, the
Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, the
United States, as well as two Partnership for Peace countries Finland and Sweden as of 2010.[117] The purchase
was for two C-17s, and a third was contributed by the
U.S. On 14 July 2009, Boeing delivered the rst C-17 under NATOs Strategic Airlift Capability (SAC) program.
The second and third C-17s were delivered in September
and October 2009.[118][119]
The SAC C-17s are based at Ppa Air Base, Hungary.
The Heavy Airlift Wing is hosted by Hungary, which acts
as the ag nation.[120] The aircraft are manned in similar fashion as the NATO E-3 AWACS aircraft.[121] The
C-17 ight crew are multi-national, but each mission is
assigned to an individual member nation based on the
SACs annual ight hour share agreement. The NATO
Airlift Management Programme Oce (NAMPO) provides management and support for the Heavy Airlift
Wing. NAMPO is a part of the NATO Support Agency
(NSPA).[122] In September 2014, Boeing revealed that
the three C-17s supporting NATO SAC missions had
achieved a readiness rate of nearly 94 percent over the
last ve years and supported over 1,000 missions.[123]

11.3.6 Indian Air Force


In June 2009, the Indian Air Force (IAF) selected the C17 for its Very Heavy Lift Transport Aircraft requirement,
it is to replace several types of transport aircraft.[124][125]
In January 2010, India requested 10 C-17s through the
U.S.'s Foreign Military Sales program,[126] the sale was

132
approved by Congress in June 2010.[127] On 23 June
2010, the Indian Air Force successfully test-landed a
USAF C-17 at the Gaggal Airport, India to complete
the IAFs C-17 trials.[128] In February 2011, the IAF and
Boeing agreed terms for the order of 10 C-17s[129] with
an option for six more; the US$4.1 billion order was approved by the Indian Cabinet Committee on Security on
6 June 2011.[130][131] Deliveries began in June 2013 and
are to continue until 2014.[132][133] In 2012, the IAF reportedly nalized plans to buy six more C-17s in the 13th
ve-year plan (20172022).[125][134][135]

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III


and Egypt were evacuated from war-torn Yemen in April
2015.[149] C-17 also played a major role in supplying
and rescuing during devastating 2015 Nepal earthquake,
which killed nearly 6,000. C-17s were used to transport
relief material and rescue Indian citizens.[150]

11.3.7 Others
Boeing delivered Qatars rst C-17 on 11 August 2009
and the second on 10 September 2009 for the Qatar Emiri
Air Force.[151] Qatar received its third C-17 in 2012, and
fourth C-17 was received on 10 December 2012.[152] In
June 2013, the New York Times reported that Qatar was
allegedly using its C-17s to ship weapons from Libya to
the Syrian opposition during the civil war via Turkey.[153]

The IAFs rst C-17, 2013

The aircraft provides strategic airlift and the ability to deploy special forces, such as during national
emergencies.[136] They are operated in diverse terrain
from Himalayan air bases in North India at 13,000
ft (4,000 m) to Indian Ocean bases in South India.[137]
The C-17s are based at Hindon Air Force Station and
are operated by the No. 81 Squadron Skylords.[138][139]
The rst C-17 was delivered in January 2013 for testing and training;[140] it was ocially accepted on 11
June 2013.[141] The second C-17 was delivered on 23
July 2013 and put into service immediately. IAF Chief
of Air Sta Norman AK Browne called the Globemaster III a major component in the IAFs modernization
drive" while taking delivery of the aircraft at Boeings
Long Beach factory.[142] On 2 September 2013, the Skylords squadron with three C-17s ocially entered IAF
service.[143]
The Skylords regularly y missions within India, such
as to high-altitude bases at Leh and Thoise. The IAF
rst used the C-17 to transport an infantry battalions
equipment to Port Blair on Andaman Islands on 1
July 2013.[144][145] Foreign deployments to date include
Tajikistan in August 2013, and Rwanda to support Indian
peacekeepers.[134] One C-17 was used for transporting relief materials during Cyclone Phailin.[146] The fth aircraft was received in November 2013.[147] The sixth aircraft was received in July 2014.[148]
The C-17 played a crucial role in Operation Raahat, in
which over 4,500 Indian nationals and 960 foreign nationals from 41 countries including US, UK, France, Canada

United Arab Emirates Air Force C-17

In February 2009, the United Arab Emirates Air Force


agreed to purchase four C-17s.[154] In January 2010, a
contract was signed for six C-17s.[155] In May 2011, the
rst C-17 was handed over and the last of the six was
received in June 2012.[156][157]
Kuwait requested the purchase of one C-17 in September 2010 and a second in April 2013 through the U.S.'s
Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program.[158] The nation
ordered two C-17s; the rst was delivered on 13 February 2014.[159]

11.4 Variants
C-17A: Initial military airlifter version.
C-17A ER": Unocial name for C-17As with
extended range due to the addition of the center
wing tank.[55][160] This upgrade was incorporated
in production beginning in 2001 with Block 13
aircraft.[160]
C-17B: Proposed tactical airlifter version. The
design includes double-slotted aps, an additional
main landing gear on center fuselage, more powerful engines and other systems for shorter landing and
take-o distances.[161] Boeing oered the C-17B to

11.5. OPERATORS

133

the U.S. military in 2007 for carrying the Armys


Future Combat Systems (FCS) vehicles and other
equipment.[162]
MD-17:
Proposed variant for civilian
operators.[163] Later re-designated as BC-17
after 1997 merger.[164]

11.5 Operators
USAF C-17 transporting a Dutch PzH 2000 self-propelled howitzer to Afghanistan, September 2006

C-17 operators

C-17 in an Aeromedical Evacuation conguration

RAF, RAAF and USAF C-17s and ight crews at RAF Brize Norton in June 2007

82nd Airborne paratroopers seated before an airdrop

No. 36 Squadron[165]
Canada
A training mission in Jan. 2007 over the Hawaiian Islands

Australia

Royal Australian Air Force six C-17ERs in


service[95]

Royal Canadian Air Force ve CC-177 (C-17ER)


in use.
429 Transport Squadron, CFB Trenton[166]
India

134

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

Indian Air Force 10 C-17s ordered,[167] with six


delivered by July 2014.[148]
No. 81 Squadron Skylords, AFS Hindon[138]
NATO

305th Air Mobility Wing - McGuire AFB, New Jersey


6th Airlift Squadron
436th Airlift Wing - Dover AFB, Delaware

Heavy Airlift Wing three in service,[168] including


1 C-17 contributed by the USAF.[169] and based at
Ppa Air Base, Hungary.
Kuwait

Kuwait Air Force one C-17 in inventory and a second C-17 on order as of February 2014.[159]

3d Airlift Squadron
437th Airlift Wing - Charleston AFB, South Carolina
14th Airlift Squadron
15th Airlift Squadron
16th Airlift Squadron
17th Airlift Squadron(deactivating
in summer, 2015)[173]
Pacic Air Forces

Qatar

3d Wing - Elmendorf AFB, Alaska


Qatari Emiri Air Force four C-17As in use

[152]

517th Airlift Squadron


United Arab Emirates

United Arab Emirates Air Force six C-17As in


service[155]
United Kingdom

Royal Air Force eight C-17ERs[170]

15th Airlift Wing - Hickam AFB, Hawaii


535th Airlift Squadron
Air Education and Training Command
97th Air Mobility Wing - Altus AFB, Oklahoma
58th Airlift Squadron
Air Force Material Command

No. 99 Squadron, RAF Brize Norton


412th Test Wing - Edwards AFB, California
United States
418th Flight Test Squadron
United States Air Force 223 total (70 C-17A, 153 C17A-ER)[171][172]

Air Force Reserve Command


315th Airlift Wing (Associate) - Charleston AFB,
SC

Air Mobility Command


60th Air Mobility Wing - Travis AFB, California
21st Airlift Squadron
62d Airlift Wing - McChord AFB, Washington
4th Airlift Squadron
7th Airlift Squadron
8th Airlift Squadron
10th Airlift Squadron (deactivating
summer, 2016)[173]

300th Airlift Squadron


317th Airlift Squadron
701st Airlift Squadron
349th Air Mobility Wing (Associate) - Travis AFB,
CA
301st Airlift Squadron
445th Airlift Wing - Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio
89th Airlift Squadron

11.6. ACCIDENTS AND NOTABLE INCIDENTS

135

446th Airlift Wing (Associate) - McChord AFB,


WA
97th Airlift Squadron
313th Airlift Squadron
728th Airlift Squadron
452d Air Mobility Wing - March ARB, CA
729th Airlift Squadron
730th Air Mobility Training
Squadron (Altus AFB, OK)
512th Airlift Wing (Associate) - Dover AFB, DE
326th Airlift Squadron
514th Air Mobility Wing (Associate) - McGuire
AFB, NJ

C-17 on the runway at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan on 30 January 2009 after landing with landing gear retracted.

On 10 December 2003, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF


Serial No. 98-0057) was hit by a surface-to-air missile after take-o from Baghdad, Iraq. One engine
was disabled and the aircraft returned for a safe
landing.[176] The aircraft was repaired and returned
to service.[177]

732d Airlift Squadron


Air National Guard
105th Airlift Wing Stewart ANGB, New York
137th Airlift Squadron
154th Wing Hickam AFB, HI
204th Airlift Squadron
164th Airlift Wing Memphis, Tennessee

On 6 August 2005, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF Serial No. 01-0196) ran o the runway at Bagram
Air Base in Afghanistan while attempting to land,
destroying the aircrafts nose and main landing
gear.[178] It took two months to make the aircraft
ightworthy, the aircraft was own to Boeings Long
Beach facility by a test pilot, as the temporary repairs imposed performance limitations.[179] In October 2006, the aircraft returned to service after receiving repairs.

155th Airlift Squadron


172d Airlift Wing Jackson, Mississippi
183d Airlift Squadron
176th Wing (Associate) Elmendorf AFB, Alaska
249th Airlift Squadron

On 30 January 2009, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF


Serial No. 96-0002 Spirit of the Air Force)
made a gear-up landing at Bagram Air Base.[180][181]
The C-17 was ferried from Bagram AB, making several stops along the way, to Boeings Long Beach
plant for extensive repairs. The USAF Aircraft Accident Investigation Board concluded the cause was
the crews failure to lower the landing gear, having
not followed the pre-landing checklist.[182]

11.6 Accidents and notable incidents


On 10 September 1998, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF
Serial No.96-0006) delivered Keiko the whale to
Vestmannaeyjar, Iceland, a 3,800-foot (1,200 m)
runway, and suered a landing gear failure during
landing. There were no injuries, but the aircraft received major damage to the landing gear. After receiving temporary repairs, the C-17 was own to another city in Iceland for further repairs.[174][175]

On 28 July 2010, a U.S. Air Force C-17 (AF Serial


No. 00-0173 Spirit of the Aleutians) crashed at
Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska while practicing
for the 2010 Arctic Thunder Air Show, killing all
four aboard.[183] The C-17 crashed near a railroad,
disrupting rail operations.[184] A military investigative report determined that a stall caused by pilot
error led to the crash.[185] This is the only fatal C-17
crash and its only hull-loss incident.[184]

136

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

11.7 Specications (C-17)

Payload: 170,900 lb (77,519 kg) of cargo distributed at max over 18 463L master pallets or a mix
of palletized cargo and vehicles
Length: 174 ft (53 m)
Wingspan: 169.8 ft (51.75 m)
Height: 55.1 ft (16.8 m)
Wing area: 3,800 ft (353 m)
Empty weight: 282,500 lb (128,100 kg)

Three C-17s unload supplies to help victims of Hurricane


Katrina at Keesler Air Force Base, Mississippi, in August
2005.

Max. takeo weight: 585,000 lb (265,350 kg)


Powerplant: 4 Pratt & Whitney F117-PW-100
turbofans, 40,440 lbf (180 kN) each
Fuel capacity: 35,546 U.S. gal (134,556 L)
Performance
Cruise speed: Mach 0.74 (450 knots, 515 mph,
830 km/h)
Range: 2,420 nmi[186] (2,785 mi, 4,482 km) ;
5,610 nmi (10,390 km) with paratroopers

A C-17 creates a visible vortex while using reverse thrust


to push the aircraft backwards on a runway.

Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (13,716 m)


Max. wing loading: 150 lb/ft (750 kg/m)
Minimum thrust/weight: 0.277
Takeo run at MTOW: 7,600 ft (2,316 m)[186]
Landing distance: 3,500 ft (1,060 m)

A C-17 does a combat o-load of pallets in Afghanistan,


June 2009
Data from U.S. Air Force fact sheet,[56] Boeing,[186][187]
General characteristics

11.8 See also


Airhead
Strategic airlift
Related development

McDonnell Douglas YC-15


Crew: 3: 2 pilots, 1 loadmaster (ve additional personnel required for aeromedical evacuation)
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Capacity:
102 paratroopers or
134 troops with palletized and sidewall seats
or
54 troops with sidewall seats (allows 13 cargo
pallets) only or
36 litter and 54 ambulatory patients and medical attendants or
Cargo, such as an M1 Abrams tank, three
Strykers, or six M1117 Armored Security Vehicles

Antonov An-124
Ilyushin Il-76
Lockheed C-5 Galaxy
Lockheed C-141 Starlifter
Xian Y-20
Related lists
List of active Canadian military aircraft
List of active United States military aircraft
List of active United Kingdom military aircraft

11.9. REFERENCES

137

11.9 References

[23] Parts Orders for C-17 far too high, GAO says. Charlotte
Observer, 16 March 1994.

11.9.1

[24] The C-17 Proposed Settlement and Program Update.


United States General Accounting Oce, 28 April 1994.

Citations

[1] Workers at Boeing Say Goodbye to C-17 with Last Major


Join Thursday. Press-Telegram, 26 February 2015.
[2] FY 2009 Budget Estimates, p. 2-1. US Air Force,
February 2008.
[3] Air Force Lets Advanced STOL Prototype Work. Wall
Street Journal, 13 November 1972.
[4] Miles, Marvin. McDonnell, Boeing to Compete for
Lockheed C-130 Successor. Los Angeles Times, 11
November 1972.
[5] Kennedy 2004, pp. 320, 24.
[6] Norton 2001, pp. 1213.

[25] Kreisher, Otto. House rescinds cuts in C-17 program.


San Diego Union, 25 May 1994.
[26] Comparison of C-5 and C-17 Aireld Availability.
United States General Accounting Oce, July 1994.
[27] C-17 Aircraft Cost and Performance Issues. United
States General Accounting Oce, January 1995.
[28] C-17 Globemaster Support of Operation Joint Endeavor. United States General Accounting Oce, February 1997.
[29] Bonny et al. 2006, p. 65.

[7] Norton 2001, pp. 13, 15.

[30] Air Force Secretary Says Modernization, C-17 on


Track. Air Force magazine, 19 September 1995.

[8] Douglas Wins $3.4B Pact to Build C-17. Los Angeles


Times, 3 January 1986.

[31] Future Brightens for C-17 Program. Press-Telegram, 31


March 1995.

[9] Kennedy 2004, pp. 70, 8183.

[32] Air Force lls Squadron of C-17s . Associated Press, 18


January 1995.

[10] Kennedy, Betty Raab. Historical Realities of C-17 Program Pose Challenge for Future Acquisitions. Institute
for Defense Analyses, December 1999.
[11] Fuller, Richard L. More load for the buck with C-17.
Chicago Tribune, 9 September 1989.
[12] Sanford, Robert. McDonnell Plugs Away on C-17. St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, 3 April 1989.

[33] Kilian, Michael. In Record Procurement U.S. Orders 80


C17s Plane Good Deal for 2,000 jobs in California.
Chicago Tribune, 1 July 1996.
[34] Wallace, James. Boeing to cut price of C-17 if Air Force
buys 60 more. Seattle Post, 2 April 1999.
[35] "$9.7 Billion U.S. Deal for Boeing C-17s. The New York
Times, 16 August 2002.

[13] Brenner, Eliot. Cheney cuts back on Air Force programs. Bryan Times, 26 April 1990.

[36] Boeing Company Funds Extension. Boeing, 9 July 2008.

[14] C-17s First Flight Smoother Than Debate. The New


York Times, 17 September 1991.

[37] Trimble, Stephen. Boeing in $3bn air force contract.


Flight International, 10 February 2009.

[15] Norton 2001, pp. 2526, 28.

[38] Cole, August and Yochi J. Dreazen. Pentagon Pushes


Weapon Cuts. The Wall Street Journal, 7 April 2009, p.
1.

[16] RL30685, Military Airlift: C-17 Aircraft Program.


Congressional Research Service, 5 June 2007.
[17] Technical Assessment Report; C-17 Wing Structural Integrity. Department of Defense, 24 August 1993. Retrieved: 23 August 2011.
[18] C-17 Wing Fails Again; Probe Is Sought. Seattle Times,
14 September 1993. Retrieved: 23 August 2011.
[19] Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Executive Independent Review Team. US Government Executive Independent Review Team via blackvault.com, 12
December 1993. Retrieved: 23 August 2011.
[20] Evans, David. Pentagon to Air Force: C-17 unks.
Chicago Tribune, 29 March 1993.
[21] Air Force Letter To Douglas Spells Out 75 Defects For
C-17. Los Angeles Times, 28 May 1991.
[22] C-17 fails engine start test. Press-Telegram, 12 April
1994.

[39] Kreisher, Otto. House panel reverses cuts in aircraft programs. Congress Daily, 12 June 2009.
[40] Vivanco, Fernando and Jerry Drelling. Boeing C-17 Program Enters 2nd Phase of Production Rate and Work
Force Reductions. Boeing Press Release, 20 January
2011.
[41] Hoyle, Craig. Australia to get fth C-17 in August.
Flightglobal, 19 April 2011.
[42] Sanchez, Senior Airman Stacy. Edwards T-1 reaches
1,000 ight milestone. 95th Air Base Wing Public Aairs,
20 March 2008.
[43] Why is USAF bringing maintenance in-house?" ightglobal.com, 18 May 2005. Retrieved: 18 August 2011.
[44] Miller,Seth and Michael C. Sirak. Likely End of the Line
for The Air Force C-17 Production. Air Force Magazine,
20 June 2012.

138

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

[45] The World, Aviation Week and Space Technology, August


4, 2014, p.10
[46] Meeks, Karen Robes (February 24, 2015), Long Beachs
Boeing workers assemble nal C-17, plan for an uncertain
future, Long Beach Press-Telegram, retrieved 2015-0228

[68] Trimble, Stephen. USAF reveals C-17 cracks and dispute on production future. Flightglobal.com, 4 April
2008.
[69] Mai, Pat. Air Force to receive its last C-17 today OrangeCountRegister.com,12 September 2013.

[47] Boeing to shut C-17 plant in Long Beach Chicago Tribune, 18 September 2013.

[70] O'Connell, Dominic. Political clash haunts MoD deal decision. The Business (Sunday Business Group), 5 December 1999.

[48] Boeing to end C-17 production in 2015.


times.com, 18 September 2013.

Military-

[71] Review turns up the heat on euroghter. Flight International, 22 July 2004.

[49] Boeing condent of placing unsold C-17s Flightglobal.com, 11 February 2014.

[72] "The Air Hospital" Channel 4, 25 March 2010. Retrieved:


10 October 2012.

[50] Waldron, Greg (10 April 2015), Australia conrms order


for two additional C-17s, Flightglobal (Reed Business Information), retrieved 10 April 2015

[73] Hoyle, Craig. UK receives fth C-17, as RAF eet passes


40,000 ight hours. FlightGlobal.com, 14 April 2008.

[51] Shukla, Tarun, A forelorn end to Californias aviation


glory, Wall Street Journal, May 6, 2015, pp. B1-2

[74] Browne: Purchase of extra C-17 will 'signicantly boost'


UK military operations. UK Ministry of Defence, 27 July
2007.

[52] C-17 Globemaster III Pocket Guide, The Boeing Company, Long Beach, CA, June 2010
[53] BDS Major Deliveries (current year). Boeing, March
2014. Retrieved: 5 April 2014.

[75] RAF gets sixth C-17 Globemaster. UK Ministry of Defence, 4 December 2007.
[76] Boeing delivers 6th C-17 to Royal Air Force. Boeing, 11
June 2008.

[54] Drinnon, Roger. "'Vortex surng' could be revolutionary. U.S. Air Force, 11 October 2012. Retrieved: 23
November 2012.

[77] RAF to get 7th C-17. AirForces Monthly, 18 December


2009.

[55] C-17/C-17 ER Flammable Material Locations. Boeing,


1 May 2005.

[78] Drelling, Jerry and Madonna Walsh. Royal Air Force


to Acquire 7th Boeing C-17 Globemaster III. Boeing, 17
December 2009.

[56] C-17 fact sheet. US Air Force. Retrieved 4 September


2013.
[57] Norton 2001, pp. 9495.

[79] Drelling, Jerry and Madonna Walsh. Boeing delivers UK


Royal Air Forces 7th C-17 Globemaster III. Boeing, 16
November 2010.

[58] Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Claims 13 World


Records. Boeing, 28 November 2001.

[80] Hoyle, Craig. UK to buy eighth C-17 transport. Flight


International, 8 February 2012.

[59] Collier Trophy, 19901999 winners. National Aeronautic Association. Retrieved: 1 April 2010.

[81] UK Shows Interest in Buying Another C-17 DefenseNews 24 November 2013.

[60] Department of Defense 2000, p. 39.


[61] Department of Defense 2000, p. 40.

[82] Mali: RAF C17 cargo plane to help French operation,


BBC, 13 January 2013

[62] http://www.dover.af.mil/units/index.asp

[83] McLaughlin 2008, pp. 4041.

[63] 105th Airlift Wing, New York Air National Guard History. Retrieved 3 March 2014.

[84] Stock Standard. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 11


December 2006.

[64] Anderson, Jon R. 1st ID task forces tanks deployed to


northern Iraq. Stars and Stripes, 10 April 2003. Retrieved: 8 June 2011.

[85] Heavy Lifting Down Under: Australia Buys C-17s. Defense Industry Daily, 27 November 2012.
[86] McLaughlin 2008, p. 42.

[65] New Mexico Airport runway damaged by Presidents


Cargo Plane. Associated Press, 1 September 2004.

[87] McLaughlin 2008, p. 46.

[66] C-17 proves its worth in Bosnian Supply eort. St Paul


Pioneer, 16 February 1996.

[88] Boeing delivers Royal Australian Air Forces First C-17.


Boeing, 28 November 2010. Retrieved: 13 August 2010.

[67] Fulghum, D., A. Butler and D. Barrie. Boeings C-17


wins against EADS' A400. Aviation Week & Space Technology, 13 March 2006, p. 43.

[89] First C-17 arrives in Australia. Australian Government:


The Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson, Minister for Defence, 4 December 2006.

11.9. REFERENCES

139

[90] Air Forces C-17 eet delivered on time, on budget. The [110] New military aircraft leaves on aid mission. Cnews.com,
Hon. Greg Combet MP, Parliamentary Secretary for De24 August 2007.
fence Procurement, 18 January 2008. Retrieved: 1 July
[111] Canada takes delivery of nal CC-177. Canadian
2011.
Forces, 3 April 2008.
[91] C-17 Globemaster heavy transport. Royal Australian Air
[112] Aircraft CC-177 Globemaster III. Royal Canadian Air
Force, 29 March 2008.
Force, 15 January 2010.
[92] Boeing, Australia Announce Order for 5th C-17 Globe[113] Top of the world welcomes CC-177 Globemaster III.
master III. Boeing Press Release, 18 April 2011.
airforce.forces.gc.ca. Retrieved: 18 August 2011.
[93] Fifth RAAF C-17 delivered. Australian Aviation, 23
[114] CTVNews.ca Sta (11 December 2014). Defence DeSeptember 2011. Retrieved: 15 September 2011.
partment to purchase Boeing C-17 Globemaster III.
[94] Clare, Jason. Sixth C-17A Globemaster III Letter of
CTVNews.ca. Retrieved 26 December 2014.
Request. Department of Defence. Retrieved: 23 Septem[115] Canada buys additional military cargo jet as C-17 prober 2011.
duction wraps up. CBC News. 19 December 2014. Re[95] Purchase of additional C17. Minister for Defence and
trieved 26 December 2014.
Minister for Defence Materiel joint media release, 20
[116]
March 2012.
[96] Heavy Lifting Down Under: Australia Buys C-17s. de- [117] Strategic Airlift Capability: A key capability for the Alliance. NATO. Retrieved: 1 April 2010.
fenseindustrydaily.com, 20 June 2012. Retrieved: 10 July
2012.
[118] Hoyle, Craig. Boeing delivers rst C-17 for NATO-led
Heavy Airlift Wing. Flight International, 15 July 2009.
[97] McLaughlin 2008, p. 45.
[98] Wroe, David; Ireland, Judith (22 July 2014). Australian [119] Drelling, Jerry and Eszter Ungar.3rd Boeing C-17 Joins
12-Nation Strategic Airlift Capability Initiative. Boeing,
military plane leaves for the Netherlands to return bodies
7 October 2009.
of Australian MH17 victims home. smh.com.au. Sydney
Morning Herald. Retrieved 23 July 2014.
[120] Background. Heavy Airlift Wing. Retrieved: 2 August
2012.
[99] Prime Minister Tony Abbott to y worldwide non-stop
on Airbus KC-30A. news.com.au. 14 August 2014.
[121] NATP Airborne Early Warning & Control Force: E-3A
[100] Abbott Government to spend $500 million on two new
Component. NATO. Retrieved: 1 April 2010.
Boeing C-17 heavy-lift transport jets. Retrieved on 12
[122]
October 2014.
[101] Australia to buy up to four more C-17s. Retrieved on 12 [123] Boeing C-17 Support Eort for Strategic Airlift Capability Exceeds 1,000 Missions - Defensemedianetwork.com,
October 2014.
7 September 2014
[102] PM conrms two extra C-17s for the RAAF. Australian
[124] Boeing says C-17 orders to extend line. Reuters, 16 June
Aviation. 10 April 2015.
2009. Retrieved: 1 July 2011.
[103] Whelan, Peter. Strategic lift capacity for Canada. The
Ploughshares Monitor, Volume 26, Issue 2, Summer 2005. [125] C-17 boosts Indias strategic airlift capability: IAF Air
Chief Marshal N A K Browne. The Economic Times. 24
[104] Airlift Capability Project Strategic ACP-S ACAN
July 2013. Retrieved 24 July 2013.
MERX Website Government of Canada
[126] Mathews, Neelam. India Requests Boeing C-17s. Avi[105] O'Connor announces military plane purchase. CTV.ca,
ation Week, 8 January 2010.
2 February 2007.
[127] US Congress clears C-17 sale for India. Deccan Chron[106] Wastnage, J. Canada gets USAF slots for August delivicle, 18 August 2011.
ery after signing for four Boeing C-17s in 20-year C$4bn
deal, settles provincial workshare squabble. Flight Inter- [128] IAF completes C-17 test-ight. Janes Information
Group, 5 July 2010.
national, 5 February 2007. Retrieved: 1 July 2011.
[107] Canada One C-17 makes rst ight. Boeing, 25 July [129] IAF nalises order for 10 C-17 strategic airlifters. The
Times of India, 17 March 2011. Retrieved: 1 July 2011.
2007.
[108] Boeing delivers Canadas First C-17. Boeing, 8 August [130] Prasad, K.V. India to buy C-17 heavy-lift transport aircraft from U.S. The Hindu, 7 June 2011. Retrieved: 7
2007.
June 2011.
[109] First CC-177 Globemaster III Receives Patriotic and Enthusiastic Welcome. Department of National Defence. [131] Indias $4-Bn Order To Support Jobs At Boeing. BusiRetrieved: 2 August 2012.
nessWeek, 7 June 2011.

140

CHAPTER 11. BOEING C-17 GLOBEMASTER III

[132] Purchase of Transport Aircraft. pib.nic.in, 12 December [153] Chivers, C. J.; Schmitt, Eric; Mazzetti, Mark (21
2011. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
June 2013). In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan
Weapons. The New York Times.
[133] Boeing delivers third C-17 Globemaster military transport aircraft to Indian Air Force. The Economic Times. [154] Trimble, Stephen. UAE strengthens airlift capacity with
C-130J, C-17 deals. Flight International, 25 February
23 August 2013. Retrieved 23 August 2013.
2009.
[134] Globemasters deployed for overseas missions. The
Times of India. 10 September 2013. Retrieved 10 [155] Boeing, United Arab Emirates Announce Order for 6 C17s. Boeing, 6 January 2010.
September 2013.
[135] India to buy more than 16 C-17 airlifters. Economic- [156] UAE receives rst C-17 transport. ightglobal.com, 11
May 2011.
times.indiatimes.com. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
[136] Knowles, Victoria. C-17 Globemaster for Indian Air [157] Boeing Delivers UAE Air Force and Air Defences 6th
C-17. Boeing, 20 June 2012.
Force. Armed Forces International, 1 August 2012.
[137] US Army chief apprised of Indian strategies. Deccan [158] Kuwait C-17 GLOBEMASTER III. U.S. Defense Security Cooperation Agency, 17 April 2013.
Herald. 24 July 2013. Retrieved 25 July 2013.
[138] Indian Air Force IAF. India Times, 10 July 2010.

[159] Boeing Delivers Kuwait Air Forces 1st C-17 Globemaster III. Boeing, 13 February 2014.

[139] Indian Air Force inducts C-17 Globemaster III, forms


Skylords Squadron. Frontier India. 2 September 2013. [160] Norton 2001, p. 93.
Retrieved 2 September 2013.
[161] Trimble, Stephen. Boeing oers C-17B as piecemeal upgrade. Flight International, 19 August 2008.
[140] 1st C-17 Airlifter Delivered to Indian Ocials. Defense News, 24 January 2013.

[162] Trimble, Stephen. Boeing oers C-17B to US Army.


Flight International, 16 October 2007.
[141] Boeing Transfers 1st C-17 to Indian Air Force. Boeing,
11 June 2013.
[163] Sillia, George. MD-17 Receives FAA Certication.
Boeing, 28 August 1997.
[142] IAF gets its second C-17. The Tribune. 23 July 2013.
Retrieved 24 July 2013.
[164] Saling, Bob. Boeing Is Undisputed Leader In Providing
Air Cargo Capacity (Boeing proposes BC-17X). Boeing
[143] C-17 Globemaster III Joins Indian Air Force
28 September 2000.
Armedforces-Int.com, 2 September 2013
[165] Master plan for C-17s. Air Force News, Volume 48, No.
[144] IAFs new C-17 ies non-stop to Andamans to supply
4, 23 March 2006.
Army equipment. The Times of India. 2 July 2013. Retrieved 5 July 2013.
[166] Canadas New Government Re-Establishes Squadron to
Support C-17 Aircraft. Canadian Department of Na[145] US, India Consider C-17 Exchange. Air Force Magational Defence, 18 July 2007.
zine. 31 July 2013. Retrieved 23 May 2014.
[167] Boeing says more India C-17 orders possible. Reuters.
[146] IAF C-17 Globemaster makes debut in Cyclone Phailin
Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
rescue eorts. Business Standard. 12 October 2013. Retrieved 27 October 2013.
[168] Multinational Alliances 1st Boeing C-17 Joins Heavy
Airlift Wing in Hungary. Boeing, 27 July 2009.
[147] Boeing delivers Indian Air Forces 5th C-17 airlifter.
Boeing. 26 November 2012. Retrieved 5 January 2014. [169] 3rd Boeing C-17 Joins 12-Nation Strategic Airlift Capability Initiative. Boeing, 7 October 2009.
[148] http://www.financialexpress.com/news/
indian-air-force-gets-sixth-c17-globemaster-with-vintage-package-in-belly/
[170] Wall, Robert. Aerospace Daily and Defense Report:
1274687
U.K. Adds Eighth C-17. Aviation Week, 9 February
2012. Retrieved: 10 February 2012.
[149] http://qz.com/377118/
by-sea-by-air-by-rail-how-india-is-pulling-off-one-of-its-biggest-international-rescue-missions/
[171] McChord Slated to Receive its Last New C-17 " Air
Force Magazine Daily Report, 26 March 2013.
[150] http://m.ibnlive.com/news/
iaf-c17-aircraft-with-237-indians-from-earthquakehit-nepal-arrives-in-delhi/
[172] Boeing delivers last USAF C-17
542222-3.html
[173] http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/
[151] Drelling, Jerry and Lorenzo Cortes. Boeing Delivers
tabid/223/Article/558620/
Qatars 2nd C-17 Globemaster III. Boeing, 10 Septemtwo-c-17-squadrons-to-be-inactivated-over-next-two-years.
ber 2009.
aspx
[152] Boeing delivers Qatar Emiri Air Forces 4th C-17 Globe- [174] C-17A S/N 96-0006. McChord Air Museum. Retrieved:
master III. Boeing. 10 December 2012.
2 August 2012.

11.10. EXTERNAL LINKS

[175] C-17 Accident During Whale Lift Due To Design Flaw.


ndarticles.com. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
[176] Information on 98-0057 incident. Aviation-Safety.net.
Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
[177] C-17, tail 98-0057 image from 2004. airliners.net. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
[178] Bagram Runway Reopens After C-17 Incident. DefendAmerica News Article. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.
[179] The Big Fix. Boeing Frontiers Online, February 2006.
[180] Bagram Air Base runway recovery. US Air Force, 4
February 2009.
[181] Bagram C-17 Accident Investigation Board complete.
U.S. Air Force, 7 May 2009.
[182] Aircraft Accident Investigation Board Report. USAF
Aircraft Accident Investigation Board, 5 May 2009. Retrieved: 3 September 2010.
[183] Four Dead in Alaska Air Force Base Crash. CBS News,
29 July 2010.
[184] Arctic Thunder to continue after 4 died. adn.com, 30
July 2010.
[185] Pilot error cause of Alaska cargo plane crash, report concludes. CNN, 11 December 2010. Retrieved: 1 July
2011.
[186] Boeing C-17 Globemaster III Overview. Boeing, May
2008.
[187] C-17 Globemaster III, Technical Specications. Boeing. Retrieved: 2 August 2012.

11.9.2

Bibliography

Bonny, Danny, Barry Fryer and Martyn Swann.


AMARC MASDC III, The Aerospace Maintenance
and Regeneration Center, Davis-Monthan AFB, AZ,
19972005. Surrey, UK: British Aviation Research
Group, 2006. ISBN 978-0-906339-07-7.
Department of Defense. Kosovo/Operation Allied
Force After-Action Report, 31 January 2000.
Gertler, Jeremiah. Air Force C-17 Aircraft Procurement: Background and Issues for Congress.
Congressional Research Service, 22 December 2009.
Kennedy, Betty R. Globemaster III: Acquiring the C17. McConnell AFB, Kansas: Air Mobility Command Oce of History, 2004.
McLaughlin, Andrew. Big Mover. Canberra:
Australian Aviation (Phantom Media), September
2008.
Norton, Bill. Boeing C-17 Globemaster III (Warbird
Tech, Vol. 30). North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2001. ISBN 1-58007-040-X.

141

11.10 External links


C-17 overview page and C-17 History page on Boeing.com
C-17 USAF fact sheet
C-17 page on GlobalSecurity.org
C-17 Globemaster III Military transport aircraft on
airrecognition.com
C-17 production list on rzjets.net

Chapter 12

Boeing C-32
The Boeing C-32 is a military passenger transportation
version of the Boeing 757 for the United States Air Force.
The C-32 provides transportation for United States leaders to locations around the world. The primary users are
the Vice President of the United States, using the distinctive call sign "Air Force Two", the First Lady and the
Secretary of State. On rare occasions, other members of
the U.S. Cabinet and Congressional leaders have been authorized to y aboard the C-32 for various missions. Presidents Barack Obama, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton
have at times own on a C-32 as Air Force One in place
of the larger VC-25A.

(6,900 mi; 11,000 km) range (the longest range of any


757 in operation). They have frequently been associated
with the Foreign Emergency Support Team of the U.S.
State Department.[2][3]

12.2 Design

12.1 Development and operation


The C-32 is a military version of the Boeing 757-200 extended range aircraft, selected along with the C-37A to
replace the aging eet of VC-137 aircraft. Active-duty
aircrews from the 1st Airlift Squadron, 89th Airlift Wing
at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, y the aircraft.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and former President George
The contract was awarded for the C-32 in August 1996. H. W. Bush aboard a C-32 in 2007
By using commercial o-the-shelf acquisition practices,
a new record has been set from contract award to aircraft
delivery: less than two years. The C-32 is the rst military
aircraft ever acquired in this manner. The 89th Airlift
Wing acquired the rst of four aircraft in late June 1998.
A further two were acquired in 2010, with both having
been used previously as commercial aircraft.
The 227th Special Operations Flight at McGuire Air
Force Base, N.J., has two modied C-32B aircraft supporting specialist worldwide airlift operations (c/n 25493
& 25494). They are known to be operated by the 486th
Flight Test Squadron located at Eglin Air Force Base,
Florida. These are the only U.S Air Force C-32B in existence although both aircraft have been associated with a
multiplicity of registrations. [1] These 757s are tted with
a generic (non-VIP) interior and 48 comfortable seats.
All luggage and cargo must be tted into the rear of the
main cabin (except for a small lower cargo hold that contains spare tires/wheels along with oil and hydraulic servicing units), the forward and aft lower cargo areas housing extended range fuel cells giving them a 6,000 nmi

President Obama and staers aboard a C-32A as Air Force One


in 2009 showing the second and third section.

The C-32 is a specially congured version of the Boeing


757-200 airliner. The C-32 body is identical to that of
the Boeing 757-200, but has dierent interior furnishings and more sophisticated avionics. For the C-32A, the
passenger cabin is divided into four sections:

142

12.4. SPECIFICATIONS (C-32A)

143

The forward area has a communications center, galley, lavatory and 10 business-class seats.
The second section is a fully enclosed stateroom
for the use of the primary passenger. It includes a
changing area, private lavatory, separate entertainment system, two rst-class swivel seats and a convertible divan that seats three and folds out to a bed.
The third section contains the conference and sta
facility with eight business-class seats.
The rear section of the cabin contains general seating
with 32 business-class seats, galley, two lavatories
and closets.
A C-32 taking o
The C-32 is more fuel ecient and has improved capa1st Airlift Squadron
bilities over its VC-137 predecessor. It can travel twice
the distance on the same amount of fuel and operate on
shorter runways down to 5,000 feet (1,500 m) in length. Air Force Special Operations Command
Its 92,000 pound (41,700 kg) fuel capacity allows the aircraft to travel 5,500 nautical miles (10,000 km) unrefu 193d Special Operations Wing - Harrisburg, Penneled. In-ight refueling is via a receptacle on top of the
sylvania
forward fuselage, just aft of the cockpit.
Heading the safety equipment list is the Trac Collision Avoidance System and Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System. Weather systems are enhanced
with a Predictive Windshear Warning System. Other
items include the future air navigation system with
Global Positioning System, Flight Management System/Electronic Flight Instrument System, Controller Pilot Data Link Communications and Automatic Dependent Surveillance.

150th Special Operations Flight


(McGuire Air Force Base, New
Jersey)
486th Flight Test Squadron - Eglin
Air Force Base, Florida

12.4 Specications (C-32A)

Inside the C-32, communications are paramount. The


Data from
Vice President, heads of state and other decision-makers
can conduct business anywhere around the world using General characteristics
improved telephones, satellites, television monitors, facsimiles and copy machines. The C-32 has state-of-the-art
Crew: 16 ight crew (varies with mission)
avionics equipment.
Capacity: 45 passengers
The six C-32A aircraft have blended winglets added by
Goodrich Aviation Technical Services in Everett, Wash Length: 155 ft, 3 in (47.32 m)
ington.
Wingspan: 124 ft, 8 in (37.99 m)
The C-32 has better short-eld capacity than the VC-25,
making it preferable when ying to locations without a
Height: 44 ft, 6 in (13.56 m)
runway long enough to accommodate the VC-25.
Max. takeo weight: 256,000 lb (116,100 kg)

12.3 Operators
United States

United States Air Force


Air Mobility Command
89th Airlift Wing - Andrews Air Force Base,
Maryland

Powerplant: 2 Pratt & Whitney PW2040 engines, 43,730 lbf (185 kN) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 605 mph (Mach 0.8) (968 km/h)
Range: 5,650 nautical miles unrefueled (11,100
km)
Service ceiling: 42,000 ft (12,800 m)

144

12.5 See also


Related development
Boeing 757
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Boeing VC-25
Related lists
List of military aircraft of the United States

12.6 References
[1] Type C-32 into 'Type' eld
[2] http://www.state.gov/j/ct/programs/index.htm#FEST
[3] Foreign Emergency Support Team (FEST)". US Department of State. Retrieved on May 8, 2013

The original version of this article was from the public domain source at Air Force Link

12.7 External links


Air Force C-32 factsheet

CHAPTER 12. BOEING C-32

Chapter 13

Boeing CH-47 Chinook


The Boeing CH-47 Chinook is an American twinengine, tandem rotor heavy-lift helicopter. Its primary
roles are troop movement, artillery placement and battleeld resupply. It has a wide loading ramp at the rear
of the fuselage and three external-cargo hooks. With a
top speed of 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h) the helicopter was faster than contemporary 1960s utility helicopters and attack helicopters. The CH-47 is among the
heaviest lifting Western helicopters. Its name is from the
Native American Chinook people.
The Chinook was designed and initially produced by
Boeing Vertol in the early 1960s; it is now produced by
Boeing Rotorcraft Systems. It is one of the few aircraft
of that era along with the xed-wing Lockheed C-130
HC-1B during in-ight evaluation
Hercules cargo aircraft that remain in production and
frontline service, with over 1,200 built to date. The helicopter has been sold to 16 nations with the U.S. Army and
Vertol began work on a new tandem-rotor helicopter desthe Royal Air Force (see Boeing Chinook (UK variants))
ignated Vertol Model 107 or V-107 in 1957.[4][5] In June
being its largest users.
1958, the U.S. Army awarded a contract to Vertol for
the aircraft under the YHC-1A designation.[6] The YHC1A had a capacity for 20 troops.[3] Three were tested
13.1 Design and development
by the Army for deriving engineering and operational
data. However, the YHC-1A was considered by most
of the Army users to be too heavy for the assault role
13.1.1 Early development
and too light for the transport role.[3] The decision was
In late 1956, the United States Department of the Army made to procure a heavier transport helicopter and at the
announced plans to replace the Sikorsky CH-37 Mo- same time upgrade the UH-1 Huey as a tactical troop
jave, which was powered by piston engines, with a new, transport. The YHC-1A would be improved and adopted
[7]
turbine-powered helicopter.[3] Turbine engines were also by the Marines as the CH-46 Sea Knight in 1962.
the larger Model 114 under the
a key design feature of the smaller UH-1 Huey utility The Army then ordered
[8]
designation
HC-1B.
The
pre-production Boeing Vertol
helicopter. Following a design competition, in SeptemYCH-1B
made
its
initial
hovering
ight on 21 September
ber 1958, a joint ArmyAir Force source selection board
1961.
In
1962
the
HC-1B
was
redesignated
the CH-47A
recommended that the Army procure the Vertol medium
1962
United
States
Tri-Service
aircraft
desigunder
the
transport helicopter. However, funding for full-scale denation
system.
It
was
named
Chinook,
which
alludes
to
velopment was not then available, and the Army vacilthe
Chinook
people
of
the
Pacic
Northwest.
lated on its design requirements. Some in Army Aviation
thought that the new helicopter should be a light tactical transport aimed at taking over the missions of the old
piston-engined H-21 and H-34 helicopters, and be consequently capable of carrying about fteen troops (one
squad). Another faction in Army Aviation thought that
the new helicopter should be much larger to be able to airlift a large artillery piece, and have enough internal space
to carry the new MGM-31 Pershing Missile System.[3]

The CH-47 is powered by two turboshaft engines,


mounted on each side of the helicopters rear pedestal
and connected to the rotors by driveshafts. Initial models
were tted with Lycoming T-53 jet engines with a combined rating of 2,200 shaft horsepower. Subsequent versions of the Chinook were congured with improved Lycoming engines and later with General Electric turbines.
The counter-rotating rotors eliminate the need for an anti-

145

146

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK


rotor blades, a redesigned cockpit to reduce pilot workload, improved and redundant electrical systems, an advanced ight control system and improved avionics.[10]
The latest mainstream generation is the CH-47F, which
features several major upgrades to reduce maintenance,
digitized ight controls, and is powered by two 4,733horsepower Honeywell engines.[11]

A CH-47 in a training exercise with US Navy Special Warfare, in


July 2008

A commercial model of the Chinook, the Boeing-Vertol


Model 234, is used worldwide for logging, construction,
ghting forest res, and supporting petroleum extraction
operations. On 15 December 2006, the Columbia Helicopters company of the Salem, Oregon, metropolitan
area, purchased the Type certicate of the Model 234
from Boeing.[12] The Chinook has also been licensed to
be built by companies outside the United States, such as
Elicotteri Meridionali (now AgustaWestland) in Italy, and
Kawasaki in Japan.

torque vertical rotor, allowing all power to be used for lift


and thrust. The ability to adjust lift in either rotor makes
it less sensitive to changes in the center of gravity, impor13.2
tant for the cargo lifting role, as well as its cargo dropping
role. While hovering over a specic location, increased
stability is aorded to such a twin rotor helicopter over 13.2.1
single rotor when weight is added or removed; for example when troops drop from or begin climbing up ropes
to the aircraft, or when other cargo is dropped abruptly.
If one engine fails, the other can drive both rotors.[9] The
sizing of the Chinook was directly related to the growth
of the Huey and the Armys tacticians insistence that initial air assaults be built around the squad. The Army
pushed for both the Huey and the Chinook, and this focus was responsible for the acceleration of its air mobility
eort.[3]

13.1.2

Operational history
Vietnam War

Improved and later versions


U.S. troops board CH-47 Chinook and UH-1 Huey helicopters
during Operation Crazy Horse, Vietnam, 1966

The Army nally settled on the larger Chinook as its


standard medium transport helicopter and as of February
1966, 161 aircraft had been delivered to the Army. The
1st Cavalry Division had brought their organic Chinook
battalion with them when they arrived in 1965 and a separate aviation medium helicopter company, the 147th, had
arrived in Vietnam on 29 November 1965.[13] This latter
company was initially placed in direct support of the 1st
Infantry Division.
A CH-47F practicing the Pinnacle maneuver whereby soldiers
are deposited without the helicopter landing.

Improved and more powerful versions of the CH-47 have


been developed since the helicopter entered service. The
U.S. Armys rst major design leap was the now-common
CH-47D, which entered service in 1982. Improvements
from the CH-47C included upgraded engines, composite

The most spectacular mission in Vietnam for the Chinook was the placing of artillery batteries in perilous
mountain positions inaccessible by any other means, and
then keeping them resupplied with large quantities of
ammunition.[3] The 1st Cavalry Division found that its
CH-47s were limited to a 7,000-pound (3,200 kg) payload when operating in the mountains, but could carry
an additional 1,000 pounds (450 kg) when operating near
the coast.[3] The early Chinook design was limited by its

13.2. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

147

rotor system which did not permit full use of the installed late 1978, Iran placed an order for an additional 50 hepower, and users were anxious for an improved version licopters with Elicotteri Meridionali, but that order was
which would upgrade this system.
canceled immediately after the revolution;[19] but 11 of
[20]
As with any new piece of equipment, the Chinook pre- them were delivered after multiple requests by Iran.
sented a major problem of customer education. Commanders and crew chiefs had to be constantly alert that
eager soldiers did not overload the temptingly large cargo
compartment. It would be some time before troops would
be experts at using sling loads.[3] The Chinook soon
proved to be such an invaluable aircraft for artillery movement and heavy logistics that it was seldom used as an assault troop carrier. Some of the Chinook eet were used
for casualty evacuation, due to the very heavy demand
for the helicopters they were usually overburdened with
wounded.[14] Perhaps the most cost eective use of the
Chinook was the recovery of other downed aircraft.[15]

In the 1978 Iranian Chinook shootdown, four Iranian


CH-47Cs penetrated 1520 km into Soviet airspace in
the Turkmenistan Military District. They were intercepted by a MiG-23M which shot down one, killing eight
crew members, and forced a second one to land. Chinook
helicopters were used in eorts by the Imperial Iranian
loyalist forces to resist the 1979 Iranian revolution.[21]
During the IranIraq War, Iran made heavy use of its USbought equipment, and lost at least 8 CH-47s during the
19801988 period; most notably during a clash on 15 July
1983, when an Iraqi Mirage F1 destroyed three Iranian
Chinooks transporting troops to the front line, and on 25
26 February 1984, when Iraqi MiG-21 ghters shot down
two examples.[22]
Despite the arms embargo in place upon Iran,[23][24] it
has managed to keep its Chinook eet operational.[25][26]
Some of the Chinooks have been rebuilt by Panha. Currently 20 to 45 Chinooks are operational in Iran.[27]

13.2.3 Falklands War


The Chinook was used both by Argentina and the United
Kingdom during the Falklands War in 1982.[28] The
Argentine Air Force and the Argentine Army each deployed two CH-47C helicopters, which were widely used
in general transport duties. Of the Armys aircraft, one
Troops unload from a CH-47 in the Cay Giep Mountains, Viet- was destroyed on the ground by a Harrier while the
nam, 1967
other was captured by the British and reused after the
[29]
Both Argentine Air Force helicopters returned
The CH-47s are generally armed with a single 7.62- war.
[30]
to
Argentina
and remained in service until 2002.
millimeter M60 machine gun on a pintle mount on either
side of the machine for self-defense, with stops tted to See also: Boeing Chinook (UK variants) Operational
keep the gunners from ring into the rotor blades. Dust history
lters were also added to improve engine reliability. At
its peak employment in Vietnam, there were 22 Chinook
units in operation. Of the nearly 750 Chinook helicopters
in the U.S. and South Vietnam eets, about 200 were lost 13.2.4 Afghanistan and Iraq wars
in combat or wartime operational accidents.[16] The U.S.
Army CH-47s supported the 1st Australian Task Force as
required.

13.2.2

Iran

During the 1970s, the United States and Iran had a strong
relationship, in which the Iranian armed forces began to
use many American military aircraft, most notably the F14 Tomcat, as part of a modernization program.[17] After an agreement signed between Boeing and Elicotteri
Meridionali, the Imperial Iranian Air Force purchased
20 Elicotteri Meridionali-built CH-47Cs in 1971.[18] The
Imperial Iranian Army Aviation purchased 70 CH-47Cs
from Elicotteri Meridionali between 1972 and 1976. In Soldiers wait for pickup from two CH-47s in Afghanistan, 2008

148

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

Approximately 163 CH-47Ds of various operators were 13.2.5 Disaster relief and other roles
deployed to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during
Operation Desert Shield and the subsequent Operation Since the types inception, the Chinook has carried out
secondary missions including medical evacuation, disasDesert Storm in 199091.[31]
ter relief, search and rescue, aircraft recovery, re ghting, and heavy construction assistance.[43] According to
Suresh Abraham, the Chinooks ability to carry large underslung loads has been of signicant value in relief operations in the aftermath of natural disasters.[44] Chinooks
operators have often deployed their eets overseas to support humanitarian eorts in stricken nations; Chinooks
of the Republic of Singapore Air Force assisted in relief
operations in neighboring Indonesia following the 2004
Asian Tsunami, and after the 2005 Kashmir earthquake
the Royal Air Force dispatched Chinooks to Northern
Pakistan to assist in recovery eorts.[44]
Three Japanese CH-47s were used to cool Reactors 3 and
4 of the Fukushima Nuclear power-plant with sea water after the 9.0 earthquake in 2011;[45][46] to protect the
The CH-47D has seen wide use in Operation Enduring crew from heightened radiation levels, lead plates were
Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom in attached to the oor.[47][48]
Iraq. The Chinook is being used in air assault missions,
inserting troops into re bases and later bringing food,
water, and ammunition. It is also the casualty evacu- 13.3 Variants
ation (casevac) aircraft of choice in the British Armed
Forces.[32] In combat theaters, it is typically escorted
by attack helicopters such as the AH-64 Apache for
protection.[33][34] Its lift capacity has been found of particular value in the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan
where high altitudes and temperatures limit the use of
helicopters such as UH-60 Black Hawk; reportedly, one
Chinook can replace up to ve UH-60s in the air assault
transport role.[35]
Chinook helicopter near Bagram, Afghanistan

The Chinook helicopters of several nations have participated in the Afghanistan War, including aircraft from
Britain, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Canada, and Australia. Despite the age of the Chinook, it is still in
heavy demand, in part due its proven versatility and
ability to operate in demanding environments such as U.S. Army soldiers ride inside a Chinook in November 2008.
Afghanistan.[36][37]
On 6 August 2011, a Chinook crashed near Kabul killing
all of the 38 aboard. It was reportedly shot down with a
rocket-propelled grenade by the Taliban. The 38 were
members of NATO and allied forces, including about
30 U.S. special forces and seven Afghan troops. The
previous biggest single-day loss for American forces in
Afghanistan involved a Chinook that was shot down near
Kabul in Kunar Province in June 2005 with the death of
all aboard, including a 16-member U.S. Special Operations team.[38][39]
In May 2011 an Australian Army CH-47D crashed during a resupply mission in Zabul Province, resulting in one
fatality and ve survivors. The helicopter was unable to
be recovered and was destroyed in place.[40][41] To compensate for the loss, the ADF added two ex-U.S. Army
CH-47Ds to the eet which are expected to be in service
until the introduction of the CH-47Fs in 2016.[42]

13.3.1 HC-1B
The pre-1962 designation for Model 114 development
aircraft that would be re-designated CH-47 Chinook.

13.3.2 CH-47A
The all-weather, medium-lift CH-47A Chinook was
powered initially by Lycoming T55-L-5 engines rated at
2,200 horsepower (1,640 kW) but then replaced by the
T55-L-7 rated at 2,650 hp (1,980 kW) engines or T55L-7C engines rated at 2,850 hp (2,130 kW). The CH47A had a maximum gross weight of 33,000 lb (15,000
kg). allowing for a maximum payload of approximately
10,000 lb (4,500 kg)[49] Initial delivery of the CH-47A

13.3. VARIANTS

149

Chinook to the U.S. Army was in August 1962. A total


of 349 were built.

13.3.3

ACH-47A

The ACH-47A was originally known as the


Armed/Armored CH-47A (or A/ACH-47A). It was
ocially designated ACH-47A by U.S. Army Attack
Cargo Helicopter and unocially Guns A Go-Go. Four
CH-47A helicopters were converted to gunships by
Boeing Vertol in late 1965. Three were assigned to
the 53rd Aviation Detachment in South Vietnam for
testing, with the remaining one retained in the U.S. for
weapons testing. By 1966, the 53rd was redesignated
the 1st Aviation Detachment (Provisional) and attached
to the 228th Assault Support Helicopter Battalion of
the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). By 1968, only
one gunship remained, and logistical concerns prevented
more conversions. It was returned to the United States,
and the program stopped.
The ACH-47A carried ve M60D 7.62 51 mm machine guns or M2HB .50 caliber machine guns, provided by the XM32 and XM33 armament subsystems,
two M24A1 20 mm cannons, two XM159B/XM159C
19-Tube 2.75-inch (70 mm) rocket launchers or sometimes two M18/M18A1 7.62 51 mm gun pods, and
a single M75 40 mm grenade launcher in the XM5/M5
armament subsystem (more commonly seen on the UH1 series of helicopters). The surviving aircraft, Easy
Money, has been restored and is on display at Redstone
Arsenal, Alabama.[50]

13.3.4

CH-47B

The CH-47B was an interim solution while Boeing


worked on a more substantially improved CH-47C. The
CH-47B was powered by two Lycoming T55-L-7C 2,850
shp (2,130 kW) engines. It featured a blunted rear rotor
pylon, redesigned asymmetrical rotor blades, and strakes
along the rear ramp and fuselage to improve ying characteristics. It could be equipped with two door-mounted
M60D 7.62 mm NATO machine guns on the M24 armament subsystem and a ramp-mounted M60D using
the M41 armament subsystem. Some CH-47 bombers
were equipped to drop tear gas or napalm from the rear
cargo ramp onto NLF (aka Vit Cng) bunkers. The CH47 could be equipped with a hoist and cargo hook. The
Chinook proved especially valuable in Pipe Smoke aircraft recovery missions. The Hook recovered about
12,000 aircraft valued at over $3.6 billion during the war.
108 were built.

CH-47C of the Italian Army

rst had Lycoming T55-L-7C engines delivering 2,850


shp (2,130 kW). The Super C included Lycoming T55L-11 engines delivering 3,750 shp (2,800 kW), an upgraded maximum gross weight of 46,000 lb (21,000 kg)
and a pitch stability augmentation system (PSAS). The
T55-L-11 engines suered diculties, as they had been
hurriedly introduced to increase payload; thus they were
temporarily replaced by the more reliable Lycoming T55L-7C. The type was distinguishable from the standard
C by the uprated maximum gross weight.
The type was unable to receive FAA certication to engage in civil activities due to the non-redundant hydraulic
ight boost system drive. A redesign of the hydraulic
boost system drive was incorporated in the succeeding
CH-47D, allowing that model to achieve certication as
the Boeing Model 234. A total of 233 CH-47Cs were
built. Canada bought a total of eight CH-47Cs, deliveries
of the type began in 1974. Receiving the Canadian designation CH-147, these were tted with a power hoist
above the crew door, other changes included a ight engineer station in the rear cabin, Boeing referred to the conguration as the Super C. The CH-47C saw wide use
during the Vietnam war, eventually replacing the older
H-21 Shawnee in the combat assault support role.

13.3.6 CH-47D

The CH-47D shares the same airframe as earlier models,


the main dierence being the adoption of more powerful engines. Early CH-47Ds were originally powered by
two T55-L-712 engines, the most common engine is the
later T55-GA-714A. With its triple-hook cargo system,
the CH-47D can carry heavy payloads internally and up
to 26,000 pounds (12 t) (such as 40-foot or 12-metre containers) externally. It was rst introduced into service in
1979. In air assault operations, it often serves as the principal mover of the 155 mm M198 howitzer, accompanying 30 rounds of ammunition, and an 11-man crew. The
13.3.5 CH-47C
CH-47D also has advanced avionics, such as the Global
The CH-47C principally featured more powerful engines Positioning System. Nearly all US Army CH-47D were
and transmissions.[51] Three sub-versions were built; the conversions from previous A, B, and C models, a total of

150

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

13.3.8 MH-47E
The MH-47E has been used by U.S. Army Special Operations. Beginning with the E-model prototype manufactured in 1991, there were a total of 26 Special Operations
Aircraft produced. All aircraft were assigned to 2160th
SOAR(A) Nightstalkers, home based at Fort Campbell
Kentucky. E models were conversions from existing CH47C model airframes. The MH-47E has similar capabilities as the MH-47D, but includes an increased fuel capacity similar to the CH-47SD and terrain following/terrain
avoidance radar.[58]
In 1995, the Royal Air Force ordered eight Chinook
HC3s, eectively a low-cost version of the MH-47E for
CH-47D of the Spanish Army in 2009
the special operations role. They were delivered in 2001
but never entered operational service due to technical is472 being converted. The last U.S. Army CH-47D built sues with their avionics t, unique to the HC3. In 2008,
HC3s to HC2 standard, to
was delivered to the U.S. Army Reserve, located at Fort work started to downgrade the
[59]
enable
them
to
enter
service.
[52]
Hood, Texas, in 2002.
The Netherlands acquired all seven of the Canadian
Forces' surviving CH-147s and upgraded them to CH- 13.3.9
47D standard. Six more new-build CH-47Ds were delivered in 1995 for a total of 13. The Dutch CH-47D
feature a number of improvements over U.S. Army CH47Ds, including a long nose for Bendix weather radar,
a "glass cockpit", and improved T55-L-714 engines.
As of 2011, the Netherlands shall upgrade 11 of these
which will be updated to the CH-47F standard at a later
date.[53] As of 2011, Singapore has 18 CH-47D/SDs,
which includes twelve Super D Chinooks, in service.[54]
In 2008, Canada purchased 6 CH-47Ds from the U.S.
for the Canadian Helicopter Force Afghanistan for $252
million.[55][56] With 1 CH-47D loss, the remaining 5 CH47D were returned by Canada in 2011 after their mission
in Afghanistan was over.

13.3.7

MH-47D

An American MH-47D stands ready to receive medical supplies


in Feyzabad, Afghanistan.

CH-47F

Soldiers prepare to board a CH-47F at the National Training


Center, Fort Irwin, California in November 2007

The rst CH-47F, an upgraded D model, made its maiden


ight in 2001; the rst production rolled out on 15 June
2006 at Boeings facility in Ridley Park, Pennsylvania,
and rst ew on 23 October 2006.[60] Upgrades included
new 4,868-shaft-horsepower (3,630 kW) Honeywell engines, an upgraded airframe featuring greater single-piece
construction for lower maintenance requirements.[61] The
milled construction reduces vibrations, eliminates exing points, and reduces inspection and repair needs; it
is also expected to increase service life.[62] The CH-47F
can y at speeds of over 175 mph (282 km/h) with a payload of more than 21,000 lb (9.5 t).[63] New avionics include a Rockwell Collins Common Avionics Architecture
System (CAAS) cockpit, and BAE Systems' Digital Advanced Flight Control System (DAFCS).[61]

The MH-47D variant was developed for special forces


operations and has inight refueling capability, a fast
rope-rappelling system and other upgrades. The MH47D was used by U.S. Army 160th Special Operations
Aviation Regiment. 12 MH-47D helicopters were pro- Boeing delivered 48 CH-47Fs to the U.S. Army through
duced. Six were conversions from CH-47A models and August 2008; at that time Boeing announced a $4.8 bilsix were conversions from CH-47C models.[57]
lion contract with the Army for 191 Chinooks.[63] In

13.3. VARIANTS
February 2007, the Netherlands became the rst international customer, ordering six CH-47Fs, expanding their
eet to 17.[64] On 10 August 2009, Canada signed a
contract for 15 CH-47Fs for the Royal Canadian Air
Force, delivered in 201314.[65][66] On 15 December
2009, Britain announced its Future Helicopter Strategy,
including the purchase of 24 new CH-47Fs to be delivered from 2012.[67] Australia ordered seven CH-47Fs in
March 2010 to replace its six CH-47Ds between 2014
and 2017.[68][69] AgustaWestland also domestically assembles the CH-47F under license, known as the Chinook ICH-47F, for several customers.[70]

151
The MH-47G Special Operations Aviation (SOA) version
is currently being delivered to the U.S. Army. It is similar
to the MH-47E, but features more sophisticated avionics including a digital Common Avionics Architecture
System (CAAS). The CAAS is a common glass cockpit
used by dierent helicopters such as MH-60K/Ls, CH53E/Ks, and ARH-70As.[73] The MH-47G also incorporates all of the new sections of the CH-47F.[74]
The new modernization program improves MH-47D and
MH-47E Special Operations Chinook helicopters to the
MH-47G design specs. A total of 25 MH-47E and 11
MH-47D aircraft were upgraded by the end of 2003.
In 2002 the army announced plans to expand the Special Operations Aviation Regiment. The expansion would
add 12 additional MH-47G helicopters.[75] On 10 February 2011, leaders and employees from the H-47 program
gathered for a ceremony at Boeings helicopter facility in
Ridley Park, PA, to commemorate the delivery of the nal MH-47G Chinook to U.S. Army Special Operations
Command. Modernization of MH-47D/E Chinooks to
MH-47G standard is due for completion in 2015.[76]

A CH-47F Block 2 is planned to be introduced after


2020. The Block 2 aims for a payload of 22,000 lb
(10,000 kg) with 4,000 ft/95 F high/hot hover performance, eventually increased up to 6,000 ft/95 F, to
carry the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle; maximum take
o weight would be raised to 24,500 kg (54,000 lb).
It features the composite-based advanced Chinook rotor
blade (ACRB) (derived from the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche) 20 percent more powerful Honeywell T55-715
engines, and the active parallel actuator system (APAS);
the APAS enhances the digital advanced ight-control
system, providing an exact torque split between the ro- 13.3.11
tors for greater eciency. A new fuel system combines
the three fuel cells in each sponson into one larger fuel cell
and eliminating intra-cell fuel transfer hardware, reducing weight by 90 kg (200 lb) and increasing fuel capacity.
Three 60 kVA generators for increased electrical capacity are also featured.[71][72]

CH-47J

The Army plans for a Block 3 upgrade after 2025, which


could include a new 6,000 shp-class engine with boosted
power capacity of the transmission and drive train developed under the future aordable turbine engine (FATE)
program and a lengthened fuselage. The Future Vertical Lift program plans to begin replacing the Armys
rotorcraft eet in the mid-2030s, initially focusing on A JASDF CH-47J ies from Iruma Air Base, Japan.
medium-left helicopters, thus the CH-47 is planned to be
in service beyond 2060, over 100 years after rst entering The CH-47J is a medium-transport helicopter for the
service.[72]
Japan Ground Self-Defense Force (JGSDF), and the
Japan Air Self-Defense Force (JASDF). The dierences
between the CH-47J and the CH-47D are the engine,
rotor brake and avionics, for use for general transporta13.3.10 MH-47G
tion, SAR and disaster activity like U.S. forces.[77] The
CH-47JA, introduced in 1993, is a long-range version of
the CH-47J, tted with an enlarged fuel tank, an AAQ16 FLIR in a turret under the nose, and a partial glass
cockpit.[77][78] Both versions are built under license in
Japan by Kawasaki Heavy Industries, who produced 61
aircraft by April 2001.[79]

A US Army MH-47 Chinook, lands aboard the USS Peleliu

The Japan Defense Agency ordered 54 aircraft of which


39 were for the JGSDF and 15 were for the JASDF. Boeing supplied yable aircraft, to which Kawasaki added full
avionics, interior, and nal paint.[80] The CH-47J model
Chinook (N7425H) made its rst ight in January 1986,
and it was sent to Kawasaki in April.[81] Boeing began delivering ve CH-47J kits in September 1985 for assembly

152

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

at Kawasaki.[80]

13.3.12

13.3.14 Civilian models

HH-47

On 9 November 2006, the HH-47, a new variant of the


Chinook based on the MH-47G, was selected by the U.S.
Air Force as the winner of the Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) competition. Four development HH-47s
were to be built, with the rst of 141 production aircraft planned to enter service in 2012.[82][83] However,
in February 2007 the contract award was protested and
the GAO ordered the CSAR-X project to be re-bid.[84]
However, the CSAR-X program was again terminated in
2009. In February 2010, the U.S. Air Force announced British Airways Helicopters 234LR at Aberdeen Airport in 1985
plans to replace aging HH-60G helicopters. The Air
Force is deferring secondary combat search and rescue
requirements that called for a larger helicopter.[85][86]

13.3.13

Other export models

BV-347 at the US Army Aviation Museum inFort Rucker, Alabama

A RSAF CH-47SD o loads commandos, during a demonstration


in 2008

The Royal Air Force variant of the CH-47C is known as


the Chinook HC1. The export version of the CH-47C
Chinook for the Italian Army was designated CH-47C
Plus. The Royal Air Force versions of the CH-47D are
known as the Chinook HC2 and HC2A.
The HH-47D is a search and rescue version for the
Republic of Korea Air Force. The CH-47DG is an upgraded version of the CH-47C for Greece. While the
CH-47SD (also known as the Super D) is a modied
variant of the CH-47D, with extended range fuel tanks
and higher payload carrying capacity; the CH-47SD is
currently in use by the Republic of Singapore Air Force,
Hellenic Army and the Republic of China Army.
Eight CH-47Cs were delivered to the Canadian Forces in
1974. These helicopters were in Canadian service until
1991, with the designation CH-147. These aircraft were
subsequently sold to the Netherlands and are now operated by the Royal Netherlands Air Force as CH-47Ds.
Plans are to completely replace the current eet of 17
CH-47Ds with the F-model and enlarge the eet to 20
aircraft, pending funding.

Model 234LR (long range): Commercial transport


helicopter. The Model 234LR can be tted out as an
all-passenger, all-cargo, or cargo/passenger transport helicopter.
Model 234ER (extended range): Commercial
transport version.
Model MLR (multi-purpose long range): Commercial transport version.
Model 234UT (utility transport): Utility transport
helicopter.
Model 414: The Model 414 is the international export version of the CH-47D. It is also known as the
CH-47D International Chinook.

13.3.15 Derivatives
In 1969, work on the experimental Model 347 was begun.
It was a CH-47A with a lengthened fuselage, four-blade
rotors, detachable wings mounted on top of the fuselage
and other changes. It rst ew on 27 May 1970 and was
evaluated for a few years.[87]

13.4. OPERATORS

153

In 1973, the Army contracted Boeing to design a Heavy


Lift Helicopter (HLH), designated XCH-62A. It appeared to be a scaled-up CH-47 without a conventional
body, in a conguration similar to the S-64 Skycrane
(CH-54 Tarhe), but the project was canceled in 1975.
The program was restarted for test ights in the 1980s
and was again not funded by Congress.[87] The scaled up
model of the HLH was scrapped at the end of 2005 at
Fort Rucker, Alabama.[88]

13.4 Operators
Main article: List of Boeing CH-47 Chinook operators

A CH-47 lifts an F-15 to a training installation at Creech Air


Force Base

NASA CH-47B used as an in-ight simulator at Moett Field. It


was formerly used by the U.S. Army, under number 66-19138.

Egypt

Greece

India (15 on order, yet to be received)

Iran

Italy

Japan

Libya

Morocco

Netherlands

Oman

Saudi Arabia

Singapore

South Korea

South Vietnam (former)

Spain

Taiwan

Thailand

Turkey (to be received)[90]

United Kingdom - See Boeing Chinook (UK


variants)

Argentina (former)

Australia

United Arab Emirates

Brazil (to be received)[89]

United States of America

Canada

Vietnam (former)

154

13.5 Notable accidents

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

13.6 Specications (CH-47F)

On 14 July 1977, a U.S. Army CH-47 helicopter was


shot down by North Korean forces after straying into
the DMZ.[91]
On 11 September 1982, at an airshow in Mannheim,
Germany, a United States Army Chinook (serial
number 74-22292) carrying parachutists crashed,
killing 46 people. The crash was later found to
have been caused by an accumulation of ground
walnut shell grit used for cleaning machinery,
which blocked lubrication from reaching transmission bearings.[92][93] The accident resulted in the
eventual discontinuation of the use of walnut grit as
a cleaning agent.
Orthographically projected diagram of the Boeing Vertol CH-47
Chinook.

On 6 November 1986, a British International Helicopters Chinook crashed on approach to Sumburgh Data from Boeing CH-47D/F,[101] Army Chinook
Airport, Shetland Islands resulting in the loss of 45 le,[102] International Directory[103]
lives and the withdrawal of the Chinook from crewGeneral characteristics
servicing ights in the North Sea.[94]
On 1 March 1991, Major Marie Therese Rossi Cayton was killed when her Chinook helicopter crashed
after colliding with a microwave tower during a dust
storm. She was the rst American woman to y in
combat during Desert Storm in 1991.[95]
On 2 June 1994, a British RAF CH-47 crashed
killing 25 passengers and 4 crew in Scotland.
On 29 May 2001, a ROK Army CH-47D installing a
sculpture onto Olympic Bridge in Seoul, South Korea failed to unlatch the sculpture. The helicopters
rotors struck the monument; then the fuselage hit
and broke into two. One section crashed onto the
bridge in ames and the other fell into the river. All
three crew members on board died.[96][97]
On 21 February 2002, a U.S. Army Special Forces
MH-47E crashed at sea in the Philippines, killing
all ten U.S. soldiers on board. No enemy re was
involved.[98]

Crew: three (pilot, copilot, ight engineer)


Capacity:
3355 troops or
24 litters and 3 attendants or
28,000 lb (12,700 kg) cargo
Length: 52 ft. fuselage, 98 ft 10 in. with rotors[104]
(30.1 m)
Rotor diameter: 60 ft 0 in (18.3 m)
Height: 18 ft 11 in (5.7 m)
Disc area: 5,600 ft2 (520 m2 )
Empty weight: 23,400 lb (10,185 kg)
Loaded weight: 26,680 lb (12,100 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 50,000 lb (22,680 kg)

Powerplant:
2 Lycoming T55-GA-714A
On 11 September 2004, a Greek Army CH-47SD
turboshaft,
4,733
hp (3,529 kW) each
crashed into the sea o Mount Athos. All 17 people
on board were killed, including four senior gures in
Performance
the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria.[99]
On 7 January 2013, a BV-234 N241CH owned by
Columbia Helicopters, Inc., crashed shortly after
taking o from the airport in Pucallpa, Coronel Portillo Province, Peru. All seven crew members were
killed.[100]

Maximum speed: 170 knots (196 mph, 315 km/h)


Cruise speed: 130 kt (149 mph, 240 km/h)
Range: 400 nmi (450 mi, 741 km)
Combat radius: 200 nmi (370.4 km) 230 mi

See also: Boeing Chinook (UK variants) Notable


incidents and accidents

Ferry range: 1,216 nmi (1,400 mi, 2,252 km[105] )


Service ceiling: 18,500 ft (5,640 m)

13.8. REFERENCES
Rate of climb: 1,522 ft/min (7.73 m/s)
Disc loading: 9.5 lb/ft2 (47 kg/m2 )
Power/mass: 0.28 hp/lb (460 W/kg)
Armament

up to 3 pintle mounted medium machine guns (1 on


loading ramp and 2 at shoulder windows), generally
7.62 mm (0.308 in) M240/FN MAG machine guns
Avionics

Rockwell Collins Common Avionics Architecture


System (CAAS) (MH-47G/CH-47F)
Turboshaft engine on the rear of a CH-47
M240 machine gun emplacement on the loading
ramp, as well as another partly visible on the right
shoulder window

13.7 See also


17th Aviation Brigade (United States)
United States Army Aviation and Missile Command
Related development
Boeing Chinook (UK variants)
CH-46 Sea Knight
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
CH-53 Sea Stallion
CH-54 Tarhe
Mil Mi-6
Mil Mi-26
S-64 Skycrane
Yakovlev Yak-24
Related lists

155

13.8 References
[1] Boeing Marks 50 Years of Delivering Chinook Helicopters. Boeing. 16 August 2012. Retrieved 2014-0129.
[2] CH-47F Selected Acquisition Report RCS: DDA&T(Q&A)823-278 (PDF). US Department of
Defense. 31 December 2011. p. 13.
[3] Leuutenant General John J. Tolson (1989). Vietnam Studies: Airmobility 196171. Department of the Army (US
Government Printing Oce). CMH Pub 90-4.
[4] Apostolo, Giorgio. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters. New York: Bonanza Books. 1984. ISBN 978-0517-43935-7.
[5] Goebel, Greg. Origins: Vertol V-107 & V-114. Vectorsite.net, 1 December 2009.
[6] Spenser, Jay P. Whirlybirds, A History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers. University of Washington Press, 1998.
ISBN 0-295-97699-3.
[7] Holmes, Alexander (26 October 1962). The Quiet
Americans-Our Marines Overseas. Los Angeles Times.
[8] Warwick, Graham (1 April 2008). Chinook: Five
decades of development. Flight International.
[9] Chinook Information and diagrams about the transmission system. Retrieved 13 November 2014.
[10] Belden, Tom (21 May 1982). This Whirlybirds an early
bird: Boeing Vertols Army copter delivered on budget.
Philadelphia Inquirer.
[11] Boeing Receives $1.15B Contract for 15 Canadian Chinooks, Announces Matching Reinvestment in Industry.
Boeing. 10 August 2009.
[12] Type Certicate Data Sheet No. H9EA (.PDF). Federal
Aviation Administration. 17 January 2007. Retrieved 8
February 2007.
[13] Chinook Copter to Vietnam. The New York Times. 11
August 1965.
[14] Scannell-Desch, Elizabeth A.; Marion Anderson (2000).
Hardships and Personal Strategies of Vietnam War
Nurses. Western Journal of Nursing Research 22 (5):
526550.
[15] Dunstan, Simon (2003). Vietnam choppers: helicopters in
battle 195075. Osprey Publishing. p. 81.
[16] Anderton, David & Miller, Jay Boeing Helicopters CH47 Chinook. Arlington : Aerofax, Inc, 1989, p. 8, ISBN
0-942548-42-6
[17] Marder, Murray (26 July 1973). Oil pact with U.S. rm:
Iran signs agreement. Victoria Advocate.

List of active United States military aircraft

[18] Szulcs, Tad (25 July 1971). U.S., Britain Quietly Back
Military Build-Up of Iran. The New York Times.

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the


Iraq War

[19] US reportedly will buy copters so Iran can't. Milwaukee


Journal. 22 January 1984.

156

[20] about:reader?url=http%3A%2F%2Firartesh.ir%
2Fpost%2F502&tabId=4
[21] Iranian troops smash four-day siege by Kurds. Lakeland
Ledger. 27 August 1979.

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

[42] ADF Bolsters CH-47D Chinook Capability. Ministerial press release. Department of Defence. 12 December
2011. Retrieved 25 December 2011.
[43] CH-47D/F Chinook page. Boeing.

[22] Sander Peeters. Iraqi Air-to-Air Victories since 1967.


Retrieved 13 November 2014.

[44] Abraham, Suresh. Tactical Transport Helicopters in Humanitarian Relief Operations. ADJ, April 2009.

[23] Roy, Amit (23 February 1980). Iran feeling squeeze of


European embargo. Spokesman-Review.

[45] Japanese military helicopters dump water on Fukushima


nuclear power plant. New York Post. Retrieved 13
November 2014.

[24] U.S. cuts o plane parts to Iran. Chicago Tribune. 9


November 1979.
[25] Iran, China Seek Military Equipment From Pentagon
Surplus Auctions. Fox News Channel. 16 January 2007.
[26] Iranian engineers overhaul Chinook helicopter. BBC
News. 27 January 2007.
[27] http://irartesh.ir/post/502
[28] British air and land forces outnumbered. Boston Globe.
21 May 1982.
[29] MoD uses 'cut and shut' chopper. BBC News. 18 July
2009.
[30] boeing-vertol CH-47C Chinook in Argentina Comando
de Aviacin del Ejrcito argentino. Helis.com. Retrieved
13 November 2014.
[31] CH-47D/MH-47E Chinook. Army Technology. SPG
Media Limited. 2006. Retrieved 27 August 2006.
[32] Paras tell of their fear under re. The Herald. 12
September 2000.
[33] UK leads Nato into Kosovo. BBC News. 12 June 1999.
[34] Crerar, Pippa (26 January 2006). Scots set for Taliban
Hotspots. Daily Record.
[35] Chinook Replaces Blackhawk in Combat. Air Transportation. 5 March 2008.
[36] Boeing Receives $1.15B Contract for 15 Canadian Chinooks, Announces Matching Reinvestment in Industry.
Boeing, 10 August 2009.
[37] MoD to buy 22 new Chinooks. The Daily Telegraph
(London). 15 December 2009.
[38] Copter Downed by Taliban Fire; Elite U.S. Unit Among
Dead. The New York Times, 6 August 2011.
[39] 31 U.S. Troops Killed in Afghanistan Helo Crash. Defense News, 6 August 2011.
[40] Dodd, Mark (31 May 2011). Insurgent re may have
caused fatal Chinook crash in Afghanistan. The Australian. Retrieved 31 May 2011.
[41] PRESS CONFERENCE WITH CHIEF OF THE
DEFENCE FORCE AIR CHIEF MARSHAL ANGUS HOUSTON AND MINISTER FOR DEFENCE
STEPHEN SMITH. Department of Defence. Retrieved
31 May 2011.

[46] The Christian Science Monitor. CH-47 Chinook helicopter begins dumping water on nuclear reactor. The
Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved 13 November 2014.

[47] http://www.citytv.com/toronto/
citynews/topic/japan-earthquake/article/
119408--concern-grows-over-spent-fuel-pools-as-crews-spray-nuclear-plan
Concern grows over spent fuel pools as crews spray nuclear plant with water
[48] http://www.nzherald.co.nz/japan-tsunami/news/article.
cfm?c_id=1503051&objectid=10713272 Japan crisis:
Radiation levels begin to dip
[49] US ARMY CH-47 Chinook Helicopter. Retrieved 13
November 2014.
[50] Guns a Go-Go. chinook-helicopter.com
[51] US Army CH-47A / CH-47B / CH-47C / CH-47D / SOA
Chinooks. Vectorsite.net, 1 July 2004.
[52] Boeing CH-47D model Chinook helicopters. chinookhelicopter.com
[53] Boeing, Netherlands MOD Mark 1st Flight of Royal
Netherlands Air Force CH-47F (NL) Chinook 26 January
2011.
[54] Gunner, Jerry (November 2011). Chinook at 50 World Wokka Operators - Republic of Singapore Air
Force. AirForces Monthly (Key Publishing Ltd) 284:
p.88 (pp.8490). ISSN 0955-7091.
[55] Equipment Procurement Afghanistan Air Capabilities
forces.gc.ca.
[56] Chinooks make their debut in Afghanistan canadianally.com
[57] Boeing MH-47D model Chinook helicopters. chinookhelicopter.com
[58] Boeing MH-47E model Chinook helicopters. chinookhelicopter.com
[59] Hoyle, Craig (6 June 2008). UK starts Chinook HC3 'reversion' work, amid criticism. Flight International. Retrieved 19 January 2009.
[60] New Boeing CH-47F takes ight, Aerotech News and
Review, 3 November 2006, p. 3.
[61] Chinook Helicopter Begins Operational Test Flights with
US Army (Press release). Boeing. 19 February 2007.
Retrieved 1 April 2015.

13.8. REFERENCES

[62] Holcomb, Henry. New Look Chinook. Philadelphia


Inquirer, 17 August 2007. archive link
[63] Boeing Awarded US Army Contract for 191 CH-47F
Chinook Helicopters (Press release). 26 August 2008.
Retrieved 1 April 2015.
[64] Boeing Signs Contract for Dutch Chinooks (Press release). Boeing. 15 February 2007. Retrieved 1 April
2015.
[65] Boeing Receives $1.15B Contract for 15 Canadian Chinooks, Announces Matching Reinvestment in Industry
(Press release). Boeing. PRNewswire. Retrieved 1 April
2015.
[66] Leblanc, Daniel (10 August 2009). Chinooks will y too
late for Afghanistan. The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 1
April 2015.
[67] As Cuts Loom, Britain Orders 24 Chinooks From Boeing. Defense News, 15 December 2009.
[68] Australia Ordering CH-47F Chinooks. Defense Industry Daily, 22 March 2010.
[69] The Hon. Greg Combet AM MP (20 March 2010). New
Chinook CH-47 helicopters. Media Release. Australian
Department of Defence.
[70] Chinook ICH-47F. AgustaWestland, Retrieved 4 July
2013.
[71] Warwick, Graham (22 April 2013). Block 2 CH-47F
to Tackle Payload Shortfalls. Aviation Weeks Defense
Technology International edition. Retrieved 1 April 2015
via Military.com. (Original story Aviation Week )

157

[81] Jackson, Paul (22 July 1999). Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 1999-00. THE BOEING COMPANY. BOEING
114 and 414. US ARMY MH-47E PROCUREMENT..
Retrieved 9 March 2011.
[82] Boeing News Release
[83] Global Security.org
[84] Bowing To GAO, USAF Likely To Recompete CSARX. Aviation Week, 28 February 2007.
[85] Trimble, Stephen. USAF abandons large helicopter for
rescue mission, proposes buying 112 UH-60Ms. Flight
International. 24 February 2010.
[86] USAF HH-60 Personnel Recovery Recapitalization Program Sources Sought RFI. FBO.gov, 23 March 2010.
[87] Goebel, Greg. ACH-47A Gunship / Model 347 / XCH62 HLH (Model 301) / Model 360. Vectorsite.net, 1 December 2009.
[88] XCH-62 with photo. Retrieved 13 November 2014.

[89] http://www.forte.jor.br/2015/01/14/
exercito-ja-prepara-recebimento-dos-helicopteros-ch-47f-chinook-american
[90] http://www.janes.com/article/47750/
turkey-advances-tfx-fighter-project-orders-new-rifles-more-f-35s-ch-47s
[91] ASN Wikibase Occurrence # 152334.
[92] Air show safety in the spotlight, BBC, 27 July 2002.
[93] Ursula J. Schoenborn v. The Boeing Company, 769 F.2d
115 (3d Cir. 1985) a case in the US Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit

[72] Trimble, Stephen (31 March 2015). US Army outlines CH-47F upgrades for 100-year lifespan. Flightglobal.com. Retrieved 31 March 2015.

[94] Report No: 2/1988. Report on the accident to Boeing


Vertol (BV) 234 LR, G-BWFC 2.5 miles east of Sumburgh, Shetland Isles, 6 November 1986

[73] Warwick, Graham. Chinook: CAAS unites rotorcraft


cockpits. Flight International, 1 April 2008.

[95] Marie Therese Rossi Cayton. Arlington National Cemetery site.

[74] MH-47E/G Special Operations Chinook product page.


Boeing.

[96] S. Korean Helicopter Crashes Into Bridge, 3 Killed.


Peoples Daily, 30 May 2001.
archive page on
Google.com

[75] John Pike. MH-47G Chinook. Retrieved 13 November


2014.
[76] Superfast Helicopters - Defensemedianetwork.com, October 25, 2011
[77] Crawford, Steve (2003). Twenty-rst century military helicopters: todays ghting gunships. Zenith Imprint. p. 48.
ISBN 0-7603-1504-3.
[78] goebel, greg. Chinook in commercial & foreign service.
Vectorsite.net. Retrieved 9 March 2011.

[97] Crew killed as Korean helicopter hits sculpture. The


Daily Telegraph, 30 May 2001.
[98] A Crash in Philippines. chinook-helicopter.com,
[99] Bamber, David. Four Orthodox church leaders die in air
crash. The Daily Telegraph, 12 September 2004.
[100] Portland-area native among 7 killed in Peru helicopter
crash. The Oregonian, 8 January 2013.

[101] Boeing CH-47D/F Specications.


[79] McGinley, Donna. Boeing Core Business Activities
November 2014.
(PDF). Advocacy and Public Policymaking. Retrieved 9
March 2011.
[102] U.S. Army Chinook Fact File

Retrieved 13

[80] Flight International. Number 4006. Volume 129. New- [103] Frawley, Gerard: The International Directory of Military
build CH-47D ready for co-production. p.11.. Flight InAircraft, p. 49. Aerospace Publications Pty Ltd, 2002.
ternational. 12 April 1986. Retrieved 9 March 2011.
ISBN 1-875671-55-2

158

[104] http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/rotorcraft/military/
ch47d/docs/CH-47F_overview.pdf
[105] United States of America. Naval Training Equipment
Center. Department of the Navy. Recognition Study Cards
US and Foreign Aircraft. Device 5E14H. LSN 6910-LLC006462. Orlando, Florida. 1982. 55 Cards. Annotation: 2252 kilometers.

13.9 External links


CH-47D/F, MH-47E/G, CH-47 history, and Model
234 Chinook history pages on Boeing.com
CH-47A/B/C, ACH-47A, CH-47D/F and CH-47
Chinook pages on Army.mil
CH-47 page on GlobalSecurity.org
CH-47 page on Vectorsite.net
Boeings New Combat-Ready CH-47F Chinook
Helicopter Fielded to First US Army Unit
Italian Chinooks CASR Article
The Kopp-Etchells Eect CH-47 Night Landings
in Afghanistan. Michael Yon online magazine
The short lm STAFF FILM REPORT 66-2A (1966)
is available for free download at the Internet Archive

CHAPTER 13. BOEING CH-47 CHINOOK

Chapter 14

Boeing E-4
The Boeing E-4 Advanced Airborne Command Post,
with the project name Nightwatch,[2] is a strategic
command and control military aircraft operated by the
United States Air Force (USAF). The E-4 series was specially modied from the Boeing 747-200B. The E-4 serve
as a survivable mobile command post for the National
Command Authority, namely the President of the United
States, the Secretary of Defense, and successors. The
four E-4Bs are operated by the 1st Airborne Command
and Control Squadron of the 55th Wing located at Outt
Air Force Base, near Omaha, Nebraska. An E-4B is denoted a National Airborne Operations Center when in
action.[3]

A right front view of an E-4 advanced airborne command post


(AABNCP) on the electromagnetic pulse (EMP) simulator for
testing.

14.1 Development
Two of the original 747-200 airframes were originally
planned to be commercial airliners. When the airline did
not complete the order, Boeing oered the airframes to
the United States Air Force as part of a package leading
to a replacement for the older EC-135J National Emergency Airborne Command Post (NEACP). Under the
481B NEACP program the Air Force Electronic Systems
Division awarded Boeing a contract in February 1973 for
two unequipped aircraft, designated E-4A, powered by
four P&W JT9D engines, to which a third aircraft was
added in July 1973. The rst E-4A was completed at
the Boeing plant outside Seattle, Washington in 1973. ESystems won the contract to install interim equipment in
these three aircraft, and the rst completed E-4A was delivered to Andrews AFB, Maryland in December 1974.
The next two were delivered in 1975, the third diered by
being powered by the GE F103 engine, which was later
made standard and retrotted to the previous two aircraft.
The A model eectively housed the same equipment as
the EC-135, but oered more space and an ability to remain aloft longer than an EC-135.[4]

Boeing delivered the rst E-4B (AF Serial Number 750125),[4] which was distinguished from the earlier version
by the presence of a large hump on the dorsal surface directly behind the upper deck. This contains the aircrafts
SHF satellite antenna.[6]

By January 1985 all three E-4As had been retrotted


to E-4B models.[4] The E-4B oered a vast increase in
communications capability over the previous model and
was considered to be 'hardened' against the eects of
electromagnetic pulse (EMP) from a nuclear blast. Hardening the aircraft meant that all equipment and wiring
on board was shielded from EMP. Additional steps were
taken to block radiation from the aircrafts cabin air management system and cockpit, including the novel use of
In November 1973 it was reported that the program cost the same screens used to cover the windows of microwave
was estimated to total $548 million for seven 747s, six ovens placed over the ight deck windows.
as operational command posts and one for research and The E-4B eet has an estimated roll-out cost of approxdevelopment.[5] In December 1973 a fourth aircraft was imately US$250 million each. In 2005 the Air Force
ordered; it was tted with more advanced equipment, re- awarded Boeing a ve-year, US$2 billion contract for the
sulting in the designation E-4B. On 21 December 1979 continued upgrade of the E-4B eet.[7]
159

160

CHAPTER 14. BOEING E-4


simultaneously. The projection screens have since been
replaced with at screen displays.[11]
The battle sta includes various controllers, planners, launch system ocers, communications operators,
weather ocer, communications operators, administrative and support personnel, and a chief of battle sta. The
Looking Glass missions were commanded by a general
ocer with two sta ocers, while the National Airborne Operations Center (NAOC) may rendezvous and
embark a member of the National Command Authority
(NCA) from an undisclosed location. There are at least
48 crew aboard any E-4B mission.

National Emergency Airborne Command Post internal conguration, April 1976

14.2 Design
The E-4B is designed to survive an EMP with systems
intact[8] and has state-of-the-art direct re countermeasures. Although many older aircraft have been upgraded
with glass cockpits, the E-4B still uses traditional analog
ight instruments, as they are less susceptible to damage
from an EMP blast.[9]
The E-4B is capable of operating with a crew up to
112 people including ight and mission personnel,[1] the
largest crew of any aircraft in US Air Force history. With
in-ight aerial refueling it is capable of remaining airborne for a considerable period (limited only by consumption of the engines lubricants and food supplies). In
a test ight for endurance, the aircraft remained airborne
and fully operational for 35.4 hours, however it was designed to remain airborne for a full week in the event of an
emergency.[10] It takes two fully loaded KC-135 tankers
to fully refuel an E-4B. The E-4B has three operational
decks: upper, middle, and lower.

14.2.1

Middle and Upper decks

The ight deck contains the stations for the pilot, copilot,
navigator, and ight engineer, including a special navigation station not normally found on commercial Boeing
747s. A lounge area and sleeping quarters for ight crews
and other personnel are located aft of the ight deck. The
ight crew consists of an aircraft commander, co-pilot,
navigator, and ight engineer.

Behind the projection room is the operations team area


containing the automatic data processing equipment and
seats and console work areas for 29 sta members. The
consoles are congured to provide access to or from the
automated data processing, automatic switchboard, direct
access telephone and radio circuits, direct (hot) lines,
monitor panel for switchboard lines, sta, and operator
inter-phone and audio recorder.
The aft compartment at the end of the main deck is the
Technical Control (Tech Control) area. This area was
the nerve center for all communications and communications technicians. Typically 3 of the 6 crew positions
were occupied here by specialized US Air Force Technicians that were responsible for the proper monitoring
and distribution of all communications power, cooling,
and reliability. The Technical Controller #1 (Tech 1,
TC1) was the direct interface with the aircraft Flight Engineer and Flight Crew. This position was also the main
focal point for all communications related issues. The
Technical Controller #2 (Tech 2, TC2) was responsible
for maintaining all Ultra high frequency communications
between the aircraft and the Nightwatch GEP (Ground
Entry Points). These GEPs provided 12 voice lines to
the aircraft which were used in the day-to-day operations
of the mission. Secure Voice was also provided. The
SHF Operator (or technician) maintained the SHF satellite link and provided other worldwide communications
services probably having replaced a lot of the UHF capabilities.
The rest area, which occupies the remaining portion of
the aft main deck, provides a rest and sleeping area for the
crew members. The rest area contains storage for food[11]
and is also used for religious ceremonies.
Within the forward entry area is the main galley unit
and stairways to the ight deck and to the forward lower
equipment area. This area contains refrigerators, freezers, two convection ovens, and a microwave oven to give
stewards the capability to provide more than 100 hot
meals during prolonged missions. Additionally, four seats
are located on the left side of the forward entry area for
the security guards and the stewards.

The middle deck contains the conference room, which


provides a secure area for conferences and briengs. It
contains a conference table for nine people. Aft of the
conference room is a projection room serving the conference room and the brieng room. The projection room
had the capability of projecting computer graphics, over- Behind the forward entry area is the National Command
head transparencies, or 35 mm slides to either the con- Authority (NCA) area, which is designed and furnished
ference room or the brieng room either singularly or as an executive suite. It contains an oce, a lounge, and

14.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

161

sleeping area, and a dressing room. Telephone instruments in this area provide the NCA with secure and clear
worldwide communications.
The brieng room contains a brieng table with three executive seats, eighteen additional seats, a lectern, and two
80 inch at screen LED monitors ush mounted to the
partition.
The communications control area is divided into a voice
area and a data area. The voice area, located on the
right side of the compartment, contains the radio operators console, the semi-automatic switchboard console,
and the communication ocers console. The data area,
located on the left side of the area, contains the record
communications console, record data supervisors console, high speed DATA/AUTODIN/AFSAT console, and
LF/VLF control heads. The E-4B can communicate with
the ground over a wide range of frequencies covering virtually the entire radio communications spectrum from 14
kHz to 8.4 GHz. Ground stations can link the E-4B into
the main US ground-based communications network.

An E-4 at El Dorado International Airport in Bogot, Colombia

(SAC).[12]

The aircraft were originally stationed at Andrews Air


Force Base in Maryland, so that the U.S. President and
Secretary of Defense could access them quickly in the
event of an emergency. The origin of the name NightThe ight avionics area contains the aircraft systems watch comes from the richly detailed Rembrandt paintpower panels, ight avionics equipment, liquid oxygen ing, The Night Watch, that depicts local townsfolk proconverters, and storage for baggage and spare parts.
tecting a town; it was selected by the Squadrons rst
commanding ocer. Later, the aircraft were moved to
Outt Air Force Base where they would be safer from
attack. Until 1994, one E-4B was stationed at Andrews
14.2.2 Lower Lobe
Air Force Base at all times so the President could easily
The forward lower equipment room contains the aircrafts board it in times of world crisis.
water supply tanks, 1200 kVA electrical power panels, The NEACP aircraft originally used the static call sign
step down transformers, VLF transmitter, and SHF SAT- Silver Dollar"; this call sign faded from use when daily
COM equipment. An AC/DC powered hydraulic re- call signs were put in use. When a President boards the
tractable airstair is located in the forward right side of the E-4, its call sign becomes "Air Force One". The E-4B
forward lower equipment area, installed for airplane entry also serves as the Secretary of Defenses preferred means
and exit. In the event of an emergency, the air stair can of transportation when traveling outside the U.S.[13] The
be jettisoned if necessary. The aft lower lobe contains spacious interior and sophisticated communications cathe maintenance console and mission specic equipment. pability provided by the aircraft allow the Secretarys seThe lower trailing wire antenna (TWA) area contains the
aircrafts 5 miles (8.0 km) long TWA reel which is
used by up to 13 communications links the antenna operators station, as well as the antenna reel controls and
indicators. Much attention has been given to hardening
this area against EMP, especially as the TWA, essential
for communicating with Ohio-class ballistic missile submarines, is also particularly eective in picking up EMP.

14.3 Operational history


The E-4 eet was originally deployed in 1974,[1] when
it was termed National Emergency Airborne Command
Post (NEACP) (often pronounced kneecap). The aircraft was to provide a survivable platform to conduct war
operations in the event of a nuclear attack. Early in the E4s service, the media dubbed the aircraft as the doomsday planes.[5] The E-4 was also capable of operating the
Looking Glass missions of the Strategic Air Command

nior sta to work for the duration of the mission.


With the adoption of two highly modied Boeing 747200Bs (Air Force designation VC-25A) to serve as Air
Force One in 1989 and the end of the Cold War, the
need for NEACP diminished. In 1994, NEACP began to
be known as NAOC, and it took on a new responsibility:
ferrying Federal Emergency Management Agency crews
to natural disaster sites and serving as a temporary command post on the ground until facilities could be built on
site. Evidently no E-4B was employed during the Hurricane Katrina Disaster of 2005, though one E-4B was used
by FEMA following Hurricane Opal in 1995.[14]
The cocked or on alert E-4B is manned 24 hours a
day with a watch crew on board guarding all communications systems awaiting a launch order (klaxon launch).
Those crew members not on watch would be in the alert
barracks, gymnasium, or at other base facilities. The 24
hour alert status at Andrews AFB ended when President
Clinton ordered the aircraft to remain at Outt unless
needed, though relief crews remain based at Andrews and

162

CHAPTER 14. BOEING E-4


E-8 aircraft, and could also perform many of the same
tasks of the E-4B. As of the 2015 Federal Budget there
were no plans for retiring the E-4B. The E-4B airframe
has a usable life of 115K hours and 30K cycles, which
would be reached in 2039; the maintenance limiting point
would occur some time in the 2020s.[23]

All four produced are operated by the U.S. Air Force,


and are assigned to the 1st Airborne Command Control
Squadron (1ACCS) of the 55th Wing at Outt Air Force
Base, Nebraska. Maintenance and crews are provided by
Air Combat Command. Operations are coordinated by
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base. One E-4B is kept on the United States Strategic Command.[1]
alert at all times.[1]
In the event that the President travels outside of North
America using a VC-25A as Air Force One, an E-4B will
deploy to a second airport in the vicinity of the Presidents
14.3.1 September 11, 2001
destination, to be readily available in the event of a world
On 11 September 2001, an aircraft closely resembling crisis or an emergency that renders the VC-25A unusable.
an E-4B was spotted and lmed orbiting the Washington When the President visits Honolulu, Hawaii, an E-4B has
away at Hilo International
D.C. area by news outlets and civilians, after the attack often been stationed 200 miles
[24][25]
Airport
on
Hawaii
Island.
on the Pentagon. This aircraft sighting has added fuel
E-4B and two C-32s at Defence Establishment Fairbairn,
Canberra, Australia during bilateral defense talks, February
2008

to the continued speculation and debate concerning the


September 11 attacks.[15][16] In his book Black Ice, author Dan Verton identies this aircraft as an E-4B taking part in an operational exercise, saying the exercise was canceled when the rst plane struck the World
Trade Center.[17] According to air trac control recordings and radar data, this E-4B call sign VENUS77 became airborne just before 9:44 am, circled north of
the White House during its climb, and then tracked to
the south of Washington DC where it held in a holding
pattern.[18][19][20]

14.3.2

14.4 Operators
United States

United States Air Force


55th Wing
1st Airborne Command and Control
Squadron (1ACCS)

Recent history

14.5 Variants
E-4A Three aircraft (s/n 73-1676, 73-1677, and 740787) produced. No bulge to house equipment on
top of fuselage.[26] These were later converted to E4Bs.[1]

USAF E-4B 75-0125 in Hilo, Hawaii, December 2013

E-4B One built (s/n 75-0125) and equipped with


52,500-lb CF6-50E2 engines. Has Nuclear electromagnetic pulse protection, nuclear and thermal effects shielding, advanced electronics, and a wide variety of communications equipment.[26]

In January 2006, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld


announced a plan to retire the entire E-4B eet starting in 14.6 Specications (E-4B)
2009. This was reduced to retiring one of the aircraft in
February 2007.[21] The next Secretary of Defense, Robert Data from USAF Fact Sheet,[1] Boeing 747-200
Gates reversed this decision in May 2007.[22] This is due specications[27]
to the unique capabilities of the E-4B, which cannot be
duplicated by any other single aircraft in Air Force ser- General characteristics
vice, and the cancellation in 2007 of the E-10 MC2A,
which was considered as a successor to the EC-135 and
Crew: up to 112

14.8. SEE ALSO


Length: 231 ft 4 in (70.5 m)
Wingspan: 195 ft 8 in (59.7 m)
Height: 63 ft 5 in (19.3 m)
Wing area: 5,500 ft (510 m)
Empty weight: 410,000 lb (190,000 kg)
Loaded weight: 800,000 lb (360,000 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 833,000 lb (374,850 kg)
Powerplant: 4 General Electric CF650E2
turbofans, 52,500 lbf (234 kN) each

163

14.8 See also


TACAMO
Related development
Boeing 747
Boeing VC-25
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Boeing E-6 Mercury
Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A
Ilyushin Il-80

Performance
Related lists
Maximum speed: 523 knots (602 mph, 969 km/h)

List of active military aircraft of the United States

Cruise speed: Mach 0.84 (555 mph, 895 km/h)


Range: 6,200 nmi (7,100 mi, 11,000 km)

14.9 References

Endurance: 150+ hours [10]

References

Service ceiling: 45,000 ft (14,000 m)


Wing loading: 150 lb/ft (730 kg/m)
Thrust/weight: 0.26

14.7 Notable appearances in media

[1] E-4B fact sheet. USAF. March 2005. Retrieved 19


April 2015.
[2] Section 214. Operational Priority, Air Trac Control
(PDF) (order), FAA, 9 February 2012, JO 7110.65U.
[3] Terdiman, Daniel (23 July 2013), Aboard Americas
Doomsday command and control plane, CNET, retrieved
23 July 2013.
[4] Michell 1994, p. 265.

The E-4B plays a prominent role in two motion pictures. [5] Doomsday Jets Increase in Cost. Spartanburg HeraldIn the 1990 HBO lm By Dawns Early Light, following a
Journal. Associated Press. 5 November 1973.
nuclear strike by the Russians the aircraft serves as a ying platform for the presumed president, the ex-Secretary [6] Bowers 1989, p. 528.
of the Interior who is played by Darren McGavin. The
aircraft is pursued by a Boeing EC-135 Looking Glass, [7] Boeing Awarded E-4B Product Support Integrator Contract. 21 December 2005.
which successfully intercepts it. In the 2002 motion picture The Sum of All Fears, the president and his sta travel [8] Dendy IV, Sta Sgt. John B (May 2000), Around
on an E-4B following the detonation of a nuclear weapon
the clock with the E-4B, Airman (magazine) (USAF),
by terrorists. In the novel, the Vice-president and his famarchived from the original on May 10, 2000.
ily are aboard the NEACP after terrorists explode a nuclear bomb in Denver while the President and his Na- [9] American Doomsday overview, video clip. National
Geographic.
tional Security Advisor are stuck at Camp David during
a blinding snowstorm. The E-4s program, Project Night- [10] Winchester, Jim (2006). The Encyclopedia of Modern
watch, was referenced in the book The Fallout, by S. A.
Aircraft. Thunder Bay Press. p. 264.
Bodeen.
[11] Guided Tour Inside the E-4B NAOC Doomsday Plane.

National Geographic produced a television special on


You tube. Horizontal Rain Blog. 30 September 2013.
doomsday planning of the United States which includes
[12] Alwin 1999, p. 608.
footage from inside an E-4 during a drill.[9]

164

[13] Gilmore, Gerry J. Rumsfeld Uses 'Flying Pentagon' To


Communicate During Trips. US Department of Defense,
1 August 2005.
[14] News Photo, US Virgin Islands: FEMA, 1995-09-16.
[15] 9/11: The mystery plane, CNN, 12 September 2007.
[16] Mystery 9/11 aircraft, The Raw Story, 13 September
2007.
[17] Verton 2003, p. 144.

CHAPTER 14. BOEING E-4


Tyler, Tim (1995). Who are the Nightwatch stations?" (PDF). Special Topic Report (3). Worldwide Ute News Club (WUN). Retrieved 2013-1228.
Verton, Dan (2003), Black Ice: The Invisible Threat
of Cyber-Terrorism, New York City, NY, US:
McGraw-Hill, ISBN 978-0-07-222787-1.

14.10 External links

[18] The 9/11 Mystery Plane Air Trac Control Recording.


[19] 84 RADES with NEADS mix.

USAF E-4 fact sheet

[20] 9-11: The Mystery Plane; not so mysterious

E-4 product page and history page on Boeing.com

[21] Federal Budget Program 0302015F E-4B National Airborne Operations Center (PDF). FY2008 Federal Budget.
February 2007. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
[22] Francillon 2008, p. 37.
[23] Federal Budget Program E00400 / E-4B (PDF). bgaaeroweb.com. March 2014. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
[24] E-4Bs at ITO. HNL RareBirds. 5 January 2010. Retrieved 9 February 2014.
[25] Plane at Hilo likely Bushs Air Force One backup. The
Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 25 October 2003. Retrieved 31
December 2013.
[26] den Daas, Gostar (January 2014). Boeing E-4 factsheet.
aviamagazine.com/factsheets. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
[27] Boeing 747-200 Technical Specications, Boeing

Bibliography
Bowers, Peter M. Boeing Aircraft since 1916.
London:Putnam, 1989. ISBN 0-85177-804-6.
Francillon, Ren J. Doomsday 747s: The National
Airborne Operations Center. Air International,
December 2008. Key Publishing, Syamford, Lincs,
UK. pp. 3237.
Haverlah, Je (2005). Nightwatch Outline.
Worldwide Ute News Club (WUN). Retrieved
2013-12-28.
Jenkins, Dennis R. Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP
(AirlinerTech Series, Vol. 6). Specialty Press,
2000. ISBN 1-58007-026-4.
Lloyd, Alwin T., A Cold War Legacy: A Tribute
to Strategic Air Command- 1946-1992. Missoula,
Montana, United States: Pictorial Histories Publications Company, 1999. ISBN 978-1-57510-052-4.
Michell, Simon. Janes Civil and Military Upgrades
1994-95. Coulsden, Surrey, UK: Janes Information
Group, 1994. ISBN 0-7106-1208-7.

E-4 page on GlobalSecurity.org


E-4 page on TheAviationZone.com

Chapter 15

Boeing E-6 Mercury


E-6B redirects here. For the common ight computer, July 1988. The E-6A, which was initially named Hersee E6B.
mes, entered service with VQ-3 on 3 August 1989, with
the second squadron, VQ-4 receiving its rst E-6As in
The Boeing E-6 Mercury (formerly E-6 Hermes) is an January 1991, allowing the EC-130Q to be phased on in
June that year. The E-6A was renamed Mercury in Auairborne command post and communications relay based
[2]
on the Boeing 707-320. The original E-6A manufac- tumn 1991 by request of the US Navy. Sixteen were
delivered up to 1992.
tured by Boeings defense division entered service with
the United States Navy in July 1989, replacing the EC- The E-6B is an upgrade to the E-6A. It included a bat130Q. It conveyed instructions from the National Com- tlesta area and updated mission equipment. The ight
mand Authority to eet ballistic missile submarines (see deck systems were later replaced with an o-the-shelf
communication with submarines), a mission known as 737 Next Generation cockpit. This greatly increases the
TACAMO (TAke Charge And Move Out). The E-6B situational awareness of the pilot and saves signicant
model deployed in October 1998 kept this role, but added cost over the previous custom avionics package. The rst
further command post capabilities and control of land- E-6B was accepted in December 1997. All 16 E-6A airbased missiles and nuclear-armed strategic bombers. The craft were modied to the E-6B standard, with the nal
E-6B replaced Air Force EC-135Cs in the Looking delivery taking place on 1 December 2006.[3]
Glass role, providing command and control of U.S. nuclear forces should ground-based control become inoperable. With production lasting until 1991, the E-6 was the 15.2 Operational history
nal derivative of the Boeing 707 to be built.
Codenamed Looking Glass, it is United States Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM)'s Airborne Command
Post, designed to take over in case the Global Operations Center (GOC), located at Outt Air Force Base,
Nebraska, is destroyed or incapable of communicating
with strategic forces. The term looking glass is used
because it mirrors the abilities of the US Navy to control nuclear forces.

15.1 Design and development

15.3 Specications
Data from Navy Fact File[1]
General characteristics
Navy E-6B Mercury at the Mojave Air and Space Port

Crew: 1225

Like the E-3 Sentry airborne warning and control system


(AWACS) aircraft, the E-6 is adapted from Boeings 707320 airliner. The rst E-6 made its maiden ight from
Boeings Renton Factory on 19 February 1987, when it
was own to Boeing Field, Seattle, for tment of mission
avionics, being delivered to the Navy for testing on 22

Capacity: 23

165

Length: 150 ft 4 in (45.8 m)


Wingspan: 148 ft 4 in (45.2 m)
Height: 42 ft 5 in (12.9 m)

166

CHAPTER 15. BOEING E-6 MERCURY

[2] Francillon 1995, p. 21.


[3] Walsh, Madonna and Brad Mudd. Boeing Delivers Final
Upgraded E6-B to U.S. Navy. Boeing, 1 December 2006.
Retrieved: 18 June 2011.

15.5.2 Bibliography
Francillon, Ren J. Messenger of the Gods: The
Boeing E-6 Mercury in USN Service. Air International, Vol. 48, No 1, January 1995, pp. 1924.
Detail of the E-6s wingtip

15.6 External links


Loaded weight: 342,000 lb (154,400 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 342,000 lb (154,400 kg)

E-6B Mercury Fact File page, and E-6A/B Mercury


(TACAMO) History page on Navy.mil

Powerplant: 4 CFMI CFM-56-2A-2 high-bypass


turbofans

E-6 Mercury (TACAMO) page at FAS.org

Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.862 (600 miles per hour
or 520 knots or 970 kilometres per hour)
Range: 6,600 nmi (7,590 mi, 12,144 km) with 6
hours loiter time
Service ceiling: > 40,000 ft (12,200 m)

15.4 See also


Related development
Boeing 707
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Boeing E-4
Northrop Grumman E-10 MC2A
Ilyushin Il-80
Related lists
List of active military aircraft of the United States

15.5 References
15.5.1

Notes

[1] US Navy Fact File: E-6B Mercury airborne command


post. U.S. Navy. Retrieved: 4 March 2007.

E-6B Mercury page on tacamo.navy.mil


E-6 Mercury page on tech.military.com

Chapter 16

Boeing VC-25
This article is about the current primary aircraft used as
Air Force One. For the history of the callsign and the
use of aircraft, see Air Force One.
The Boeing VC-25 is the designation of a United States
Air Force passenger transportation aircraft, a military
version of the Boeing 747 airliner. The two modied
Boeing 747s are designated VC-25A by the USAF.
The VC-25 is most famous for its role as Air Force One,
the call sign of any U.S. Air Force aircraft carrying the
President of the United States. The two aircraft currently in U.S. service are highly modied versions of Boeings 747-200B, with tail numbers 28000 and 29000. Although the Air Force One designation technically applies Boeing VC-25 Air Force One video
to the aircraft only while the President is aboard, the term
is commonly applied to the VC-25s more generally. They
often operate in conjunction with Marine One helicopters
that ferry the President to airports in circumstances where The VC-25 is not compliant with Automatic Dependent
a vehicle motorcade would be inappropriate.
Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) standards; the Air Force
is upgrading both airplanes. The Air Force reported
that the operating cost for each VC-25A is $210,877 per
hour.[4]
16.1 Development
By 1985, the pair of Boeing 707-based VC-137s used as
the Presidential aircraft had been in service for 23 and
13 years respectively, and the USAF began searching for
an eventual replacement. The Request for Proposal issued stated that the aircraft to be selected should have
at least three engines and an unrefueled range of at least
6,000 miles (9,700 km). Both Boeing with its 747 and
McDonnell Douglas with the DC-10 were in competition to be selected, with the Boeing entry the eventual
winner.[1] The fabrication of the current 747s began during the presidency of Ronald Reagan (19811989). Reagan ordered two identical Boeing 747-200Bs to replace
the Boeing 707s that he used for transport.[2]
The VC-25s were completed in 1986 and rst ew in
1987.[3] The interior designs were created by First Lady
Nancy Reagan, who used designs reminiscent of the
American Southwest.[2] Problems with interior wiring for
communication systems delayed delivery of the two aircraft until 1990,[3] during the administration of George
H.W. Bush.

16.2 Design and conguration


While the VC-25 has two main decks and a cargo area,
like a regular Boeing 747, its 4,000 square feet (370 m)
of oor space has been recongured for presidential duties. Its lowest level is mostly cargo space, carrying luggage and the onboard food supply.
The main passenger area is on the second oor or main
deck.[5] There are three entrances on board, two on the
lower and one on the main deck. Typically the president
boards and deplanes from the front, main deck entrance
via an airstair, while journalists and other passengers enter at the lower rear door. Facilities for the press and other
passengers are congured like an ordinary airliners rstclass cabin.[6]

167

168

CHAPTER 16. BOEING VC-25

President George W. Bush, Bill McGurn, Stephen Hadley and Ed


Gillespie gather in the presidents oce aboard Air Force One en
route to Bahrain in January 2008.

President Barack Obama meets with Rep. Dennis Kucinich, DOhio, aboard Air Force One en route to Cleveland, Ohio, March
15, 2010.

The conference room.

The corridor that runs down the port (left) side of the aircraft.
Secret Service agents are stationed in the two chairs.

aircraft had to land at Barksdale Air Force Base in order


for President George W. Bush to address the nation.[7]
These oces, including the presidents suite, are mostly
located on the starboard (right) side, and a long corridor
runs along the port (left) side. There is an area along the
corridor for two Secret Service agents. The aircraft also
contains a conference room, originally designed as a situation room but now used for meeting with sta while traveling. This room includes a 50-inch plasma screen television which can be used for teleconferencing. The aircraft
has fully equipped oce areas with telecommunication
systems (including 87 telephones and 19 televisions).[5]
The President and First Ladys private quarters. The couches can
fold out into beds.

16.2.1

The White House

On board the VC-25 is a medical annex, which includes


a fold-out operating table, emergency medical supplies,
and a well-stocked pharmacy; George W. Bush had a
treadmill added to Air Force One during his term in ofce. Every ight is staed by a doctor and nurse. The
aircraft is self-sucient, such as carrying all the food it
will need. Meals are prepared in two galleys, which together are equipped to feed up to 100 people at a time.[5]
The President gets his own menu. An area where guests
sit is near the center of the aircraft, outside the White
House.[5]

The front of the aircraft is referred to as the White


House of the aircraft.[5] The presidents executive suite
includes sleeping quarters with two couches that can be
converted into beds, lavatory and shower, vanity, double
sink, and a private oce, or the presidents Oval Oce
aboard Air Force One. If necessary, the president can There are separate quarters for guests, senior sta, Seaddress the nation from the oce. This capability was cret Service and security personnel, and the news meadded after the September 11 attacks, during which the dia located in the aft area of the main deck. Protocol

16.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

169

states that one may wander aft of wherever ones assigned


seat is, but not forward.[5] Communications equipment
and the cockpit are on the upper deck. There are also
secure and non-secure voice, fax and data communications facilities.[5] While the aircrafts luggage capacity is
adequate to carry the belongings of the passengers, the
logistics train of the President means that the aircraft
must y preceded by an aerial convoy of several cargo
transports, which carry the helicopters, motorcade vehicles, and other equipment required by the presidential
entourage.[5]
The VC-25 is capable of ying 7,800 miles (12,600
km)roughly one-third the distance around the world The casket of President Gerald Ford being lowered from the
without refueling. It can be refuelled during ight from cabin of SAM 29000 at Andrews Air Force Base, MD, 2006.
a tanker aircraft. The VC-25A can accommodate more
than 70 passengers. Each VC-25A cost approximately
US$325 million. When a VC-25 taxis to an airports
ramp for events, it stops with the port side of the aircraft
facing gathered onlookers.
missiles, and cha to avoid radar-guided missiles. All
small arms and ammunition stores not under the physical possession of the Secret Service on board the VC16.3 Operational history
25s are stowed and secured by the Secret Service in sepThe VC-25 replaced the VC-137C (a military version of arate locked compartments, each with a dierent lockthe Boeing 707) as the mainstay of the Air Force One ing mechanism for added security. Many of the VC-25s
eet. On some occasions, the VC-25s are used to trans- other capabilities are classied for security reasons.
port the Vice President of the United States, for which After a presidential inauguration in which there is a
service they adopt the callsign Air Force Two. These change in oce, the outgoing president is provided a
aircraft are maintained and operated as military opera- ight aboard one of the VC-25 aircraft to his home destions by the Presidential Airlift Group, part of Air Mo- tination. The aircraft is not known as Air Force One for
bility Command's 89th Airlift Wing, based at Andrews this ight because it is not carrying the president in oce.
Air Force Base in Camp Springs, Maryland.
For both Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush,
the ight was known as Special Air Mission 28000, with
28000 representing the aircrafts tail number.[8][9]

A VC-25 at MacDill Air Force Base in Florida on June 16, 2004

The aircraft can also be operated as a military command


center in the event of an incident such as a nuclear attack. Operational modications include aerial refueling
capability and anti-aircraft missile countermeasures. The
electronics on board are connected with approximately
238 miles (383 km) of wiring, twice that of a regular 747.
All wiring is covered with heavy shielding for protection
from an electromagnetic pulse in the event of a nuclear
attack. The aircraft also has electronic countermeasures
(ECMs) to jam enemy radar, ares to avoid heat-seeking

The VC-25A has also been used to transport deceased


former presidents. The guest area aft of the White
House has chairs and tables that can be removed and the
casket laid in their place.[5] The remains of both Ronald
Reagan and Gerald Ford were transported by SAM 28000
and 29000 respectively to Washington for their state funerals, and then on to their nal resting places. Colonel
Mark Tillman, pilot for President George W. Bush, said,
We'll take care of the president from basically when hes
in oce to when he lays [sic] in state.[5] For the funeral
of President Ronald Reagan in 2004, Tillman said that the
crew converted the front of the aircraft to look the way it
would have appeared when Reagan was president; President and Nancy Reagan's Air Force One jackets were
placed on the chairs to make them feel at home.[5] A
specially designed hydraulic lifter (similar to the type
used by airline catering) with the presidential seal axed
to the sides lifts the casket up to the portside aft door to
enter the VC-25A. The tradition of placing the caskets
inside the passenger cabin dates back to the assassination
of John F. Kennedy, when the crew refused to allow the
presidents body to be placed in the cargo hold,[10] and
again during the state funeral of Lyndon B. Johnson.[11]

170

CHAPTER 16. BOEING VC-25

16.3.1

Future

The current 747-200B aircraft are aging and are expected


to be replaced as they have become less cost-eective to
operate. The USAF Air Mobility Command is looking
into possible replacements and press coverage suggested
that the USAF would consider the Boeing 747-8 and the
Airbus A380.[12] On January 7, 2009, the USAF Materiel
Command issued a new Sources Sought notice for a replacement aircraft to enter service by 2017 with an additional two aircraft to follow in 2019 and 2021.[13] In
2009 Boeing was the only aircraft manufacturer interested in supplying the replacement aircraft,[14] and was
reported to be exploring a 787 option also.[15] On 28 January 2009, EADS North America conrmed the company will not respond to the US Air Force notice, as assembling only three airplanes in the US would not make
nancial sense.[16] On 28 January 2015, the Air Force announced the selection of the Boeing 747-8 to replace the
aging VC-25A for presidential transport.[17][18]

16.4 Operators
United States
United States Air Force

Cruise speed: Mach 0.84 (575 mph, 925 km/h) at


35,000 ft altitude
Range: 6,800 nmi (7,800 mi, 13,000 km)
Service ceiling: 45,100 ft (13,700 m)

16.6 Notable appearances in media


Main article: Aircraft in ction Boeing 747
The VC-25 Air Force One is a prominent symbol of
the American presidency and its power; with the White
House and presidential seal, it is one of the most familiar
presidential symbols. Air Force One has often appeared
in popular culture and ction, most notably as the setting
of the 1997 action movie Air Force One where the aircraft
had an escape pod and a parachute ramp, unlike the actual
Presidential aircraft.[20]

16.7 See also


Air Force One photo op incident
Air Force Two

Air transports of heads of state


89th Airlift Wing Presidential Airlift Group
(PAG) - Andrews AFB, Maryland
Related development

16.5 Specications (VC-25A)

Boeing 747
E-4 Nightwatch

Data from Boeing BDS[19]


General characteristics
Crew: 26: 2 pilots, ight engineer, navigator,[3] and
cabin crew
Capacity: 76 passengers
Length: 231 ft 10 in (70.6 m)
Wingspan: 195 ft 8 in (59.6 m)
Height: 63 ft 5 in (19.3 m)
Max. takeo weight: 833,000 lb (375,000 kg)

Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era


VC-137C SAM 26000
VC-137C SAM 27000
Boeing C-32
Boeing C-40 Clipper

16.8 References

Powerplant: 4 General Electric CF680C2B1 Notes


turbofans, 56,700 lbf (250 kN) each
Zero fuel weight: 526,500 lb (238,800 kg)
Performance
Maximum speed: Mach 0.92 (630 mph, 1,015
km/h) at 35,000 ft altitude

[1] Thomas, H. U.S. considers Air Force One from Airbus.


heraldnet.com. Retrieved: June 26, 2009.
[2] Williams, Rudi. Reagan Makes First, Last Flight in Jet
He Ordered. United States Department of Defense, June
10, 2004. Retrieved: July 28, 2013.
[3] Jenkins 2000, pp. 5556.

16.9. EXTERNAL LINKS

171

[4] Butler, Amy, and Guy Norris, Foregone Conclusion,


Aviation Week and Space Technology, 9 June 2014, pp.
40-41.

Albertazzie, Ralph and Jerald F. Terhorst. Flying


White House: The Story of Air Force One. Book
Sales, 1979. ISBN 0-698-10930-9.

[5] Wallace, Chris (host). Aboard Air Force One. Fox


News, November 24, 2008. Retrieved: November 28,
2008.

Braun, David. Q&A: U.S. Presidential Jet Air Force


One. National Geographic News, May 29, 2003.

[6] Harris, Tom. How Air Force One Works. HowStuWorks.com. Retrieved: October 10, 2006.

Dorr, Robert F. Air Force One. St. Paul, Minnesota: Motorbooks International, 2002. ISBN 07603-1055-6.

[7] Stebner, Greg (narrator). On Board Air Force One.


National Geographic Channel, January 25, 2009. Retrieved: June 26, 2009.
[8] Felsenthal, Carol. When Bill Clinton Left the White
House. Chicago Daily Observer, January 22, 2009. Retrieved: June 26, 2009.
[9] Bush ies to Texas to begin post-presidential life. New
York Times, January 20, 2009. Retrieved: September 9,
2011.
[10] Bernstein, Adam (April 29, 2006). Col. James Swindal; Piloted Air Force One After Kennedys Death. The
Washington Post. Retrieved August 16, 2011.
[11] Foley, Thomas (January 25, 1973). Thousands in Washington Brave Cold to Say Goodbye to Johnson. The Los
Angeles Times. p. A1.
[12] US considers Airbus A380 as Air Force One and potentially a C-5 replacement. Flight Global. 17 October
2007.
[13] USAF Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) Program. USAF Material Command, January 7, 2009. Retrieved: January 8, 2009.
[14] USAF Presidential Aircraft Recapitalization (PAR) Program, Interested Vendors List. USAF Materiel Command,
January 7, 2009. Retrieved: January 8, 2009.
[15] Butler, Amy. Boeing Only Contender for New Air Force
One. Aviation Week, January 28, 2009. Retrieved January 28, 2009.
[16] EADS waves o bid for Air Force One replacement.
Flight Global. January 28, 2009.
[17] AF Identies Boeing 747-8 platform for next Air Force
One
[18] Mehta, Aaron. Boeing Tapped for Air Force One Replacement. Defence News, 28 January 2015
[19] Air Force One Technical Specs. Boeing Defense, Space
and Security. Retrieved: June 26, 2009.
[20] Hardesty 2003, p. 15.

Bibliography
Air Force One Fact Sheet. United States Air Force,
(Current as of May 2014).

Hardesty, Von. Air Force One: The Aircraft that


Shaped the Modern Presidency. Chanhassen, Minnesota: Northword Press, 2003. ISBN 1-55971894-3.
Harris, Tom. How Air Force One Works. HowStuWorks.com. Retrieved: October 10, 2006.
Jenkins, Dennis R. Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP
(AirlinerTech Series, Vol. 6). North Branch, Minnesota: Specialty Press, 2000. ISBN 1-58007-0264.
Technical Order 00-105E-9, Segment 9, Chapter
7.
Walsh, Kenneth T. Air Force One: A History of the
Presidents and Their Planes. New York: Hyperion,
2003. ISBN 1-4013-0004-9.

16.9 External links


USAF VC-25 fact sheet
USAF Photo gallery

Chapter 17

Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight


The Boeing Vertol CH-46 Sea Knight is a mediumlift tandem rotor transport helicopter powered by twin
turboshaft aircraft engines. It was used by the United
States Marine Corps (USMC) to provide all-weather,
day-or-night assault transport of combat troops, supplies
and equipment until its replacement by the MV-22 Osprey. Additional tasks include combat support, search
and rescue (SAR), support for forward refueling and
rearming points, CASEVAC and Tactical Recovery of
Aircraft and Personnel (TRAP).
The Sea Knight was also the U.S. Navy's standard
medium-lift utility helicopter until it was phased out in
favor of the MH-60S Knighthawk in the early 2000s.
Canada also operated the Sea Knight, designated as CH113, and operated them in the SAR role until 2004. Other
export customers include Japan, Sweden, and Saudi Arabia. The commercial version is the BV 107-II, commonly
referred to simply as the Vertol.

17.1 Development
17.1.1

Origins

Piasecki Helicopter was a pioneering developer of


tandem-rotor helicopters, with the most famous previous helicopter being the H-21 Flying Banana. Piasecki
Helicopter became Vertol in 1955 and work began on a
new tandem rotor helicopter designated the Vertol Model
107 or V-107 in 1956. The V-107 prototype had two
Lycoming T53 turboshaft engines, producing 877 shp
(640 kW) each.[2] The rst ight of the V-107 took place
on 22 April 1958.[3] The V-107 was then put through a
ight demonstration tour in the United States and overseas. In June 1958, the U.S. Army awarded a contract
to Vertol for ten production aircraft designated YHC1A.[4]
The order was later decreased to three, so that the Army
could divert funds for the V-114, also a turbine powered tandem, but larger than the V-107.[4] The Armys
three YHC-1As were powered by GE-T-58 engines. The
YHC-1As rst ew in August 1959, and were followed
by an improved commercial/export model, the 107-II.[1]

U.S. Marines of the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit boarding a


CH-46, August 2006

During 1960, the U.S. Marine Corps evolved a requirement for a medium-lift, twin-turbine troop/cargo assault
helicopter to replace the piston-engined types then in
use.[5] That same year Boeing acquired Vertol and renamed the group Boeing Vertol.[4] Following a competition, Boeing Vertol was selected to build its model 107M
as the HRB-1, early in 1961.[1] In 1962 the U.S. Air Force
ordered 12 XCH-46B Sea Knights with the XH-49A designation, but later cancelled the order due to a delivery
delay and opted for the Sikorsky S-61R instead.[6]
Following the Sea Knights rst ight in August 1962, the
designation was changed to CH-46A. In November 1964,
introduction of the Marines CH-46A and the Navys UH46As began. The UH-46A variant was modied for the
vertical replenishment role.[1] The CH-46A was equipped
with a pair of T58-GE8-8B turboshaft engines rated at
1,250 shp (930 kW) each and could carry 17 passengers
or 4,000 pounds (1,815 kg) of cargo.[7]

17.1.2 Further developments


Production of the improved CH-46D followed with deliveries beginning in 1966. Its improvements included
modied rotor blades and more powerful T58-GE-10 turboshaft engines[1] rated at 1,400 shp (1,040 kW) each.
The increased power allowed the D-model to carry 25
troop or 7,000 pounds (3,180 kg) of cargo.[7] The CH-

172

17.3. OPERATIONAL HISTORY

173

46D was introduced to the Vietnam theater in late 1967,


supplementing the U.S. Marine Corps existing unreliable and problematic CH-46A eet.[8] Along with the
USMCs CH-46Ds, the U.S. Navy received a small number of UH-46Ds for ship resupply.[9] Also, approximately
33 CH-46As were upgraded to CH-46Ds.[7]

A door gunner manning a pintle-mounted .50-caliber M2 machine gun aboard a Marine CH-46, August 2006

The Marines also received CH-46Fs from 1968 to 1971.


The F-model retained the D-models T58-GE-10 engines
but revised the avionics and included other modications.
The CH-46F was the nal production model.[1] The Sea
Knight has undergone upgrades and modications. Most
of the U.S. Marine Corps Sea Knights were upgraded to
CH-46E standard. The CH-46E features berglass rotor
blades, airframe reinforcement, and further uprated T58GE-16 engines producing 1,870 shp (1,390 kW) each.
Some CH-46Es have been given double fuel capacity.[7]
The Dynamic Component Upgrade (DCU), incorporated
starting in the mid-1990s, provides for increased capability through strengthened drive systems and rotor controls.
The commercial variant, the BV 107-II, was rst ordered
by New York Airways in 1960. They took delivery of
their rst three aircraft, congured for 25 passengers, in
July 1962.[5] In 1965, Boeing Vertol sold the manufacturing rights of the 107 to Kawasaki Heavy Industries.
Under this arrangement, all Model 107 civilian and military aircraft built in Japan are known as KV 107.[5] On
15 December 2006, Columbia Helicopters, Inc acquired
the type certicate for the Boeing Vertol 107-II, and is
in the process of acquiring a Production Certicate from
the FAA. Plans for actual production of the aircraft have
not been announced.[5]

A U.S. Marine watches two CH-46 Sea Knights, 2002

operations.[7] The CH-46 has xed tricycle landing gear,


with twin wheels on all three units. The gear conguration causes a nose-up stance to facilitate cargo loading
and unloading. The main gear are tted in rear sponsons
that also contain fuel tanks with a total capacity of 350
US gallons (1,438 L).[7]

The CH-46 has a cargo bay with a rear loading ramp that
could be removed or left open in ight for extended cargo
or for parachute drops. An internal winch is mounted in
the forward cabin and can be used to pull external cargo
on pallets into the aircraft via the ramp and rollers. A
belly sling hook (cargo hook) which is usually rated at
10,000 lb (4,500 kg). could be attached for carrying external cargo. Although the hook is rated at 10,000 lb
(4,500 kg)., the limited power produced by the engines
precludes the lifting of such weight. It usually has a crew
of three, but can accommodate a larger crew depending
on mission specics. For example, a Search and Rescue
variant will usually carry a crew of ve (Pilot, Co-Pilot,
Crew Chief, Swimmer, and Medic) to facilitate all aspects of such a mission. A pintle-mounted 0.50 in (12.7
17.2 Design
mm) Browning machine gun is mounted on each side
of the helicopter for self-defense.[7] Service in southeast
The CH-46 has tandem counter-rotating rotors powered
Asia resulted in the addition of armor with the guns.[1]
by two GE T58 turboshaft engines. The engines are
mounted on each side of the rear rotor pedestal with a
driveshaft to the forward rotor. The engines are coupled
so either could power both rotors in an emergency. The 17.3 Operational history
rotors feature three blades and can be folded for on-ship

174

17.3.1

CHAPTER 17. BOEING VERTOL CH-46 SEA KNIGHT

United States

produced documentary.[18]

A aming Marine CH-46 of HMM-265, after being hit by enemy


AAA re in Helicopter Valley, 15 July 1966.[10]

U.S. Marines load a simulated casualty onto a CH-46E during


convoy operations training in May 2004.

Known colloquially as the Phrog, the Sea Knight was


used in all U.S. Marine operational environments between its introduction during the Vietnam War and its
frontline retirement in 2014.[11] The types longevity and
reputation for reliability led to mantras such as phrogs
phorever and never trust a helicopter under 30.[12]
CH-46s transported personnel, evacuated wounded, supplied forward arming and refueling points (FARP), performed vertical replenishment, search and rescue, recovered downed aircraft and crews and other tasks.

CH-46E Sea Knights were also used by the U.S. Marine


Corps during the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In one incident
on 1 April 2003, Marine CH-46Es and CH-53Es carried U.S. Army Rangers and Special Operations troops on
an extraction mission for captured Army Private Jessica
Lynch from an Iraqi hospital.[19] During the subsequent
occupation of Iraq and counter-insurgency operations,
the CH-46E was heavily used in the CASEVAC role, being required to maintain 24/7 availability regardless of
conditions.[20] According to authors Williamson Murray
and Robert H Scales, the Sea Knight displayed serious reliability and maintenance problems during its deployment
to Iraq, as well as limited lift capabilities.[21] Following
the loss of numerous US helicopters in the Iraqi theatre,
the Marines opted to equip their CH-46s with more advanced anti-missile countermeasures.[22]

During the Vietnam War, the CH-46 was one of the


prime US troop transport helicopters in the theatre, slotting between the smaller Bell UH-1 Iroquois and larger
Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion. During the 1972 Easter
Oensive, Sea Knights saw heavy use to convey US and
South Vietnamese ground forces to and around the front
lines.[13] CH-46 operations were plagued by major technical problems; the engines, being prone to foreign object damage (FOD) from debris being ingested when hovering close to the ground and subsequently suering a
compressor stall, had a lifespan as low as 85 ight hours;
on 21 July 1966, all CH47s were grounded until more efcient lters had been tted.[14] By the end of US military
operations in Vietnam, over a hundred Sea Knights had
been lost to enemy re.[15]
In February 1968 the Marine Corps Development and
Education Command obtained several CH-46 units to
perform herbicide dissemination tests using HIDAL (Helicopter, Insecticide Dispersal Apparatus, Liquid) systems; testing indicated the need for redesign and further
study.[16] Tandem-rotor helicopters were often used to
transport nuclear warheads; the CH-46A was evaluated to
deploy Naval Special Forces with the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM).[17] Nuclear Weapon Accident Exercise 1983 (NUWAX-83), simulating the crash
of a Navy CH-46E carrying 3 nuclear warheads, was conducted at the Nevada Test Site on behalf of several federal agencies; the exercise, which used real radiological agents, was depicted in a Defense Nuclear Agency-

The U.S. Navy retired the type on 24 September 2004,


replacing it with the MH-60S Seahawk;[23] the Marine
Corps maintained its eet as the MV-22 Osprey was
elded.[24] In March 2006 Marine Medium Helicopter
Squadron 263 (HMM-263) was deactivated and redesignated VMM-263 to serve as the rst MV-22 squadron.[25]
The replacement process continued through the other
medium helicopter squadrons into 2014. On 5 October
2014, the Sea Knight performed its nal service ight
with the U.S. Marine Corps at Marine Corps Air Station
Miramar. HMM-364 was the last squadron to use it outside the United States, landing it aboard the USS America (LHA-6) on her maiden transit. On 9 April 2015,
the CH-46 was retired by the Marine Medium Helicopter
Training Squadron 164, the last Marine Corps squadron
to transition to the MV-22.[26][27]

17.3.2 Canada
The Royal Canadian Air Force procured six CH-113
Labrador helicopters for the SAR role and the Canadian
Army acquired 12 of the similar CH-113A Voyageur for
the medium-lift transport role. The RCAF Labradors

17.4. VARIANTS
were delivered rst with the rst one entering service on
11 October 1963.[28][29] When the larger CH-147 Chinook was procured by the Canadian Forces in the mid1970s, the Voyageur eet was converted to Labrador
specications to undertake SAR missions. The refurbished Voyageurs were re-designated as CH-113A
Labradors, thus a total of 15 Labradors were ultimately
in service.[29]

175
of Aurora, Oregon purchased eight of the retired CH113 Labradors to add to their eet of 15 Vertol 107-II
helicopters.[30]

17.3.3 Sweden
In 1963, Sweden procured ten UH-46B from the US as a
transport and anti-submarine helicopter for the Swedish
armed forces, designated Hkp 4A. In 1973, a further eight
Kawasaki-built KV-107, which were accordingly designated Hkp 4B, were acquired to replace the older Piasecki
H-21. During the Cold War, the eets primary missions were anti-submarine warfare and troop transportation, they were also frequently employed in the search
and rescue role. In the 1980s, the Hkp 4A was phased
out, having been replaced by the Eurocopter AS332 Super Puma; the later Kawasaki-built Sea Knights continued in operational service until 2011, they were replaced
by the UH-60 Black Hawk.

17.3.4 Civilian
CH-113 Labrador 11301 at the Canadian Aviation Museum

The Labrador was tted with a watertight hull for marine


landings, a 5,000 kilogram cargo hook and an external
rescue hoist mounted over the right front door. It featured
a 1,110 kilometer ying range, emergency medical equipment and an 18-person passenger capacity. By the 1990s,
heavy use and hostile weather conditions had taken their
toll on the Labrador eet, resulting in increasing maintenance costs and the need for prompt replacement.[29] In
1981, a mid-life upgrade of the eet was carried out by
Boeing Canada in Arnprior, Ontario. Known as the SARCUP (Search and Rescue Capability Upgrade Program),
the ret scheme included new instrumentation, a nosemounted weather radar, a tail-mounted auxiliary power
unit, a new high-speed rescue hoist mounted over the side
door and front-mounted searchlights. A total of six CH113s and ve CH-113As were upgraded with the last delivered in 1984.[29]

Columbia Helicopters BV 107-II

The civilian version, designated as the BV 107-II Vertol,[31] was developed prior to the military CH-46. It
was operated commercially by New York Airways, Pan
American World Airways and later on by Columbia Helicopters.[31] Among the diversity of tasks was pulling a
hover barge.[32][33] In December 2006, Columbia Helicopters purchased the type certicate of the Model 107
from Boeing, with the aim of eventually producing newbuild aircraft themselves.[34]

In 1992, it was announced that the Labradors were to


be replaced by 15 new helicopters, a variant of the
AgustaWestland EH101, designated CH-149 Chimo. The
order was subsequently cancelled by the Jean Chrtien
Liberal government in 1993, resulting in cancellation
penalties, as well as extending the service life of the
Labrador eet. However, in 1998, a CH-113 from CFB
Greenwood crashed on Quebecs Gasp Peninsula while 17.4 Variants
returning from a SAR mission, resulting in the deaths of
all crewmembers on board. The crash placed pressure 17.4.1 American versions
upon the government to procure a replacement, thus an
order was placed with the manufacturers of the EH101 Model 107 Company model number for basic protofor 15 aircraft to perform the search-and-rescue mistype, one built.[35]
sion, designated CH-149 Cormorant. CH-149 deliveries began in 2003, allowing the last CH-113 to be re- Model 107-II Commercial airline helicopter. All subsequent commercial aircraft were produced as BV
tired in 2004.[29] In October 2005 Columbia Helicopters

176

CHAPTER 17. BOEING VERTOL CH-46 SEA KNIGHT

A HMX-1 CH-46D departs Santa Barbara Municipal Airport


A UH-46D lowers mail to the fantail of USS Decatur

CH-46A before delivery under the 1962 United


States Tri-Service aircraft designation system.
CH-46A Medium-lift assault and cargo transport and
SAR helicopter for the USMC, tted with two
1,250 shp (935 kW) General Electric T58-GE-8 turboshaft engines. Previously designated HRB-1. 160
built for USMC, one static airframe.
UH-46A Medium-lift utility transport helicopter for the
United States Navy. Similar to the CH-46A. 14
built.
HH-46A Approximately 50 CH-46As were converted
into SAR helicopters for the United States Navy
base rescue role.
RH-46A Planned conversion of CH-46As into
minesweeping helicopters for the US Navy, none
converted. Nine SH-3As were converted to the
RH-3A conguration instead.
UH-46B Development of the CH-46A to specication
HX/H2 for the United States Air Force; 12 ordered
in 1962, cancelled and Sikorsky S-61R / CH-3C ordered instead.
YCH-46C YHC-1A redesignated in 1962. United
States Army retained two, NASA used one for vertical autonomous landing trials (VALT).

CH-113 Labrador landing on The Clapper, a sea stack o the


tip of Bell Island in Newfoundland

CH-46D Medium-lift assault and cargo transport helicopter for the USMC, tted with two 1,400 shp
(1,044 kW) General Electric T58-GE-10 turboshaft
107-II-2, two built as Boeing Vertol prototypes, ve
engines. 266 built.
sold to New York Airways, ten supplied to Kawasaki
HH-46D Surviving HH-46A were upgraded and a small
as sub-assemblies or as parts.[36]
number of UH-46Ds were converted into SAR heliModel 107M Company model number for military
copters. SAR upgrades included the addition of an
transport of BV-107/II-2 for the U.S. Marine
external rescue hoist near the front crew door and an
Corps.[37]
18-inch X 18-inch Doppler RADAR system located
behind the nose landing gear, which provided for
YHC-1A Vertol Model 107 for test and evaluation by
automatic, day/night, over-water hovering capability
the United States Army. Adopted by the U.S. Mafor at sea rescue. Additionally a Loud Hailer was
rine Corps as the HRB-1. Later redesignated YCHinstalled opposite the crew entrance door for com46C, three built.
municating with downed aviators on the ground or
HRB-1 Original designation before being renamed as
in the water.

17.4. VARIANTS

177

UH-46D Medium-lift utility transport helicopter for the HKP 4A Boeing Vertol 107-II-14, used originally by
US Navy combat supply role. Similar to the CHAir Force for SAR, ten built.[42]
46D. Ten built and one conversion from CH-46D.
HKP 4B Boeing
Vertol
107-II-15,
mineCH-46E Approximately 275 -A, -D, and -F airframes
layer/ASW/SAR helicopter for Navy, three
were updated to CH-46E standards with improved
built and one conversion from Boeing-Vertol civil
avionics, hydraulics, drive train and upgraded T58prototype.[43]
GE-16 and T58-GE-16/A engines.
HKP 4C Kawasaki KV-107-II-16, advanced mineHH-46E Three CH-46Es were converted into SAR
layer/ASW/SAR helicopter for Navy,eight built.
helicopters for Marine Transport Squadron One
HKP 4D Rebuilt HKP 4A for Navy as SAR/ASW he(VMR-1) at MCAS Cherry Point.[38]
licopter, four conversions.[44]
CH-46F Improved version of CH-46D, electrical distribution, com/nav update BUNO 154845-157726.
Last production model in the United States. 174 17.4.4 Japanese versions
built, later reverted to CH-46E.
VH-46F Unocial designation of standard CH-46F
used by HMX-1 as VIP support transport helicopter.
CH-46X Replacement helicopter based on the Boeing
Model 360, this Advance Technology Demonstrator
from the 1980s never entered production. The aircraft relied heavily on composites for its construction and had a beeer drive train to handle the twin
Avco-Lycoming AL5512 engines (4,200 shp).[39]
XH-49 Original designation of UH-46B.

17.4.2

Canadian versions

A CH-46D assigned to HTS-11 lifts cargo during a VERTREP


mission with the USS Abraham Lincoln

CH-113 Labrador Search and rescue version of the KV-107II-1 (CT58-110-1) Utility transport version,
Model 107-II-9 for the Royal Canadian Air
one built from Boeing-supplied kits.
Force.[40]
KV-107II-2 (CT58-110-1) Commercial airline version,
CH-113A Voyageur Assault and utility transport vernine built from Boeing-supplied kits.
sion of the Model 107-II-28 for the Canadian Army.
Later converted to CH-113A Labrador when the KV-107IIA-2 (CT58-140-1) Improved version of the
Canadian Forces acquired the CH-47 Chinook.[41]
KV-107/II-2, three built.

17.4.3

Swedish versions

KV-107II-3 (CT58-110-1) Minesweeping version for


the JMSDF, two built.
KV-107IIA-3 (CT58-IHI-10-M1) Uprated version of
the KV-107/II-3, seven built.
KV-107II-4 (CT58-IHI-110-1) Assault and
transport version for the JGSDF, 41 built.

utility

KV-107II-4A (CT58-IHI-110-1) VIP version of the


KV-107/II-4, one built.
KV-107IIA-4 (CT58-IHI-140-1) Uprated version of
the KV-107/II-4, 18 built.
KV-107II-5 (CT58-IHI-110-1) Long-range SAR version for the JASDF, 17 built.
Boeing-Vertol civil prototype in service with the Swedish Navy as
HKP 4B

KV-107IIA-5 (CT58-IHI-104-1) Uprated version of


the KV-107II-5, 35 built.

178

CHAPTER 17. BOEING VERTOL CH-46 SEA KNIGHT

17.5.1 Military and Government operators

US Navy Sea Knight ies for the nal time over Norfolk, Virginia

United States

United States Department of State[46]

17.5.2 Civilian operators


CHI Kawasaki Vertol KV-107II slinging a bucket during the
Yellowstone res of 1988

KV-107II-7 (CT58-110-1) VIP transport version, one


built.
KV-107II-16 HKP 4C for Swedish Navy. Powered
by Rolls-Royce Gnome H.1200 turboshaft engines,
eight built.

Canada

Helifor Canada[47]
United States

Columbia Helicopters[48]

KV-107IIA-17 (CT58-140-1) Long-range


transport version for the Tokyo Metropolitan Police 17.5.3
Department, one built.

Former operators

KV-107IIA-SM-1 (CT58-IHI-140-1M1) Fireghting


helicopter for Saudi Arabia, seven built.
KV-107IIA-SM-2 (CT58-IHI-140-1M1)
Aeromedical and rescue helicopter for Saudi
Arabia, four built.
KV-107IIA-SM-3 (CT58-IHI-140-1M1) VIP
port helicopter for Saudi Arabia, two built.

trans-

KV-107IIA-SM-4 (CT58-IHI-140-1M1) Air ambulance helicopter for Saudi Arabia, three built.
Source:[45]

17.5 Operators

A KV-107 with the JASDF on display at the Kakamigahara


Aerospace Museum

Canada

17.6. NOTABLE ACCIDENTS AND INCIDENTS


Canadian Army[49]
Royal Canadian Air Force[50]
Japan

Japan Air Self-Defense Force[51]


Japan Ground Self-Defense Force[51]
Japan Maritime Self-Defense Force[51]
Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department[52]
Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Interior[53][54]
Sweden
Swedish Air Force[55]
Swedish Navy[55]

179

HMM-265[63]
HMM-268[64]
HMM-364[65]
HMM-764[66]
HMMT-164[67][68]

United States Navy[69][70]

17.6 Notable accidents and incidents


On 15 July 1966 during Operation Hastings, two
CH-46As BuNo 151930 and BuNo 151936 of
HMM-164 collided at LZ Crow while another,
BuNo 151961, crashed into a tree avoiding the rst
two, resulting in 2 Marines killed. Another CH-46
BuNo 152500 of HMM-265 was shot down at the
LZ later that day resulting in 13 Marines killed.[71]
On 4 June 1968 CH-46D BuNo 152533 of HMM165 was hit by anti-aircraft re at Landing Zone
Loon and crashed killing 13 Marines[72]
On 14 March 1969 CH-46D BuNo 154841 of
HMM-161 was hit by a B-40 rocket as it conducted
a resupply and medevac mission at Landing Zone
Sierra, killing 12 Marines and 1 Navy corpsman.[73]
On 9 December 1999, a CH-46D Sea Knight BuNo
154790 of HMM-166 crashed during a boarding exercise o the coast of San Diego, California, killing
seven U.S. Marines. The pilot landed the CH-46D
short on the deck of the USNS Pecos, causing the
left rear tire and strut to become entangled in the
restraint equipment at the back of the ship, which
caused it to plunge into the ocean.[74]

A HKP 4A variant with the Swedish Air Force

17.7 Specications (CH-46E)

Thailand
Royal Thai Army[56]
United States

New York Airways[57]


Pan American Airways[58]
United States Marine Corps[59]
HMX-1[60]

Orthographically projected diagram of the CH-46 Sea Knight

VMR-1[61]

Data from Frawley,[75] Donald[3]

HMM-262[62]

General characteristics

180

CHAPTER 17. BOEING VERTOL CH-46 SEA KNIGHT

Crew: ve: two pilots, one crew chief, one aerial


gunner/observer, one tail gunner
Capacity: ** 24 troops or
15 stretchers and two attendants or
2270 kg (5,000 lb)
Length: 44 ft 10 in fuselage (13.66 m
Fuselage width: 7 ft 3 in (2.2 m))
Rotor diameter: 50 ft (15.24 m)
Height: 16 ft 9 in (5.09 m)
Disc area: 3,927 ft (364.8 m)

Medal of Honor recipient Mike Clausen's CH-46 on display at


the Carolinas Aviation Museum, 2006

Empty weight: 11,585 lb (5,255 kg)


Loaded weight: 17,396 lb (7,891 kg)
Max. takeo weight: 24,300 lb (11,000 kg)
Powerplant: 2 General Electric T58-GE-16
turboshafts, 1,870 shp (1,400 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 166 mph (144 knots, 267 km/h)
Range: 633 mi (550 nmi, 1,020 km)

Japan Air Self Defense Force Hamamatsu Air


Base Publication Center, Hamamatsu, Shizuoka,
Japan[78]
Kakamigahara Aerospace Science
Kakamigahara, Gifu, Japan[79]

Museum,

Kawasaki Vertol 107-II Kawasaki Good Times


World, within Kobe Maritime Museum, Kobe,
Hygo, Japan.[80][81]
Aeroseum, Gothenburg, Sweden Boeing Vertol/Kawasaki KV-107-II (CH-46), Hkp 4C, c/n
4093, Fv 04072 72[82]

Ferry range: 690 mi (600 nmi, 1,110 km)


Service ceiling: 17,000 ft (5,180 m)
Rate of climb: 1,715 ft/min (8.71 m/s)
Disc loading: 4.43 lb/ft (21.6 kg/m)
Power/mass: 0.215 hp/lb (354 W/kg)
Armament

Guns: Two door-mounted GAU-15/A .50 BMG


(12.7 x 99 mm) machine guns (optional), one rampmounted M240D 7.62 x 51 mm machine gun (op- A HKP 4B of the Swedish Armed Forces on display at the Swedish
Air Force Museum, Malmen, Sweden
tional)

17.8 Aircraft on display


National Air Force Museum of Canada Labrador
11315[76]
Canada Aviation and Space Museum Labrador
11301[29]
Comox Air Force Museum Labrador 11310[77]

Swedish Air Force Museum, Linkping Sweden.


Prototype BV-107-II N6679D[83] Bought used from
Boeing in 1970.
Flying Leatherneck Aviation Museum, San Diego,
California, USA has CH-46E #154803 (c/n 2410)
as YS-09 Lady Ace 09 of HMM-165. The CH46 took part in Operation Frequent Wind and was
used to evacuate Ambassador Graham Martin, the
last United States Ambassador to South Vietnam

17.10. REFERENCES
from the United States Embassy, Saigon on 30 April
1975.[84][85]
USS Midway Museum in San Diego, California displays HH-46A #150954 (c/n 2040) as U.S. Navy
SA-46 of HC-3 on one side and VR-46 of HC-11
on the other.[86]
National Museum of Naval Aviation in Pensacola,
FL displays HH-46D #151952 (c/n 2102) as U.S
Navy HW-00 of HC-6.[87]

181

17.10 References
Citations
[1] CH-46 history page, U.S. Navy, 16 November 2000.
[2] Apostolo, Giorgio. Boeing Vertol Model 107. The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Helicopters. New York: Bonanza
Books. 1984. ISBN 978-0-517-43935-7.
[3] Donald 1997, p. 175.

Carolinas Aviation Museum, Charlotte, North Carolina, USA has Raymond Clausen's Medal of Honor
mission CH-46E #153389 (c/n 2287) as HMM-263
EG-16. The rear fuselage of #153335 was used in
restoration.[88]

[4] Spenser, Jay P. Whirlybirds, A History of the U.S. Helicopter Pioneers. University of Washington Press, 1998.
ISBN 0-295-97699-3.

New River Aviation Memorial at the front gate of


Marine Corps Air Station New River, (part of Camp
Lejeune) in Jacksonville, North Carolina- CH46E
#153402 (c/n 2300) as YS-02 of HMM-162 on one
side and HMM-261 on the other.[89][90]

[6] US Air Force CH-46B. Retrieved 5 January 2013.

[5] Tandem Twosome, Vertical Magazine, FebruaryMarch


2007.

[7] Boeing Sea Knight. Vectorsite.net, 1 August 2011.


[8] Rottman and Hook 2007, p. 10.
[9] Eden, Paul, ed. Boeing-Vertol H-46 Sea Knight, Encyclopedia of Modern Military Aircraft. Amber Books,
2004. ISBN 1-904687-84-9.

National Museum of the Marine Corps Quantico,


Virginia has a walk-through exhibit containing the
rear half of a CH-46D displayed as the former [10] King, Tim (23 April 2012). Vietnams Helicopter Valley:
Graveyard of Marine CH-46s. Salem-News.com (Salem,
#153986 (c/n 2337) YK-13 from HMM-364 with
[91]
OR).
Retrieved 12 December 2014.
their logo, The Purple Fox. The front half of the
aircraft was used as a training aid display for HMX- [11] Boeing Vertol 107 CH-46 Sea Knight. Helicopter His1.[92][93]
tory Site. Helis.com.
Patriots Point Naval and Maritime Museum in
Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, has CH-46E
#154009 (c/n 2360) of HMM-164.[94][95]
Veterans Museum Dyersburg Army Air Base in
Halls, Tennessee.[96]

17.9 See also


Related development
CH-47 Chinook
Aircraft of comparable role, conguration and era
Piasecki H-25
Sikorsky S-61
Yakovlev Yak-24
Related lists
List of active United States military aircraft
List of military aircraft of the United States

[12] Ask A Marine. HMM-364 Purple Foxy Ladies.


[13] Hamilton, Molly. Former CH-46 Sea Knight pilot
lends expertise to Vietnam Experience Exhibit. patriotspoint.org, 3 November 2014.
[14] Dunstan 2003, pp. 182-184.
[15] CH-46 Sea Knight. National Naval Aviation Museum,
Retrieved: 23 March 2014.
[16] Darrow Robert A.. Historical, Logistical, Political and
Technical Aspects of the Herbicide/Defoliant Program,
1967-1971. Plant Sciences Laboratories, US Army
Chemical Corps, Fort Detrick, Frederick MD, September
1971. p. 30. A Resume of the Activities of the Subcommittee on Defoliation/Anticrop Systems (Vegetation Control Subcommittee) for the Joint Technical Coordinating
Group/Chemical-Biological.
[17] 0800031 Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM)
Delivery by Parachutist/Swimmer/ Declassied U.S. Nuclear Test Film #31. osti.gov. Department of Energy.
Retrieved 12 December 2014.
[18] NUWAX-83 training scenario lm.
[19] Stout, Jay A. Hammer from Above, Marine Air Combat
Over Iraq. Ballantine Books, 2005. ISBN 978-0-89141871-9.
[20] Cheeca, Rocky. Evacuating the Injured. Air & Space
Magazine, September 2012.

182

CHAPTER 17. BOEING VERTOL CH-46 SEA KNIGHT

[21] Murray and Scales 2005, p. 272.

[44] HKP 4D. Helis.com.

[22] Warwick, Graham. Picture: US Marine Corps tests


anti-missile system for Boeing CH-46 Sea Knight as Iraq
helicopter shoot-downs mount. Flight International, 23
February 2007.

[45] database for all Kawasaki KV-107 helicopters built.


Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-04-25.
[46] Old Phrogs get new life. 2012, Gannett Government
Media Corporation. Retrieved 15 December 2012.

[23] Crawley, James W. Swan song for Navys ugly-duckling


copter. SignonSanDiego.com.

[47] Helifor Fleet. helifor.com. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

[24] Major Acquisition Programs Aviation Combat Element


Programs (PDF). Headquarters Marine Corps. 2006.

[48] Columbia 107-II. colheli.com. Retrieved 7 March


2013.

[25] White, LCpl Samuel. VMM-263 ready to write next


chapter in Osprey program. U.S. Marine Corps.

[49] Worlds Air Forces 1981 pg. 330. ightglobal.com. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

[26] Venerable 'Sea Knight' Makes Goodbye Flights - Military.com, 3 October 2014

[50] Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador. Retrieved 3 January


2013.

[27] Marines Bid Phrog Farewell to Last Active CH-46E Sea


Knight Squadron - News.USNI.org, 10 April 2015

[51] World Air Forces 1987 pg. 66. Retrieved 2013-03-07.

[28] Milberry, Larry: Sixty Years The RCAF and Air Command 19241984, p. 472. McGraw Hill Ryerson, 1984.
ISBN 0-07-549484-1
[29] Canada Aviation and Space Museum (n.d.). Boeing Vertol CH-113 Labrador. Retrieved 2008-11-18.
[30] Columbia Helicopters Acquires eight CH-113 Labrador
helicopters from Canadian military. RotorHub. RotorHub.com. Archived from the original on 22 December
2007. Retrieved 5 December 2010.

[52] "
Tokyo Metropolitan Police Department. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
[53] World Air Forces 2004 pg. 83. ightglobal.com. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
[54] Kawasaki/Vertol KV107 operators. Retrieved 15 December 2012.
[55] World Air Forces 1987 pg. 91. Retrieved 2013-03-07.
[56] Thai aviation history. Retrieved 2012-12-14.

[31] Eichel, Garth. Columbia Helicopters. Vertical Magazine, FebruaryMarch 2007.

[57] New York Airways Boeing-Vertol V 107 N6672D. Retrieved 15 December 2012.

[32] Happy birthday to Columbia Helicopters! Oregon-based


company celebrates its 50th anniversary Vertical (magazine), 18 April 2007. Retrieved: 24 August 2012.

[58] HEAVY-LIFT HELPERS. Vertical magazine. Retrieved 17 December 2012.

[33] The hover barge Columbia Helicopters. Retrieved: 24


August 2012.
[34] Type Certicate Data Sheet No. 1H16 (PDF). Federal
Aviation Administration. 17 January 2007. Retrieved
2007-02-08.
[35] Boeing BV-107 helicopters built. Helis.com
[36] Boeing BV-107/II helicopters built. Helis.com
[37] Boeing H-46 helicopters built. Helis.com
[38] LCpl Payne, Doug (20 December 2007). Pedro retires
last HH-46Ds (PDF). The Windsock (Marine Corps Air
Station Cherry Point, NC). pp. A1 & A3. Retrieved
2008-07-25.

[59] Vietnam-era Marine helo ies into history.


sandiego.com. Retrieved 14 December 2014.

ut-

[60] HMX-1. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.


[61] VMR-1. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
[62] Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron-262 [HMM262]". globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
[63] Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron-265. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
[64] Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron-268. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.
[65] Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron-364. globalsecurity.org. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

[39] Photo of Boeing Model 360 with CH-46X tail markings. Airport-data.com. 2007-06-17. Retrieved 201404-25.

[66] Marine Medium Helicopter Squadron 764. tripod.com.


Retrieved 7 March 2013.

[40] CH-113 Labrador. Helis.com.

[67] Marine Medium Helicopter Training Squadron 164. tripod.com. Retrieved 7 March 2013.

[41] CH-113A Voyageur. Helis.com.


[42] HKP 4A. Helis.com.
[43] HKP 4B. Helis.com.

[68] Vietnam-era Marine helo ies into history


[69] World Air Forces 2004 pg. 96. ightglobal.com. Retrieved 21 March 2015.

17.11. EXTERNAL LINKS

[70] Polmar, Norman (2005). [page 384 The Naval Institute


Guide to the Ships and Aircraft of the U.S. Fleet] (18th ed.).
p. 384. ISBN 978-1591146858. Retrieved 28 March
2015.
[71] Shulimson, Jack (1982). U.S. Marines in Vietnam: An
Expanding War, 1966 (Marine Corps Vietnam Operational
Historical Series). Marine Corps Association. pp. 1645.
ASIN B000L34A0C.
[72] 680606 HMM-165 Vietnam. USMC Combat Helicopter Association. Retrieved 31 December 2014.
[73] Smith, Charles (1988). US Marines in Vietnam High Mobility and Standdown 1969. History and Museums Division Headquarters United States Marine Corps. p. 55.
ISBN 9781494287627.
[74] A Tailhook of a Dierent Kind... check-six.com
[75] Frawley, Gerald. The International Directory of Military
Aircraft, 2002/2003, p. 48. Fyshwick, ACT, Australia:
Aerospace Publications, 2002. ISBN 1-875671-55-2.
[76] National Air Force Museum of Canada (2010).
Labrador. Retrieved 3 October 2010.
[77] Comox Air Force Museum (December 2009). News.
Retrieved 2 January 2012.
[78] Display aircraft JASDF Hamamatsu Air Base Publication
Center
[79] Display helicopters Kakamigahara Aerospace Science
Museum
[80] Museum Outline Kawasaki Good Times World
[81] JA9555. Chakkiri.com. Retrieved 2014-04-25.

183

[92] Helicopter halved to serve as museum exhibit, training aid


[93] Swifty Finds Permanent Home
[94] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D c/n 2360 - Helicopter Database.
Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
[95] Patriots Point Adds 1967 CH-46D Helicopter
[96] Veterans Museum welcomes new exhibit

Bibliography
Andrade, John U.S.Military Aircraft Designations
and Serials since 1909. Midland Counties Publications, 1979. ISBN 0-904597-22-9.
Andrade, John. Militair 1982. London: Aviation
Press Limited, 1982. ISBN 0-907898-01-7.
Donald, David ed. Boeing Vertol Model 107 (H-46
Sea Knight)" The Complete Encyclopedia of World
Aircraft, Barnes & Nobel Books, 1997. ISBN 07607-0592-5.
Dunstan, Simon. Vietnam Choppers: Helicopters in
Battle 1950-1975, Osprey Publishing, 2003. ISBN
1-84176-796-4.
Murray, Williamson and Robert H. Scales. The Iraq
War. Harvard University Press, 2005. ISBN 067450-412-7.
Rottman, Gordon and Adam Hook. Vietnam Airmobile Warfare Tactics. Osprey Publishing, 2007.
ISBN 1-84603-136-2.

[82] Aircraft at Museum. Aeroseum


[83] boeing-vertol hkp4b - Helicopter Database. Helis.com.
Retrieved 2014-04-25.

17.11 External links

[84] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D c/n 2410- Helicopter Database.


Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.

CH-46D/E Sea Knight and CH-46 history pages on


U.S. Navy site; CH-46 page on USMC site

[85] Myers, Phil (31 March 2012). HMM-165 Lady Ace


09 Dedication. militaryaviationjournal.com/. Military
Aviation Journal. Retrieved 12 December 2014.

CH-46 product page and CH-46 history page on


Boeing.com

[86] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D c/n 2040 - Helicopter Database.


Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-13.
[87] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D c/n 2102 - Helicopter Database.
Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
[88] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D c/n 2225 - Helicopter Database.
Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
[89] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D (c/n 2300) - Helicopter
Database. Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-12.
[90] Lingafelt, Jared (6 November 2014). MV-22 dedicated
to Aviation Memorial. The Globe (Jacksonville, NC).
Retrieved 12 December 2014.
[91] Boeing-Vertol CH-46D (c/n 2337) - Helicopter
Database. Helis.com. Retrieved 2014-12-13.

Columbia Helicopters Largest Civilian Operator


of BV/KV Model 107
Boeing Vertol 107 & H-46 Sea Knight on Airliners.net
Detail List of CH-113 Labradors & Voyageurs
Kawasaki Helicopter Services (S.A.) Ltd.

Chapter 18

Close air support


Joint Fires Observers, Joint Terminal Attack Controllers
(JTAC)s, and Forward Air Controllers (FAC).

18.1 History
18.1.1 World War I
The use of aircraft in the close air support of ground
forces dates back to World War I, the rst signicant use
of aerial units in warfare.[2] Air warfare, and indeed aviation itself, was still in its infancyand the direct eect
of rie calibre machine guns and light bombs of World
War I aircraft was very limited compared with the power
of (for instance) a World War II ghter bomber, but close
A Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter provides close air supsupport aircraft still had a powerful psychological impact.
port to United States Army soldiers patrolling the Tigris River
The aircraft was a visible and personal enemyunlike
southeast of Baghdad, Iraq during the Iraq War
artillerypresenting a personal threat to enemy troops,
while providing friendly forces assurance that their supeIn military tactics, close air support (CAS) is dened as riors were concerned about their situation.
air action by xed or rotary-winged aircraft against hostile Most successful attacks of 19171918 included planning
targets that are close to friendly ground or naval forces, for co-ordination between aerial and ground units, aland which requires detailed integration of each air mis- though it was very hard at this early date to co-ordinate
sion with re and movement of these forces.[1]
these attacks due to the primitive nature of air-to-ground
Conversely, deep air support (DAS) is air action directed
on objectives not in the immediate vicinity of friendly
forces for the purposes of neutralizing and destroying enemy reserves and weapons, and for interfering with enemy command, supply, communications, and observations.
The determining factor for CAS is detailed integration,
not proximity. CAS may need to be conducted far from
friendly forces, if the mission requires detailed integration with the re and movement of these forces. A closely
related subset of air interdiction, battleeld air interdiction denotes interdiction against units with near-term
eects on friendly units, but which does not require integration with friendly troop movements. The term battleeld air interdiction is not currently used in US joint
doctrine.

radio communication. Though most airpower proponents sought independence from ground commanders and
hence pushed the importance of interdiction and strategic
bombing, they nonetheless recognised the need for close
air support.[3]
From the commencement of hostilities in 1914, aviators
engaged in sporadic and spontaneous attacks on ground
forces, but it wasn't until 1916 that an air support doctrine
was elaborated and dedicated ghters for the job were put
into service. By that point, the startling and demoralizing
eect that attack from the air could have on the troops in
the trenches had been made clear.

At the Battle of the Somme, 18 British armed


reconnaissance planes strafed the enemy trenches after
conducting surveillance operations. The success of this
improvised assault spurred innovation on both sides. In
Close air support requires excellent coordination with 1917, following the Second Battle of the Aisne the British
ground forces. In advanced modern militaries, this co- debuted the rst ground-attack aircraft, a modied F.E 2b
ordination is typically handled by specialists such as ghter carrying 20-lb bombs and mounted machine-guns.
184

18.1. HISTORY

185
seater planes, the Germans preferred the use of heavier
two-seaters with an additional machine gunner in the aft
cockpit. The Germans adopted the powerful Hannover
CL.II and built the rst purpose built ground attack aircraft, the Junkers J.I. During the 1918 Spring Oensive the Germans employed 30 squadrons, or Schlasta,
of ground attack ghters and were able to achieve some
initial tactical success.[3] The British later deployed the
Sopwith Salamander as a specialised ground attack aircraft, although it was too late to see much action.

It was during the Sinai and Palestine Campaign of 1918


that Close Air Support was rst proven to be an imporThe F.E 2d was one of the rst aircraft to be used for close air tant factor in ultimate victory. After the British achieved
support in 1917 (the observer is demonstrating the use of the rear- air superiority over the German aircraft sent to aid the
Ottoman Turks, squadrons of S.E 5as and D.H. 4s were
ring Lewis gun).
sent on wide-ranging attacks against German and Turkish
positions near the Jordan river. Combined with a ground
After exhausting their ammunition the planes returned to assault lead by General Edmund Allenby, three Turkish
base for refuelling and rearming and returned to the bat- armies soon collapsed into a full rout. In the words of the
tlezone. Other modied planes used in this role were the attacking squadrons ocial report:
Airco DH.5 and Sopwith Camelthe latter was particularly successful in this role.[2]
No 1 Squadron made six heavy raids during
Aircraft support was rst integrated into a battle plan on a
the day, dropped three tons of bombs and red
large scale at the 1917 Battle of Cambrai, where a signifnearly 24,000 machine gun rounds. The panic
icantly larger number of tanks were deployed than preand slaughter beggared description ...[2]
viously. By that time, eective anti-aircraft tactics were
being used by the enemy infantry and pilot casualties were
high, although air support was later judged as having been 18.1.2 Inter-war period
of a critical importance in places where the infantry had
got pinned down.[2]
British doctrine at the time came to recognise two forms
of air support; trench strang (the modern-day doctrine of CAS), and ground strang (the modern-day doctrine of air interdiction)attacking tactical ground targets away from the land battle. As well as strang
with machine-guns, the planes were modied with bomb
racks; the plane would y in very low to the ground and
release the bombs just above the trenches.

The British used air power extensively during the interwar period
to police areas in the Middle East.

The close air support doctrine was further developed in


the interwar period. Most theorists advocated the adaptation of ghters or light bombers into the role. During
this period, airpower advocates crystallized their views on
the role of airpower in warfare. Aviators and ground ocers developed largely opposing views on the importance
of CAS, views that would frame institutional battles for
CAS in the 20th century.
The Junkers J.I, a First World War German ground-attack aircraft

The inter-war period saw the use of CAS in a number


of conicts, including the Russo-Polish War, the Spanish
wars in the Middle East and the Gran
The Germans were also quick to adopt this new form Civil War, colonial
[2]
Chaco
War.
of warfare and were able to deploy aircraft in a similar capacity at Cambrai. While the British used single- The British used air power to great eect in various colo-

186
nial hotspots in the Middle East and North Africa during the immediate postwar period. The newly formed
RAF contributed to the defeat of Afghan forces during the Third Anglo-Afghan War by harassing the enemy and breaking up their formations. Z force, an air
squadron, was also used to support ground operations
during the Somaliland campaign, in which the 'Mad Mullah' Mohammed Abdullah Hassan's insurgency was defeated. Following from these successes, the decision was
made to create a unied RAF Iraq Command to use air
power as a more cost-eective way of controlling large
areas than the use of conventional land forces.[4] It was
eectively used to suppress the Great Iraqi Revolution of
1920 and various other tribal revolts.

CHAPTER 18. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT


merely duplicated the abilities of artillery, whereas interdiction provided a unique capability.
Ground ocers contended there was rarely sucient artillery available, and the exibility of aircraft would be
ideal for massing repower at critical points, while producing a greater psychological eect on friendly and hostile forces alike. Moreover, unlike massive, indiscriminate artillery strikes, small aerial bombs wouldn't render
ground untracable, slowing attacking friendly forces.[3]
Although the prevailing view in ocial circles was largely
indierent to CAS during the interwar period, its importance was expounded upon by military theorists, such as
J. F. C. Fuller and Basil Liddell Hart. Hart, who was an
advocate of what later came to be known as 'Blitzkrieg'
tactics, thought that the speed of armoured tanks would
render conventional artillery incapable of providing support re. Instead he proposed that:
actual 'oensive' support must come from an
even more mobile artillery moving alongside.
For this purpose the close co-operation of lowying aircraft...is essential[6]

18.1.3 World War II


World War II marked the universal acceptance of the
integration of air power into combined arms warfare as
The Condor Legion reduced the city of Guernica to rubble, and close air support. Although the German Luftwae was
greatly inuenced German military strategists.
the only force to use CAS at the start of the war, all the
major combatants had developed eective air-ground coDuring the Spanish Civil War German volunteer aviators ordination techniques by the wars end.
of the Condor Legion on the Nationalist side, despite little
ocial support from their government, developed close
air support tactics that proved highly inuential for sub- Luftwae
sequent Luftwae doctrine.
U.S. Marine Corps Aviation was used as an intervention force in support of U.S. Marine Corps ground forces
during the Banana Wars, in places such as Haiti, the
Dominican Republic and Nicaragua. Marine Aviators
experimented with air-ground tactics and in Haiti and
Nicaragua they adopted the tactic of dive bombing.[5]
The observers and participants of these wars would base
their CAS strategies on their experience of the conict.
Aviators, who wanted institutional independence from
the Army, pushed for a view of airpower centered around
interdiction, which would relieve them of the necessity of
integrating with ground forces and allow them to operate
as an independent military arm. They saw close air support as both the most dicult and most inecient use of A ight of Ju 87 D-5s over the Eastern Front, winter 194344.
aerial assets.
Close air support was the most dicult mission, requiring
identifying and distinguishing between friendly and hostile units. At the same time, targets engaged in combat
are dispersed and concealed, reducing the eectiveness
of air attacks. They also argued that the CAS mission

As a continental power intent on oensive operations,


Germany could not ignore the need for aerial support of
ground operations. Though the Luftwae, like its counterparts, tended to focus on strategic bombing, it was
unique in its willingness to commit forces to CAS. Unlike

18.1. HISTORY

187

the Allies, the Germans were not able to develop powerful strategic bombing capabilities, which implied industrial developments they were forbidden to take according to the Treaty of Versailles.[7] In joint exercises with
Sweden in 1934, the Germans were rst exposed to divebombing, which permitted greater accuracy while making attack aircraft more dicult to track by antiaircraft
gunners. As a result, Ernst Udet, chief of the Luftwae
's development, initiated procurement of close support
dive bombers on the model of the U.S. Navys Curtiss
Helldiver, resulting in the Henschel Hs 123, which was
later replaced by the famous Junkers Ju 87 Stuka. Experience in the Spanish Civil War lead to the creation of
ve ground-attack groups in 1938, four of which would
be equipped with Stukas. The Luftwae matched its material acquisitions with advances in the air-ground coordination. General Wolfram von Richthofen organized a
limited number of air liaison detachments that were attached to ground units of the main eort. These detachments existed to pass requests from the ground to the
air, and receive reconnaissance reports, but they were not
trained to guide aircraft onto targets.

be implemented, and the Luftwae commander followed


the schedule he had previously worked out with Guderian. As late as November 1941, the Luftwae refused to
provide Erwin Rommel with an air liaison ocer for the
Afrika Korps, because it would be against the best use of
the air force as a whole.[3]

These preparations did not prove fruitful in the invasion of


Poland, where the Luftwae focused on interdiction and
dedicated few assets to close air support. But the value of
CAS was demonstrated at the crossing of the Meuse River
during the Invasion of France in 1940. General Heinz
Guderian, one of the creators of the combined-arms tactical doctrine commonly known as "blitzkrieg", believed
the best way to provide cover for the crossing would be
a continuous stream of ground attack aircraft on French
defenders. Though few guns were hit, the attacks kept
the French under cover and prevented them from manning their guns. Aided by the sirens attached to Stukas,
the psychological impact was disproportional to the destructive power of close air support (although as often as
not, the Stukas were used as tactical bombers instead of
close air support, leaving much of the actual work to the
older Hs 123 units for the rst years of the war). In addition, the reliance on air support over artillery reduced
the demand for logistical support through the Ardennes.
Though there were diculties in coordinating air support
with the rapid advance, the Germans demonstrated consistently superior CAS tactics to those of the British and
French defenders. Later, on the Eastern front, the Germans would devise visual ground signals to mark friendly
units and to indicate direction and distance to enemy emplacements.

RAF and USAAF

Despite these accomplishments, German CAS was not


perfect and suered from the same misunderstanding and
interservice rivalry that plagued other nations air arms,
and friendly re was not uncommon. For example, on
the eve of the Meuse oensive, Guderians superior cancelled his CAS plans and called for high-altitude strikes
from medium bombers, which would have required halting the oensive until the air strikes were complete. Fortunately for the Germans, his order was issued too late to

German CAS was also extensively used on the Eastern


Front during the period 19411943. Their decline was
caused by the growing strength of the Red Air Force and
the redeployment of assets to defend against American
and British strategic bombardment. The introduction of
improved Soviet tanks, the T-34 and KV-1 temporarily
reduced the eectiveness of close air support, even after
the adoption of 30 mm cannon and shaped-charge bombs,
until more powerful cannons, air-to-ground mortars and
rockets were introduced. While German procedures for
CAS led the way, their loss of air superiority and technological advantage, combined with a declining supply of
aircraft and fuel, crippled their ability to provide eective CAS on the western front after 1943.

US Navy SBD Dauntless dropping its bomb.

The Royal Air Force (RAF) entered the war woefully unprepared to provide CAS. In 1940 during the Battle of
France, the Royal Air Force and Army headquarters in
France were located at separate positions, resulting in unreliable communications. After the RAF was withdrawn
in May, Army ocers had to telephone the War Oce
in London to arrange for air support. The stunning effectiveness of German air-ground coordination spurred
change. On the basis of tests in Northern Ireland in August 1940, Group Captain A. H. Wann RAF and Colonel
J.D. Woodall (British Army) issued the Wann-Woodall
Report, recommending the creation of a distinct tactical air force liaison ocer (known colloquially as tentacles) to accompany Army divisions and brigades. Their
report spurred the RAF to create an RAF Army Co-

188

CHAPTER 18. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT

operation Command and to develop tentacle equipment strikes by what was originally termed a Mobile Fighter
and procedures placing an Air Liaison Ocer with each Controller traveling with the forward troops. The conbrigade.
troller rode in the leading tank or armoured car and di[13]
Although the RAF was working on its CAS doctrine in rected a cab rank of aircraft above the battleeld.
London, ocers in North Africa improvised their own This system of close co-operation rst used by the Desert
coordination techniques. In October 1941, Sir Arthur Air Force, was steadily rened and perfected, during the
Tedder and Arthur Coningham, senior RAF commanders campaigns in Italy, Normandy and Germany.
in North Africa, created joint RAF-Army Air Support
Control stas at each corps and armored division headquarters, and placed a Forward Air Support Link at each
brigade to forward air support requests. When trained
tentacle teams arrived in 1942, they cut response time
on support requests to thirty minutes.[3] It was also in
the North Africa desert that the cab rank strategy was
developed.[8] It used a series of three aircraft, each in
turn directed by the pertinent ground control by radio.
One aircraft would be attacking, another in ight to the
battle area, while a third was being refuelled and rearmed
at its base. If the rst attack failed to destroy the tactical
target, the aircraft in ight would be directed to continue
the attack. The rst aircraft would land for its own refuelling and rearming once the third had taken o. The
CAS tactics developed and rened by the British during
the campaign in North Africa served as the basis for the
Allied system used to subsequently gain victory in the
air over Germany in 1944 and devastate its cities and
industries.[2]

British Mobile Fighter Controllers operating during World War II

The use of forward air control to guide close air support (CAS)[9] aircraft, so as to ensure that their attack
hits the intended target and not friendly troops, was rst
used by the British Desert Air Force in North Africa, but
not by the USAAF until operations in Salerno.[10] During
the North African Campaign in 1941 the British Army
and the Royal Air Force established Forward Air Support
Links (FASL), a mobile air support system using ground
vehicles. Light reconnaissance aircraft would observe enemy activity and report it by radio to the FASL which was
attached at brigade level. The FASL was in communication (a two-way radio link known as a tentacle) with the
Air Support Control (ASC) Headquarters attached to the
corps or armoured division which could summon support
through a Rear Air Support Link with the airelds.[11][12]
They also introduced the system of ground direction of air

By the time the Italian Campaign had reached Rome, the


Allies had established air superiority. They were then
able to pre-schedule strikes by ghter-bomber squadrons;
however, by the time the aircraft arrived in the strike
area, oftimes the targets, which were usually trucks, had
ed.[14] The initial solution to eeting targets was the
British Rover system. These were pairings of air controllers and army liaison ocers at the front but able to
switch communications seamlessly from one brigade to
another hence Rover. Incoming strike aircraft arrived
with pre-briefed targets, which they would strike 20 minutes after arriving on station only if the Rovers had not
directed them to another more pressing target. Rovers
might call on artillery to mark targets with smoke shells,
or they might direct the ghters to map grid coordinates,
or they might resort to a description of prominent terrain features as guidance. However, one drawback for the
Rovers was the constant rotation of pilots, who were there
for fortnightly stints, leading to a lack of institutional
memory. US commanders, impressed by the British tactics at the Salerno landings, adapted their own doctrine to
include many features of the British system.[15]
At the start of the War, the United States Army Air Forces
(USAAF) had, as its principal mission, the doctrine of
strategic bombing. This incorporated the unerring belief
that unescorted bombers could win the war without the
advent of ground troops. This doctrine proved to be fundamentally awed. However, during the entire course of
the war the USAAF top brass clung to this doctrine, and
hence operated independently of the rest of the Army.
Thus it was initially unprepared to provide CAS, and in
fact, had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the
CAS function with the ground troops. USAAF doctrinal
priorities for tactical aviation were, in order, air superiority, isolation of the battleeld via supply interdiction, and
thirdly, close air support. Hence during the North African
Campaign CAS was poorly executed, if at all. So few
aerial assets were assigned to U.S. troops that they red
on anything in the air. And in 1943, the USAAF changed
their radios to a frequency incompatible with ground radios.
The situation improved during the Italian Campaign,
where American and British forces, working in close cooperation, exchanged CAS techniques and ideas. There,
the AAFs XII Air Support Command and the Fifth U.S.
Army shared headquarters, meeting every evening to plan
strikes and devising a network of liaisons and radios for
communications. However, friendly re continued to be
a concern pilots did not know recognition signals and
regularly bombed friendly units, until an A-36 was shot

18.1. HISTORY
down in self-defense by Allied tanks. The expectation of
losses to friendly re from the ground during the planned
invasion of France prompted the black and white invasion
stripes painted on all Allied aircraft from 1944.

189
advance of General Patton's Third Army in its drive
across France. Armed reconnaissance was a major feature of XIX TAC close air support, as the rapid advance
left Pattons Southern ank open. Such was the close nature of cooperation between the Third Army and XIX
TAC that Patton actually counted on XIX TAC to guard
his anks. This close air support from XIX TAC was thus
undoubtedly a key factor in the rapid advance and success
of Pattons Third Army.
The American Navy and Marine Corps used CAS in conjunction with or as a substitute for the lack of available
artillery or naval gunre in the Pacic theater. Navy and
Marine F6F Hellcats and F4U Corsairs used a variety of
ordnance such as conventional bombs, rockets and napalm to dislodge or attack Japanese troops utilizing cave
complexes in the latter part of World War II.
Red Air Force

A-36A of the 86th Fighter Bomber Group (Dive) in Italy in 1944.

In 1944, USAAF commander Lt. Gen. Henry (Hap)


Arnold acquired 2 groups of A-24 dive bombers, the
army version of the Navys SBD-2, in response to the
success of the Stuka and German CAS. Later, the USAAF developed a modication of the North American
P-51 Mustang with dive brakes the North American
A-36. However, there was no training to match the purchases. Though Gen. Lesley McNair, commander of
Army Ground Forces, pushed to change USAAF priorities, the latter failed to provide aircraft for even major training exercises. Six months before the invasion of
Normandy, 33 divisions had received no joint air-ground
training.
The USAAF saw the greatest innovations in 1944 under
Gen. Elwood Quesada, commander of IX Tactical Air
Command, supporting the First U.S. Army. He developed the armored column cover, where on-call ghterbombers maintained a high-level of availability for important tank advances, allowing armor units to maintain
a high tempo of exploitation even when they outran their
artillery assets. He also used a modied antiaircraft radar
to track friendly attack aircraft to redirect them as necessary, and experimented with assigning ghter pilots to
tours as forward air controllers to familiarize them with
the ground perspective. In July 1944, Quesada provided
VHF aircraft radios to tank crews in Normandy. When
the armored units broke out of the Normandy beachhead, tank commanders were able to communicate directly with overhead ghter-bombers. However, despite
the innovation, Quesada focused his aircraft on CAS only
for major oensives. Typically, both British and American attack aircraft were tasked primarily to interdiction,
even though later analysis showed them to be twice as
dangerous as CAS.

A Soviet Air Force Il-2M Sturmovik

The Red Air Force was not slow to recognize the value of
ground support aircraft. Even as far back as the Battles
of Khalkhyn Gol, Russian aircraft were given the task of
disrupting enemy ground operations. This use increased
markedly after the German invasion.[16] Purpose-built
aircraft such as the Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik were highly
eective in blunting the activity of the Panzers. Joseph
Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable
manner: when a particular production factory fell behind
on its deliveries, Stalin sent the following cable to the factory manager: They are as essential to the Red Army as
air and bread.[17]

18.1.4 Korean War


From Navy experiments with the KGW-1 Loon, the
Navy designation for the German V-1 ying bomb,
Marine Captain Marian Cranford Dalby developed the
AN/MPQ-14, a system that enabled radar-guided bomb
release at night or in poor weather.[18]

Though the Marine Corps continued its tradition of intimate air-ground cooperation in the Korean War, the
newly created United States Air Force (USAF) again
moved away from CAS, now to strategic bombers and
jet interceptors. Though eventually the Air Force supXIX TAC, under the command of General Otto P. Wey- plied sucient pilots and forward air controllers to proland utilized similar tactics to support the rapid armored vide battleeld support, coordination was still lacking.

190

CHAPTER 18. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT


advocated a degree of decentralization for good reactivity, in contrast with the USAF-favored centralization
of CAS. The third point dealt with the lack of training
and joint culture, which are necessary for an adequate
air-ground integration. Finally, USAF aircraft were not
designed for CAS: the advent of jet ghters, too fast
to adjust their targets, and strategic bombers, too big
to be used on theatre, rendered CAS much harder to
implement.[7]

18.1.5 Vietnam and the CAS role debate

F4U-5 Corsairs provide close air support to U.S. Marines ghting


Chinese forces during the Korean War, December 1950.

Since pilots operated under centralized control, ground


controllers were never able to familiarize themselves with
pilots, and requests were not processed quickly. Harold
K. Johnson, then commander of the 8th Cavalry Regiment, 1st Cavalry Division (later Army Chief of Sta)
commented regarding CAS: If you want it, you can't get
it. If you can get it, it can't nd you. If it can nd you,
it can't identify the target. If it can identify the target, it
can't hit it. But if it does hit the target, it doesn't do a
great deal of damage anyway.[19]
It is unsurprising, then, that MacArthur excluded USAF
aircraft from the airspace over the Inchon Landing in
September 1950, instead relying on Marine Aircraft
Group 33 for CAS. In December 1951, Lt. Gen. James
Van Fleet, commander of the Eighth U.S. Army, formally
requested the United Nations Commander, Gen. Mark
Clark, to permanently attach an attack squadron to each
of the four army corps in Korea. Though the request was
denied, Clark allocated many more Navy and Air Force
aircraft to CAS. Despite the rocky start, the USAF would
also work to improve its coordination eorts. It eventually required pilots to serve 80 days as forward air controllers (FACs), which gave them an understanding of the
diculties from the ground perspective and helped cooperation when they returned to the cockpit. The USAF
also provided airborne FACs in critical locations. The
Army also learned to assist, by suppressing anti-aircraft
re prior to air strikes.
The U.S. Army wanted a dedicated USAF presence on
the battleeld to reduce fratricide, or the harm of friendly
forces. The air liaison ocer (ALO) was born. The ALO
is an aeronautically rated ocer that has spent a tour away
from the cockpit, serving as the primary adviser to the
ground commander on the capabilities and limitations of
airpower.

UH-1B with rockets and a grenade launcher

During the late 1950s and early 1960s, the US Army


began to identify a dedicated CAS need for itself. The
Howze Board, which studied the question, published a
landmark report describing the need for a helicopterbased CAS requirement.[20] However, the Army did not
follow the Howze Board recommendation initially. Nevertheless it did eventually adopt the use of helicopter
gunships and attack helicopters in the CAS role.[21]

AH-1 Cobra over Vietnam

The Korean War revealed important aws in the application of CAS. Firstly, the USAF preferred interdiction Though helicopters were initially armed merely as defenover re support while the Army regarded support mis- sive measures to support the landing and extraction of
sions as the main concern for air forces. Then, the Army troops, their value in this role lead to the modication of

18.2. AIRCRAFT
early helicopters as dedicated gunship platforms. Though
not as fast as xed-wing aircraft and consequently more
vulnerable to anti-aircraft weaponry, helicopters could
utilize terrain for cover, and more importantly, had much
greater battleeld persistence owing to their low speeds.
The latter made them a natural complement to ground
forces in the CAS role. In addition, newly developed antitank guided missiles, demonstrated to great eectiveness
in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, provided aircraft with an
eective ranged anti-tank weapon. These considerations
motivated armies to promote the helicopter from a support role to a combat arm. Though the U.S. Army controlled rotary-wing assets, coordination continued to pose
a problem. During wargames, eld commanders tended
to hold attack helicopters out of fear of air defenses, committing them too late to eectively support ground units.
The earlier debate over control over CAS assets were reiterated between ground commanders and aviators. Nevertheless, the US Army incrementally gained increased
control over its CAS role.[22]
In the mid-1970s, after Vietnam, the USAF decided to
train an enlisted force to handle many of the tasks the
ALO was saturated with, to include terminal attack control. Now the ALO mainly serves in the liaison role, the
intricate details of mission planning and attack guidance
left to the enlisted members of the Tactical Air Control
Party.

18.2 Aircraft

191
track. The Junkers Ju 87 Stuka is the best known example
of a dive bomber built for precision bombing but which
was successfully utilised for CAS. It was tted with windblown whistles on its landing gear to enhance its psychological eect. Some variants of the Stuka were equipped
with 37 mm anti-tank cannons.
Other than the A-36, a P-51 modied with dive brakes,
the Americans and British used no dedicated CAS aircraft in World War II, preferring ghters or ghterbombers that could be pressed into CAS service. While
some such as the Hawker Typhoon and the P-47 Thunderbolt, performed admirably in that role, there were a number of compromises that prevented most ghters from
making eective CAS platforms. Fighters were usually
optimized for high-altitude operations without bombs or
other external ordnance ying at low level with bombs
quickly expended fuel. Cannons had to be mounted differently for strang strang required a further and
lower convergence point than aerial combat did.
Of the World War II allies, the Soviet Union used specifically designed ground attack aircraft more than the UK
and US. Such aircraft included the Ilyushin Il-2, the single
most produced military aircraft design in all of aviation
history. The Soviets also used the Polikarpov Po-2, a biplane, as a ground attack aircraft.
The Royal Navy Hawker Sea Fury ghters and the U.S.
Vought F4U Corsair and Douglas A-1 Skyraider were operated during the Korean War while the latter continued
to be used throughout the Vietnam War.
In the Vietnam War, the United States introduced xed
and rotary wing gunships, cargo aircraft retted as gun
platforms to serve as close air support and air interdiction
aircraft. The rst of these was the AC-47 Spooky. Later
models include the Fairchild AC-119 and the Lockheed
AC-130; the latter was used extensively in Afghanistan
and Iraq.

An A-10 Thunderbolt II ring an AGM-65 Maverick missile.

Various aircraft can ll close air support roles. Military


helicopters are often used for close air support and are
so closely integrated with ground operations that in most
countries they are operated by the army rather than the
air force. Fighters and ground attack aircraft like the A- B-1B Lancer on a close air support mission in Afghanistan in
10 Thunderbolt II provide close air support using rockets, 2008
missiles, small bombs, and strang runs.
In World War II, dive bombers and ghters were used in
close air support. Dive bombing permitted greater accuracy than level bombing runs, while the rapid altitude
change made it more dicult for antiaircraft gunners to

Usually close support is thought to be only carried out by


ghter-bombers or dedicated ground-attack aircraft, such
as the A-10 Thunderbolt II (Warthog) or Su-25 (Frogfoot), but even large high-altitude bombers have success-

192

CHAPTER 18. CLOSE AIR SUPPORT

18.3 Technological enhancement

B-1B Lancer employing GBU-38s in Iraq

The use of information technology to direct and coordinate precision air support has increased the importance
of intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance in utilizing CAS. Laser, GPS, and battleeld data transfer are
routinely used to coordinate with a wide variety of air
platforms able to provide CAS. Recent doctrine[1] reects
the increased use of electronic and optical technology to
direct targeted res for CAS. Air platforms communicating with ground forces can also provide additional aerialto-ground visual search, ground-convoy escort, and enhancement of command and control (C2), assets which
can be particularly important for low intensity conict.[23]

18.4 See also


Counter-insurgency aircraft, a specic type of CAS
aircraft
Flying Leathernecks
Forward Air Control
Forward observer
Ground-attack aircraft
Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance
A US Navy F/A-18F Super Hornet in a close air support conguration over Afghanistan in 2009

Pace-Finletter MOU 1952


Tactical bombing, a general term for the type of
bombing that includes CAS and air interdiction

fully lled close support roles using precision guided munitions. During Operation Enduring Freedom, the lack
of ghter aircraft forced military planners to rely heavily on US bombers, particularly the B-1B Lancer, to ll
the CAS role. Bomber CAS, relying mainly on GPS
guided weapons and laser-guided JDAMs has evolved
into a devastating tactical employment methodology and
has changed US doctrinal thinking regarding CAS in general. With signicantly longer loiter times, range, and
weapon capacity, bombers can be deployed to bases outside of the immediate battleeld area, with 12 hour missions being commonplace since 2001. After the initial
collapse of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, airelds in
Afghanistan became available for continuing operations
against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. This resulted in a great
number of CAS operations being undertaken by aircraft
from Belgium (F-16 Fighting Falcon), Denmark (F-16),
France (Mirage 2000D), the Netherlands (F-16), Norway (F-16), the United Kingdom (Harrier GR7s, GR9s
and Tornado GR4s) and the United States (A-10, F-16,
AV-8B Harrier II, F-15E Strike Eagle, F/A-18 Hornet,
F/A-18 Super Hornet, UH-1Y Venom).

18.5 Notes
[1] Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for Close Air
Support (2003). DoD.
[2] Hallion (1990), Airpower Journal.
[3] House (2001), Combined Arms Warfare.
[4] Boyle, Andrew. Trenchard Man of Vision p. 371
[5] Corum & Johnson, Small Wars, p. 23-40.
[6] Mearsheimer, John J. (2010). Liddell Hart and the Weight
of History. Cornell University Press. Retrieved 2013-0207.
[7] Elie Tenenbaum, The Battle over Fire Support. The
CAS Challenge and the Future of Artillery, Focus
stratgique, No. 35 bis, October 2012. http://www.ifri.
org/downloads/fs35bistenenbaum.pdf
[8] Strike from Above: The History of Battleeld Air Attack
19111945. pp. 181182.

18.6. REFERENCES

[9] Joint Air Operations Interim Joint warfare Publication 3


30 (PDF). MoD. pp. 45. CAS in dened as air action
against targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces
and require detailed integration of each air mission with
the re and movement of these forces
[10] Matthew G. St. Clair, Major, USMC (February 2007).
The Twelfth US Air Force Tactical and Operational Innovations in the Mediterranean Theater of Operations,
19431944. (PDF). Air University Press Maxwell Air
Force Base, Alabama. The use of forward air controllers
(FAC) was another innovative technique employed during
Operation Avalanche. FACs were rst employed in the
Mediterranean by the British Desert Air Force in North
Africa but not by the AAF until operations in Salerno.
This type of C2 was referred to as Rover Joe by the
United States and Rover David or Rover Paddy by the
British.
[11] Air power at the Battlefront: Allied Close Air Support in
Europe, 194345 Ian Gooderson p26
[12] Post, Carl A. (2006). Forward air control: a Royal Australian Air Force innovation. Air Power History.
[13] RAF & Army Co-operation (PDF). Short History of the
Royal Air Force. RAF. p. 147. |chapter= ignored (help)
[14] Strike from the Sky: The History of Battleeld Air Attack
19111945. pp. 181182. ISBN 0-87474-452-0.
[15] Charles Pocock. THE ANCESTRY OF FORWARD
AIR CONTROLLERS. Forward Air Controllers Association. fundamental feature of the system was use of
waves of strike aircraft, with pre-briefed assigned targets
but required to orbit near the line of battle for 20 minutes,
subject to Rover preemption and use against eeting targets of higher priority or urgency. If the Rovers did not
direct the ghter-bombers, the latter attacked their prebriefed targets. US commanders, impressed by British
at the Salerno landings, adapted their own doctrine to include many features of the British system, leading to differentiation of British Rover David, US Rover Joe and
British Rover Frank controls, the last applying air strikes
against eeting German artillery targets.
[16] Austersltt, Tor Willy. Ilyushin Il-2. break-left.org,
2003. Retrieved: 27 March 2010.
[17] Goebel, Greg. Ilyushin Il-2. www.vectorsite.net, June
2006. Retrieved: 27 March 2010.
[18] Krulak, First to Fight, p. 113-119
[19] Blair (1987), Forgotten War, p. 577.
[20] General HH Howze (Obit)". Nytimes.com. 1998-12-18.
Retrieved 2012-04-16.
[21] Transforming the Force: The 11th Air Assault Division
(Test) from 19631965 Page 29
[22] Interservice Rivalry and Airpower in the Vietnam War
Chapter 5 (PDF). Carl.army.mil. Retrieved 2012-04-16.
[23] Haun (2006), Air & Space Power Journal.

193

18.6 References
Blair, Clay (1987). The Forgotten War: America in Korea, 19501953. New York: Times
Books/Random House.
Corum, James S. and Wray R. Johnson (2003).
Airpower in Small Wars Fighting Insurgents and
Terrorists. Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of
Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1240-8.
Hallion, Dr. Richard P. (Spring 1990). Battleeld
Air Support: A Retrospective Assessment". Airpower
Journal (U.S. Air Force). Archived from the original on 2006-04-01. Retrieved 2006-07-14.
Haun, LtCol Phil M., USAF (Fall 2006). The Nature of Close Air Support in Low Intensity Conict.
Air & Space Power Journal. Retrieved 2007-02-11.
House, Jonathan M. (2001). Combined Arms Warfare in the Twentieth Century. Lawrence, Kansas:
University Press of Kansas. ISBN 0-7006-1081-2.
Joint Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures for
Close Air Support (CAS)" (PDF). Joint Publication 3-09.3 (PDF). U.S. Department of Defense. 3
September 2003. Retrieved 2007-08-12.
Krulak, Victor H. (1984). First To Fight: An Inside
View of the U.S. Marine Corps. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. ISBN 0-87021-785-2.
Elie Tenenbaum, The Battle over Fire Support.
The CAS Challenge and the Future of Artillery,
Focus stratgique, No. 35 bis, October 2012.

18.7 External links


DOD dictionary denition of close air support
Our Jets Can Support the Guys On the Ground,
September 1950, Popular Science large article on
the very public debate during the Korean War about
xed-wing jets vs prop aircraft close air support role,
with photos and drawings
Close Air Support 2008
The Forward Air Controller Association
The ROMAD Locator The home of the current
ground FAC
Joint Fires Integration and Interoperability Team
works with CAS and others.
Operation Anaconda: An Airpower Perspective
Close air support during Operation Anaconda,
United States Airforce, 2005.

Chapter 19

Delta IV
Delta IV is an active expendable launch system in the
Delta rocket family. Delta IV uses rockets designed by
Boeing's Integrated Defense Systems division and built
in the United Launch Alliance (ULA) facility in Decatur,
Alabama. Final assembly is completed at the launch site
by ULA.[2] The rockets were designed to launch payloads
into orbit for the United States Air Force Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) program and commercial satellite business. Delta IV rockets are available in
ve versions: Medium, Medium+ (4,2), Medium+ (5,2),
Medium+ (5,4), and Heavy, to cover a range of payload
size and weight. Delta IV was primarily designed to satisfy the needs of the U.S. military.

added to cover FY10.[5]


In March 2015, ULA announced plans to phase out all
Delta IV launchers except the Delta IV Heavy by 2018.[6]
The Delta IV will be largely replaced by the Atlas V.[7]

19.1.2 2012 upper stage anomaly

On October 4, 2012, a Delta IV M+ (4,2) experienced


an anomaly in the upper stages RL10-B-2 engine which
resulted in lower than expected thrust. While the vehicle had sucient fuel margins to successfully place the
payload, a GPS Block IIF satellite, into its targeted orbit,
The rockets are assembled at the Horizontal Integration investigation into the glitch delayed subsequent Delta IV
Facility for launches from SLC-37B at Cape Canaveral, launches and the next Atlas V launch (AV-034) due to
and in a similar facility for launches from SLC-6 at commonality between the engines used on both vehicles
upper stages.[8]
Vandenberg Air Force Base.
By December 2012 ULA had determined the cause of
the anomaly to be a fuel leak, and Delta IV launches resumed in May 2013. After two more successful launches,
19.1 History
further investigation led to the delay of Delta ight 365
with the GPS IIF-5 satellite.[9] Originally scheduled to
The Delta IV entered the space launch market when
launch in October 2013, the vehicle eventually lifted o
global capacity was already much higher than demand.
on February 21, 2014.[10]
Furthermore, as an unproven design it has had diculty
nding a market in commercial launches, and the cost to
launch a Delta IV is higher than that for competing ve- 19.1.3 Planned successor
hicles. In 2003, Boeing pulled the Delta IV from the
commercial market, citing low demand and high costs. The Vulcan rocket is planned to replace the Atlas V and
In 2005, Boeing stated that it sought to return the Delta Delta IV rockets. Vulcan is projected to enter service by
IV to commercial service.[3]
2019, using the Blue Origin BE-4 methane-fuelled rocket
All but one of the rst launches have been paid for by the engine.[11]
U.S. Government. In 2015, ULA stated that a Delta IV
Heavy is sold for nearly $400 million.[4]

19.2 Vehicle description


19.1.1

Recent history

19.2.1 Delta IV rst stage

The United States Air Force (USAF) funds Delta IV engineering, integration, and infrastructure through contracts
with Boeing Launch Services (BLS). On August 8, 2008
the USAF Space and Missile Systems Center increased
the cost plus award fee contract with BLS for $1.656
billion to extend the period of performance through the
end of FY09. In addition a $557.1 million option was

Main article: Common Booster Core


The rst stage of a Delta IV consists of one, or
in the Heavy variety three, Common Booster Cores
(CBC) powered by a Rocketdyne RS-68 engine. Unlike
many rst-stage rocket engines, which use solid fuel or

194

19.3. VARIANTS

195

kerosene, the RS-68 engines burn liquid hydrogen and 19.2.3


liquid oxygen.
In 2002, the RS-68 became the rst large liquidpropellant rocket engine designed in the U.S. since the
Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME) in the 1970s.[12] The
primary goal for the RS-68 was to reduce cost versus the
SSME. Some sacrice in chamber pressure and specic
impulse was made, hurting eciency; however, development time, part count, total cost, and assembly labor
were reduced to a fraction of the SSME, despite the RS68s signicantly larger size. Typically, the RS-68 runs
at 102% rated thrust for the rst few minutes of ight,
and then throttles down to 58% rated thrust before main
engine cuto.[13] On the Heavy variant, the main CBCs
engine throttles down to 58% rated thrust around 50 seconds after lifto, while the strap-on CBCs remain at
102%. This allows the main CBC to conserve propellant and burn after booster separation. After the strapon CBCs separate, the main CBCs engine throttles back
up to 102% before throttling back down to 58% prior to
main engine cuto.[14]

Guidance, navigation, control and


communications

The L-3 Communications Redundant Inertial Flight Control Assembly (RIFCA) guidance system used on the
Delta IV is common to that carried on the Delta II, although the software is dierent because of the dierences between the Delta II and Delta IV. The RIFCA features six ring laser gyroscopes and accelerometers each,
to provide a higher degree of reliability.[18]

19.2.4 Payload encapsulation

To encapsulate the satellite payload, a variety of dierent payload fairings are available. A stretched Delta III
4-meter composite payload fairing is used on 4-meter
variants, while an enlarged, 5-meter composite fairing is
used on 5-meter variants. A longer fairing version is standard on the Heavy variant, and a Boeing-built Titan IVderived, 5-meter, aluminum isogrid fairing is also available for the Heavy.[19] The Delta IV is over 62 m (205 ft)
The RS-68 engine is mounted to the lower thrust structall.
ture of the vehicle by a four-legged (quadrapod) thrust
frame, and enclosed in a protective composite conical
thermal shield. Above the thrust structure is an aluminum Comparable rockets
isogrid (a grid pattern machined out of the inside of the
tank to reduce weight) liquid hydrogen tank, followed by Angara - Ariane 5 - Atlas V - Falcon 9 - Falcon Heavy a composite cylinder called the centerbody, an aluminum GSLV III - H-IIB - Long March 5 (or Chang Zheng 5) isogrid liquid oxygen tank, and a forward skirt. Along Proton
the back of the CBC is a cable tunnel to hold electrical
and signal lines, and a feedline to carry the liquid oxygen
to the RS-68 from the tank. The CBC is of a constant,
19.3 Variants
5-meter (16.4 ft) diameter.[12]

19.3.1 Delta IV Small

19.2.2

Delta Cryogenic Second Stage

During the Delta IVs development, a Small variant was


considered. This would have featured the Delta II second
stage, an optional Thiokol Star 48B third stage, and the
Delta II payload fairing, all atop a single CBC.[20] The
Small variant was dropped by 1999.[21][22]

Main article: Delta Cryogenic Second Stage

19.3.2 Delta IV Medium


The upper stage of the Delta IV, or DCSS, is based on the
Delta III upper stage, but with increased propellant capacity. The 4-meter (13.1 ft) version uses lengthened propellant tanks, while the 5-meter version has a 5-meter diameter liquid hydrogen tank and a further lengthened liquid
oxygen tank. The second stage is powered by a RL10B2
engine, which features an extendable carbon-carbon nozzle to improve specic impulse.[15] Depending on variant,
two dierent interstages are used to mate the rst and second stages. A tapering interstage which narrows down
from 5 m to 4 m in diameter is used on 4-meter variants,
where a cylindrical interstage is used on 5-meter variants.
Both interstages are built from composites.[16][17]

The Delta IV Medium (Delta 9040) is the most basic


Delta IV. It features a single CBC and a modied Delta
III second stage, with 4-meter liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen tanks and a 4-meter payload fairing. The
Delta IV Medium is capable of launching 4,200 kg to
geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO). The GTO orbit is
1804 m/s away from GEO. The mass of fairing and payload attach ttings have been subtracted from the gross
performance.[23]
The Delta IV Medium+ (4,2) (Delta 9240) is similar
to the Medium, but uses two Alliant-built 1.5-m (60in) diameter solid rocket booster Graphite-Epoxy Motors

196

CHAPTER 19. DELTA IV

(GEM-60s) strap-on boosters to increase payload capacity to 6,150 kg to GTO.[23]


The Delta IV Medium+ (5,2) (Delta 9250) is similar to
the Medium+ (4,2), but has a 5-mdiameter payload fairing for larger payloads and a modied second stage with a
5-meter liquid hydrogen tank and stretched liquid oxygen
tank. Because of the extra weight of the larger payload
fairing and second stage, the Medium+ (5,2) can launch
5,072 kg to GTO.[23]
The Delta IV Medium+ (5,4) (Delta 9450) is similar to
the Medium+ (5,2), but uses four GEM-60s instead of
two, enabling it to lift 6,882 kg to GTO.[23]
Delta IV evolution

19.3.4 RS-68A upgrade


19.3.3

Delta IV Heavy

The possibility of a higher performance Delta IV was indicated in a 2006 RAND Corporation study of national
Main article: Delta IV Heavy
security launch requirements out to 2020,[26] which noted
The Delta IV Heavy (Delta 9250H) is similar to the that a single National Reconnaissance Oce (NRO) payload would require an increase in the lift capability of
the Delta IV Heavy. This was achieved using the higherperformance RS-68A engine,[27] and launched on June
29, 2012.[28] ULA phased out the baseline RS-68 engine
with the launch of Delta ight 371 on March 25, 2015.
All future launches will use the RS-68A,[29] with the engines higher thrust allowing use of a single CBC design
for all Delta IV Medium and M+ versions. This upgrade
reduces cost and increases exibility, since any standardized CBC can be congured for zero, two, or four solid
boosters; this CBC will necessitate a slight performance
loss for most medium congurations.[30] The Delta IV
Heavy will still require non-standard CBCs for the core
and boosters.[31]
RS-68A
RS-68
*Masses include Payload Attach Fitting weighing from
240 kg to 1,221 kg depending on payload.[1]

19.3.5 Future variants


Possible future upgrades for the Delta IV include adding
extra strap-on solid motors to boost capacity, higherthrust main engines, lighter materials, higher-thrust second stages, more (up to six) strap-on CBCs, and a cryoDelta IV Heavy launching
genic propellant cross feed from strap on boosters to the
common core. These modications could potentially inmass of the payload delivered to LEO to 100
Medium+ (5,2), except that it uses two additional CBCs crease the
[24]
tonnes.
instead of using GEMs. These are strap-on boosters
which are separated earlier in the ight than the center At one point NASA planned to use Delta IV or Atlas V to
CBC. The Delta IV Heavy also features a stretched 5- launch the proposed Orbital Space Plane,[34] which evenmeter composite payload fairing.[24] An aluminum trisec- tually became the Crew Exploration Vehicle and then the
tor (three-part) fairing derived from the Titan IV fairing Orion. Orion was intended to y on the Ares I launch
is also available.[25] This was rst used on the DSP-23 vehicle, then the Space Launch System after Ares I was
ight.
cancelled.

19.4. LAUNCH SITES

197

In 2009 The Aerospace Corporation reported on NASA


results of a study to determine the feasibility of modifying Delta IV to be human-rated for use in NASA human
spaceight missions. According to Aviation Week the
study, found that a Delta IV heavy [...] could meet
NASAs requirements for getting humans to low Earth
orbit.[35]
A possible upgrade to the Delta IV family is the creation
of new variants by the addition of extra solid motors.
One such modication, the Medium+(4,4), would pair
the four GEM-60s of the M+(5,4) with the upper stage
and fairing of the (4,2). This would theoretically provide
a GTO payload of 7,500 kg (16,600 lb) and an LEO payload of 14,800 kg (32,700 lb). This is the simplest variant
to implement and is available within 36 months of the rst
order. Two other possible versions, the Medium+(5,6)
and (5,8), would add two or four extra GEM-60s to the
(5,4) variant, respectively. These would provide signicantly higher performance (up to 9,200 kg/20,200 lb to
GTO for the M+(5,8)) but would require more extensive
modications to the vehicle, such as adding the extra attach points and changes to cope with the dierent ight
loads. They would also require pad and infrastructure
changes. The Medium+(5,6) and (5,8) can be available
within 48 months of the rst order.[36]

19.4 Launch sites


Delta IV launches occur from either of two rocket launch
sites. On the East coast of the United States, Space
Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at the Cape Canaveral Air
Force Station. On the West coast, polar-orbit and highinclination launches use Vandenberg Air Force Base's
Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) pad.
Launch facilities at both sites are similar. At the pad is a
Mobile Service Tower (MST), which provides service access to the rocket and protection from the weather. There
is a crane at the top of the MST, which allows the payload and GEM-60 solid motors to be attached to the vehicle. The MST is rolled away from the rocket several
hours before launch. At Vandenberg, the launch pad also
has a Mobile Assembly Shelter (MAS), which completely
encloses the vehicle; at CCAFS, the vehicle is partly exposed near its bottom.

First Delta IV Heavy with three CBCs prior to launch

Unit (LMU), which is attached to the vehicle by bolts that


sever at launch. Behind the Launch Table is a Fixed Pad
Erector (FPE), which uses two long-stroke hydraulic pistons to raise the vehicle to the vertical position after being
rolled to the pad from the Horizontal Integration Facility
(HIF). Beneath the Launch Table is a ame duct, which
deects the rockets exhaust away from the rocket or facilities.
The Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) is situated some
distance from the pad. It is a large building that allows the
Delta IV CBCs and second stages to be mated and tested
before they are moved to the pad. The horizontal rocket
assembly of the Delta IV are similar to the ones with
the assembly of Soyuz launch vehicles; they are also assembled horizontally, unlike the Space Shuttles, the past
Saturn launch vehicles and the upcoming Space Launch
System, where they are assembled and rolled out to the
launch pad entirely vertically.

Beside the vehicle is a Fixed Umbilical Tower (FUT),


which has two (VAFB) or three (CCAFS) swing arms.
These arms carry electrical, hydraulic, environmental control, and other support functions to the vehicle
through umbilical lines. The swing arms retract at T-0 Movement of the Delta IVs among the various facilities at
seconds to prevent them from hitting the vehicle.
the pad is facilitated by Elevating Platform Transporters
Under the vehicle is a Launch Table, with six Tail Ser- (EPTs). These rubber-tired vehicles can be powered by
vice Masts (TSMs), two for each CBC. The Launch Ta- either diesel engines or electric power. Diesel EPTs are
ble supports the vehicle on the pad, and the TSMs provide used for moving the vehicles from the HIF to the pad,
further support and fueling functions for the CBCs. The while electric EPTs are used in the HIF, where precision
vehicle is mounted to the Launch Table by a Launch Mate of movement is important.[37]

198

CHAPTER 19. DELTA IV

19.5 Vehicle processing

Delta IV 4-Meter Second Stage

Delta IV CBCs are assembled at ULAs factory in


Decatur, Alabama. They are then loaded onto the M/V
Delta Mariner, a roll-on/roll-o cargo vessel, and shipped
to either launch pad. There, they are ooaded and rolled
into a Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF), where they
are mated with the second stages, which were shipped
separately to the pad on the Delta Mariner. Also, in the
HIF, the three CBCs of Heavy variant are mated to each
other.
Various tests are performed, and then the vehicle is rolled
horizontally to the pad, where the Fixed Pad Erector GOES-N launch on a Medium+ (4,2)
(FPE) is used to raise the vehicle to the vertical position,
inside the MST. At this time, the GEM-60 solid motors,
if any are required, are rolled to the pad and attached to
the vehicle. After further testing, the payload (which has
already been enclosed in its fairing) is transported to the
pad, hoisted into the MST by a crane, and attached to the
vehicle. Finally, on launch day, the MST is rolled away
from the vehicle, and the vehicle is ready for launch.[38]

19.6 Delta IV launches


For more details on this topic, see List of Thor and Delta
launches (20002009).
For more details on this topic, see List of Thor and Delta
A unique aerial view of NROL-22 launch from SLC-6
launches (20102019).
List Date: March 28, 2015
For planned launches, see:
List of Thor and Delta launches (20102019)

19.6.1

Notable past launches

The rst payload launched with a Delta IV was the


Eutelsat W5 communications satellite. The launch vehicle was a Medium+ (4,2) variant, launched from Cape
Canaveral. It carried the communications satellite into

geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) on November 20,


2002.
Heavy Demo was the rst launch of the Heavy variant
in December 2004 after signicant delays due to bad
weather. Due to cavitation in the propellant lines, sensors
registered depletion of propellant. The strap-on, and later
core CBC engines shut down prematurely, even though
sucient propellant remained to continue the burn as
scheduled. The second stage attempted to compensate
for the under-burn, until it ran out of propellant. This
ight was a test launch carrying a payload of:

19.8. REFERENCES
DemoSat 6020 kg; an aluminum cylinder lled
with 60 brass rods planned to be carried to GEO;
however due to the sensor faults, the satellite did not
reach this orbit.

199
List of launch vehicles

19.8 References

NanoSat-2, carried to low Earth orbit (LEO) a set


of two very small satellites of 24 and 21 kg, nicknamed Sparky and Ralphie planned to orbit for one
day. Given the under-burn, the two most likely did
not reach a stable orbit.[66]

[1] Delta IV Users Guide (PDF). ULA. June 2013.


Archived from the original (PDF) on July 2014. Retrieved
July 2014.

NROL-22 was the rst Delta IV launched from SLC-6


at Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB). It was launched
aboard a Medium+ (4,2) in June 2006 carrying a classied satellite for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Oce
(NRO).

[3] Boeings Delta IV may return to commercial launches.


Orange County Register. March 25, 2005.

DSP-23 was the rst launch of a valuable payload aboard


a Heavy vehicle. This was also the rst Delta IV launch
contracted by the United Launch Alliance, a joint venture
between Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The main payload
was the 23rd and nal Defense Support Program missilewarning satellite, DSP-23. Launch from Cape Canaveral
occurred on November 10, 2007.[67]
NROL-26 was the rst heavy EELV launch for the
NRO. It carried USA 202, a classied reconnaissance
satellite, on a Delta IV Heavy that lifted o January 18,
2009.[68]
NROL-32 was a heavy launch, carrying a satellite for
NRO. The payload is speculated to be the largest satellite
sent into space. The rocket lifted o on November 21,
2010;[69] the launch was delayed from October 19.

[2] Boeing and Lockheed Martin Complete United Launch


Alliance Transaction (Press release). Boeing. December
1, 2006.

[4] Clark, Stephen (22 April 2015). ULA needs commercial


business to close Vulcan rocket business case. Spaceight
Now. Retrieved 23 April 2015.
[5] DefenseLink Contracts for Friday, August 08, 2008.
US Department of Defense. 8 August 2008. Retrieved
6 January 2009.
[6] ULA Targets 2018 for Delta 4 Phase-out, Seeks Relaxation of RD-180 Ban. SpaceNews.com. Retrieved 201503-03.
[7] http://sputniknews.com/science/20150318/1019638384.
html
[8] Bergin, Chris. Home Forums L2 Sign Up ISS Commercial Shuttle SLS/Orion Russian European Chinese Unmanned Other Atlas V green light after RL-10 is exonerated during Delta IV anomaly review. NASASpaceight.com. Retrieved December 9, 2014.

NROL-49 lifted o from Vandenberg AFB on January 20, [9]


2011.[44] It was the rst Delta IV Heavy mission to be
launched out of Vandenberg. This mission was for the
NRO and its details are classied.[70]
[10]
A Delta IV Heavy launched the Orion spacecraft on an
uncrewed test ight, EFT-1, on December 5, 2014.[71]
The launch was originally planned for December 4, but
high winds and valve issues caused the launch to be [11]
rescheduled for December 5.[72]

19.6.2

Planned launches

Several GPS Block IIIA satellites will be launched


using Medium+ (4,2) rockets (as well as Atlas V 401
rockets).

19.7 See also


Comparison of orbital launchers families
Comparison of orbital launch systems
Advanced Common Evolved Stage
Expendable launch system

Gruss, Mike. Glitch on October 2012 Delta 4 Mission Is


Behind GPS 2F-5 Launch Delay. SpaceNews.com. Retrieved December 9, 2014.
United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches 25th
Delta IV Mission Carrying Global Positioning System
Satellite for the U.S. Air Force. United Launch Alliance.
21 Feb 2014. Retrieved 21 Feb 2014.
Mike Gruss (13 April 2015). ULAs Next Rocket To Be
Named Vulcan. Space News.

[12] Space Launch Report: Delta IV Data Sheet. Ed Kyle.


September 5, 2010.
[13] Delta IV GOES-N Launch Timeline. Spaceight Now.
June 9, 2005.
[14] Delta IV Heavy Demo Launch Timeline. Spaceight
Now. December 1, 2004.
[15] Delta IV Payload Planners Guide (PDF). United Launch
Alliance. September 2007. pp. 15 to 16.
[16] ATK Composite and Propulsion Technologies Help
Launch Defense Weather Satellite. Alliant Techsystems.
November 2006.
[17] ATK Propulsion Technologies Help Launch Boeings
Delta IV Heavy Rocket. Alliant Techsystems. November 2007.

200

[18] L-3 Space & Navigations RIFCA Trihex


[19] Delta IV Payload Planners Guide (PDF). United Launch
Alliance. September 2007. pp. 17.

CHAPTER 19. DELTA IV

[41] Justin Ray (December 22, 2004). Air Force says plenty
of good came from Delta 4 test. Spaceight Now. Retrieved December 12, 2010.

[21] Gunters Space page - Delta IV

[42] Justin Ray (June 27, 2006). New era of rocket launches
begins at California base. Spaceight Now. Retrieved
December 12, 2010.

[22] Boeing Signs agreement for Delta IV Integration Facility (Press release). Boeing. January 28, 1999.

[43] Covault, Craig (March 9, 2007). Delta Pad Damage Assessed After Fuel Leak. Aviation Week.

[23] Delta IV Launch Services Users Guide (PDF). United


Launch Alliance. June 2013. pp. 210,53.

[44] Tracking Station - Worldwide launch schedule. Spaceight Now. Retrieved 2008-10-13.

[24] Delta Launch 310 Delta IV Heavy Demo Media Kit Delta Growth Options (PDF). Boeing.

[45] Schaub, Michael B. Mission Set Database.


GSFC/Honeywell TSI. Retrieved 2008-10-13.

[25] US Air Force - EELV Fact Sheets

[46] First ULA Delta IV Heavy NRO Mission Successfully


Lifts O From Cape Canaveral. United Launch Alliance. January 17, 2009. Retrieved December 12, 2010.

[20] Delta IV Small Astronautix.com

[26] Forrest McCartney et al. (2006). National Security


Space Launch Report (PDF). RAND. pp. 67.
[27] Three Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne RS-68A Engines
Power Delta IV Heavy Upgrade Vehicle on Inaugural
Flight. PR Newswire. Retrieved November 2014.
[28] United Launch Alliance Upgraded Delta IV Heavy
rocket successfully Launches Second Payload in Nine
Days for the National Reconnaissance Oce (Press release). United Launch Alliance. 2012-06-29.
[29] Delta 4 rocket evolving to upgraded main engine.
Spaceight Now. 27 March 2015. Retrieved 28 March
2015.
[30] New Delta 4 Engine Variant is Part of ULA Cost Cutting
Strategy. spacenews.com.
[31] Ongoing Launch Vehicle Innovation at United Launch
Alliance (PDF). ULA. March 2010. Archived from the
original (PDF) on March 2014. Retrieved July 2014.
[32] Delta IV. SpaceLaunchReport.com.
[33] Delta IV Payload Planners Guide. September 2007.
[34] Whitesides, Loretta Hidalgo (July 9, 2008). Why NASA
Isnt Trying to Human-Rate the Atlas V or Delta IV Rockets. Wired. You could launch a smaller human vehicle
on a current expendable rocket [...] In fact, before the
Columbia disaster NASA teams were working on an Orbital Space Plane (OSP) designed to do just that.
[35] Frank Morring, Jr. (June 15, 2009). Study Finds
Human-rated Delta IV Cheaper. Aviation Week.
[36] Delta IV Payload Planners Guide (PDF). ULA. September 2007. pp. 1015, 16. Archived from the original
(PDF) on July 2011.
[37] Delta IV Launch Facilities
[38] Delta IV prelaunch assembly. Spaceight Now. December 1, 2004.
[39] The DemoSat payload. Spaceight Now. 2004-12-01.
[40] Justin Ray (December 22, 2004). Delta 4-Heavy hits
snag on test ight. Spaceight Now. Retrieved December 12, 2010.

NASA

[47] Harwood, William (June 27, 2009). Delta 4 deploys an


advanced weather observatory. Spaceight Now.
[48] NASA and NOAAs GOES-O Satellite Successfully
Launched (Press release). NASA KSC. June 27, 2009.
[49] Ray, Justin (2009-12-05). New communications craft
launched for U.S. military. Spaceight Now. Retrieved
2009-12-06.
[50] Teaming of Delta 4 rocket and GOES a sweet success.
Spaceight Now. 2010-03-04.
[51] First-of-its-kind satellite for GPS launched into space.
Spaceight Now. 2010-05-28.
[52] Huge rocket launches secret U.S. spy satellite.
MSNBC.com. 22 November 2010. Retrieved 22
November 2010.
[53] United Launch Alliance Launches First West Coast Delta
IV Heavy Mission. United Launch Alliance. 20 January
2011. Retrieved 21 January 2011.
[54] ULA Successfully launches Fourth NRO mission in Six
months. United Launch Alliance. 11 March 2011. Retrieved 12 March 2011.
[55] United Launch Alliance Marks the 50th Successful GPS
Launch for the Air Force with the Delivery of the GPS
IIF-2 Mission to orbit. United Launch Alliance. 16 July
2011. Retrieved 16 July 2011.
[56] Delta IV GPS IIIF-3. Spaceight 101. Oct 4, 2012.
Retrieved July 2014.
[57] Atlas V green light after RL-10 is exonerated during
Delta IV anomaly review. NASASpaceight.com. Dec
7, 2012. Retrieved July 2014.
[58] United Launch Alliance Launches Second Successful
Mission for U.S. Air Force in Just Nine Days. United
Launch Alliance. 24 May 2013. Retrieved 25 May 2013.
[59] United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches Second
Wideband Global SATCOM Mission for U.S. Air Force
in Less Than Three Months. United Launch Alliance. 8
August 2013. Retrieved 8 August 2013.

19.9. EXTERNAL LINKS

[60] National Reconnaissance Oce Mission Successfully


Launches on Worlds Largest Rocket, the Unite Launch
Alliance Delta IV Heavy. United Launch Alliance. 28
August 2013. Retrieved 29 August 2013.
[61] United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches 25th
Delta IV Mission Carrying Global Positioning System
Satellite for the U.S. Air Force. United Launch Alliance.
20 February 2014. Retrieved 21 February 2014.
[62] United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches Second
Global Positioning System Satellite for the U.S. Air Force
in Less Than Three Months. United Launch Alliance. 16
May 2014. Retrieved 17 May 2014.
[63] United Launch Alliance Marks 85th Successful Launch
by Delivering Three Satellites into Orbit for the U.S. Air
Force. United Launch Alliance. 29 July 2014. Retrieved
29 July 2014.
[64] United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches NASAs
Orion Spacecraft on Critical Flight Test for Lockheed
Martin. United Launch Alliance. 6 Dec 2014. Retrieved
5 Dec 2014.
[65] United Launch Alliance Successfully Launches Second
Mission in Less than Two Weeks. United Launch Alliance. 26 March 2015. Retrieved 26 March 2015.
[66] Delta 4-Heavy mission report. Spaceight Now.
[67] Justin Ray (2007-11-11). Delta 4-Heavy rocket res
away from Cape Canaveral. Spaceight Now. Retrieved
2008-05-28.
[68] First ULA Delta IV Heavy NRO Mission Successfully
Lifts O From Cape Canaveral (Press release). ULA.
January 17, 2009.
[69] "'Eavesdropper' satellite rides huge rocket from Florida:
The US National Reconnaissance Oce has launched
what is reputed to be the largest satellite ever sent into
space. BBC News. 2010-11-22.
[70] Justin Ray (January 16, 2009). Delta 337 Mission Status
Center. Spaceight Now.
[71] Bergin, Chris.
EFT-1 Orion completes assembly
and conducts FRR. NASASpaceight.com. Retrieved
November 8, 2014.
[72] Delta IV issues, Winds Scrub Orions Exploration Flight
Test-1 Debut. Aviation Week, December 4, 2014.

19.9 External links


Delta IV Launch Vehicle page on United Launch Alliance site
Boeings Delta IV Rocket page
Delta IV information on Gunters Space page
Boeing press kit for Heavy Demo launch, 2005
Comparison of Delta IV Heavy with Space Shuttle

201
First Vandenberg Delta IV Heavy launch video via
EducatedEarth.
Bates, Jason. Boeings Delta IV Heavy Gets Ready
for its Close-Up, Space News, 2004-12-06.
Rocketdyne Space Page
Delta IV page on Astronautix.com

Chapter 20

Electronic-warfare aircraft
An-12BK-PPS (Soviet Union)
Mi-8PP (Soviet Union)
An-26REP (Soviet Union)
Tu-16RM-2 (Soviet Union)

20.1 External links


Electronic-warfare aircraft at militaryfactory.com
An EF-111A Raven (foreground) with a tail pod for receiving
and an underside transmitting pod, accompanied by an F-111F

An electronic-warfare aircraft is a military aircraft


equipped for electronic warfare (EW), that is, degrading
the eectiveness of enemy radar and radio systems by using radar jamming and deception methods.
In 1943, British Avro Lancaster aircraft were equipped
with cha to blind enemy air defence radars. They were
supplemented by specially-equipped aircraft own by No.
100 Group RAF, which operated modied Halifaxes,
Liberators and Fortresses carrying various jammers such
as Carpet, Airborne Cigar, Mandrel, Jostle, and Piperack.
Examples of modern aircraft designed or modied for