Is MDHI going to make it?

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

The Saudi 406s based on the OH-58D were new-build too.

Understand the evolution, but I suspect the MELB-derivative for ARH is
also going to be pretty far from the OH-6A. The MELB is supposed to
have a better aft cabin door, and we haven't seen what the Boeing/MDI
ARH cabin yet.

The crashworthiness comparison has always seemed to favor the OH-6A
over the 58A/C. I don't believe either airframe has gotten a whole
lot better since those first models. You can argue that 58Ds have just
gone through safety enhancements including some seat improvements. I'm
curious to see how both teams address the crashworthiness issue.

HW