If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
John Cook wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:24:18 -0600, "t_mark" wrote: I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not without major upgrades... Um ... why? The A model is way behind, the D is better but needs sensor suite, avionics upgrades. See the transcript, Block III Apaches. Guy |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: snip I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not unrealistic (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program), destined for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG outfits that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long. BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the details of where the money's going.: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0223-0484.html Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs? But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement is to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as "caretaker" airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is only 16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more than six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and likely less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the homeland defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out as a competitor. From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid. Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or something similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more OH/AH-6s at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a Huey, but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive. If you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more UH-60s and have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with CH-47Fs, UAVs etc.) As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on homeland defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money and buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not to, integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought only UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency plan force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its early--who knows? At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that, and want the Guard to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means they've pretty much got to have the same equipment. While a 412 probably costs less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the separate training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make sense economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and modified AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z. I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks at LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking about just that possibility for a year or two now already. Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing to buy Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines and avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as far as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF. Of course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B) operations from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL capability of the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all support for Army (or occasionally Marine) ops. Guy |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
"John S. Shinal" wrote:
"Thomas Schoene" wrote: The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53, I have to wonder why the CH-53E or its kin isn't a viable fall-back if the Osprey eventually fails. Is it just the problem of fitting them on smaller decks ? I know they have a mighty big footprint, but a friend who's a helo professional has a few great stories of CH-53s doing amazing parking jobs after a hurricane came through here a few years ago. The rotor wash knocked him flat on his ass, though. In addition to the size issue (spotting factor 2.5 vs. the V-22's 1.7, the standard being the CH-46 at 1.0), the CH-53E/X lacks maneuverability, has too much capacity in the basic mission, and lacks armor (which could be added, but at a detriment to its primary heavy-lift mission). The CH-46 and MV-22's primary mission is tactical troop transport, the CH-53's primary mission has always been heavy-lift. It's had to take on many of the tactical troop transport missions of the CH-46 because of the shortcomings of range, payload and lack of AAR capability of the latter, not because it was particularly well-suited for the missions. Fall-back for the MV-22, should it fail (and that's increasingly unlikely, as the HROD testing went well and the various departments/individuals in DoD that were worried about it have all given it a green light since), then it would almost certainly be either an S-92 or US-101, as they're in the right size range. The US-101's a bit big, while the S-92 was specifically designed as a CH-46 replacement in case the MV-22 went south. Guy |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Rune Børsjø" wrote in message ... How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor. Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't get out of a glorified model airplane kit. You havent heard of IFF I take it You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be spoofed and jammed quite easily? You have some of the following problems: IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot. IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it. Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets. IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain. As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action Keith |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Chad Irby" wrote in message m... In article , "Keith Willshaw" wrote: "Rune Børsjø" wrote in message ... How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor. Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't get out of a glorified model airplane kit. You havent heard of IFF I take it You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be spoofed and jammed quite easily? You have some of the following problems: IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot. IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it. Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore, you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new" battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake. IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets. IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain. As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action Still a couple of orders of magnitude better than any UCAV IFF we're going to see in the near future. We can't even build the suckers to fly reliably under non-optimal conditions yet, much less deal with threats while doing so. -- cirby at cfl.rr.com Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations. Slam on brakes accordingly. |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few! You ever looked at pics of these two helos? |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
Henry J Cobb wrote: R. David Steele wrote: The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the 46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them. If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed wing"? In the civilian arena, the V-22 is neither in the "Fixed Wing" -OR- the "Rotorcraft" category. The FAA has created an entirely brand new aircraft category for the V-22 called "Powered Lift" which is designed solely for tilt-rotor aircraft (see: FAR 61.163). Also the AF would probably be happy if the Army bought V-22s. It would probably help bring down the unit cost for the Air Force Ospreys. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
"Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: "Guy Alcala" wrote in message . .. Kevin Brooks wrote: snip I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not unrealistic (and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program), destined for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG outfits that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long. BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the details of where the money's going.: http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0223-0484.html Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs? But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement is to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as "caretaker" airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is only 16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more than six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and likely less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the homeland defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300 airframes to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would not rule the 412 out as a competitor. From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're getting rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with UH-60s, and putting a new OH out for bid. I did not come away with the same interpretation, and neither did the following media source: "Among the new buys will be 368 new reconnaissance helicopters to replace the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, 303 new light utility helicopters to replace aging Hueys, and roughly 25 new fixed-wing cargo aircraft that would replace the C-23 for intra-theater transport. The cancellation of Comanche **also** [emphasis added] will allow for the purchase of an additional 80 UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters and another 50 CH-47 Chinooks, according to Cody." http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/inc02254.xml The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's *and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans (note the use of "also", as in "in addition to"). Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or something similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more OH/AH-6s at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a Huey, but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive. If you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more UH-60s and have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with CH-47Fs, UAVs etc.) As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on homeland defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money and buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not to, integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought only UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency plan force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its early--who knows? At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that, That is not what AvLeak is saying. and want the Guard to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means they've pretty much got to have the same equipment. Not necessarily. That has BEEN the way they have thought for decades, but 9-11, and the resultant load upon the Guard in terms of mobilizations for overseas deployment, coupled with the less-than-timely drawdown on the Huey and Cobra fleets, got some folks (including Governors and likely now the DHS) to talking about the desirability of having some aircraft primarily oriented towards the domestic requirement. NGB has even begun talking about the MV-22 as being a good match for some domestic requirements, especially for such roles as transporting the NG's NBC response teams. The desire to get an off-the-shelf utility bird specifically for the ARNG has also been discussed previously, which is why the plan to actually do that is not that surprising to me. And as the interest is towards a dedicated (or close to that term) domestic support aircraft, the need for interoperability with active component systems is not as important. If such interoperability was such a key concern, why does the ARNG often find itself operating equipment (from trucks to helicopters) that the active component no longer operates, and sometimes won't even support? While a 412 probably costs less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the separate training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make sense economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and modified AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z. Well Guy, in this case it appears the Army disagrees with you. Eighty UH-60's are a drop in the bucket compared to the needs in terms of replacing the UH-1's that have been lost, and I have to tell you that I think AvLeak is generally a rather reliable source, and they do indeed indicate that a *new* light utility airframe is in the works (and the UH-60 is a bit on the chunky side (both in terms of size and payload) to be called "light"). I doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench turners for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be as big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue, either--the ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved in pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification course at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites (AZ and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs for years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches. The USMC stayed with the Huey for a number of reasons, cost being among them (and size likely being another); likewise, the ARNG lobbied a few years back to go with the "Huey II" or similar modifications, but was unsuccessful. I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks at LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking about just that possibility for a year or two now already. Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing to buy Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines and avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as far as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF. Of course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B) operations from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL capability of the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all support for Army (or occasionally Marine) ops. Yep. It looks like the initial number to be bought will be around 25--that would be a heck of a shot in the arm for the Alenia side in particular and the C-27 in general. The commonality it shares engine wise with the C-130J won't hurt its chances, either. Brooks Guy |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message ... "Rune Børsjø" wrote in message ... On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote: Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a couple of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous, they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to targeting How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor. Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't get out of a glorified model airplane kit. You havent heard of IFF I take it Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!", is it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to fill those requirements would be...? Brooks Keith |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Guy Alcala wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote: The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic airframe. I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds. http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/ Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to keep the different designations straight. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
SWR meter Alternatives | c hinds | Home Built | 1 | June 2nd 04 07:39 PM |