New Army Aviation Options?

[Thomas Schoene]

I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new aircraft
the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in any
of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see for
each.

1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).

Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?

The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an option?

2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)

I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.

Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate? (Is this Huey II?)

3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)

Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?


--
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)

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
aircraft
> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in
any
> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see
for
> each.
>
> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
>
> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>
> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
option?

I'd say both could be potential candidates, as could the MD 600 or 900
series (though the Army has in the past rather disliked the NOTAR concept,
having modified those MH-6's they had in that configuration back to
conventional tail rotor designs). Somewhat off-the-wall candidate would be
the A-129 Mangusta, which unlike the other candidates you note (other than
the H-76, to some extent) already has a well developed armament and sensor
suite. The Tiger is a no-show; probably more expensive than the other
candidates, and with a lot of political baggage to overcome.

>
> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>
> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
>
> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate? (Is this Huey II?)

I doubt the UH-1Y could be a candidate. They are dependent upon having the
requisite airframes available for modification, and the Army Hueys were
quite different from the twin-engine USMC variants. Huey II is another
aircraft modification program, much less dramatic than the UH-1Y program.
The II retained the same rotor and mast system, with new engine/transmission
and revised tail rotor and stabilizer, and I would assume some "glass
cockpit" work, along with the more streamlined nose of the 412 series. I
think the Army would just as soon get completely away from the old
cumbersome rotor system and have rigid rotor mounts across its entire fleet,
so I would bet the 412 has the edge. One possible caveat to my first comment
on the -1Y--if there were enough old USAF UH-1N's at DM and they could be
modified to the same standard as the -1Y, then that could possibly make it a
viable alternative.

>
> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>
> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?

Realistically, just the CN-295. Odds are the C-27J gets that one; some
commonality with the C-130J family is a plus, and the folks at NGB (or at
least NGAUS) have already expressed some interest in it in the past. ISTR
that the cargo space geometry in the Spartan is a bit better than the CN-295
as well.

Brooks

>
>
> --
> 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)
>
>
>
>

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new aircraft
> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in any
> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see for
> each.
>
> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
>
> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>
> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an option?

Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be in the running, if they go OTS.

> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>
> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.

AB-139, Bell 430, maybe something from EC (Suuurre). Also the S-76, or the 430
for the recon mission. Kind of depends just where they draw the line at
"Light".


> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate? (Is this Huey II?)
>
> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>
> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?

CASA C-295. Unlikely, given the C-27J's engine/cockpit commonality with the
C-130J. The C-295 is smaller, slower and less powerful, but cheaper.

Guy

[Matt Wiser]

Guy Alcala > wrote:
>Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically
>to look at the new aircraft
>> the Army is talking about buying instead of
>the Comanche, and see what
>> options there are available. As I read the
>briefings, there are basically
>> three new manned platforms. I doubt there
>is funding for new designs in any
>> of these roles. While it is really premature
>to say too much, with no
>> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious
>what options folks see for
>> each.
>>
>> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to
>be bought).
>>
>> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>>
>> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter
>role; is this an option?
>
>Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be
>in the running, if they go OTS.
>
>> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>>
>> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
>
>AB-139, Bell 430, maybe something from EC (Suuurre).
> Also the S-76, or the 430
>for the recon mission. Kind of depends just
>where they draw the line at
>"Light".
>
>
>> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate?
> (Is this Huey II?)
>>
>> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>>
>> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What
>other options are there?
>
>CASA C-295. Unlikely, given the C-27J's engine/cockpit
>commonality with the
>C-130J. The C-295 is smaller, slower and less
>powerful, but cheaper.
>
>Guy
>
Problem with foreign-built aircraft or helos for the U.S. military: the
NIH syndrome. Congress will make sure the military buys American unless there
is no other option.

Posted via www.My-Newsgroups.com - web to news gateway for usenet access!

[John Hairell]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:58:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
> wrote:

>Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
>> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new aircraft
>> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
>> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
>> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in any
>> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
>> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see for
>> each.
>>
>> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
>>
>> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>>
>> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an option?
>
>Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be in the running, if they go OTS.
>

Crank up the output of the MDH line and put out an MD 530FF/AH-6
variant (not a NOTAR) with improved recon gear and arm them with the
GAU-19 like they are using on SOA birds....the production means are
already there, the weapons are already there, the only thing lacking
is what extra electronics and sights you need and how to mount them,
and some sort of self-defense suite.

John Hairell )

[Kevin Brooks]

"Matt Wiser" > wrote in message
news:403e054f$1@bg2....
>
> Guy Alcala > wrote:
> >Thomas Schoene wrote:
> >
> >> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically
> >to look at the new aircraft
> >> the Army is talking about buying instead of
> >the Comanche, and see what
> >> options there are available. As I read the
> >briefings, there are basically
> >> three new manned platforms. I doubt there
> >is funding for new designs in any
> >> of these roles. While it is really premature
> >to say too much, with no
> >> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious
> >what options folks see for
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to
> >be bought).
> >>
> >> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
> >>
> >> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter
> >role; is this an option?
> >
> >Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be
> >in the running, if they go OTS.
> >
> >> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
> >>
> >> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
> >
> >AB-139, Bell 430, maybe something from EC (Suuurre).
> > Also the S-76, or the 430
> >for the recon mission. Kind of depends just
> >where they draw the line at
> >"Light".
> >
> >
> >> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate?
> > (Is this Huey II?)
> >>
> >> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
> >>
> >> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What
> >other options are there?
> >
> >CASA C-295. Unlikely, given the C-27J's engine/cockpit
> >commonality with the
> >C-130J. The C-295 is smaller, slower and less
> >powerful, but cheaper.
> >
> >Guy
> >
> Problem with foreign-built aircraft or helos for the U.S. military: the
> NIH syndrome. Congress will make sure the military buys American unless
there
> is no other option.

History does not support that allegation. How many HH-65 Dauphins does the
USCG operate? How many Falcon's does the USCG operate? How many A-109's do
they operate? How many Shorts C-23's does the ARNG operate? What is the
original source for both the T-6 and T-45 (and before you get all
wishy-washy on those two programs because they were actually manufactured
here in the US, realize that is the way many nations operate--most of the
NATO F-16's were build in Europe, F-16's are being bult in the ROK, and
Japan manufactured its F-15J's)? The only one of these programs that I can
see where there was really "no other option" was the C-23 buy.

Brooks

>

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Hairell" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 05:58:14 GMT, Guy Alcala
> > wrote:
>
> >Thomas Schoene wrote:
> >
> >> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
aircraft
> >> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
> >> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are
basically
> >> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs
in any
> >> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
> >> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see
for
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
> >>
> >> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
> >>
> >> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
option?
> >
> >Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be in the running, if they go
OTS.
> >
>
> Crank up the output of the MDH line and put out an MD 530FF/AH-6
> variant (not a NOTAR) with improved recon gear and arm them with the
> GAU-19 like they are using on SOA birds....the production means are
> already there, the weapons are already there, the only thing lacking
> is what extra electronics and sights you need and how to mount them,
> and some sort of self-defense suite.

I kind of discounted the value of already having the MH/AH-6 in service, but
for the light armed scout role you may have a pretty good point here. Given
that elimination of NOTAR, of course.

Brooks

>
> John Hairell )

[ROTORFRANK]

Assuming Comanche money really stays in Army Aviation (yeah, right), I'd expect
them to look for off-the-shelf twin-engined helicopters rather than fresh
starts.

The Agusta Westland A129 is a dedicated attack helicopter already integrated
with Comanche T800 engines, but I suspect the end cost of a Mongoose with US
systems would be up there with the Tiger. If they're going to go that route,
they should buy the damn Comanche.

It is possible for one helicopter to do both the light attack and light utility
missions. The question is how light is "light," and how much you want to go
offshore. If the Army doesn't care about the US industrial base (The Coast
Guard doesn't.), there are lots of foreign candidates.

Great as it is, I think the single-engined MD600/MH-6 Little Bird is too small
for a lot of Guard missions. In addition to RAID anti-drug patrols, the guard
has to move emergency response teams, and it will probably need secondary
medevac capability - that means you need a good-sized cabin.

With that in mind, the MDHI MD900 would be a good light utility helicopter, and
one made largely in the US (albeit by a Dutch-owned company). NOTAR works
fine; it just wasn't right for the 160th.

The Bell 427 is a possibility, but it's uncomfortably close to the OH-58D and
probably too light and confining for the Guard requirement.

The Agusta-Westland navel Super Lynx is already powered by Comanche T800s, and
a Battlefield Lynx derivative with those engines and a domestic equipment suite
could fill the bill.

The A109 is used for attack and utility missions, but a re-engined version
again seems expensive for what you'd get.

LTV once offered a T800-powered Dauphin as the Panther. That would give you a
pretty expensive French helicopter that could probably do the job. But, again,
it's French.

Sikorsky pitched an AUH-76 long ago and got nowhere. I suspect the Army would
like something smaller, more crashworthy and cheaper to operate.

Likewise, the Bell 412 is old technology and brings with it high operating
costs for what you'd get.

The Agusta Bell AB139 and Bell UH-1Y I think are just too big and too close to
the Black Hawk. I don't think there would be much incentive to buy either one.


So, my choice would be the MD900, at least for the light utility requirement.
You could hang the Little Bird weapons on it to make do with an armed scout of
sorts.

Bear in mind, the Comanche started out filling these same requirements with two
versions. Look at how well the Army handled that.

Frank

[Kevin Brooks]

"ROTORFRANK" > wrote in message
...
> Assuming Comanche money really stays in Army Aviation (yeah, right), I'd
expect
> them to look for off-the-shelf twin-engined helicopters rather than fresh
> starts.

"Yeah, right"? The DoD and president have already signed off on the Army's
plan to reorient the money already budgeted towards Comanche to other Army
aviation needs, haven't they?

>
> The Agusta Westland A129 is a dedicated attack helicopter already
integrated
> with Comanche T800 engines, but I suspect the end cost of a Mongoose with
US
> systems would be up there with the Tiger. If they're going to go that
route,
> they should buy the damn Comanche.

No way it would even approach the cost of Comanche. The weapons suite
already handles US ordnance (Hellfire, TOW 2, and Hydra 70), and some of the
systems are already of US origin (including Honeywell FLIR and helmet
mounted sighting system).

>
> It is possible for one helicopter to do both the light attack and light
utility
> missions. The question is how light is "light," and how much you want to
go
> offshore. If the Army doesn't care about the US industrial base (The
Coast
> Guard doesn't.), there are lots of foreign candidates.
>
> Great as it is, I think the single-engined MD600/MH-6 Little Bird is too
small
> for a lot of Guard missions. In addition to RAID anti-drug patrols, the
guard
> has to move emergency response teams, and it will probably need secondary
> medevac capability - that means you need a good-sized cabin.

Agreed. But I still think that purchasing two separate aircraft, one for the
OH role and one for the LUH role, would be the better option--it also allows
you to "spread the wealth" a bit.

>
> With that in mind, the MDHI MD900 would be a good light utility
helicopter, and
> one made largely in the US (albeit by a Dutch-owned company). NOTAR works
> fine; it just wasn't right for the 160th.
>
> The Bell 427 is a possibility, but it's uncomfortably close to the OH-58D
and
> probably too light and confining for the Guard requirement.
>
> The Agusta-Westland navel Super Lynx is already powered by Comanche
T800s, and
> a Battlefield Lynx derivative with those engines and a domestic equipment
suite
> could fill the bill.
>
> The A109 is used for attack and utility missions, but a re-engined version
> again seems expensive for what you'd get.
>
> LTV once offered a T800-powered Dauphin as the Panther. That would give
you a
> pretty expensive French helicopter that could probably do the job. But,
again,
> it's French.
>
> Sikorsky pitched an AUH-76 long ago and got nowhere. I suspect the Army
would
> like something smaller, more crashworthy and cheaper to operate.
>
> Likewise, the Bell 412 is old technology and brings with it high operating
> costs for what you'd get.

Compared to the UH-60? And compared to the aircraft it would replace (the
UH-1H) it is rather cutting edge--twin engine performance, rigid rotor
mount, etc.

Brooks

>
> The Agusta Bell AB139 and Bell UH-1Y I think are just too big and too
close to
> the Black Hawk. I don't think there would be much incentive to buy either
one.
>
>
> So, my choice would be the MD900, at least for the light utility
requirement.
> You could hang the Little Bird weapons on it to make do with an armed
scout of
> sorts.
>
> Bear in mind, the Comanche started out filling these same requirements
with two
> versions. Look at how well the Army handled that.
>
> Frank
>
>

[Lyle]

On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:33:37 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
>aircraft
>> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
>> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
>> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in
>any
>> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
>> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see
>for
>> each.
>>
>> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
>>
>> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>>
>> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
>option?
USCG uses the French Daulphin, the attack version of it is called the
Panther. wich is more advanced design then the A-109 IMO, but it could
be an good idea to have a common airframe for multiple branches. But
you would have to update for todays use, with new/better engines etc.
>
>I'd say both could be potential candidates, as could the MD 600 or 900
>series (though the Army has in the past rather disliked the NOTAR concept,
>having modified those MH-6's they had in that configuration back to
>conventional tail rotor designs). Somewhat off-the-wall candidate would be
>the A-129 Mangusta, which unlike the other candidates you note (other than
>the H-76, to some extent) already has a well developed armament and sensor
>suite. The Tiger is a no-show; probably more expensive than the other
>candidates, and with a lot of political baggage to overcome.
>
>>
>> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>>
>> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
>>
>> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate? (Is this Huey II?)
>
>I doubt the UH-1Y could be a candidate. They are dependent upon having the
>requisite airframes available for modification, and the Army Hueys were
>quite different from the twin-engine USMC variants. Huey II is another
>aircraft modification program, much less dramatic than the UH-1Y program.
>The II retained the same rotor and mast system, with new engine/transmission
>and revised tail rotor and stabilizer, and I would assume some "glass
>cockpit" work, along with the more streamlined nose of the 412 series. I
>think the Army would just as soon get completely away from the old
>cumbersome rotor system and have rigid rotor mounts across its entire fleet,
>so I would bet the 412 has the edge. One possible caveat to my first comment
>on the -1Y--if there were enough old USAF UH-1N's at DM and they could be
>modified to the same standard as the -1Y, then that could possibly make it a
>viable alternative.
>
>>
>> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>>
>> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?
>
>Realistically, just the CN-295. Odds are the C-27J gets that one; some
>commonality with the C-130J family is a plus, and the folks at NGB (or at
>least NGAUS) have already expressed some interest in it in the past. ISTR
>that the cargo space geometry in the Spartan is a bit better than the CN-295
>as well.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Lyle]

On 26 Feb 2004 20:05:18 GMT, (ROTORFRANK) wrote:

>Assuming Comanche money really stays in Army Aviation (yeah, right), I'd expect
>them to look for off-the-shelf twin-engined helicopters rather than fresh
>starts.
>
>The Agusta Westland A129 is a dedicated attack helicopter already integrated
>with Comanche T800 engines, but I suspect the end cost of a Mongoose with US
>systems would be up there with the Tiger. If they're going to go that route,
>they should buy the damn Comanche.
>
>It is possible for one helicopter to do both the light attack and light utility
>missions. The question is how light is "light," and how much you want to go
>offshore. If the Army doesn't care about the US industrial base (The Coast
>Guard doesn't.), there are lots of foreign candidates.
your absolutely wrong about this, the HH-65A maybe French design, but
it is 100% american made. From the engines to the airframe, to the
avionics.
info.
http://www.uscg.mil/d13/dpa/background/helicopters/dolphin.htm
>
>Great as it is, I think the single-engined MD600/MH-6 Little Bird is too small
>for a lot of Guard missions. In addition to RAID anti-drug patrols, the guard
>has to move emergency response teams, and it will probably need secondary
>medevac capability - that means you need a good-sized cabin.
>
>With that in mind, the MDHI MD900 would be a good light utility helicopter, and
>one made largely in the US (albeit by a Dutch-owned company). NOTAR works
>fine; it just wasn't right for the 160th.
>
>The Bell 427 is a possibility, but it's uncomfortably close to the OH-58D and
>probably too light and confining for the Guard requirement.
>
>The Agusta-Westland navel Super Lynx is already powered by Comanche T800s, and
>a Battlefield Lynx derivative with those engines and a domestic equipment suite
>could fill the bill.
>
>The A109 is used for attack and utility missions, but a re-engined version
>again seems expensive for what you'd get.
>
>LTV once offered a T800-powered Dauphin as the Panther. That would give you a
>pretty expensive French helicopter that could probably do the job. But, again,
>it's French.
>
>Sikorsky pitched an AUH-76 long ago and got nowhere. I suspect the Army would
>like something smaller, more crashworthy and cheaper to operate.
>
>Likewise, the Bell 412 is old technology and brings with it high operating
>costs for what you'd get.
>
>The Agusta Bell AB139 and Bell UH-1Y I think are just too big and too close to
>the Black Hawk. I don't think there would be much incentive to buy either one.
>
>
>So, my choice would be the MD900, at least for the light utility requirement.
>You could hang the Little Bird weapons on it to make do with an armed scout of
>sorts.
>
>Bear in mind, the Comanche started out filling these same requirements with two
>versions. Look at how well the Army handled that.
>
>Frank
>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Lyle" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:33:37 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> >> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
> >aircraft
> >> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
> >> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are
basically
> >> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs
in
> >any
> >> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
> >> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see
> >for
> >> each.
> >>
> >> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
> >>
> >> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
> >>
> >> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
> >option?

> USCG uses the French Daulphin, the attack version of it is called the
> Panther.

No, the USCG uses both the HH-65 Dolphin *and* the MH-68 (A-109); only the
latter is armed, and assigned to the Helicopter Interdiction Tactical
Squadron (HITRON).

Brooks

<snip>

[Lyle]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:12:03 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

>On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:33:37 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
>>aircraft
>>> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see what
>>> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are basically
>>> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs in
>>any
>>> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with no
>>> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks see
>>for
>>> each.
>>>
>>> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
>>>
>>> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
>>>
>>> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
>>option?
Stand corrected, didnt know that the USCG used A-109's, so i
went to look up more information about it. Seems that they are useing
the A-109 to knock out the engines out boats with high powerd rifles.
>USCG uses the French Daulphin, the attack version of it is called the
>Panther. wich is more advanced design then the A-109 IMO, but it could
>be an good idea to have a common airframe for multiple branches. But
>you would have to update for todays use, with new/better engines etc.
>>
>>I'd say both could be potential candidates, as could the MD 600 or 900
>>series (though the Army has in the past rather disliked the NOTAR concept,
>>having modified those MH-6's they had in that configuration back to
>>conventional tail rotor designs). Somewhat off-the-wall candidate would be
>>the A-129 Mangusta, which unlike the other candidates you note (other than
>>the H-76, to some extent) already has a well developed armament and sensor
>>suite. The Tiger is a no-show; probably more expensive than the other
>>candidates, and with a lot of political baggage to overcome.
>>
>>>
>>> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>>>
>>> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
>>>
>>> Might the Marine Corps UH-1Y also be a candidate? (Is this Huey II?)
>>
>>I doubt the UH-1Y could be a candidate. They are dependent upon having the
>>requisite airframes available for modification, and the Army Hueys were
>>quite different from the twin-engine USMC variants. Huey II is another
>>aircraft modification program, much less dramatic than the UH-1Y program.
>>The II retained the same rotor and mast system, with new engine/transmission
>>and revised tail rotor and stabilizer, and I would assume some "glass
>>cockpit" work, along with the more streamlined nose of the 412 series. I
>>think the Army would just as soon get completely away from the old
>>cumbersome rotor system and have rigid rotor mounts across its entire fleet,
>>so I would bet the 412 has the edge. One possible caveat to my first comment
>>on the -1Y--if there were enough old USAF UH-1N's at DM and they could be
>>modified to the same standard as the -1Y, then that could possibly make it a
>>viable alternative.
>>
>>>
>>> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>>>
>>> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?
>>
>>Realistically, just the CN-295. Odds are the C-27J gets that one; some
>>commonality with the C-130J family is a plus, and the folks at NGB (or at
>>least NGAUS) have already expressed some interest in it in the past. ISTR
>>that the cargo space geometry in the Spartan is a bit better than the CN-295
>>as well.
>>
>>Brooks
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Lyle" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Feb 2004 20:05:18 GMT, (ROTORFRANK) wrote:
>
> >Assuming Comanche money really stays in Army Aviation (yeah, right), I'd
expect
> >them to look for off-the-shelf twin-engined helicopters rather than fresh
> >starts.
> >
> >The Agusta Westland A129 is a dedicated attack helicopter already
integrated
> >with Comanche T800 engines, but I suspect the end cost of a Mongoose with
US
> >systems would be up there with the Tiger. If they're going to go that
route,
> >they should buy the damn Comanche.
> >
> >It is possible for one helicopter to do both the light attack and light
utility
> >missions. The question is how light is "light," and how much you want to
go
> >offshore. If the Army doesn't care about the US industrial base (The
Coast
> >Guard doesn't.), there are lots of foreign candidates.

> your absolutely wrong about this, the HH-65A maybe French design, but
> it is 100% american made. From the engines to the airframe, to the
> avionics.
> info.
> http://www.uscg.mil/d13/dpa/background/helicopters/dolphin.htm

Well, it does not really say that. It says it was manufactured here in the
US--how much of the airframe assembly was from knock down kits? As to
engines, they are apparently being replaced...by a European design from
Turbomecca. Face it, the Dolphin is a French helo--just as the F-16's that
are built in the ROK undwer license are "American".

Brooks

> >
> >Great as it is, I think the single-engined MD600/MH-6 Little Bird is too
small
> >for a lot of Guard missions. In addition to RAID anti-drug patrols, the
guard
> >has to move emergency response teams, and it will probably need secondary
> >medevac capability - that means you need a good-sized cabin.
> >
> >With that in mind, the MDHI MD900 would be a good light utility
helicopter, and
> >one made largely in the US (albeit by a Dutch-owned company). NOTAR
works
> >fine; it just wasn't right for the 160th.
> >
> >The Bell 427 is a possibility, but it's uncomfortably close to the OH-58D
and
> >probably too light and confining for the Guard requirement.
> >
> >The Agusta-Westland navel Super Lynx is already powered by Comanche
T800s, and
> >a Battlefield Lynx derivative with those engines and a domestic equipment
suite
> >could fill the bill.
> >
> >The A109 is used for attack and utility missions, but a re-engined
version
> >again seems expensive for what you'd get.
> >
> >LTV once offered a T800-powered Dauphin as the Panther. That would give
you a
> >pretty expensive French helicopter that could probably do the job. But,
again,
> >it's French.
> >
> >Sikorsky pitched an AUH-76 long ago and got nowhere. I suspect the Army
would
> >like something smaller, more crashworthy and cheaper to operate.
> >
> >Likewise, the Bell 412 is old technology and brings with it high
operating
> >costs for what you'd get.
> >
> >The Agusta Bell AB139 and Bell UH-1Y I think are just too big and too
close to
> >the Black Hawk. I don't think there would be much incentive to buy either
one.
> >
> >
> >So, my choice would be the MD900, at least for the light utility
requirement.
> >You could hang the Little Bird weapons on it to make do with an armed
scout of
> >sorts.
> >
> >Bear in mind, the Comanche started out filling these same requirements
with two
> >versions. Look at how well the Army handled that.
> >
> >Frank
> >
> >
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"Kevin Brooks" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Lyle" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Wed, 25 Feb 2004 23:33:37 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> > >> I just wanted to start a new thread specifically to look at the new
> > >aircraft
> > >> the Army is talking about buying instead of the Comanche, and see
what
> > >> options there are available. As I read the briefings, there are
> basically
> > >> three new manned platforms. I doubt there is funding for new designs
> in
> > >any
> > >> of these roles. While it is really premature to say too much, with
no
> > >> actual performance requirements set, I'm curious what options folks
see
> > >for
> > >> each.
> > >>
> > >> 1) Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (368 to be bought).
> > >>
> > >> Could this be a Sikorsky H-76?
> > >>
> > >> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
> > >option?
>
> > USCG uses the French Daulphin, the attack version of it is called the
> > Panther.
>
> No, the USCG uses both the HH-65 Dolphin *and* the MH-68 (A-109); only the
> latter is armed, and assigned to the Helicopter Interdiction Tactical
> Squadron (HITRON).
>
> Brooks

Last minute update-- an article appeared earlier this month indicating that,
after completing armament of the HH-60's, the HH-65's will receive an
armament capability in the not-too-distant future.

www.rotorhub.com/news/0211/hpower17.htm

Brooks
>
> <snip>
>
>

[John Hairell]

On 26 Feb 2004 20:05:18 GMT, (ROTORFRANK) wrote:

[stuff snipped]
>
>Great as it is, I think the single-engined MD600/MH-6 Little Bird is too small
>for a lot of Guard missions. In addition to RAID anti-drug patrols, the guard
>has to move emergency response teams, and it will probably need secondary
>medevac capability - that means you need a good-sized cabin.
>

You've got a good point there. Not much room in a Little Bird - if
you've got a gun hung on it you take up a bunch of rear-cabin space
with ammo boxes and chutes, and that cuts down on any space for sensor
electronics and anything else.

Other than the MD900 how about a BK-117 variant? It's a twin, and big
enough to use for EMS.

Anybody notice that the Army aviation PowerPoint presentation used an
AH-6/MD500-type helicopter graphic to represent the recon helicopter?

John Hairell )

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Thomas Schoene wrote:

>> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
>> option?
>
> Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be in the running, if they
> go OTS.

I didn't even realize this was still in production. Seems like it would not
be a clear improvement over the OH-58. Doies it have the endurance to
operate tactically with the Apache?

>
>> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
>>
>> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
>
> AB-139,

This is a tempting option, given that the Coast Gaurd has selected it for
their Deepwater program (with major US content, BTW).


>> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
>>
>> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?
>
> CASA C-295. Unlikely, given the C-27J's engine/cockpit commonality
> with the C-130J. The C-295 is smaller, slower and less powerful, but
> cheaper.

And also selected by the USCG.



--
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)

[Thomas Schoene]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Last minute update-- an article appeared earlier this month
> indicating that, after completing armament of the HH-60's, the
> HH-65's will receive an armament capability in the not-too-distant
> future.

The armed A109s are leased, so I guess the Coasties would like to get the
capability back into planes they actually own. When the armed helo first
was proposed, the case was made that the Dolphin didn't have enough weight
margins; I wonder what they're doing to change that situation.

--
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)

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Last minute update-- an article appeared earlier this month
> > indicating that, after completing armament of the HH-60's, the
> > HH-65's will receive an armament capability in the not-too-distant
> > future.
>
> The armed A109s are leased, so I guess the Coasties would like to get the
> capability back into planes they actually own. When the armed helo first
> was proposed, the case was made that the Dolphin didn't have enough weight
> margins; I wonder what they're doing to change that situation.

Replacing the LTS 101 engines, probably with Turbomeca Arriel 2C2s.

Guy

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> >> The USCG is using A-109s for their armed helicopter role; is this an
> >> option?
> >
> > Probably not. I'd think an MD-5xx could be in the running, if they
> > go OTS.
>
> I didn't even realize this was still in production.

Sure, MD Helicopters got split off from Boeing a few years back. As someone
else remarked, the MD-530F might be the a/c of choice, assuming the Army doesn't
want one of the NOTAR variants, or they could buy the lower-powered MD-500E.
Always assuming they're willing to stay single-engine.

> Seems like it would not
> be a clear improvement over the OH-58.

Performance-wise, operators tend to disagree. The OH-58's main advantage is
that it was cheaper to buy and (probably) operate.

> Doies it have the endurance to
> operate tactically with the Apache?

I couldn't say.


> >> 2) Light Utility Helicopter (303 to be bought)
> >>
> >> I know the Bell 412 has been mentioned.
> >
> > AB-139,
>
> This is a tempting option, given that the Coast Gaurd has selected it for
> their Deepwater program (with major US content, BTW).
>
> >> 3) C-XX Intra-Theater Lift (25 to be bought)
> >>
> >> Presumably C-27J is the frontrunner. What other options are there?
> >
> > CASA C-295. Unlikely, given the C-27J's engine/cockpit commonality
> > with the C-130J. The C-295 is smaller, slower and less powerful, but
> > cheaper.
>
> And also selected by the USCG.

Are you sure? I thought they'd selected the CN-235-300M.

Guy

[Kevin Brooks]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
link.net...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > Last minute update-- an article appeared earlier this month
> > indicating that, after completing armament of the HH-60's, the
> > HH-65's will receive an armament capability in the not-too-distant
> > future.
>
> The armed A109s are leased, so I guess the Coasties would like to get the
> capability back into planes they actually own. When the armed helo first
> was proposed, the case was made that the Dolphin didn't have enough weight
> margins; I wonder what they're doing to change that situation.

Interestingly, a Dolphin with a new Turbomecca engine was tested this past
year--don't know if the USCG has bitten on it as of yet. Note that they are
waiting until they complete arming the -60's before they start on the -65's,
so they may be allowing themselves time to work on getting an engine switch.

Brooks

>
> --
> Tom Schoene

[Thomas Schoene]

Guy Alcala wrote:
> Thomas Schoene wrote:

>>> The C-295 is smaller, slower and less powerful,
>>> but cheaper.
>>
>> And also selected by the USCG.
>
> Are you sure? I thought they'd selected the CN-235-300M.

Yes, you're right. But the 235 and 295 are fairy close relatives. (That's
my excuse anyway)

--
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)

[Guy Alcala]

Thomas Schoene wrote:

> Guy Alcala wrote:
> > Thomas Schoene wrote:
>
> >>> The C-295 is smaller, slower and less powerful,
> >>> but cheaper.
> >>
> >> And also selected by the USCG.
> >
> > Are you sure? I thought they'd selected the CN-235-300M.
>
> Yes, you're right. But the 235 and 295 are fairy close relatives. (That's
> my excuse anyway)

I believe the usual formulation is "That's my story, and I'm sticking to it"
;-) But you're essentially correct. From Flug Revue:

The C-295 is based on the CN-235, offering 50 per cent more loading
capacity to the same distances. CASA has used
computer design
programs to optimise the aircraft, and only
about 85 per cent of the
components of the CN-235 remain. Major changes
include:

lengthened fuselage with three new frames
in front and behind of
the wing
reinforced wing structure
three hardpoints under each wing
reinforced landing gear, with two wheels in
the nose
better pressurization system
glass cockpit and FMS. In February 1999,
CASA has choosen
the Topdeck avionics suite from Sextant
Avionique, including
radar, TCAS and GPWS
more powerful engines



Guy