Bell AH-1 Cobra

TomS said:
yasotay said:
Always happy to see my beloved Cobra getting a fresh coat of paint and a new lease on life. I do wonder if the Slovakian AH-1Z will be "new" or refurbished excess stock from the USMC that went into storage.
Click to expand...

Good question. Then press releases around that Slovak deal all say "new" so I think they are likely to be straight off the line rather than refurbished. (And probably also not any of the Zs that the Marines are storing.)

About the Bahrain purchase of Whiskey Cobras, they just finished buying a small batch of Zulus and have 20+ AH-1Fs and TAH-1Ps still kicking around as well. I assume the idea is to replace the Fs and Ps with the Ws, presumably updated for some commonality with the Zs but probably not a full rebuild. Because frankly it would be cheaper and likely faster at this point to buy new AH-1Zs than to completely rebuild Whiskeys to the Zulu standard.
Click to expand...
Where the "F" not refurbished locally? Perhaps the intent is to use the knowledge gained in the F rebuilds to do the work locally on the "Whiskey's" and increase their ability to do that sort of work within the region on any helicopters?

Wild guess on my part.
 
yasotay said:
Where the "F" not refurbished locally? Perhaps the intent is to use the knowledge gained in the F rebuilds to do the work locally on the "Whiskey's" and increase their ability to do that sort of work within the region on any helicopters?

Wild guess on my part.
Click to expand...

Quite possible. I didn't realize that the FBs are basically Turkish T-129 ATAK electronics in an AH-1 airframe. And quite recent, so probably the Ws are in addition to them, not replacing them.

BIAS: Upgraded Cobras bare their teeth | Times Aerospace

They are part of a multi-million-dollar contract that saw 17 of the Vietnam-era Cobras modernised by Turkish Aerospace. “We have turned an old helicopter into a new one,” said one RBAF officer.
www.timesaerospace.aero www.timesaerospace.aero
 
TomS said:
Quite possible. I didn't realize that the FBs are basically Turkish T-129 ATAK electronics in an AH-1 airframe. And quite recent, so probably the Ws are in addition to them, not replacing them.
Click to expand...
Well, I just learned something as well.:D
 
Colleagues, can you list the earlier AH-1 versions, which had a Radar Warning Receiver system, please? Did RWRs first appear in the AH-1F or AH-1S?
 
AH-1S is the earlier version. As of 1984 it had RWR. I am not sure if the AH-1F received RWR prior, but this is possible. 18th Airborne Corps and European based AH-1 units had priority for both updated Cobra and RWR.

Not the answer, but some insight.

A clarification, the AH-1 (mod) S, was the earliest version. Essentially a "G" model with TOW missile systems put on it. By U.S. Army nomenclature the AH-1S was the final fully modernized Cobra with air data sensor and C-NITE (some) TOW Sight Unit along with other upgrades.
 
Last edited:
Thank you yasotay. So, I assume that the first AH-1 version to receive RWR was mod. S in 1984, ie. the one with flat plate canopy. Please correct me if it used the AN/APR-39.

By the way, maybe you happen to know of early Cobras did receive laser warning equipment? I read somewhere that the AN/AVR-2 was used on mod. F Cobras and that the information from the set was projected on the AN/APR-39 RWR screen.

I understand that the Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS) technology was not yet available to AH-1s in the 1980s.
 
I flew AH-1S(Mod) Cobras in 1984 and they had AN/APR-39 in them. AH-1S(Mod) were the last of the round canopy Cobra that the U.S. Army acquired. AH-1F were the first ones to have flat plat canopy. I think (but cannot verify for you) that the last of the Army Cobra in Germany had AN/AVS-2 integrated. These would have been the fully modernized Cobra in the cavalry units stationed in Germany. I do not know of any U.S, Army AH-1 having MAWS. I agree that AH-1 was likely out of the inventory before MAWS was introduced.

The U.S. Army really messed up the AH-1 nomenclature as the "G" came first, then the "S"(mod), then the "F", then the "S". Some retired government bureaucrat in the bowls of the Pentagon might have been the only one who knew why it was done this way.
 
Dear Colleagues, I have more avionics related questions.
  • To those who flew Cobras, do you remember if the flat plate canopy versions used GPS? I learned that mod. F could have used the Trimble Trimpack set during the 1991 Gulf War, an austere set by today's standards. Brooke made a nice description of this rig at https://www.prc68.com/I/Trimpack.shtml.
  • It seems that the standard navigation setup on mod. F was very basic and consisted of the AN/ARN-123 VOR/ILS receiver and the AN/ARN-89 ADF, while the Singer AN/ASN-128 Doppler Navigation Set apparently appeared only in mod. Whisky. Late AN/ASN-128 versions could be upgraded with a GPS card add-on for additional accuracy. In theory, how early AH-1s could perform in a total war scenario and in hostile territory with VOR and ADF only, when such systems would presumably be shut down? Which radio aid, if needed, was preferred in mod. G Cobras in Nam?
  • Do you know if pre-Whisky Cobras ever used TACAN? Andreas listed the AN/ARN-84 TACAN made by Gould as used on mod. T, but the origins of this info are unknown (https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-ard2arn.html).
 
Last edited:
yahya said:
Dear Colleagues, I have more avionics related questions.
  • To those who flew Cobras, do you remember if the flat plate canopy versions used GPS? I learned that mod. F could have used the Trimble Trimpack set during the 1991 Gulf War, an austere set by today's standards. Brooke made a nice description of this rig at https://www.prc68.com/I/Trimpack.shtml. SOME OF THE U.S.ARMY AH-1 USED IN ODS DID HAVE TRIMBLE GPS. I DON'T KNOW WHICH BY UNIT.
  • It seems that the standard navigation setup on mod. F was very basic and consisted of the AN/ARN-123 VOR/ILS receiver and the AN/ARN-89 ADF, while the Singer AN/ASN-128 Doppler Navigation Set apparently appeared only in mod. Whisky. Late AN/ASN-128 versions could be upgraded with a GPS card add-on for additional accuracy. In theory, how early AH-1s could perform in a total war scenario and in hostile territory with VOR and ADF only, when such systems would presumably be shut down? Which radio aid, if needed, was preferred in mod. G Cobras in Nam? BACK IN THE BAD OLD DAYS BEFORE AUTOMATION WE USED PAPER MAPS TO NAVIGATE. VOR AND ADF WERE FOR EMERGENCY USE IF YOU WERE DUMB ENOUGH TO GET INTO IFR CONDITIONS IN A VFR ONLY AIRCRAFT. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY U.S.ARMY AH-1 GETTING THE GPS CARD ADDED AS THEY WERE ON THE RETIREMENT LIST SHORTLY AFTER ODS.
  • Do you know if pre-Whisky Cobras ever used TACAN? Andreas listed the AN/ARN-84 TACAN made by Gould as used on mod. T, but the origins of this info are unknown (https://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/jetds/an-ard2arn.html).
Click to expand...
Answers IN CAPS above
 
Halcyon66 said:
If it ain't broke don't fix it. the Viper is the daddy, awesome and competent platform.

Also the 360 is looking for an engine, https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/bells-360-invictus-readies-for-flight-but-still-has-no-engine

Regards,
Click to expand...
The Cobra's are great I agree but they are getting older and like any other platform, have to be replaced at some point. I think Bell has probably already had dialog with the USMC. You have to phase in a new platform gradually and logically (somestimes difficult for the US DOD) but that also means getting the maintainers onboard right from the start as well as an example. From AH-1 Cobra to 360 Invictus, I think its a perfect transition. Oh, and they'll find a engine.
 
I still rather would have had the RAH-66 Comanche than the Invictus, I don't see much the newer design offers over the old one minus the to-be-expected improvements in avionics and sensors we've seen since then. Maybe a few knots of speed but not on-par with a tilt-rotor or compound helicopter design.
 
Nothing is cheap anymore and there is no AH-1 follow-on. RAH-66 seemed to be a good machine but the Army screwed that up after $6B spent. Invictus could work if executed properly.
 
I use my old rule of costing, double it and add 20%.

I would think the 360 would be a huge number, 20 bill +++++?????

Regards,
 
yasotay said:
The U.S. Army really messed up the AH-1 nomenclature as the "G" came first, then the "S"(mod), then the "F", then the "S". Some retired government bureaucrat in the bowls of the Pentagon might have been the only one who knew why it was done this way.
Click to expand...
I think it was because the AH-1 originally used the same letter suffix series as the UH-1s, because the Army was pretending it was an upgrade and not an entirely new aircraft that happened to share some parts with the Huey. UH-1F was introduced shortly before the Cobra G, and then the S(mod) was next in line after a bunch more UH-1 variants. I have no clue why they recycled S after looping back, though.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I still rather would have had the RAH-66 Comanche than the Invictus, I don't see much the newer design offers over the old one minus the to-be-expected improvements in avionics and sensors we've seen since then. Maybe a few knots of speed but not on-par with a tilt-rotor or compound helicopter design.
Click to expand...
Is anyone else amused by how much the Invictus, especially the early versions with the fenestron tail rotor, looked like a Commanche?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Colonial-Marine said:
I still rather would have had the RAH-66 Comanche than the Invictus, I don't see much the newer design offers over the old one minus the to-be-expected improvements in avionics and sensors we've seen since then. Maybe a few knots of speed but not on-par with a tilt-rotor or compound helicopter design.
Click to expand...
Is anyone else amused by how much the Invictus, especially the early versions with the fenestron tail rotor, looked like a Commanche?
Click to expand...
It has been given a rather cheeky alternate name - Cobranche.
 
Halcyon66 said:
I use my old rule of costing, double it and add 20%.

I would think the 360 would be a huge number, 20 bill +++++?????

Regards,
Click to expand...
Gotta tell you, that's way more than the Nunn McCurdy Breach by quite a distance.
 
It's not that simple (of course)...

"There are two types of breaches: significant breaches and critical breaches. A significant breach is when the Program Acquisition Unit Cost (the total cost of development, procurement, and construction divided by the number of units procured) or the Procurement Unit Cost (the total procurement cost divided by the number of units to be procured) increases 15% or more over the current baseline estimate or 30% or more over the original baseline estimate. A critical breach occurs when the cost increases 25% or more over the current baseline estimate or 50% or more over the original baseline estimate."

"The Nunn-McCurdy Act has been amended nine times. One of the most significant changes to the reporting requirements occurred in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163), when Congress added the original baseline estimate as a threshold against which to measure cost growth. The new standard prevents DOD from simply re-baselining a program to avoid a breach. Since 2007, there have been 37 Nunn-McCurdy breaches."
 
aim9xray said:
It's not that simple (of course)...

"There are two types of breaches: significant breaches and critical breaches. A significant breach is when the Program Acquisition Unit Cost (the total cost of development, procurement, and construction divided by the number of units procured) or the Procurement Unit Cost (the total procurement cost divided by the number of units to be procured) increases 15% or more over the current baseline estimate or 30% or more over the original baseline estimate. A critical breach occurs when the cost increases 25% or more over the current baseline estimate or 50% or more over the original baseline estimate."

"The Nunn-McCurdy Act has been amended nine times. One of the most significant changes to the reporting requirements occurred in the FY2006 National Defense Authorization Act (P.L. 109-163), when Congress added the original baseline estimate as a threshold against which to measure cost growth. The new standard prevents DOD from simply re-baselining a program to avoid a breach. Since 2007, there have been 37 Nunn-McCurdy breaches."
Click to expand...
Thank you!

The highest profile N-M Breach I am aware of was the M982 Excalibur gps-guided artillery shell, when the accuracy was so high that the Army cut the planned buy by something like 80%...
 
Scott Kenny said:
Colonial-Marine said:
I still rather would have had the RAH-66 Comanche than the Invictus, I don't see much the newer design offers over the old one minus the to-be-expected improvements in avionics and sensors we've seen since then. Maybe a few knots of speed but not on-par with a tilt-rotor or compound helicopter design.
Click to expand...
Is anyone else amused by how much the Invictus, especially the early versions with the fenestron tail rotor, looked like a Commanche?
Click to expand...
Think of it as "convergent evolution". FARA requirements ended up being very similar to RAH-66 but with a heavier weapon/ALE load out, faster cruise speed, more fuel, and more modern mission equipment package, so Bell's FARA is sleek but generally larger than RAH-66. RCS requirements were relaxed for FARA. The fan in fin tail rotor provides for a more compact aircraft but at the cost of increased power demands and drag. I'm not surprised the Bell team opted to switch to an open tail rotor. Bell opted for the lower risk approach to get the required speed: serious drag control, a lift sharing wing (which is also part of the weapons deployment system), and an APU that can be clutched to the drive train to add power.

As to "which is better?" it something of a timeless but silly question. RAH-66 was reportedly a great machine to fly but with late 80's/early 90's approaches to RCS control and mission equipment would have undoubtedly been expensive to operate despite a reported maintainer friendly design. Its weapons bays were more tailored to the airframe than Invictus and likely couldn't carry some of the ALEs being considered today. With the full mission equipment package installed (but no stub wings or external weapons) RAH-66 Vh was 149 knot vs 180 knots minimum for FARA. The RAH-66 dash speed is slower than FARA cruise speed. If the open systems architecture (MOSA) works as intended, FARA will be upgradable in ways RAH-66 would not be. They're different aircraft from different eras.

It does seem a real mismatch to have such large range and speed capabilities in FLRAA but not in FARA.
 
e-Graphite said:
It does seem a real mismatch to have such large range and speed capabilities in FLRAA but not in FARA.
Click to expand...
The FLRAA mission is all about productivity (fast) over extended range (air assault/air movement, etc.) while the FARA is more about security (reconnaissance and security) (slow). The old rational of having close escort for the lift aircraft is not as effective as it once was. The escort becomes something of a "revenge" engagement after a threat engages the formation with modern weapons. The new rational is to have the reconnaissance and attack platforms (manned and unmanned) move into the flight corridor first to create a "cordon sanitarie" (apologies' to my French friends for spelling) to the landing point. Once the majority of the threat has been dealt with, the air assault platforms race through the cordon at maximum speed to get the troops on the ground. Speed allows for multiple missions to move the ground force in. Faster you go, faster you get the missions done.
 
yasotay said:
e-Graphite said:
It does seem a real mismatch to have such large range and speed capabilities in FLRAA but not in FARA.
Click to expand...
The FLRAA mission is all about productivity (fast) over extended range (air assault/air movement, etc.) while the FARA is more about security (reconnaissance and security) (slow). The old rational of having close escort for the lift aircraft is not as effective as it once was. The escort becomes something of a "revenge" engagement after a threat engages the formation with modern weapons. The new rational is to have the reconnaissance and attack platforms (manned and unmanned) move into the flight corridor first to create a "cordon sanitarie" (apologies' to my French friends for spelling) to the landing point. Once the majority of the threat has been dealt with, the air assault platforms race through the cordon at maximum speed to get the troops on the ground. Speed allows for multiple missions to move the ground force in. Faster you go, faster you get the missions done.
Click to expand...
Okay, that makes a lot more sense.
 
Colleagues, the discussion is drifting away from the original AH-1 prototype.

I have a question related to the ECM system mounted in the F and late S Cobras. Reportedly, it was the AN/ALQ-136 exportable, automatic, power-managed radar jammer. It used the C-9576 control head mounted in the cockpit. The processing circuit employed four AMD 2901 microprocessors. The enhanced ALQ-136(V)2 traces its lineage to the ALQ-136(V)1/5 that appeared during Desert Storm. Reportedly the rig performed quite well then. Was it indeed that efficient? Could it interface with the RWR? Which radars exactly could it defeat in that war?

More on the AN/ALQ-136:
 
investor.textron.com

Bell H-1 Fleet Surpasses Half a Million Flight Hours

Viper / Venom Upgrades to Support H-1 for Decades to Come FORT WORTH, Texas (June 28, 2023) – The current H-1 fleet of AH-1Z Vipers and UH-1Y Venoms reached a major flight milestone by surpassing the 500,000-flight hour mark. Nearly 400 AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, built by Bell Textron Inc., a...
investor.textron.com investor.textron.com
 
TomcatViP said:
investor.textron.com

Bell H-1 Fleet Surpasses Half a Million Flight Hours

Viper / Venom Upgrades to Support H-1 for Decades to Come FORT WORTH, Texas (June 28, 2023) – The current H-1 fleet of AH-1Z Vipers and UH-1Y Venoms reached a major flight milestone by surpassing the 500,000-flight hour mark. Nearly 400 AH-1Z and UH-1Y helicopters, built by Bell Textron Inc., a...
investor.textron.com investor.textron.com
Click to expand...


The Czech new Bell UH-1Y have arrived yesterday .

Cheers


IMG_0962.jpeg IMG_0958.jpeg IMG_0960.jpeg IMG_0961.jpeg

cheers
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0959.jpeg
    IMG_0959.jpeg
    319.5 KB · Views: 8

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom