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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 .... |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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 | | |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 | | |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 .... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 .... |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F/A-18 "Shoots Down" A4 -- The Long Version | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 6 | December 14th 04 02:49 AM |
ANN: WingX Version 1.2 - Federal Aviation Regulations on your PDA! | Hilton Software LLC | Piloting | 7 | October 17th 03 04:51 PM |
WingX for the Pocket PC - Version 1.2 | Hilton Software LLC | Products | 1 | October 17th 03 01:38 PM |
Mk 84 iron bomb version with depleted uranium? | MCN | Military Aviation | 8 | October 3rd 03 01:56 AM |
Navy special operations command version of the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft | Larry Dighera | Military Aviation | 25 | September 30th 03 01:05 AM |