Greaser From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 1102 posts, RR: 3 Posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 17412 times:
Well, i don't know about you guys, but whoah i've never seen this before, looks like it's just a 407 with shiny rocket pods but Bell claims it's something more...am i hearing a OH-58 Kiowa replacement here???
I mean this thing can carry arms,recon equip, can function as C2 in combat, as well as a light attack chopper,carry pax at the same time and has the reliability guarranteed from the 407 line.2 of them can also be deployed from a C-130 and be flown in 15mins after arrival. .Pdf brochure
more info on the ARH:
Bell Helicopter is offering a militarized version of its enormously successful Bell 407 single engine light helicopter in response to a Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by the U.S. Army on Dec. 9, 2004, for an Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH). According to the RFP, the Army is expected to make a decision on the ARH Program in June 2005, for a total of 368 aircraft to be delivered between fiscal years 2006 through 2011.
The Bell ARH will be powered by the Honeywell HTS900 turbine engine that is based on proven, mature commercial and U.S. Army T800 technology and design. In addition to being designed for extremely low Direct Operating Costs (DOC), the HTS900 turbine engine will be equipped with a sophisticated dual-channel full authority digital engine control (FADEC) system, based on T800 technology.
One of the key requirements of the Army’s RFP is deployability. Two Bell ARH helicopters can be deployed aboard a C-130 and be unloaded, flyable and ready to fight within 15 minutes.
info courtesy of Asia Pacific Aviation News & Bell Helicopter
DL021 From United States of America, joined May 2004, 11454 posts, RR: 72
Reply 1, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 17363 times:
There is a requirement for an LUH and LOH helicopter out there now that the RAH-66 has been cancelled. The rumor is that the Bell 210 will get the LUH contract and the MD OH-6 variant will win the LOH contract.
All the aircraft must be C-130 deployable and be off the shelf in order to avoid expense. It is portrayed as an interim solution to Army needs which will probably end up being the long term answer.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (10 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 17220 times:
That looks very similar to what the Marines are doing with their Bell UH-1N in upgrading to the UH-1Y - you would think either the Army could use what the Marines are or that the Marines could use these new 407's?
I guess the UH-1Y uses two GE T700's from the Cobra and Blackhawks, but it's not a whole lot bigger and come on now, even the OH-58D can use more power, what's with this single engine stipulation? When you in combat, and in particular the desert with high temps or high altitudes, you need all the power you can muster!
AGM114L From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 17001 times:
The rumor going around is that the Army will decide this month on who the contract will go to. Does anyone have information on the product MD Helicopters is contending with?
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 3): I guess the UH-1Y uses two GE T700's from the Cobra and Blackhawks, but it's not a whole lot bigger and come on now, even the OH-58D can use more power, what's with this single engine stipulation? When you in combat, and in particular the desert with high temps or high altitudes, you need all the power you can muster!
I agree, two engines are definitely better than one. But the turbine engines are reliable and if the Kiowa or ARH takes a hit that would knock out the engine, chances are the transmission or tail rotor drive shaft would be damaged too due to their close proximity to the engine. What the army likes about the OH-58D is its ease of maintenance and low cost, that's what they are looking for in the ARH. Two engines would mean more down time and higher acquisition costs.
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 403 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (10 years 7 months 1 week 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 16984 times:
I'm sorry I missed this thread when it started. There was an article in Army Aviation (official publication of the Army Aviation Association of America - AAAA) 31 March that dealt specifically with this new aircraft. If you don't mind, I'll hit some highlights since I'd have to type the whole thing otherwise.
The article was written by LTC Thurgood, Product Manager for the Armed Recon Helicopter Program, PEO Aviation, Redstone Arsenal, AL.
- After Comanche was cancelled, the Army Chief of Staff identified a need for 368 armed recon helicopters (ARH).
- This helicopter was needed now to fill identified armed recon gaps and to replace the OH-58D, in service since May 1991.
- The ARH project office was established with 3 goals: 1) provide a low-cost platform, 2) field first unit equipped (FUE) organizations in FY08, and 3) ensure the new platform has growth potential for new capabilities.
- The USAAVNC (US Army Aviation Center at Fort Rucker, AL) prioritized the material solutions and recommended that fulfillment of the ARH should be through modification of an existing helicopter platform. The ARH platform is thusly defined as a modified commercial off the shelf (COTS) product integrated with non-developmental mission equipment packages (MEP). (In other words, an existing helicopter that the Army doesn't have to spend a lot of money on to test.)
- What is the ARH? It is a relatively inexpensive armed aerial platform that will replace the OH-58D and will provide interoperability with joint fires (Field artillery, mortars, etc.) and manned or unmanned aviation platforms.
- It will be capable of operating worldwide in VFR and IFR flight. (IIRC, the OH-58D is not capable of precision approach capabilities outside of PARs. With this in mind, the ARH will have the capabilities of using civilian and military precision approach landing structures - ILS/VOR/TACAN.)
- It will be dual-crew station, single pilot aircraft with all systems operable from either side. It will be capable of cruise airspeeds of at least 100 knots true (at 4000 feet and 95-degrees F) in standard configuration.
- The standard configuration is sensor assembly, active and passive countermeasures, 2 x fully loaded 7-shot rocket pods, and crew station armor.
- It will have a slewable target acquisition sensor suite (TASS) that can be controlled from both pilot stations. The TASS will have the following: infrared imaging sensor, color TV, laser rangefinder and designator, laser spot tracker, and laser pointer.
- It will have an advanced communications package - secure and unsecure.
- The final request for proposals went out December 8, 2004. Proposals were due in by February 7, 2005. The Defense Acquisition Board was scheduled to meet late June 2005 and final approval was expected by end of July.
PaveLowDriver From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week 1 hour ago) and read 16411 times:
If any of you guys are in the know - Is this thing eventually going to get a mast-mounted sight or are they going to stick with the chin turret? Also, are they going to integrate any kind of "baby IHADSS" or just have one guy heads-up flying the aircraft and an observer working the gear? Has there been any talk on how it's going to integrate with the D-model Apaches (as far as data-linking, etc...)?
Spacepope From Vatican City, joined Dec 1999, 3309 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (10 years 6 months 1 week ago) and read 16399 times:
No on the mast mounted sight. The one drawback that the OH-58Ds in Iraq have been encountering is that the threats are all ground based at short distances. The MMS on the Kiowa has been having issues with getting enough "look down" angle. The chin sight iss common witht he UH-1Y and AH-1Z, and it vastly increases the field of view in the operations that we are currently fighting.
In truth, the MMS is a cold war relic, for when the Kiowa was to be hiding behind trees and laser-designating soviet tanks for Apaches to plink off with Hellfires. I think going with a lighter, simpler, less maintainence intensive system is a better idea.
LongbowPilot From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 577 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 years 6 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 16346 times:
I don't see an IHADSS ever being used on any other airframe at this time. It is more or less an Apache Specific design. Not going into specifics the system is a Head tracking system following the pilots head movements to allow the pilot to see (at night using the FLIR sensors) and to allow them to quickly aquire a target for observation or dispatching. The system will not give the scout pilot an extra advantage especially with "fixed" pylons.