Is MDHI going to make it?

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

As I noted in a previous related post, the statistics belie the notion that
the 500 series is more crashworthy than the Bell. My experience with both
helicopters goes back to the days when OH-6As were famous for rolling down
hills, crew intact, after crashing, and I liked them for that and other
reasons, but for whatever reason, it's always been safer, on the average, to
fly in a Bell. Moreover, the back seat of a 500 series helicopter is a
really rotten place to be, from both comfort and safety perspectives.
Besides, MDHI is so rickety that a military contract probably wouldn't save
it.

Jim

"Helowriter" wrote in message
ups.com...
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

Helowriter,

From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
and you start running out of flying helicopters.

Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
than 5% commonality of parts.

Take care,

CTR

It should be noted that all the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very
extensively rebuilt and modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the
aircraft down to the frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of
the composites, built new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail
booms, and all new dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all
the instrumentation, avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as
OH-58As. The only "new" from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built
under contract to Taiwan.

Jim

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

From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is
retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life
of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have
been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this
attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes
and you start running out of flying helicopters.

Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like
comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but
they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less
than 5% commonality of parts.

Take care,

CTR

There are frequent references to the crashworthiness of the Hughes/MD 500
series versus the JetRanger/LongRanger/407 series, to the detriment of the
latter. However, if you consult the statistical record, the risk of serious
injury per 100,000 flying hours in the 500 series is several times higher
than that in the Bells. Much of that difference is attributable to the
forgiving qualities of the old teetering head rotor system, but the stats
continue to favor Bell even in the newer models. One reason for this is the
greater probability of rollover in the 500 series, and a related problem is
the greater risk of fire.

Jim

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