A New AH-64 Version

I hear some rumors on an updated AH-64X?

The updates may be the followings: 5 Blade Main Rotor, Diamond Shape on some
surfaces (Specially the tail) a new TADS/PNVS and a new LONGBOW radar (Taken
from the commanche's project), also is possible a Fenestron Pusher tail rotor
and Fly By Wire controls, new more powerful engines and revised transmission,
also are considering a retractable landing gear and a wider / detachable wing to
load more weapons in certain missions.

In summary: lower noise, lower maintenance, more offensive power, better
sensors, more Speed, and more strength and survival to damage.
--

Goku Rules ....

With the Comanche being cancelled, money has been freed to fund improvements
to the existing airframe. Much of what you mentioned is part of the
DRIVETRAIN 2000 upgrade. Rumor has it, that TADS/PNVS should be fielded
with lot 8 starting late this year. And the "new" LONGBOW RADAR that you
mentioned that will be taken from Comanche....was/is the same RADAR taken
from LONGBOW AH-64D to the RH-66 Comanche. The Program Manager (PM) may
have contracted for improvements, but it is the same RADAR. We already have
a "fly by wire" capability used in emergencies called E-BUCS. As for the
tailrotor improvements...I can't speak to those points. I don't belive
there is any plan for retractable gear, if there is, then that is a mistake
or a trade on crew survivability. I am one of the few people alive that
have survived a crash in a LONGBOW. I can say if I had been in any other
aircraft, I would be dead.

CW4 Ron Carns

Thanks Ron, The AH-64 is an live and evolving system, the improvements I mention
are for new units, and some exist only in study as the landing gear, the tail
rotor, and the Full FlyByWire, on the tail rotor, I think that exist better
solutions than the fenestron or the Piascecki ducted fan or the Notar, But is
classified material, you know that in some circumstances a research team for a
system don't have access to the work of other teams, unless the system being
developed have common elements, the commanche's radar is more compact and has
less radar section, and have many common parts with the AH-64 longbow, the
improvements to the rotor system are for new units and for a limited number of
old units, I don't know its current stage, but surely prior 2010 will not enter
in service, as the "New" AH-64X.

|I am one of the few people alive that
| have survived a crash in a LONGBOW. I can say if I had been in any other
| aircraft, I would be dead.
God bless you, and America.

I'm not a pilot, I'm a systems engineer, we put the ideas, the crews the courage
and the blood.
--

Goku Rules ....

"Ron Carns" escribió en el mensaje
nk.net...
| With the Comanche being cancelled, money has been freed to fund improvements
| to the existing airframe. Much of what you mentioned is part of the
| DRIVETRAIN 2000 upgrade. Rumor has it, that TADS/PNVS should be fielded
| with lot 8 starting late this year. And the "new" LONGBOW RADAR that you
| mentioned that will be taken from Comanche....was/is the same RADAR taken
| from LONGBOW AH-64D to the RH-66 Comanche. The Program Manager (PM) may
| have contracted for improvements, but it is the same RADAR. We already have
| a "fly by wire" capability used in emergencies called E-BUCS. As for the
| tailrotor improvements...I can't speak to those points. I don't belive
| there is any plan for retractable gear, if there is, then that is a mistake
| or a trade on crew survivability. |
| CW4 Ron Carns
|
|

I'm sorry, but when it comes to Comanche you don't know what the hell you're
talking about. Given that you can't even spell Comanche properly, I
shouldn't be surprised.

The Comanche radar is not "taken from the LONGBOW" as Ron says. Nor does it
have "many common parts with the AH-64 longbow" There are zero common
parts. Comanche radar is a total rehosting and regeneration of the basic
longbow system on a completely digital platform. The only thing in common
is the idea of a mast-mounted targeting radar. Neither our antenna nor our
radar controls are common with Longbow. As a matter of fact, one of the HTI
efforts from Comanche leftovers is to take our digital Radar Electronics
Unit (REU) and our low Radar Cross Section radar antenna (both of which are
much lighter than the longbow system) and put them in the next generation
AH-64.

Full Fly-by-wire is planned for the AH-64, again based on Comanche
technology. The idea is to have a common FBW software set for the AH-64 and
UH-60, with an overlay for the specific aircraft.

As for the antitorque system, I'd dearly love to hear about this mysterious
new technology - I'm an aerodynamicist by trade, and I'm not aware of any
new antitorque technologies within the last 40 years or so.

Dan Hollenbaugh
Soon-to-be-ex Lead Test Engineer
Comanche PMO


Goku wrote in message ...
Thanks Ron, The AH-64 is an live and evolving system, the improvements I
mention
are for new units, and some exist only in study as the landing gear, the
tail
rotor, and the Full FlyByWire, on the tail rotor, I think that exist better
solutions than the fenestron or the Piascecki ducted fan or the Notar, But
is
classified material, you know that in some circumstances a research team
for a
system don't have access to the work of other teams, unless the system
being
developed have common elements, the commanche's radar is more compact and
has
less radar section, and have many common parts with the AH-64 longbow, the
improvements to the rotor system are for new units and for a limited number
of
old units, I don't know its current stage, but surely prior 2010 will not
enter
in service, as the "New" AH-64X.

|I am one of the few people alive that
| have survived a crash in a LONGBOW. I can say if I had been in any other
| aircraft, I would be dead.
God bless you, and America.

I'm not a pilot, I'm a systems engineer, we put the ideas, the crews the
courage
and the blood.
--

Goku Rules ....

"Ron Carns" escribió en el mensaje
ink.net...
| With the Comanche being cancelled, money has been freed to fund
improvements
| to the existing airframe. Much of what you mentioned is part of the
| DRIVETRAIN 2000 upgrade. Rumor has it, that TADS/PNVS should be fielded
| with lot 8 starting late this year. And the "new" LONGBOW RADAR that you
| mentioned that will be taken from Comanche....was/is the same RADAR taken
| from LONGBOW AH-64D to the RH-66 Comanche. The Program Manager (PM) may
| have contracted for improvements, but it is the same RADAR. We already
have
| a "fly by wire" capability used in emergencies called E-BUCS. As for the
| tailrotor improvements...I can't speak to those points. I don't belive
| there is any plan for retractable gear, if there is, then that is a
mistake
| or a trade on crew survivability. |
| CW4 Ron Carns
|
|

First, I was not born in the U.S.A. the English is not my native language,
Second, when people as you find a job, is because people as me created the
concepts and the technologies.

With respect to the antitorque systems, if you review the recent history
previous to the Ah-64, you'll found indications of which I say, nevertheless it
is necessary to mix the old things with the new things, just follow the purpose
of the modifications proposed for the Apache, don't wait for some amazing
technology.

I was never involved with the Comanche's battle systems. But in some concepts as
The FlyByWire and others cancelled (Do you remember that the LHX was planned as
a single) for that reason I knew only public information on those systems.

What happened with the Comanche was caused by the bureaucracy and the greed -on
both sides-, the UAV/UCAV was foreseen as complement.

Don't worry, the Uncle Sam has much work for you...

No matter the destiny of the Comanche, the work of the engineers was supreme...

If someday you visits Nevada, perhaps you'll see me, but you will never know who
I am.

My work is a secret, but aside from its the helicopters are my passion. - do not
track the IP of this message, I use an IP relay installed in the PC of some
idiot in the South America -.
--

Goku Rules ....

"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" escribió en el mensaje
ink.net...

| I'm sorry, but when it comes to Comanche you don't know what the hell you're
| talking about. Given that you can't even spell Comanche properly, I
| shouldn't be surprised.
|
| The Comanche radar is not "taken from the LONGBOW" as Ron says. Nor does it
| have "many common parts with the AH-64 longbow" There are zero common
| parts. Comanche radar is a total rehosting and regeneration of the basic
| longbow system on a completely digital platform. The only thing in common
| is the idea of a mast-mounted targeting radar. Neither our antenna nor our
| radar controls are common with Longbow. As a matter of fact, one of the HTI
| efforts from Comanche leftovers is to take our digital Radar Electronics
| Unit (REU) and our low Radar Cross Section radar antenna (both of which are
| much lighter than the longbow system) and put them in the next generation
| AH-64.
|
| Full Fly-by-wire is planned for the AH-64, again based on Comanche
| technology. The idea is to have a common FBW software set for the AH-64 and
| UH-60, with an overlay for the specific aircraft.
|
| As for the antitorque system, I'd dearly love to hear about this mysterious
| new technology - I'm an aerodynamicist by trade, and I'm not aware of any
| new antitorque technologies within the last 40 years or so.
|
| Dan Hollenbaugh
| Soon-to-be-ex Lead Test Engineer
| Comanche PMO
|

I forgot this: The only common on the FlyByWire Systems of the AH-64 & UH-60 are
the electronic hardware, actuators and software will be different, the "overlay"
is not an option because these systems are based on Neural Networks, each
network must have its own training, the old system's logic will not be used (no
sequential code).

| | Full Fly-by-wire is planned for the AH-64, again based on Comanche
| | technology. The idea is to have a common FBW software set for the AH-64 and
| | UH-60, with an overlay for the specific aircraft.
--

Goku Rules ....

"Goku" wrote in message
...
I forgot this: The only common on the FlyByWire Systems of the AH-64 &
UH-60 are
the electronic hardware, actuators and software will be different, the
"overlay"
is not an option because these systems are based on Neural Networks, each
network must have its own training, the old system's logic will not be
used (no
sequential code).



This is complete nonsense. There are no neural networks used on AH-64
flight control systems, either extant or planned.

Goku wrote in message ...
First, I was not born in the U.S.A. the English is not my native language,
Second, when people as you find a job, is because people as me created the
concepts and the technologies.

I guess this is supposed to impress me. I spent the first 4 years of my
career developing new technologies in rotorcraft and the next 22 years
applying the latest technology to evolving designs, but Goku obviously knows
more than those inside the business, and GOKU RULES (Sarcasm on).


With respect to the antitorque systems, if you review the recent history
previous to the Ah-64, you'll found indications of which I say,
nevertheless it
is necessary to mix the old things with the new things, just follow the
purpose
of the modifications proposed for the Apache, don't wait for some amazing
technology.

If it's just a new mix of old technology, why is it classified, as you said
in a previous post? Methinks thou art full of ****. If you're talking
NOTAR or Fan-In-fin, I know both of them very well. See my previous posts
on trying to kill NOTAR - I was there at the beginning.


I was never involved with the Comanche's battle systems. But in some
concepts as
The FlyByWire and others cancelled (Do you remember that the LHX was
planned as
a single) for that reason I knew only public information on those systems.

Yes, I have a picture above my desk of the SCAT (Scout/Attack) single pilot
configuration of the LHX. On the one hand, you claim knowledge of next
generation systems, on the other hand, you state only knowledge of public
information. The **** is getting deeper.


What happened with the Comanche was caused by the bureaucracy and the
greed -on
both sides-, the UAV/UCAV was foreseen as complement.

You're right that the UAV has been seen as a complementary system. The
plans for production Comanche were to have Level IV UAV control. Your
knowledge of what caused the termination of Comanche remains suspect,
especially since you claim only public knowledge. I can tell you from the
inside that the publicly released reasons for termination are, shall we say,
careful constructs.


Don't worry, the Uncle Sam has much work for you...

Things have been looking up. It looks like I'll be staying in Army
Aviation, perhaps on the next generation Apache.


No matter the destiny of the Comanche, the work of the engineers was
supreme...

Amen


If someday you visits Nevada, perhaps you'll see me, but you will never
know who
I am.

Yes, I know it works that way in Area 51. You'll be the third cloud from
the left.


My work is a secret, but aside from its the helicopters are my passion. -
do not
track the IP of this message, I use an IP relay installed in the PC of some
idiot in the South America -.

There's never a shortage of people whose interests far exceed their
knowledge, and whose mouths far exceed both.

--

Goku Rules ....

Okay..........................

Dan Hollenbaugh
Deputy Test Director
Comanche PMO



"Dan & Jan Hollenbaugh" escribió en el mensaje
link.net...

| I'm sorry, but when it comes to Comanche you don't know what the hell
you're
| talking about. Given that you can't even spell Comanche properly, I
| shouldn't be surprised.
|
| The Comanche radar is not "taken from the LONGBOW" as Ron says. Nor does
it
| have "many common parts with the AH-64 longbow" There are zero common
| parts. Comanche radar is a total rehosting and regeneration of the basic
| longbow system on a completely digital platform. The only thing in
common
| is the idea of a mast-mounted targeting radar. Neither our antenna nor
our
| radar controls are common with Longbow. As a matter of fact, one of the
HTI
| efforts from Comanche leftovers is to take our digital Radar Electronics
| Unit (REU) and our low Radar Cross Section radar antenna (both of which
are
| much lighter than the longbow system) and put them in the next generation
| AH-64.
|
| Full Fly-by-wire is planned for the AH-64, again based on Comanche
| technology. The idea is to have a common FBW software set for the AH-64
and
| UH-60, with an overlay for the specific aircraft.
|
| As for the antitorque system, I'd dearly love to hear about this
mysterious
| new technology - I'm an aerodynamicist by trade, and I'm not aware of any
| new antitorque technologies within the last 40 years or so.
|
| Dan Hollenbaugh
| Soon-to-be-ex Lead Test Engineer
| Comanche PMO
|

Agreed. I can understand that some folks not born here might have minor
difficulty with the finer points of the English language, but as I said,
there are many whose pronouncements far exceed their knowledge.

Dan Hollenbaugh
Deputy Test Director
Comanche PMO

mm wrote in message ...

"Goku" wrote in message
...
I forgot this: The only common on the FlyByWire Systems of the AH-64 &
UH-60 are
the electronic hardware, actuators and software will be different, the
"overlay"
is not an option because these systems are based on Neural Networks, each
network must have its own training, the old system's logic will not be
used (no
sequential code).



This is complete nonsense. There are no neural networks used on AH-64
flight control systems, either extant or planned.

Dan, You know that I know that You know that I know that You know that I know
that You know that I know that You Know...

| If it's just a new mix of old technology, why is it classified, as you said
| in a previous post? Methinks thou art full of ****. If you're talking
| NOTAR or Fan-In-fin, I know both of them very well. See my previous posts
| on trying to kill NOTAR - I was there at the beginning.
|

The time will speak for me... , sorry my freedom & my work is at first, your
curiosity is at last., Check the PURPOSE of the mod...

| Yes, I have a picture above my desk of the SCAT (Scout/Attack) single pilot
| configuration of the LHX. On the one hand, you claim knowledge of next
| generation systems, on the other hand, you state only knowledge of public
| information. The **** is getting deeper.
|

Dan, You know that I know that You know that I know that You know that I know
that You know that I know that You Know...

|
| I can tell you from the
| inside that the publicly released reasons for termination are, shall we say,
| careful constructs.
|

I remember that my house's contractor some times used that expression "careful
constructs", the bills told the real meaning of "careful constructs".

|
| Things have been looking up. It looks like I'll be staying in Army
| Aviation, perhaps on the next generation Apache.
|

- No. many systems are planned, you'll go where the winds go ...

|
| Yes, I know it works that way in Area 51. You'll be the third cloud from
| the left.
|
A.51 nooo, is nothing there (Groom Lake), the hot things could be underneath
you, or in any other place but not in the A.51

Nevada may means Wahingnton, Florida, ... etc... If you know that I want to
say...

|
| There's never a shortage of people whose interests far exceed their
| knowledge, and whose mouths far exceed both.
|

Again Dan, You know that I know that You know that I know that You know that I
know that You know that I know that You Know...

| Dan Hollenbaugh
| Deputy Test Director
| Comanche PMO

Really ?

Another thing you must to know, if you're Dan Hollenbaugh, When Terminator 3 was
released, somebody was called for a reason? who was the reason...?
--

Goku Rules ....