Well, the Army is determined to retire the OH-58D, and the 407 is an
OH-58D derivative. (Obviously, they're going to do more than move the
sensor suite and replace the enigine.) Not knowing just what Bell
intends to do with the tail rotor, transmission, etc, the ARH proposal
seems like it perpetuates OH-58D shortcomings in performance and
crashworthiness rather than taking a different ARH approach.

The Mission Enhanced Little Bird for the 160th is already getting the
Rockwell CAAS cockpit, which will provide training and supply
commonality with what the Army plans for the UH-60M and CH-47F. Bell
has said Lockheed Martin will integrate their systems, presumably with
a cockpit based on Navy MH-60R/S experience. Given a choice, I think
I'd rather have CAAS.

I've been corrected elsewhere that the ARH requirement is very
different from SOF, requiring longer endurance. I don't know what
Boeing intends to do to to add more fuel. (If you use the stretched 600
airframe, do you compromise crashworthiness?)

Neither of these aircraft will carry significant armor (RPGs are meant
to kill main battle tanks), but I do think the Little Bird is more
crashworthy. Again, I don't know exactly what Boeing plans to enhance
the AH-6M, but I think it would be a better starting point.

It's not the vulnerability of UAVs that makes them questionable, it's
the limited field of view from current sensors, and the organization
that has to integrate them with ground forces. A human crew brings
curiosity, flexibility, and judgement to use weapon on the recon
mission. Again, with time, UAVs will provide a useful adjunct to save
lives and expand situational awareness, but they're not a replacement
for a scout helicopter.

HW