Comments on: Army Redefines “High-Hot” Requirement

By: S. W. Beam

S. W. Beam — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:22:59 +0000

The comments of Gen. Crosby, (PEO Aviation)are
the epitome of Pentagon/Beltway bafflegab.
Redundant proclamation of the obvious.

By: Ramjet

Ramjet — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:39:52 +0000

Not a single mention of light STOL fixed-wing manned aircraft. Put a new RR 500 series turbine on a Bird Dog or an 0-2 and save zillions. The Army depends on civilians in Cessna Skymasters in Iraq for much of their ISR. Most helo's fly from bases with runways and mmaintenance infrastructure anyway, so the VTOL aspect is not really a show-stopper. An 0-1 at MMTOW/ISA requires a 550'takeoff run. That's wwith a 213HP piston-pounder. In VN we carried a a back-seater, 4.5 hrs fuel and eight 2.75 FFFAR's (four of them with 17lb. warheads. In the 80's Cessna produced a prototype 0-2TT ((Tandem Turbine). It was demo'd to the AF and wworked well, but the AF had moved beyond uunconventional warfare/COIN by then and were wworking on the B-2, C-17 and whizz-bang fighters. The A-10 ,the one-time red-headed step child, came into its own in Desert Storm aas the FAC platform who's development had been nneglected by all the services. Today, it plays aa critical role in Afghanistan. SSo...everything old is new again. I know, the OOV-10 wasn't bad either. IMHO, the Army ssuffers from the "Helicopter Mafia" in the ssame way the AF has been hindered by the pre-eeminence of the "Fighter Mafia". Time to llisten to Ike's warning of the "military iindustial complex". C'mom Army! Do the right thing for the right reasons.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:33:53 +0000

Iam not a pilot, but I was impressed with the Russians “Blackshark” AH. Could a chopper like that perform the mission for ARH?

By: Steve P.

Steve P. — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:04:30 +0000

I show 95 deg. F/6,000 ft. as ~8,400 ft. DA

DA(ft.) = PA(ft.) + (FAT[C]-STD temp.)120

STD temp. = 15C

How did the Boeing manager (in the article above) come up with “almost equivalent to flying at 14,000 feet”? That’s a big differance.

By: Pierson

Pierson — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 05:10:50 +0000

95 deg at 6000′ makes for a density altitude of approx 8600′.

95 deg at 4000′ = about 6100 D.A.

It’s really not a question of whether the helicopter can fly in Afghanistan, but how much performance you are going to get out of it when you need it. Personally, I like this higher standard. If I’m in the mountains when it’s hot, I want to be able to pull in max power and get out of a tight spot.

UAVs have become an invaluable asset to the military. But as Lt. Gen. Speakes mentioned, there are certain tasks that a human simply must be able to perform on the fly in the air. Especially for an ARH platform, which often provides target information for attack helicopters. Those pilots need to be able to communicate efficiently, not everything can be read off a computer screen while you’re flying. Trust me, more goes into consideration than preserving flight slots for pilots.

By: page

page — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:21:55 +0000

good stuff hen !

By: Richard F Spivey

Richard F Spivey — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:07:21 +0000

Actually, 6000 feet and 95 deg. F HOGE was the origional requirement when the Air Force was buying all military helicopters. The requirement was changed to 4000 feet and 95 degrees F but a vertical rate of climb was added to at least partially compensate for the loss in performance. The reason given for the lowering of altitude was; not being able to justify enough locations around the globe where 6000 ft / 95F was. Well, guess what, the enemy can count too; they are located at high-hot altitude and far away just because we weren’t equipped to operate there…duh?

By: T Ashford

T Ashford — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 09:19:56 +0000

a manned scout aircraft is “absolutely essential.”
That’s just not good enough…
Where is the mission need that drives ‘manned’ when there is so much you can do unmanned these days. Trying to save pilots slots and old fashioned tradition has to go by the wayside. A swarm of small unmanned aircraft can do the recon mission better and quicker with no risk to man. A single standby unmanned aircraft can loiter and interdict longer, faster, and again with no risk to life. Time to join the 21st century.

By: Dr. Domingo

Dr. Domingo — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:47:17 +0000

I invented flying technology for the people that doesn’t require engines or propellers. The thought of the military adhering to “old” flying standards is preposterous. Want proof, check American and World patent files for Neil Domingo and see how I made most of military transportation obsolete

By: wardog

wardog — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 18:54:58 +0000

6000/95 has been bumped around inside the Army for some time. I am surprised that it finally made it to the books. Still with that capability as a new standard the rotorcraft will sure do better at lower altitudes.

By: Dom

Dom — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 09:41:08 +0000

After all the cancellations on the ARH program and the cost of upgrading the old fleet of choppers I wonder what the cost per airframe would now be if these struggles were added into the equation? And how would that compare to the old comanche LARH program that was deep 6ed? Granted the mission of that chopper was somewhat different but why hasn’t more noise been made over this when scandal on appropriations seems to be the hot topic right now?

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:37:45 +0000

If I still remember how to use the charts, 6000′/95 degrees is like 9600′ density altitude while the old 4000′/95 is like 7000′ DA. In contrast, flying in Iraq at 500′/120 degrees is like 4000′ DA. Afghanistan is a bigger challenge…especially for tilt rotors.

It’s interesting that Boeing also offered an Apache-light. Good article Greg…as usual.