A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Commanche alternatives?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 24th 04, 11:51 AM
John Cook
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Commanche alternatives?

What will the US use?

There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.

How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

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

Cheers
  #2  
Old February 24th 04, 02:42 PM
Mycroft
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

According to several articles I have read the billions saved will be used to
upgrade the Apache & for RPVs.

Myc

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

There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.

How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

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

Cheers



  #3  
Old February 24th 04, 03:24 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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?


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



  #4  
Old February 24th 04, 03:24 PM
t_mark
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


Um ... why?


  #5  
Old February 24th 04, 06:35 PM
robert arndt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.

How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

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

Cheers


The days of the attack helo are numbered. The US Army is going with
the Hunter and Raven UAVs plus future UCAVs.

Photo of Raven:
http://147.71.210.21/fm4480/chpt12/raven/uravn_p1.gif

Not surprising since UCAVs can do a better job, are cheaper, unmanned,
and can (in the future) carry " Swarmers"- KKVs (Kinetic Kill
Vehicles) that attack everything like exploding locusts.

BTW, Germany is going the Swarmer route in the future

Rob
  #6  
Old February 24th 04, 06:56 PM
Mike Marron
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(robert arndt) wrote:

The days of the attack helo are numbered. The US Army is going with
the Hunter and Raven UAVs plus future UCAVs.


Photo of Raven:
http://147.71.210.21/fm4480/chpt12/raven/uravn_p1.gif

Hmmm...note the 6-inch diameter fuselage boom tube (probably
6061 T6 aluminum or something similiar).

Yup, damn sure looks like an ultralight to me!

(Relax...that giant sucking sound you hear are just the deflating
egos of the "Mavericks" and "Killer Chicks" everywhere...)








  #7  
Old February 24th 04, 08:04 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
(robert arndt) wrote:

The days of the attack helo are numbered. The US Army is going with
the Hunter and Raven UAVs plus future UCAVs.

Not surprising since UCAVs can do a better job,


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
and new situations. If they're remotely-controlled, there's the whole
issue of jamming and/or lost communications.

are cheaper, unmanned,


"Cheap" is only good when it's "as good." Generally, they're going to
be as good for a lot of missions, and will be better for some others,
but there's going to be a need for on-site human pilots until we can
figure out how to make *really* smart portable robots.

and can (in the future) carry " Swarmers"- KKVs (Kinetic Kill
Vehicles) that attack everything like exploding locusts.


....which could be carried by any vehicle, manned or not.

I'm strongly in favor of an expanded UCAV force, but we've got a long
way to go before they're going to be a real replacement for attack
planes and helos.

And I'm betting that some of the first "real" attack UCAV helos will be
based off of lessons we've leanrd on the Comanche. Yank out the
human-carrying parts of the Comanche, leave off the more sophisticated
systems, scale the airframe down by about 50%, and you'd have a heckuva
nice little attack robot for a fraction of the cost.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #8  
Old February 24th 04, 08:05 PM
Chad Irby
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Mike Marron wrote:

(robert arndt) wrote:


The days of the attack helo are numbered. The US Army is going with
the Hunter and Raven UAVs plus future UCAVs.


Photo of Raven:
http://147.71.210.21/fm4480/chpt12/raven/uravn_p1.gif

Hmmm...note the 6-inch diameter fuselage boom tube (probably
6061 T6 aluminum or something similiar).

Yup, damn sure looks like an ultralight to me!

(Relax...that giant sucking sound you hear are just the deflating
egos of the "Mavericks" and "Killer Chicks" everywhere...)


....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...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.
  #9  
Old February 24th 04, 08:11 PM
Jack G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Perhaps new technology - about which we know nothing - has already been used
to develop replacements for both the Apache and Comanche ....

Jack



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

There is obviously a operational need for an attack helicopter.

How about licensed production of the Tigre!!

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

Cheers



  #10  
Old February 24th 04, 10:54 PM
John S. Shinal
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Emmanuel Gustin" wrote:

The Apache's TADS/PNVS
nose turret is now 'ancient' technology. It now depends on how
far advanced (and how troublesome) the development of the
RAH-66 sensor suite was, I suppose.


Exactly. The TADS/PNVS has long been a maintenance problem for
the AH-64A. Word is that the D's fitting was little changed. Either
the RAH-66 sensor and targeting gear or something similar to the
latest AH-1Z's NTS/FLIR would be an improvement.

There's nothing major about the airframe that's a problem,
although there have been smaller issues.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SWR meter Alternatives c hinds Home Built 1 June 2nd 04 07:39 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.