Commanche alternatives?

Chad Irby wrote:
Mike Marron wrote:

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...

"Little critters" is right. Yeah boy, I with ya!




Trikes Rule.

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

"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.

What's the status on Apache airframes? About 800 airframes built for the US
Army and as near as I can tell, the Army is planning to upgrade about 500
to -D standard. Are the balance available to be upgraded?

"John S. Shinal" wrote ...
"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.

You'd have to buy the whole Comanche data system suite to get there. The
AH-64D's "upgrade" was to a dual MIL-STD 1553 data bus (about 1Mbps
aggregate bandwidth) and dual MIL-STD 1750A processors (6MIPS aggregate
compute!!). Comanche uses FO data busses and modern (for small values of
modern) processors to haul sensor data around and display it. That's not
such a bad idea but realize what you have to do to get there.

John S. Shinal wrote:
"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 =---
When LockMart failed to live up to the marketing hype (surprise,
surprise) used to get the Army to pour money into M-TADS, alternatives
were explored for extending the visual range and reach of the attack
helicopter. Controlling a UAV/UCAV from the cockpit (sorry, crew
compartment - we're not supposed to call them cockpits, anymore) of a
Longbow. That's been in development and test at the Mesa plant for
several months now.

I work with one of the Pilot SMEs that flew a sim mission for the
program. He said that flying the helicopter and the UAV at the same time
was much easier than he thought it would be. But . . . and that's a big
BUT . . . the field of view on the UAV is severely limited, especially
in a low-level combat arena. He likened it to trying to drive your car
down a crowded freeway with one eye closed and the other one looking
through the viewfinder of a video camera. Too much of that while the
aircraft that you're riding in is moving can make one a bit queasy -
same problem that the ORT had.

With no peripheral vision, the thing can't pick up targets like a
Baathist with an RPG running at you along a side street.

BTW, LockMart swears that they'll have the bugs worked out of M-TADS in
time for the Longbow Block III mod - they were supposed to have it ready
in time for the Block II aircraft currently in production.

Vygg

"Paul F Austin" wrote in message
...

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

"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.

What's the status on Apache airframes? About 800 airframes built for the
US
Army and as near as I can tell, the Army is planning to upgrade about 500
to -D standard. Are the balance available to be upgraded?

The Global Security website claims that "all" of the A models are to be
upgraded, but that may have been predicated upon the planned Commanche
fielding displacing a portion of the Apache fleet. The fielding plan I saw
indicates D model fielding will continue through around 2009, but that
report was from 2000, so... The plan called for a final force of 25 Apache
battalions. With 18 aircraft per divisional attack battalion and 21 per
corps battalion, you are looking at a total force of just under 500
airframes (assuming around 14 DIV battalions and 11 corps battalions). Could
the remainder be upgraded? I don't see why not, though it may require some
more structural replacement for the earliest high-hour airframes. Do they
plan to do so? I don't know, and I have not seen anything that indicates
that is the case. I would expect there to be a lot of decisions made or
announced in the near future in view of the recent news, affecting how the
aviation force will look Army-wide (to include the ARNG elements) given the
demise of the Commanche. I think we'll see an off-the-shelf purchase of a
new LUH; the possibility of a Bell 412 in military colors is not unrealistic
(and probably more likely than the Huey II refurbishment program), destined
for primarily ARNG service. The OH-58C's currently in use by ARNG outfits
that have lost their Cobras and/or Hueys can't last long.

Brooks

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
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.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised that a "black" program to develop a UCAV
helicopter that incorporates a lot of the what was learned on the RAH-66
program is probably in an advanced development stage already. A stealthy
UCAV helicopter with RCS a small fraction of what the RAH-66 already
achieved and very low noise levels could be perfect for taking on al-Qaeda
or other terrorist organizations in their operational areas at night.

--
Raymond Chuang
Sacramento, CA USA

"R. David Steele" wrote in message
...
The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook
helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the
Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy
CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one
aircraft military. Looks like it just makes it easier to merge
the AF into the Navy someday.

The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what they are
doing with that whole CH-47F program...

Brooks

snip

R. David Steele wrote:

We have to have a replacement for the CH-47 now? One wonders what
they are doing with that whole CH-47F program...

It is a bit long in the tooth. Look at how the Navy dropped its
sister, the CH-46.

The CH-47F is a rather extensive remanufacturing program that's going on
right now. The Army expects it to let these aircraft serve into the 2020s.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm

--
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)

R. David Steele wrote:
The money will go into the AH-64 Apache, CH-47 Chinook
helicopter and UH-60 Black Hawk. What is interesting is that the
Navy and AF are basically using variants of the Black Hawk (Navy
CH-60 and SH-60R, AF MH-60). Like the JSF, we have become a one
aircraft military.

Makes sense, really. Why reinvent dynamic systems for all these different
roles that happen to be in the same basic weight class?

Looks like it just makes it easier to merge
the AF into the Navy someday.

You're not serious, are you?


The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
(they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's
about it.)

The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear:
the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an
S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the
MH-60S (formerly CH-60S). This is already operational and by most accounts
it works rather well for the VERTREP job.

The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53, which I
believe is getting a SLEP to run another couple of decades. So is the CH-47.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...aft/ch-53x.htm
http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...ch-47f-ich.htm

Long term replacement plans are pretty hazy, as one might expect for a
program (or programs) that won't deliver hardware for at least a decade, if
not two.


--
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 wrote:

R. David Steele wrote:

snip

The Navy is looking to end the CH-46 while the Army is still
funding the CH-47. We will need to have a replacement for the
46/47 as we really do not have a heavy helo without them.

CH-46 is not a heavy-lift helo and is only slightly related to the -47.
(they came from the same company, and are both twin rotor designs. That's
about it.)

The CH-46's replacement in Marine Corps troop lift roles is pretty clear:
the V-22. If that is cancelled, the next-best alternative is probably an
S-92 or "US-101." The CH-46's replacement in the Navy is also clear: the
MH-60S (formerly CH-60S).

Nitpick. The Navy has the UH/HH-46, Tom. Sure, they're the same basic
airframe. And am I the only one who feels that R. David Steele is battling
Henry J. Cobb for the (current) title of Most Annoyingly Clueless?

Guy