Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 7/31/2005 6:58:09 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 7:02:20 PM EDT by COLE-CARBINE]
Fort Worth, Texas Jul 29, 2005


Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc., (NYSE: TXT) was awarded a $2.2 billion contract by the United States Army to build its next generation Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, or ARH. The ARH will replace the Army’s OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Helicopter also produced by Bell. The contract calls for Bell Helicopter to build 368 aircraft for delivery during fiscal years 2006 through 2013.

“We are honored to have been chosen by the U.S. Army to continue our legacy of providing outstanding Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter technology,” said Mike Redenbaugh, Chief Executive Officer of Bell Helicopter Textron. “The Army requires a state-of-the art Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter and that’s exactly what Bell Helicopter will deliver.”

Bell’s ARH is a militarized version of its highly successful 407 single engine light helicopter. Capable of being equipped with a wide variety of weapons, the Bell ARH will provide the Army with exceptional mission versatility and with the flexibility to accomplish armed reconnaissance, light attack, troop insertion, and special operations missions with a single aircraft. The Bell ARH will also provide greater deployability, interoperability and survivability.

“We look forward to this partnership both with the Army and with our world-class aerospace suppliers—to provide a premier aircraft to America’s troops,” Redenbaugh said.

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., a subsidiary of Textron Inc., is a leading producer of commercial and military helicopters and the pioneer of the revolutionary tilt rotor aircraft. Globally recognized for customer service, innovation and superior quality, Bell’s global workforce of over 7,500 employees serves customers flying Bell aircraft in over 120 countries.

Textron Inc. is a $10 billion multi-industry company with 44,000 employees in 40 countries. The company leverages its global network of aircraft, industrial and finance businesses to provide customers with innovative solutions and services. Textron is known around the world for its powerful brands such as Bell Helicopter, Cessna Aircraft, Jacobsen, Kautex, Lycoming, E-Z-GO and Greenlee, among others.

More information is available at www.textron.com.
http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com
Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. Post Office Box 482, Fort Worth, TX 76101

Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:42:34 PM EDT
Man I know they can't afford the Commanche but this bird is basically the same thing as a new build Kiowa. Its what the Super Hornet is to the Hornet.

They could at least go with something with tandem seating in a more survivable airframe. Japan has a neat little helo like this. This new bird looks like its not going to be armored at all and will not offer a lot of improvement other than freshly houred airframes.

I thought Apaches were going to scout for themselves now anyway. Mixed units of radar and non radar Longbow birds.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:48:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 8:49:15 PM EDT by natedogg42]
Maybe Apaches can scout for themselves now but the new recon helos will just scout for the cavalry/ground forces....(speculation)

ETA: But it does suck that we got this instead of the Commanche.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:48:45 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:49:08 PM EDT
and it's sensor package is under the chin, wtf
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:51:42 PM EDT
Does this mean none of those cool MD500/AH6 will replace the Kiowa
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:54:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
Does this mean none of those cool MD500 or AH6 will replace the Kiowa




Kind of looks that way
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 8:57:43 PM EDT
We are going from this


to this



instead of this



Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:01:38 PM EDT
Taking the sensors off the rotor head is a major step backwards, IMO.

I agree with the previous statment that that looks like it's right off the shelf. No armor.

I agree with the push for off the shelf items, but this is taking it to far.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:04:34 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/31/2005 9:10:17 PM EDT by Charging_Handle]
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.

Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:06:35 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
and it's sensor package is under the chin, wtf



Much better for urban environments and will prolly be a lot more reliable than a mast/rotor version since it won't be vibrated to pieces.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:07:26 PM EDT
It's probably welfare for whichever congresscritter is from that part of the country
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:08:40 PM EDT
It should be the updated MELB AH-6 that SOAR uses its a battle proven platform not a news copter
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:16:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
Maybe Apaches can scout for themselves now but the new recon helos will just scout for the cavalry/ground forces....(speculation)

ETA: But it does suck that we got this instead of the Commanche.



Commanche technology will be put to good use in in ohter airframes like Apache. As much as I love hi-tech programs the Commance was a waste. Stealth chopper really isn't very good when it's being shot at by trash-fire and Manpads. The Super Hornet analogy was prolly intended to be a put down but is spot on. This was a smart move by the Army, Commanche was gobbling up too much dinero for a mission that went kaput with the soviets war machine. By the time Commanche was fielded the ARH will have been in service for some time. Also remember UAVS like the Boeing Unmanned Little Bird and Northrop's Fire Scout will be taking over scouting duty while being controlled from an Apache cockpit. That makes an intersting Hunter/Scout/killer team. Commanche being axed freed up funds to modernize blackhawks, the ARH,LUH etc.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:18:41 PM EDT

Originally Posted By JBowles:
It should be the updated MELB AH-6 that SOAR uses its a battle proven platform not a news copter



I really thought Boeing would win this too. It will be intersting to hear the Army's reasoning on the Bell selection.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:19:34 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.



I would guess that the airframe would be too small for all of the electronics


Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



The Jet Ranger 206 platform is and has proven itself over the last 30 years
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:29:20 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dpmmn:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.



I would guess that the airframe would be too small for all of the electronics


Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



The Jet Ranger 206 platform is and has proven itself over the last 30 years



A proven bullet magnet. How many of those Kiowas have we lost in Iraq alone? These little helicopters make great civilian and police light helicopters, but they seem pretty fragile for use in combat.

The Comanche was costly, but it incorporated many brand new concepts into it's design. It was more quiet and stealthy and it had a very small profile. All of these things help in both reaching the target safely, firing the ordnance and getting back home.

Just like the F-15 which is proven and also 30 years old, it's time for something new.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 9:48:11 PM EDT
im not sure what the army thinks it's gonna gain from this bird. we are spending tons of money right now on upgrading alpha model 64's to delta's that do the same job. maybe its gonna be strictly spec op type missions where 16 hellfire missles just aren't needed....
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:01:23 PM EDT
There is a place for low tech and high tech, and this may be a means of getting numbers in the air at a reasonable cost. Lots of very worthy programs are gettign scrapped or shrunk due to a lack of money.

Not every ship can be a nuclear cruiser, every aircraft a C-17 or F-22, but the cutting edge provided by them sure allows little guys like this helicopter to make a difference.
Link Posted: 7/31/2005 11:36:14 PM EDT
I read somewhere that they put the optics under the chin of the aircraft because they needed to be able to look down rather than around (war on terror and all that)

Supposedly it's gonna be faster and able to carry more weight, as opposed to the 7 rockets and 3-500 rounds of .50 the current version can carry. Also it's supposed to seat 4 as opposed to 2.. so it will be interesting to see how it comes out after it's all said and done.
I work with Kiowas every day, We have only lost one bird (on our rotation) so far, but had 3 taken out of action due to small arms fire.

I do wish they were more survivable, the pilots we lost that day were 2 really good ones, and really great guys.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 12:31:40 AM EDT

Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me


They have far more capability, and far more cost. This purchase is driven by cost. Iraq has been eating the Army Aviation budget up alive. The Army's spending FAR MORE money than it thought it would ever have to to just maintain what's flying, and rebuild aircraft as they return fromt he theater.

A Cobra costs far more per unit to purchase than the ARH, but more importantly it costs about three times more per hour to operate a Cobra than the ARH will. The ARH provides an aircraft that costs less to buy, far less to fly, less time to maintain and fix, less resources (parts and people) to fix and maintain, and provide an OR (Operational Ready) rate around 90% as opposed to about 75% with the Cobra. Since the Army has basically retired the Cobra, even using rebuilding old airframes would cost more than buying new ARH's.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted By MuRDoC:
and it's sensor package is under the chin, wtf
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Much better for urban environments and will prolly be a lot more reliable than a mast/rotor version since it won't be vibrated to pieces.




There aren't really any vibration problems with the MMS due to location. In fact there's less vibration there than in the nose where the new one is. The new one is the unit right off the Y/Z H1 and therefore requires no cost other than installation. It is easier to use in urban terrain, as the MMS can only depress so far before you get refeltcion and scatter from the top fo the blades. There's ways around everything in the real world, but the main reason is really cost.


It should be the updated MELB AH-6 that SOAR uses its a battle proven platform not a news copter




The OH-58 isn't much different and is as combat proven. Also, just because it might be the best for Special Operations, it may not be the best for the "green Army". The "green Army" has to think about various other things that a small batch user (like the 160th SOAR) doesn't have to. I'm not saying the AH-6 MELB may not be the better buy, but you can come up with alot of reasons that may or may not be true, like Bell being from TX like the President, or the political capital of making the airframes in Canada and shipping them to TX for completion, or that the MELB program actually provides many features that just weren't wanted on the ARH and may have added to the cost, to some questions as to the capability of MDHI to deliver the numbers on time, since they are behind in civillian production now. Until the Army says why, it is all speculation. My theory is the choice was 100% cost driven.


im not sure what the army thinks it's gonna gain from this bird. we are spending tons of money right now on upgrading alpha model 64's to delta's that do the same job. maybe its gonna be strictly spec op type missions where 16 hellfire missles just aren't needed....




In 1988 it was costing us $1500 an hour to fly an AH-64A. It also cost us $460 dollars an hour to fly an OH-58 (which this aircraft should be close to in operating cost). That was in 1988 when I had to keep track of such things. I don't know what the cost is now, but it's probably not any cheaper. There are situations where you'd rather fly three aircraft than one for the same price, and be able to fly those three more hours each than the one Apache due to OR rate.


They could at least go with something with tandem seating in a more survivable airframe. Japan has a neat little helo like this. This new bird looks like its not going to be armored at all and will not offer a lot of improvement other than freshly houred airframes.




This is my biggest beef with the whole ARH thing. It isn't a survivable aircraft. It meets FAA crashworthyness, but putting G-absorbing seats doesn't do it all IMO. The Japs are replacing their OH-6's with their locally built, tandem seat, OH-1 and that should say something about where 30 year old aircraft sit in the scheme of things. I'm a huge fan of the Jap OH-1, built for recon from the begining, and armed for Air-to-air, it would be the perfect helicopter for this mission. Build it in the US with two T-800 engines and you'd be set for a very long time with an airframe that can expand with needs in the future. There are several other foregin designs that would be worth a look, and a non-stealth, non-hi-tech RAH-66 (no expensive RAM, no super-dooper electronics, no weapons bay or retractable gear) would have been a better way to go, but all of those would have cost more.

I flew in the Army for over six years, and nearly all that time was in single engine aircraft, and I'll say this right now, the battlefield is no place for a single engine aircraft with no armor and a cabin desgin that's 30+ years old. Sure the M-48 tank was a good one, but is that what the Army should be buying because of cost? Basically that's the survivabilty they're getting with the ARH. The OH-58D's are fighting in close combat way too much for this to be ignored. The ARH is going to be in the same enviroment, doing similar things. If anything we learned from Vietnam and relearned in OIF was that helicopters CAN be shot down with small arms fire.

I understand the cost issues better than most, since I worked them long ago, so I can agree with alot of what needs to be done (like killing the Comanche), but I think this is a bad move that will kill aircrew.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 12:50:01 AM EDT
Here's the Japanese design:







This aircraft looks like what might result if a Cobra and Comanche had a child, but overall, I like it. Small, lightweight, maneuverable and a very slim profile.

IMHO, this would be a much better option than a Bell 407.

It just really sux that the greatest nation in the world is having to skimp on quality just to afford to have operational aircraft. In the past, we built the best. Now we can't afford the best, so we just make do with whatever we can cobble together.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:03:13 AM EDT
Here's a vid of the OH-1 flying. If you notice, the crew keeps it in a VERY small area during the demo so the crowd can see it. This is also an operational unit, not a demonstration team.

www55.tok2.com/home/oh1ninja/obihiro2004/01_OH-1_1.mpg



Just one of many designs out there.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:27:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Ross:
The Army's spending FAR MORE money than it thought it would ever have to to just maintain what's flying, and rebuild aircraft as they return fromt he theater.
Ross



Which company or companies has this contract?

I was involved with the S.T.I.R or Special Technical Inspection and Repair program on the Apache’s after Desert Storm, that was quite a project overhauling those birds! Good money too!
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:44:52 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.

Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



Because if the Army did that to the Cobra there would be a lot of questions as to why they need the Apache. Bottom line is that the Comanche did not bring enough useful capabilities to justify its cost. Stealth technology doesn't protect you from volley-fired RPGs or small arms and events in Iraq have led to the Army questioning its tactic of helo deep strike.

This new armed Jet Ranger is a stopgap to an armed VTUAV.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 3:12:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:


A proven bullet magnet. How many of those Kiowas have we lost in Iraq alone? These little helicopters make great civilian and police light helicopters, but they seem pretty fragile for use in combat.


So why built an expensive helo like the Commanche to absorb bullets? Doesn't make sense to me. Even the Apache can be shot down, what makes you think the Commanche would not be shot down? Stealth? Against visually aimed weapons? I don't think so. UAVs are the wave of the future not some manned "stealth" helo.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:49:32 AM EDT
One of the things I remember reading was that they want to be able to use the ARH for troop insertion in some missions, so that might be why they would go with this(407) vs something tandem like the Japanese helo.

Beyond that, pretty much everything Ross said is in agreement with what I know about it. I'm supposedly going to be working on this program- but if Bell took a dump and planned to wipe their rear, plans would change three times before they got the tp in their hand, so I'm not holding my breath.

Bell has really been on a roll lately, with the V-22 finishing OpEval, H-1 upgrades about to go into OpEval, winning the US101(Presidential Helicopter) contract, the BA609 civil tilt-rotor reaching 200kts in airplane mode a couple weeks ago, and now the ARH contract. There's going to be a lot of new rotor-craft seeing service soon.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:16:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.

Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



When we ran out of scout birds in Vietnam, the Cobras had to scout for themselves. Cobras didn't make good scouts. We couldn't hang out the door, listen for gunfire, and the turret has it's limitations. The NVA were smart enough to hide as we approached and overflew them, then pop out as we went by. A Spec 4 with an M-60 gets wise to that shit. Having a door gunner and an open cockpit is much better than not. Gunship crews are far too busy with their weapons and systems to give the terrain their undivided attention. We can't open the cockpit hatches and have a look underneath the aircraft.

IMO, a good scout helicopter needs to be operated with a minimum of attention. Scouts need to keep their attention outside the cockpit. It's good to have the weather instruments, battlefield communications gear and even a couple weapons, but not good if you have to divide your attention all the time.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:13:49 AM EDT


.


Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:22:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Da_Bunny:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.

Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



When we ran out of scout birds in Vietnam, the Cobras had to scout for themselves. Cobras didn't make good scouts. We couldn't hang out the door, listen for gunfire, and the turret has it's limitations. The NVA were smart enough to hide as we approached and overflew them, then pop out as we went by. A Spec 4 with an M-60 gets wise to that shit. Having a door gunner and an open cockpit is much better than not. Gunship crews are far too busy with their weapons and systems to give the terrain their undivided attention. We can't open the cockpit hatches and have a look underneath the aircraft.

IMO, a good scout helicopter needs to be operated with a minimum of attention. Scouts need to keep their attention outside the cockpit. It's good to have the weather instruments, battlefield communications gear and even a couple weapons, but not good if you have to divide your attention all the time.


So using a Commanche as as scout wasn't a good idea in your opinion?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 11:51:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By natedogg42:
We are going from this
homepage.mac.com/quellish/images/oh58-9.jpg

to this

www.aviationnews.com.au/News_Stories/News_Story_Images/Bell%20ARH%203-4%20Front-lowres.jpg

instead of this

www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/rah-66-004.jpg




I concur. IMO it seems like step backwards from what we have now.

Why would they not want to just keep the Kiowas? aren the Mast Mounted Sights good?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:29:47 PM EDT

So using a Commanche as as scout wasn't a good idea in your opinion?



The Comanche was fine for what it was being designed for, but the program took so long that events pretty much overtook it. It orginally started as the LHX, and kept changing names, requirements and everything else until it became a world beating helicopter that no one needed anymore. Kinda like if you made a great propeller driven fighter at the end of WWII that would have been the best prop fighter around, but with jets what's the point? Only with the Comanche it was the situation, and not technology that passed them by.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, it became less relevent. But like most high dollar defense programs that now had a life of their own, it continued on under whatever excuse was needed to keep the program alive and keep funding going. Had it not been for the war in Iraq, we probably would have fielded it. The war in Iraq though caused the Army to take a step back and try to figure out where to get the money to keep operating. They looked at the situation and decided that if they killed the Comanche, they could buy a bunch of new aircraft, maintain the ones they had, and rebuild the ones that were worn out.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:42:56 PM EDT

Why would they not want to just keep the Kiowas? aren the Mast Mounted Sights good?



Well the 58D's are pretty old, and I'm pretty sure many were rebuilds to begin with, so they need to be replaced. The 407 has a bigger cabin, and the FLIR on it is latest gen, so it's going to be WAY better than the MMS on the 58D (which is better than the TADS/PNVS on the AH-64A). They've come a long way since the 80's.

The postioning of the sight on the nose simply reflects intended use. For high intensity situations, the AH-64D has the radardome on the mast. There's no way to fit an OH-58D in a C-130 without doing some dissasembly. If you look at the original post in the thread, you'll notice the different landing gear on the ARH mock-up and the ARH flight demonstrator. The mock-up landing gear allows the aircraft to sit low enough to fit in a C-130.

I'm not going to get into the current Army tactics for Aviation use in urban areas for OPSEC, nor will I talk about limitations of the 58D for the same reasons, but the 58Ds are commonly finding themselvs in VERY close to the enemy and won't be stopping to hover ever. The ARH is going to operate in the same enviroment.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:57:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/1/2005 1:59:28 PM EDT by Special-K]
It is my personal opinion that whatever equipment we are buying we should be doing it with an eye to China. To say that the Commanches mission died with the Soviet Bear, I think, is to disregard the threat posed by the Dragon.
As much chaos was caused when relatively small Germany went nuts in WW2, consider what could happen with China in the coming decades. No one thought Germany was a threat in 1925, but only 14 years later look what happened. Sarajevo held the Olympics in - what - 1984? Look what happened only 10 years later to those people. What we buy now - or don't buy not - can have huge impacts in the future. There were lots of people opposed to the M1 Garand because it was different, expensive, and used too much ammo. Picture WW2/Korea without it. I hate to see us making similar mistakes to that today.

-K
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 1:58:23 PM EDT

Because if the Army did that to the Cobra there would be a lot of questions as to why they need the Apache.


VERY accurate. There was a HUGE amount of resistance to arming the OH-58D when we first fielded them do the the political situation. Someone in Congress would have asked, "Why do you need the Comanche if you want to arm these things and say they're good enough?" And there was a big blockade of folks in the Pentagon that didn't want any armament on the 58D. They knew the Comanche would have been in trouble. The Army simply got stuck in having to do so only when they had to retire the Cobra, and the Comache still wasn't around. By then they had come up with a new excuse.

This is the same political reason that the Army will NOT be buying any version of the M113 for the FCS. It tried too hard to sell Congress on the Bradley, that it can politically never go back and buy M113's for that program.

The Cobra, and probably anything similar to it, is out politically.

There were a couple of foregin vendors that had planned on putting in on the ARH, but it soon became apparent that it was only a race between Boeing and Bell. So much so that they all pulled out to put their money in the LUH proposal, which is more open. As far as options go, the only two the Army was going to choose from was the Boeing or the Bell.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:32:36 PM EDT

Originally Posted By dport:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:


A proven bullet magnet. How many of those Kiowas have we lost in Iraq alone? These little helicopters make great civilian and police light helicopters, but they seem pretty fragile for use in combat.


So why built an expensive helo like the Commanche to absorb bullets? Doesn't make sense to me. Even the Apache can be shot down, what makes you think the Commanche would not be shot down? Stealth? Against visually aimed weapons? I don't think so. UAVs are the wave of the future not some manned "stealth" helo.



I agree that the Comanche is not needed, and that the UAVs are coming on strong, but Chraging_Handle is correct in that this aircraft isn't as survivable as something built with combat in mind from the get go. The Comanche would have been a more survivable aircraft, just because of the two engines and duplicate systems, and the armor. Not enough to justify buying them, and I was glad they axed the program, but the 407 isn't going to take much in the way of ground fire to bring it down. No more than a Huey or 58, and that's not much compared to the 60 or 64.

Single engine isn't the way to go for any combat helicopter. The 160th lost several H-6s over the Persian Gulf in the mid-late 80's just due to simple engine failure over water. single engine IS NOT the way to go for a combat helicopter. Not only do you risk crashing if your one engine just fails in training or admin flights, but there's only one engine to take bullets. All of the AH-6/MH-6s brought down in Panama/Just Cause were from small arms fire that killed the engine. The 160th took most of those losses when they weren't used the way the 160th should be used. They fought in daylight, doing the exact same mission in the exact same enviroment that the ARH will be operating in. The results were a VERY high loss ratio.

If anything, we need a helicopter more absorbant to damage, and with design features that will protect the crew in case of shoot down. The 407 is so simple there's probably littel to actually be damaged control wise. I certainly wouldn't worry about hydraulics, and I wouldn't worry about tail rotor loss that much, but that single engine deal is a BAD idea. I flew single engine Hueys in the Army for 6+ years and I love them to death but single engine is not the way we should be going. It's like a bolt-action rifles. It'll work for special guys in special circumstances, but it's not the one for general battlefield use.

I suppose the big gripe I have about the ARH is that I think alot of Army Aviators are going to die in this thing that wouldn't if they had a second engine and a couple other things.

Ross
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 2:52:22 PM EDT

Originally Posted By H46Driver:

Originally Posted By Charging_Handle:
Why not take a similar number of Cobras that are already built, update and modify them with the goodies they want, and use those? Think of the updated Cobras the USMC uses. Seems those would have more capability to me.

Edited to add: We shouldn't have freaking caneclled the Comanche. No matter what else we get, it's just gonna at best be another rendition of an already 30 year old design.



Because if the Army did that to the Cobra there would be a lot of questions as to why they need the Apache. Bottom line is that the Comanche did not bring enough useful capabilities to justify its cost. Stealth technology doesn't protect you from volley-fired RPGs or small arms and events in Iraq have led to the Army questioning its tactic of helo deep strike.

This new armed Jet Ranger is a stopgap to an armed VTUAV.



Go to www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-4.htm and scroll down about half-way and you can read the after action report for the deep strike ops in Iraq. It'll be pretty clear to you why it failed.

The entire document is a must (though LONG) read for anyone who actually wants to know what did really happen and why in OIF. It's the AAR for the entire op from the Center For Army Lessons Learned. I learned quite a few things from it, especially the part of the Army tugboat taking Marines and Coast Guard boarding parties through a minefield to take down two oil platforms. The Army's "navy" never gets any press!

Ross
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 5:40:17 PM EDT
... Dupe!

... You're getting slow COLE-CARBINE

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374566
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:30:03 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Dupe!

... You're getting slow COLE-CARBINE

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374566



Damn I'm getting slow in my old age. I was wondering how you felt about this. I truly thought the MELB was the better choice too, maybe the MD issues had something to do with it?
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 6:58:35 PM EDT
We have helos that fly a EMS mission that are in 407's. Pilots say they are a little underpowered.
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:19:48 PM EDT
What kind of troop insertion will this thing do anyway? Two exrtra PAX? I can see it for rescure of downed aircrew, but how often does that happen? There was a story of an Apache rescuing another birds down crew. One was wounded so he got to sit inside, the other two strapped themselves to the side sponson, the one guy hanging on with his M4 in the slipstream.

Thats what its called, OH-1. That would be perfect. The japanese has licensed built a LOT of US equipment over the years, I don't see why we can't do the same. You could make the cockpits both the same so pilots could be dual rated or for advanced training in a similar manner a LIFT for fast jets.

Link Posted: 8/1/2005 7:36:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Dupe!

... You're getting slow COLE-CARBINE

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374566



Damn I'm getting slow in my old age. I was wondering how you felt about this. I truly thought the MELB was the better choice too, maybe the MD issues had something to do with it?



... That, and other critical missteps I just cannot talk about on the Internet
Link Posted: 8/1/2005 8:41:32 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

Originally Posted By Winston_Wolf:
... Dupe!

... You're getting slow COLE-CARBINE

www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=374566



Damn I'm getting slow in my old age. I was wondering how you felt about this. I truly thought the MELB was the better choice too, maybe the MD issues had something to do with it?



... That, and other critical missteps I just cannot talk about on the Internet



Understood.
Top Top