Army Scout after LHX...RAH...ARH

yasotay said:
No doubt the X2 will have the same capability. I recall a video showing the X2 backing up and doing a "snap" turn to deal with a threat. I too am interested in how well the yaw rate can be generated around the hub. I recall that someone told me that the Kamov helicopters are slow to start yaw, but accelerate rather quickly once started. I have no idea how this compares to conventional rotorcraft.

I agree on the same capability. I'm just concerned that USAF will see it as a threat and work against the program. Of course, they could also see the speed of the V-280 and TR36TD as a threat. Such are the ways of empire-building. :(
 
Slide from a Sikorsky presentation that allows you to get an idea of the size of the S-97 Raider to the Eurocopter UH-72 Lakota and the Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior.

index.php
 
yasotay said:
Nice MEDEVAC helicopter ... BIG scout helicopter. Most Scout troopers I know like being in small relatively quite helicopters.

The fuselage of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider prototype appears to be physically larger than the Eurocopter UH-72A Lakota and weigh 3,497 lbs. more. Is the S-97 too large for the United States Army scout role?
 
Triton said:
yasotay said:
[Nice MEDEVAC helicopter ... BIG scout helicopter. Most Scout troopers I know like being in small relatively quite helicopters.

The fuselage of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider prototype appears to be physically larger than the Eurocopter UH-72A Lakota and weigh 3,497 lbs. more. Is the S-97 too large for the United States Army scout role?

The UH-72 carries 8 troops plus crew, not sure about the AAS-72, given its sensors and weapons mounts. S-97 specs 6 troops plus crew, not sure if that is with sensors and weapons mounts, either. The S-97's fuselage length is listed as 2 feet more than UH-72, but Triton's table (form Sikorsky) says overall length (including rotors) is over 5 feet less. Sikorsky says you can get four S-97s in a C-17, not sure about UH-72. It doesn't seem S-97's size will be an issue as much as the weight might be.
 
Scouts prefer small nimble helicopters. Nimble means power/weight, yaw, roll and pitch rates. If you look at the helicopters that have been scouts (OH-6, OH-58A/C/D, AH-1(?Westland) Scout, Gazelle), they are all small and have a pretty decent amount of "nimbleness", although the OH-58A/C was not very much so.
So in my humble opinion the S-97 is indeed too big for a scout. Something the size of the original X2 demonstrator would probably have been very well received.
 
Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) Capabilities

Photos of Bell ARH-70 Arapaho

Source:
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=518621
https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/comanches-child-the-arh70-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-updated-02421/
http://razonyfuerza.mforos.com/549910/10775674-helicopteros-de-ataque-4/?pag=38
 

Attachments

  • 276461005_f2PQ6-L.jpg
    276461005_f2PQ6-L.jpg
    153 KB · Views: 37
  • 1280px-RAH-70.jpg
    1280px-RAH-70.jpg
    120 KB · Views: 280
  • AIR_ARH-70_Testing_w_Tower_lg.jpg
    AIR_ARH-70_Testing_w_Tower_lg.jpg
    126.6 KB · Views: 294
  • AIR_ARH-70_Testing_w_Rockets_lg.jpg
    AIR_ARH-70_Testing_w_Rockets_lg.jpg
    149.9 KB · Views: 307
  • PUB_ARH_Capabilities_lg.jpg
    PUB_ARH_Capabilities_lg.jpg
    131.5 KB · Views: 320
http://youtu.be/UsyQyDZfasE

Photos of Bell OH-58F Block II

Source:
http://www.scoutsout.com/next-generation/oh-58f/
 

Attachments

  • OH-58F_850x-1.jpg
    OH-58F_850x-1.jpg
    63.4 KB · Views: 43
  • OH-58F_850x-3.jpg
    OH-58F_850x-3.jpg
    31.9 KB · Views: 41
  • OH-58F_850x-4.jpg
    OH-58F_850x-4.jpg
    32.9 KB · Views: 34
  • OH-58F-BLOCKII_850x-4.jpg
    OH-58F-BLOCKII_850x-4.jpg
    58.4 KB · Views: 41
Hopes Fade for US Army Armed Aerial Scout

Dec. 5, 2013 - 08:10PM | By PAUL McLEARY

WASHINGTON — The US Army has been trying to build a new, light reconnaissance helicopter since 1982, when it kicked off the Light Helicopter Experimental (LHX) program to replace the Vietnam-era OH-58 Kiowa helicopter.

Nine years after the service began studying the problem of replacing the — even then — aging Kiowa fleet, the program took on new life when it was christened the Comanche, meandering along until 2004 when then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finally canceled the faltering program after it chewed its way through about $7 billion worth of investments.

Almost a decade later, the Army is still looking to replace the Kiowa. And with budget cuts looming on the horizon with some hard procurement trade-offs to be made, it doesn’t look like a new bird is coming any time soon.

Several sources have told Defense News that there is talk among Army leadership about canceling the once-promising follow-on to the Comanche, the armed aerial scout (AAS), while mothballing the remaining OH-58 Kiowa Warrior helicopters filling the armed scout mission and using the service’s existing Apache helicopters to fill the armed scout role.

When asked about the potential of using the Apache in this role, a spokesperson for the Army Aviation office emailed that “from our standpoint, the Army is looking at all options with the entire Army strategy in mind. Army aviation is only a portion of that strategy. We will execute our project management duties and responsibilities in accordance with the guidance we receive.”

Other attempts to obtain comments from the Army about the armed aerial scout, Kiowa, or the Apache were unsuccessful.

Over the past several years it began to look hopeful that after 30 years of trying, the Army would be able to finally upgrade its aerial scout fleet.

Service leadership faced a choice: either begin a service-life extension program for the Bell Helicopter-made Kiowa or run a full and open competition to replace the aircraft with something new.

The defense industry jumped at the chance to build a new bird, and AgustaWestland, Boeing, EADS and Bell Helicopter began readying designs.

During the spring and summer of 2012, the Army conducted a series of what it called “fly-offs,” where Army leaders visited all of the competitors interested in bidding on the work to check in on their progress and their designs.

Initial reports from industry were that the generals liked what they saw, and initial developmental contract awards were expected by December 2012.

But after months of silence and a deepening sense that something was amiss, this May, Lt. Gen. William Phillips, the top acquisition adviser to the Army secretary, claimed that the results of the fly-offs were actually a huge disappointment to the Army.

“We didn’t find a single aircraft that was out there that could meet the Army’s requirements, so if we were to go forward with an armed aerial scout it would essentially be a development program,” he said.

After releasing its original request for information in 2010, the Army said it was looking at an average procurement unit cost of $13 million to $15 million for a new armed aerial scout. But developing a new helicopter with a fielding target of 2022 would cost $4.8 billion to $12.1 billion, contingent on requirements.

In contrast, the Army also said it was considering fielding modernized Kiowas in fiscal 2016 at a cost of $2.98 billion to $4.1 billion.

But budgets being what they are, and with no immediate wartime need for new scout helicopters as the Army shifts its mission in Afghanistan to an advise-and-assist role on its way out the door by December 2014, the need to save money might have altered the 30-year effort to buy a new armed scout helicopter yet again.

Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Nov. 7, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Ray Odierno explained what the billions in congressionally-mandated sequestration cuts would mean for the service’s acquisition programs.

The Army would have to end or delay over 100 acquisition programs, he said, telling the Senators bluntly that “in our aviation program, we cannot afford to procure a new armed aerial scout program and we will be forced to reduce the production and modernization of 25 helicopters.”



And so it ends. Not with a bang, but a wimper...
 
No problem...just wait another decade and there won't be a single engineer in the whole Aerospace industry with experience on designing a combat helicopter. :mad:
 
second the above emotion..

the question seems not be whether this is how to run a railroad or not, but whether there is a railroad at all..
 
Was there a reason why the United States Army did not evaluate unmanned systems for the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program such as the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout?
 
Triton said:
Was there a reason why the United States Army did not evaluate unmanned systems for the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program such as the Northrop Grumman MQ-8 Fire Scout?

I'd wager it's because because the tech isn't there yet to perform the AAS mission as well with a UAV. Navy is further along because they aren't asking as much and don't expect to be using them in the environments in which Army's will be operating. I'd also wager that at this point in time the total cost of a manned vehicle to do this job is less.
 
Maybe UCAR could have fulfilled at least some tasks, but it was cancelled, too,
 
Hopefully, Sikorsky and its partners will continue to develop the S-97 Raider. There is also JMR-Light as part of Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Perhaps a new United States Army program between Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) and JMR-Light.
 
Triton said:
Hopefully, Sikorsky and its partners will continue to develop the S-97 Raider. There is also JMR-Light as part of Future Vertical Lift (FVL). Perhaps a new United States Army program between Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) and JMR-Light.

Not sure there would be any need or funding for a vehicle between AAS and FVL (the production program) Light.
 
Does anybody know how the competitors to the Army Scout underperformed Army specifications?

I find it surprising that, given the Army's history in weapon procurement, the Army just doesn't take what it can now and wait till helicopter technology improves through other programs.
 
DrRansom said:
Does anybody know how the competitors to the Army Scout underperformed Army specifications?

I find it surprising that, given the Army's history in weapon procurement, the Army just doesn't take what it can now and wait till helicopter technology improves through other programs.

It's a question of timing. The "other programs" would be FVL. Army has a need, given the state of the OH-58 fleet and the perceived threat, for AAS well before FVL could deliver something in this category. And if they go with a purely derivative design, they'll have to wait until it wears out before they could get more advanced capability, given the investment they'd have put into it. If they're going to go off the shelf, might as well just rebuild the Kiowas (again), and give up on the extra capability (especially hot and high) until FVL can deliver sometime in the 2030s.
 
Where I become confused is where the Sikorsky S-97 Raider fits into the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) competition. Sikorsky and its partners are currently building two Raider prototypes with first flight expected at the end of 2014. Does this make the arrival of Raider too late for AAS? With X2 Technology it wouldn't be considered an off-the-shelf solution. Would the S-97 Raider also require several more years of development to become a production rotorcraft for the United States Army? Is S-97 Raider also too early to be considered for FVL/JMR-Light?
 
Judging the duration the development of actually ALL aircraft takes today, I really would be surprised,
if the Raider development could be finished much quicker, than several years. Look at the latest
helicopter developments around the world and keep in mind, that more or less all of them were
"just conventional" types.
 
Triton said:
Where I become confused is where the Sikorsky S-97 Raider fits into the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) competition. Sikorsky and its partners are currently building two Raider prototypes with first flight expected at the end of 2014. Does this make the arrival of Raider too late for AAS? With X2 Technology it wouldn't be considered an off-the-shelf solution. Would the S-97 Raider also require several more years of development to become a production rotorcraft for the United States Army? Is S-97 Raider also too early to be considered for FVL/JMR-Light?

S-97 actually predates the AAS program and exists to prove that X2 is practical. If they happened to get get a production contract, so much the better. This isn't the first time Sikorsky has done this. Originally, once AAS came up, it was thought to be out of therunning because all candidates had to be flying when Army did the first cut, and it couldn't do that. After Army said nothing off the shelf would work and moved the program back, S-97 became a viable possibility, provided Army doesn't dumb down requirements.

S-97 is too early for FVL light, but could be the basis for something when that program develops provided X2 technology is selected for FVL, or at least one of them.
 
DrRansom said:
Does anybody know how the competitors to the Army Scout underperformed Army specifications?

I find it surprising that, given the Army's history in weapon procurement, the Army just doesn't take what it can now and wait till helicopter technology improves through other programs.

Thank you Dr Ransom for bringing this thread back to the point.
 
DrRansom said:
Does anybody know how the competitors to the Army Scout underperformed Army specifications?

I find it surprising that, given the Army's history in weapon procurement, the Army just doesn't take what it can now and wait till helicopter technology improves through other programs.


The Army has been operating interim scouts since the Vietnam conflict.

Having flown some of those "interim" helicopters they worked fine as long as you did not take something like a gun along on the mission, did not hover with a tailwind, and did not crash because the the crash worthiness of the aircraft was non-existent. I suspect that those who are in charge who lived an entire career in an interim scout, really would prefer not to do a full century that way.


Historically rotorcraft technology development has been carried forward by military requirement (turbine engines, metal rotor blades, greater lift capacity, crash worthiness) on government provided funds vice civil requirements. I would argue that now the civil technologies in communications and avionics are likely jumping in front of the military, but airframe wise the major innovations are still done under the guise of government funded efforts. The reason the Army is not wanting to get what is available is because it becomes THE aircraft, period.


Much of the issue with the procurement is likely within the Byzantine bowls of the Pentagon. It does not take the military 20 years to develop a requirement. It does take 20 years to come up with aircraft.
 
It sounds like what you are saying, yasotay, is that the purchase of a new rotorcraft in the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) competition by the United States Army precludes the later development and purchase of the FVL/JMR-Light. The rationale being that the Army would have relatively new scout rotorcraft when the FVL/JMR-Medium enters service. Essentially, AAS is being sacrificed to save FVL/JMR-Light or a future next-generation Army scout/USSOCOM light rotorcraft program that compliments FVL/JMR-Medium. Is that right?
 
Triton said:
It sounds like what you are saying, yasotay, is that the purchase of a new rotorcraft in the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) competition by the United States Army precludes the later development and purchase of the FVL/JMR-Light. The rationale being that the Army would have relatively new scout rotorcraft when the FVL/JMR-Medium enters service. Essentially, AAS is being sacrificed to save FVL/JMR-Light or a future next-generation Army scout/USSOCOM light rotorcraft program that compliments FVL/JMR-Medium. Is that right?

Not wishing to preclude what Yasotay might say, but pending that response let me throw in my 3 cents (inflation) worth...

After JMR points the way to the technology, FVL encompasses the programs that will actually deploy operational vehicles. Those vehicles will be in various size categories, and the idea of JMR is to identify technologies that can be scaled throughout said categories. Right now, the only one that Army is defining is in the medium category, to replace the UH-60 and AH-64. AFAIK, at present there is no established description yet for what a light vehicle using JMR-derived concepts would be, just that someday whatever it might be will use the same flight methodologies. Looking for a vehicle to put into service, at best that is 20 years away and Army can't wait long that to field a scout. They're either going to have to deploy new technology sooner, separate from FVL, or just keep rebuilding the OH-58. One advantage AAS has is that although it could prove desirable to do so and may use the same technology that gets selected by JMR, they are separate programs. This means that the technology used does not have to fully scalable.

I don't see AAS being sacrificed for FVL light. What I could see is that Army decides that in the current fiscal, and especially political, climate they feel the money isn't there for it. In that case they drop back to some kind of "interim" solution and hope that they can kick the can down the road for another 25 years and try and get something using FVL technology then.
 
Gents, this is all speculation, however ... ;D
I think that a decision to retire the OH-58D and use AH-64E in the roll is purely a function of dollars anticipated to be available for the next decade or so. Aviation is no doubt the biggest exclusive budget element for the Army when it comes to procurement and maintenance. In the olde tyme days when the budget got tight, Cavalry Regiments were the first to go. Nothing has changed. Second order effects like only having to ship two engine types (AH and UH [T701] and CH [T-64]), fewer rotor blades and electronics around the world along with fewer training classes for flying and maintaining certainly save money as well.
I am not sure that it is a sacrifice to keep FVL light alive so much as the Army can take the risk betting that the FVL program will be able to produce a light FVL once people start complaining how expensive it is to fly a AH-64E "ubercopter" for a reconnaissance mission.
Wait five years and lets revisit. By then the US military rotorcraft industry will be almost completely out of work, less CH-53K and any foreign sales. Congress may be more receptive then to the "poor Army's" desperate need for a new scout that goes further and faster than an AH-64 but cost much less to operate. Personally, I think Sikorsky is sitting very well to come back to the table with a mature S-97 capability. Oh yeah it is also the base technology being promoted by Sikorsky for FVL.
 
One question: I note the article refers to existing Apaches. Not all AH-64s are becoming AH-64Es. Is it possible they want to use earlier versions as the scouts?
 
F-14D said:
One question: I note the article refers to existing Apaches. Not all AH-64s are becoming AH-64Es. Is it possible they want to use earlier versions as the scouts?
I suspect you are right. They will fill units with the available platforms with the "attack" units getting the Guardian first.
 
How would the Apache handle the scout role if the theory on the retirement of the OH-58s goes ahead? Does anyone think their serious about retiring the Kiowa?
 
John21 said:
How would the Apache handle the scout role if the theory on the retirement of the OH-58s goes ahead? Does anyone think their serious about retiring the Kiowa?

They would use older Apaches that would not have all the weapons capability of the latest models. Probably some weapons stations would be deactivated and other things removed to lower weight and add agility. They might add some scout sensors, along with more sophisticated commo. They'd end up with a very agile bird, and some reduction in the logistics and training "tails", since they'd have removed an aircraft type. It would be much cheaper than buying new airframes. OTOH, the Apache will be more expensive to operate, even in a partially declawed state.

As for whether they're serious, something has to be done about the scout situation as the Kiowas are ruining out of life and can't operate in some of the environments the Army would like for power and other reasons.
 
Actually I do not think they will do anythng other than get rid of the 58's and replace them 64's. Friends in the Army tell me the budget is exceedinly grim. Besides the AH-64 has the best radios and sensors in the fleet right now. The 58 sensor ball is ancient.
 
yasotay said:
Actually I do not think they will do anythng other than get rid of the 58's and replace them 64's. Friends in the Army tell me the budget is exceedinly grim. Besides the AH-64 has the best radios and sensors in the fleet right now. The 58 sensor ball is ancient.

In your opinion, will these "Scout" -64s be Ds that will not be converted to Es, or will they be full-blown Es? If the latter, then essentially the dedicated Scout mission is going away. Will they just say to regular crews, "OK, today you're a scout. Tomorrow you're a shooter"? Or will there be even less specialization, like going back to cavalry days, "Lima 69, take point!"?
 
I ... suspect... that the scout mission will be done by 64D with the priority for the 64E going into the attack battalions. What I cannot tell you is if the Apache/Scouts will get any of the specialized scout training that the 58D aircrews get in flight school. I don't think so.
I do think that all of the Apache organizations will be doing both missions. In the times I was doing that sort of stuff, you had a "day" battalion and a "night" battalion so that you had a decent number of available crews 24/7. So yeah I think that ol' Lima 69 "you got point" will be the order of the day.
 
Thanks

I was curious because plans looked like the vast majority of the Ds were going to be converted into Es, which seemed like a an unnecessary expense if they were going to be just used as scouts.
 
If the United States Army had purchased a new helicopter for the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) program would the tri-service designation have been Attack Reconnaissance Helicopter (ARH) or Observation Helicopter (OH)? Is the next helicopter number available in sequence 73? Has a number been reserved for AAS?
 
F-14D said:
Thanks

I was curious because plans looked like the vast majority of the Ds were going to be converted into Es, which seemed like a an unnecessary expense if they were going to be just used as scouts.
Pointing out the pointlessness..
Es would make far better scouts than Ds given their enhanced multi-sensor capability.. why are we scouting if prosecuting targets even perform SEAD as we find them becomes the default.. Rudderless as this all is..the need was for a multi-mission scout which could carry troops..in the future fight other helios... cost effectively scout is all environments. The 'you take point' default is a long term disaster for all involved and reflects more lacking capability..
 
jsport said:
F-14D said:
Thanks

I was curious because plans looked like the vast majority of the Ds were going to be converted into Es, which seemed like a an unnecessary expense if they were going to be just used as scouts.
Pointing out the pointlessness..
Es would make far better scouts than Ds given their enhanced multi-sensor capability.. why are we scouting if prosecuting targets even perform SEAD as we find them becomes the default.. Rudderless as this all is..the need was for a multi-mission scout which could carry troops..in the future fight other helios... cost effectively scout is all environments. The 'you take point' default is a long term disaster for all involved and reflects more lacking capability..

My understanding is that the E uses the same sensors as the D. The improvements it has are in communications, new rotor blades and landing gear, more power and a better transmission (or at least they would if they didn't have to keep switching them). Lots 4 through 6 anticipate improvements to Longbow. So if you're gong to operate them solely as scouts, are all the (expensive) upgrades to the E really necessary? OTOH if they're just going to be regular Apaches where a crew will be tasked to fly scout mission, then you would want them to be Es.

I wonder if carrying troops is really a requirement. The fact that our present scouts and the ones looked at already have cabins may be due to the fact that they are all modifications of existing helicopters that already had cabins. There's not much demand for cabinless helos outside of purpose-built attack and crane aircraft. And once you put in all that weight for armament and senors, commo, etc., there's not a lot of useful load left to carry troops. Note that Army's from-scratch attempt to build a new scout, the RAH-66, did not have a cabin.
 
F-14D said:
jsport said:
F-14D said:
Thanks

I was curious because plans looked like the vast majority of the Ds were going to be converted into Es, which seemed like a an unnecessary expense if they were going to be just used as scouts.
Pointing out the pointlessness..
Es would make far better scouts than Ds given their enhanced multi-sensor capability.. why are we scouting if prosecuting targets even perform SEAD as we find them becomes the default.. Rudderless as this all is..the need was for a multi-mission scout which could carry troops..in the future fight other helios... cost effectively scout is all environments. The 'you take point' default is a long term disaster for all involved and reflects more lacking capability..

My understanding is that the E uses the same sensors as the D. The improvements it has are in communications, new rotor blades and landing gear, more power and a better transmission (or at least they would if they didn't have to keep switching them). Lots 4 through 6 anticipate improvements to Longbow. So if you're gong to operate them solely as scouts, are all the (expensive) upgrades to the E really necessary? OTOH if they're just going to be regular Apaches where a crew will be tasked to fly scout mission, then you would want them to be Es.

I wonder if carrying troops is really a requirement. The fact that our present scouts and the ones looked at already have cabins may be due to the fact that they are all modifications of existing helicopters that already had cabins. There's not much demand for cabinless helos outside of purpose-built attack and crane aircraft. And once you put in all that weight for armament and senors, commo, etc., there's not a lot of useful load left to carry troops. Note that Army's from-scratch attempt to build a new scout, the RAH-66, did not have a cabin.
According to the Boeing pitch vid once posted on SecProj forum E has some RF sensing above and beyond the Ds..Additionally, they mention EO/IR improvements. better FCR, more power & less weight is faster w/ longer range tgt aqu..thus scout.

As stated repeatedly w/o any meaningful retort, Commanders need troop carrying..an understanding of the future full spectrum of mission requirements renders this unquestionable. Helios serve a supporting function to Cdrs and overall missions, not function onto themselves. Although Commanche is/was a start the craft itself was built for the Fulda Gap.
 
Is this the video you are referring to, jsport?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12358.msg169475.html#msg169475

jsport said:
As stated repeatedly w/o any meaningful retort, Commanders need troop carrying..an understanding of the future full spectrum of mission requirements renders this unquestionable. Helios serve a supporting function to Cdrs and overall missions, not function onto themselves.

Are you referring to a replacement for the MD Helicopters MH-6/AH-6 Little Bird aka "Killer Egg"? Was AAS also intended to replace the Hughes/McDonnell Douglas/MD Helicopters OH-6 Cayuse aka "Flying Egg" in the Army inventory?
 
Triton said:
Is this the video you are referring to, jsport?

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,12358.msg169475.html#msg169475

jsport said:
As stated repeatedly w/o any meaningful retort, Commanders need troop carrying..an understanding of the future full spectrum of mission requirements renders this unquestionable. Helios serve a supporting function to Cdrs and overall missions, not function onto themselves.

Are you referring to a replacement for the MD Helicopters MH-6/AH-6 Little Bird aka "Killer Egg"? Was AAS also intended to replace the Hughes/McDonnell Douglas/MD Helicopters OH-6 Cayuse aka "Flying Egg" in the Army inventory?
Of course no officialdom..but beleive Little Birds are all spec ops.. Raider might fit that bill. Only 58s in conventional Army.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom