The Army’s top aviation officials just offered up a little more detail on the service’s effort to modernize or replace its aging fleet of OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout choppers, at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual conference here in Washington.
Basically, the service hopes to host a flight demonstration — not a fly off — for defense contractors to show off their bids to replace the Army’s OH-58 Kiowa Warrior armed scout helos. The demo will help the Army decide if it’s worth it to buy a new fleet of scout choppers — a move that could take cash away from other projects — or put the OH-58s through a service life extension program, known as a SLEP.
The service can’t afford to develop brand new scout chopper design so the helos offered up by industry will likely be updated versions of existing designs, according to Crosby.
This means that the Army will only evaluate designs that are already flying, no Powerpoint slides. As Maj. Gen. Tim Crosby, the Army’s top aircraft buyer put it, if a company doesn’t have a flying aircraft, it “can’t play” in the April demo.
Crosby is asking for about $8 million to host a demo that can accommodate up to five vendors.
The service will weigh the cost of buying, maintaining, deploying and training for any new scout chopper versus the cost of “SLEPing” the Kiowa Warriors.
This comes as the Army is looking to develop and field a brand new fleet of attack and utility helos, under the Joint Multirole (JMR) program, by 2030, said Crosby. This means the service must be very careful in how it spends its cash on things like the scout program lest it gobbles up cash meant for the JMR effort, warned Crosby.
The Army should be able to wrap up the evaluation of what it should do to deal with its aging OH-58s a few months after the April demo, Crosby told DT.
{ 66 comments… read them below or add one }
They should focus on the new JMR fleet instead of upgrading existing rotary-wing craft. I say that because I'm thinking that the logistics and upkeep for the wide range of helicopters currently in service is getting to be ridiculous due to the low parts commonality between a lot of different model ranges.
There are a lot of aging Cold War-era whirlybirds out there, still in service after all these years. Sooner or later, it's going to be impossible to keep them flying. They should scrap them and replace them with a new range of aircraft that have cutting-edge performance and active protection measures to keep them from getting shot down by Taliban fighters and other low-intensity warfare threats.
Then again, I'm just a civilian. What would I know?
Yup. It's the thinking that the air force will use to can old 707 airframes and to move the avionics to a newer one.
It's not like we're designing new helicopters from scratch to do the mission of the Apache, the ISR of a Kiowa warrior and the transport of a Blackhawk. No batty "Multi Mission Helicopter" here…
The technology to do a proper multi-role helicopter has actually been around for decades. I wonder if the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk would have entered service if the prototype hadn't crashed back in '74 due to pilot error during an aerobatics demonstration?
It could carry eight troops and cruise at 172 knots or so. A version equipped with a ducted fan in the tail could reach almost 200 knots in a dive. It was highly maneuverable, armed just as heavily as the AH-64, and easily had the payload capacity (8000 pounds) to accommodate ISR equipment.
Of course, now Sikorsky has that S-97 Raider prototype that they're building, with the pusher-prop in the back like the X2 tech demonstrator. It's supposed to cruise at 200 knots and carry six troops.
The Hind is the well known all purpose helicopter. anecdotally, it was reported as maneuverable and tough against small arms.
That said the military has been rigid about rotary aircraft having a common drivetrain setup. The Chinook and the Dolphin are the exceptions. No ducted fan, NOTAR or contra rotating main rotors here.
High performance choppers may potentially compete with turboprop CAS…
Hind? maneuverable? wait what?
Really? fast does not equate to maneuverable, and i don't recall hind being known as 'agile' for sure.
Really it could carry 8 people? You have no clue what you are talking about. It is a fire support helicopter carried a crew of 2. Don't believe me google the name your self.
S-67 was the Blackhawk before the UH-60. It could do 230 kt, but the ducted fan system was removed and the configuration brought back to original.
The preamble to Wikipedia's entry on the aircraft reads as follows:
"The Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk was a private-venture, prototype attack helicopter built in 1970 with Sikorsky Aircraft R&D funds. A tandem, two-seat aircraft designed around the dynamic drive and rotor systems of the Sikorsky S-61, it was designed to serve as an attack helicopter or to transport up to 8 troops into combat."
This old Sikorsky promo vid mentions a troop carry capability as well, but says it carries six instead of eight. Not sure which figure is correct, or if they planned on the production version carrying more troops or what:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vgs5npH_XUo
The important part is at 7:01:
"Besides stopping tanks and support troops with cannon fire, the Blackhawk can be readily adapted to a wide variety of other tasks. It can perform search and rescue missions, carry six fully-equipped troops internally, haul cargo and weapons, or serve as an observation helicopter or anti-submarine warfare weapons carrier."
I stand corrected. I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about. I concede that we should have bought these. The platform looks impressive.
The Mi-28 apparently has a small passenger compartment that isn't intended to move people in an offensive capacity. I wonder how small it is…
It's very small.
I disagree. We could be waiting for years for the JMR, and it might be overbudget, unperforming, etc. From my understanding, the current fleet of helos is aging rapidly due to heavy use in combat, and we could be facing a shortage if too many are taken off line for repairs. We need to be thinking about this now.
OH-6. Already in the inventory. Because god knows if we look to buy the best hardware out there we will end up with a KC-X beef all over again.
I'm thinking the JMR will end up being an EFV or F-35 type scenario where the Army thinks it can get one airframe to do everything and it'll end up exploding its budget and do poorly at all those different tasks.
The Army better not screw up the JMR. By 2030 if we can't field a new range of helos by then Army Aviation is screwed. Blackhawks, Chinooks, Apaches…these will easily last till then, but any further is really pushing it.
Imagine if we didn't cancel the Comanche. The $14 billion we didn't spend on that bird gave us another aviation brigade plus upgrades for the ENTIRE army aviation fleet.
I'm taking a half-step back here. I read a few articles that I could find on the JMR program and it looks like they want to develop an attack helicopter, medium lift, and heavy lift helicopters with common electronics, cockpits, and sensors rather than merging two disparate birds. I really hope that's the case and these common components are ready to go when the airframes are coughLCScough.
Only problem with the OH-6 family of A/C, they really need to extend their range 40-50% to match up with the competitors
Reason I am in favor of a Eurocopter.
A demonstration, not a fly-off,… meaning they can decide after the fact whom to throw billions at.
Am I the only one who fails to find the need for a scout chopper in the age of man-portable UAV's, and UAV's in general?
I dunno. Ask the pilots of the Kiowas that are in such high demand in A-stan.
On topic, a Kiowa replacement was needed ten years ago. In some ways the failure of the ARH-70 angers me more than the Comanche, because there was absolutely no excuse for it. No risky tech, it was based on a COTS model, all of the right boxes were ticked for success, yet somehow they managed to jack the prices up.
With the JMR not due for two more decades, I'd say buy an intern scout helo. Personally I'd like to see a "Lakota Warrior" if anything just to reward EADS for their commendable job with the UH-72.
And may I ask, with all respect, what they are doing exactly that is in such high demand?
This is an honest question, no disrespect intended.
Faster than a UAV, can skim the treetops, fire guns and rockets, and land next to ground troops and talk to them if needed. Also, instead of looking through a soda straw video feed, those pilots are looking at a wider view. Bottom line, much deadlier and more responsive to ground troop's needs than a UAV.
No offense but everything, excluding the landing to talk bit, can be done by UAV's. Sounds like the Fire Scout UAV or the A/MH-6X MELB are exactly what you are looking for. And with UAV's (and regular heli's…?) you don't need to land to talk to the troops, just hop over to their frequency.
And the straw feed video doesn't really hold any weight today, especially when you consider the fact that the scout pilots look through the same thermal monitors for the most part and that UAV's can mount wide capture cameras to provide a constant 360 degree view that can be zoomed in on.
I'm sorry, but other than the feel good feeling of having someone in the cockpit up above, I fail to see how manned scout helicopters are superior to UAV's. In fact, the opposite seems true when you consider a UAV can be up for longer.
Pretty much what TMB said. Sorry I was grouchy in my response.
UAVs are/will be an excellent force multiplier for scout helos and may very well eventually be the tactical aerial scout of choice at some point, but currently Kiowas are often perfoming light gunship roles in addition to recon, which I believe is the main reason why a manned platform should be chosen.
Kiowas have done a fine job, but they're well overdue for replacement. They're literally falling apart and many have to be cannibalized to maintain others. Upgrading them is starting to cost so much we might as well take a step forward and buy a new chopper.
Feature creep killed the ARH-72, they kept bolting stuff on it until it could no longer meet goals.
As EPL said, this isn’t that hard of a project. Just decide what you want and quit changing your mind. There are several types out there that would fit the bill. While EADS did fine on the UH-72 I would personally prefer a Bell, Boeing, Sikorski (SP?)
or whatever MD helicopters is calling themselves this week.
An updated MD explorer or AH-6 variant would be my first thought.
Revamp the Bell 222 to repalce Kiowas Or reengine Kiowas & improve weapons systems???
If you are going to consider something as heavy as the Bell 222, you should probably just go with the M/HH-65 Dolphin, it already hosts mil-spec systems, and it might even lead to the USCG saving a few dollars
You'd have to completely replace the guts of the Kiowa. It can't handle any new electronics or systems upgrades. 1960s bird with 1990s electronics inside.
A Bell 222? Have you been watching Airwolf on Netflix?
Bell 212?
And if anything, the Kiowa is based on the Bell 206 JetRanger.
More feasibly, could we ask for a port of Kiowa gear to new-build Bell 206 TwinRangers?
Look at it this. Yes the Kiowa has been around the block. Yes it has had a good service life. But is it really time to look at a replacement or SLEP upgrade? An really in the long run, how much dose a SLEP cost?
The last figure I saw was $4 million per bird. The ARH-70 that was to replace the Kiowa was cancelled because it was going to cost $14 million per aircraft. So if the ARH was on budget, the SLEP would have been about 40% the price of a completely new aircraft.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/services/repair/P…
I think the Army's idea is smart….
I see NO ONE here has mentioned ANY Augusta or other foreign designs, eh?
Off the shelf IS the way to go….
I'm convinced that the military will only replace old platforms when they literally start falling out of the sky.
Why does Gen. Crosby need $8M to "host a demo"? One would think that if companies have helo's to sell, they would foot the bill to bring them to the show. No wonder the DoD budgets are getting ridicules. He must be planning on serving the DoJ's $16 muffins.
Yeah really. Hell, I get free samples at work….
Here's an alternative view: the decision has already been made to SLEP the 58Ds. The problem is that Army's repeated statements in the past that it needs new air frames to replace the 58 and the Army's subsequent bungling of the replacement programs make just asking for the SLEP politically tricky and more than a little embarrassing.
Solution: hold a "fly off" with no specific criteria and no guarantee of a winner being selected, rule out Sikorsky's new technology that is right around the corner to keep that off the table, and then juggle criteria until the "SLEP" is clearly the only alternative to go with. Instead of taking flak for their repeated scout helo development failures in the past, the Army gets praise for being open to new ideas but choosing the fiscally responsible "cost effective" SLEP route. Problem solved.
Why would you do a fly-off now when the only next gen offering (Sikorsky S-97 raider and similar aircraft) won't be ready until 2014?
If the next gen aircarft are coming online in 2014 on the manufacturer's own money, why decide in 2012?
Of course, there is a reasonable explanation: the Army wants to SLEP the Kiowas, period. They don't want to wait for better technology to show up because then they might actually have to buy it. So this "fly-off" is really rear-end defense for a forgone conclusion.
As for Sikorsky, once again, a defense contractor that takes the initiative to develop something new for the DoD on its own money, gets kicked in the ass for it.
This is a stop gap purchase, essentially it keeps the recon choppers flying for another 5 – 10 years while the next gen of helicopters is built. Sikorsky is trying to get the next gen contract with its S-97 variant.
I wish you were right, but I think you are wrong.
The next program of stated importance is Joint Multi-Role. It seems Armed Ariel Scout will not survive.
I think what patmac may mean is that companies should reimburse the military for the cost of setting up the demo. The idea should be that they are buying into a procurement contract, not that the government is rolling out the red carpet of money and cost overruns just because the generals want a board seat when its time to collect pension and Tricare.
You Cav & Stryker types understand what these "Birds" do for the Battlefield Abilities and Combat Power.
As to "new designs", the MWO is the most Practical during these tough times, yet still have air / ground Direct Air Support Integrity when needed.
This and A10, are a formidable dedicated Ground Support asset.
I believe citanon is correct: the decision has already been made to SLEP the 58s. This leads to a public relations problem: the Army has been on capitol hill since the early commanche days insisting it needs new airframes and now it is coming up asking for a huge program to SLEP the old ones.
The solution to this problem is to hold a fly off and exclude Sikorsky's advanced technology to ensure that the results can be gamed to show the SLEP as the best alternative. Then the Army goes back to the hill showing how flexible and open to innovation they are but darn it, the SLEP is the most cost-effective option. Instead of getting grilled for bungling their scout replacement programs in the past they are praised for their willingness to just take a "good enough" solution. We're just be treating to more procurement kabuki theater, not a real fly off.
If will also show Sikorsky, and through them all of the other manufacturers, that the Army is calling the shots and private efforts that show how fast and cheap development of a radically improved helicopters should be are not welcome.
Or the Army just wants to see what scout helos are around now instead of 2(+) years… Sikorsky’s X-2 based designs can help them shine w/the JMR contract.
Here's my thinking: Sikorsky's work gives it a huge advantage from when they can bring it on line (a year or two) till 5-10 years out when competitors have had time to copy it , do parallel development and/or work on their own high performance concepts. Time line varies but this is the cycle with all new aviation technologies.
Then the Army comes out and says they want one helicopter right now and one about ten years from now. You couldn't come up with a better strategy to screw Sikorsky. We can argue about whether that is on purpose or not, but I don't see how you can argue Sikorsky doesn't come out a big loser in all this.
Airframes, and particularly high-vibration systems like helicopters, fatigue quickly. and fatigue in aluminum is cumulative. Eventually, you have to replace or rebuild the entire load bearing stricture. from engine and transmission boxes to to reskinning. At some point it will cost more to keep old system going than it would have cost to replace them IF a *mission-oriented* procurement plan had been in effect.
Hidden costs are paid in blood and defeat.
I've been on the receiving end of support from a Kiowa's .50 cal. The Fire Scout is unarmed. If the unmanned MH-6 program can do everything the Kiowa can (since they're damn near the same bird already), I can live with it not having a pilot. But something like a Shadow or Reaper cannot replace the Kiowa. The problem I have with UAV video and the reason I brought it up is that a human pilot can look through thermals in his cockpit and turn his head to look out the window at pretty much the same time. I've seen the video feed of a Shadow, and unless you're camera is constantly on a swivel, it's easy to miss something. There's a certain amount of situation awareness I feel is lost when you're looking at just a computer monitor.
Why are OH58Ds used so much? Greater payload on an OH58D. No gun pods on UAVs. No 2.75 rockets (or nine shots) on a UAV. Predator has a max of 6 griffin missiles, less if its carrying hellfires. OH58D is faster. OH58D employed in pairs so payload doubled. OH58D doesn't need a runway so the FARP can be closer which means more sorties for a unit in contact. OH58Ds do supply runs for units in contact (deliver speedballs), UAVs don't. All this and the UAVs are restricted from higher altitudes yet still in a higher demand than they can satisfy.
OH58Ds can be chopped to diiferent units in the air. UAVs are BDE organic asset. Lash up between the troop and the operator a tad more difficult. Army owns both, so much more responsive than USAF assets.
If the Army could do the mission with their Predators they would be. BTW, former grunt no loyalty to piloted aircraft just want steel on target.
No offense Schmoe but being an internet commando doesn't make you an expert. When you say stuff like "And with UAV's (and regular heli's…?) you don't need to land to talk to the troops, just hop over to their frequency." you show that you have no idea how comms work in a warzone. Just hopping on someones freq is a lot harder than tuning a VHF radio on a Cessna 150. Not a fan of landing next to anyone in the middle of a firefight but I've done it out of neccessity and people are alive because of it. UAV doesn't really have that option now does it, and even if the mighty firescout could land and what then? This is my favorite though "And the straw feed video doesn't really hold any weight today, especially when you consider the fact that the scout pilots look through the same thermal monitors for the most part and that UAV's can mount wide capture cameras to provide a constant 360 degree view that can be zoomed in on." Not sure what scout pilots you speaking off but most US Army aeroscouts would laugh at that comment. The thermal sight on a Kiowa Warrior was made in the 70's. So without going in too much detail we all pride yourselves in our Mark01 eyeballs and superior situational awareness. Speaking of situational awareness 80% of calls of suspicious activity spotted from a UAV have been friendly forces in my experience. So Joe I can go on and on and on about how great the OH-58D is, but the matter of fact it's the guys behind the controls that make all the difference in the world. Want references, ask any soldier that's been in a firefight with KW overhead, and that you cannot replace with a UAV and an operator in a trailer half a world away.
Granted, I agree with nearly every word about the loss of situation awareness. However, the new generation of drones will mount multiple cameras so now instead of just one guy flying and half looking with the co-pilot searching, you can now have multiple people who's entire job is to scan the surroundings.
In addition, the Fire Scout is going to be armed:
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/08/navy-plans-…
Missiles might work for the Navy, but for ground support I need guns.
Problem with mounting guns on large UAV's is the time lag the controllers have from the control stations hundreds, even thousands, of kilometers away from where they send their commands to when they are received by the UAV's and vice-versa.
Until we can have near instantaneous communications over long distances for UAV's, I don't see how they will mount such weapons effectively.
But then again, if we are going to limit the disadvantage just to ground support, shouldn't we include the attack helicopters into the discussion as that is their role; for the scout helicopter it is mostly a bonus to carry weapons.
In the long term, we may switch to having an observer type craft act as a mothership to multiple UAVs on station to cut the satellite lag.
Not sure what the lag is between pressing fire on the UAV operator's side and the UAV firing a weapon…I wonder if such information is public knowledge.
In that case I'll take that green-suiter behind the trigger please. The fight I was in had Apache's doing higher altitude patrols firing guns and missiles from a hover while the Kiowas were practically doing figure-8s right over the town with .50s and rockets.
Sounds like we're not using the radar mast quite so much in Afghanistan? Or at least, not as often as its offensive payload?
I remember reading it somewhere, I think it was about 1-2 seconds on average.
And MD seems to agree with you on the mothership idea. Their A/MH-6X MELB demonstration/testing was done also using a AH-64 Gunner to control the MH-6X and fire the weapons remotely.
EDIT: Found it –
"The UCS already has one useful new aid to UAV control–a predictive box-type symbol that tells the operator where he has just turned the vehicle or pointed the sensor. This is designed to help the operator overcome the time lag between his action, and the video feedback from the vehicle. That time lag can extend to many seconds, when operators are controlling UAVs many thousands of miles away by satellite communications. Predator operations have often suffered from a type of pilot-induced oscillation (PIO) caused by this time lag. "
<a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UOUqpplojJ4J :www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/new-uav-control-system-may-cut-predator-losses-8631/%3Fno_cache%3D1%26cHash%3D5d0b225fc7+uav+lag&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk” target=”_blank”>http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=ca…” target=”_blank”>:www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/new-uav-control-system-may-cut-predator-losses-8631/%3Fno_cache%3D1%26cHash%3D5d0b225fc7+uav+lag&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk
Don't forget weather conditions also drastically affect rpa performance through direct influence and link influence. Would be a shame not to be able to support a TIC because weather is poor at your uplink location. Further, time lag is a constraint dictated by physics when it is a consideration in a shooting/lasing scenario
We can train these people using laggy computer games.
Huh.
I'd love to see the engineering diagrams for it.
More eye-candy pictures for all involved:
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2022_S-67.htm
And perhaps if anybody has a forum account here:
http://www.whatifmodelers.com/index.php/topic,969…
Tiny box that a small downed pilot can curl up into to be evacuated. Don't even think of putting a fully loaded soldier in there.
i liked the oh-6 but 0h-58 better at outo rotation .the hughes was like a humming bird .
Correction: OH58Ds (not UAVs) restricted from higher altitudes but still in high demand.
Thank you for your comment, but the "internet commando" bit was unnecessary (I also served).
I respect your experience, but I also speak from mine and I have never had any such cases as the one's your speak of. Heck, I'll try and address them:
"Not a fan of landing next to anyone in the middle of a firefight but I've done it out of neccessity and people are alive because of it. UAV doesn't really have that option now does it, and even if the mighty firescout could land and what then?"
If the big sticking issue with you is being able to land and talk to the troops, then we can put a damn microphone and speakers on said UAV's.
——–
"Not sure what scout pilots you speaking off but most US Army aeroscouts would laugh at that comment. The thermal sight on a Kiowa Warrior was made in the 70's. So without going in too much detail we all pride yourselves in our Mark01 eyeballs and superior situational awareness.
I will be the first to agree with you on the limited loss of situational awareness. However, most of it can be overcome and even surpassed with modern technology. We are currently mounting infra-red systems on helicopters that can spot weapons fire before said pilots would even know to look for it, google "Ground Fire Acquisition System". Such systems combined with higher resolution and field of view cameras, both thermal and regular, swarm tactics, etc can easily surpass any limitations you mentioned.
Remember, I am not saying the Kiowa wasn't great and the pilots very skilled. I'm just saying that we can improve on that today and we should. Most militaries agree with such assesments, the Israeli's for example just inducted the worlds first armed Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle (UGCV) in the world, the Avantguard UGCV, into mass service.