This article first appeared on The War Horse,^[1] an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter^[2].

For many Americans, the U.S. Army^[3] is nearly synonymous with its helicopters. Think of popular films such as Black Hawk^[4] Down, We Were Soldiers, and Apocalypse Now.

But in recent months, the service announced a plan to pare down its helicopter fleet, catching many of its aviators off guard.

The cuts are part of a larger reorganization as the Army prepares for the changing landscape of warfare with one of the services' smallest budget increases^[5]. The War Horse spoke with Jeremiah Gertler, senior analyst at the Teal Group defense and aerospace consulting company, to better understand why the Army is nixing so many of its iconic aircraft, what might replace them, and what might happen to the soldiers who work with them.

First, some background and a look back at how we got here.

Heavy helicopter losses among Russian forces in Ukraine led top U.S. Army officials to question the survivability^[6] of manned rotorcraft in future conflicts. Last year, the service cancelled the development of a new attack and reconnaissance helicopter, with Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George pointing out^[7] that sensors and weapons mounted on unmanned aerial systems--think drones--are "more ubiquitous, further reaching, and more inexpensive than ever before."

That effort accelerated in May, when the Army said^[8] it will reduce one air cavalry squadron per active-duty combat aviation brigade.

In the months since, the Army said it would also divest^[9] many of its older UH-60^[10]s and AH-64^[11]s and inactivate^[12] the helicopter units in both of its Reserve expeditionary combat aviation brigades. Inactivate is not the same as deactivate, which means a permanent closure, but the Army has not announced plans for what it intends to do next with the units.

Q.: What Does the US Army Use Helicopters for?

The Army generally uses helicopters for attack and logistics missions, Gertler explained. The AH-64 Apache^[13] carries an arsenal^[14] of rockets, missiles, and a 30 mm chain gun in the attack and reconnaissance role. Meanwhile, the smaller UH-72^[15] Lakota^[16], medium-sized H-60 Black Hawk, and large H-47 Chinook^[17] helicopters carry troops, medical supplies, ammunition, humanitarian aid, and other cargo in and out of battlefields and crisis zones.

Q.: Why Does the Army Want to Get Rid of So Many Helicopters?

Gertler said it is the result of two influences: budgetary pressure to reduce the number of units in the Army and analysis of the war in Ukraine^[18], where large numbers of surface-to-air missiles threaten helicopters, and modular, affordable drones can perform low-altitude attack and reconnaissance missions.

"That is part of what's informing it, just the fact that pretty much anything that flies on that battlefield dies," Gertler said about the shrinking helicopter fleet.

He said the divestments are unrelated to the safety issues plaguing Army aviation^[19] in recent years, even before 67 people died on Jan. 29 when an Army Black Hawk collided with an American Airlines flight outside Washington, D.C.

Q.: Can Drones Do What Helicopters Do?

"Well, right now the Army is looking to experiment and find out what really works," Gertler said.

Both armies in Ukraine use drones extensively^[20] in reconnaissance and surveillance roles, as spotters to guide artillery strikes, and as jammers to disrupt enemy communication and navigation systems. They have also proven useful in limited attack roles by dropping small munitions such as hand grenades^[21] or by loitering above a target before striking like a missile.

Maj. Gen. Clair Gill, a top Army aviation official, wrote in Army Aviation Magazine^[22] that drones "should do the 'dirty, dull, dangerous' work" that do not require a human's rapid decision-making or ethical judgment.

But manned rotorcraft writ large are not going away any time soon, particularly for the transport role. Army officials expect to operate the H-60 until 2070^[23], and the service is steaming ahead on its replacement, the MV-75^[24], a tiltrotor that can fly like a fixed-wing airplane and land like a helicopter, similar to the Osprey flown by the Navy^[25], Marine Corps^[26] and Air Force^[27]. NATO experts also point out that changing Russian tactics have made its attack helicopter fleet more effective^[28] now than it was at the start of the war.

Q.: Why the Heavy Cuts for the Reserve in Particular?

"The helicopters in the National Guard^[29] have significant state roles for things like search and rescue and disaster relief, so it's hard to draw those down," Gertler said. "And because, frankly, Congress has traditionally defended the Guard more strongly than the Reserve."

Q.: What Happens to the Soldiers in those Units?

The ideal solution is to retrain those troops in a new role, Gertler said, but not all unit members may want to switch. Some may try to find a helicopter job in a new unit, or leave the Army.

Command Sgt. Maj. Nathan Smith, the top enlisted leader in one of the units being inactivated, the 5-159th General Support Aviation Battalion, voiced the same concern.

"People that come here live and breathe flying Army helicopters," he told^[30] The Virginian-Pilot. "Depending on where they are in their careers, the sentiment is, well, now what am I going to do?"

More than a dozen Army Reserve aviators told^[31] Military.com they were frustrated with the rollout of the decision, which they said was chaotic and poorly communicated.

Q.: What's the Risk of Divesting These Aircraft?

Army leaders frame the transition as a way to stay relevant^[32] in modern war, though it's not clear at this point what will replace the helicopters.

"Anytime that you reduce the budget for the military without reducing the number of threats, you're taking a risk," Gertler said. "The Army is also at a strategic risk now, because they are figuring out, as they come out of a very busy period over the last 20 years, what is their role going forward in a more globally oriented and Pacific-oriented fight?"

Hopefully, at the other end of that, Gertler said, the Army units losing their helicopters will find a new way to contribute.

"Whereas if they continued with the helicopter mission," he said, "the unit might be in danger of going away entirely."

This War Horse explainer was reported by David Roza, edited by Mike Frankel, fact-checked by Jess Rohan and copy-edited by Mitchell Hansen-Dewar.

David Roza is a journalist who has covered the U.S. military since 2019. His work has appeared in Air & Space Forces Magazine and Task & Purpose. He can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

Editor's Note: This article^[33] first appeared on The War Horse,^[34] an award-winning nonprofit news organization educating the public on military service. Subscribe to their newsletter.^[35]