Is MDHI going to make it?

I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

Have fun,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Take care,

CTR

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
Matt,

In the 21st century the task of pure "RECON" is performed by UAVs.
There is no reason to risk American soldiers lives when a machine can
accomplish the same task. For missions requiring insertion, extraction
or precision close air support, with current technology you need a man
(on site) in the loop. Don't get caught up in the acronym ARH. The
Armys ARH RFP (Request for Proposal) is for a medium armored and armed
helicopter.

Okay...I think of RECON as the Marines "Force Recon".

Again, I think the Little Bird is a great machine. But if you are
sending soldiers into hot urban areas, IMHO you want armor. The 407
can carry more armor, carry it further and carry more armament to boot.

Blackhawks?

Matt,

Blackhawks? Not likely. For the same reasons the Army uses Humvees
instead of APCs to ferry soldiers. It would be great if all US
soldiers could have the protection of an APC all the time. But because
of logistics and cost it is just not practical.

The Army learned a tough lesson in Iraq by not having enough Humvees
with adequate armor early on. This forced soldiers to develop
improvised armor from what ever steel plate they could scavange.

They won't make the same mistake with the ARH.

CTR

The other consideration with respect to the reconnaisance role is that the
McDonnell-Douglas designed mast-mounted sensor ball is, ironically,
incompatible witht the MD500 series but compatible with the OH-58D/407 rotor
system. It's a great asset in both the reconnaissance and "armed" modes.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"CTR" wrote in message
oups.com...
I worked for McDonnell Douglas for over eleven years, and I think that
the MD 500 is a great aircraft. But for the ARH mission of "urban
warfare", IMHO the Bell 407 is the aircraft of choice. Special Ops
like their agile Little Bird. The aircraft is like a fencing foil,
light and precise. Ideal for special Ops.

The program is for armed recon, not assault aircraft, correct?

At the same time Army pilots love their Kiowa Warriors. The OH-58Ds
are like a battle ax or broad sword. In Iraq and Afghanistan urban
combat they have taken rounds through their rotor blades and pitch
links and still brought their crews home.

The re-engined 407 will be able to carry more armor and weapons than
the MD500. The 407 also has room in back for two warriors, three in a
pinch. They are also proven to be more reliable and easier to
maintain.

The MD500 may be a great two seat sports car like a Ferrari. But for
urban warfare and constant use, the Army needs a Muscle car like a
Mustang that can take a beating.

I'd say the nimble characteristics of the MD500/530 would be an advantage
for the RECON bird.

Jim,

The mast-mounted sensor ball will be going away on the ARH. In its
place both the Little Bird and 407 propose mounting sensors on the nose
and belly. The mast-mount sensor ball was designed to site tanks and
other targets by poking above trees and other available cover in
Europe. This however leaves a blind spot directly below the aircraft.
For "Urban Warefare" what is directly below you appears to be more
important than ever before. Also the ball sensor made transport in the
C130s more time consuming on the Kiowas because it had to be removed.

Take care,

CTR

The fact that the Army seems determined to get rid of the OH-58D says
something about its perceived survivability in the armed recon mission.
The 407 is a different aircraft, and with the new engine will be
pretty far from an OH-58D, but at heart it's still got the
crashworthiness of a JetRanger.

UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but
they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat
is still coming. Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
ARH.

HW

"Helowriter" wrote in message
oups.com...

UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but
they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat
is still coming.

I agree; in a conflict with a more sophisticated enemy (than were up against
now), the present day UAV's would be far too vulnerable.

Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for
ARH.

Why?

Well, the Army is determined to retire the OH-58D, and the 407 is an
OH-58D derivative. (Obviously, they're going to do more than move the
sensor suite and replace the enigine.) Not knowing just what Bell
intends to do with the tail rotor, transmission, etc, the ARH proposal
seems like it perpetuates OH-58D shortcomings in performance and
crashworthiness rather than taking a different ARH approach.

The Mission Enhanced Little Bird for the 160th is already getting the
Rockwell CAAS cockpit, which will provide training and supply
commonality with what the Army plans for the UH-60M and CH-47F. Bell
has said Lockheed Martin will integrate their systems, presumably with
a cockpit based on Navy MH-60R/S experience. Given a choice, I think
I'd rather have CAAS.

I've been corrected elsewhere that the ARH requirement is very
different from SOF, requiring longer endurance. I don't know what
Boeing intends to do to to add more fuel. (If you use the stretched 600
airframe, do you compromise crashworthiness?)

Neither of these aircraft will carry significant armor (RPGs are meant
to kill main battle tanks), but I do think the Little Bird is more
crashworthy. Again, I don't know exactly what Boeing plans to enhance
the AH-6M, but I think it would be a better starting point.

It's not the vulnerability of UAVs that makes them questionable, it's
the limited field of view from current sensors, and the organization
that has to integrate them with ground forces. A human crew brings
curiosity, flexibility, and judgement to use weapon on the recon
mission. Again, with time, UAVs will provide a useful adjunct to save
lives and expand situational awareness, but they're not a replacement
for a scout helicopter.

HW