Quoted: My guess is fielding speed and cost. The 58D itself is actually a fine aircraft, and very maneuverable.  It's nothing like the 58A/Cs.  I wasn't a fan of it when it came out (and I was in on the fielding), but it won me over in proving what it could do in real life.  It's flying the misison right now, and doing so better than anyone could have hoped for.  I still don't like the single engine deal, but.... The Bell 407 (ARH) is basically a streatched OH-58D.  So you only need to change a couple things in the maintenance schoolhouse to train the mechanics.  You only need to change a couple things to train the pilots at the flight schoolhouse.  Your senior NCOs that have been working on 58Ds won't need to really know anything new.  Since the powertrain is the same, the OH-58D supply parts lines are already in inventory, and already capable of rebuilding at the various stages of maintenance including Depot at CCAD are already in place.  You don't need to introduce as many new parts.  Since the two aircraft share so much, some of the same special tools already owned by the Cav's air troops, and the AVIM backing them up are useable.   The Army also is comfortable with what the airframe can do in the mission, since it's doing the mission right now in "stubby" form.  All of the lessons learned on the OH-58D are almost directly transferrable to the RAH-70.  The Army already knows what it's getting and it's the absolute lowest development risk option.  The Army also has a very long track record of the similar airframe in "green Army" use, which is a different enviroment than the SOAR.   With the AH-6J, you got a good aircraft, but it wasn't really that much better than this one.  Yeah, alot of people love the mistique of it because it's only used by the 160th, so it has to be the best, yada, yada, but the reality is they were both about equal in what they could do.  You actually have more room in the RAH-70, which gives some options open to you that you wouldn't have with the H-6. With the AH-6J, you'd need to buy all new special tools, all new parts, all new training for your mechanincs and pilots.  You would have a totally different schoolhouse.  That's a huge chunk of change.  The ability to maintain the AH6J isn't proven in the "green Army" like the Bell is.  Just because a special ops unit, with big funds and the best people can keep something running, doesn't mean it's the best for the rest of the Army with no funds and possibly less capable troops.  That's not to say the AH-6J would have failed, but the Army has a "comfort zone" with the Bell.  It KNOWS the deal with the Bell.  With the AH-6J being an all new and unique aircraft, it would have probably taken longer to field and that's a big issue both in cost and in timing to replace the 58Ds in a war. I think in the end it wasn't so much the RAH-70 "beating" the AH-6J as much as the speed of getting the aircraft out to combat, the overall cost and complexity (and time required for changes) of the program, and going with the "sure thing".  It's hard not to go with an improved version of what you're already using successfully in the mission.  The OH-58D is doing the mission now, and doing well at it.  What few problems exist are corrected with the 70.  Still wish it had two engines though... It's sort of like going from the M48 to the M60.  No great leap, just an improvement.

I don't know why but I never figured that the RAH-70 had so much in common with the current Kiowa.
I wonder how the sensors on the RAH-70 compare with the OH-58D's mast mounted sensor?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I wonder how the sensors on the RAH-70 compare with the OH-58D's mast mounted sensor? You gotta stick the entire helo up into plain view to use them on the new toy....

I figured with the urban environments they prefer the "look-down" capability. Plus wouldn't the mast mount add cost and complexity.. I'm sure it's a bitch to make it work on the rotors due to all the movement and vibration.

Why the F are they using THAT!!!!!!!!!!!???
We spent HOW MUCH developing the Comanche?!?!!?

Ovaries (OV-10)– Now that is a plane that can do stuff.  Our unit was known as Vomit Twice (VMO-2) because of the Gs you could pull when you turned on a dime.  It even has a trap door in the back seat that you can drop you barf bags out of!

Quoted: I wonder how the sensors on the RAH-70 compare with the OH-58D's mast mounted sensor?

Probably better since they are off-the-shelf products from the newer H-1 Upgrades program.  Plus, in an urban environment, if it was mast-mounted it would have to look down through the blades, so you run into depression issues.  You can avoid that by putting it on the chin.

Quoted: This seems like a better idea... www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_6.jpg

Looks like it is better, but still restricted in visibility by the body of the aircraft. Which may or may not be a detriment in an urban environment.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This seems like a better idea... www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_6.jpg Looks like it is better, but still restricted in visibility by the body of the aircraft. Which may or may not be a detriment in an urban environment. In an urban environment you have to watch out for the Golden BB and a RMS allows you to use cover, that may be a trade off worth paying. I can't help noticing the RAH looks exactly like the PD/Traffic version Bell sells but painted sand. Looks suspiciously like the RAH is the 'Bean Counters'  COTS choice. ANdy

Looks like a -58 to me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This seems like a better idea... www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_6.jpg Looks like it is better, but still restricted in visibility by the body of the aircraft. Which may or may not be a detriment in an urban environment. In an urban environment you have to watch out for the Golden BB and a RMS allows you to use cover, that may be a trade off worth paying. I can't help noticing the RAH looks exactly like the PD/Traffic version Bell sells but painted sand. Looks suspiciously like the RAH is the 'Bean Counters'  COTS choice. ANdy

The Bell is a good aircraft for the role. The guys here run 430s and 407s and fresh airframes with the new chin mount package for urban work is just what the doctor ordered (short of nuking from orbit, its the ONLY way to be sure!).

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This seems like a better idea... www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_6.jpg Looks like it is better, but still restricted in visibility by the body of the aircraft. Which may or may not be a detriment in an urban environment. In an urban environment you have to watch out for the Golden BB and a RMS allows you to use cover, that may be a trade off worth paying. I can't help noticing the RAH looks exactly like the PD/Traffic version Bell sells but painted sand. Looks suspiciously like the RAH is the 'Bean Counters'  COTS choice. ANdy Looks like a -58 to me. OH-58 img.lenta.ru/iraq/2005/01/28/kiowa/picture.jpg PD Special aka RAH i2.tinypic.com/os8zva.jpg

The sad thing here is the .mil is getting royally and completely bent over on the price of these.  I looked up the commercial cost of a 407, they are under $2M each, but we are paying $17M each for these little junkers?  Thats some expensive sand colored paint!  I know they have MWS and RWR installed, and the sensor package, thats about $3M worth of hardware at most.  Bell's laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This seems like a better idea... www.army-technology.com/projects/as550_fennec/images/AS550fennec_6.jpg Looks like it is better, but still restricted in visibility by the body of the aircraft. Which may or may not be a detriment in an urban environment. In an urban environment you have to watch out for the Golden BB and a RMS allows you to use cover, that may be a trade off worth paying. I can't help noticing the RAH looks exactly like the PD/Traffic version Bell sells but painted sand. Looks suspiciously like the RAH is the 'Bean Counters'  COTS choice. ANdy Looks like a -58 to me. OH-58 img.lenta.ru/iraq/2005/01/28/kiowa/picture.jpg PD Special aka RAH i2.tinypic.com/os8zva.jpg The sad thing here is the .mil is getting royally and completely bent over on the price of these.  I looked up the commercial cost of a 407, they are under $2M each, but we are paying $17M each for these little junkers?  Thats some expensive sand colored paint!  I know they have MWS and RWR installed, and the sensor package, thats about $3M worth of hardware at most.  Bell's laughing all the way to the bank on this one.

The cost is front loading, the same as any program, to prevent it being cut from the budget.  If you pay up front for most of the program, then you're so vested in it that Congress can't cut it without loosing money, so it stays.  The $17million isn't just for the first 8 aircraft, but for a sizeable chunk of the whole program.

Also you have to remember the Army's buying a 300+ aircraft "package" that's going to include tools, and spare parts to have the capability for complete in-house rebuilding of the aircraft and major components.  That's a far cry from buying a single 407 from Bell.  

And remember what I said in my first post, the one shown is a demo on a 407.  The production aircraft has Army specific changes that have to be paid for as well.  

There really are no problems with putting a sight anywhere you want.  Just some places are better than others for different enviroments.  Higher is better for open terrain, but lower is better for urban.  The "periscope" idea is a dead one in a city.  Proven.

The streatch cabin allows some advantages in aredynaimcs, mainly better T/R authority, and the capability to take passengers.  There has grown a need to be able to move small groups of men with the aircraft at the scene and not wait for a Blackhawk.  The longer cabin allows you to move a sniper team from roof top to roof top, or the dismounts from a Brad, or many other tasks.  This isn't crap people are making up, this is coming from the combat zone as a capability they need.

Quoted: Sigh. Observation and strike, all in one neat-o aircraft... img150.imageshack.us/img150/2401/ov10d20bronco2020er0920202020m.jpg

Unfortunately, the Army can have no armed fixed wing AC.  Thank the Zoomies who felt we were stealing their thunder.  Hell, the Air Farce (leadership) doesn’t even really want to do CAS missions but, heaven forbid the Army does it.  It all comes down to money, if the Army was to do its own CAS the Zoomies would lose that share of the pie.

Just prior to the first Gulf War there were plans to transfer the A-10 to the Army, it was an unwanted AC so the AF was going to let the Army handle the mud moving job.  After the A-10 did such a sterling job over there though, things changed.  I remember looking over some of the plans and Program of Instruction at Ft. Eustis for the A-10 course.

The A-10 would have rocked in Army Green.  (sigh)

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: This seems like a better idea... And remember what I said in my first post, the one shown is a demo on a 407.  The production aircraft has Army specific changes that have to be paid for as well.   Specific changes like a little metal plate saying 'property of the US Army'? And a different paint job  Seriously, there is the commo suite, the digital crap that used to take up the whole back seat on the 58D, the blue force tracking, etc. and the H-1 ball, plus armored seats (yeah, I know use the 58's) and landing gear to get it to fit into the C-130 that's different than anything Bell makes .  That adds up to a tad more than the $2 mil per copy for a stripped civie 407. Also you're FRONT LOADING, so the spare parts and special tools (where the real money is) gets bought as well up front.  The whole reason is to pay for too much of the program in the first year, so Congress can't cut it. There really are no problems with putting a sight anywhere you want.  Just some places are better than others for different enviroments.  Higher is better for open terrain, but lower is better for urban.  The "periscope" idea is a dead one in a city.  Proven. So EVERYONE has gotten it wrong up till now?  Even if the nose mounted 'PD Special' sight is the mutts nuts in an urban setting, back in the boonies you are going to be the most vulnerable tool on the block because you can't screen yourself with terrain or cover. Nope, it was the right place for reinforcing the BAOR in NORTAG if the Soviets came across the IGB.  We're now and in the near future operating in urban terrain, so we're going with a better system for that.  It's COTS, so the Army doesn't need to keep them as long as something like it did the 58D, or continues to do with the Blackhawk and Apache.  For high-threat enviroments, the radome is still up high on the 64. The streatch cabin allows some advantages in aredynaimcs, mainly better T/R authority, and the capability to take passengers.  There has grown a need to be able to move small groups of men with the aircraft at the scene and not wait for a Blackhawk.  The longer cabin allows you to move a sniper team from roof top to roof top, or the dismounts from a Brad, or many other tasks.  This isn't crap people are making up, this is coming from the combat zone as a capability they need. So it's not really a light recon helo after all, just a lightweight utility helicopter... Pretty much.  I think my analogy of the M48 and M60 pretty much sums up the situation.  It's not a revolutionary aircraft, just a small upgrade based on today's combat experience and geared for that.

It's a risk, there's no doubt.  I don't like alot of the features, but I think the Army's only looking at the short term with this aircraft.  It had to do something cheap and quick, and still get a little better than the 58D.  

You have to also remember that Army Aviation units will contiune to rotate at nearly the current levels for many years to come.  Even after the ground units go home and cease rotations, the Army is planning on having 500 or so aircraft in Iraq to support Iraqi forces for the foreseeable future until Iraq can get air assets on line.  So no matter how you look at it, this aircraft will pretty much be fighting in urban terrain for it's lifetime.

Quoted: Quoted: Sigh. Observation and strike, all in one neat-o aircraft... img150.imageshack.us/img150/2401/ov10d20bronco2020er0920202020m.jpg Unfortunately, the Army can have no armed fixed wing AC.  Thank the Zoomies who felt we were stealing their thunder.  Hell, the Air Farce (leadership) doesn’t even really want to do CAS missions but, heaven forbid the Army does it.  It all comes down to money, if the Army was to do its own CAS the Zoomies would lose that share of the pie. Just prior to the first Gulf War there were plans to transfer the A-10 to the Army, it was an unwanted AC so the AF was going to let the Army handle the mud moving job.  After the A-10 did such a sterling job over there though, things changed.  I remember looking over some of the plans and Program of Instruction at Ft. Eustis for the A-10 course. The A-10 would have rocked in Army Green.  (sigh)

The Key West Agreement needs to be seriously amended. The AF does what it does very well, but if they don't want to play CAS, let the Army do it. Its a situation that should never have neem allowed, but that's bureaucracy for ya...