US Army leaning towards new scout
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Planet Earth
Age: 57
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On first look you are right, but have you ever compared the comfort on the rear seats and compared the burn rate? Gazelle is an enormous fun to fly, but in all fairness the 120 is not that bad either, and it comes cheap.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by tottigol
EC-145, soon to have a five bladed main rotor, courtesy the US ARMY money
Originally Posted by fluffy5
I am sure they can dust off the Comanche, have another go
I/C
Perhaps if the manufacturers just upped their game & ironed out the bugs in existing platforms it would help, poor life times, lack of reaching life times would be a good start, the general reliability of machines leave a lot to be desired.
Gearbox, blade, composite, frame cracks, electronic\ electrical problems, to name but a few
Gearbox, blade, composite, frame cracks, electronic\ electrical problems, to name but a few
Its a good thing that luddites like Evil Twin are not in charge of military procurement, as it seems he prefers we would still find ourselves chucking rock and point-ed sticks.
How the replacement of a general-use combat scout helicopter reaching the end of its airframe life became an allegory for military spending is frankly beyond me. I dont see how useless posts like that add anything to the discussion.
How the replacement of a general-use combat scout helicopter reaching the end of its airframe life became an allegory for military spending is frankly beyond me. I dont see how useless posts like that add anything to the discussion.
If I were the Army, and I was looking at the manpower bill the Army looks at, and the logistics bill, and the next twenty years on procurement, I'd probably try to wege MORE UAV capability into the scout role, and rather than buy a new helicopter I'd keep the OH-58F momentum. What I'd also do is shrink the size of the active Scout (OH-58F) fleet and keep a nice bundle of spares at Davis Monthan or somewhere like that.
In preservation. Or in a state for a kit conversion to replace combat losses.
But I am not the Army.
Question for John Dixson:
The 97 looks to me, as a pilot, like a nice mix of potential attack/scout capability with nominal utility capability. The problem with that platform, as I see it, is similar to the problem that Comanche ran into at the programatic level, and one that is raising flags for the JSF/F-35 at present.
Below a certain number on order, the per unit cost will raise red flags all over the place in the PR war, regardless of what new and improved capability such a step forward would produce.
So on to the question: what lessons learned from Comanche, and what the program addressed in terms of the risks of new technology, can the 97 team apply as it bids for being the next armed scout?
In preservation. Or in a state for a kit conversion to replace combat losses.
But I am not the Army.
Question for John Dixson:
The 97 looks to me, as a pilot, like a nice mix of potential attack/scout capability with nominal utility capability. The problem with that platform, as I see it, is similar to the problem that Comanche ran into at the programatic level, and one that is raising flags for the JSF/F-35 at present.
Below a certain number on order, the per unit cost will raise red flags all over the place in the PR war, regardless of what new and improved capability such a step forward would produce.
So on to the question: what lessons learned from Comanche, and what the program addressed in terms of the risks of new technology, can the 97 team apply as it bids for being the next armed scout?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 7th Jan 2013 at 13:56.
Learned Lessons
LoneWolf, you have raised a key point, and you are correct in applying the RAH-66 program as the foil.
Taking the bare S-97 just as the flying platform, the costs of that part, while inevitably higher than the 58, will be higher incrementally to reflect the hardware technology that results in the vastly improved performance.
The program costs to be wary of are the system costs. During Comanche, much higher sums were being spent on system development than on the flight program. Yet, the flight program was eminently successful, whereas the system program was not. The pilots never got to fly " the system" except in the sim. And whereas Boeing and SA had their best people working Comanche flight, the same was not so with systems, a lot of which had been sub'd. I used to play golf on Sunday mornings with the head of flight test ( a Boeing man who was simply the best ), a Boeing Test Pilot, and an Army Test Pilot. Too much of the conversation had to do with the pilots telling us about their sim efforts to train the systems design guys how a helicopter flew, what the mission was in reality, what info was critical to pilots vs what was incidental, etc etc.. Goal posts moved. Missing software drop dates was OK.
Just my personal opinion, but that sort of situation isn't necessarily inevitable on the new Scout, and it should be priority one on everyone's mind. If someone were to mention the Canadian MHP program as another example in this area of development cost/schedule how-not-to-do-it, I probably know several pilots who would agree.
Taking the bare S-97 just as the flying platform, the costs of that part, while inevitably higher than the 58, will be higher incrementally to reflect the hardware technology that results in the vastly improved performance.
The program costs to be wary of are the system costs. During Comanche, much higher sums were being spent on system development than on the flight program. Yet, the flight program was eminently successful, whereas the system program was not. The pilots never got to fly " the system" except in the sim. And whereas Boeing and SA had their best people working Comanche flight, the same was not so with systems, a lot of which had been sub'd. I used to play golf on Sunday mornings with the head of flight test ( a Boeing man who was simply the best ), a Boeing Test Pilot, and an Army Test Pilot. Too much of the conversation had to do with the pilots telling us about their sim efforts to train the systems design guys how a helicopter flew, what the mission was in reality, what info was critical to pilots vs what was incidental, etc etc.. Goal posts moved. Missing software drop dates was OK.
Just my personal opinion, but that sort of situation isn't necessarily inevitable on the new Scout, and it should be priority one on everyone's mind. If someone were to mention the Canadian MHP program as another example in this area of development cost/schedule how-not-to-do-it, I probably know several pilots who would agree.
Thank you, John, for your candor. 
I had an idea that maybe the Comanche could resurrected as an armed scout to compete for such a requirement, if it was reworked to be single pilot (yes, a non-trivial cost!!) platform, but your point on system integration and development shows me what a fantasy that was.
I had an idea that maybe the Comanche could resurrected as an armed scout to compete for such a requirement, if it was reworked to be single pilot (yes, a non-trivial cost!!) platform, but your point on system integration and development shows me what a fantasy that was.
Comanche Phoenix?
Not a bad thought at all, LoneWolf. As it became obvious that the Comanche was going to take forever to get to the field, one Monday morning I made a proposal to the SA Management Council that we take the basic airframe, power train and controls, ditch the specialized DOD equipment, the 290V electrical system, and put a version on the market with off the shelf equipment. By "we " I meant SA, not SA/Boeing. Too difficult and there were stealth technology questions that were in fact valid. Thus, maybe the best flying machine we've ever put together sits in the museum.
Does a Scout Helicopter have to be multi-crewed? Has technology advanced to the point the Scout Mission could be done by a single pilot? The Air Force has used Single Pilot FAC's forever.
Last edited by SASless; 8th Jan 2013 at 19:23.
SASless, LHX initial competition included some single pilot proposals. IMO, the problem with the Army taking the risk to go to single pilot has to do with mission / task loading. (See old arguments about the old single pilot A-7 being a 1.3 pilot aircraft with 1.0 pilots ... )
At the time of the Comanche program, besides the attack and scout community being wedded to dual pilot models, there was considerable risk involved in how much task loading the fancy electronic side of the development was going to be able to handle, particularly as the "Force XXI" vision made the Comanche an integral part of the CC and sensor mix, above and beyond scout and armed attack. I wish I could still get in touch with a few people I knew on that program to elaborate, but it's been a few years.
If you constrain the mission to "scout" or "armed scout" and take advantage of the current tools that allow for mission tasks to be assisted, I think you can make a good argument for a single pilot scout helicopter. You will need to change your training scheme a bit, however.
Getting the "system" to believe that you can do that is another matter, which has to do with human engineering.
EDIT: I found it!
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
See pages 17 and 18 of the report, dated 1986, regarding the risks for single pilot LHX. Lots of very interesting and prescient points raised in the paper.
At the time of the Comanche program, besides the attack and scout community being wedded to dual pilot models, there was considerable risk involved in how much task loading the fancy electronic side of the development was going to be able to handle, particularly as the "Force XXI" vision made the Comanche an integral part of the CC and sensor mix, above and beyond scout and armed attack. I wish I could still get in touch with a few people I knew on that program to elaborate, but it's been a few years.
If you constrain the mission to "scout" or "armed scout" and take advantage of the current tools that allow for mission tasks to be assisted, I think you can make a good argument for a single pilot scout helicopter. You will need to change your training scheme a bit, however.
Getting the "system" to believe that you can do that is another matter, which has to do with human engineering.
EDIT: I found it!
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc...c=GetTRDoc.pdf
See pages 17 and 18 of the report, dated 1986, regarding the risks for single pilot LHX. Lots of very interesting and prescient points raised in the paper.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 8th Jan 2013 at 20:46.
DSB Report
Your selection of the descriptive " prescient " is spot on. Looked without success for the names on the Board, as their work belied some very accurate understanding of what needed to be done.
If we fielded three times as many but smaller and less capable single pilot Scout helicopters, could we not have a net gain in capability over sticking to Two Crew machines? A concept similar to the Soviet way of thinking re Tanks during the Cold War.
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Age: 59
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An observation and personal thoughts presented for all
SASLess....Essentially you are saying quantity over quality if you were to field more "dumbed down airframes" meaning w/o the gee wiz boxes or less capable as you said. I am not attacking you sir so please do not take this to heart ....Quantity does have a quality in its own right some would say, but Others would argue at what cost, soldiers lives? The US public would never stand for such course of action. The military takes great pains in giving the perception of not risking soldiers lives and is providing the best equipment available. We like vertually a low to no casualty, one sided war in our favor of course. I however being a retired soldier always remembered that the equipment I did have was built by the lowest bidder. Additionaly that quantity over quality didn't work out all too well for old saddam. His armored forces out numbered the coalition forces by 4 to 1...that's T55, T62, and T72s tanks against M1s. A Iraqi armored commander was quoted "I knew you americans were near when my tanks began to explode. That's 50s and 60s tech tanks against late 70s and 80s tech tanks. The battle of 73 Eastings is a classic example of this very train of thought. The America military plans for its forces to meet and engage forces that are superior in numbers. The equalizer and pushing us at a greater advantage is a small force equipped with highly lethal and technically advance equipment that negates the numerically superior forces we might encounter.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hy Brasil
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VP....you seem to have missed the point being made in my previous posts.
I very much included the Gee Whiz stuff as you call it....suggesting technology could make up for the deleted crew member. Thus instead of two Pilots per helicopter....you go with a single pilot thus more than doubling the number of aircraft that could be fielded.
We would not use Robbies to do a helicopter's work (as an analogy) but put capable aircraft using Single crew like the Air Force, Navy, and Marines do with their Fighter/Attack aircraft every day and night. Think F-16, F-18, A-10 for a start.
I for one do not believe it should take two PILOTS per Scout Aircraft. Perhaps put a non-rated Observer in the aircraft instead of two Pilots perhaps.
Does the Apache really have to have two Pilots...or are we just going on with a tradition that started with days of old here?
I very much included the Gee Whiz stuff as you call it....suggesting technology could make up for the deleted crew member. Thus instead of two Pilots per helicopter....you go with a single pilot thus more than doubling the number of aircraft that could be fielded.
We would not use Robbies to do a helicopter's work (as an analogy) but put capable aircraft using Single crew like the Air Force, Navy, and Marines do with their Fighter/Attack aircraft every day and night. Think F-16, F-18, A-10 for a start.
I for one do not believe it should take two PILOTS per Scout Aircraft. Perhaps put a non-rated Observer in the aircraft instead of two Pilots perhaps.
Does the Apache really have to have two Pilots...or are we just going on with a tradition that started with days of old here?
I think what this boils down to is who you are intending to fight.
If you look currently both UK and USA in Afgan use a £ 35m anti tank helicopter to shoot lone " infantrymen " As an ex grunt and then pilot I would prefer to see a less capable heli but have more of them so I have almost a personal one there, at my beck and call. To take the argument to the extreme you would end up with one do it all see it all machine.
As the machines getter ever more sophisticated they need a bigger and bigger logistics tail to keep them flying, let alone the expense of procurement in the first place.
lets be honest having an Apache longbow that can acquire and prioritise 250 targets is rather ott, who in the world has 250 tank, apc's etc etc
If you look currently both UK and USA in Afgan use a £ 35m anti tank helicopter to shoot lone " infantrymen " As an ex grunt and then pilot I would prefer to see a less capable heli but have more of them so I have almost a personal one there, at my beck and call. To take the argument to the extreme you would end up with one do it all see it all machine.
As the machines getter ever more sophisticated they need a bigger and bigger logistics tail to keep them flying, let alone the expense of procurement in the first place.
lets be honest having an Apache longbow that can acquire and prioritise 250 targets is rather ott, who in the world has 250 tank, apc's etc etc
Hughes, in war, you aren't trying to have a fair fight, you are trying to have an edge, since the intent is to win. Also, that multi million helo can kill hundreds and hundreds of that "lone infantryman" so long as nobody with an SA-7 shows up to frequently. The asset is reusable.
Army has recently been fielding 2.75" rockets with seeker heads on them. Same old weapon, but now it can be directed. Much cheeper than using a fancy Hellfire to take out a car.
The asset is reusable. Army has recently been fielding 2.75" rockets with seeker heads on them. Same old weapon, but now it can be directed. Much cheeper than using a fancy Hellfire to take out a car.
Lone
Should have added that a lone infantryman now has a selection of pocket rockets with a pretty impressive range. LAW 80 ( UK ) a 30 lbs rocket that will take out a T72 would make mincemeat of a hovering Apache, just as well they dont have them in Afgan ( even the old US 66mm LAW would make a bit of a hole )
Should have added that a lone infantryman now has a selection of pocket rockets with a pretty impressive range. LAW 80 ( UK ) a 30 lbs rocket that will take out a T72 would make mincemeat of a hovering Apache, just as well they dont have them in Afgan ( even the old US 66mm LAW would make a bit of a hole )