Life--and an agreement with the Air Force on apportioning aircraft--gave the Army attack helicopters. Can attack helicopters fight only if they attack while far from the battlefield?
The U.S. Army wants to test an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar on its AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, using a standard Apache weapons pylon. A radar of this kind would be a very valuable tool for spotting, tracking, and engaging targets, especially in bad weather and at extended ranges, including airborne threats, but it would also be able to perform more general intelligence-gathering and provide improved situational awareness, along with other functions. If successful, the radar could find its way onto other Army platforms, both rotary and fixed-wing, the service has said.
I have doubts about the ability of attack helicopters to survive over a modern battlefield. So keeping them back and still able to carry out their missions is great. But I wonder if the Army would choose to operate attack helicopters if it wasn't the only heavy option for ground support.
Tell me if this AESA upgrade is just a means to make existing helicopters effective rather than battlefield scrap; or if this means we'll continue building and fielding expensive attack helicopters in the future when other air assets might do the same job if equipped with AESA, too.
NOTE: TDR Winter War of 2022 coverage continues here.
NOTE: I'm adding updates on the Last Hamas War, including the revived Syria multi-war, in this post [link fixed].
NOTE: You may also like to read my posts on Substack, at The Dignified Rant: Evolved. Go ahead and subscribe to it.
NOTE: I made the image with Bing.
