Boeing Ah-64E v6

[chopper2004]

Welcome to Version 6

https://www.boeing.com/features/2022/10/the-next-evolution-of-apache.page?sf260872356=1&fbclid=IwAR1PaHRJfSV4xW0jp-PnzfxZQy3H3tHgEcpBhCMLe79tJDJT68LwX--l_j8

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1333/311453831_6252756848086133_3160696314234144340_n_08a2c930a58 2af7d032a2a52eb0e066a645c250d.jpg

cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

Lovely marketing picture.

[LRP]

I noticed that they are at sea level.

[JohnDixson]

The following sentence: “ At Boeing, we understand that for the Army to maintain rotorcraft dominance in future Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), the Apache needs to be optimized to complement the next-generation platforms in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) ecosystem.” Seemed to clash with the speed requirements for the FVL competitors*. Does that also imply that the Bell’s Invictus team correctly assessed the speed requirement for the scout attack mission as well?
*Noted that the new Apache will have upgraded power plants but nothing said re rotor solidity or aux propulsion, therefore speed probably won’t be dramatically changed from the present vehicle.

[DuckDodgers]

Kind of leads us to the question of, 'what does the next generation attack helicopter look like'. Ditto for next maritime rotorcraft too.......

[SplineDrive]

The following sentence: “ At Boeing, we understand that for the Army to maintain rotorcraft dominance in future Multi-Domain Operations (MDO), the Apache needs to be optimized to complement the next-generation platforms in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) ecosystem.” Seemed to clash with the speed requirements for the FVL competitors*. Does that also imply that the Bell’s Invictus team correctly assessed the speed requirement for the scout attack mission as well?
*Noted that the new Apache will have upgraded power plants but nothing said re rotor solidity or aux propulsion, therefore speed probably won’t be dramatically changed from the present vehicle.

Re: Invictus and FARA, I would assume both competitors are at a similar cruise speed since greatly exceeding it will require mass trade offs on an aircraft that is bound to be weight challenged given the various comments about “challenging the laws of physics”, etc. Everyone seems to assume Raider-X will be much faster than the min requirement… I’ve seen speculation of 250 knots, even. However, Raider itself is a 207 knot ship with a YT706 engine. Raider-X will have ~20% more power with ITE but is also many thousands of pounds heavier and has a larger OML and accordingly higher drag. Raider-X might only be a 185 knot aircraft at MCP cruise… it is certainly not 250 knots. I haven’t seen anywhere that Sikorsky has published a target speed.

As for sea level Apaches, this concept doesn’t seem very compatible with FVL, does it? For long range strike, weapons pylons could be added to V-280 or use other aviation platforms until a long range Army strike platform becomes a program. The improved SFC could give a new ITE powered Apache more range, but I agree not much more speed (with this arrangement).