Comments on: Army Searching for New Skids

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:15:46 +0000

Byron,
There have been numerous reports indicating the Army’s desire for the ARH, post mortem ARH-70. I think there is a need especially with regards to manned/unmanned air asset integration as Cole mentioned. Currently only the AH-64D(I don’t think the 58C has the capability) has that capability. The ARH-70 would still be flying had costs not grown out of proportion to the program.
This aircraft is suppposed to be simple, cheap, and capable. Sounds like what the Comanche and ARH were once envisioned to be. Mission creep has killed those programs.
DC2

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:07:55 +0000

Byron,
Reviving Comanche is not even an option, as they made us quite literally destroy all the tooling.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 18:26:47 +0000

Good Morning Folks,
All good posts regarding the ARH, but missing the point. First off the Army likes the OH-58D Kiowa, it is the most flown helicopter in Iraq. The Kiowa does it’s mission.
Secondly, the ARH program is DEAD. For the mission in Afghanistan the RAH has been replaced by the Predator and with 95 MQ-1C Warriors in production for the Army it is unlikely that there is much interest in reviving the old RAH 66 Comanche or a replacement. The incoming administration has said publicly that the UAV is the future and Sec. Gates seems to by word and action agree with that.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:51:11 +0000

Cole,
Sorry I forgot you were all Army all the time. FYI, the Virginia boats are being built (2 per year btw max) in lieu of the much more expensive Seawolf boats (2 total built).
So with all of these high locations (forgot Kashmir) I guess we should be willing to pay more for a helicopter. Wouldn’t it make more sense to put the assets that are more expensive (47s and 64s) in those few locations like we do now. I can’t see where a 58 would serve a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by these two airframes. And I haven’t heard of any incidents where the 58 was needed and another air asset wasn’t available to take it’s place in these locations.
Perhaps if we had more and cheaper ARHs (as envisaged with the now cancelled program) in Iraq that would free up the assets that can operate in hot/hi conditions.
Think about it. The Comanche was cancelled to allow more helicopters to be purchased. Helos such as the 47 and 64.
My point is simple: do everything, everywhere does not equal cheap. And this will just be the beginning of mission creep on this program again.
DC2

By: Cole

Cole — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 02:01:03 +0000

DC2 said:“But this added ceiling in hot conditions is another example of mission creep that inevitiably causes cost to rise and drags development out into infinity.“
—————————–
Whoa buddy. I know you Navy guys fly around at sea level so don’t have to worry about it.
Check out a Jan 2008 Infantry magazine article where an XO described setting up 3 platoon-sized FOBs…all at 8,000′ in Afghanistan. Did you see the General getting interviewed on 60 minutes at an FOB over 7,000′?
Then note that Kabul is at 5,900′ and can easily be 100 degree F in the summer.
Heh, they are talking about bringing supplies in from the north. That means coming through Salang tunnel, at 3878…METERS altitude. Don’t make me list all the other passes with altitudes from 2713 to 3858 METERS altitude. So say somebody needs help from an ARH in one of those passes???
And BTW, the original 4000′/95 was based on mountains of Iran…and was probably an under-requirement. How about the Caucasus mountains in Georgia? We know Taiwan has a tall mountain range down the middle.
And there’s more. Say you need to hover out of ground effect in those conditions but that means dropping 500 lbs to do it. So what do you want to give up? All your missiles and an hour of fuel? And what happens if you fly somewhere lower. Now you can carry all your ammo and extra fuel for longer endurance and station time…because you had the capability to also perform at 6K/95.
———————————————
DC2:“ARH as developed by Bell using the 407 was supposed to be cheap. If they wanted an everything helo they should have kept the Comanche. That thing had all the mission creep the DoD could muster.“
———————————————-
Define cheap. Is it $2 billion for a Virginia class sub for shore-only ISR and transport of small SEAL teams? Is it $500 million for a littoral combat ship? How about $84 million for an F-35 purchased in far greater numbers than the ARH or $140 million for an F-22? How about a $72 million V-22?
So you could buy seven $12 million ARH-70s for the cost of one F-35 or six ARH-70s instead of one V-22. Priced a Predator, Reaper, or Global Hawk lately? Double standard for the USAF and Navy vs the Army? Care to guess how little a V-22 can carry in Afghanistan to hover OGE??
Don’t know what the deal was with the ARH. Maybe the Comanche cancellation WAS a mistake…but it sure bought a lot of other helicopters. Guess a lot of you don’t realize how many insurgents were killed by TF ODIN manned-unmanned teaming in 2007…and by extension, how many IEDs did not kill servicemembers. Manned-unmanned teaming isn’t the same without the manned aircraft viewing from a different perspective and helping to find, deter, and attack the threat.
BTW, the Boeing reps claim that 6,000′/95 degrees is equivalent to 14,000′ standard day is incorrect. The AH-6S needs more power if it wants to compete and fly in Afghanistan and future mountainous terrain…the AH-64 has already demonstrated it can.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:28:54 +0000

MAC,
Good luck on the paper. Based on our conversations here I am sure you will do quite well.
DC2

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 15:18:12 +0000

DC2: Heh. Been low profile. I am starting to come out from under a rock disguised as a grad paper. 147 pages (so far)of he**. It is in the hands of my Committee Chairman for supposedly ‘final’ comments at least until tonight, so I’m getting a short breather.

By: John C

John C — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 14:24:54 +0000

While we are waiting for this to happen…
The req’s for the new helo will have changed ten times before you read this.

By: DC2 Jennings

DC2 Jennings — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:25:47 +0000

MAC,
Where have you been my friend. Hopefully not hiding under a rock waiting for Obamanation to come of age.
Excellent idea as a baseline for developing the latest and greatest equipment for our servicemen and women today. As a result it will be debunked as garbage by the DoD in favor of something much more complex and convoluted.
DC2

By: C. Foskey

C. Foskey — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 12:18:02 +0000

@ SMSgt Mac
”-Engineers should define the limits of technology.“
That sounds like one of the most intelligent things I’ve heard in a very long time.