Bell AH-1 Cobra

And this came out at almost the exact time that the USMC was designing the AH-1W upgrade of its AH-1Ts* - which included wiring, fire control, etc for AIM-9 Sidewinders!

The AH-1Ws started shipping to USMC squadrons in March 1986.


* 43 AH-1Ts upgraded, 179 AH-1Ws new-build.
 
When the time comes for the USMC to replace the Cobra, the Bell 360 Invictus is an excellent choice in my opinion. Bell may have had a plan all along based upon the Invictus size and configuration.
 
Scott Kenny said:
@yasotay found your dream ride!
Click to expand...
Actually single seat Cobra sounds great till you have to fight with it. Same
reason that Ka-50 did not work. Low altitude does not give you much room for eyes on the target and all the trees and wires at the same time. Both the USArmy and the USMC did testing on how to fight helicopters with data from Iran/Iraq war. USMC came up with a full methodology and actually trained to it. US Army decided it was too dangerous and expensive to train and decided that shooting a AGM-114 at a locked target was less dangerous.
An interesting note. In helicopter combat the fight tended to spiral up, vice down for fixed wing combat at altitude. This was for two reasons; trying to get above the gun and rotor system of the opponent, and to get out of the trees and wires. Victory usually went to whomever had the most yaw authority as the helicopters run out of energy faster than fixed wing (since they are going "up" vice "down" for fixed wing.). Alternately the blaring of radar warning receivers in both beligereents tended to change the fight significantly.
The USMC trained to do slashing attacks and retain energy. It was a great bar arguement that has yet to be proven out.
I do note that Russian Ka-52 tend to fly with Igla "just in case."

Another reason the USArmy did not train air combat, is because they did not want to loose units to the Area Air Defense Command (a USAF officer). Attack helicopters were there to support ground operations and kill tanks. There are only so many attack helicopter units, and loosing them to chase helicopters when there were air defense units to do that, did not resonate well at senior levels.
 
Last edited:
Hydroman said:
When the time comes for the USMC to replace the Cobra, the Bell 360 Invictus is an excellent choice in my opinion. Bell may have had a plan all along based upon the Invictus size and configuration.
Click to expand...
It is more likely that the USMC will use FLRAA as it will be able to keep up with MV-22B and has better range than the Invitus was designed for.
Also, at that point FLRAA will not be a new start program.
 
Didn't Cobras managed to (virtually) shoot a pair A-10 Whartogs in such DACT exercises ?
 
Is the AB-609 too large to refuselage into a BAT-like vehicle? And would a single-seat BAT be counterproductive per Yasotay's comments above?
 
BlackBat242 said:
And this came out at almost the exact time that the USMC was designing the AH-1W upgrade of its AH-1Ts* - which included wiring, fire control, etc for AIM-9 Sidewinders!

The AH-1Ws started shipping to USMC squadrons in March 1986.


* 43 AH-1Ts upgraded, 179 AH-1Ws new-build.
Click to expand...
And AGM-122 Sidearms. Still don't understand why we haven't made another batch of those... Make them HOBS or datalink to get pointed into whatever radar is lighting you up and let fly. "How dare you point a radar at me?!? SMITE!!"

Pack one Sidearm and one Sidewinder, unless you can do some goofy things with the old Crusader Y racks and hang 1+1 on each wingtip. That'd probably require re-engining the Zulus with T901s, though. That's probably another 800-1000lbs of stuff to stick into the helo.


Hydroman said:
When the time comes for the USMC to replace the Cobra, the Bell 360 Invictus is an excellent choice in my opinion. Bell may have had a plan all along based upon the Invictus size and configuration.
Click to expand...
No, the Marines need something that can keep up with the Ospreys (and even pull ahead of them, they're talking 350+kt sprint speeds!). It'll be based on the V280 or a narrow-fuselage attack version.
 
aim9xray said:
Is the AB-609 too large to refuselage into a BAT-like vehicle? And would a single-seat BAT be counterproductive per Yasotay's comments above?
Click to expand...
Too large? No, I don't think so. It might actually be too small, it's only got a 5500lb payload and an AH1Z carries some 5800lbs of ordnance. The UH1Y is actually 1000lbs lighter than the AH1Z empty weights, too, so an attack AW609 is probably going to be down on weapons compared to a Zulu.

The single seat problem is a different discussion, however.

@yasotay Do you think two seats side by side is better or two seats in tandem for ground attack and maybe having to dogfight a helicopter or three? More attack helicopter work than transport helicopter, but I'm remembering the MH60 DAPs.
 
Does not make any sense replacing the cobra with a V280, two different types of missions, V280 not an attack/fighting platform like the Cobra. Might as well replace the Apache with a V280 then.
 
Hydroman said:
Does not make any sense replacing the cobra with a V280, two different types of missions, V280 not an attack/fighting platform like the Cobra. Might as well replace the Apache with a V280 then.
Click to expand...
Need something with the speed of a V280, even if it's got a different fuselage.
 
I wonder if Ukraine will get any AH-1Zs this year or next year?

Scott Kenny said:
And AGM-122 Sidearms. Still don't understand why we haven't made another batch of those...
Click to expand...

I don't get either, the AGM-122A Sidearm was manufactured from the remaining stocks of AIM-9Cs (Only about 885 were left) and the AGM-122B would've been completely new build (And I think and upgraded GCU too).
 
Scott Kenny said:
Need something with the speed of a V280, even if it's got a different fuselage.
Click to expand...
That would be again, a new platform. A V280 with those large props, speed yes, agility no. V280 great for FLRAA mission. The AH-1Z is a mini-Apache and the Invictus could give the USMC a nice successor, plus Bell basically has an Invictus built, no argument intended.
 
Hydroman said:
The AH-1Z is a mini-Apache and the Invictus could give the USMC a nice successor, plus Bell basically has an Invictus built, no argument intended.
Click to expand...

The Invictus cruises just over 180 knots, compared to around 270 knots for the Osprey. The Marines want something that can escort Osprey, not something that will lag behind it.

Which is why Bell has been showing V-280 developments for the armed escort role for some time, specifically with the Marines in mind.

1711986682335.png

breakingdefense.com

Bell Pushes V-280 Gunship, Shipboard Variants: Recon In Works - Breaking Defense

One variant, in Army colors, has missile racks sticking out of what was originally the passenger cabin — a conversion that units could potentially install or remove as needed in the field. The other, with Marine Corps markings, is a sleeker thoroughbred gunship with internal weapons bays...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

www.flightglobal.com

Bell sees V-280 Valor as common attack-utility platform

Bell Helicopter and Lockheed Martin's third-generator tiltrotor aircraft demonstrator, the V-280 Valor, might still be under construction for the US Army, but already the future vertical lift contestant is morphing into a mid-weight, utility-attack platform.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
 
Lots to unpack in the preceeding comments so I will try to answer them as best I can.

Scott K., answered the AB-609 question well, but I would add that the 609 would also have to be marinzed, auto-folded, on top of receiving significant survivability armor and equipment to be used by the USMC. This will significantly influence the available load available for munitions on the airframe. You end up with an entirely new platform, which is likely why Leonardo signed with Bell to develop a "European" TR. Other countries however, might have less strenuous requirements.

The question of seating arrangement will persist as long as there are varied organization developing requirements. Most dedicated attack rotorcraft have tandem seating because they expect to be shot at and a tandem cockpit makes it less likely that one round of ammunition will take out both pilots. This appears to be the prevelant logic so hard to argue. Why the argument persist, beyond the survivability point is that many think modern sensors and software, and the desire to have attack helicopters execute their mission from outside of the weapon effect zone of threat air defenses make having a different fuselage an unnecessary expense.

Why did the USMC include Sidewinder and Sidearm in the weapons inventory of their Cobra, while the US Army did not? Simple USMC Cobra had two engines, whereas the US Army Cobra had one. Both missile types come off the rails at supersonic speeds and the concussion from the ingition could stall out an engine. With only one engine this could be a problem. Note also that the USMC put the missiles as far from the engines as they could.

The largest cost for any rotorcraft is the dynamics system. A "new" fuselage while expensive, it is not comparitively so. But I think that the USMC will settle for side-by-side as there is plenty of space for ordnance already. I have no doubt that Bell Flight has already done all of the work needed to have a marinized FLRAA. In fact they have shown a folding V-280 model in USMC colors at the annual US Navy meeting for a number of years. Then there is the information in the articles.
 
I have a hard time envisioning how a gunship version of the V-280 or even the much earlier BAT would operate. For a very long time now attack helicopters have been expected to fight at NOE altitudes using terrain to mask their position. While the high speed of tilt-rotors has an obvious benefit in getting the aircraft to the right area it doesn't offer much when you're actually trying to sneak behind hills and trees to pop up and launch some Hellfires.

I can easily envision using something like a gunship V-280 or BAT as an escort for the tilt-rotors performing the air assault mission but I have my doubts as to how well they would do in the job of sniping at tanks and other targets. I know the assessment of how the V-280 compares to the V-22 at low speeds and altitudes has been very positive, but that isn't really a direct comparison to the AH-1 or AH-64.
 
I am not surprised to have seen no mention of the AH-1AF (Advanced Functions) here in the forum. It was a quickly dismissed proposal from Bell Helicopter in 1979 to amalgate many of the features of the ongoing Army aviaiton programs into the existing AH-1 platform. Most notable was the soft in-plane rotor system that would later be used on the OH-58D and AH-1Z. It also included the sensor package being developed for the AH-64A. This package would also be proposed later to the Bundeswehr aero scount program by Bell. Larger wings that would allow for the standard attack load and include wingtip launchers for Stinger missiles for chance engagements expected in a European war. Larger side panels that would later show up on AH-1W were also included for all of the increased avionics associated with the new sensors. A particularly strange part of the proposal was inclusion of the mast mounted site for scout work and buddy lasing. Due to the significant increase in weight the proposal included a change to the T-701A engine that was developed for the UH-60 and AH-64. The new dynamic components led to a realization that the tail rotor would need more authority so Bell proposed a four bladed tail rotor for the significantly increased torque from the 701A. Also of note the 20mm cannon was replaced by the original M-134 mini-gun and 40mm launcher as it was deemed an adequate suppression weapon capability at reduced weight over the 20mm gatlin gun.
 

Attachments

  • AH-1AF_79.jpg
    AH-1AF_79.jpg
    55.9 KB · Views: 49
Colonial-Marine said:
I have a hard time envisioning how a gunship version of the V-280 or even the much earlier BAT would operate. For a very long time now attack helicopters have been expected to fight at NOE altitudes using terrain to mask their position. While the high speed of tilt-rotors has an obvious benefit in getting the aircraft to the right area it doesn't offer much when you're actually trying to sneak behind hills and trees to pop up and launch some Hellfires.

I can easily envision using something like a gunship V-280 or BAT as an escort for the tilt-rotors performing the air assault mission but I have my doubts as to how well they would do in the job of sniping at tanks and other targets. I know the assessment of how the V-280 compares to the V-22 at low speeds and altitudes has been very positive, but that isn't really a direct comparison to the AH-1 or AH-64.
Click to expand...
Most now expect unmanned platforms to do the up close and personal engagements. That said much longer ranged munitions are being developed for high intensity warfare that precludes manned platforms from going "toe-to-toe" with threat air defenses. This means that it could be acceptable to operate just above the trees vice in between them.
 
yasotay said:
I am not surprised to have seen no mention of the AH-1AF (Advanced Functions) here in the forum. It was a quickly dismissed proposal from Bell Helicopter in 1979 to amalgate many of the features of the ongoing Army aviaiton programs into the existing AH-1 platform. Most notable was the soft in-plane rotor system that would later be used on the OH-58D and AH-1Z. It also included the sensor package being developed for the AH-64A. This package would also be proposed later to the Bundeswehr aero scount program by Bell. Larger wings that would allow for the standard attack load and include wingtip launchers for Stinger missiles for chance engagements expected in a European war. Larger side panels that would later show up on AH-1W were also included for all of the increased avionics associated with the new sensors. A particularly strange part of the proposal was inclusion of the mast mounted site for scout work and buddy lasing. Due to the significant increase in weight the proposal included a change to the T-701A engine that was developed for the UH-60 and AH-64. The new dynamic components led to a realization that the tail rotor would need more authority so Bell proposed a four bladed tail rotor for the significantly increased torque from the 701A. Also of note the 20mm cannon was replaced by the original M-134 mini-gun and 40mm launcher as it was deemed an adequate suppression weapon capability at reduced weight over the 20mm gatlin gun.
Click to expand...
Was not expecting that...

Wasn't the 20mm chosen because it could outrange .50cal and 14.5mm AA guns?
 
yasotay said:
I am not surprised to have seen no mention of the AH-1AF (Advanced Functions) here in the forum. It was a quickly dismissed proposal from Bell Helicopter in 1979 to amalgate many of the features of the ongoing Army aviaiton programs into the existing AH-1 platform. Most notable was the soft in-plane rotor system that would later be used on the OH-58D and AH-1Z. It also included the sensor package being developed for the AH-64A. This package would also be proposed later to the Bundeswehr aero scount program by Bell. Larger wings that would allow for the standard attack load and include wingtip launchers for Stinger missiles for chance engagements expected in a European war. Larger side panels that would later show up on AH-1W were also included for all of the increased avionics associated with the new sensors. A particularly strange part of the proposal was inclusion of the mast mounted site for scout work and buddy lasing. Due to the significant increase in weight the proposal included a change to the T-701A engine that was developed for the UH-60 and AH-64. The new dynamic components led to a realization that the tail rotor would need more authority so Bell proposed a four bladed tail rotor for the significantly increased torque from the 701A. Also of note the 20mm cannon was replaced by the original M-134 mini-gun and 40mm launcher as it was deemed an adequate suppression weapon capability at reduced weight over the 20mm gatlin gun.
Click to expand...
Hi folks,
as a cross-reference, please also see my post regarding Bell's earlier proposal "Panzerabwehrhubschrauber – 2 (PAH-2)" to the German Army from 1981, and compare it with the Bell AH-1AF.

bell_modell_249_pah2_3dview_interavia_germany_may_1982_page509_1280x970-png.529430

This proposal is quite like the AH-1AF, but for example the Bell PAH-2 proposal doesn't have those larger side panels as on the AH-64 and AH-1AF.
Link: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...f-the-tiger-attack-helicopter.207/post-251083
 
Last edited:
One aspect of tandem cockpit attack helos that is being overlooked is that it gives both pilot and gunner clear and equal views from both sides of the airframe - while side-by-side cockpits have a significantly-reduced view on the "off side" for both crew - that would have to be offset by a large-field sensor system.
 
BlackBat242 said:
One aspect of tandem cockpit attack helos that is being overlooked is that it gives both pilot and gunner clear and equal views from both sides of the airframe - while side-by-side cockpits have a significantly-reduced view on the "off side" for both crew - that would have to be offset by a large-field sensor system.
Click to expand...
As all of the current attack helicopters being developed are designed with tandem seating, I would submit that the visibility afforded by this arrangement is not overlooked by the design teams. A grand argument is more so over whether reconnaissance helicopters should also use tandem seating or not. The designs are pretty much 50/50 between the two. Most of the remaining OH-58D that have transitioned into AH-64, will tell you they preferred the side-by-side arrangement. The visibility from the front seat of the Apache is abysmal compared to say AH-1Z. Forward visibility is also horrible. An interesting point made as to the preference of side-by-side, is that Scouts spend a lot of time getting shot at. With a tandem aircraft the "observer" might not realize in time that the pilot has been incapacitated, whereas if the pilot is sitting next to you there is a much better likelihood that his/her demise will be noted.
 
yasotay said:
As all of the current attack helicopters being developed are designed with tandem seating, I would submit that the visibility afforded by this arrangement is not overlooked by the design teams. A grand argument is more so over whether reconnaissance helicopters should also use tandem seating or not. The designs are pretty much 50/50 between the two. Most of the remaining OH-58D that have transitioned into AH-64, will tell you they preferred the side-by-side arrangement. The visibility from the front seat of the Apache is abysmal compared to say AH-1Z. Forward visibility is also horrible. An interesting point made as to the preference of side-by-side, is that Scouts spend a lot of time getting shot at. With a tandem aircraft the "observer" might not realize in time that the pilot has been incapacitated, whereas if the pilot is sitting next to you there is a much better likelihood that his/her demise will be noted.
Click to expand...
Did not realize that the view from the front seat of the Apache was that bad...
 
NMaude said:
The gunner sitting in the front no doubt gets a much better view.
Click to expand...
In many attack helicopters the front seat crew member is seated lower in the fuselage and have significant sensor controls in front and around them. They are lower so that the rear aircrew member can see over the front seaters helmet.
It is not universal, but it is a potential factor.
 
yasotay said:
In many attack helicopters the front seat crew member is seated lower in the fuselage and have significant sensor controls in front and around them. They are lower so that the rear aircrew member can see over the front seaters helmet.
It is not universal, but it is a potential factor.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the gunner-forward positioning in the AH-1 also driven by the difficulty of routing direct-view optics from the nose to the back seat?
 
TomS said:
Wasn't the gunner-forward positioning in the AH-1 also driven by the difficulty of routing direct-view optics from the nose to the back seat?
Click to expand...
That is true. Likewise the AH-64A. I imagine the same for A-129. RAH-66 was, to my knowledge, the first platform where the sight technology allowed the crew stations to be interchangeable.
 
yasotay said:
That is true. Likewise the AH-64A. I imagine the same for A-129. RAH-66 was, to my knowledge, the first platform where the sight technology allowed the crew stations to be interchangeable.
Click to expand...
The Eurocopter Tiger has the pilot is placed in the forward position, with the gunner seated behind.
 
The crew stations on the RAH-66 may have been designed to allow the operator to do everything from either spot but I believe the plan was to have the assigned pilot in the front seat and the copilot/gunner in the back seat. That is a reversal from how it is on the AH-1 and AH-64.
With the AH-64 I imagine the desired high level of survivability plays some role in why the CPG's view is rather poor compared to the Cobra series. For another comparison look at the front seat position of the Mi-28 which is the most heavily armored attack helicopter in service. I would dread trying to land from that position if the pilot was incapacitated.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom