Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne and derivatives

Dang ! (frantically adding the OV-1 Mohawk to the above list).

Didn't knew that story. Well it REALLY aggravates the level of insanity of the whole affair.
...in turn, this brings USMC into the mix, and the Harrier in the list... !
(I nearly added the Harrier to the list but erased it - maybe I shouldn't have. Oh boy... !)
 
Likely a combination of all the above. While the AH-56 had challenges (what program does not), I suspect a constricting defense budget was the real driving force behind the decision. We had thousands of helicopters and Bell made a good argument to make an interim solution with the TOW Cobra. Technical issues, budget battles with the other services, a need to revamp the armor/mech infantry/artillery for a perceived large scale mechanized battle in Europe, reports of the ultra-destructive threat air defenses made the decision easier for the Army staff.

Ironically the helicopter that came about to replace the AH-56, the AH-64 which was designed to battle a massive mechanized force has only really done that once. All of the rest of its combat time has been fighting battles that the AH-56 was designed for.
 
I came across two sources that mentioned a 36 TOW missile loadout for the AH-56. Is this loadout ever planned or even possible? I did not see additional sources that states this loadout on the internet, so it might be possible that the 36 TOW missile figure from these two sources is an error.

Page 13 of Close Air Support: Principal Issues and Aircraft Choices: https://web.archive.org/web/20170517021115/https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/201342.pdf

The wing stations will accommodate up to 152 rockets (2.75 in.) or 36 tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles. The rockets are forward firing and are used for area fire suppression, and the TOW missile is to be used against heavy armor. Although only one missile can be fired and guided at a time, the aircraft may take evasive action once a missile is locked onto the target.
Click to expand...

2:21 timestamp in the Lockheed AH-56 episode from History Channel:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycXEgIRWGqs&t=141s


... the target could be reacquired almost instantly and destroyed with one of up to 36 tow anti-tank missiles.
Click to expand...
 
WayMinimum said:
I came across two sources that mentioned a 36 TOW missile loadout for the AH-56. Is this loadout ever planned or even possible? I did not see additional sources that states this loadout on the internet, so it might be possible that the 36 TOW missile figure from these two sources is an error.

Page 13 of Close Air Support: Principal Issues and Aircraft Choices: https://web.archive.org/web/20170517021115/https://www.gao.gov/assets/210/201342.pdf

The wing stations will accommodate up to 152 rockets (2.75 in.) or 36 tube-launched, optically tracked, wire-guided (TOW) missiles. The rockets are forward firing and are used for area fire suppression, and the TOW missile is to be used against heavy armor. Although only one missile can be fired and guided at a time, the aircraft may take evasive action once a missile is locked onto the target.
Click to expand...

2:21 timestamp in the Lockheed AH-56 episode from History Channel:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycXEgIRWGqs&t=141s


... the target could be reacquired almost instantly and destroyed with one of up to 36 tow anti-tank missiles.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
I think the inborde and fuselage stations could hold 3, 3 round tow launchers, thats were you would get the numbers up i believe.
 
Cjc said:
I think the inborde and fuselage stations could hold 3, 3 round tow launchers, thats were you would get the numbers up i believe.
Click to expand...
To get to 36 missiles you need twelve triple launchers.

The stores diagram back in Post #264 only shows the inboard wing stations as being able to carry TOW launchers, and then only one. You might reasonably imagine qualifying the outboard stations for TOW, and perhaps a triple adapter for the inboard stations similar to that for 2.75-in rockets. That gets you to eight launchers for 24 missiles.

I don't see the fuselage stations as being suitable for TOW, as there'd likely be impingement on the gun mount. Even if they were, I suspect that triple mounts on the fuselage and inner wing would clash.

About the only way I can see getting anywhere near 32 would be to carry two quadruple TOW launchers on each of the four wing stations. That gets you 32.
 
RLBH said:
Cjc said:
I think the inborde and fuselage stations could hold 3, 3 round tow launchers, thats were you would get the numbers up i believe.
Click to expand...
To get to 36 missiles you need twelve triple launchers.

The stores diagram back in Post #264 only shows the inboard wing stations as being able to carry TOW launchers, and then only one. You might reasonably imagine qualifying the outboard stations for TOW, and perhaps a triple adapter for the inboard stations similar to that for 2.75-in rockets. That gets you to eight launchers for 24 missiles.

I don't see the fuselage stations as being suitable for TOW, as there'd likely be impingement on the gun mount. Even if they were, I suspect that triple mounts on the fuselage and inner wing would clash.

About the only way I can see getting anywhere near 32 would be to carry two quadruple TOW launchers on each of the four wing stations. That gets you 32.
Click to expand...
Well there was a picture earlier in the thread that showed the tow launchers in the fuselage holders (keep in mind that was deleted as a cost saving measure late in the process) , and lockheed advertising had tows on both the outward pylons and triple for the inboard ones (they were all rated for at lest 2,000 lbs) , even then though the 36 is a weird number I would imagine 30 or 42 to be more likely numbers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
overscan (PaulMM) said:
aviationarchives.blogspot.com

Lockheed AH-56A Familiarization Guide

A copy of the Lockheed AH-56A Familiarization Guide. Dated 1 December 1968. Download here or here or here or here (27.5 Megs)
aviationarchives.blogspot.com aviationarchives.blogspot.com

Some great drawings in this guide.
Click to expand...
Is it a glitch on my end, or are a lot of the drawings badly pixelated/low rez?

lowrez.jpg

UPDATE: it's a glitch on my end. Viewed in "Microsoft Edge" a lot of the images are garbage. But viewed in Firefox, they're fine. Shrug.
dfa.jpg
 
Last edited:
Was the AH-56 ever pitched to other nations during its development ?
 
I suspect it was pitched to NATO allies, but because of the technical challenges and cost it likely only got mild interest at best.
 
Ah, the AH-56, my favorite "oh, what could have been!"

Please pardon me from going back over 14 years...


Jemiba said:
And we should always bear in mind : People, who are tidy, are just too lazy
for searching !
Click to expand...
For real!


Orionblamblam said:
CL-1051, crew of three, six passengers. A bit more like a Mil 24 "Hind."
Click to expand...
Would totally see that flying smaller USAF/USN Combat Search and Rescue missions.


Abraham Gubler said:
The XM112 or Swivelling Gunner's Station (SGS) is a single assembly that rotates the various gunners’ sights with the gunner to provide a view across the hemisphere of the aircraft. It did so to avoid the limited field of view of having to fit a rotating mirror to a periscope sight (as in the AH-1) and the huge weight, cost and complexity of 1960s digital systems (as in the A-6A TRIM). Because the gunner swivelled with the sights they could be connected to the gunner’s eye sight by a simple fixed periscope (within the entire rotating assembly). Since the SGS was more than just a single optical sight having a FLIR, laser rangefinder and the target and missile tracking sights of the TOW system at the time the AH-56 was developed this was the least complex, weighty and more reliable method of providing a wide field of view.
Click to expand...
That seems so counter-intuitive now... We have been horribly spoiled by micro-electronics!


Lampshade111 said:
Yes but a larger/heavier setup being rotating means more power is needed, more mechanical complexity, and so forth. While it may have been the best solution with the technology of the day, by the 1980s it was a rather obsolete and overly complicated setup.
Click to expand...
And probably would have been replaced in the mid-1980s with a simpler system. Bonus, the newer electronic systems would be much lighter, so you would have both volume and weight capacity to add more/better sensors.


Triton said:
While we discuss the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne, we should also keep in mind that the Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS) program and the US Army's choice of the Lockheed proposal came before the US Army's purchase of the Bell AH-1G Huey Cobra.
Click to expand...
Remember that the Cobra was very much an interim project at the time, something to work right NOW while the Cheyenne was being developed.

It was even sleazed past the usual contracting hoops because it was "just an upgrade to a UH-1." That's why the first Cobra was the H-1G, that was the next mod number in the Huey series at the time.


Triton said:
Model of Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne painted in United States Navy engine gray believed to be manufactured by Par Tool Co. Model Engineering Division. Would this variant have been named Sea Cheyenne?

Source: http://www.collectair.com/helicopterannex.html
Click to expand...
Good question. The USN/USMC helicopters tend to have Sea- prefixes, barring the Huey. I could almost see using one of the coastal tribe names, but I think it's more likely to stick with Sea Cheyenne.


Archibald said:
Total 11 machines for the CAS role !

Yet the A-10 is still there, and the F-35 is unable to replace it. :(
Click to expand...
F-35 does battlefield interdiction like the A-7, flying deep beyond the front lines to hit bridges, logistics, etc, which is a job that the A-10 doesn't do well at all.
 
Do we think that the AH-56 would have kept the steamlined TOW 3-packs, or gone to the much faster to reload 4-packs used on the Cobras?
 
Drag is... well I forget the rule, but it increases rapidly with speed. Something like double the speed quadruples the drag. Cobra's were not going anywhere fast so it did not matter. If they really wanted AH-56 zipping around the countryside, over distances, I think they would stay with the aeroshelled three shot.
 
yasotay said:
Drag is... well I forget the rule, but it increases rapidly with speed. Something like double the speed quadruples the drag. Cobra's were not going anywhere fast so it did not matter. If they really wanted AH-56 zipping around the countryside, over distances, I think they would stay with the aeroshelled three shot.
Click to expand...
Drag goes up with the square of the increase in speed, IIRC.

And yeah, that makes sense that they'd stick with the aeroshelled 3 shot over the big open draggy quad pack if the Cheyenne was still zooming around at speed.
 
yasotay said:
Thanks Abraham on the rotor. Another factor may have been spotting the AH-56 next to the island although I doubt it. As you alude to the length of the aircraft might have been undesireable to the USMC for operations. It might also have been a center of gravity issue for the aircraft (USN does not like AH-64 on their decks cause they pip over to easy). I suspect complexity and cost were foremost the issue for the USMC who at that point were still into "hand-me-downs" and whatever funds the USN elected to throw thier way. While the AH-56 was fast, the AV-8 was faster, although warloads might have gone to the Cheyenne in the early days (pre-AV-8B). Not an expert here but I think AV-8 was the twinkle in the USMC eye at the time.
Click to expand...
USMC AV-8A: The House of Representatives authorized procurement on September 20, 1969 and the contract for the first 12 (to be delivered during FY 1971-72) was signed on December 23, 1969.
The first USMC machine (Bu No 158384, the 62nd production single-seat Harrier) was flown for the first time on November 20, 1970.
 
TomS said:
The Marines do have their KC-130s, but those aren't really for strategic deployments either -- too slow to keep pace with a stream of fast jets over long distances, for starters.
Click to expand...
Sorry... the Marines DO use their KC-130s to deploy squadrons overseas... as one example, VMA(AW)-242, flying A-6E Intruder all-weather medium-attack aircraft deployed from MCAS El Toro in southern California to MCAS Iwakuni, Japan in April 1984. While most of the support personnel (myself included) flew over in a contracted Arrow Air DC-8, selected maintenance personnel (with tools and parts) flew in KC-130s along with the A-6Es cross the Pacific, conducting multiple aerial refueling operations (and doing some island-hopping as well) along the way.

Yes, the KC-130s would take off, the A-6Es would take off a couple of hours later, refueling would be done when necessary, then the A-6Es would move ahead to land at the next stop, with the KC-130s arriving a couple of hours later.

6 months later, the operation was carried out in reverse.

Contrarily, in January 2017 VMFA-121, with 16 F-35Bs, made a permanent station change from MCAS Yuma, Arizona to MCAS Iwakuni using USAF tanker support for the trip.
 
Thanks for that. I haven't seen it more recently but maybe they're still doing it. Seems kinda painful to drag a bunch of Hornets across the ocean with a KC-130.

Here's a more recent deployment of Hornets that used AFRES KC-135s for the Transatlantic drag but also have KC-130 support in theater.

www.armadainternational.com

US Marine Corps F/A-18C Hornets Deploy to Poland for Air Policing - Armada International

On the 78th Anniversary of ‘D-Day’ 6 June 1944, the Boeing F/A-18C Hornets of US Marine Corps Squadron VMFA-323 began their deployment to Lask air base in Poland.
www.armadainternational.com www.armadainternational.com
 
KC-130's drag MV-22B across the Pacific on a semi-regular basis. Several of the deployments to Australia have been done that way.
 
yasotay said:
KC-130's drag MV-22B across the Pacific on a semi-regular basis. Several of the deployments to Australia have been done that way.
Click to expand...

Makes more sense, given the speeds involved. Wouldn't the most efficient cruise speed for a fast jet transit be significantly higher than for the KC-130, while the MV-22 and KC-130 are more similar?
 
I imagine the fast jets cruise more efficiently at FL20 and above. Most likely use KC-135 for deployment.
MV-22B can fly up to FL20, however the crew has to use supplemental oxygen and can only stay at that altitude for a limited period due to physiological factors associated with a non-pressurized aircraft. They usually spend their time at FL10 I imagine.

It would have been interesting to see how the AH-56 would have been treated for self-deployment. With ample space for ferry fuel, and an ability to do a rolling take-off, it is possible it might have been able to self-deploy to Europe.
 
yasotay said:
It would have been interesting to see how the AH-56 would have been treated for self-deployment. With ample space for ferry fuel, and an ability to do a rolling take-off, it is possible it might have been able to self-deploy to Europe.
Click to expand...
The early marketing literature sure suggested that the Cheyennes could self-deploy to Europe using 6x fuel tanks.

But I think a later cost savings measure removed the fuel tank plumbing from the wing stores entirely, which I don't understand at all. Unless the design specs didn't require that self-deployment ability.
 
Scott Kenny said:
The early marketing literature sure suggested that the Cheyennes could self-deploy to Europe using 6x fuel tanks.

But I think a later cost savings measure removed the fuel tank plumbing from the wing stores entirely, which I don't understand at all. Unless the design specs didn't require that self-deployment ability.
Click to expand...
Scott Kenny said:
The early marketing literature sure suggested that the Cheyennes could self-deploy to Europe using 6x fuel tanks.

But I think a later cost savings measure removed the fuel tank plumbing from the wing stores entirely, which I don't understand at all. Unless the design specs didn't require that self-deployment ability.
Click to expand...
Wow, that would be one arduous flight!

Regards
Pioneer
 
Accept it would likely not have had the power available for~225 knot for the first few hours of the mission due to large fuel weight. H-60 with 4 external tanks only had power for 80 knots for the first few hours.
 
yasotay said:
Accept it would likely not have had the power available for~225 knot for the first few hours of the mission due to large fuel weight. H-60 with 4 external tanks only had power for 80 knots for the first few hours.
Click to expand...
How much weight did the wings take off the rotors at say, 150kn? Because if you can get 80%** of the weight off the rotors by 150kn, I don't see any reason that it couldn't cruise at 225kn all the way there.

** Apparently they could completely unload the rotor but if they kept some weight on the rotor they had less drag.
 
@Scott Kenny - You could be right as compound helicopters are a bit different. The question is likely, did they have the power and drive train limits to get to 150 knots with deployment fuel weight.
 
yasotay said:
@Scott Kenny - You could be right as compound helicopters are a bit different. The question is likely, did they have the power and drive train limits to get to 150 knots with deployment fuel weight.
Click to expand...
Would be a fun question to experiment with...

Think we could get one of the AH-56s DRMO'd so we can play with it?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom