New Bell ARH (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter) prepares for first flight

[Resurrection]

HAI, Dallas, TX --- In July of 2005, Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. company was awarded the contract to build the 368 Armed Reconnaissance Helicopters (ARH) for the United States Army. The new ARH will replace the venerable OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. Based on Bell’s commercial 407 helicopter, the ARH will provide the warfighter a helicopter with unmatched reliability, survivability, speed and payload capability.

“It is amazing what the integrated Bell, Army development and design team has accomplished with the ARH program since the awarding of the contract last year,” said Bell ARH Program Manager Bill Leonard. “The ARH program has achieved significant Army confidence milestones in the last six months including key component deliveries and four major reviews all within a very compressed timeline.”

Between September and December of 2005, the ARH successfully completed a system requirement review, an integrated baseline review, a systems functional review and a preliminary design review.

“Our first four systems design and development, or SDD, aircraft are being designed and built as we speak at our Bell XWorx facility in Arlington, Texas,” Leonard said. “We are on an extremely aggressive schedule to get this aircraft in the hands of the warfighter as quickly as possible, and we are working diligently to meet our commitment to the Army.”

Twenty-nine OH-58D Kiowa Warriors have been lost since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom. That leaves 347 OH-58Ds currently in operation, placing Army Aviation 21 aircraft below their requirement.
Full story - click here (http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.18135016.1141740012.RA2R7MOa9dUAAF28QEs&manuel_call_cat=3&manuel_call_prod=67140&manuel_call_mod=release&modele=jdc_inter).

[Lupin]

Its quite big compared to Kiowa, which means easy target... but im not turning this new heli down,, put this heli on a test... bring it to Ramadi or baghdad or somewhere in IRAQ or Afghanistan...

[AmericanImperialist]

Its quite big compared to Kiowa, which means easy target... but im not turning this new heli down,, put this heli on a test... bring it to Ramadi or baghdad or somewhere in IRAQ or Afghanistan...
And it may prove faster, more manueverable, and more survivable. I'll reserve my judgement for now.

Still, where's the mast mounted radar/thermal sight?

[guest]

All the optics - thermal, EO are in the Westcam ball

She has some pretty neat potential, weapon systems and targeting designed into the package as opposed to the "add-on" approach to the Kiowa.

She should be a fast one too.

Just remember, this is not a tank killer, it's supposed to recon and offer light support for ground troops.
(although it does have 2 hellfires)

I'm keeping my eye on this project, as Bell has a plant up here in Canada working on this lil bird.

The CF has been making some internal noise about wanting an armed recon helo.

Given that a full on Attack Chopper purchase is unlikely, combined with Canadian content in the ARH - it's a very likely candidate should the CF go through with it.

[mi35d]

The Kiowa was never intended to fly with all the extra weight and added equipment.

If you take a compact sport model pick-up truck and then put a fifth wheel hookup on it and expect that you can tow a house, its not going to happen. "Gee, the sporty little pickup was fast and nimble - now it seems slow and un-responsive when I'm pulling a trailer - what happened?"

[AlphaOneSix]

Its quite big compared to Kiowa
No it's not.

EDIT: I'll add that the ARH is 1 meter longer than an OH-58D and 8cm wider. Yeah, QUITE big in comparison.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Still wish we could have purchased the Commanche. Much sexier, IMHO.

Wasn't it designed for armed reconnaissance. True, it was expensive.

Oh well, this looks quite good.

[Karmapolice]

I like the look of it, hope it does a good job.

[JoaMei]

They should finish the development of the guided Hydra missile, this would give them a lot more precise Firepower.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

I like the look of it, hope it does a good job.
How about the RAH-66 Comanche
Much more attractive, IMHO
http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/6347/comanchelarge4zx.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAH-66_Comanche

But alas, not to be.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

They should finish the development of the guided Hydra missile, this would give them a lot more precise Firepower.
Your post intrigued me.

Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System

The Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) is a program currently in development (2004) to provide a laser guided missile which is compatible with the existing Hydra 70 systems in service. Where possible the system will utilise existing Hydra 70 components such as launchers, rocket motor and warheads. The weapon will bridge the gap between the Hydra 70 and AGM-114 Hellfire systems and provide a cost-effective method of engaging lightly-armoured point targets. From (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70)

[Michael RVR]

Yeah, there was something about it recently, either completed a test or something. IIRC it went well.

How much $$ are we talking about for these birds ?

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

Yeah, there was something about it recently, either completed a test or something. IIRC it went well.

How much $$ are we talking about for these birds ?


The contract calls for Bell Helicopter to build 368 ARH aircraft for delivery during FY 2006 through FY 2013, for a unit cost of approximately $6 million per vs. the much more advanced Comanche's estimated $36 million unit cost.
From (http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/bell-textron-wins-22b-arh-competition-with-407-variant/index.php)

[saigonsmuggler]

I thought that the whole idea of a mast mounted FLIR is that the Kiowa can hide behind some tree or building and observe/lase targets for the Apaches.

This one looks just like the Kiowa, abeit slightly larger but with the same add-on look of the weapons. :(

[Michael RVR]

Yeah i don't understand the logic. Apparently mast-mounted gear is a bitch to get working, but isn't that the point ? It seems like this one was done on the cheap.

[Karmapolice]

The RAH-66 Comanche but I prefer the look of little birds and Kiowa's and this new bird and hueys over most other helos. I am sure the comanche is bad ass but if I where to fly I would choose one of the first ones I listed over it.

[Noob Brit]

I thought that the whole idea of a mast mounted FLIR is that the Kiowa can hide behind some tree or building and observe/lase targets for the Apaches.



Wasn't there something posted here just the other day about them moving away from the hover and hide tactics as they were far too vulnerable in current ops? I may have read it elsewhere actually but I think the idea is to keep on the move now so a front mounted FLIR is no disadvantage.

[seruriermarshal]

It fly on 3.28 ?

[AlphaOneSix]

Wasn't there something posted here just the other day about them moving away from the hover and hide tactics as they were far too vulnerable in current ops? I may have read it elsewhere actually but I think the idea is to keep on the move now so a front mounted FLIR is no disadvantage.
This is true. The Kiowa Warrior with the Mast Mouted Sight was a child of the late 1980's when we thought that the next war would be fought in Germany. Helicopter tactics went from the "running fire" of the Vietnam era to "hovering fire" of the 1980's and 1990's. Hovering fire is great in principle...hide your helicopter in some trees or behins a hill, have an Kiowa poke its sight over the top and lase target for Apaches that couldn't even see their targets. It's a wonderful tactic that worked well for the battlefield that we envisioned at the time. And let's not forget, running fire didn't disappear, it was still being practiced, but on a much smaller scale. Of course, I'm only speaking of the Army here, the Marines never really bought into hovering fire, but that's because of the nature of their work, which is to directly support the ground troops.

I think that the whole concept of hovering fire was blown away (at least with regards to current conflicts) in the first weeks of OIF when three Apache battalions performed a textbook cross-FLOT deep strike against an entrenched armor unit. It was a complete disaster. Although only one Apache was forced to land (a Longbow from the 1st Cav.) after taking damage, nearly every one of the 40+ aircraft received damage of some kind from ground fire. To add insult to injury, almost no damage was done to the Republican Guard unit that was being attacked. To me, that was the end of large deep strike attacks by attack helicopters. Unless you can guarantee that your routes are safe, they are recipes for disaster. Of course, this maybe would have worked wonderfully if used in defense of Germany against advancing hordes of Soviet armor. No offense to anyone, just pointing out that flying over friendly/unnoccupied territory in Germany is a bit safer than flying over unknown territory in Iraq.

Anyway, now that the aviation community is seeing just how important it is to keep moving (and moving fast) while simultaneously providing support for ground troops, things are changing in the way we design our aircraft. The Apache, although I love the aircraft (I was a crew chief on them for 6 years), is still designed for a fight that we may (hopefully) never see...that being a conventional fight against massed armored forces. I almost hate ot say it, but the Cobras of the USMC are much better suited for the ground support role, which is why the Marines never adopted the Apache. From what I've heard from other sources, most Army ground units in Iraq prefer support from a lighter helicopter that has better visibility and greater maneuverability, meaning that the OH-58D is preferred in many cases over the AH-64s.

Anyway, to get back on track for once, I think that this transition in philosophy from "hovering fire" to "running fire" is what has pushed the ARH away from a Mast Mouted Sight and placed it on the chin of the aircraft. Not only is the MMS unnecessary for the type of fighting we're seeing in th real world today, but it makes maintenance of the system sooo much easier. And ease of maintenance is especially important considering the amount of flying we're ding these days.

[saigonsmuggler]

good post Alpha.

even in an offensive operation such as OIF, can hover-fire still have great effect against a mass counter-attack such as one was feared during OIF when sandstorms blocked the use of most fast movers?

Assuming of course that you would be hovering over friendly ground, but hiding behind trees/buildings to lase targets.

I think deep strike by Apaches are out since that OIF disaster.

[toad]

"Anyway, now that the aviation community is seeing just how important it is to keep moving (and moving fast) while simultaneously providing support for ground troops, things are changing in the way we design our aircraft." -Alpha

Just wanted to reiterate great post.

I worked on avionics (what little there was) on oh-58 and oh-6 during the 80's when the tactics you describes were in vogue. And had not kept up on the higher level goals of Army Aviation. Your post shows you obviously have, and made me think that the lessons learned in helicopters has some parallels to the 'fast movers' also. As stated in your quote above, the days of low and slow (for fixed wing) are being outdated for obvious reasons.

Faster is key now, and it is good to see that we are still trying to be flexible for different regional conflicts. Not just stuck in one mode.

[AmericanImperialist]

"Anyway, now that the aviation community is seeing just how important it is to keep moving (and moving fast) while simultaneously providing support for ground troops, things are changing in the way we design our aircraft." -Alpha

Just wanted to reiterate great post.

I worked on avionics (what little there was) on oh-58 and oh-6 during the 80's when the tactics you describes were in vogue. And had not kept up on the higher level goals of Army Aviation. Your post shows you obviously have, and made me think that the lessons learned in helicopters has some parallels to the 'fast movers' also. As stated in your quote above, the days of low and slow (for fixed wing) are being outdated for obvious reasons.

Faster is key now, and it is good to see that we are still trying to be flexible for different regional conflicts. Not just stuck in one mode.


"low and slow" has its place, especially in this age where the US can gain Air Supremacy over any potential foe

[AlphaOneSix]

even in an offensive operation such as OIF, can hover-fire still have great effect against a mass counter-attack such as one was feared during OIF when sandstorms blocked the use of most fast movers?

Assuming of course that you would be hovering over friendly ground, but hiding behind trees/buildings to lase targets.

Sure, given the right preconditions, it works great. If you remember the opening Apache strike of Desert Storm by the 101st, they simply came up in line abreast, and hovered about 5km away from their targets. Of course, their route was preplanned in extreme detail, so the only thing they flew over along the way was empty desert. Being able to have a unit hover in line abreast formation and pick off targets nearly simultaneously is a great way to inflict a lof of damage in a short period of time with a lot of shock effect, so I'd never rule it out as a tactic. It's just that in the situations in which these aircraft are now finding themselves (supporting ground troops in built-up areas where you have no idea what is under you at any given time) makes the older tactics a bad idea for the most part.

[toad]

"low and slow" has its place, especially in this age where the US can gain Air Supremacy over any potential foe


Yea....right up to the point you take a manpad up the tailpipe....

[AlphaOneSix]

Exactly...low and slow has its place, and that place is not in a MANPADS-infested area. Low and slow doesn't just rely on air supremacy, it also assumes that the ground that you're covering while "low and slow" is also secure. Sometimes that is possible (in the open desert, or when you have a clearly-defined front where good guys are on one side, and bad guys are on the other), but most of the time these days, it's not.

[AmericanImperialist]

Yea....right up to the point you take a manpad up the tailpipe....
A-10s have a combat loss rate less than that of F-16s, care to explain that?

[AlphaOneSix]

A-10s have a combat loss rate less than that of F-16s, care to explain that?

A-10s fly a hell of a lot fewer sortes than F-16s?

[toad]

A-10s have a combat loss rate less than that of F-16s, care to explain that?

I explain it by saying that you are incorrect. As Alpha has already stated the F-16 flew much more and suffered much less losses. Of all the Air Force planes in the Gulf war, the A-10 suffered the highest losses. I'll even post you the link and refer you to the previous thread if your interested in more of my thoughts on the A-10, low and slow. It has some insightfull commentary and wonderfull links....well except for the insightfull and wonderfull part.

"Lessons learned in the flying low and slow years... the losses make it less desirable.
Aircraft Total Casualties Total Strikes Aircraft Casualty Rate Per Strike
O/A-10 20 8,640 0.0023
F-16 7 11,698 .0006
F-15E 2 2,124 .0009
Source:United States General Accounting Office, Operation Desert Storm Evaluation ofthe Air Campaign Available from http://www.fas.org/man/gao/nsiad97134/index.html.

Although the columns don't line up well because of left justification, I'll point out the part you want.

F-15E's suffered only 2 losses out of 2124 strikes
F-16's suffered only 7 losses out of 11,698 strikes
A-10's suffered 20 losses out of just 8,640 strikes

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=1372203#post1372203

Sorry but lessons learned develped the PGM's we have today. More standoff, fast in fast out, higher safer altitudes when it comes to fixed wings.

[Whitcomb]

I think it looks like a Jet Ranger (civilian chopper made by Bell)

[usa320]

imho theres still a place for the helicopter gunship on the battlefield, just not this one...

I think the whole idea of hovering and popping up to attack targets might work fine against armor concentrations but in areas with any AAA threat, MANPADs or RPG armed infantry its a bad move.

staying on the move is much better in the counter-insurgency urban fight.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

imho theres still a place for the helicopter gunship on the battlefield, just not this one...

I think the whole idea of hovering and popping up to attack targets might work fine against armor concentrations but in areas with any AAA threat, MANPADs or RPG armed infantry its a bad move.

staying on the move is much better in the counter-insurgency urban fight.
I have to admit I hated to see RAH-66 go, but I think in the role of armed reconnaissance we already have gadgets that perform the same function at lower cost that don't risk a pilot, and we already have two attack helicoptors (the Apache for the Army and the Cobra for the Marine Corps) in use by the US military. Sexy and quiet but basically superseded by the armed UAV.

[Ericsson]

that helicopter will be made in montreal Canada.

[Hutz]

edit 012345

[Hutz]

Given that a full on Attack Chopper purchase is unlikely, combined with Canadian content in the ARH - it's a very likely candidate should the CF go through with it.

Please no tease.

[guest]

Please no tease.

It's not a tease. Just look at it logicaly.

We already arm Griffons with door guns.

There have been 2 or 3 reports dealing with mounting larger weapons for the "support" role.

There was even one with Hellfires and Cannons hung off of a platform siting across the rear troop compartment.

(I don't know if it was fully functional)

From what I understand, talking to some TAC HEL guys, the powerplant needed upgrading before such weapons could be used.

I do know the Army mentions armed birds in the sky for recon, support.

This is not a guess, it's buried within "Army Transformation" documents

So.. IF.. again IF we decide to go with a more aggressive rotary helo..
given Canadian Defence spending patterns, Canadian content preferences , Political aversion to anything with "assault" or "Attack" in the name..., to my mind.. makes the Bell ARH the most logical candidate.

What would I prefer?

Cobra - fast, cheap, proven. It's combat record vs non-armour threats is better than the Apaches.

But hey, ARH wouldn't be bad either, 5 Rockets, 2 Hellfires, .50 cal, 7.62 minigun, or even 20mm cannons. still packs a punch, albiet with a smaller loadout.

[nullterm]

CF should get Cobras. They'd be more than adequet and well tested on the battlefield. Great for close support role, which would probably be more applicable to Canada's operations. But I don't see it happening anytime soon.

[Hutz]

It's not a tease. Just look at it logicaly.

We already arm Griffons with door guns.

There have been 2 or 3 reports dealing with mounting larger weapons for the "support" role.

There was even one with Hellfires and Cannons hung off of a platform siting across the rear troop compartment.

(I don't know if it was fully functional)

From what I understand, talking to some TAC HEL guys, the powerplant needed upgrading before such weapons could be used.

I do know the Army mentions armed birds in the sky for recon, support.

This is not a guess, it's buried within "Army Transformation" documents

So.. IF.. again IF we decide to go with a more aggressive rotary helo..
given Canadian Defence spending patterns, Canadian content preferences , Political aversion to anything with "assault" or "Attack" in the name..., to my mind.. makes the Bell ARH the most logical candidate.

What would I prefer?

Cobra - fast, cheap, proven. It's combat record vs non-armour threats is better than the Apaches.

But hey, ARH wouldn't be bad either, 5 Rockets, 2 Hellfires, .50 cal, 7.62 minigun, or even 20mm cannons. still packs a punch, albiet with a smaller loadout.

It would only seem logical for us to get them, but there's the problem. Nothing ever seems logical with our procurement program (especially in the air force). As for the Hellfires, that was just a trial.
The engines aren't the problem, it's the transmission that isn't able to transfer the power. I sure hope we get more aggressive in Tac Hell, and if I know this government, we'll get the cheapest thing possible. And I completely agree with you on the Cobra. If we owned some of those, there would be way more pilots wanting tac hel than there are now.

[Ddavid]

Still wish we could have purchased the Commanche. Much sexier, IMHO.

Wasn't it designed for armed reconnaissance. True, it was expensive.

Oh well, this looks quite good.

A ultra-expensive "stealth" chopper for reconnaissance ? he would have to hide behind mountains and tree to spy ennemis convoies, like predecessors to avoid view... last time I checked, mobile AA still relied on eyes.

It didn't make sense in the first time, Rumsfeld was right to kill it, just like crusader.

[Lt-Col A. Tack]

A ultra-expensive "stealth" chopper for reconnaissance ? he would have to hide behind mountains and tree to spy ennemis convoies, like predecessors to avoid view... last time I checked, mobile AA still relied on eyes.

It didn't make sense in the first time, Rumsfeld was right to kill it, just like crusader.

I come to acually strongly agree with the decision to cancel it. Overtaken by UAVs and no real need for a manned platform to do what it does.

Hey, I used to watch Airwolf! And Blue Thunder!

[yasotay]

If Canada needs some Cobra's most of the Army Cobra's are sitting in storage in up state New York (at Fort Drum) waiting to be turned into "gate guards" and targets. Sad, sad. Had lots of good times in that bird.

Once the sensors on UAVs become better I think the days of Armed helicopters will be numbered. Still that is a few years off.