“Missions include observation and reconnaissance, armed escort, search and rescue, troop / cargo transport, casualty evacuation, liaison and training.”

“Denel is building the airframes as part of a license production agreement with AgustaWestland. Eight A109 Powers have been delivered for the US Coastguard’s HITRON (Helicopter Interdiction Tactical Squadron) programme. The helicopters are designated MH-68A.”

“There are three fuel systems configurations: three cells of 160 USgal (605l), four cells of 188 USgal (710l) and five cells of 230 USgal (870l). A crashworthy fuel system with closed circuit refuelling and self-sealing fuel tanks is optional.”

See:http://www.army-technology.com/projects/a109m/

I agree with Thunderhorse. We need something akin to the original AH-1. Single engine, 7.62mm minigun on a turret, one weapon station on each side. Perfect. Then you wouldn’t have to worry about chasing anyone around trees.

DC2

Allons
AH-1 Cobra & OH-58A/C MTP/MTFE

http://www.blinkx.com/video/us-special-forces-mh-6-helicopter-night-stalk/NjvYdrg-FLNY7CcurugE9g

Still not sure the Army would approve of doing this with anyone other than Rangers and Delta types.

Shame, really, the 6 was a tough bird and I pulled more than one pilot out of one that went down; with the 58, there wasn’t much left. Interesting that the OH6 might still win in the long run…

I think most folks thought the little bird would win the ARH competition. There must have been a legitimate reason why it did not and I sure hope we aren’t in for more of the same in cost creap.

BTW Ken, agree that in today’s safety environment, it is unlikely you would see troops carried around on fold-down platforms where you sit outside the aircraft. I can only imagine what the wind chill factor would be like on a cold night at 80 knots. Plus the MH-6J (or whatever it is now) that they use for that is different than the AH-6J and has a higher gross weight and may be stretched. Not sure.

Thanks for serving in Vietnam.

Though in the modern risk averse Army misplaced ‘concern’ by Commanders might be an impediment…

Spoke with a CW4 yesterday who was an 11th AH-64A guy not on the deep attack who got diverted to providing security and close combat attack for the 3rd ID afterwards. He talked about killing air defense guns hiding under trees (that the USAF could not see), taking out pick-up trucks firing machine guns at him next to a house (that the USAF could not see or take out without hitting the house, too), and supporting the armored battalion TF at Objective Peach.

Keep in mind that unlike the rides of a few complaining tanker-types, AH-64s don’t have all kinds of armor protection…but still give/gave it their best shot at low altitude for the guys on the ground. Recall that shooting over their shoulder is still shooting/seeing farther than they can shoot effectively.

Although I like to think I know a little about a lot, I’m far from an expert on anything, and rely on Google and external resources like everyone else.;) But I had to chuckle when Byron mentioned 160th SOAR was driving Army doctrine…since I coincidentally was one of many peons writing aviation doctrine back in 2002/03. As far as I know, no 160th doctrine was used. Doctrine is unclassified and those guys play in their own black world. Byron was also implying all kinds of secret squirrel stuff, and I didn’t/don’t want to go there.;)

You’re probably right about no Eurocopter LUH victor for a new ARH competition under Obama and a more Democratic Congress…but who else is out there to compete besides little bird? If you compete Tiger or a AH-1Z, you might as well buy more comparably priced Apaches (also Boeing like little bird) and create a version with combined conformal aux fuel tanks/weapons racks for greater endurance and lighter arming.

Just an opinion.

Thanks for the comments and your input on the ARH story earlier this week, which inspired me to write this piece! My comment on the 101st came from this section of On Point, “Army, Air Force, and Navy pilots destroyed six armored personnel carriers, four tanks, five trucks, and a fiber-optic facility. They also killed approximately 20 troops. Although not a high count by “exercise standards,” the attack marked an effective use of deep strike Army attack aviation against a highly adaptive enemy.”

In subsequent talks with 101st and other Army aviators, the general consensus was that fixed wing did the majority of the killing in that operation. Immediatly after, both 3ID and corps shifted the Apache mission to close support, operating directly above ground troops. Gen. Blount (CG 3ID) ordered the Apaches to stay west of the Euphrates, which caused at least one battalion commander some grief a few days later when trying to call in fire at Objective Peach.

I was surprised by Byron’s comment that the 160th Avn. dictates Army aviation doctrine. Is that true with attack aviation? I thought that was more of an outgrowth of AirLand Battle from the 80s.

My comment on the Eurocopter was more an assessment of the state of play with trying to buy European in today’s political environment, I’m just not sure that’s an option, at least not now with current domestic employment picture.

I agree with you on having a hard time seeing regular infantry on Little Bird outboard skids. But that was the airframe commanders (in Baghdad anyway) most wished they had, as it was able to manuever and land in areas too small for UH-60.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/2004/onpoint/ch-4.htm#aviation

Also, not sure but believe the Eurocopter is considerably more expensive than the ARH that was killed for cost. The Eurocopter LUH may be the alternative helicopter that could compete alongside the little bird in any future contest.

Not sure you would ever get regular Army Infantry standing on skids like the Rangers and other SOF might. Is that what you meant by “small lift bird?”