Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne and derivatives

LowObservable said:
"Aphis" sounds like a reporter's screw-up of Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS).

Absolutely correct, as "aphis" was the popular pronunciation of the AAFSS acronym at the time.
 
Thanks for clarifying this. I guess Lockheed would have properly publicized an inhouse name if ever there had been one, which was not the case here.
 
There is plenty of speculation on the potential development of the AH-56 earlier in this topic, but would American attack helicopter tactics have still moved in the direction they did if the AH-56 was adopted? As opposed to "sniping from a treeline" with Hellfires would the Army try to stick with a more aggressive attack helicopter doctrine against a well-armed opponent (Soviets)? I don't see a way that could be made to work, without heavy losses however.

Also, where any specific engine models considered for variants with twin engines? Could you expect at least 4000 shp? (which I believe is the total the engines on the Block III AH-64 generate)
 
Colonial-Marine said:
There is plenty of speculation on the potential development of the AH-56 earlier in this topic, but would American attack helicopter tactics have still moved in the direction they did if the AH-56 was adopted?

I am of the idea that good concepts always get their chance in time. Faster and more agile attack helicopters will always be in demand, that's for sure. And I wouldn't be surprised if something quite similar to the Cheyenne concept eventually ends up in operational service.
 
From the ARC Air Discussion Forums:
http://www.arcforums.com/forums/air/lofiversion/index.php?t168813.html

From US Militaria Forum:
http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t23439.html

From Anigrand:
http://www.anigrand.com/AA2085_AH-56.htm
 

Attachments

  • AH-56devel0061.jpg
    AH-56devel0061.jpg
    138.3 KB · Views: 363
  • AH-56018_1280x877.jpg
    AH-56018_1280x877.jpg
    104.1 KB · Views: 326
  • AH-56040_1280x800.jpg
    AH-56040_1280x800.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 312
  • AH-56024_1280x872.jpg
    AH-56024_1280x872.jpg
    93.8 KB · Views: 343
  • lok_cheyenne.gif
    lok_cheyenne.gif
    23.3 KB · Views: 324
  • AA2085_AH-56_real_2.jpg
    AA2085_AH-56_real_2.jpg
    26.1 KB · Views: 281
From Code One magazine website.

Cheyenne Salvo

A test pilot flying one of the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne attack helicopters fires a salvo of 2.75-inch unguided Folding Fin Aerial Rockets, or FFARs, during a test circa 1967. The heavily armed Cheyenne could carry 2,100 pounds of ordnance, usually listed as 2,010 rounds of 30mm ammunition, 780 rounds of 40mm ammunition, two FFAR pods holding thirty-eight rockets each, and six BGM-71 TOW antitank missiles. A total of ten AH-56s were built before the contract was cancelled in 1972. Many of the technologies pioneered by the Cheyenne made their way on to the Army's current AH-64 Apache attack helicopter.

Source:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=1180


Photograph of Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne.

Source:
http://www.scale-rotors.com/forum/topic/cool-helo-shots
 

Attachments

  • 3842.jpg
    3842.jpg
    439.9 KB · Views: 242
  • 2010_11_17_Spotlight_AH56_Rockets_1267828237_7288.jpg
    2010_11_17_Spotlight_AH56_Rockets_1267828237_7288.jpg
    196.7 KB · Views: 247
Fantastic footage! I'm especially impressed by the CL-475 in flight (I'd never seen that before).
Also I'm puzzled that the helicopter demonstrated at Paris-Le Bourget in 1973 is described as a "Model 386" because I'd never heard that designation before (the known variants are either 186 or 286)...
 
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a picture with a caption in French of a model of a proposed Lockheed CL-1026 30 passenger derivative of the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne which must have remained a "project"......

The picture comes from the 15th July 1967 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a picture with a caption in French of a proposed Lockheed CL-1090 90 passenger derivative of the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne which remained a "project"......

The picture comes from the 1st December 1968 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)......
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed CL-1090 Cheyenne commercial derivative project - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    Lockheed CL-1090 Cheyenne commercial derivative project - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    118 KB · Views: 254
Abraham Gubler said:
Johnbr said:
I found this on you tube

Well done!

I second this sentiment ;D

I thought it interesting the comment in the video, which stated - 'That the gun and sight continue to track the target - even when the helicopter is behind the feature' (or something to that effect!)

The XH-51 did seem to have outstanding handling & speed quality's!!

Thanks for sharing

Regards
Pioneer
 
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a article in French about Lockheed's rigid rotor derivatives of the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. Illustrated are the "projects" for the Lockheed CL-1026 30 passenger compound helicopter and the Lockheed CL-879 90 passenger compound helicopter (together with a picture of the CARR Retractoplane CL-945 "project")......

The picture comes from the 15th February 1968 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed rigid-rotor & convertible helicopter projects - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    Lockheed rigid-rotor & convertible helicopter projects - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    202.8 KB · Views: 330
Wow, Terry... These are superb! Would you mind sending me just the three pics in the highest possible dimensions (i.e. not optimized for the forum) by mail? I'd love to have them!
 
Dear Boys and Girls, here is an article in French describing the Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne helicopter and its rigid-rotor; though by this stage it is obviously not a "project"......

The article comes from the 1st July 1967 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)
 

Attachments

  • Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    177 KB · Views: 299
  • Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    172 KB · Views: 328
  • Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    Lockheed AH-56A Cheyenne compound helicopter prototype - Aviation Magazine International - No.jpg
    129.5 KB · Views: 266
Dear Boys and Girls, here is a picture with a caption in French of the "projected" Lockheed Air Commuter passenger derivative of the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne......

The picture comes from the 15th December 1966 issue of Aviation Magazine International......

Terry (Caravellarella)......
 
at this address http://wingsoveriraq.com/ good video in 4 parts of the helicopter AH-56 Cheenne if anyone can put on the site.
 
Thanks for posting the links to those videos. What a shame this helicopter never went into production.

500 Fan.
 
As a retired Army Aviator, I have always been fascinated by the AH-56. I really enjoyed reading the first half of the posts on this thread which were educational. The part that degenerated into a bunch of arguing over un-informed speculation was less than enjoyable. I would like to add that when aircraft are designed a series of compromises are made to achieve the desired performance and capabilities as envisioned at the time it is designed. One of the many aircraft I flew was the AH-1 Cobra (4 different versions), whose ultimate configuration, the AH-1F (and it's tactical employment) were quite different than the original AH-1G used in Vietnam. All the added on equipment of the "F" model seriously reduced the weapons/usable fuel to the point that the aircraft was perceived as ineffective. The AH-56 was designed to meet the "mission" at the time, but the actual employment of the aircraft (and it's onboard systems) would have evolved during it's service life had it been procured. I would have loved to have flown an AH-56 during my career and seen it "mature" in service. The Cobra evolved into a twin engine configuration to support USMC requirements (as did the Huey) and these fine aircraft continue in production today though in small numbers. The Army plan for the AH-56 included up to 1500 aircraft, which is substantially more costly if you "add a second engine" or make changes to the design. So many features of the Cheyenne were cutting edge, that the single engine was likely chosen simply to keep costs down. The Army helicopter fleet of that era was predominately single engine except for large transport aircraft. The Cheyenne died because of bureaucratic wrangling and budgetary pressures just like the MBT-70/XM-803 of the same era and more recently the Comanche and ARH-70 programs. Many "good" programs die this way, with some vague "Deficiency" being cited as the reason. In truth, technological issues are solved on a daily basis. Cheyenne and Comanche would both have been awesome aircraft and I would have enjoyed flying either one had they been produced. Political issues are the root of most cancellations. The Apache was the "winner" in the Army attack helicopter race and it has had a long and distinguished career. I would have loved to have flown it as well.
 
CobrapilotAs an former medevac driver I wish I had the chance to drive snakes, but I think the real reason for the end of the AH-56 was that it too long to develop. I see a similar issue with the F-35 taking too long as well.
Any project that is dragged out too long is going to be subject to this as well.
 
Loren said:
CobrapilotAs an former medevac driver I wish I had the chance to drive snakes, but I think the real reason for the end of the AH-56 was that it too long to develop. I see a similar issue with the F-35 taking too long as well.
Any project that is dragged out too long is going to be subject to this as well.

Good point, although by todays standards, the AH-56 program moved like greased lightning.

It also had to face the results of some overly-optimistic predictions and implacable USAF opposition.
 
F-14D said:
It also had to face . . . implacable USAF opposition.

I've been hearing this since I joined this site. Is there anything in the historical record that documents this?
 
GeorgeA said:
F-14D said:
It also had to face . . . implacable USAF opposition.

I've been hearing this since I joined this site. Is there anything in the historical record that documents this?

Start with the Key West Agreement of 1947.

Latest version of USAF/USA antagonism, read on the C-27J program.
 
I meant specifically on the AH-56A.

Edit: found a few:

A-10A development history (includes Johnson-McConnell agreement):
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a530838.pdf

NDU paper on A-10 development:
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA442118&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf

USMC paper on evolution of armed rotorcraft (claims AH-56 was unable to hover out of ground effect):
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA491890

Good Army history on airpower in Vietnam:
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA460480

USAF history on Army-Air Force cooperation
http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA181943

And what discussion would be complete without the inevitable Wikipedia article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-McConnell_agreement_of_1966
 
GeorgeA said:
F-14D said:
It also had to face . . . implacable USAF opposition.

I've been hearing this since I joined this site. Is there anything in the historical record that documents this?

I would recommend USAF testimony before Congress and position papers to DoD of the time; Armed Forces Journal reports on the program during that period; Air Force Magazine of the time; virtually every history of the program, the emphasis they put on USAF opposition varies with the article, etc. The late, great Jeff Ethell, in a documentary on the A-10 discussed why prior to Gulf War I the A-10 didn't have much support in the USAF and why they were so eager to get rid of it. Basically, he said that one of the biggest reasons USAF pushed the A-10 initially was as a way to kill the AH-56. When Army went out and canceled it on their own, AF really didn't know what they wanted to do with the Warthog.

Initially AF had no position on AH-56, when its mission was originally mooted as just transport helicopter escort. However, when Army also started talking up that it could kill tanks (with TOW) and provide CAS, AF started complaining that that was THEIR role, no one else should be allowed to play (see: armed OV-10). Then, when the Army [foolishly] let it be known that their tests showed that with the pusher in Beta the Cheyenne could fly an excellent and stable dive bomb profile, they went ballistic.
 
F-14D said:
I would recommend USAF testimony before Congress and position papers to DoD of the time; Armed Forces Journal reports on the program during that period; Air Force Magazine of the time; virtually every history of the program, the emphasis they put on USAF opposition varies with the article, etc. The late, great Jeff Ethell, in a documentary on the A-10 discussed why prior to Gulf War I the A-10 didn't have much support in the USAF and why they were so eager to get rid of it. Basically, he said that one of the biggest reasons USAF pushed the A-10 initially was as a way to kill the AH-56. When Army went out and canceled it on their own, AF really didn't know what they wanted to do with the Warthog.

Initially AF had no position on AH-56, when its mission was originally mooted as just transport helicopter escort. However, when Army also started talking up that it could kill tanks (with TOW) and provide CAS, AF started complaining that that was THEIR role, no one else should be allowed to play (see: armed OV-10). Then, when the Army [foolishly] let it be known that their tests showed that with the pusher in Beta the Cheyenne could fly an excellent and stable dive bomb profile, they went ballistic.

Hell, the USAF is still trying to get rid of the A-10. I recommend they not be replaced with F-35s (ROFL...), but instead be transferred to the Army.
 
Sundog said:
F-14D said:
I would recommend USAF testimony before Congress and position papers to DoD of the time; Armed Forces Journal reports on the program during that period; Air Force Magazine of the time; virtually every history of the program, the emphasis they put on USAF opposition varies with the article, etc. The late, great Jeff Ethell, in a documentary on the A-10 discussed why prior to Gulf War I the A-10 didn't have much support in the USAF and why they were so eager to get rid of it. Basically, he said that one of the biggest reasons USAF pushed the A-10 initially was as a way to kill the AH-56. When Army went out and canceled it on their own, AF really didn't know what they wanted to do with the Warthog.

Initially AF had no position on AH-56, when its mission was originally mooted as just transport helicopter escort. However, when Army also started talking up that it could kill tanks (with TOW) and provide CAS, AF started complaining that that was THEIR role, no one else should be allowed to play (see: armed OV-10). Then, when the Army [foolishly] let it be known that their tests showed that with the pusher in Beta the Cheyenne could fly an excellent and stable dive bomb profile, they went ballistic.

Hell, the USAF is still trying to get rid of the A-10. I recommend they not be replaced with F-35s (ROFL...), but instead be transferred to the Army.

AF reportedly tried to give the A-10 to the Army a while back. Problem was the strings attached. The two biggest ones was that Army wouldn't be allowed to build runways at its base to accommodate them, and Army would not be allowed to develop a successor to the 'Hog later on.

Supposedly the USMC also was approached but they turned it down because it wasn't shipboard capable and Marines felt it didn't offer as much to the their mission as the AV-8B (do Not want to go into that kind of discussion here on this topic!).
 
I remember when the USAF was talking of giving the USA A-10s a few years back. I still have an unfinished, OD painted A-10 model waiting on Army decals, etc., to finish. Regarding the statement of the Army not being allowed to build runways, what about Army bases that already have runways? Why couldn't they be based at these bases?


F-14D said:
Sundog said:
F-14D said:
I would recommend USAF testimony before Congress and position papers to DoD of the time; Armed Forces Journal reports on the program during that period; Air Force Magazine of the time; virtually every history of the program, the emphasis they put on USAF opposition varies with the article, etc. The late, great Jeff Ethell, in a documentary on the A-10 discussed why prior to Gulf War I the A-10 didn't have much support in the USAF and why they were so eager to get rid of it. Basically, he said that one of the biggest reasons USAF pushed the A-10 initially was as a way to kill the AH-56. When Army went out and canceled it on their own, AF really didn't know what they wanted to do with the Warthog.

Initially AF had no position on AH-56, when its mission was originally mooted as just transport helicopter escort. However, when Army also started talking up that it could kill tanks (with TOW) and provide CAS, AF started complaining that that was THEIR role, no one else should be allowed to play (see: armed OV-10). Then, when the Army [foolishly] let it be known that their tests showed that with the pusher in Beta the Cheyenne could fly an excellent and stable dive bomb profile, they went ballistic.

Hell, the USAF is still trying to get rid of the A-10. I recommend they not be replaced with F-35s (ROFL...), but instead be transferred to the Army.

AF reportedly tried to give the A-10 to the Army a while back. Problem was the strings attached. The two biggest ones was that Army wouldn't be allowed to build runways at its base to accommodate them, and Army would not be allowed to develop a successor to the 'Hog later on.

Supposedly the USMC also was approached but they turned it down because it wasn't shipboard capable and Marines felt it didn't offer as much to the their mission as the AV-8B (do Not want to go into that kind of discussion here on this topic!).
 
famvburg said:
I remember when the USAF was talking of giving the USA A-10s a few years back. I still have an unfinished, OD painted A-10 model waiting on Army decals, etc., to finish. Regarding the statement of the Army not being allowed to build runways, what about Army bases that already have runways? Why couldn't they be based at these bases?

Well, they could do that, but think about it: How are we going to get the enemy to only operate near those particular bases?. In some cases we might even have to provide transportation for them to CONUS so that we can attack them! ;)
 
F-14D said:
famvburg said:
I remember when the USAF was talking of giving the USA A-10s a few years back. I still have an unfinished, OD painted A-10 model waiting on Army decals, etc., to finish. Regarding the statement of the Army not being allowed to build runways, what about Army bases that already have runways? Why couldn't they be based at these bases?

Well, they could do that, but think about it: How are we going to get the enemy to only operate near those particular bases?. In some cases we might even have to provide transportation for them to CONUS so that we can attack them! ;)

Another piece of the Warthog to the Army legend has it that one of the deal killers was that there were no personnel positions going to the Army with the aircraft. The Army was not ready to rob other organizations within the Army for the number of personnel needed to support the A-10. It is very hard to remove one person from an organization let alone hundreds (witness the pain for the Army now with drawdown). The Army did not have the personnel accounts to support the A-10 and the USAF was darn sure not going to give the Army and of its people.
 
yasotay said:
Another piece of the Warthog to the Army legend has it that one of the deal killers was that there were no personnel positions going to the Army with the aircraft. The Army was not ready to rob other organizations within the Army for the number of personnel needed to support the A-10. It is very hard to remove one person from an organization let alone hundreds (witness the pain for the Army now with drawdown). The Army did not have the personnel accounts to support the A-10 and the USAF was darn sure not going to give the Army and of its people.

Sure but the US Army did/does have independent air combat brigades. Surely these formations could convert some of their attack helicopter battalions to A-10 battalions if they really wanted the plane?
 
Abraham Gubler said:
yasotay said:
Another piece of the Warthog to the Army legend has it that one of the deal killers was that there were no personnel positions going to the Army with the aircraft. The Army was not ready to rob other organizations within the Army for the number of personnel needed to support the A-10. It is very hard to remove one person from an organization let alone hundreds (witness the pain for the Army now with drawdown). The Army did not have the personnel accounts to support the A-10 and the USAF was darn sure not going to give the Army and of its people.

Sure but the US Army did/does have independent air combat brigades. Surely these formations could convert some of their attack helicopter battalions to A-10 battalions if they really wanted the plane?

Who's tankers would they use to deploy A-10s overseas? USN and USMC use their own.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
yasotay said:
Another piece of the Warthog to the Army legend has it that one of the deal killers was that there were no personnel positions going to the Army with the aircraft. The Army was not ready to rob other organizations within the Army for the number of personnel needed to support the A-10. It is very hard to remove one person from an organization let alone hundreds (witness the pain for the Army now with drawdown). The Army did not have the personnel accounts to support the A-10 and the USAF was darn sure not going to give the Army and of its people.

Sure but the US Army did/does have independent air combat brigades. Surely these formations could convert some of their attack helicopter battalions to A-10 battalions if they really wanted the plane?

Remember, Army turned the idea down because of all the strings, so they probably didn't really want the plane. Besides , if they actually were going to give up attack helicopter battalions, they'd be better served (here it comes) by Harriers, which USAF would never let them have. However, I doubt that Army would want to give up the helos anyway.
 
Surely in war conditions the Army could use allied airfields, just like the AF would, so, still, no need to build runways....


F-14D said:
famvburg said:
I remember when the USAF was talking of giving the USA A-10s a few years back. I still have an unfinished, OD painted A-10 model waiting on Army decals, etc., to finish. Regarding the statement of the Army not being allowed to build runways, what about Army bases that already have runways? Why couldn't they be based at these bases?

Well, they could do that, but think about it: How are we going to get the enemy to only operate near those particular bases?. In some cases we might even have to provide transportation for them to CONUS so that we can attack them! ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom