Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 03:11 AM

Good Morning Folks,

To address two questions, First C. Foskey's on destroying all the Comanche, most likely true but somewhere is a shelf full of bankers boxes that contain all the program, design and manufacturing software for the ARH66. As shown in the fall of 06 when the Army decided that it need to make up for combat loses in Abrams, Apache and Bradley, all of which had been out of production for 10 years. a $150 million in money and three months and the lines were ready to roll. I have no doubts that the Comanche is in the same state of hibernation.

To DC-2. With approximately 50% more flag officers in the Pentagon sine 9/11 (about 1000 to now over 1500) I'm sure there is a community with in the Army for the ARH and they are no doubt headed by General officers with air crew wings on their chests. Since the new transformed Army calls for Aviation Battalions at the Regimental/Brigade level rather then the Divisional level that's going to create more aviation MOS's and thus more General officers. UAV's still haven't really got into mother Army yet, the Hunter is still seeing only limited use at Corp and Division levels. The Predator is still not under Army control and the AC-27 is still in the hope and dream stage.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 16, 2009 02:29 PM

Byron,

There have been numerous reports indicating the Army's desire for the ARH, post mortem ARH-70. I think there is a need especially with regards to manned/unmanned air asset integration as Cole mentioned. Currently only the AH-64D(I don't think the 58C has the capability) has that capability. The ARH-70 would still be flying had costs not grown out of proportion to the program.

This aircraft is suppposed to be simple, cheap, and capable. Sounds like what the Comanche and ARH were once envisioned to be. Mission creep has killed those programs.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 15, 2009 07:15 AM

Byron,

Reviving Comanche is not even an option, as they made us quite literally destroy all the tooling.

Posted by: C. Foskey at January 14, 2009 06:07 PM

Good Morning Folks,

All good posts regarding the ARH, but missing the point. First off the Army likes the OH-58D Kiowa, it is the most flown helicopter in Iraq. The Kiowa does it's mission.

Secondly, the ARH program is DEAD. For the mission in Afghanistan the RAH has been replaced by the Predator and with 95 MQ-1C Warriors in production for the Army it is unlikely that there is much interest in reviving the old RAH 66 Comanche or a replacement. The incoming administration has said publicly that the UAV is the future and Sec. Gates seems to by word and action agree with that.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at January 14, 2009 01:26 PM

Cole,

Sorry I forgot you were all Army all the time. FYI, the Virginia boats are being built (2 per year btw max) in lieu of the much more expensive Seawolf boats (2 total built).

So with all of these high locations (forgot Kashmir) I guess we should be willing to pay more for a helicopter. Wouldn't it make more sense to put the assets that are more expensive (47s and 64s) in those few locations like we do now. I can't see where a 58 would serve a purpose that cannot be fulfilled by these two airframes. And I haven't heard of any incidents where the 58 was needed and another air asset wasn't available to take it's place in these locations.

Perhaps if we had more and cheaper ARHs (as envisaged with the now cancelled program) in Iraq that would free up the assets that can operate in hot/hi conditions.

Think about it. The Comanche was cancelled to allow more helicopters to be purchased. Helos such as the 47 and 64.

My point is simple: do everything, everywhere does not equal cheap. And this will just be the beginning of mission creep on this program again.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 14, 2009 08:51 AM

DC2 said:"But this added ceiling in hot conditions is another example of mission creep that inevitiably causes cost to rise and drags development out into infinity."
-----------------------------
Whoa buddy. I know you Navy guys fly around at sea level so don't have to worry about it.

Check out a Jan 2008 Infantry magazine article where an XO described setting up 3 platoon-sized FOBs...all at 8,000' in Afghanistan. Did you see the General getting interviewed on 60 minutes at an FOB over 7,000'?

Then note that Kabul is at 5,900' and can easily be 100 degree F in the summer.

Heh, they are talking about bringing supplies in from the north. That means coming through Salang tunnel, at 3878...METERS altitude. Don't make me list all the other passes with altitudes from 2713 to 3858 METERS altitude. So say somebody needs help from an ARH in one of those passes???

And BTW, the original 4000'/95 was based on mountains of Iran...and was probably an under-requirement. How about the Caucasus mountains in Georgia? We know Taiwan has a tall mountain range down the middle.

And there's more. Say you need to hover out of ground effect in those conditions but that means dropping 500 lbs to do it. So what do you want to give up? All your missiles and an hour of fuel? And what happens if you fly somewhere lower. Now you can carry all your ammo and extra fuel for longer endurance and station time...because you had the capability to also perform at 6K/95.
---------------------------------------------
DC2:"ARH as developed by Bell using the 407 was supposed to be cheap. If they wanted an everything helo they should have kept the Comanche. That thing had all the mission creep the DoD could muster."
----------------------------------------------
Define cheap. Is it $2 billion for a Virginia class sub for shore-only ISR and transport of small SEAL teams? Is it $500 million for a littoral combat ship? How about $84 million for an F-35 purchased in far greater numbers than the ARH or $140 million for an F-22? How about a $72 million V-22?

So you could buy seven $12 million ARH-70s for the cost of one F-35 or six ARH-70s instead of one V-22. Priced a Predator, Reaper, or Global Hawk lately? Double standard for the USAF and Navy vs the Army? Care to guess how little a V-22 can carry in Afghanistan to hover OGE??

Don't know what the deal was with the ARH. Maybe the Comanche cancellation WAS a mistake...but it sure bought a lot of other helicopters. Guess a lot of you don't realize how many insurgents were killed by TF ODIN manned-unmanned teaming in 2007...and by extension, how many IEDs did not kill servicemembers. Manned-unmanned teaming isn't the same without the manned aircraft viewing from a different perspective and helping to find, deter, and attack the threat.

BTW, the Boeing reps claim that 6,000'/95 degrees is equivalent to 14,000' standard day is incorrect. The AH-6S needs more power if it wants to compete and fly in Afghanistan and future mountainous terrain...the AH-64 has already demonstrated it can.

Posted by: Cole at January 13, 2009 09:01 PM

MAC,

Good luck on the paper. Based on our conversations here I am sure you will do quite well.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 13, 2009 02:28 PM

DC2: Heh. Been low profile. I am starting to come out from under a rock disguised as a grad paper. 147 pages (so far)of he**. It is in the hands of my Committee Chairman for supposedly 'final' comments at least until tonight, so I'm getting a short breather.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 13, 2009 10:18 AM

While we are waiting for this to happen...
The req's for the new helo will have changed ten times before you read this.

Posted by: John C at January 13, 2009 09:24 AM

MAC,

Where have you been my friend. Hopefully not hiding under a rock waiting for Obamanation to come of age.

Excellent idea as a baseline for developing the latest and greatest equipment for our servicemen and women today. As a result it will be debunked as garbage by the DoD in favor of something much more complex and convoluted.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 13, 2009 07:25 AM

@ SMSgt Mac

"-Engineers should define the limits of technology."

That sounds like one of the most intelligent things I've heard in a very long time.

Posted by: C. Foskey at January 13, 2009 07:18 AM

Err....make that 'vertical'

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 13, 2009 12:22 AM

Advice to the Army PEO from RAND"S Glenn Kent (AF LTGen RET)
-Engineers should define the limits of technology.
-Experienced operators should define the best balance of characteristics within those limits.
-Those characteristics then define the system.

(Yes, I am citing him a lot these days. - Can't think of a single reason not to)

BTW: All use of key A160 tech goes through one guy, the brilliant Abe Karem. Boeing bought the rights to the A160 application of the tech, and who knows what else, but Karem is working with someone else on the 'C-130 like' verticle lift concept I believe

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at January 13, 2009 12:21 AM

The program that won't die no matter how many times it is cancelled.

I'll bet this one crashes and burns too after it is requirement changed to death.

Posted by: ELP at January 12, 2009 11:30 PM

Ontos,

You are a brilliant man, and the guy that made the initial inferrence on the AH-1 light was equally birlliant (I was one of those guys).

But this added ceiling in hot conditions is another example of mission creep that inevitiably causes cost to rise and drags development out into infinity.

ARH as developed by Bell using the 407 was supposed to be cheap. If they wanted an everything helo they should have kept the Comanche. That thing had all the mission creep the DoD could muster.

What's next, making it able to ingest sea spray? I mean, Army helos have flown off of Navy ships.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 12, 2009 08:21 PM

Comanche easily exceeded the previous ARH requirement of 500 FPM vertical climb @ 4k-95 operating condition in ARH config (4 ATGM missiles, 2 ATA missiles, 320 rds of ammunition and any combat kits installed).

This helo would have been in the field replacing Kiowas right now. The cancellation fees spent killing the RAH-66, the costs of re-bidding the program, and the wasted funding sent to Bell on ARH-70 would have amounted to an overall savings at this point.

What a shame.

Posted by: C. Foskey at January 12, 2009 04:12 PM

"Helicopter Heroism: HOGE Sling Rescue at 18,040 Ft"
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/sar/16859.html

I wonder if some of the A160 technology could work it's way into a new ARH program. After all, "the Hummingbird features a unique optimum speed rotor technology that significantly improves overall performance efficiency by adjusting the RPM of the rotor system at different altitudes, gross weights and cruise speeds. It is designed to fly... at higher altitudes (up to 30,000 feet), and much more quietly than current helicopters."

http://www.gizmag.com/go/4911/

Personally, I still think that "hybrid" manned/unmanned systems will be the future trend... like the MH-6X (MD 530F). Insanity: Though it would be interesting to see an MH-6 with increased shp & a pusher prop. 8)

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/amh-6x.htm
http://www.helinews.com/turbinecomparison.shtml

The earlier article about the X-2 also reminded me of the XH-59 & the AH-56 Cheyenne programs. Ironically, the Cheyenne (while not small) had a HOGE of 6,000 ft @ 95 deg.F (at least according to Wiki), not too shabby for a 1960's aircraft. And apparently the compound design (lower wing & pusher prop) could reduce rotor loading to 20% at high speeds, depending on pitch control... eh, guess good ideas never really go away.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AH-56_Cheyenne

Just had to ramble a bit. :)

Posted by: Camp at January 12, 2009 03:36 PM

Not exactly HOGE, but a Eurocopter landed on Mt Everest in 2005 as an experiment, and in High Altitude Flight Tests, it climbed up to 10990 meters (33500 ft) during the "Time to climb" record attempts in France to evaluate the power of the engine and to check the engine response at very high altitude. From sea level, it managed to climb 3000 meters in 2min 21sec, 6000m in 5min 6 sec and 9000m in 9min 26 sec.

So it is possible to tackle any mountain range, winds and nature being favorable of course, just need to find a way to add the guns and sensor pods.

Posted by: HPC at January 12, 2009 01:22 PM

This was talked about before by someone else on this board, but I still think it's a good idea...

How about a revamped Cobra derivitive? I'm thinking less AH-1W/Z (which would almost fully emulate an Apache, and thus be a waste of money) and more an updated, sensor laden AH-1G.

Light, powerful, manuverable and fast. Keep the old 7.62 minigun in the nose, draw down the pylons to only 2, and use the reserve capacity for sensors. I'm sure you could even do something else with the cockpit to improve visibility.

Posted by: Ontos at January 12, 2009 12:51 PM