# The Apache Longbow



## CanadianBoy92 (24 Dec 2005)

Who thinks that this copter should be put in our fleet of our airforce.   	


Mission
Conducts rear, close, and shaping missions including deep precision strike. Conducts distributed operations, precision strikes against relocatable targets, and provides armed reconnaissance when required in day, night, obscured battlefield and adverse weather conditions.

Entered Army Service
AH-64 (1984); AH-64D (1998)

Description and Specifications
The AH-64 Apache is The Army's heavy division/corps attack helicopter. The AH-64D Longbow remanufacture effort incorporates a millimeter wave fire control radar (FCR), radar frequency interferometer (RFI), fire-and-forget radar-guided HELLFIRE missile and cockpit management and digitization enhancements. The combination of the FCR, RFI, and the advanced navigation and avionics suite of the aircraft provide increased situational awareness, lethality and survivability.
  	Combat mission speed: 	167 mph
  	Combat range: 	300 miles
  	Combat endurance: 	2.5 hours
  	Length: 	49 ft 5 in
  	Mission weight: 	16,600 lbs
  	Armament: 	HELLFIRE missiles, 2.75" rockets and 30mm chain gun
  	Crew: 	2 (pilot and co-pilot gunner)







 We should get some of these aircraft from the US to support our infanteer movements and support.




Bibliography: army fact file  The us army website.


----------



## big bad john (24 Dec 2005)

How do we pay for and get the funds and people to support them?  Please don't  just come up with a wish list, but concrete ideas.  You have been told before.  Please follow the advice you were given.


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (24 Dec 2005)

With Gen Hiller on a shopping spree it wouldn't be that hard to fund them.  Also the support would come from the ground forces when they tell you that they feel safer with those things in the air.  I'm sure we could afford a fleet of 10 combat Helios, and if we can't then thats pretty sad.


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (24 Dec 2005)

CanadianBoy92, I don't think you have a clue what it means to "support" a fleet of attack helicopters. 

Try looking around, absorb some information, formulate a plausible idea, then post a suggestion.

And I mean that as friendly advice.


----------



## CanadianBoy92 (24 Dec 2005)

Do you guys mean "public support" cause if so i dint think the public will have a big fit if we get 10 Helios.





Thanks though for the friendly advice


----------



## PPCLI MCpl (24 Dec 2005)

No, we mean "logistical support."

Also, see my responce to your nuclear submarine post.

It is not a matter of buying coolio kit off the shelf.  The process involved is tedious and time consuming.

Please use the search function, you will find this site bursting with excellent information.


----------



## big bad john (24 Dec 2005)

Support means a logistical tail, i.e. ame's, avionic techs, air weapons techs, etc.. Â parts..... and much more. Â I come from the United Kingdom, where we just activated some Apache Squadrons. Â Let me tell you it took years from when we took position of the aircraft until they were active. Â It cost hundreds of millions of pounds over budget also. Â Something I don't think Canada Â can afford. Â 

Not to be rude but please engage your brains critical thinking a little more and your cut and paste a lot less.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Dec 2005)

I don't think he understands that the next time he is given a Warning he is Banned. He would know that if he read the conduct guidelines.


----------



## Michael OLeary (24 Dec 2005)

canadianboy92,

Not long ago there was a thread in the Air Force forum (http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/35100.0/all.html) where some posters were tossing out their personal choices for CF-18 replacement aircraft without having done any homework on procurement processes or the bigger picture of employment and logistics.

I inserted this post to help them wrap their heads around the most basic level of understanding that these issues exist, and that they are are real world considerations.  Hee it is again for your to add to your list of factors to consider when proposing new equipment ideas for the CF.

Thank you.



			
				Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Wizard,
> 
> before you get into a debate with the pilots comparing two airframes, why don't you lay out your entire appreciation for us:
> 
> ...


----------



## cody630 (29 Jun 2006)

man the apaches have hell fire missles that can destroy abd thank ever made


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Jun 2006)

cody630 said:
			
		

> man the apaches have hell fire missles that can destroy abd thank ever made



STOP NOW WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD!!!


----------



## cody630 (29 Jun 2006)

if you go on google right now you will see the Apache and its fire power we need more than just transport helicopters we need attack helicopter if you don;t like my idea about buy some Apaches you come up with some ideas on what to buy


----------



## Michael OLeary (29 Jun 2006)

cody630,

STOP!

Suck back, reload and start reading.  If you start one more thread, then you will immediately go on a level of the warning system which will not let you post.

If you want to start proposing new aircraft programs, start with these points:

Tasks and roles to be conducted.
Aircrew training requirements.
Aircraft maintenance lifecycle.
Number of airframes required, based on your assessment of tasks.
Expected lifespan of "new" airframes, compared to expectation of available manufacturer and principal nation support.
Requirements and costs to retrain and retool all required maintenance facilities and maintainers.
Infrastructure costs to support new aircraft in all Wing locations.

As you can see, simply comparing statistics or unit costs doesn't quite scratch the surface of what you are proposing....


----------



## The_Falcon (29 Jun 2006)

Holy crap C&P within an hour of registering, is that a record?


----------



## big bad john (29 Jun 2006)

No, unfortunately.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jun 2006)

Some have been banned in less time...


----------



## Franko (29 Jun 2006)

Can you say 5 minutes and 1 post?     :

Regards


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (29 Jun 2006)

I was going to post a suggestion on which helo I'd go for over the Apache.  However, after reading the entire thread I feel a better use of my time would be to tuck my head back into my shell in and watch the rounds come in.

I remember my first warning on these forums about talking out of my butt with no info. to back anything up... good times. :skull:


----------



## Blue Max (29 Jun 2006)

Cody630, since you like using Google and are probable out of school for summer why don't you use the internet to investigate:
1. Why do the US Marines use the AH-1Z?
2. Why is it that the AH-1Z vs Apache would be a better fit for the Canadian armed forces?

Can you answer these questions?


----------



## aesop081 (29 Jun 2006)

Blue Max said:
			
		

> Cody630, since you like using Google and are probable out of school for summer why don't you use the internet to investigate:
> 1. Why do the US Marines use the AH-1Z?
> 2. Why is it that the AH-1Z vs Apache would be a better fit for the Canadian armed forces?
> 
> Can you answer these questions?



How about researching where the money would come from ?

Its nice to want things.....but we have lots to get so prioritize.  We can buy all the Apaches we want...but we also need to get them to where the missions are....for that you need airlift/sealift.  You need people to fly and maintain them...this all costs money and take time.


----------



## Biggins (29 Jun 2006)

Let's get the new kit first then worry about attack choppers.


----------



## Bobbyoreo (29 Jun 2006)

I know I might catch S$%t for this but the kid was just stating what he thinks. I dont think there is any harm in that. I dont think you should ban people for what they say unless its hurtful to others. Just my 2 cents.
Most of us relise that its a more complex issue then just wanting something or pointing to the shiny one and saying thats the one!!! Course...if he has been caught trolling alot and posting nothing but this stuff...I do understand.
Again ..just my 2 cents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2006)

Bobbyoreo said:
			
		

> I know I might catch S$%t for this but the kid was just stating what he thinks. I dont think there is any harm in that. I dont think you should ban people for what they say unless its hurtful to others. Just my 2 cents.
> Most of us relise that its a more complex issue then just wanting something or pointing to the shiny one and saying thats the one!!! Course...if he has been caught trolling alot and posting nothing but this stuff...I do understand.
> Again ..just my 2 cents.



Thanks for the input. Many things happen in the background of which only the Mods are aware. Decisions to ban are not taken lightly, and when it happens it's warranted and done in consultation. Your concern is noted, but the incident is not what you describe and warrants no further discussion here.

Keep the thread on ttrack please.


----------



## GAP (29 Jun 2006)

Between last night and today, I find this Cody is like the little kid that lays down throwing a tantrum saying "gimme gimme". 

Rather than jump on him right away, everybody was pointing him to the threads he needed, and to the rules...he just plum ignored everyone and went on posting new threads in a total "gimme gimme" attitude.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jun 2006)

Please keep the thread on subject.


----------



## Armymatters (3 Jul 2006)

Couple of things I have against the Apache's as a attack helo for the CF:
1. Purchase costs. The AH-64D costs around $56.25 million dollars US, according to the latest prices. Compare that with the AH-1Z SuperCobra price of around $12 million dollars US, the Eurocopter Tiger unit cost of around $36 million dollars US.
2. Maintenance. Apache's are fairly maintenance-intensive machines, especially in desert conditions, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the sort of thing to have helo's sitting on the ground being serviced when they could instead be flying. Also, that maintenance costs a lot of money with the Apache, compared to other machines.
3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Couple of things I have against the Apache's as a attack helo for the CF:
> 1. Purchase costs. The AH-64D costs around $56.25 million dollars US, according to the latest prices. Compare that with the AH-1Z SuperCobra price of around $12 million dollars US, the Eurocopter Tiger unit cost of around $36 million dollars US.
> 2. Maintenance. Apache's are fairly maintenance-intensive machines, especially in desert conditions, like in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not the sort of thing to have helo's sitting on the ground being serviced when they could instead be flying. Also, that maintenance costs a lot of money with the Apache, compared to other machines.
> 3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.



4. Not built by Airbus

5. Not advocated by CASR

6. It would be available in a relatively short time as oposed to 15 years from now


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (3 Jul 2006)

booya


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Jul 2006)

Armymatters said:
			
		

> Couple of things I have against the Apache's as a attack helo for the CF:
> ....
> 3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.



..as opposed to....?


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (4 Jul 2006)

> 3. Surviveability. The Apache is vulnerable to ground fire, as experienced in recent conflicts. For example, in the intial invasion of Afghanistan, at one point, 80% of Apache's in theatre were heavily damaged by ground fire. This is due to the design and purpose of the Apache, which is of a long range standoff tank killer. Operate Apache's in mountainous regions with disparate enemy forces or in urban terrain exposes the Apache to ground fire, and lots of it.



Where did you get this?  Afghanistan was never "invaded" and I don't recall the Apaches taking anything like the damage you claim.

What did happen was that the US Army attempted a mass heliborne attack against armour in Iraq during the initial invasion, resulting in (IIRC) one Apache being shot down and a significant number of others damaged.

As for the Afghan context, you have no idea - as in zero - what you're talking about.

mod:  typo


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (4 Jul 2006)

At the risk of being put on the warning track myself, the AH-64 is the gold standard when it comes to attack helicopters over here.  In fact, its pretty much the only standard.  The UK and Nethelands have them over here.   Instead, we have several squadrons of O&M/PY thieves (aka the Griffon) operating in Canada.  We lack vision and thus we lack capabilty.

Chinooks and Apaches give you capabilities.


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (4 Jul 2006)

+1

As I've pointed out when discussing attack aviation previously, it isn't merely the firepower that counts.  You need a complete sensor suite that makes the aircraft so useful in a variety of operational scenarios.  We used Dutch AHs extensively in theatre for all sorts of things, due mainly to their powerful night vision capability.

There are a variety of aircraft that can do this, but the AH-64 is the standard and is what our Allies are using.  Having said that, I'm not going to hold my breath waiting for Canada to buy any type of attack aviation, let alone Apache Longbow.


----------



## Enzo (4 Jul 2006)

I appreciate the _Longbow_, but there is somewhat of a reputation for being a bit of a hangar queen, not to mention the costs. I find myself looking toward the *AH-1Z* and I'm interested. Bell claims, _*The AH-1Z and UH-1Y have 84% commonality with identical components.*_ The assumption therein would lie with an expectation for commonality with our _Griffons_, this could be an economic supporting point.

I feel an argument in favour of the Bell system could be presented: integration with the current utility/recon fleet; direct support of the upcoming medium/heavy lift vehicles; integration with allied transport (C-17) and maintenance systems; direct support for CF personnel on the ground; anti-air capability; reduced costs per unit in relation to *AH-1D*; limited maintenance integration with current fleet of utility helicopters, and the sensor suite/weapons packages are more than satisfactory.

The *AH-1Z* may not be the dominant helo, as the *Longbow* arguably is, but it could be more than effective in meeting the CFs needs (although that is another issue in itself; politics notwithstanding). 

Bell makes many claims: http://www.bellhelicopter.textron.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm. Peruse and form your own conclusions.


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (4 Jul 2006)

.


----------



## Inspir (4 Jul 2006)

It's to bad the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche project was cancelled. It looked like it would have been a great reconnaissance helicopter.







http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/rah-66.htm


----------



## Enzo (4 Jul 2006)

The _Longbow_ can acquire and fire >:30, great; it was designed to take out as many tanks in the least amount of time as possible while maintaining a high survivability to the crew. The *AH-1Z* may not be up to the same level of capability in this regard, but as an overall system I feel it may have value to the CF for the reasons listed.

In all fairness, I doubt that we'll see an attack helicopter in any form anytime soon, unfortunately, the general public is a tough sell when the words _"attack"_ and _"military"_ are used in the same sentence. It's all about compromises Quagmire, if you think an argument in support of the _Longbow's_ costs and integration are realistic, I'm all in favour of it.


----------



## Enzo (4 Jul 2006)

Follow up for Quagmire:

*Longbow International (a joint venture of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman) is developing the Cobra Radar System for the AH-1Z, based on the Longbow millimetre wave radar on the AH-64D Apache. Cobra is a pod-based radar that can be mounted on a wingtip or in a stores position. Cobra can automatically search, detect, classify and prioritise multiple moving and stationary targets. It has a range of 8km against moving and 4km against stationary targets.*

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/

Down the page under *Sensors*.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (4 Jul 2006)

2Bravo said:
			
		

> At the risk of being put on the warning track myself, the AH-64 is the gold standard when it comes to attack helicopters over here.  In fact, its pretty much the only standard.  The UK and Nethelands have them over here.   Instead, we have several squadrons of O&M/PY thieves (aka the Griffon) operating in Canada.  We lack vision and thus we lack capabilty.
> 
> Chinooks and Apaches give you capabilities.



Just a quick inquiry - With enemy armor as a secondary consideration, does investment in the Longbow radar justify the ROI?  I'm just thinking in terms of hunting individuals with AK-47's and IED's that perhaps investing in the highest-end thermal detection optics would be more useful....


Matthew.


----------



## Loachman (5 Jul 2006)

Any helicopter can become a "hangar queen". I'm not sure what the specific issues with AH64 in Afghanistan are, but environment would be a big one. A parts problem could well be another - Iraq is taking a major toll on US Army equipment of all types. I've seen the ones being rotated out of Iraq through Fort Knox for major overhaul and talked to the techs (civ contractors) working on them. One of the first things done is to suck many pounds of sand out of them. I can't remember the specific quantity, but the Hercs going through the same process at Louisville arrive with an average of 900 lbs of sand trapped throughout the airframe. These machines have been worked hard and are very tired.

AH1Z will have no commonality with CH146. Commonality is with UH1Y - same basic box as CH146, but big difference in content. Buying both H1 variants would make sense - but still expect hangar queens when operating complex machines in severe environments with parts and manpower shortages (the latter is a significant factor in the ongoing CH146 serviceability problems).

We could buy AH64 without Longbow, and keep the option to upgrade should the need arise. All wiring etcetera is included in the airframe - the US Army are doing this, too, as a money-saving measure.

One of many reasons for the US Army to operate the MH6 ("Little Birds") is that they do not look as aggressive as AH64, yet still have a significant sensor and weapon capability. The US Army will be acquiring RH70 to replace OH58D in the armed recce role, and this may be a viable option for us. It's cheaper and less aggressive-looking than either major AH - very pleasing lines similar to the Jet Ranger that it's derived from and there will no doubt be a civil version with snazzy paint schemes that will further reduce the "threatening appearance" in civilian eyes - yet will have a very good sensor package and decent weapon suite. That would be my preference, as a Kiowa guy.


----------



## Grizzly (6 Jul 2006)

> The US Army will be acquiring RH70 to replace OH58D in the armed recce role, and this may be a viable option for us. It's cheaper and less aggressive-looking than either major AH - very pleasing lines similar to the Jet Ranger that it's derived from and there will no doubt be a civil version with snazzy paint schemes that will further reduce the "threatening appearance" in civilian eyes - yet will have a very good sensor package and decent weapon suite. That would be my preference, as a Kiowa guy.



I'm nitpicking here, but I believe the designation for the new ARH helicopter is RAH-70, not RH70. Also, it is based on the civilian Bell 407 which has been around since late 1995, and adapted to military use rather than being developed as a military aircraft.


----------



## Loachman (6 Jul 2006)

RAH-66 Comanche was a Reconnaissance/Attack Helicopter, hence the RAH designator. RH-70 is recce only, albeit armed.

The Bell 407 is an evolution of the Jet Ranger/Long Ranger series, I just went further back in the ancestry. RH-70 is generally described as "based on" the 407. Little info on improvements is available online.


----------



## PMars (7 Sep 2006)

[quote}
I'm nitpicking here, but I believe the designation for the new ARH helicopter is RAH-70, not RH70. Also, it is based on the civilian Bell 407 which has been around since late 1995, and adapted to military use rather than being developed as a military aircraft.
[ End quote]

The RAH-70 has similarities to the Bell 407 (i.e. fuselage and 4-blade rotor system) but I believe it is based on the uprated Bell 417 which was developed as a military machine (offered to Indian AF for high altitude ops], and which is now on offer to commercial operators.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Sep 2006)

Came across this about the British WAH-64 Apaches.  

I seem to remember reading elsewhere that their engines (Rolls Royce ?) give them a bit of an edge in lift over the AH-64Ds.  Can anybody confirm that?



> Apaches Return to Hero's Welcome
> 
> 
> (Source: UK Ministry of Defence; issued Sept. 25, 2006)
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Sep 2006)

Sir Jock Stirrup? .... bwahahahaha.


----------



## Krypto (17 Nov 2006)

Barring some completely unforseen turn of events (and more importantly funding), I don't see Canada getting Apaches at all.

As great an aircraft as it is, it's quite specialized in its role (relatively speaking) and we simply can't afford to put such a large portion of our limited resources into such a system when the money could have been better spent on something more multirole that suits out needs better. If we were to go that route, it would have to be some hypothetical perfect helo that covers many roles, and if it can conduct SAR ops at home, all the better. The only reason we're buying new systems now is simply because they're filling vital roles that we need.

Also, losing an Apache in combat would be a huge blow to our forces that we couldn't easily replace. And by nature, the Apaches would be be going into combat. Sure, you could argue the same for CF-18's, but they're much less vulnerable than an Apache. Griffons and the Chinooks (once we get them) could get into some action, but for the most part wouldn't, and so stand a significantly smaller chance of being shot down. Sure, we've lost other aircraft, but those are mostly random sccidents and can happen to anything. 

As an aside, I prefer the Cobra anyway, though this is mainly from a military fanboy angle on my part. It just looks _really_ fun to fly.


----------



## Loachman (18 Nov 2006)

We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.

When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.

Our problem is that we need so much else right now as well, thanks to over a decade of lieberals.

How would losing an Apache be any worse than losing a Leopard or a platoon of Infantry all at once?

Specialty is good in many cases. Multi-role is just another way of saying that you won't have it for what you really want because it's off doing something else. Put seats in an AH64 and it'll be used for VIP transport while troops need fire support. Neither Coyote nor Leopard nor M777 have multi-role capability (other than what can be improvised if really necessary). There's no VIP seat kit for them, or a cargo-carrying configuration, or (shudder) SAR capability and they are therefore truly useful for that which they were designed and acquired.

An AH gives phenomenal firepower, recce capability, and flexibility. As far as I am concerned, it most definitely fills a "vital role(s) that we need". They'd be busy enough that the guys on the ground that they are intended to support would not miss the "lack" of SAR or VIP capability one bit - in fact they'd be damned glad for those "lacks".

As for the specifics, both AH64 and AH1Z would be fine as far as I'm concerned. The former, as has been said, is the "gold standard" and is in use with several of our allies. The latter would make more sense if we upgraded CH146 to UH1Y standard, for commonality with that.

Multi-role... I just had a vision of a VIP kit for Sperwer...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Nov 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.
> 
> When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.
> 
> ...



+1

I agree that CH146/UH1Y  +  AH-1Z is likely about as much as wee could hope for, not that that would be a bad thing at all.

G2G


----------



## Krypto (18 Nov 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> We'll likely be forced into it eventually, now that real-world ops are waking people up from cold-war game-playing slumber. Even CAS has mentioned a requirement, a huge departure for our fighter-and-transport-centric a** f**ce.
> 
> When the first Chinook full of troops goes "bang" because it lacked escort, there'll be a mad scramble. Hopefully, a more leisurely scramble will take place before that.
> 
> ...



I totally understnad what you're saying. My point was that I just don't see it happening any time soon, as I said because of all the catch-up buying we're doing now. My comment about losses is based solely on our current situation. We have troops and Leopards (or other vehicles) now, and casualties are expected. To spend a large chunk of our limited funds on Apaches only to have them shot down wouldn't be a big selling point right now when the money could be better spent. 

Further down the line, I don't see why not, either Apache or Cobra. It would certainly be nice!


----------



## Loachman (18 Nov 2006)

I agree with you that it won't happen as soon as any of us would like.

As far as losses, AHs would be a lot less vulnerable to enemy action than ground vehicles. Losses of military equipment of all sorts are to be expected in combat, and, cost aside, I fail to see how the loss of an AH is any worse than the cost of a LAV. Aircraft are lost through accident, as you pointed out earlier. We put a lot of efforst into minimizing that, but it's still the cost of doing business.

Neither combat nor accidental losses are any more acceptable than the other, but losses of ground troops due to lack of support is completely inexcusable.

Wait until we have a platoon overrun because no support was available and tell me how the money could have been better spent.

Not buying needed equipment because it might be lost for whatever reason is just plain silly.

The only acceptable reason not to buy it is because the same job can be done better or cheaper by something else.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2006)

Loachman said:
			
		

> The only acceptable reason not to buy it is because the same job can be done better or cheaper by something else.



Since armed UAV's have been proved in combat, this might become the wave of the future rather than an armed helicopter of any sort. While the ideal would be to have multiple systems (Long range heavy bombers, "Strike Eagles", A-10's and Apache's along with armed UAV's), but in a universe of limited resources that might have to do.

While an armed Predator derivative only carries two HELLFIRE missiles, different sorts of weapons could be mounted, either HELLFIRE missiles with different sorts of warheads, pods with 70mm rockets to saturate areas with fire or even perhaps a "gun pod". Light scout or utility helicopters that are armed carry similar weapons, so the real deficiency is in the fact a Predator type UAV is a fixed wing aircraft and not a helicopter. Looking ahead, it is only a matter of time before purpose designed UACV's (Uninhabited Air Combat Vehicles) are available.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (23 Dec 2006)

Armed UAVs are great strike platforms in the current operating environment, and that capability will likely improve.  I'm not sure, however, if we could use armed UAVs as escorts for CH-47s and medevac helicopters.  There may be issues mixing them in the same airspace.    

If we want to use helicopters to move soldiers, supplies and casualties around today's theatre we also need escort helicopters.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Dec 2006)

Red_Five said:
			
		

> Armed UAVs are great strike platforms in the current operating environment, and that capability will likely improve.  I'm not sure, however, if we could use armed UAVs as escorts for CH-47s and medevac helicopters.  There may be issues mixing them in the same airspace.
> 
> If we want to use helicopters to move soldiers, supplies and casualties around today's theatre we also need escort helicopters.



+1

Aviation, like other components of the battlespace is a system of systems.  Transport clearly needs dedicated escort when the threat so dictates.  There are many things that UCAVs can do, but they are not as strong in the area of providing responsive, mutual support to other aviation forces.

G2G


----------



## Dale Denton (23 Dec 2006)

I don't know much when it comes to procurements, but what would you guys have to say about the MH-6 "little Bird"?. In the past i've searched this website and havent found much on them. Is this feasible for our armed forces? Does it make sense for us to use and operate? I've wikipedia-ed it, but i'm not sure whether that accounts for anything. Yet again I don't know anything about procurements but from what i've read on other websites (a long time ago, i've long since forgotten the links, sorry). If the CF (or anyone here) has looked into it, why hasnt it been a competitor? I know the MH-6 isn't exactly on par with the Apache Longbow (or other competitors) but since its armed, most likely less expensive, and smaller, wouldnt that make it a good possible competitor?

Edit: (The actual link) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hughes_H-6

Regards


----------



## Loachman (25 Dec 2006)

It's a dated aircraft. RH70 will be the new US Army ARMED reconnaissance helicopter, replacing OH58D.

Whether or not MH6 is replaced depends upon other factors, such as transportability. One of its advantages is that three can be placed into a single Herc and flown anywhere very quickly, and another is that it looks less aggressive than AH64 (sometimes a less lethal "look" is a political advantage) while providing very effective fire support OR moving as many troops as a single Huey (when configured for troop lift).

We could put three Kiowas into one Herc as well, so this should hold true for RH70 as well.


----------

