uk 75

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
27 September 2006
Messages
6,434
Reaction score
6,882
As some of you will know I inhabit a version of the 1970s where all my favourite stuff entered service.
One of these is the AH56 Cheyenne helicopter.
This machine looks futuristic even half a century later.
 

Attachments

  • lockheed_cl1700_profile_by_alanqua_d30z1fc-414w~2.jpg
    lockheed_cl1700_profile_by_alanqua_d30z1fc-414w~2.jpg
    9.9 KB · Views: 45
  • 012676dc11451727a5fe0c68746d2609~2.jpg
    012676dc11451727a5fe0c68746d2609~2.jpg
    23.6 KB · Views: 43
The AH64 and later versions of Army and Marine AH1 look tough. The Army has those flat, bullet-proof windows and the Marine AH1s look like they've been on the 'roids. This tough look is where they derive their coolness.

The Cheyanne looks fragile, particularly with its huge glasshouse canopy, not as if it would hang around to duke it out with the opposition.
 
Leaving aside my flippant remarks about the AH56s lack of coolness, IIUC it was badly specc'd for the roles it would be expected to undertake by the early 70s when it was expected to enter service. There was a perception, rightly or wrongly, that considered the AH56 akin to the USAF A10 and the USMC Harrier, meanwhile the emerging role of attack helicopters was that of anti-tank. The British undertook exercise Hell Tank in 1966 and 1967, and the US undertook a similar exercise in 1972. These showed low level tank hunting was effective whereas IIUC the AH56 flew fast (for a helicopter) at medium altitude and dived onto its targets, perfect for the SA-6/ZSU-23 combo to chop to pieces.
 
Aside from Ka-52 and EC665 there isn't a single good looking attack helicopter in service anywhere.
The Ka-52 and EC665 are good looking? Riiight. I'm going to have to vigorously disagree with you on those judgements.
 
It looks like a Rockwell Bronco, which is a great little Co-In aircraft, but a bit fragile looking for an attack helicopter.

An Apache or AH1S look like you could hit them with a hammer, it's a tough look.
 

Attachments

  • avbronco_01.jpg
    avbronco_01.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 20
The Hughes candidate for the AAH competition started life with a frail looking glass cockpit as did early AH1 Cobras.
I suspect a production Cheyenne would have received a different cockpit canopy too.
 
early AH1 Cobras.

Marine Cobras still have this big glasshouse, but they also have the bulging 'cheeks' and engine fairings/exhaust that gives them a muscular look.

Leaving that aside, IIUC the AH56 was a bit of a dead end by the time it was ready for production. The attack helicopter version of the XB70 or XF108, in the respect that its requirements had been overtaken by events.
 
I think that the single biggest change for the AH-56 as it developed out would be the change from single to twin engines. Witness Sea Cobras, H-60s, H-64s all being twin engine instead of single. That gives a little more survivability when getting shot at, since you can usually keep flying on about 50% power instead of having to land right now.

Which would add a big chunk of weight, the engine armor alone would effectively double. Not quite double if the two engines shared an armored bulkhead between the two bays like the Cobra, double if the engines are widely spread like on the Apache. I suspect that an airframe design converted from single engine to twin would keep the engines close together like on the Cobra, so a little less additional weight there.

But then you need to figure out engines. The T64 is a very light engine for the power, it's 720lbs for ~4000hp, only slightly heavier than the 1500hp T53 engine in the Hueys. My best guess would be a pair of early T55s, as used in early Chinooks (T-55-L-7Bs, 2650hp MIL 2250hp sustained). The T-55-L-7B weighs in about about 570-600lbs. And the increased weight in the transmission for a dual-input box able to handle ~5300hp instead of ~4000. Though it might end up that the twin engines get flat-rated to 2000hp each, and that would save your transmission a little.

Guessing on armor and transmission weight here, you're probably looking at a total of +1500lbs for the twin engine version. ~250lbs more in the engine, 750lbs of armor, 500lbs of stronger transmission.



The Hughes candidate for the AAH competition started life with a frail looking glass cockpit as did early AH1 Cobras.
I suspect a production Cheyenne would have received a different cockpit canopy too.
The Army Cobras got flat armored canopies as part of an attempt to reduce light glints causing detection at ranges where you couldn't otherwise see the helicopter easily. The rounded canopies sent glints everywhere, while the flat canopies only sent glints in a single direction. Since that happened to the (Army) Cobra, the "interim Attack Helicopter", I'd assume that it would happen to the Cheyenne.

IIRC the Marines did not do the flat cockpits because the armored glass was heavy.


The other significant modification I'd expect to see is the use of a dual-weapon nose turret like on later AH-1Gs, with both a 7.62mm Minigun and a 40mm GL, instead of a single-weapon turret with choice of one or the other.



====================

I think the single most interesting part of the Cheyenne is that with their planned number of pylons plumbed for drop tanks, they'd actually be able to self-deploy from the US/Canada to the UK or France. It'd be a very long flight at only ~200 knots (~11 hours), but they could just fly over directly. No need for packing them into cargo aircraft or even tankers for midair refueling (not that I'd expect Army birds to be capable of in-flight refueling). "Hi, heard you needed some more attack helicopters?"

The sheer number of weapons that a Cheyenne could carry would terrify most ground units. 18x TOW missiles plus 6x19shot Hydra rockets (I think. Might be only 6x7 and that would be sad). And that's while carrying two drop tanks. Or Napalm canisters. Or 2x 1000lb bombs. Or another 18x TOWs.

====================

I'm not sure if the Marines would adopt the Cheyenne. Obviously, they paid for Twin Huey/Sea Cobra development so that they'd have two engines over water. But the Army would be getting rid of a whole lot of Cobras for cheap, and it'd be a lot easier on the budget to buy those.

Cheyenne uses the same T64 engines as the H53s, so they already have spare parts for the single-engined version.

But nothing in the Marine inventory uses T55s like I suspect a Twin Cheyenne would use. The CH-46 uses T58s, but those do not have enough power for the Cheyenne. The OV10 uses TPE331s, and those are only 1000hp each. On the other hand, the original Twin Hueys and Sea Cobras were running a PT6 Twinpack and that was the only place the Marines used that engine. So dual T55s would "merely" be an expensive development instead of a logistical no-go.

======================

Side note if the Cheyenne does get deployed: Now there's a whole herd of fairly low-hour AH-1 Cobras available from Uncle Sam's surplus. I bet we'd see a lot more countries with attack helicopters (Europe) if they could have bought cheap Cobras!
 
Cheyenne was IMO a real ground-breaker, with pusher prop to help out with speed and with sizable payload.
If it was developed further, indeed it would not been a long shot to update it with better armor, make it 2-engined, have it carry Hellfires etc.
 
The speed and sizable payload pushed the Cheyanne into the realm of fixed wing attack aircraft, which is why it got embroiled in arguments with the USAF over the role and with USAF and USMC over procurement budgets. This by itself isn't necessarily the end, but as early as 1966 it was being shown that helicopters flying Nap Of the Earth and firing ATGMs from behind trees at tanks was the future for attack helicopters, rather than flying at 200 knots higher up.
 
The speed and sizable payload pushed the Cheyanne into the realm of fixed wing attack aircraft, which is why it got embroiled in arguments with the USAF over the role and with USAF and USMC over procurement budgets. This by itself isn't necessarily the end, but as early as 1966 it was being shown that helicopters flying Nap Of the Earth and firing ATGMs from behind trees at tanks was the future for attack helicopters, rather than flying at 200 knots higher up.

It might be prudent that a weapon system has less limitations.
A high cruise speed means that the unit can arrive faster at the place where it is needed. Timing mattered always, let alone in 20th century warfare. Also, having lift-producing wings and the 'real' propeller to give it forward speed should much improve the mileage vs. the 'normal' helicopters - again leaving the option that attack helicopters must not need to be located very close to the enemy.

I haven't said anything new here, the lessons about the importance of speed and range/mileage/radius were apparent back in ww2, at least when it is about the aircraft. See how much better was the Mosquito vs. a B-25 against a capable air defense, as well as how much greater asset was a P-51 than a Bf 109 or a Spitfire.
 
If the AH-56 Cheyanne had been accepted and then upgraded, I imagine the nose turret would have been replaced with a sensor suite while the belly turret would be fitted with either the M197, M230, or even the Sky Viper.
 
It might be prudent that a weapon system has less limitations.
A high cruise speed means that the unit can arrive faster at the place where it is needed. Timing mattered always, let alone in 20th century warfare. Also, having lift-producing wings and the 'real' propeller to give it forward speed should much improve the mileage vs. the 'normal' helicopters - again leaving the option that attack helicopters must not need to be located very close to the enemy.

I haven't said anything new here, the lessons about the importance of speed and range/mileage/radius were apparent back in ww2, at least when it is about the aircraft. See how much better was the Mosquito vs. a B-25 against a capable air defense, as well as how much greater asset was a P-51 than a Bf 109 or a Spitfire.

What was the AH56s acceleration and deceleration at tree-top height? By the early 70s this was the key performance indicator for tactical success, not how fast it could go at 10,000'.

I'm not saying the AH56 wasn't a technical marvel with heavy armament and great performance. What I'm saying is that the specs it was designed to meet were outdated by the time the AH56 was flying, so that performance wasn't tactically relevant.

Oh, and it's ugly! :)
 
The speed and sizable payload pushed the Cheyanne into the realm of fixed wing attack aircraft, which is why it got embroiled in arguments with the USAF over the role and with USAF and USMC over procurement budgets. This by itself isn't necessarily the end, but as early as 1966 it was being shown that helicopters flying Nap Of the Earth and firing ATGMs from behind trees at tanks was the future for attack helicopters, rather than flying at 200 knots higher up.
I'm pretty sure there's videos of an AH56 doing 180+ dodging junipers, cactus, and hills...
 
I'm pretty sure there's videos of an AH56 doing 180+ dodging junipers, cactus, and hills...

Like an A10 or Harrier?

By 1971 a helicopter was hovering behind some trees, firing, then scooting off to the next lot of trees, hill or whatever bit of ground cover and looking for its next target.

I'm reminded of the T55 vs Centurion in the Middle East wars. While the T55 had a much higher top speed the Centurion was just as quick 0-20mph, so was able to make the quick, short-distance bounds from position to position just as well as the faster T55.
 
Like an A10 or Harrier?

By 1971 a helicopter was hovering behind some trees, firing, then scooting off to the next lot of trees, hill or whatever bit of ground cover and looking for its next target.
Mostly because the TOW missile needed the firer to stay put till the missile hit, then GTFO.


I'm reminded of the T55 vs Centurion in the Middle East wars. While the T55 had a much higher top speed the Centurion was just as quick 0-20mph, so was able to make the quick, short-distance bounds from position to position just as well as the faster T55.
Yes, there's a reason the MBT-70 was built with a very quick 0-20, to jump between different positions.

And then the computer dudes figured out how to pack an entire USN cruiser or DD gunfire computer into a single box, able to fit into the equivalent of a single compartment on a warship.
 
What was the AH56s acceleration and deceleration at tree-top height?
Are these figures publicly available?
By the early 70s this was the key performance indicator for tactical success, not how fast it could go at 10,000'.
Whole a lot of assumptions there.

I'm not saying the AH56 wasn't a technical marvel with heavy armament and great performance.

It was indeed a marvel, and as such it was deserving of the support by the US military.


What I'm saying is that the specs it was designed to meet were outdated by the time the AH56 was flying, so that performance wasn't tactically relevant.

Disagreed.

Oh, and it's ugly! :)
Nobody cares :)
 
This by itself isn't necessarily the end, but as early as 1966 it was being shown that helicopters flying Nap Of the Earth and firing ATGMs from behind trees at tanks was the future for attack helicopters, rather than flying at 200 knots higher up.

Hide-and-peek was a reasonable tactic until tank gunnery computers were taught the ballistics for hitting helis with APFSDS. There's no real defence against a tungsten dart at Mach 4 except to keep moving.
 
Back
Top Bottom