Lockheed Cheyenne in service

The issue with a mast-mounted sight or one just below and ahead of a rotor would again be the limited viewing angles looking downwards. It isn't an ideal location for sighting the 30mm turret from. The gunner could keep the daytime direct-view sight under the turret. but considering how much thermal imaging systems cost back then I don't think there would be the money for two.

It's possible a mast-mounted sight wouldn't work well on high-speed Cheyenne. It could cause handling issues and I've no idea how it would interact with the rigid rotor design. I suppose future test flights would have to determine if it could work.

Scott Kenny said:
I was thinking that in ~15 years of development, the MMS sensors would have been reduced in size/weight enough that the Longbow radar plus the EOTS would be the same weight overall.

And then when MUMT and the UCAR started becoming a thing, the sensors would have gotten enough lighter again that you could stuff the MUMT datalinks on top of the Longbow radar. (Major issue with the Apache Guardian, it can either carry the Longbow radar OR the MUMT datalinks, not both at the same time.)
Click to expand...
Even on a more conventional helicopter I'm not sure if stacking a mast-mounted electro-optical sight and Longbow radar would be possible. Or the Longbow and MUMT for that matter. Though maybe with enough work you could combine both of those latter systems into one sensor package of about the same volume/weight as the current Longbow radar.

By the 1980s the Army seemed a convert to the idea of two engines and a new variant of the Lycoming T55 seems like the obvious candidate, but are there any other potential candidates?
 
Colonial-Marine said:
The issue with a mast-mounted sight or one just below and ahead of a rotor would again be the limited viewing angles looking downwards. It isn't an ideal location for sighting the 30mm turret from. The gunner could keep the daytime direct-view sight under the turret. but considering how much thermal imaging systems cost back then I don't think there would be the money for two.
Click to expand...
Remember that we're talking design starting in 1985 for adoption in about 1998. And IIRC Apaches got a pilots thermal about the same timeframe.


Colonial-Marine said:
It's possible a mast-mounted sight wouldn't work well on high-speed Cheyenne. It could cause handling issues and I've no idea how it would interact with the rigid rotor design. I suppose future test flights would have to determine if it could work.
Click to expand...
Technically the mast mounted sight is only run up the center of a hollow tube that the engines spin and the rotor is bolted to. So there's probably a set of bearings between the MMS and the actual rotor mast (I haven't seen how the OH-58D is set up).

As far as aerodynamics go it may take some reshaping over the Kiowa Warrior's "flying eyeball" to reduce drag.


Colonial-Marine said:
Even on a more conventional helicopter I'm not sure if stacking a mast-mounted electro-optical sight and Longbow radar would be possible.
Click to expand...
That was kinda an "as long as I'm dreaming, gimme all the toys" option.

If I only get one I want the Longbow radar.


Colonial-Marine said:
Or the Longbow and MUMT for that matter. Though maybe with enough work you could combine both of those latter systems into one sensor package of about the same volume/weight as the current Longbow radar.
Click to expand...
If the MUMT signals work via MMW datalinks, it'll play nicely enough. You'd just need AESA antennas and a MUMT-to-ASEA translator.


Colonial-Marine said:
By the 1980s the Army seemed a convert to the idea of two engines and a new variant of the Lycoming T55 seems like the obvious candidate, but are there any other potential candidates?
Click to expand...
I didn't see anything else in the right power level (~2000-2500hp).
 
I suspect by the 1980s we might have seen a 'Hind-killer' variant of the Cheyenne with Sidewinders and Stingers as well as cannon and some kind of IRST/radar sensor package.
 
Hood said:
I suspect by the 1980s we might have seen a 'Hind-killer' variant of the Cheyenne with Sidewinders and Stingers as well as cannon and some kind of IRST/radar sensor package.
Click to expand...
I'd bet we'd see Sidearms on all the Cheyennes. (Such a gloriously underused weapon. A cheap, lightweight, fairly fast, short ranged ARM that needs about as much wiring on a plane or helicopter as a Sidewinder.)

How dare that Zeus-23 light me up with his radar! Eat Sidearm, [expletives deleted]! Now that my radar detector isn't screaming my ear off, I can shoot you with a couple of Hellfires.

But yes, I think the Cheyenne would make a very scary helicopter to dogfight against. Able to make slashing attacks and keep the gun turret on target for a long time. You'd need to install a better sight for the gun, computing deflection lead is not easy.
 
Hood said:
I suspect by the 1980s we might have seen a 'Hind-killer' variant of the Cheyenne with Sidewinders and Stingers as well as cannon and some kind of IRST/radar sensor package.
Click to expand...

I remember that there were mock dogfights between AIM-9 armed AH-1 Cobras and A-10 Warthogs, and that the Cobras hold their ground, virtually shooting at least two. Now imagine the Cheyenne. Hey this remind me of Blue Thunder when at the end of the movie the super-dupper-chopper kills a couple F-16s send to down him. Oh drats, imagine Blue Thunder with Cheyennes, as the US Army very own Top Gun...
 
Archibald said:
I remember that there were mock dogfights between AIM-9 armed AH-1 Cobras and A-10 Warthogs, and that the Cobras hold their ground, virtually shooting at least two. Now imagine the Cheyenne. Hey this remind me of Blue Thunder when at the end of the movie the super-dupper-chopper kills a couple F-16s send to down him. Oh drats, imagine Blue Thunder with Cheyennes, as the US Army very own Top Gun...
Click to expand...
That was the movie Fire Birds. Volleyball game and all.
 
Yellow Palace said:
There does seem to have been a notion of putting AIM-7 on the contemporary S-67 Blackhawk.
Click to expand...
I imagine this as an upgrade program in the early 90s. Which would be interesting to see if the AA capabilities of the US Army ground forces were increased.

That's also interesting, because any successor to the AH-56 should appear in sometime between 2010 and 2015. It would depend a lot on how it would turn out and whether it would find the same number of buyers as the AH-64.
 
RedLegion said:
I imagine this as an upgrade program in the early 90s. Which would be interesting to see if the AA capabilities of the US Army ground forces were increased.
Click to expand...
Debatable, because the USAF would hate to give the Army any AA capabilities at all.

I'm assuming Sidewinders would be barely acceptable, since those have a known air-to-ground mode. Though IIRC Sidewinder capability really comes from Sidearm capability, and those are "I know that Zeus did not just light my ride up with a radar... (BOOM!!!)" tools. I imagine that any helo pilot with Sidearms would be positively twitchy on their trigger, soon as the RWR chirps and the Sidearm growls, trigger is pulled.

I suspect that any development for carrying Sparrows or AMRAAMs would come from the Navy and/or Marines, not the Army. Which would mean that the Army would get the capability only to preserve common avionics between everyone.




RedLegion said:
That's also interesting, because any successor to the AH-56 should appear in sometime between 2010 and 2015. It would depend a lot on how it would turn out and whether it would find the same number of buyers as the AH-64.
Click to expand...
I suspect that the replacement for the Cheyenne would end up as a tiltrotor. Equal or greater speed, greater tactical range. Something that could escort the Osprey (and the Marines would cheer loudly to have that).

As to number of buyers, well, the US buying thousands of AH56s in the 1970s would mean that thousands of low-hour AH1s would be available. So I think there would be lots more countries, that had bought surplus AH1s in the 1970s, that would be interested in buying the new hotness. Or that would at least be interested in buying high-time but freshly overhauled AH56s. Didn't the UK go straight for buying AH64Ds, skipping the earlier versions? Same idea (yes, I know the UK bought brand new).
 
Yellow Palace said:
There does seem to have been a notion of putting AIM-7 on the contemporary S-67 Blackhawk.
Click to expand...
10-jpg.732422

s-67-blackhawk-4-jpg.50519

(h/t starviking & hesham)
 
Wild Weasels by the US Army, especially since in the initial phase of GW, OH-58 and AH-64 were used to destroy Iraqi radars. I am surprised by such surveillance of all air defense capabilities by the USAF.

Knowing their malice, they will accept in this TL a two-seater version of the A-10, and later they will complain that they cannot withdraw them.
 
RedLegion said:
Wild Weasels by the US Army, especially since in the initial phase of GW, OH-58 and AH-64 were used to destroy Iraqi radars. I am surprised by such surveillance of all air defense capabilities by the USAF.

Knowing their malice, they will accept in this TL a two-seater version of the A-10, and later they will complain that they cannot withdraw them.
Click to expand...
Not so much Wild Weasel missions as having a weapon that chases down ZSU-23s and the mobile SAM TELARs (SA-8, SA-9).

This would be more akin to a Hornet or A-6 carrying a HARM "just in case", not a dedicated Prowler/Growler mission.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom