Commanche alternatives?

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?
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.)

Guy

"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.


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?

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.

Brooks


Guy

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.

Then theres the supportability issues the MMH/Fh are large by
comparision to latter designs.

Thats just some areas that I know about, I'm quite confident there
are many others.

cheers

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 09:24:03 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"John Cook" wrote in message
.. .
What will the US use?

There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.

Which is what we have the Apache for.


How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

I don't think so. Why step *down* from the current Apache?
remember that the tiger comes in two versions, the antitank verison
and the combat support version. The two problems with the Tiger is
that its French and in the same class as the Cobra. so we would have
to pay big bucks to update it to fire US Weapons, when we could just
buy the Cobra instead. Saying this we should look for a helicopter
that can do combat support (escort,recon,A/A) saveing the apaches for
the heavy in your face fighting.

IMO whats going to happen is that we are going to put a stripped down
version of the commanche into service, minus all the crap that dosent
work/dont need, and with a change in the skin material of the aircraft
to make it alot cheaper. Then reincorporate the technology when it
becomes workable.

Or we could take a Cobra and incorporate the Comanches technology into
it.




I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
without major upgrades...

It is being upgraded. A models are being rebuilt as D models. D models will
receive suitable upgrades as needed. What we *need* are new light utility
helos for the ARNG, and this requirment has already been mentioned as a
possible destination for some of the previously planned Commanche funds.

Brooks


Cheers

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"?

-HJC

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).

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 04:46:01 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
wrote:

[stuff snipped]

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.

CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
(they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's
about it.)


I'd argue with that - the CH-47A was originally the YCH-1B, which was
a derivative of the YCH-1A, which was the Vertol 107 (militarized into
the CH-46). I'd say there's more similarities than there are
differences. You can see at a glance that the designs are related,
and they both relate to their predecessor, the CH-21.

John Hairell )

Guy,

And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling Henry J.
Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?

You are not alone.

--
Mike Kanze

"Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics
won't take an interest in you."

- Pericles (430 B.C.)


"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Thomas Schoene wrote:

R. David Steele wrote:

snip

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.

CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
(they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs.
That's
about it.)

The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty
clear:
the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably
an
S-92 or "US-101." 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. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is
battling
Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?

Guy

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 21:51:37 +1100, John Cook
wrote:

How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

Yeah, because as we all know, it ain't good enough if it ain't built
in the states :-p

Anywho, is it my imagination, or does the Tigre look like a cross
between an Apache and a Cobra? I bet the euros claimed no coincidence
there, right? :-)

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:05:52 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

...and the crunching sound you're going to hear is the machines hitting
the ground after real pilots start blowing the little critters out of
the air...

It only takes one.