“The Brigade was formed in 2020 and unites the Reconnaissance capabilities of the Wildcat Helicopter of 1 Regiment Army Air Corps (AAC) with the Attack element of the Apache Helicopter used by 3 and 4 Regiment AAC. Other units within the 1st Aviation Brigade include 5 Regiment and 6 Regiment Army Air Corps who are the Reserve component of the Brigade and the specialist aviation engineers of 7 Battalion Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
ATF-1 will, in future, form part of the Army’s contribution to the Global Response Force. The Force was created as part of the Army’s transformation plan called “Future Soldier” that will see Combat Aviation at the centre of any Global Response Force. The Combat Aviation Brigade and ATF-1 can deploy with the full range of find, strike, and lift capabilities provided by Apache Attack Helicopters, Wildcat Reconnaissance Helicopters and Chinook Support Helicopters.”
During the exercise, an Apache and Wildcat Helicopter formed an Attack Reconnaissance Team to carry out an aviation assault.
“The Wildcat observed the enemy forces and confirmed the enemy target from a discrete location using its on board sights and sensors. This information was passed to the Apache crew via a digital link who then demonstrated the potent strike capability of the Apache Attack Helicopter by the simulated destruction of the target.”
The final phase of the aviation serial saw two Chinooks drop a Company from 2nd Battalion, The Parachute Regiment on the area to conduct a raid on the enemy location.
You can read more at the source here.
I am probably going to leave myself open to a load of abuse here, but what does the wildcat do that an Apache can’t for this particular role.
surely we would be better off with more Apache’s that\ can scout and attack than forcing this pairing.
Wildcats are great, don’t get me wrong, I am sure the Navy would love the whole fleet.
They can do it for a lot less £.
Is that true? The wildcat was pretty pricey in the end, whilst Apache seems a bargin due to piggy backing off the much larger US order. I couldn’t find the unit price of each to compare though.
IIRC Wildcat came in at about 20m£ less per airframe than Apache. Still really expensive though.
Wildcat does not have anti-tank missiles capable of defeating MBTs.
The question was what can Wildcat do that Apache can’t, not the other way around.
Well Wildcat has more advance sensors and has better information management systems for the crew. Plus they could also insert ground personal for ISTAR work. Also Wildcat is cheaper so we can risk them while Apache hides in cover ready to strike.
As Dern said. The US ditched their Kiowa in favour of using Apache for reconnaissance and seem to have regretted it ever since due to costs. What may be more interesting is the UK’s formal agreement with the US expressing interest in the the US Army FARA program.
Whether Bell 360 or Sikorsky Raider X win the FARA competition, either would be a more focused armed reconnaissance platform than Wildcat, with the latter seemingly having a ready home transferred to the FAA as you suggest. FARA winner isn’t likely to be available before 2030 at the earliest though.
Can’t wildcat on land also be integrated with martlet and offer a strike capability against softer targets and I thought I read that sea venom also had a land strike capability. Would that offer wildcat in Army service some punch.
You could do that but Wildcat isn’t an attack helicopter. Its not the right tool for the job, that’s Apache’s role. The FARA program I referenced would have a lighter gun turret than Apache and would be more likely to fire Air Launched Effects (ALE) such as reconnaissance UAVs than carry heavier missile weaponry since its role is primarily reconnaissance.
It’s not the right tool, but what’s the point of a recon platform that has to immediately withdraw once it finds the enemy, giving them chance to reposition. Surely it would be better to arm the wildcat with some missiles, so at least it can shoot and scoot.
That assumes the Wildcat will have time to scoot after it shoots. With the sophistication of modern SHORAD systems and proliferation of manpads that may not be the case. Its going to be challenging enough for Apache, but at least that air-frame is designed for much higher survivability than Wildcat. A Wildcat in RN service isn’t facing that same type of threat environment.
British recce platforms (helos or AFVs) have traditionally not been heavily armed – their role is to gain information, not to have a firefight. Not their job to ‘shoot and scoot’.
In my view this is old fashioned thinking and highly dangerous. In a peer warfare where air defence is likely in place and the enemy is likely to be highly mobile, and lightly armed armed platform is going to be a sitting duck. At least Apache has its longbow radar allowing it to stay below terrain and hopefully avoid SAM fire.
Generally once your recce has found the enemy you don’t want to engage them. That’s a great tip off that they’ve been observed. In an ideal world you recce an enemy, and they remain unaware that it’s happened until your main force launches onto their positions.
Military helicopters are pretty noisy, I suspect the enemy will hear them well before the helicopter spots the enemy.
Not really, even with Mk I eyeball you can see further than you can hear, and Wildcat isn’t entirely reliant on the Mk I eyeball.
Martlet cannot take out MBTs. You still need Apache to do that.
I know. Why I said ‘softer targets’ …might have been better described as softer targets of opportunity….
“Can’t wildcat on land also be integrated with martlet and offer a strike capability against softer targets”
He never claimed it did.
In combat, I certainly know which helo I would rather be in scouting around against a well armed enemy.
It probably wouldn’t be the one with only a flir turret and a couple of GPMGs to defend me…
Cannon fodder…..
I hope we still conduct recce by stealth. If so, Wildcat should not be seen by the enemy.
What would you cut to pay for more Apache’s and the running cost of a bigger helicopter fleet?
The MoD budget is maxed out and no more cash is coming anytime soon. The U.K. mil need to make best use of what its got. This is a way to do that.
Wildcat has the reconnaissance role and Apache has the Attack role.
Can the Wildcat, a recce helo, do the job of Apache, an Attack helo. No, not really, but it can do more than recce – it can do command and control, transportation of troops and material, and the provision of force protection. The army Wildcat carries an impressive M3M 0.50 HMG for ground suppression, but cannot take out armour as Apache can.
Hi Pacman,
For some reason I don’t have a reply button. Anyway, I see your point. Both aircraft carry multimode sensors maybe different manufacturers, to identify targets and a laser designator. I’m stuck too. Maybe the wescam turret on the Wildcat offers some advantage.
Pretty good, cool setup … against Boko Haram or any other tiny organisation that lacks helicopter gunships and troop carriers!
Maybe I’ve got it all wrong, and thats exactly what it is set up for, because otherwise, its near useless.
Listen up government and whoever their crap advisors are … if this is some kind of ‘future warfare’ concept, the Chinese and Russians still apply the old adage, that they have far more bodies than us, and always will do.
Reality has left the building …
So by your logic we give everything thing up cos China has lots of warm bodies. As for Russia they have load of nothing except 1970 kit and outdated rubbish, lots of models of new kit mind. When u look into how much modern working kit they have it ain’t impressive. Course they look really scary on rubbish like global fire power.
Where did anyone say “give everything up”? Lets go back to basics … Britain has 200 tanks? and Russia has over 12,000, regardless of technology, 12,000 v 200 … well I think we get the message.
Britain has 153 Typhoons, and 17 Lightening’s … Russia has over 1,300 fighters and multirole aircraft. So by what logic does anyone truly give a shit about the UK forces, and its dire limitations?
Russia has over 1,000,000 (thats a million) combat troops of one type or another, and the British Army has … who knows.
During operations in Afghanistan, even the Americans were unimpressed with our lack of combat troops … hence why they took over certain parts of the British ‘area.
I’m going to stop now, before I get so aggravated, I might throw the keyboard out of the window.
I agree numbers are important, and we’ve become too small.
But I’m also a realist. I don’t think doing comparisons of that magnitude work.
12,000 Tanks. How many are Cat1? Many are probably Cat3 formations and wouldn’t even reach Minsk before NATO takes down the roads and railways to move them forward.
To even go back to Cold War levels of say 900 Tanks, 50 escorts, 400 combat aircraft. Given the costs of equipment, the lack of obvious threat, unike the Cold War, and lack of public interest, how could any government spend the % of GDP required to realise it?
We can hope for modest increases. That is achievable and realistic.
I share your frustration at general lack of interest in defence by all modern governments.
Well put mate. You have more patience then I do at the moment 😄
Hello Daniele, this number of 12,000 tanks is wrong, only about 2,000 are in active brigades, mostly t90, upgraded t72 and some upgraded t80 for arctic brigades, the rest are in storage and not been upgraded so of very limited combat use and it’s not 10,000, I cannot find current link to send but I believe it is only 5,000 now. Notice it has only been t90 they send to Syria. Same when you look at aircraft, numbers are misleading, only about 600 are new or upgraded well, Su30/34/35/31 etc the rest had very limited improvement to keep flying and pilot’s trained while waiting for new aircraft. Often when I read here people talk about Russian forces as if we have unlimited numbers of everything, we spend about the same as the UK on the military, and yes we can get more for money spent but there is limit to that, buy more of ‘A’ takes money away from ‘B’, we have same budget limitations as every other country and must set priorities
Morning Ulya.
Thanks for that. It is your artillery and missiles NATO need to be concerned about!
Stay safe my friend.
We’ve invested in technology at a very high end to win the 1st few days of war before it becomes a ground war of attrition of which, with modern day objectives and infrastructural capture required to make any invasion worthwhile, no one actually wants.
A load of migs v NATO? Asraam. 12k or 2k (thanks , Ulya) tanks on the way? Apache, air superiority etc. Air superiority is NATOs? Russian drones knock out MBTs. Nato out of missiles/bombs, Russia out of equipment bar artillery. Any poor bugger on the ground after all this is stuffed on either side
Pretty much! Best to avoid as its either stalemate or nukes after.
And on top of that, it’s not 12,000 vs 200. It’s vs the American tank arsenal, the British, the French, German, Polish, Romanian, Italian….
You get the picture.
The 12,000 thing is such a headline grabbing thing, it completely ignores the reality of force on the ground, and the fact that the issue isn’t actual force size. NATO forces considerably outnumber the Russian forces, the issues we face are really around mobility, small uncoordinated fleets and logistical supply. (BTW this is one reason why an EU army would strengthen NATO not weaken it, basically turning NATO into a bi-lateral treaty between two superpowers, with UK, Canada and a few others bolted on, but that’s another subject).
At any rate, given the history of anything that’s not currently in active service in Russia at the moment I severely doubt that they’d be any faster re-activating them than simply new-building a load of tanks.
Spot on mate
Same with the PLAN. Building a huge fleet but matched quite well by neighbours like Japan, S Korea, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, RAN etc plus USN fleet in W Pacific.
However the UK & nato in Europe needs be v wary how Russia plays them. A few cuts or capability gaps too many plus our leadership nativity/incompetence & we could suffer a well constructed Russian ruse.
What will get NATO isn’t a capability gap, it’ll be the inability for 30 governments to form a consensus on activity that falls below the threshold, and the logistical difficulty of moving large amounts of troops across Europe.
We cracked the logistics ages ago, surely.
Not even remotely. For example, railway gauges change in eastern Europe, so all rail transported materiel going to the Baltics would need to be unloaded from western trains and repacked onto eastern ones somewhere in Poland.
But Britain wont face Russia alone. And although the American may have been “disappointed” in troop numbers. We still contributed the second most and are commitment was certainly noticable and appreciated.
But it’s not top trumps, and while numbers have a quality of their own, your figures are unrealistic and a bit like the crappy global firepower list. “So by what logic does anyone truly give a shit about UK foces” and by that statement you have shown a true lack of capability knowledge in regard to many many niche capabilities we provide second only to the US. True, numbers are low and certainly the Army has been treated like a sad cousin by head sheds and various HMGs, but a sweeping statement like yours is more akin to a red top rag one liner…..
Tom, who says UK alone will take on Russia? That’s NATO’s job, if pressed to do so.
I do agree we did not commit nearly enough troops to Afghanistan – one brigade to cover an area three times the size of Wales? – ridiculous.
Actually this would be a very good force structure for a peer on peer conflict. Think of it as a cavalry unit. Not only can it conduct recconisance and probing attack, but it could also be used for rear guard and flank protection work to large formations. It is not unimaginable to think of such a unit acting as the rear guard covering the retreat of NATO forces from the Baltics in the scenario of a Russian invasion.
destroy an enemies ability to communicate and it doesn’t matter how many millions of everything they have they will lose. No coms no bombs that’s the future…..
I think you and many people would be surprised at just exactly what HM’s armed forces can do and are clearly planning to do as far as technology goes.
🏴🇬🇧
People like me??? I served my time dude, and I really don’t appreciate woolly headed fools who think they know what they are on about based on nothing.
We knew in the 80’s that it would be a matter of days, a few weeks at the most before NATO would be forced onto the back foot, and then have to fall back based on numbers. We still rocked up, and stood on the line.
Todays society cannot do that unfortunately. It’s why the west loses all the time to Asian and Eastern European Countries. The west is soft, and does not have the stomach for a long drawn out toe to toe slugging matches.
The west is soft when it comes to dealing with the medieval mindset of far and middle eastern supported terrorism.
That my friend is reality, and no amount of drones or other technology will change that.
For over 40 years, so called technologically advanced nations have been fighting in Afghanistan. We left, we lost and the Taliban are still fighting and taking back control of the country. 15 of the 17 districts in Kandahar are back under Taliban control.
If that doesn’t prove the point once and for all … maybe you should take up yoghurt knitting. Peace out brother.
Agreed bud. Sadly the Daily Mail armchair brigade on here ignore the truth everyday. No one knows the facts better than veterans, some though still believe the bull crap thats sold by gooberment and defence contractors. Mention care of veterans on here and you become an “instant socialist” and an enemy of the state. I think Brexit addled the brains of many, that and daft aircraft carriers which have to borrow aircraft from another country. If we kept our noses out, apart from Nato commitments, UK Inc would be in far better shape militarily.
Nobody knows the facts better than vets! Correct, however those vets need to be up to date with recent and current conops etc, and not doing reforger in the 80s a d still think that’s the name of the game and the way we do things. Your comment about Brexit is childlike and patronising, and your comment about the carriers does in fact show your lack of knowledge in that sphere. Are you a vet? If so you should know better as you have already stated.
The aircraft carrier mantra is a bit tired. We are having to wait for our full complement of F-35Bs to be delivered – they are quite new aircraft and the production line has seemingly favoured USMC.
Rather than do nothing with HMS QE, why not sail her with some USMC aircraft, to make up the numbers.
We beat the Taliban and we achieved are aims. It is the Afghan people that lost those victories, it is them who are unwilling to fight. If you hate your country that much then fine, but at least show some respect to those who still fight it. Also even in the 80s when we only had four divisions, the Soviets considered us to be the hardest force to break in the west. And if are low numbers truly ment we where weak why did the Soviets not invade western Europe?
“Hate your country that much” … Dude … what kind of garbage statement is that??? If you do not have the capacity to be involved in a conversation, including the opposing extremes of any given subject, then keep your nose out, or maybe try another website … like model collecting or whatever.
Well your the one who’s doing nothing but criticising it, its miltary and its people. Why don’t you have anything positive to say?
Nothing positive to say??? And what exactly, has that to do with factual statements, and realistic probabilities?
These statements are not solely mine, they come from statistics and analysis from all manner of sources, including the MOD.
As far as I am concerned, I served in the Best army in the world … The British Army. Family members of mine are still serving in the British Army … still the best Army in the world.
An army which is grossly undermanned like never before, and as poorly equipped as it has always been. An army which would only last a couple of months or so if anything on a major scale were to kick off somewhere in the world.
Even scarier, if a large operation took place, and then a second large scale situation developed elsewhere on the planet, the UK could not do both. That is the problem, the lack of strength and depth in the armed forces.
You are confusing criticism with reality.
Are low numbers are certainly a concern. However, to make direct comparisons as you do is misleading at best. Not only are these countries larger in both geographic size and population, but we would never face them alone. Also since the Brigade is at full strength, this point has no impact on the doctrine concept behind the brigade and its usefulness in a peer to peer conflict.
“An army which would only last a couple of months or so if anything on a major scale were to kick off somewhere in the world.”
“Even scarier, if a large operation took place, and then a second large scale situation developed elsewhere on the planet, the UK could not do both”
Neither of these apply to just us though. Could the German Army last any longer if something major kicked off? Are the French any more capable of sustaining two large ops simultaneously? The Spanish? The Italians? I’m not trying to justify or defend the hole the British Army seems to be in, but this kind of total commitment/multiple large scale deployments you’re talking about is really the preserve of the US nowadays. Short of us rapidly doubling our population and our GDP skyrocketing with a subsequent increase in the forces, it is what it is.
Also I noticed you didn’t respond to any of my more academic criticism of your argument.
See my reply …. smart mouth!
To be fair, Harry Posted that before your reply, we can see the time stamps my man.
“We beat the Taliban and achieved our aims” I always thought the aims were much like Black Adder Goes Forth in Afghanistan, i.e Carry on fighting until everyone is dead, except the chief of the Defence Staff, his wife and their tortoise Allen… If there ever was a Grand Plan plan, please do share it Harry…
Joking aside, no one ever wins a war against a determined Insurgency.
The Americans won every single major battle in Vietnam and still lost the war, Afghanistan exactly the same, its unpalatable, but make no mistake, the war and Afghanistan is lost to civilisation, god help them…
The determined man with an AK47 and zero concern for his own life (plus a limitless Que behind him, ready to pick up his rifle,flip flops and beard gel) will win every singe time. History just keeps repeating, over and over again…..
A sad fact Harry
It has taken the Taliban to adopt a conventional offensive to re gain its control on Afghanistan. Had the ANA had the will.power to hold and fight then they would continue to be a broken and disorganized insurgency.
The point being Tom, that the only way the Afghan Government would have stayed in power, would be NATO involvement forever and ever, propping them in place. The country is returning to its natural state of chaos and multi sided civil war. When we have colonised the stars, they will still be knocking lumps out of each other in an eternal killing spree….. Just appalling for the poor population of that God forsaken Country.
The Americans faced the same reality in Vietnam, sooner or later you have to face reality and go home…..
I 100% agree with you. But that has no relation to do with the west or to that point Britians, inability to fight a war.
I’m not so sure Harry, yesterday’s wars or tomorrow’s wars?
We see a shift in the UK’s position going on at the moment, away from conventional warfare, towards Carrier Strike, Special / Elite forces and cyber and space.
I should think any future operations will be no more than 3,500 strong and very short term in nature.
Operations involving 6,000 or more will have to start to involve Army Reserve elements, with an increasing dependency as it scales up. This is clearly not sustainable, so deployments of this nature will be uncommon and the exception.
We will use technology in ways not possible 10 years ago to electronically shut down, jam and disrupt C3 assets and massive firepower and highly capable troops to overwhelm enemies in pin point attacks ….. Then get the hell out!
The days of enduring 10,000 personnel operations are clearly over. We couldn’t if we wanted now, perhaps that’s no bad thing, it’s proven to be a flawed concept…
We beat the Taliban … when was that?
I await confirmation of that one Tom, there’s me thinking we gave up and got the hell out, again. Third time we’ve got ourselves involved in Afghanistan and third time we had to leave…….
It’s crazy John. What constitutes a win in todays world? To my simplistic mind, we invaded, we kicked some arse, lost good people, but the Taliban are still there regaining control, as well as other tribal warlords, and terrorist splinter groups.
To be honest, my biggest fear is that the US sails home, pulls up the drawbridge, and tells the rest of the world to ‘get stuffed’.
It could be said, that the Middle East was better off with the dictators, and murderers before we tried to export our western logic, mentality or even morals to them.
Perhaps so, the simplistic approach by Bush and Blair of knocking over a dictatorship in Iraq, coupled with the disbandment of its armed forces, led to an uncontrollable collapse of the country, the start of a vicious insurgency and regional destabilisation, with the aftershocks still reverberating years after the fact….
All bloody obvious from the get go….
Same as Afghanistan, an open ended intervention, with absolutely no end game or exit strategy. Bound to all end in tears.
Again, all totally bloody obvious from the start…
Let’s hope we have seen an end to such utterly clueless leadership Tom.
You have a point re western society, Tom.
Many of them cannot even take simple HMG advice re Covid.
I don’t know the answer.
Neither do I to be fair, however it is a grim reality, which is destined to get only worse.
People are to quick to judge the younger generations, its happened throughout history. However, in terms of Covid its worth noting that this generation is currently living through the worst disaster in centuries. Within less then a year more civilians have died in this country then within five years of world war. Entire families have been killed off and many have lost relatives including parents and children. This is without mentioning the significant economic impact it will have on my generation for decades to come. But what do we do? We make jokes about it and carry on as best we can. Also it’s well known that many of the laws set out in ww2 where often broken by a broad range of the public, and that all laws had to be strongly enforced.
We are. For bloody good reason judging the behaviour I have seen from young adults over the last 18 months.
Free spirited youth breaking rules? Standard. Middle aged men an women thinking they know best with an attitude of you can’t tell me what to do? Check. Happened throughout the years. We’re British and we don’t like to be under the thumb. Take liberties with us and as many nations have found out the hard way you’re in for a shock
In any other circumstance I’m in total agreement and the first to stick 2 fingers up to the world that we do things our way. And damn proud of that.
But in this instance with a pandemic spreading due to people in close proximity and then ignoring advice, laws, that falls down for me.
Especially as my Wife and I have obeyed the rules and not even been inside a restaurant or pub for a year and a half or more, or had anybody in the house. And we have lost close friends to it.
As for those complaining while on hols that HMG have ruined it by changing the status of countries, well, maybe they should have been a bit patient in a pandemic and not gone away? Just for once? Or are they actually that selfish?
We’d LOVE to go away. We haven’t.
Seeing so many flagrantly ignoring the requirements to beat it is annoying! I was still travelling to work every day throughout saw it daily.
Never mind the photos online.
I pray the worst is now over.
Amen to that Daniele. I watched a young lady on the news the other day, her attitude was similar to many, “I’m young, fit and healthy, so probably won’t get ill if I get Covid, so why should I be vaccinated” ?
To help break the re-infection cycle, to protect your fellow human beings, to do your sodding civil duty….
Many under 30 sadly hold the same viewpoint, a generation who are apparently leading the way to clean up the planet, don’t include Viruses within their environmental credentials….
Wildcat can be Armed so could look after it’s self which would give the AAC more flexibly and Extra fire power.🤔
Can it Andrew, has it, have any trials or certification been paid for or even planned ??
A couple of GPMG’s or perhaps a .50 cal if the recoil doesn’t shake the Wildcat to bits….
ahem
Thanks for posting Dern, so, I’m assuming this isn’t simply the old stores aerodynamic pylon testing picture then????
Is it ‘actual’ stores integration testing and test firing?
It’s the RN’s combat loadout for Wildcat, with Martlet which has been successfully test fired from Wildcat over a year ago now and is expected IOC this year, and Sea Venom, which the RN is planning on equipping on Wildcat when it enters service.
So… yes, considerably more than “a couple GPMGs and 50cal if the recoil doesn’t shake the wildcat to bits.”
I’ll ignore the thinly veiled and rather poor attempt at sarcasm … Off the mark there Dern, we are discussing the AAC Wildcat…
Particularly the lack of armament of the Army version, making it a sitting duck in the scouting roll, the Naval variant is an excellent, if overpriced machine.
“a couple GPMGs and 50cal if the recoil doesn’t shake the wildcat to bits.” Does seem to be about all that’s planned and currently budgeted for, unless you know differently Dern?
You where literally acting like the airframe can’t take a 50 John, don’t take tones like that and then whinge when someone throws the same tone back at you. Glass houses and rocks.
I’ll remind you the original comment was that WILDCAT can be up armed, to which you acted like anything beyond a GPMG would lead to it knocking itself out of the sky.
This is clearly not the case, because the RN can fly it with pretty heavy armament, as I evidenced, and the issue with the AAC is Army choices, not airframe problems, as you so snidely acted like it was.
Now, if you’re willing to have a grown up conversation I’m more than willing to have it, but get a grip of your tone if you don’t want me to use sarcasm when talking to you.
I’ve flagged your comment Dern, as I found it offence, you know, like you do all the time…..
Grow up John.
Close, but no cigar … The discussion was firmly about the Army Wildcat and it’s total lack of offensive armament.
Do you think it’s perfectly acceptable to send crews scouting for the enemy, in helos only armed with a couple of GPMGs?
Go on, red flag me again Dern….🤣🤣
Surprisingly Recce units are not supposed to get into firefights.
You know, I’ve never flagged you John, but the paranoia bit is a bit sad. Maybe, if you’re having problems getting flagged try being a less abrasive personality?
Oh lighten up, you youngsters take life far too seriously…..
I apologise about the red flagging, but it seems to be all the rage these days and I wanted to see what all the hip kids are raving about and get in on the action.
Anyway, Recce units aren’t meant to engage, oh, that’s alright then, as long as the ZSU-34 crew in the next valley over, understand that as they turn the Wildcat into a flying cullender…
No dramas mate.
With the Recce units, two courses of action happen: 1 the ZSU-34 is pre-seen in which case Wildcat notes it’s location and brings an asset (fast air or artillery perhaps) to bear on it. 2 The ZSU pre-sees the Wildcat in which case the Missiles won’t help as much as decent armour and getting behind cover because missiles are much slower than bullets.
Ideally a Recce unit shouldn’t even be detected, let alone engage something, because discovery alerts the enemy to your interest in the area, and that in turn invalidates any int you may have gathered on the target.
Interesting report. I am curious on when they will start using a drone for the scouting /targeting of the enemy instead of manned aircraft?
Ref the duality of Aoache and Wildcat, we followed the US army model of an attack helo paired with a recon scout helo.
The US had Apache in the attack role and the Bell Kiowa doing the recon. It was smaller and lighter than Apache and equipped with an aerial mast with infrared and laser rangefinder, making it a good ISTAR asset. It could also control UAVs.
A tactical patrol scenario would be the UAVs going on point, the Kiowa next and the Apaches doing overwatch. The Kiowa did ground support too. Basically the Wildcat is there to do a similar recon rolem
When the Kiowa was retired (2017), they tried using the Apache in both roles but concluded it wasn’t very successful as a scout. I can’t remember the details, one reason was it didn’t have the Kiowa’s ISTAR kit , it was also seen as too large and the operating cost was far higher than the Kiowa. I would think that Apache is seen as too high value an asset to be put in a scout role.
They will replace Apache in the recon role with the Invictus or Raider.
I think our dual Apache-Wildcat approach is right for combat helicopters, though I don’t know much about Wildcat’s ISTAR capabiities.
The biggest difference is the wildcats troop carrying ability having the two working in combination is the best option, using both in the same battlefield both attack helicopters while the apache can continue to engage the wildcat can deploy troops on the ground or recover troops from the ground or be used as search and rescue.
Anyone else see that Arrowhead is shortlisted for the polish frigate program?