Comments on: Army Re-Competes Recon Chopper http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 09 Feb 2012 14:20:46 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: MacManhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3994 MacMan Thu, 04 Dec 2008 02:11:58 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3994 Perhaps it's time to take a second look at the Comanche. Bring the development cost under control and it'd be a dandy for the job! Perhaps it’s time to take a second look at the Comanche. Bring the development cost under control and it’d be a dandy for the job!

]]> By: wardoghttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3971 wardog Tue, 02 Dec 2008 19:49:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3971 There is a reason that the OH-6 did not get selected the first time. A Gutenberg worth of AWR's and the selection team was not made of politico's. Lots of scout pilot experiance went into the decision process. It got screwed equally by government and industry. There is a reason that the OH-6 did not get selected the first time. A Gutenberg worth of AWR’s and the selection team was not made of politico’s. Lots of scout pilot experiance went into the decision process. It got screwed equally by government and industry.

]]> By: Carlhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3578 Carl Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:44:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3578 The Army did test the Notar(520N) when it first came out and they didn't like it. It was the same airframe as the OH6 it just has the Notar tail boom. Heat signature wouldn't be any different than any other light helo because it blows ambient air produced from a fan at the root of the boom for yaw (tail rotor) control. I hope they look at the MD 902 Explorer.It's a refined "Notar" and it works great. Plus it has two engines and lots of power. It's a good hot and high performer. The Augusta is Italian built with poor product support survey ratings and dangerously low main and tail rotor blades. Even short guys could easily be taken out by the main rotor blades. The tail rotor tips are only about two feet off the ground. Not the case with the MD 902. The Army did test the Notar(520N) when it first came out and they didn’t like it. It was the same airframe as the OH6 it just has the Notar tail boom. Heat signature wouldn’t be any different than any other light helo because it blows ambient air produced from a fan at the root of the boom for yaw (tail rotor) control. I hope they look at the MD 902 Explorer.It’s a refined “Notar” and it works great. Plus it has two engines and lots of power. It’s a good hot and high performer. The Augusta is Italian built with poor product support survey ratings and dangerously low main and tail rotor blades. Even short guys could easily be taken out by the main rotor blades. The tail rotor tips are only about two feet off the ground. Not the case with the MD 902.

]]> By: Stephenhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3438 Stephen Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:45:24 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3438 I would use predator and other ots uav/ucav's and go w/ the modified AH64's as mentioned above. budget is shrinking across the board so savings must come w/ improved efficiencies. UAV's whether fixed wing or rotor are the way to go for long endurance, low maintenance, low cost recon. I would use predator and other ots uav/ucav’s and go w/ the modified AH64’s as mentioned above.
budget is shrinking across the board so savings must come w/ improved efficiencies.
UAV’s whether fixed wing or rotor are the way to go for long endurance, low maintenance, low cost recon.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3404 Cole Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:25:24 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3404 Correction: Kiowa battalions have MORE aircraft than Apache battalions.16 Apaches at $30 million ($480 million) vs 30 smaller birds at $15 million ($450 million). Unfortunately, suspect that a company of Hummingbirds to fill out the battalion would not be cheap either.Back to the drawing board. Correction: Kiowa battalions have MORE aircraft than Apache battalions.

16 Apaches at $30 million ($480 million) vs 30 smaller birds at $15 million ($450 million). Unfortunately, suspect that a company of Hummingbirds to fill out the battalion would not be cheap either.

Back to the drawing board.

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3403 Cole Fri, 14 Nov 2008 13:19:48 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3403 Understand your frustration Dave R. But with complex composites and electronics, the days of the backyard builder are long gone. We need experienced U.S. firms (or U.S. built foreign firms)with the know-how to produce aircraft and parts.They have not sent may Kiowa Warriors (let alone Bell 47)to Afghanistan for a reason...and they crashed one while it was there. If you are escorting UH-60s and CH-47s there or in Iraq, you gotta be able to keep up with their speed in high, hot, or both conditions, and we both know the OH-58D cannot. Not sure a heavily loaded little bird can either.The big advantage of more Apaches is parts/maintenance standardization...one less Army aircraft in the inventory. The problem is acquisition cost and cost per flying hour which I'm sure is twice as high or more on both counts.One way to get around that is fewer aircraft doing the job of more less-capable aircraft. We already accept that insofar as Kiowa battalions have fewer aircraft than Apache battalions.But what about a battalion with two companies of Apaches and one company of A-160 Hummingbird UAVs? Boeing makes them both and is now producing the latter for 160th SOAR.If you want to move into the future, do it right. But manned and unmanned aircraft are not cheap anymore...heck manned armored vehicles aren't cheap either. You could easily spend $10 million on the latter. Wonder what a Sikorsky small counter-rotating rotor bird would cost. It probably isn't ready yet, though.The more we ask for, the closer we get to Comanche territory in cost and complexity. We've already lost two armed recon helicopter contracts. An AH-64D light would be a sure thing buying 16 Apaches instead of 30 smaller birds and filling out the remainder with a company of rotary wing UAVs. The Apache has the R&D done already for manned-unmanned teaming. Understand your frustration Dave R. But with complex composites and electronics, the days of the backyard builder are long gone. We need experienced U.S. firms (or U.S. built foreign firms)with the know-how to produce aircraft and parts.

They have not sent may Kiowa Warriors (let alone Bell 47)to Afghanistan for a reason…and they crashed one while it was there. If you are escorting UH-60s and CH-47s there or in Iraq, you gotta be able to keep up with their speed in high, hot, or both conditions, and we both know the OH-58D cannot. Not sure a heavily loaded little bird can either.

The big advantage of more Apaches is parts/maintenance standardization…one less Army aircraft in the inventory. The problem is acquisition cost and cost per flying hour which I’m sure is twice as high or more on both counts.

One way to get around that is fewer aircraft doing the job of more less-capable aircraft. We already accept that insofar as Kiowa battalions have fewer aircraft than Apache battalions.

But what about a battalion with two companies of Apaches and one company of A-160 Hummingbird UAVs? Boeing makes them both and is now producing the latter for 160th SOAR.

If you want to move into the future, do it right. But manned and unmanned aircraft are not cheap anymore…heck manned armored vehicles aren’t cheap either. You could easily spend $10 million on the latter. Wonder what a Sikorsky small counter-rotating rotor bird would cost. It probably isn’t ready yet, though.

The more we ask for, the closer we get to Comanche territory in cost and complexity. We’ve already lost two armed recon helicopter contracts. An AH-64D light would be a sure thing buying 16 Apaches instead of 30 smaller birds and filling out the remainder with a company of rotary wing UAVs. The Apache has the R&D done already for manned-unmanned teaming.

]]> By: David W. Rahfeldthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3399 David W. Rahfeldt Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:23:11 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3399 I have only about 2200 hours total helicopter time so I am no supper geek and the only helicopters I have designed are drones ... though I have done "mission mods" to several other "whirly-birds" (my age shows) ...However ... it seems to me that fundamentally the technology is lagging WAY behind what we are capable of and the emphesis is increasingly on large expensive systems with fly-by-wire compexity and costs rather than tons of cheap reliable birds with good sneaky avionics and fire control systems.As it is now, every contractor wants to leverage on what they have in hand rather than innovate, and defense procurement wants to buy proven technologies or huge programs.Want innovation ?Fine, risk money on the hundreds of home brew garage operations with guys who can and will brew up new and innovative ideas ...Put together a "review team" made up of high time military and special operations pilots and operators who can put the innnovations thru their paces, kill the dumb ideas and recommend the good ones for professional development ...Buying more of the SOS *(same old shit) or asking large firms whose innovation ended back in the 50's or early 60's ... to undertake a huge delelopment project ... is plain silly.Time to ask the folks with basement machine shops, garages full of ideas and prototypes that they could not afford to finish, to dust off their entheusiasm and push America back to the front of aviation technology.Remember - even the blackbird was not built with a 5 billion dollar super-computer and 1000 idiot engineers ... slide rules, pictures of birds and mantas in hand, and a vision ... with some experience ... and a SMALL team ... and they worked a miracle ...Bigger is NOT better ...Hell, give me a bell 47 sort of (thing) with a ceramic engine, radical composite blades (12-17 long thin blades with radical sweep much like a trident missle boat propeller), and a little stealthy asborbant ... composite frame and MANUAL fire control with good state of the art COTS tools (IR Imaging, UV Imaging, detachable drones, etc. and betcha I will wax any of the current birds in combat ...We need innovation, not huge projects, we need the courage to RISK to make new technology, not just feed pork barrel firms that threaten to fold if we dont feed them more money ...And we certainly do not need to be buying from foreign industry.US Defense contracting should REQUIRE that all components be made in the USAExplanation for why even raw materials were procured from a non-USA source should be required, and ONLY accepted if there is a readily available US Source that is healthy and not in need of the business or that decined the business as well.As for C-130 deployable, that is nice but they should also be "air deployable" meaning an aircraft should not need to land to deploy them in full flight mode with mission configuration and cargo / warriors on board.Too much conventional thinking for too long has left us too damn predicable and too bound to fixed logistics requirements that opposition not only understands but regularly defeats us with or hounds us to a stalemate with ...Want new choppers ... cool ... but as long as we are spending money, why not do something creative for a change?Hell, hollywood is far more creative and imaginitive than our defense designers, why is that? eh?Just my 2 cents worth ...Oh , and YES I DO understand the vehicle dynamics challenges and material science challenges ... just tired of hearing excuses rather than progress ... I have only about 2200 hours total helicopter time so I am no supper geek and the only helicopters I have designed are drones … though I have done “mission mods” to several other “whirly-birds” (my age shows) …

However … it seems to me that fundamentally the technology is lagging WAY behind what we are capable of and the emphesis is increasingly on large expensive systems with fly-by-wire compexity and costs rather than tons of cheap reliable birds with good sneaky avionics and fire control systems.

As it is now, every contractor wants to leverage on what they have in hand rather than innovate, and defense procurement wants to buy proven technologies or huge programs.

Want innovation ?

Fine, risk money on the hundreds of home brew garage operations with guys who can and will brew up new and innovative ideas …

Put together a “review team” made up of high time military and special operations pilots and operators who can put the innnovations thru their paces, kill the dumb ideas and recommend the good ones for professional development …

Buying more of the SOS *(same old shit) or asking large firms whose innovation ended back in the 50’s or early 60’s … to undertake a huge delelopment project … is plain silly.

Time to ask the folks with basement machine shops, garages full of ideas and prototypes that they could not afford to finish, to dust off their entheusiasm and push America back to the front of aviation technology.

Remember — even the blackbird was not built with a 5 billion dollar super-computer and 1000 idiot engineers … slide rules, pictures of birds and mantas in hand, and a vision … with some experience … and a SMALL team … and they worked a miracle …

Bigger is NOT better …

Hell, give me a bell 47 sort of (thing) with a ceramic engine, radical composite blades (12–17 long thin blades with radical sweep much like a trident missle boat propeller), and a little stealthy asborbant … composite frame and MANUAL fire control with good state of the art COTS tools (IR Imaging, UV Imaging, detachable drones, etc. and betcha I will wax any of the current birds in combat …

We need innovation, not huge projects, we need the courage to RISK to make new technology, not just feed pork barrel firms that threaten to fold if we dont feed them more money …

And we certainly do not need to be buying from foreign industry.

US Defense contracting should REQUIRE that all components be made in the USA

Explanation for why even raw materials were procured from a non-USA source should be required, and ONLY accepted if there is a readily available US Source that is healthy and not in need of the business or that decined the business as well.

As for C-130 deployable, that is nice but they should also be “air deployable” meaning an aircraft should not need to land to deploy them in full flight mode with mission configuration and cargo / warriors on board.

Too much conventional thinking for too long has left us too damn predicable and too bound to fixed logistics requirements that opposition not only understands but regularly defeats us with or hounds us to a stalemate with …

Want new choppers … cool … but as long as we are spending money, why not do something creative for a change?

Hell, hollywood is far more creative and imaginitive than our defense designers, why is that? eh?

Just my 2 cents worth …

Oh , and YES I DO understand the vehicle dynamics challenges and material science challenges … just tired of hearing excuses rather than progress …

]]> By: Colehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3396 Cole Fri, 14 Nov 2008 03:47:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3396 Wonder what this means:http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aef711d68-7962-4ccc-b479-192fdf652577&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDestIf the link doesn't work see Defense News at Aviation Week, accessible through Defensetech.org.The article indicates that the Army wants a payload of 2300 lbs minimum while seeming to imply that weight would be at 6,000'/95 degrees instead of the orginial 4000'/95 degrees. Jim and 26 years or Aviation experience knows that may be a tough nut to crack for the Little Bird.Because the article removes any requirement to be C-130 deployable, you wonder if they are letting Apaches, Cobras, and other foreign attack toys like Tiger slip in the door.The article also indicates a desire for longer endurance. That could be achieved with fuel efficiency...or more fuel.The whole thing leaves me wondering if Boeing could bid an AH-64D light (no radar and less ammo, maybe no current wingstores) with aux fuel located someplace aerodynamic (no not 230 gallon tanks).Four AH-64A battalions were scheduled to get ARH. It would probably be easier to train those pilots to fly a Delta model Apache-light. With less ammo and more fuel, it could fly a long time even in Afghanistan's tall mountains.Betcha can't do that with a current little bird, Jim...Sign me: "uninformed peon" who is google-capable and has some aviation experience. ;) Wonder what this means:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3aef711d68-7962-4ccc-b479-192fdf652577&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

If the link doesn’t work see Defense News at Aviation Week, accessible through Defensetech.org.

The article indicates that the Army wants a payload of 2300 lbs minimum while seeming to imply that weight would be at 6,000′/95 degrees instead of the orginial 4000′/95 degrees. Jim and 26 years or Aviation experience knows that may be a tough nut to crack for the Little Bird.

Because the article removes any requirement to be C-130 deployable, you wonder if they are letting Apaches, Cobras, and other foreign attack toys like Tiger slip in the door.

The article also indicates a desire for longer endurance. That could be achieved with fuel efficiency…or more fuel.

The whole thing leaves me wondering if Boeing could bid an AH-64D light (no radar and less ammo, maybe no current wingstores) with aux fuel located someplace aerodynamic (no not 230 gallon tanks).

Four AH-64A battalions were scheduled to get ARH. It would probably be easier to train those pilots to fly a Delta model Apache-light. With less ammo and more fuel, it could fly a long time even in Afghanistan’s tall mountains.

Betcha can’t do that with a current little bird, Jim…

Sign me: “uninformed peon” who is google-capable and has some aviation experience. ;)

]]> By: Mig1http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3369 Mig1 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:31:08 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3369 Actually the MD520N is the same width as the AH-6 and less than a foot longer (from nose to tailboom). Actually the MD520N is the same width as the AH-6 and less than a foot longer (from nose to tailboom).

]]> By: Jimhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3368 Jim Thu, 13 Nov 2008 18:00:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3368 We do not need another outsourced forign buit helicopter. The army bought the Lakota off the shelf, and it is not up to the task. I have only been in Army Aviation for 26 years, I am not among the "informed elite", but I am a fan of a US built Little Bird. We do not need another outsourced forign buit helicopter. The army bought the Lakota off the shelf, and it is not up to the task. I have only been in Army Aviation for 26 years, I am not among the “informed elite”, but I am a fan of a US built Little Bird.

]]> By: Willhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3356 Will Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:30:39 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3356 I beg you to look into this matter of the replacement of the Kiowa OH-58. It is great that the ARH-70 was D.O.A, with all problems and delays by Bell it is fortunate that Army oversight confronted problems and reported them (HEAT PROBLEMS, it fails to function in 90 degree temps., etc!!). We don't need another multi-billion dollar turkey like the COMANCHE! When you have the proven (by the US Coast Guard) MH-68A (A109M Special). Twin engines, twice the hover/linger time, much faster, greater rate of climb, etc. (This is basically the Comanche that we wanted for all intents and purposes, and yet... it is off the shelf!!!) All you need do is look at the figures and you will see why the USCG has already put this airframe into service! I urge you, please, look at the facts and figures and you will see that this is a superior machine! This aircraft could easily be brought to a US contractor(s), The proof is in the facts and the 'MH-68'(A109-M/Special) is the way to go on this matter. Please, please pass this info. to your colleagues, i.e. Federal Reps.&Senators, Military Brass, and even our new President and VP!! We need to take action, NOW!!!http://www.army-technology.com/projects/a109m/http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arh-70a/I urge you to please look into this matter, ask your colleagues to look into it, I strongly urge you to please act on this matter! I beg you to look into this matter of the replacement of the Kiowa OH-58. It is great that the ARH-70 was D.O.A, with all problems and delays by Bell it is fortunate that Army oversight confronted problems and reported them (HEAT PROBLEMS, it fails to function in 90 degree temps., etc!!).
We don’t need another multi-billion dollar turkey like the COMANCHE! When you have the proven (by the US Coast Guard) MH-68A (A109M Special). Twin engines, twice the hover/linger time, much faster, greater rate of climb, etc. (This is basically the Comanche that we wanted for all intents and purposes, and yet… it is off the shelf!!!)
All you need do is look at the figures and you will see why the USCG has already put this airframe into service! I urge you, please, look at the facts and figures and you will see that this is a superior machine! This aircraft could easily be brought to a US contractor(s), The proof is in the facts and the ‘MH-68′(A109-M/Special) is the way to go on this matter. Please, please pass this info. to your colleagues, i.e. Federal Reps.&Senators, Military Brass, and even our new President and VP!! We need to take action, NOW!!!

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

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/arh-70a/

I urge you to please look into this matter, ask your colleagues to look into it, I strongly urge you to please act on this matter!

]]> By: fly1227http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3352 fly1227 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 16:03:02 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3352 Its about time someone wised up.. Why do you think Special Ops uses the AH-6. Its about time someone wised up.. Why do you think Special Ops uses the AH-6.

]]> By: Anniehttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3337 Annie Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:42:10 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3337 They are also twice the size if memory serves me correctly. Bigger target, easier to spot.One of my favorite choppers though. They are also twice the size if memory serves me correctly. Bigger target, easier to spot.

One of my favorite choppers though.

]]> By: Mig1http://www.dodbuzz.com/2008/11/12/army-re-competes-recon-chopper/#comment-3327 Mig1 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 12:12:44 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=2523#comment-3327 I'm just curious, why have NOTAR equipped "Hughes 500" style birds never been considered for US military duties? They are quieter and safer than alternatives.The one thing I wonder about is the IR signature of the NOTAR system. Could be a problem, but that is beyond my knowledge.And yes, that's right, I said Hughes 500. I am that old. I’m just curious, why have NOTAR equipped “Hughes 500″ style birds never been considered for US military duties? They are quieter and safer than alternatives.

The one thing I wonder about is the IR signature of the NOTAR system. Could be a problem, but that is beyond my knowledge.

And yes, that’s right, I said Hughes 500. I am that old.

]]>