Commanche alternatives?

John Cook wrote:

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 08:24:18 -0600, "t_mark" wrote:

I can't imaging the Apache being current in a very few years, not
without major upgrades...

Um ... why?


The A model is way behind, the D is better but needs sensor suite,
avionics upgrades.

See the transcript, Block III Apaches.

Guy

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

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.

BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the
details of
where the money's going.:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0223-0484.html

Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing OH-58Cs?

But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement is
to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in
three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav
squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID
detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as "caretaker"
airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their
aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is only
16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more than
six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and likely
less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an
excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the homeland
defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300 airframes
to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I would
not rule the 412 out as a competitor.

From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're getting
rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with UH-60s,
and putting a new OH out for bid.

Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or
something
similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more
OH/AH-6s
at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller than a
Huey,
but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less maintenance-intensive.
If
you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more
UH-60s and
have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with
CH-47Fs,
UAVs etc.)

As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on homeland
defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money and
buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not to,
integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought only
UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency plan
force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
early--who knows?

At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that, and want the Guard
to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means
they've pretty much got to have the same equipment. While a 412 probably costs
less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the separate
training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make sense
economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and modified
AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.

I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they
phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks at
LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J
order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking
about just that possibility for a year or two now already.

Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I
figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing to buy
Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines and
avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as far
as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the
intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It
certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF. Of
course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B) operations
from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL capability of
the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all support for
Army (or occasionally Marine) ops.

Guy

"John S. Shinal" wrote:

"Thomas Schoene" wrote:

The Navy/Marine counterpart to the CH-47 is actually the CH-53,

I have to wonder why the CH-53E or its kin isn't a viable
fall-back if the Osprey eventually fails. Is it just the problem of
fitting them on smaller decks ? I know they have a mighty big
footprint, but a friend who's a helo professional has a few great
stories of CH-53s doing amazing parking jobs after a hurricane came
through here a few years ago. The rotor wash knocked him flat on his
ass, though.

In addition to the size issue (spotting factor 2.5 vs. the V-22's 1.7, the standard
being the CH-46 at 1.0), the CH-53E/X lacks maneuverability, has too much capacity in
the basic mission, and lacks armor (which could be added, but at a detriment to its
primary heavy-lift mission). The CH-46 and MV-22's primary mission is tactical troop
transport, the CH-53's primary mission has always been heavy-lift. It's had to take
on many of the tactical troop transport missions of the CH-46 because of the
shortcomings of range, payload and lack of AAR capability of the latter, not because
it was particularly well-suited for the missions. Fall-back for the MV-22, should it
fail (and that's increasingly unlikely, as the HROD testing went well and the various
departments/individuals in DoD that were worried about it have all given it a green
light since), then it would almost certainly be either an S-92 or US-101, as they're
in the right size range. The US-101's a bit big, while the S-92 was specifically
designed as a CH-46 replacement in case the MV-22 went south.

Guy

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.


As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action

Keith

In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Chad Irby" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
"Keith Willshaw" wrote:

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

You mean like the IFF that fails from time to time, or that can be
spoofed and jammed quite easily?

You have some of the following problems:

IFF jammed, UCAV won't shoot.
IFF jammed, UCAV shoots down anything in front of it.

Attack helos dont go in much for air to air combat as I recall

But if you're using autonomous UCAVs, they have to be able to detect
incoming threats, and decide which ground targets to hit. Therefore,
you either have IFF or a very restrictive set of rules of engagement
that the machine won't be able to break. Since a part of the "new"
battlefield is going to be IFF for ground forces, that's going to be an
issue, too. Restricting the question to air-to-air is a mistake.

IFF spoofed, UCAV hunts down friendly targets.

IFF is easy enough, but "robust" IFF is a real pain.

As is recognition by human pilots in the heat of action

Still a couple of orders of magnitude better than any UCAV IFF we're
going to see in the near future.

We can't even build the suckers to fly reliably under non-optimal
conditions yet, much less deal with threats while doing so.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

I'd think if there were more similarities than differences, there'd be a
majority of parts interchangable. Any idea just how few are
interchangable? I don't but I'd bet there are very, very few! You ever
looked at pics of these two helos?

Mike Marron wrote in message . ..
Henry J Cobb wrote:
R. David Steele wrote:

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.

If the Army went for the V-22 would the AF object that it's "fixed wing"?

In the civilian arena, the V-22 is neither in the "Fixed Wing" -OR-
the "Rotorcraft" category. The FAA has created an entirely brand new
aircraft category for the V-22 called "Powered Lift" which is designed
solely for tilt-rotor aircraft (see: FAR 61.163).

Also the AF would probably be happy if the Army bought V-22s. It
would probably help bring down the unit cost for the Air Force
Ospreys.

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

"Guy Alcala" wrote in message
. ..
Kevin Brooks wrote:

snip

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.

BTW, here's the actual DoD transcript with the announcement and the
details of
where the money's going.:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcrip...0223-0484.html

Doesn't a Huey, especially a 412, seem rather much for replacing
OH-58Cs?

But if you reread the article you provided, you'll note the requirement
is
to replace the 58's *and* the Hueys. The 58C's are currently serving in
three major roles in the ARNG--as cav scouts in the divisional cav
squadrons, as observation aircraft (equipped with FLIR) in the RAID
detachments (drug interdiction and homeland security), and as
"caretaker"
airframes for the AH-1 inits and Huey units that have already lost their
aircraft. The 412 would not be ideal in the cav scout role, but that is
only
16 aircraft per ARNG division (figuring an eventual force of no more
than
six ARNG divisions, you are talking about less than 100 aircraft, and
likely
less if the Guard drops down to the four division level). It would be an
excellent replacement for the Huey, especially in regards to the
homeland
defense mission. The article noted a total requirement of some 300
airframes
to replace the older Kiowas and the remaining Hueys in the ARNG, and I
would
not rule the 412 out as a competitor.

From my reading of the transcript, it seems pretty clear that they're
getting
rid of the Hueys entirely (did you see the slides?), replacing them with
UH-60s,
and putting a new OH out for bid.

I did not come away with the same interpretation, and neither did the
following media source:

"Among the new buys will be 368 new reconnaissance helicopters to replace
the OH-58 Kiowa Warrior, 303 new light utility helicopters to replace aging
Hueys, and roughly 25 new fixed-wing cargo aircraft that would replace the
C-23 for intra-theater transport. The cancellation of Comanche **also**
[emphasis added] will allow for the purchase of an additional 80 UH-60 Black
Hawk helicopters and another 50 CH-47 Chinooks, according to Cody."
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/inc02254.xml

The plan appears to be to purchase new aircraft to replace both the OH's
*and* the Hueys (may not be the same aircraft, obviously), and the
additional Blackhawk order is not going to impinge upon those plans (note
the use of "also", as in "in addition to").


Militarized Bell 407s or 430s ("Son of AirHawk!") I could see, or
something
similar (hey, Howard Hughes is still dead, so maybe we could buy more
OH/AH-6s
at a reasonable price). Or at a step up in size, AB-139s. Smaller
than a
Huey,
but larger than a Loach, and should be a lot less
maintenance-intensive.
If
you're going to buy new 4 blade Hueys you might as well just buy more
UH-60s and
have done with it (which is apparently what is being done, along with
CH-47Fs,
UAVs etc.)

As you note, they are indeed buying more Blackhawks. But Blackhawks are
pretty pricey compared to the 412. With the increased emphasis on
homeland
defense and the Guard's role in that respect, taking X amount of money
and
buying more 412's than you could buy UH-60's with the same money would
appear to be a doable solution to me. I doubt the Army wants to blow any
more money than it has to on aircraft that it can't, or would prefer not
to,
integrate into its warfighting plans across the board; if you bought
only
UH-60's, then the tendancy would be to identify them with contingency
plan
force development requirements. They'd be a bit less likely to want to
integrate a low density platform like the 412 would be. But hey, its
early--who knows?

At least how I understand it, they're not willing to do that,

That is not what AvLeak is saying.

and want the Guard
to be seamlessly able to integrate with the active component, which means
they've pretty much got to have the same equipment.

Not necessarily. That has BEEN the way they have thought for decades, but
9-11, and the resultant load upon the Guard in terms of mobilizations for
overseas deployment, coupled with the less-than-timely drawdown on the Huey
and Cobra fleets, got some folks (including Governors and likely now the
DHS) to talking about the desirability of having some aircraft primarily
oriented towards the domestic requirement. NGB has even begun talking about
the MV-22 as being a good match for some domestic requirements, especially
for such roles as transporting the NG's NBC response teams. The desire to
get an off-the-shelf utility bird specifically for the ARNG has also been
discussed previously, which is why the plan to actually do that is not that
surprising to me. And as the interest is towards a dedicated (or close to
that term) domestic support aircraft, the need for interoperability with
active component systems is not as important. If such interoperability was
such a key concern, why does the ARNG often find itself operating equipment
(from trucks to helicopters) that the active component no longer operates,
and sometimes won't even support?

While a 412 probably costs
less per hour to operate than a -60, when you add in the costs of the
separate
training, maintenance and spares support I suspect it just doesn't make
sense
economically. Otherwise the USMC could have just bought UH-60s and
modified
AH-64s instead of staying all common with the UH-1Y/AH-1Z.

Well Guy, in this case it appears the Army disagrees with you. Eighty
UH-60's are a drop in the bucket compared to the needs in terms of replacing
the UH-1's that have been lost, and I have to tell you that I think AvLeak
is generally a rather reliable source, and they do indeed indicate that a
*new* light utility airframe is in the works (and the UH-60 is a bit on the
chunky side (both in terms of size and payload) to be called "light"). I
doubt the amount of training required to prepare those Huey wrench turners
for a platform like the 412 is any different from what is required to
prepare them for the UH-60, and unlike the AC side, those wrench turners
often spend their entire career in the same unit, so turnover won't be as
big an issue. Crew training is not likely to be a major issue, either--the
ARNG already manages C-23 training, just as the ANG is heavily involved in
pilot training for the F-16 and F-15. Doing an in-house qualification course
at either or both the eastern or western ARNG aviation training sites (AZ
and PA, IIRC) would be no biggie as they have run crew training programs for
years now on Cobras, Chinooks, and even Blackhawks and Apaches. The USMC
stayed with the Huey for a number of reasons, cost being among them (and
size likely being another); likewise, the ARNG lobbied a few years back to
go with the "Huey II" or similar modifications, but was unsuccessful.


I did find the bit about replacing the C-23's of interest. The way they
phrased that (wanting a more capable aircraft), I'd bet that the folks
at
LMCO and Alenia (IIRC that is the right firm) can expect a likely C-27J
order in the not-too-distant future. The Guard folks have been squeaking
about just that possibility for a year or two now already.

Yeah, that was my reading too. They may compete it with the CN-295, but I
figure the odds of that winning are right up there with Congress agreeing
to buy
Airbus tankers. Of course, if the CN-295 were to have American engines
and
avionics and be assembled here, it would be pretty similar to the C-27J as
far
as American content goes. But it's nice to see the Army get back the
intra-theater tactical lift they lost when the AF took the Caribous. It
certainly makes far more sense that the Army operate these than the USAF.
Of
course, with the exception of supporting A-10 (and potentially F-35B)
operations
from FOB, the USAF has little or no need of the rough-field STOL
capability of
the C-130 to support their own intra-theater missions --they're all
support for
Army (or occasionally Marine) ops.

Yep. It looks like the initial number to be bought will be around 25--that
would be a heck of a shot in the arm for the Alenia side in particular and
the C-27 in general. The commonality it shares engine wise with the C-130J
won't hurt its chances, either.

Brooks


Guy

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"Rune Børsjø" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004 19:04:27 GMT, Chad Irby wrote:

Well, in theory, and for some missions, anyway. But you have a couple
of potential problems with that. If they're completely autonomous,
they're not going to be as "smart" as humans when it comes to targeting

How the hell is gonna tell friendly from enemy? Civilian from
combatant? The only thing it'll be good for is knocking out armor.
Attack helos still present a flexibility and presence that you can't
get out of a glorified model airplane kit.

You havent heard of IFF I take it

Not a reliable, discrete (not desirable to tell *everyone* "here I am!", is
it?), and *operational* one for ground units I haven't. Your nominee to fill
those requirements would be...?

Brooks


Keith

Guy Alcala wrote:
Thomas Schoene wrote:
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.

I shouldn't like to argue, but a lot of Navy webpages, including sites like
HC-8 homepage, say the Navy flies CH-46Ds.

http://www.navy.mil/homepages/hc8/

Comparatively few mention the UH-46 designation. OTOH, there are a lot of
mentions these days that simply say H-46; I think they gave up trying to
keep the different designations straight.

--
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)