A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Would the AH-6J (Little Bird make a good, low cost, helicopter for force protection?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 17th 04, 04:24 PM
John Hairell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Would the AH-6J (Little Bird make a good, low cost, helicopter for force protection?

On Mon, 17 May 2004 10:33:50 -0400, "Jeff" wrote:


OH-58A/C Kiowa, OH-58D Kiowa (slick, like in "Firebirds"), AHIP, AH-58D,
OH-58D(i) Kiowa Warrior, OH-58D(R) Kiowa Warrior, then after all
OH-58A/C/D's were upgraded to (i) or (R), the (i)'s went back to just
"OH-58D" and the (R)'s (R3 engine) stayed (R)'s. I know there are now

more
upgrades and improvements and I think most D's will become R's.


There was a battle of "intents" over this. Some thought that the AH-attack
would cause commanders to think of KW's light attack a/c and use them more
offensively (and lead to losses) which it is not designed for as opposed to
the OH-observation role and armed simply to defend itself. The Hellfire
stretched this to allow for long range high priority target engagements but
the overriding wisdom was to characterize this a/c as a snoop and poop
platform. Apaches have enough problems from small arms ground fire, can you
image KW's getting hit with the same? (Think about the ambush on two Apache
Bn's in Iraq several weeks ago. I believe it was 20+-some birds grounded
due to battle damage and the mission was scrubbed. KW's would have augered
in right there, with their crews.) Apaches are designed to bring their crews
home after getting hit. KW's won't.


In my book I'd say that it's not an official designation change until
the central aircraft database reflects it, regardless of whatever a
lone TM says or internal unit documentation calls it. Based on that
I'd say there were never any "official" AH-58s - the people who keep
track of the aircraft inventory always had them as OH-58s. And,
having seen one up close, it's data block stencil said "OH-58D", not
"AH-58D".

As another example, until the MH-60K came along, none of the MH-60A/Ls
that the 160th SOAR had were listed as MH-60s in the official database
records, i.e. if it's modified from its original form, the odds are it
won't get officially re-designated, but if it's contracted for and
comes from the factory that way, that's what goes into the database.
The AH-60s weren't "official" either.

John Hairell )
  #2  
Old May 17th 04, 05:55 PM
John Hairell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 16 May 2004 18:09:53 -0700, "Bill"
wrote:


Ah, yes. The memories return. Back in the enlightened age of his Royal
Highness Lyndon of Johnson it was required that a new jet light helicopter
replace the old piston-engined craft, and moreover, this would be the one
and only Light Observation Helicopter, there would be no more, and a
winner-take-all competition was held to bequeth the award to Bell Helicopter
of (guess where?) Fort Worth, Texas. But the army judges were approached by
Hughes Aircraft with a novel and outperforming design which won the
competition. Now guess what? It seemed that there was indeed a role for
another light helicopter and so Bell got its sole source contract anyway, at
the expense of a number of Hughes Helicopters. Maybe that's why they sold
out to McDonnell Douglas.

Anyway, everything you say about the Hughes design is true. Lower cost,
less maintenance, quiet, lasts a long time, etc - now if its name were
Bell!!!



This is somewhat of a spurious history - the LOH contract and
competition stem from a requirement written in the late '50s, which in
itself derived from studies made in the late '40s and early to mid
'50s.

The first seven YOH-6s (the prototypes) were contracted for out of
FY62 funds, i.e. prior to LBJ being President.

The Hughes entry (Model 369) was not in the first "official" LOH
competition. Hughes later got shoe-horned in by a general who may/may
not have had ties with Hughes. Initially the Army thought that the
Hughes entry was too technologically advanced an entry. Once Bell,
Hiller, and Hughes delivered their prototypes it turned out that the
Bell entry (YOH-4) was the lowest performing of the three. The Hiller
and Hughes entries were roughly comparable, but the Hughes model was
far cheaper. The Army knew that Hughes was under-bidding but
contracted for it anyway. Around this same time Hughes also got the
Army training helicopter contract (TH-55), so in the space of a few
months they took most of Hiller's DOD sales away.

Hughes had a huge amount of trouble revving up their OH-6 production
line in Culver City. The first OH-6s didn't get fielded to Vietnam
until late 1967. Hughes was simultaneously trying to crank up
production of the civilian 500C, which didn't make it to the market
until 1969. Hughes got burned on the follow-on LOH contract because
they significantly jacked up the price, triggering a Congressional
investigation. Both Hughes and the Army got burned as a result, and
Bell got the contract with the OH-58A, a derivative of a derivative of
their original anemic entry in the LOH competition.

Not well known is that there was a spook component to the original
OH-6 competition. More airframes were manufactured than made public.
40+ airframes were built and flown/tested/crash tested prior to and
during the LOH flyoffs, and some of those aircraft were later used by
three-letter agencies.

John Hairell )
  #3  
Old May 17th 04, 08:52 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Hairell" wrote in message
...

snip interesting stuff

Not well known is that there was a spook component to the original
OH-6 competition. More airframes were manufactured than made public.
40+ airframes were built and flown/tested/crash tested prior to and
during the LOH flyoffs, and some of those aircraft were later used by
three-letter agencies.

John Hairell )


Lemme guess...they were painted black, right? :-) Geeze, John--you just gave
the alt.conspiracy.whacko crowd the definitive proof of the existance of
"black helicopters" that they have been salivating over...

Brooks


  #4  
Old May 18th 04, 08:40 AM
Guy Alcala
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"John Hairell" wrote in message
...

snip interesting stuff

Not well known is that there was a spook component to the original
OH-6 competition. More airframes were manufactured than made public.
40+ airframes were built and flown/tested/crash tested prior to and
during the LOH flyoffs, and some of those aircraft were later used by
three-letter agencies.

John Hairell )


Lemme guess...they were painted black, right? :-) Geeze, John--you just gave
the alt.conspiracy.whacko crowd the definitive proof of the existance of
"black helicopters" that they have been salivating over...


Well, hell, all they need to do is find a photo of the black H-19 operated by
the CIA during the Korean War. IIRC it was used to bring out from North Korea a
fair amount of a crash-landed MiG-15 that had its major bits dismantled in the
field, and possibly for agent insertions/extractions as well.

After the war it was re-deployed to Roswell, where . . . uh, never mind;-)

Guy (serious about the Korean war usage)




  #5  
Old May 18th 04, 03:37 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

"John Hairell" wrote in message
...

snip interesting stuff

Not well known is that there was a spook component to the original
OH-6 competition. More airframes were manufactured than made public.
40+ airframes were built and flown/tested/crash tested prior to and
during the LOH flyoffs, and some of those aircraft were later used by
three-letter agencies.

John Hairell )


Lemme guess...they were painted black, right? :-) Geeze, John--you just

gave
the alt.conspiracy.whacko crowd the definitive proof of the existance of
"black helicopters" that they have been salivating over...


Well, hell, all they need to do is find a photo of the black H-19 operated

by
the CIA during the Korean War. IIRC it was used to bring out from North

Korea a
fair amount of a crash-landed MiG-15 that had its major bits dismantled in

the
field, and possibly for agent insertions/extractions as well.

After the war it was re-deployed to Roswell, where . . . uh, never mind;-)

Guy (serious about the Korean war usage)


The immenent military fiction writer, W.E.B. Griffith, has covered that CIA
H-19 story (with some literary license, of course) in his latest novel (I am
a Griffith fan from way back--his initial "breakout" series, Brotherhood of
War, was well received by us cadet types in college at the time, with each
new book of the first three selling out quickly in the bookstore...).
Griffith puts Clancy to shame.

Brooks







  #6  
Old May 18th 04, 05:36 PM
John Hairell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 18 May 2004 07:40:40 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"John Hairell" wrote in message
...

snip interesting stuff

Not well known is that there was a spook component to the original
OH-6 competition. More airframes were manufactured than made public.
40+ airframes were built and flown/tested/crash tested prior to and
during the LOH flyoffs, and some of those aircraft were later used by
three-letter agencies.

John Hairell )


Lemme guess...they were painted black, right? :-) Geeze, John--you just gave
the alt.conspiracy.whacko crowd the definitive proof of the existance of
"black helicopters" that they have been salivating over...


Well, hell, all they need to do is find a photo of the black H-19 operated by
the CIA during the Korean War. IIRC it was used to bring out from North Korea a
fair amount of a crash-landed MiG-15 that had its major bits dismantled in the
field, and possibly for agent insertions/extractions as well.

After the war it was re-deployed to Roswell, where . . . uh, never mind;-)

Guy (serious about the Korean war usage)



I was serious about the spook usage of OH-6 prototypes also. After
more than 10 years of researching OH-6 information and history (for a
book I never wrote), I came to the conclusion (mainly from
photographic evidence) that there were more airframes built than
publicly announced. Supposedly only six YOH-6 airframes were built,
but I also knew that some extra airframes had been built for crash
testing. I also knew that there had been early spook agency usage of
OH-6/500 airframes. I discussed this with Wayne Mutza, who is writing
a book on the OH-6/500 family, and he interviewed former Hughes
managers. It turns out that many more "test" airframes were built
prior to the production run of OH-6As, and there indeed was some sort
of covert usage early on, and also later on in the Vietnam War.
Various spook agencies thus have been involved with the OH-6/500
family from day one.

What color they were I won't venture to guess. ;-)

John Hairell )
  #7  
Old May 18th 04, 10:55 PM
George
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

The immenent military fiction writer, W.E.B. Griffith, has covered that CIA
H-19 story (with some literary license, of course) in his latest novel (I am
a Griffith fan from way back--his initial "breakout" series, Brotherhood of
War, was well received by us cadet types in college at the time, with each
new book of the first three selling out quickly in the bookstore...).
Griffith puts Clancy to shame.

Brooks


From a current cadet type, I agree with you there on Griffith. I've
read his entire Brotherhood of War and Corps series.
  #8  
Old May 19th 04, 01:04 AM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George" wrote in message
m...
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message

...

The immenent military fiction writer, W.E.B. Griffith, has covered that

CIA
H-19 story (with some literary license, of course) in his latest novel

(I am
a Griffith fan from way back--his initial "breakout" series, Brotherhood

of
War, was well received by us cadet types in college at the time, with

each
new book of the first three selling out quickly in the bookstore...).
Griffith puts Clancy to shame.

Brooks


From a current cadet type, I agree with you there on Griffith. I've
read his entire Brotherhood of War and Corps series.


If you like those books, check out Anton Myrer's "Once an Eagle". It, too,
follows a couple of soldiers through their lives, from WWI through a
Vietnamesque conflict (but the primary focus is WWI through WWII); it used
to be incluuded on the Army Chief of Staff's recommended reading list. Keeps
your interest, provides a great familiarization with the Army during the
interwar period, and is a pretty good study of true leadership versus
ticket-punching/ass-kissing self promotion. During the 1970's NBC did a
pretty good miniseries based upon it (first major role for Sam Elliot), but
it regrettably has never been released in DVD format.

Brooks


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions List (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 40 October 3rd 08 03:13 PM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 4 August 7th 03 05:12 AM
Homebuilt Aircraft Frequently-Asked Questions (FAQ) Ron Wanttaja Home Built 0 July 4th 03 04:50 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.