![]() |
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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
There are frequent references to the crashworthiness of the Hughes/MD 500
series versus the JetRanger/LongRanger/407 series, to the detriment of the latter. However, if you consult the statistical record, the risk of serious injury per 100,000 flying hours in the 500 series is several times higher than that in the Bells. Much of that difference is attributable to the forgiving qualities of the old teetering head rotor system, but the stats continue to favor Bell even in the newer models. One reason for this is the greater probability of rollover in the 500 series, and a related problem is the greater risk of fire. Jim "Helowriter" wrote in message oups.com... The fact that the Army seems determined to get rid of the OH-58D says something about its perceived survivability in the armed recon mission. The 407 is a different aircraft, and with the new engine will be pretty far from an OH-58D, but at heart it's still got the crashworthiness of a JetRanger. UAV's will someday be a powerful adjunct to manned scout aircraft, but they're not there yet, and the doctrine of Armed UAVs for urban combat is still coming. Right now, I'd favor a Little Bird derivative for ARH. HW |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As I noted in a previous related post, the statistics belie the notion that
the 500 series is more crashworthy than the Bell. My experience with both helicopters goes back to the days when OH-6As were famous for rolling down hills, crew intact, after crashing, and I liked them for that and other reasons, but for whatever reason, it's always been safer, on the average, to fly in a Bell. Moreover, the back seat of a 500 series helicopter is a really rotten place to be, from both comfort and safety perspectives. Besides, MDHI is so rickety that a military contract probably wouldn't save it. Jim "Helowriter" wrote in message ups.com... 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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Helowriter,
From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes and you start running out of flying helicopters. Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less than 5% commonality of parts. Take care, CTR |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
It should be noted that all the US Army OH-58Ds were rebuilt (OK, very
extensively rebuilt and modified) OH-58As. The rebuild process took the aircraft down to the frames, replaced most of the sheet metal and a lot of the composites, built new cowlings, fuel storage, rear compartments, tail booms, and all new dynamic components, as well as completely replacing all the instrumentation, avionics, and powerplants. But they started out as OH-58As. The only "new" from the skids up OH-58D helicopters were built under contract to Taiwan. Jim "CTR" wrote in message oups.com... Helowriter, From what I have heard from Fort Rucker, the reason that the Army is retiring the OH-58s is that they are worn out. In peace time the life of these birds could be stretched out. But since 2001, OH-58s have been logging more hours than a New York taxi cab. Add to this attrition from battle damage and metal fatigue on 20 year old airframes and you start running out of flying helicopters. Comparing the OH-58 (based on the 206B) to the Bell Model 407 is like comparing a 2005 VW Bug to a 1955 VW Bug. They may look similar, but they are very different. Other than fasteners, there is probably less than 5% commonality of parts. Take care, CTR |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The Saudi 406s based on the OH-58D were new-build too.
Understand the evolution, but I suspect the MELB-derivative for ARH is also going to be pretty far from the OH-6A. The MELB is supposed to have a better aft cabin door, and we haven't seen what the Boeing/MDI ARH cabin yet. The crashworthiness comparison has always seemed to favor the OH-6A over the 58A/C. I don't believe either airframe has gotten a whole lot better since those first models. You can argue that 58Ds have just gone through safety enhancements including some seat improvements. I'm curious to see how both teams address the crashworthiness issue. HW |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Helowriter wrote:
Actually, Stonecipher bragged about the move in an AvWeek interview. He said he gave the civil helicopter guys three years to make money. When they didn't, he sold 'em. The explanation from Mesa at the time of the divestituture was the big-shots at Boeing did not want to waste their time selling one or two MD500s or MDExplorers piecemeal to police departments or hospitals. They saw themselves as global players moving 50 747s in a single order. A 20-year Apache or Chinook program was worthy of their efforts. Lost on such Captains of Industry is the fact that the civil and military sides of the helicopter business are closely connected. Suddenly, the Army wants 368 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters, and Boeing has no air vehicle. The decision also gave Eurocopter global market share it might not have otherwise gained. I do hope this works out because the MDHI product line is such a good one. I suspect a Little-Bird based ARH would be a better combat helicopter than an upgraded Bell 407. HW MDHS dumped the commercial side of the business because it was never in the black. The accounting methods for the commercial side were such a mess that the company never could figure out exactly how much it cost to build one and invariably wound up losing money on every one due to low sales. Stonecipher (and the new president of MDHS at the time) gave the commercial guys three years to show a profit - any kind of profit - and they couldn't do it. The two primes for the ARH competition are Bell and Boeing. When the contract is awarded (ostensibly in July - but AMCOM rarely meets a deadline) it will go to one of those - not to MDHI. Boeing is bidding the basic airframe from MDHI and will do the conversion itself. MDHI hasn't the technical or industrial capability of militarizing the aircraft. Bell is hoping that the Army will think that it's 40 year old flapper technology is really the future. Boeing is hoping that it doesn't have to buy back MDHI to stay in the competition. In typical Army fashion, they've taken what was supposed to be a light armed recon aircraft and written a procurement spec for the ARH that has turned it into a midget Apache. Many of those in the bidding are referring to the whole process as the "Flying Bradley - Part Deux". A hefty slug of the Army types that were involved in the Commanche fiasco are now involved in the ARH program. This could be one of those programs that the winner wishes they'd lost. Vygg BTW - the military and civil helicopter businesses are not closely connected. FAA vs. MIL-SPEC, accounting rules, FARs, performance requirements, etc. render the two very, very different. A UH-1 is a JetRanger on the surface only. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vygg wrote:
BTW - the military and civil helicopter businesses are not closely connected. FAA vs. MIL-SPEC, accounting rules, FARs, performance requirements, etc. render the two very, very different. A UH-1 is a JetRanger on the surface only. A UH-1 is a Model 204B on the surface only. It's an OH-58A-C that's a JetRanger on the surface (except for the different length rotor blades, tail boom, engine, etc.). Jim |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Vygg,
The Army is requesting that the ARH have civil certification and is funding the FAA costs to obtain it. They are requesting FAA certification to improve the resale value of aircraft when they divest them. You are partially correct in your statement that the specification for the ARH has become "midget Apache". In a bizzare deviation from conventional military specifications, the ARH specification requirements are not all manditory. Requirements are broken down into catagories ranging from must have to not required but would be nice to have. Very different. Still, having both qualified military hardware and FAA certified civilian aircraft, I will take military hardware any day. Life is easier when the certifying agency and the customer are one and the same. Take care, CTR |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
CTR wrote:
Vygg, The Army is requesting that the ARH have civil certification and is funding the FAA costs to obtain it. They are requesting FAA certification to improve the resale value of aircraft when they divest them. You are partially correct in your statement that the specification for the ARH has become "midget Apache". In a bizzare deviation from conventional military specifications, the ARH specification requirements are not all manditory. Requirements are broken down into catagories ranging from must have to not required but would be nice to have. Very different. Still, having both qualified military hardware and FAA certified civilian aircraft, I will take military hardware any day. Life is easier when the certifying agency and the customer are one and the same. Take care, CTR Yeah. Makes it a real pain in the tookas to try to bid, too. Instead of just sending out an RFP stating "Based on an existing civil airframe, build a helicopter that does this . . . ", the AMCOM guys have muddied the waters to the point that the bidders are left guessing at what the Army really wants in this thing. They want something that's just like the SOF MELB only different - and cheap. The winner of this competition could wind up wishing they'd lost it. The user community has been telling us for years that they want more weapons, more armor and more fuel. AMCOM instead gives them more Comm gear. What an attack helicopter needs with an HF radio is beyond what anyone that flies it has been able to figure out. Maybe the boys in Huntsville want to be able to tune in to the action in Iraq. Rumor has it that the Block III Longbow is going to drop the HF radio. It will be interesting to see what happens in July - or maybe September - or maybe next January - or whenever AMCOM actually decides to pick a winner. Vygg |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Hey! What fun!! Let's let them kill ourselves!!! | [email protected] | Naval Aviation | 2 | December 17th 04 09:45 PM |