Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
CTR
Topic Author
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:24 am

The Army announced today that they have selected the Bell Helicopter
Model 407 as the winner for the ARH contract beating out Boeing. The
Army contract is for 380 light armed recon helos to replace the OH-58
Kiowa Warriors.


The Shinerbock and Lone Star beer is flowing in Fort Worth Texas
tonight!


Have fun,


CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sat Jul 30, 2005 10:13 am

That's little surprise and quite frankly much well worth the R&D money wasted into the Commanche if they were just going to give up after a few setbacks (see V-22 and F-22.)

I love the MD-500 series helo but Boeing must have conceded this contract to Bell because they simply did not market the MH-6 ARH very aggressively at all. Still, the 407 is a great bird but with all the stuff on the ARH it still looks to be underpowered for combat.
 
Wiggidy
Posts: 110
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:06 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:13 am

Um, isnt the oh-58d the equivelant of a low skid 407 already? both are single turbine, 4 bladed bell helcopters. Obviously there are a few differences between military and civilian models, but this doesnt seem like an optimal replacement to me. Any one more associated with the military care to shed a little light?
-Wes
 
Boeing Nut
Posts: 5078
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2001 2:42 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:29 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
Still, the 407 is a great bird but with all the stuff on the ARH it still looks to be underpowered for combat.

Hmmm, maybe the 429 would have been a better platform then?
I'm not a real aeronautical engineer, I just play one on Airliners.net.
 
echster
Posts: 400
Joined: Thu Sep 02, 2004 4:01 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:42 am

AirRyan,

The money on the Comanche is not going to waste. Thru 2011, $14.6 billion would have been spent to finish development of Comanche and they would have gotten 121 airframes for that money. More money would have been needed for any further block upgrades.

In return, the Army decided to spend that money to 1) accelerate aircraft survivability equipment (advanced infrared countermeasures and a common missile threat system), 2) fund Apache Block III (this is where most of Comanche's R&D will go), 3) buy 368 ARHs, 4) buy 20 new CH-47s and accelerate 19 CH-47 rebuilds, 5) buy an additional 80 UH-60s, 6) buy the LUH for homeland defense and US-based missions, 7) buy 25 new fixed-wing aircraft, 8) complete development and buy new cockpits for CH-47 and UH-60 fleets that is common with the 160th, 9) invest in aviation munitions programs, 10) invest in a joint multi-role helicopter that can meet vertical lift reqirements in the future (this would be with the USMC), and 11) increase resources for UAVs, new and existing.

I think these investments are better than getting just 121 Comanches. Also, reference the ARH 407 model being underpowered, the is a decent video of the ARH conducting manuevers. It looks decent.

Wiggidy,

The OH-58D has no more room to grow, so to speak. On top of that, it's already missing some survivability equipment because the frame can add no more weight.
 
CTR
Topic Author
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 01, 2005 1:51 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
Um, isn't the oh-58d the equivalent of a low skid 407 already? both are single turbine, 4 bladed bell helicopters. Obviously there are a few differences between military and civilian models

Actually, its kind of like the story of the axe that has been in the family and used daily for 100 years. It has only had eight handles and 4 heads.

The Bell family tree for the OH-58 starts with the OH-4 which lost to the Hughs OH-6 (Little Bird) for the Army light recon contract. Bell took the ugly looking OH-4s rotor and drive train and put it on the sleek 206 Jet Ranger. The 206 Jet Ranger sold like crazy (and is still selling). Meanwhile Hughs could not hold down the price of the OH-6, so the Army split the contract giving more than half to Bell to convert the 206 into the OH-58.

Here is where the family tree branches. The OH-58 spawned the A through D. While the avionics and rotor changed, not much else did.

Back on the commercial side, the 206 was lengthened, given new controls and up graded transmission and became the 206 L Long Ranger. The 206L was lengthened more and widened, given new controls, rotor, engine and transmission and became the 407. For the ARH the 407 is being upgraded even further for both the commercial and military versions into the 417.

From a distance an OH-58D and the Bell ARH look almost identical. But put them side by side and you can see it is only a family resemblence.

Like Grandfather and Grandson.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:45 am

Check out the pic of the cockpit, it's pretty sweet looking. No doubt the bird looks sweet, I'd love to fly one.

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellARH3.cfm
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:51 pm

I was real surprised Boeing/MD Helicopters didn't put more of an effort into developing a competitor with Bell. Bell basically shoved their design down the Army's throat with several billboards, magazine ads, demos, and the like. Very successful advertisement campaign I guess. The OH-6 frame has a few endurance/range and tail rotor power issues which may have cost them contract.

The new ARH appears to be a marginal improvement over the OH-58D, not being weighed down by 80's era electronics and a bigger engine. The Kiowa was not used in Afghanistan and was severely limited performance-wise more so than other helicopters in Iraq. A few complaints I have heard from the Kiwi drivers is that the MMA (mast mounted assembly) is no more and now on the chin exposing the aircraft more on recon missions and the new frame is several feet longer than the current model again more to expose during recon missions.

There's not many details about the ARH's weapons or targeting systems out yet. In Iraq Kiowa's served as mini attack helicopters as much as they did the scout role. Aside from the Hellfire the Kiowa can barely hit the broadside of a barn and then only in a diving fire profile at a very short range. It was not uncommon in Iraq to see Kiowa pilots hanging out the door using M4 assault rifles.

The Kiowa's strenths live on in the ARH though, they are cheap (cost effective), easy to maintian, and able to get down and dirty more so than any other helicopter.

Quoting Boeing Nut (Reply 3):
Hmmm, maybe the 429 would have been a better platform then?

Engines cost money and more UAV's are being used for recon. You'll never hear anything official, but IMO the Kiowa/ARH are POS meant to be disposable and serve as bait for Apaches, a helicopter worth writing 'US ARMY' on it. Then again I'm just a wee bit bias.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Tue Aug 02, 2005 1:38 pm

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
but IMO the Kiowa/ARH are POS meant to be disposable and serve as bait for Apaches

That's probably why the Army likes their WO pilots - sort of like the term "bullet sponges" for the infantry, if you catch my drift? Why invest a commission on a soldier when your sticking them out there with unarmored and slow flying "recon" helos?

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
There's not many details about the ARH's weapons or targeting systems out yet.

Murphy's Law of Combat: "If the enemy is within range, so are you." Quite frankly I don't want to be exposing myself in anything shy of an armored attack helo which even then is still a rotary-winged platform that no matter how well you design it, it's still not going to take a lot of hits before you are forced to ditch. In this aspect I'd rather have the MH-6 as the smaller and more nimble platform is more suited to the recon role and like you say, that's that much less I have to expose. Nice to see FLIR systems stock rise like 20% today after the announcement of the ARH deal with the Army and the UH-1Y deal with the Marines.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Thu Aug 04, 2005 11:57 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
That's probably why the Army likes their WO pilots - sort of like the term "bullet sponges" for the infantry, if you catch my drift? Why invest a commission on a soldier when your sticking them out there with unarmored and slow flying "recon" helos?

That’s cold dude, real cold. Unlike the rest of the US military and the world, the Army will take someone right out of high school or the enlisted ranks and put them in a helicopter. WO’s are in every airframe, not just scout aircraft and there are many commissioned guys who fly scout aircraft. The only real difference between WO’s and RLO’s (Real Life Officer) is that RLO’s have a college degree and a pineapple inserted in the anus and the WO’s have skills.

I don’t think that the Bell ARH was a bad decision on the Army’s part. True the OH-6 frame has proved to be quick, nimble, and effective weapon platform (relatively speaking), but if its anything like the MH-6 it only has a 2 hour loiter time compared to the Bell 407’s 4 hours. Though I’m not exactly sure what the ARH’s range will be it will most likely be superior to that of the OH/MH-6’s. In addition it appears the ARH will be able to carry some passengers in the back instead of riding outside on a park bench.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:09 pm

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 9):
if its anything like the MH-6 it only has a 2 hour loiter time compared to the Bell 407’s 4 hours. Though I’m not exactly sure what the ARH’s range will be it will most likely be superior to that of the OH/MH-6’s.

Yes, I have just quoted myself, for I am a dumbass. Checking out Bell's website the ARH has only 2.33 hours of endurance. Check out the specs here:
http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.co...rcraft/military/ARH/bellarh-72.pdf

I think the Army selected it just because it was so damn CUTE  smirk 
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Thu Aug 04, 2005 12:39 pm

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 9):
That’s cold dude, real cold. Unlike the rest of the US military and the world, the Army will take someone right out of high school or the enlisted ranks and put them in a helicopter. WO’s are in every airframe, not just scout aircraft and there are many commissioned guys who fly scout aircraft. The only real difference between WO’s and RLO’s (Real Life Officer) is that RLO’s have a college degree and a pineapple inserted in the anus and the WO’s have skills.

It may not have been very subtle but while the Army values an 11B as well as any other, one cannot ignore the strong correlation between the life expectancy rate of say that 11B and than that of say a 73C. WOFT goes back to Vietnam when Hueys were dropping out of the skies like flies - they needed pilots and they needed them quickly.

Trust me, I'm not knocking (nor intending) WO pilots at all - I'm former enlisted who's since then wasted a lot of time and money on a 4 year degree and I am with you, the WO's, and the concept of WOFT all the way; hell I wish the Marines had a similar such program as they'd be better off for it as well. We all know that the WO's are the better pilots because they don't have to play the associated BS games that of a RLO and can spend more time in the cockpit throughout their careers. It's a helluva program and if I could have passed the medical I would have completed and submitted my own package years ago.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 10):
I think the Army selected it just because it was so damn CUTE

I think it's a good aircraft but lets face it - it was selected because it's cheap to buy and cheap to maintain. If we all had our druthers we'd use only AH-64D Longbow II's with the mast mounted sensors to get the job done.

Only through diligent crews and even more so the Generals that be on the ground pulling the strings should the ARH like the OH-58 be used where it might take enemy rounds - that more so than anything else will determine if the platform is ever to be considered a success or not. You just can't fly your ARH or -58 into the same situations that you might otherwise take an Apache or an A-10.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Thu Aug 04, 2005 1:04 pm

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
think it's a good aircraft but lets face it - it was selected because it's cheap to buy and cheap to maintain

Very true AirRyan, the OH-58D made its name for itself in Iraq for that very reason. They were always ready to go out and fight. That's probably why the Army decided to go with a single engine airframe with relatively simple armament, even with damaged sensors its still a capable and dependable aircraft. The Comanche would probably have been plagued with the same avionics/weapons issues as the Apache.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 1:19 am

I didn't know the part about the OH-58D not being able to hit anything using the .50 or rockets...

What do we use in the Corps to fill the role of the OH-58? Do we just use Cobras, or do we use the UH-1W as well?

Is our AH-1Z (or whatever model we're on now) more reliable than the Apache?
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 2:08 am

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 13):
I didn't know the part about the OH-58D not being able to hit anything using the .50 or rockets...

That's relatively speaking of course. Unlike the Cobra or Apache the OH-58D's have fixed weapon pylons, making firing accurately from a hover near impossible because the pilots have to point the nose of the helicopter at the target and the 58 has no weapons processor to speak of. I wouldn't want one coming at me weapons hot though.

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 13):
What do we use in the Corps to fill the role of the OH-58? Do we just use Cobras, or do we use the UH-1W as well?

I can't really speak on behalf of the Marine Corp, but the Army AH-64's and UH-60's offen flew screen recon missions effectively at the added expense of fuel and removing these aircraft from there primary missions. I would imagine the Hueys and Cobras could do just as easily in the Corp.

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 13):
Is our AH-1Z (or whatever model we're on now) more reliable than the Apache?

The AH-1Z hasn't been fielded yet but as with any new aircraft, especially an attack helicopter, their is going to be a fair amount of bugs to be worked out so its too early to compare its reliability to the Apache. As far the the current AH-1W compares my guess it would be more reliable due to the fact that there is less avionics than the Apache, I am not possitive about this though.

The former Marines (cause there are no ex-Marines) I know tell me the Cobra is more reliable but getting a Marine to say anything positive about the Army is impossible despite being in the Army and flying Apaches themselves.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 3:28 am

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 13):
What do we use in the Corps to fill the role of the OH-58? Do we just use Cobras, or do we use the UH-1W as well?

I worked on H-46E's and was part of the 26th MEU(SOC) that helped to liberate Kosovo in 1999, so I got to know a lot of the "skids' kids" while composite. The mission of the H-1N and soon to be H-1Y is somewhat hybrid by nature, but for the role of the OH-58 in the Army compared to what the Marines use for that role, the Huey could very well be tasked with similar such roles but for anything that might result in hostile fire the Cobra would be the platform of choice.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 14):
The former Marines (cause there are no ex-Marines) I know tell me the Cobra is more reliable but getting a Marine to say anything positive about the Army is impossible despite being in the Army and flying Apaches themselves.

I like the Cobra well enough but I've got pictures of the flight line at Camp Able Sentry back in the Summer of 1999 when we were going inot Kosovo, and well let's just say that while the Army's Apache's were sitting there ready to go with a full load of 8 Hellfires and two large rocket pods, our Cobras usually had anything from half to one quarter the firepower in a small rocket pod and 2 to 4 TOW's. I never quite had the same respect for the Cobra after that.

While I'm sure the new AH-1Z will bring it up to par with the latest '64D as far as payload, range, and avionics, I hate they way the engineers screwed up the looks of the exhaust nozzles by angling them out a few degrees so the hot jet exhaust would stop melting the tail boom! Quite frankly with the Marines penchant for tilt-rotors these upgraded H-1's seems to defy their own set of defined logic.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:19 am

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
While I'm sure the new AH-1Z will bring it up to par with the latest '64D as far as payload, range, and avionics

Most likely. If the Marines choose to go with the GE 701C, the same engine used in the Apache and Blackhawk, the Cobra, several thousand pounds lighter than either aircraft, is going to be one screamin' bastard.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
ruger11
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon May 16, 2005 4:20 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 5:30 am

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 16):
Most likely. If the Marines choose to go with the GE 701C, the same engine used in the Apache and Blackhawk, the Cobra, several thousand pounds lighter than either aircraft, is going to be one screamin' bastard.

why would we do something like that??? We will most definitely develop our own, more expensive, patented technology engines, each developing maybe 10-15 Shp more... maybe a 1% advantage... delay them 5 years then field them as the Cobra replacement comes online.. hahaha

just kidding of course, I can make that joke.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 14):
The former Marines (cause there are no ex-Marines) I know tell me the Cobra is more reliable but getting a Marine to say anything positive about the Army is impossible despite being in the Army and flying Apaches themselves.

how funny is that. I understand completely. I catch so much flak for my dad being a retired Army officer, once my friends found out.
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Fri Aug 05, 2005 11:53 am

Quoting Ruger11 (Reply 17):
delay them 5 years then field them as the Cobra replacement comes online

All joking aside I think the Cobra's replacement already came and went. The Apache was the Cobra's replacement at first and then the Commanche came along which has since been sh!+canned. The AH-1Z and 64D will probably be around for quite some time until the UAV's steal the show.

I wonder what tribe they will name the ARH after?
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
jrw261
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:32 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sat Aug 06, 2005 5:26 am

Hello everyone, I have been lurking in the shadows of this site for quite some time now and wanted to try and throw in my opinion on some of the comments made.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
I love the MD-500 series helo but Boeing must have conceded this contract to Bell because they simply did not market the MH-6 ARH very aggressively at all. Still, the 407 is a great bird but with all the stuff on the ARH it still looks to be underpowered for combat.

From what I have read and heard, Boeing certainly did not concede this contract to Bell. In my opinion Boeing thought it had this contract in the bag from the get go, as the ARH was originally specified with the Little Bird in mind. I will agree that Bell marketed its 407 alot more than Boeing did. In fact there are rumors that Boeing may still protest the award. As for being underpowered, I feel inclined to disagree. It surpasses the OH-58D in performance and will have a lot more capabilities than the 58 could hope for. Not to mention that the Little Bird would be even more underpowered.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
few complaints I have heard from the Kiwi drivers is that the MMA (mast mounted assembly) is no more and now on the chin exposing the aircraft more on recon missions and the new frame is several feet longer than the current model again more to expose during recon missions.

From what I have heard, the MMA was abandoned because urban warfare requires the Helo to be upclose and personal and when up close, the MMA left the pilots blind to what was below them or directly in front of them. There are other performance issues as well.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 7):
but IMO the Kiowa/ARH are POS meant to be disposable and serve as bait for Apaches

I think this is way off, the Apache is a stand-off fighter, its horrible in close-in air support and with buildings shielding the target you need to get in close.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
Only through diligent crews and even more so the Generals that be on the ground pulling the strings should the ARH like the OH-58 be used where it might take enemy rounds - that more so than anything else will determine if the platform is ever to be considered a success or not. You just can't fly your ARH or -58 into the same situations that you might otherwise take an Apache or an A-10

Once again, the Apache is a stand-off aircraft too big for up close and personal fighting. An A-10... thats an up close and personal aircraft but the Apache in my opinion is more like a stealth fighter. Plus, how many 58's get retired in Iraq a month due to battle damage and how many leave their crews stranded?

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 14):
The AH-1Z hasn't been fielded yet but as with any new aircraft, especially an attack helicopter, their is going to be a fair amount of bugs to be worked out so its too early to compare its reliability to the Apache. As far the the current AH-1W compares my guess it would be more reliable due to the fact that there is less avionics than the Apache, I am not possitive about this though.

The former Marines (cause there are no ex-Marines) I know tell me the Cobra is more reliable but getting a Marine to say anything positive about the Army is impossible despite being in the Army and flying Apaches themselves.

Ide be suprised it the Z is any less durable than the W, as far as I understand, the biggest difference is going to be in armorment and performance. Also, as far as I understand it, the only place the Apaches have been of any use was Iraq and even then they required high maintenance due to the harsh environment. The Cobra, from what I understand, is the only truely Rugged gunship because it was designed for naval use.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
our Cobras usually had anything from half to one quarter the firepower in a small rocket pod and 2 to 4 TOW's. I never quite had the same respect for the Cobra after that.

While I'm sure the new AH-1Z will bring it up to par with the latest '64D as far as payload, range, and avionics, I hate they way the engineers screwed up the looks of the exhaust nozzles by angling them out a few degrees so the hot jet exhaust would stop melting the tail boom!

Theres no doubt that the cobra carries less quantity... but once again as far as I understand.. the cobra is the only platform that operates with little or no maintenance and is manueverable for close-in fighting. As for the tailboom, I can see other reasons for turning the exhaust away from the tailboom... the apache does it to limit its thermal signature.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 18):
All joking aside I think the Cobra's replacement already came and went. The Apache was the Cobra's replacement at first and then the Commanche came along which has since been sh!+canned. The AH-1Z and 64D will probably be around for quite some time until the UAV's steal the show.

I disagree, go figure haha. The Apache is no doubt one of the most sophisticated attack heli's out there and its great for its purpose. But as far as Im concerned, it will never replace the cobra in close combat. They both have their purposes. But I do agree that neither will leave for quite some time.

Just some of my thoughts on some of the comments. Dont take them personally, Im not expert and dont claim to be. Just up for a good conversation.

Thanks
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:29 am

Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 19):
I think this is way off, the Apache is a stand-off fighter, its horrible in close-in air support and with buildings shielding the target you need to get in close.



Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 19):
the Apache is a stand-off aircraft too big for up close and personal fighting. An A-10... thats an up close and personal aircraft but the Apache in my opinion is more like a stealth fighter.

Jrw261,
You're just wronger than two boys kissing. Having flown the Apache all over that hell hole called Iraq for two tours now, I must say you probably want to check your sources on that info, or lay off the crack, which ever the case is.

I'm kidding bro, but I don't know of any better close in support aircraft than an attack helicopter, Cobra and Apache included. I don't know where this rumor got started the Apache is too big for urban warfar, true its a marginally larger target than either the Cobra or Kiowa, but I can assure you it can get to places and engage targets an A-10 can't even touch. The Apache is also thee most survivable helicopter out there, I've seen one make it back to our assembly area with an engine blown off.

Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 19):
But as far as Im concerned, it will never replace the cobra in close combat.

The diffence between the effectiveness between the Cobra and Apache in thier CAS abilities comes down to the pilots. The Marine Cobra primarily trains for CAS and bustin' tanks is a secondary mission for them, the Army Apache has these roles flipped.

Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 19):
the cobra is the only platform that operates with little or no maintenance

"little or no maintenance"?!?!?!....you're talking about a helicopter here.

Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 19):
Im not expert and dont claim to be.

Well, at least you have something right.

Sorry to be such an ass, especially in responding to your first post here. I truly wish you a nice day.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sat Aug 06, 2005 6:33 am

Jrw261 great post and Welcome to the forums!!
 
jrw261
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:32 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sun Aug 07, 2005 2:58 am

First of all, no harm no foul, Im a big boy and enjoy a good well rounded conversation.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 20):
I don't know where this rumor got started the Apache is too big for urban warfar, true its a marginally larger target than either the Cobra or Kiowa, but I can assure you it can get to places and engage targets an A-10 can't even touch

Looking back I see I chose some bad words to describe what I was talking about. I agree that a Helo can provide better close-in support than any fixed wing aircraft, no doubt about that. And I certainly did not wish to say that an Apache was incapable of fighting in urban warfare. The point I wanted to express is that its not the best choice over its counterparts for that combat.

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 20):
"little or no maintenance"?!?!?!....you're talking about a helicopter here.

My choice of "little" or "no maintenance" was absurd, I agree. I guess that's what I get for being in a hurry. Helos are by no mean low maintenance. The point I wanted to express was that the Cobra is the more rugged of the two aircraft, even after its Z upgrade.

I like both aircrafts and think they are both great at their roles. So don't take this as an attack on the Apache. I just get tired of the Apache being in the lime light when in my opinion its only been successful in Iraq (both times) and was unused during its deployment (correct me if Im wrong) in Kosovo. Its no ones fault here, its just the way the media is. I just think both aircraft should cast their own shadow.

Getting back to the original post that I inadvertently changed the subject on. I don't understand why the Army is so adamant towards Bell helicopter. Is it because they work so closely with the Marines?

When I saw Bell's submittal of the 407 ARH, I thought it was a lot better than Boeing's plan for the Little Bird. Yet, a lot of people leaned towards the Little Bird. Which was fine, that's their opinion and I certainly have my own. But then when they justified their choice or in some cases their shear dissatisfaction with the 407 ARH.. they would argue that its too big and not at nimble as the little bird, then someone else would comment that the 407 would be too underpowered and so on. Two people would have different and opposing reasons for disliking the 407 but seemed satisfied in the idea that they both disliked it and not why.

I guess its why I decided to chime in, to quench my curiosity as to why a lot of people (especially Army people) tend to lean away from Bell.
 
CTR
Topic Author
Posts: 299
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2005 4:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Sun Aug 07, 2005 5:43 am

[quote=Jrw261,reply=22]I guess its why I decided to chime in, to quench my curiosity as to why a lot of people (especially Army people) tend to lean away from Bell.

The US Army didn't make Sikorsky its favorite supplier until the V-22 and Comanche started fighting for limited DOD funding. Before then the Army didn't have a buddy-buddy relationship with any of the 6 or so helicopter manufactures.

Bell's Model 47 was the original COTS (Commercial Off the Shelf) Army helicopter 50 years before the ARH 407. They bought it because they needed it for Korea and it was available.

Bell beat out Kaman Helicopter for the H-1 contract not for technical or political reasons. The choice was made (so the story goes) based on the recognition of the 47 as the helicopter that "saved our boys in Korea". There were a lot of other manufactures helicopters used in Korea, but none as recognizable as the Bell Bubble canopy 47.

Bell developed the Cobra on their own money without the Armys support. When the Lockheed Cherokee attack helo was canceled. They again had the only other option available.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the OH-58 was chosen by Army only after Hughes could not deliver the OH-6 on time and at cost.

When the V-22 program was started, the Army was to share development costs with the Airforce, Navy and Marines. But when DOD funding got tight they had to make a choice, Osprey or Commanche. That is when the rift between Bell and the Army got bad. But time and the cancellation of the Commanches seems to have healed that wound.

History seems to repeat itself for Bell. For the forth time they in their history they are lucky enough to have the right product at the right time for the Armys needs.

Have fun,

CTR
Aircraft design is just one big compromise,,,
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 5:14 am

Quoting Jrw261 (Reply 22):
So don't take this as an attack on the Apache.

Jrw, sorry bro but after 1800 hours in one I rather you insult my Mother than the Apache. How pathetic is that? Even though I did fall off one two months ago preflighting it and breaking my jaw in the process. At least I finnally get off medical leave in 4 weeks!

While I'm several pay-grades below the people who make aircraft selection decisions, I never really got the impression the Army doesn't like Bell. After all they made the highly successful Huey and Cobra. If there is any bad blood it was with Howard Hughes when he sold the OH-6 cheap and the spare parts for some outragous price. Since '93 the Army has been using Bell's TH-67 Creek as its primary trainer. Its basically an off the shelf 206III JetRanger with stroking seats and a smaller fuel tank to accomodate the well for the rear passenger seat to collapse into. The Army is currently operating about 170 of them at Fort Rucker and will acquire more to replace the OH-58A/C's used for Basic Combat Skills training.
The Army pretty much gave Bell this contract by allowing them get by with a gimmick to meet one of the critera for selection. Which was the rear student must be able to view the cockpit, the IP, and the other student. To get by this requiement Bell implimented a camera/TV device which is useless and seldom used. Bell competed against Enstrom, Schweizer, MD Helicopters, and Eurocopter for this contract. According to my old crusty primary instructor pilot the Entrom 480's exaust set the ground on fire, the Schweizer wasn't duarble enough for the amount of autorotation training, the MD500's flight characteristics weren't what the Army wanted for training, and the EC120 was, well European, cost too much, and the rotor spun the wrong way.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 10:47 am

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 24):
the MD500's flight characteristics weren't what the Army wanted for training

Maybe not for flight training but in the hands of a skilled pilot, the MD500 is a very nimble and maneuverable platform. If the Army had a flight demo team (not the Golden Knights) they'd probably use a variant of the MD500!  weightlifter 
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 11:34 am

The MD500 doesn't have haudralics like the JetRanger, making it tedious to fly after a while. In addition its kickass power coupled with a short tailboom can cause loss of tailrotor effectiveness problems, not excactly something you want for a trainer.

The MD500 would be an excellent show chopper, but the Army gives all its fanfare to the infantry, they never would approve the funding of such a project. The Army has more aicraft than any other branch and the Aviation Branch absorbes a full quarter of the Army's massive budget, not a fact the groundpoundin' generals are fond of.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
efohdee
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:52 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:25 pm

Quoting AGM114L (Reply 24):
. Since '93 the Army has been using Bell's TH-67 Creek as its primary trainer. Its basically an off the shelf 206III JetRanger with stroking seats and a smaller fuel tank to accomodate the well for the rear passenger seat to collapse into. The Army is currently operating about 170 of them at Fort Rucker and will acquire more to replace the OH-58A/C's used for Basic Combat Skills training

Hey Fort Rucker. What does callsign "PIC" stand for anyway? Primary Instrument Course?
 
AGM114L
Posts: 316
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 1:12 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 1:49 pm

Quoting Efohdee (Reply 27):
Hey Fort Rucker. What does callsign "PIC" stand for anyway? Primary Instrument Course?

Ahh, Mother Rucker, brings back memories. I don't know or if I did I can't remember, that was 4 years and 10,000 acronyms ago for me. I do remeber thinking it was just some lame callsign. I'll ask around tomorrow.
PIC, OZR apprach always added an 'R' over the radio, is the callsign used for instrument training.
My Boeing can blow up your Boeing
 
HaveBlue
Posts: 2177
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2004 3:01 pm

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Mon Aug 08, 2005 2:05 pm

PIC stands for Pilot In Command.

And on a side note I was born at Ft. Rucker in '71 when my father was an IP there in Hueys after flying them in Nam.
 
LongbowPilot
Posts: 526
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 4:16 am

RE: Bell Wins ARH Contract

Tue Aug 09, 2005 11:57 am

Holy CRAP,

I'm not one to get uppity Up about things people say, but man when someone is trying to inform others and has "ZERO" situational awareness of what they are talking about, what is a Class A personality supposed to do.

First off, I am an Apache Longbow Co Pilot Gunner. I am forward deployed to Afghanistan. While I cannot go into detail of the operations I have been involved with. I will say that 64's, are far more superior/user friendly in the CAS role, or CCA (Close Combat Attack) as the Army calls it. Hell, any rotary wing platform is far better at close air support, especially in urban and rugged trained environments.

Helicopters airspeed range from 0-150 knots depending on airframe. A-10's and other fixed wing minimum airspeed for engaging is probable in the neighborhood of 200 knots minimum possibly more. Helicopters can troll around at 60 knots (no faster than a highway speeds). Helicopters also can fly lower to the ground due to the speeds they can move at. We even have better station time which is CRITICAL to a ground unit under attack.

The only place the A-10 has rotary wing aircraft beat, it is ordinance. They have a better weapons array, but again in today's combat environment the A-10 doesn't carry much more that is better. The best weapons are still the ones of old, Rockets, and Lead.

As for the Apache being heavy and unable to produce you are sadly mistaken again. The Apache has the roll rate of an F-16, now that doesn't mean it can maintain that momentum, but all that says is with the flight control systems it does have it has the ability to move and move quick. It isn't as heavy as an A-10 either so that argument is out. When it comes to CAS, or CCA it is not about how maneuverable you are it is what you are able to offer that ground guy.

I mean to each his own but if you are going to bring a debate to the table be prepared for the people with fact to fire back. People will say that I'm biased and they are right I am, BUT I have experienced many of the things being discussed here first hand, and I have even shared the same engagement space with CAS aircraft. I won't say that Rotary Wing is the best CAS, it is just more practical in current combat.

As for the comment made about 58s not in Afghanistan, someone needs to check their facts. 3/4 Cav was here during OEF 5 in Kandahar. Just an FYI.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos