 |
| AH-6I |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| AAS-72X |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58II |
 |
| OH-58 II |
The Armed Scout Helicopter competition is a tale of three companies. Two of those companies have the savy, have the knowledge of "publicity" and the modernity to realize that information on their products will help in the arena of public debate. One company is a dinosaur. Lost in the days when newspapers led the way and everyone sat in front of the TV to hear Walter Cronkite.
As much as I pound on EADS and Euro Copter they're doing it right. They're claiming market share on the civilian side of the market in the US and they're trying real hard to get into the military market here in a big way.
Bell Helicopter is a leader in the industry and has several projects its leading on. Its well established with the Department of Defense with its current offerings being the current Scout Helicopter, the AH-1Z, the UH-1Y and the V-22. Its maintaining market share in the civilian market with its offerings there.
Boeing is a dud. Its biggest military claim to fame is the F-15, its partnership with Bell on the V-22 and its Chinook helicopter.
But its playing the game old school. This time old school isn't good school.
I wanted this post to be a description of the three contenders for the contract after watching Trimble's video on the AH-6I that he posted today.
I can't do that. No information is publicly available on the AH-6I except from "established sources"...I won't play that game.
Check out the websites of the two companies that actually do care enough to make their information available to us lowly bloggers and those that happen to read them.
Websites you should check out.
Boeing:
ReplyDeleteX-51, Phantom Eye, Phantom Ray, A160 Hummingbird, X-37, X-48, X-53, F/A-XX, Delta IV, ScanEagle, X-45, P-8, YAL-1, C-17, KC-767, Super Hornet, V-22, CH-47, AH-64, Space Based Space Surveillance, Small Diameter Bomb, PAC-3, JDAM, EA-18G, 2018 Bomber, SM-3, and more.
Dud, eh?
talking helicopters....talking helicopters....talking helicopters.....
ReplyDeleteadd to it lets examine some of those vaunted programs that you've just labled.
F/A-XX---nowhere to be found...vaporware...
KC-767---to be honest, the only reason i cheered for Boeing is because they're a US company. truth be told, their product is not applicable to future needs...we need big tankers for the Pacific.
Super Hornet---many people call it a bomb truck, question its speed and range and except for being cheap, many consider it inferior to every other plane flying today.
P-8---another derivative of a civilian airliner for the antisub mission. not purpose built and probably not survivable in the next war when enemy subs will be operating under an umbrella of Chinese Naval Aviation.
i could go on but hopefully i've made my point.
oh and last but not least...Boeing public affairs sucks. i write letters, emails, make phone calls and they're summarily dismissed.
ReplyDeleteBoeing drew first blood not me but i'll spill a few tons of internet ink to get my point across that that company sucks
6.9 Billion. That was what Boeing spent on the development of the RAH-66 Comanche, 6.9 billion of our money into a helicopter that never made it into production. I remember at the time watching video's of the bird an I really thought it had a lot of potential. Boeing could not keep it within the budget constraints of the contract and it was terminated.
ReplyDeleteBoeing makes big airplanes/helicopters. The F-15 came from McDonnel Douglas and the Ah-6 and AH-64 from Hughes.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which, everything I've seen about the early OH-6 vs. OH-58 days was that the OH-6 was far superior and preferred universally by pilots.
When Task Force 160 was looking for a "Little Bird" they went with the AH-6 not an OH-58 derivative and I assume they could have had anything they wanted, so that says something.
Personally I think it will come down to philosophy. The more emphasis there is on small-cheap-maneuverable the better the AH-6 will look. The more emphasis there is on "let's pile more and more expensive equipment on this and add requirements like it should be able to transport a general in style" and the more the competition will lean to the bigger helicopters. The AAS-72 is IIRC twice the size of an AH-6.
My biased opinion is that if history is any guide, the OH-58 option will be the worst and will be bought in quantity.
Phil...the Comanche was a waste...I so wish that aircraft had made it into production, it was truly cutting edge and even today would be a combat multiplier that all the services would be clamoring for.
ReplyDeleteBB1984...i know the history and the history is a little bit different than what you're presenting here. the OH-6 lost out to the bigger Ranger because it had much less lift for post war Vietnam work. sensors and weapons have pushed the OH-6 out of a job...it just doesn't have the lift (at the time) to get it done.
m
maybe things have changed but i'm sorry thats the facts. as for the AAS-72...if the Army goes in that direction then they'll be operating their SCOUT in the same fashion that the Marines use the UH-1Y...as a true utility helicopter....
IIRC the OH-6 and OH-58 had the same Allison 250 engine up through their C models so I'm not sure how the OH-58 had any lift advantage then, though the '58 certainly had a lot more space.
ReplyDeleteThe OH-6 series definitely didn't have the space/lift for what the Army put on the OH-58D like that big mast mounted optics package, but the Commanche and ARH-70 and all three contenders here have ditched the mast mounted approach, which I take as an admission it was a mistake in the first place.
The straightforward optics package and armament for a basic armed scout mission were will within the OH-6 airframe's capabilities; the Israelis were operating TOW armed MD500s all through the '80s, including combat service. I think all the actual combat service we've seen (which is admittedly not what the OH-58D was designed for) have validated this approach, not the OH-58D's.
So I'm not disagreeing with you that lack of space/weight was why the Army moved away from the OH-6, in fact I'm predicting that's why the AH-6 will lose this competition.
I agree with you that the AAS-72 is treading into utility helicopter territory, but Bell's ARH-70 Arapaho, which they mismanaged into cancellation, was headed that way anyway so the precedent is there.
i have to disagree with your last point...especially in light of the fact that the OH-58II is basically the ARH-70 reborn in a new name.
ReplyDeletethe OH-58II is not trending toward the utility helicopter role, its trending toward the attack helicopter role...something that started in Iraq and has continued in Afghanistan.
ARH-70 sat six in addition to the crew, which is what you would expect from a Bell 407 variant. If that's not utility, then OK.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Bell's website, OH-58II uses 407 components, so in that sense you are certainly correct that it's son of ARH-70, but it still uses the Kiowa airframe (scout/attack only).
That's why I'm saying ARH-70 was flirting with utility while I agree with you that the OH58F/Block II do not.
Do any of you guys fly?
ReplyDeleteoh and i noticed the Stetson on your profile page so you must! outstanding! tell me where i went wrong! i'll take a few punches from someone thats a subject matter expert.
Deletei'm a ground guy....i just like aviation but the real key for me is how helos and fast movers fit into the ground support role.
ReplyDeletesince the time of this post i've checked out the 407 that the iraqi army is getting and i'm more than a bit impressed. if it comes down to price war then EADS will probably win. if it comes down to the pure performance then you can bet that the AH-6 will be a strong contender....if its about life cycle costs then the 407 is back in play.
i can't wait to see what happens but the upgrade program for the KIOWA is catching fire and the army is more concerned about the GCV and AMPV....they feel aviation has been living high on the hog and ground needs funding.