quote:

Originally posted by ErichG2:
Thread for OH58 Kiowa posts

Just one thread for each helicopter? I mean, the WOFT thread is tedious enough to find information in, and guys keep asking the same questions in that thread and in new ones. I can't imagine how the aircraft threads will read after a year or two.

Seriously, isn't there a better way to try to accomplish this? I just don't see the need for any of these aircraft-specific threads to be pinned to the top of the list.

My $0.02

Since it is here, I found a better use for this thread...ARH Updates!! We're the only ones who really care about what this aircraft will become.

I found this on Rotorhub today, courtesy of Google News Alerts:

quote:

Bell executives here were defensive about the future of the ARH 70 following the Nunn McCurdy cost and schedule breech announcement last week. Bob Kenney, Executive VP Government Projects, said that Bell’s ARH is still the aircraft for the US Army on the four counts it has got to answer: is it essential to national security; are there equal products in the market for less cost; are the new cost estimates credible; and is the management structure between the army and industry up to the task to see the project through. “We now have to calculate the total cost of the programme having reached the next decision level,” said president and CEO Richard Millman. He said that more was now known about the ARH mission requirement and that the US Army could not accept FAA certification.

Source

Sounds like the Army is going to have to change the QMR again. Seems they can't accept FAA certification, or they've learned the downfall of FAA certification with the UH-72. It's not like they're really going to be able to reclaim some cost out of these aircraft when we get through with them. I'm flying some of the oldest since the last refit/rebuild birds in the fleet, and we've rode them hard, wrung them out, and put them away wet. Some of that is figurative and some of that is literal. But the Army has a snowball's chance in hell of having feasible aircraft for reselling to GA or industry when we're done with them. I don't care how soon the next Comanche comes along.

And then this bit from Flight International, also courtesy of Google News Alerts:

quote:

The company’s decision to re-focus its commercial product line on the 206L4, 407, 412 and 429 was based on market feedback, but has also helped to create additional manufacturing capacity. On the military side Bell has significant pressures to deliver, both on the ARH programme and the H-1 upgrade programme for the US Marine Corps (USMC).

The decision to relocate final assembly and the militarisation for the ARH-70A to Fort Worth from Mirabel in Canada was a key decision in improving the efficiency of the programme. The US Army briefly halted the programme in 2007 citing cost and schedule overruns.

Millman says: “What we have been able to do is put all the right people together in one place – the engineers, the production guys and the quality team, all in one building. The militarisation changes are significant.” Bell expects low rate initial production (LRIP) of the ARH-70A to begin next year.

Source

They're sure confident. I'll be keeping my ear to the ground for any remarks from the Limited User Test (LUT). I'm very interested on if they've accomplished any modifications to the CAAS to make it more user friendly than it was forecasted to be.

ARH Updates

Courtesy of Google News Alerts:

quote:

Bell has issued a strong defence of its ARH-70A armed reconnaissance helicopter and believes the programme will survive cancellation, the company said at the show yesterday.

The $6 billion programme for the US Army is under severe threat after a recent audit found a 40% cost overrun, sparking a mandatory recertification to confirm that the aircraft remains vital for national security.

Boeing is waiting in the wings with its AH-6 Little Bird if the programme is terminated, despite the aircraft losing out to the Bell 407-based ARH-70A in the initial procurement.

Bell’s head of military programmes Bob Kenney says that programme cost has been affected by two key issues – the complex military ‘missionisation’ and the more rigorous military certification process. But he adds: “Our costs are pretty much exactly where they were a year ago.”

Kenney says he expects the programme review to be completed well before the end of the year. Under examination will be whether an alternative aircraft can offer equal capability for lower cost, whether new cost estimates are credible and whether the right management structure is in place to prevent future cost overruns. Bell says the current unit cost of the ARH-70A is $9.5 million, in 2005 dollars.

Source

and:

quote:

FARNBOROUGH, England — Senior Bell Helicopter officials say it’s not clear how the Army came up with the soaring cost estimates that have forced a high-level Pentagon review of the company’s armed reconnaissance helicopter program.

The average cost Bell has quoted the Army to build 512 ARH-70 armed scout helicopters, about $9.5 million each, has not changed since the last crisis point in the program, in April 2007, said Bob Kenney, executive vice president of military programs.

Army acquisition officials have notified the Pentagon and Congress that they now estimate that the cost of building the helicopters has increased 27 percent in that time.

Based on those estimates, the program violates the Nunn-McCurdy Act, a decade-old law that aimed to curtail out-of-control cost increases on weapons programs. The law requires the Pentagon to conduct an extensive review of cost estimates and determine whether the program is vital to national security and whether costs can be controlled.

The law also requires the service, in this case, the Army, to analyze whether it can find a cheaper helicopter that can perform the same mission.

Kenney said the Army probably won’t cancel Bell’s contract and buy a helicopter from another manufacturer.

"If the Army intended to terminate the program they wouldn’t continue the Nunn-McCurdy process," Kenney said, adding that he doubts that the service could find a competing helicopter to perform the required missions equally well and at lower cost.

"That’s been looked at and investigated before," Kenney said.

Source

Funny how they call it a two-decades old aircraft. Try four-decades old for most airframes. Two decades since the last tear-down and rebuild!

We've got the block 2 mod on most of our aircraft. Some little things here and there that can be called lessons learned, but overall it's a pretty good thing. We've shaved some weight and shifted the cg forward a little, which is great. The pages are reorganized, which is only a little bit confusing at first. I like the slew functionality, although it's limited. The NP limit changed again, see change 2 for that. Bottom line, though: These aircraft are old and real tired, and we need something sooner rather than later that can do the job and then some, because there's no shortage of work for us.

Anyone know anything about CDS5?

Hey everyone, I have a question....Is anyone else having problems with disc packs spreading and cracking repeatedly? Even when the alignment is good?

NEver saw that on 60's (excessively), and I haven't even heard of that here at Rucker. I'm not a mechanic anymore but everytime I preflight I look at the disc packs, and over the last 6 months I haven't seen anything that caught my eye.

quote:

Originally posted by johvan:
NEver saw that on 60's (excessively)

AMMCOM has gotten involved and has sent there own Techs out to see what is going on. We had to replace everything from disc pack #1 all the way to the T/R gearbox on one acft here today.

We're not seeing it right now. Come to think of it, I've only heard of that happening once in the last year or so here.

quote:

Originally posted by johvan:
Anyone know anything about CDS5?

Do a Google Search for "OH-58D Kiowa Warrior Life Support 2020".

Looks like the Army is going with the UH-72A Lakota as a new scout. I think it's too big and not agile enough. What do you guys think?

quote:

Originally posted by johndoe31533:
Looks like the Army is going with the UH-72A Lakota as a new scout. I think it's too big and not agile enough. What do you guys think?

The Lakota is not replacing the Kiowa.

I think johndoe's comment is in reference to Eurocopter offering the AS 645 for the next round of ARH. Eurocopter envisions it as some sort of Lakota Warrior.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Crazyhorse30,

What does anyone think of something with Sikorsky X2 technology as the next aerial scout?

I think its not going to matter, we are a dying breed. The shift is occurring, we will be replaced by UAVs or armed helicopters with big guns and good sights. But we might get a F model right? Eventually its going to be cost effective to upgrade because we are running out of 58s. By the time they have decided to upgrade us, we will be down to 2 squadrons of helicopters in 2020. Armed UAVs, cheap and effective and the Air Force markets better and will get more money for their UAVs. I am not happy about it nor do I think its going to work, but I think the writings on the wall that I will probably finish my career in a 58. I have 12 years left, I think a high school to flight school WO1 will not. Interim doesn't mean 40 years. But we will see hope I am wrong, I hate learning.

Technically, interim means temporary. In the Army's use, it meant that the OH-58D would be used until something better was able to be procured. The Army has tried twice and failed, and I think it is safe to say that we are no longer "interim", by either the Army's intent in using the word or by the word's definition.

I believe that the idea of conducting a combat operation without spending lives is ludicrous from a military standpoint, and should be considered a great danger from a diplomatic viewpoint. When there is no risk of loss of life, there will be less aversion to sending in the "troops".

The desire should be to prevent needless casualties, which is usually more our own fault than any enemy's (habitually...unfortunately). If the reason for UAS is to prevent risking lives, then it makes even more sense statistically to go unmanned in lift before we go unmanned in attack and reconnaissance; there are more lives at risk, more often. Still, I don't feel you can get there from here as unmanned. Now, when infantry becomes unmanned, then we can probably afford to go with unmanned aircraft.

The risks of seeing unmanned-only as the wave of the future is to ignore the lessons learned elsewhere in replacing human assets with technology. From my perspective, a loss of 3D perception of the battlefield by viewing everything in 2D images, and a loss of the capability to think outside of a fixed set of parameters--the ability to rewrite what was supposed to happen into what needs to happen which results in fantastic displays of courage, heroism, and airmanship--would be the more critical loss.

There are other reasons I can tell you of why replacing our community, our breed, with UAS would prove to be a mistake, but they are not for this forum. Don't get me wrong, UAS are here to stay. However, the wave of the future should be more effective manned/unmanned teaming, rather than the mistake of replacing manned aircraft with unmanned.

quote:

Originally posted by Crazyhorse30:
If the reason for UAS is to prevent risking lives, then it makes even more sense statistically to go unmanned in lift before we go unmanned in attack and reconnaissance; there are more lives at risk, more often. Still, I don't feel you can get there from here as unmanned. Now, when infantry becomes unmanned, then we can probably afford to go with unmanned aircraft.

Sometimes, I come back and read my stuff later, and I am amazed at what I miss in the proofreading. So, let me correct myself. Unmanned lift would continue to put more lives at risk more often for the same reasons I believe it would be remiss to replace manned scout aircraft.

For scouts, it is the sterility of the term reconnaissance that lends to the replacement argument. If you simply called us what we are, scouts, and left the whole ISR term to the MI geeks and their assets, perhaps we wouldn't endure this debate. Not to mention that the argument for total replacement can only exist in the current tactical environments with such permissive airspace.

In the minds of senior commanders and civilian authorities, I imagine that because they get better video from newer airframes, they somehow view our airframe and mission as obsolete. But a scout provides things that UAS cannot, no matter how technologically advanced we make them. While it may seem to cost less in lives to replace manned scouts with an unmanned reconnaissance aircraft, the cost that will be realized is far greater in the lives of troops lost on the ground.

A man in the air, with as much to lose as a man on the ground, shares a bond with him. The scout mission, aggressively executed, provides as much to the morale on the ground, as it does information to the commander. Much less so for some remotely piloted bird with little or no risk to its operator.

CH, I agree with everything you said. I don't think its in the best benefit of the Army or GFC to remove the human factor. Everyone has worked with UAS that can't find anything because they don't know what they are looking for. I also know that when a GFC can see it, suddenly the same thing you see everyday becomes really important because they have an image they are looking at. I think at the very least UAS teaming is here to stay.
You brought up UAS lift, not only would I never get in one, I wouldn't want to support that AA. I hope never, but hey 30 years ago who would have thought you were trusting a guy in Las Vegas to provide CAS in the AO.
The bidding is open again, I am thinking 64s/UAS are getting some more money. We will get nothing. Same old same. We will see in 2010.

PSU,

We have money going to the OH-58D. Kiowa Warrior Life Support 2020 has been rolled into another program with a better name. I may or may not see the end result of it, but you most likely will. Have patience and keep the faith. Our only requirements are to be professional, and accurate in our reporting.

Sikorsky X2 Light Tactical Helicopter (LTH). LHX reborn, anyone?