An Expensive Indulgence

            The Wildcat helicopter is one of the British Army's principal aircraft, operated in the 'battlefield utility' role operated by 1 Regiment Army Air Corps. The helicopter has a crew of three: two pilots and a door gunner as well as being able to carry five passengers. It has a maximum range of 777 kilometres at a top speed of 311 km/h and is armed with a GPMG mounted in the door. While this may sound impressive, in this short essay-style article I'm going to argue that the Wildcat is completely outdated as a battlefield utility helicopter in the modern day and age.

The first production Wildcat, ZZ406, in May 2012
 (Creative Commons- Helmut Visorcover)

Is the Wildcat outdated?

            Firstly, I believe the Wildcat is outdated in the Battlefield Utility Role because of it's lifting capacity; or more accurately it's lack of it. Assuming the door gunners position is taken (which, in an air assault operation, it probably will be due to the need to suppress enemy small arms while troops are disembarking) that leaves only five passengers seats for infantry to be dropped off. 

            Considering a light infantry platoon is 29 men strong and will probably be have several personnel attached for combat operations than seven helicopters will need to be utilised to carry a platoon sized patrol into action. The Army Air Corps operates 34 Wildcats so even if every helicopter (including the training airframes) were utilised, the entire Lynx fleet would be able to carry around two companies into battle (and that's assuming that none are in maintenance). Of course, the larger Chinooks can carry a lot more personnel but there is only a finite amount of them and they are likely to be employed transporting heavier equipment around the battlespace. Add to this that they are operated by the RAF and the assumption they will be available to transport infantry becomes sketchy to say the least.

 

           This is an important factor in the Wildcat's obsolescence as on a modern battlefield, the force who can move their troops around the fastest and most efficiently can seize the advantage (this is not a modern development by any stretch of the imagination; it's the reason Dragoons were used in the times of horse, or bicycles were utilised in the Great War and of course Blitzkrieg tactics were used to great effect by the German Army in 1940.) which can often be critical to the success of an offensive. The Wildcat can not perform this task to great effect, severely limiting the British Army's masses of light infantry battalions' tactical mobility.

Soldiers embarking a Wildcat helicopter (Image Credit- Photo Augusta)

           However, people might disagree with my assertion as one of the Wildcat's primary roles is as a Battlefield Reconnaissance Platform. This means that the Wildcat's small stature is ideal as it has a smaller footprint to many of its contemporaries both to RADAR and other electronic scanning systems and to the naked eye (probably more useful in COIN operations). 

            This is indeed true; the Wildcat has a length of just 15 metres while the AW149, for example, has a length of nearly 18 metres and fills a comparable role in the Thai, Polish and Egyptian forces. The three metres might not sound like a great deal of difference but when a helicopter is potentially several miles away, several thousand feet in the sky then it can often be the make or break between just ignoring it or actually doing something about it.

            I think this argument is not on the most solid ground as the question here is whether the Wildcat is fit for an army of the future; an army moving away from fighting men in flip-flops with no anti-aircraft systems more sophisticated than something the Russians couldn't be bothered to take home fifty years ago or a Heavy Machine Gun mounted in the back of a Toyota (I've always wondered why they seem to be Toyotas every time- why not use a Transit or Land Rover for terroristic purposes?) back to fighting well trained and well equipped (or Russian) Peer or Near-Peer forces. 

            These forces probably have quite good anti-aircraft systems with RADAR to guide them and are probably not just relying on line-of-sight shoulder launched MANPADS for AAD. This means that any helicopters poking around enemy strongpoints will probably have about 20 seconds before it is blown out of the sky with it's crew killed or captured. In future conflicts, the most likely airborne recce forces will be Unmanned Aerial Systems; the Royal Artillery currently operate 54 Watchkeeper ISTAR UAVs which are unarmed and act as surveillance platforms, fulfilling the role Wildcat currently does. Leonardo helicopters (the manufacturers of the Wildcat) are currently in the process of designing a maritime Rotary-wing UAS to deploy submarine hunting Sonobuoys.

            Another reason I think the Wildcat is outdated for use by the Army Air Corps is because it is woefully underarmed to perform operations in all but the lowest intensity conflicts. While they are not intended to be used in the direct Close Air Support Role (the Wildcat is the 'find' who then calls in the Apache to ruin peoples day), the Wildcat only has a mount for a single machine gun (either a GPMG or HMG), located in the door.

            This is less than ideal as when the aircraft is at its most vunerable, that is when on the ground either delivering troops or evacuating casualties, the door gunner is hampered in his ability to operate his weapon due to dismounts or stretchers being lifted in and out. The weapon choice isn't excellent either; a single GPMG won't have a great effect on suppressing an enemy position and protecting the Wildcat's dismounts.

             This is especially true when inserting patrols into unsecured landing zones (assuming they're not fast rope trained, which a Light role infantry section won't be) as the helicopter will need to land in a relatively open space which might mean quite a gap between the helicopter door (remember there's someone trying to operate a Machine Gun while you're trying to navigate your Bergen out of the door, closely followed by four other blokes and a dog, in the most ally way possible. Realistically, it's all going to slow the disembarkation process allowing the enemy to bring up the PIAT (there's got to be a stock of them in a warehouse in some random corner of the Empire that everyone's forgotten about).

Undergunned- A Wildcat helicopter with an M3M heavy machine gun fitted
(Crown Copyright- Peter Davies)

What to do next?

            It's all well and good sitting here and criticising equipment and procurement choices, but it's all a bit pointless unless we can suggest some reasonable alternatives. I've tried to keep myself in reasonably sensible territory, trying not to stray to far into fantasy fleet land and proposing logical solutions which both make strategic sense and are politically acceptable. As I'm sure you'll all come to find out over the course of my posts I'm an avid fan of commonality. While I wouldn't say it's to the extent of 'ruthless commonality' I believe that if several roles can be done with one platform than everything should be done to ensure it is.

            Firstly, I'll discuss the Wildcat's replacement within the Army Air Corps. The AAC operates 34 Wildcat AH1 variants (the Fleet Air Arm operates 28 of the the HMA2 variant). I propose that we replase the AH1 with a new medium lift airframe as soon as is feasibly possible. I think the simplest and most cost effective way to achieve this would be to add the AH1 to the list of aircraft due to be replaced by the RAF's New Medium Helicopter competition that is already due to replace the Puma HC2, Bell 412 Griffin operated by the RAF and the Army Air Corps' Bell 212 (used in Brunei) and AS365 Dauphins (operated from Stirling Lines on behalf on 'Them').

             The programme envisions up to 44 airframes, two cockpit simulators and one full cabin simulator. Adding to this the 34 airframes for the Wildcat replacement and you have a grand total of 78 new airframes to be split between the AAC, RAF and the Joint Special Forces Aviation Wing (technically AAC but they obviously have their own masters). I'm going to methodically go through each of the contenders for the MRH and list out their pros and cons and then hopefully reach some sort of conclusion at the end.

Airbus Helicopters H175M

            Airbus is offering a militarised version of it's H175 to the competition. It has a range of nearly 600 nm and a maximum endurance of 6 hours. It can seat up to sixteen in the rear cabin and is crewed by two pilots. Machine guns can be mounted through either the rear doors or windows directly forward. The H175M has integrated fast roping and external sling loading equipment. The helicopter can carry around 3,000 kg of equipment either sling loaded or in an internal cargo space which is accessible from inside the cabin.

            Overall, I think the H175M would be a good candidate because it can carry half a platoon, has enough space for up to four MGs (two without compromising troop movement), can accomodate fast-roping and is a proven and quite common civilian airframe. This is good because it both means parts availability will be quite high and the CT team will be able to 'blend in' better in the skies above London and other potential operating areas. Politically, it would be a good option as they are to be built in Wales and as there is a civilian variant, there would be a good chance of continued production after the MOD run.

Troops fast-roping from a H175M (Image Credit- Airbus helicopters)

Bell 525 Relentless

            Bell has pitched it's 525 for the programme but, in all honesty, I don't think it stands much chance for a multitude of reasons; firstly the internal 'troop transport' layout doesn't seem to facilitate ease of access in a 'hot' landing. It effectively splits the cabin in three with four forward facing seats at the front (accessible through a small door on each side also used to get onto the flight deck) a central section with four forward and four rear facing seats (accessible through large side doors) and an aft section with four forward seats (I don't think there's a door there, so I would assume you have to fold down the seats in front to get out, which obviously wouldn't be good in a combat situation).

            While not ideal, this could all be rectified incredibly simply by having a row of six seats facing each way, located centrally and a seat on each side in front of the door for the gunners/ extra passengers. What can't be rectified however, is the political optics of buying an unproven American design over two British designs already in service commercially/with other nations.

Sikorsky S-70 Black Hawk

            Sikorsky has offered it's tried and tested Black Hawk to the programme. Using the Black Hawk would have a number of advantages- it's in operation with some of our most important allies (the United States and Australia is going to replace their MH-60 Taipans with up to forty Black Hawks) which would be benificial for cross-training and logistics within the AUKUS framework and the fact that it's a well-proven design only makes it's case stronger. The Black Hawk has seats for 11 combat-laden troops and has a crew of four- Pilot, Copilot and two Crew chiefs/gunners. 

            However, the helicopter has some significant disavantages over it's rivals in that it will need a replacement relatively soon and, like the Relentless, is a foreign design and will probably be built in Poland, which makes it significantly less politically and economically palatable to Main Building (quite rightly, too).

Leonardo AW149

            The Leonardo AW149 has been entered into the competition and I believe that it stands quite a good chance of winning. The helicopter has a crew of two and can carry 18 passengers in the 'ferry' role or 12 passengers and 2 door gunners in the troop transport role. Over 60 export models have been manufactured for the Polish and Thai armies as well as the Egyptian Navy. 

            I think the AW149 has a good chance as Leonardo have stated that they will move their entire production line to Yeovil if successful. This would provide a well needed boost to the British economy, as after the MOD order there is potential for more export opportunities as well as production of the 149s sister, the AW189 which is used extensively in the Search and Rescue Role (including by Bristow Group on behalf of HM Coastguard, replacing the FAA and RAF SAR squadrons) and in the Offshore energy sector.

AW149 Medium-lift Helicopter (Image Credit- Leonardo Helicopters)

What to do with the Wildcats?

            While I have been highly critical of the Wildcat's role over the course of this article, you might have noticed I stopped short of criticising the Wildcat itself. For the record, I believe that the Wildcat is an excellent platform for naval operations, complementing the Merlins excellently. Due to the small numbers of Merlin helicopters available to the RN (30 HM2 with 5 in maintenance at any one time) the Fleet Air Arm will have trouble in the future, as both QEC carriers come into service, providing enough Anti Submarine Warfare helicopters to the fleet. Theoretically 14 Merlins are meant to be assigned to the CSG at anyone time, although only seven deployed on the CSG21 voyage. This is likely due to a lack of ASW airframes.

            Because of this, I believe we should re-role 28 of the 34 AH1 models to HMA2 (naval) standards and fit a dipping sonar. This is possible as the South Korean Navy currently operates eight Wildcats in the ASW role. We should operate these helicopters in small ship fleets of three from the Type 26 frigates. Having three helicopters ensures round the clock coverage and could easily be accommodated by the ship-they have a hanger capable of carrying two and the other could be either on the flight deck/in the air or stored in the extremely large mission bay.

South Korean Wildcat with dipping sonar (Image credit- Republic Of Korea Navy)

            Overall I think the Wildcat is an excellent platform for Maritime roles, it is however lacking as a battlefield support helicopter as most of it's roles could be accomplished by UAVs and the primary one which can't- that is troop transport- can be accomplished much better by a larger 'super-medium' helicopter. By replacing it with one of these, we could both make the Army a more agile force and vastly improve the Royal Nay's ASW capabilities.