[Dawes]

Well, they get points for audaciousness, but I'm not giving this thing a lot of hope in winning the ARH contract:


http://www.flightglo...k-up-x2-ar.html

[TomasCTT]

Dawes, on Wed 6 May 2009 1012, said:

Well, they get points for audaciousness, but I'm not giving this thing a lot of hope in winning the ARH contract:
http://www.flightglo...k-up-x2-ar.html

That thing is a light helicopter? :blink: It looks so much bigger than the AH-1!

Ditto, I don't think this'll win. Hell, if the Comanche, JSF and other programs are of indication, there may not even be an ARH program, too.

[Jason L]

that isn't even a mock up, thats a bloody computer generated model

[Luke Y]

Looks like the bastard child of a Ka-25 and a Cheyenne... :huh:

[Lampshade111]

An interesting offer for ARH redux. Really though, at this point would it have been better if we had gone with the RAH-66? Even if was downgraded in some areas?

[Luke Y]

If they couldn't make something like the ARH-70 work what makes them think they're go for such an obvious can-of-worms like this?
The list of things that can/will go wrong with the development of this just looking at it is mind boggling...

I imagine that there will be no interest in the requirement for a long time if they were willing to shit-can the relatively simple, cheap and safe ARH-70.

[Simon Tan]

Why it reminds me of this helo with a pusher prop...

http://www.aviastar.org/foto/gallery/lockheed/lok_cheyenne_1.jpg

:)

Simon

[Dawes]

Yeah, I think the Cheyenne had a little more goin' on in the looks department.

[EvanDP]

Lampshade111, on Tue 5 May 2009 2100, said:

An interesting offer for ARH redux. Really though, at this point would it have been better if we had gone with the RAH-66? Even if was downgraded in some areas?

Seriously, how much money did we "save" by canning the RAH-66 compared to money we've spend to deliver a non-existent alternative?

[Luke Y]

EvanDP, on Thu 7 May 2009 0312, said:

Seriously, how much money did we "save" by canning the RAH-66 compared to money we've spend to deliver a non-existent alternative?

I always wondered similar. Either keep working on the Commanche as planned (potential problems of being financial black hole for years to come) or even just integrate longbow systems into the damn thing. Either way it was a capability that probably will not be present in any of the successor programs.

I think the use of UAV's in Iraq and Afghanistan have also gone a long way to truly revolutionizing battlefield aerial surveillance with the army Petraeus left to Odierno in 2008 having the sort of aerial surveillance capability that even as commander of the 101st Airmobile he would've probably not dreamed of in 2003.

And not just the big ticket items at operational and theatre levels like Predator/Reaper and Global Hawk, but the smaller systems like ScanEagle and as time goes by a $100,000 UAV like scan-eagle will provide a lot of flexibility a manned helo can never. As is current plans call for RQ8's to be deployed as brigade assets. This will be the scout helo IMO with some barely militarized utility helo bought for general light duties.

Some tasks will befit manned helos for the time being, but the role is increasingly in jeopardy (not that the Army aviation really wants it) and I will be putting my money on there being no requirement drafted or replacement funded, or if there is (BIG if IMO) it will be much more like the ARH70 than this contra-rotating f*ck-up waiting to happen...

This post has been edited by Luke_Yaxley: 06 May 2009 - 1334 PM

[Ivanhoe]

Lampshade111, on Wed 6 May 2009 0000, said:

An interesting offer for ARH redux. Really though, at this point would it have been better if we had gone with the RAH-66? Even if was downgraded in some areas?

At this point, fielding the 66 would have been better than the current CF. However, as Luke discussed its hard to reconcile missions with real world total operating costs.

IMHO what should have happened:
- the Comanche be terminated in the early/mid 90s (it simply failed my Ten Year Rule Of Procurement Debacles™ roughly around 1993 or so)
- work began circa 1995 on an affordable true light helo family* (utility & attack, emphasis on utility); think UH-1/AH-1 with modern rotors, trannies, engines, reasonable onboard electronics, and a durable chassis
- work began circa 2000 on unmanned VLAH (Very Light Attack Helo, lets say 1 tonne MOTW) and VLUH; the VLUH would have some sort of belly drop system for accurately dropping crates of water, food, ammo, porn mags to troops near the FEBA or even in contact

* Lets say 4 tonnes MTOW; guys are bigger, guns are bigger, battle areas are larger, etc. than they used to be.

[Gunguy]

Sikorsky guys get the really good drugs............. :blink:

[Jeff]

Luke_Yaxley, on Wed 6 May 2009 0431, said:

The list of things that can/will go wrong with the development of this just looking at it is mind boggling...

But think of the billions they will get for R&D before the program implodes in 10-15 years?

[George Newbill]

Today a Lynx holds the speed record of about 245 MPH, the limitation being the retreating blade loses lift at speed. This new rotorcraft can exceed 245MPH, it will have no rival. The tech is 1960 but was not doable until now.

[Luke Y]

Jeff, on Sun 10 May 2009 0413, said:

But think of the billions they will get for R&D before the program implodes in 10-15 years?

It would be hilarious if it wasn't 100% true... :(