It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Allright, let me rephrase. They will take over. It's very well known that UCAV are more cheaper to maintain than choppers. A chopper like the RAH-66 has no possibilities to compete with a UCAV. maybe, as you said part of the reason was the software, but I have hard to believe that that was the only reason.
[edit on 1-1-2007 by Figher Master FIN]
Originally posted by crusader97
the AH-64D (which is much more of an underperformer than people realize)
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Originally posted by crusader97
the AH-64D (which is much more of an underperformer than people realize)
Compared to what the RAH would have been I agree, the Apache would not even have put up a fight. However, the fact remains, the RAH doesn't exist. I can dig up extracts after extracts saying that the Apache is the best attack chopper at the moment. Even compared to the faster and more capable Mi-28.
Originally posted by ch1466
RAH-66 = A tremendous waste of time that was of questionable utility...necessary to survive in a NATO warfare environment.
You use tanks and conventional RT to channelize with direct fire and mines and then you shoot MLRS or ATACMS and take out entire regimental columns AFTER 'the breakout' into a controlled, cellular, defensive cordon.
These days, matters are even worse because the only way for a helo to be safe is to fly high and /very/ fast (250-300 knots) while DROPPING ordnance into target zones that may well have multistory builtup on 2 or 3 sides.
Only an idiot points his nose at the ground to deliver FFAR and ATGW when the climbout is going to drop him back to 70-90 knots and a 'shoot me I'm stupid' look up his tailrotor. As an alternative to 'skimming the rooftops' while every mook with a slingshot fires at him.
Yet that is effectively the force model that the RAH-66 /by configuration/ was designed to play at. And as such, it is no better than the Snake or the the Indian or the ARH which are themselves completely worthless in the modern environment.
Originally posted by vertol
UH-72A Lakota , Thats why it was canx. period !
Lakota was concieved and built from the ground
up at the point RAH-66 was cut ,...
Originally posted by vertol
en.wikipedia.org...
You may see it flying in the conus ,But it's not Civilian by any means.
And almost all fixed and or rotor craft are based off a design . ?
Originally posted by WestPoint23
What do you mean by 'civilian helicopter'? In that the UH-72A is based on a commercially available design?
Originally posted by crusader97
Originally posted by vertol
en.wikipedia.org...
You may see it flying in the conus ,But it's not Civilian by any means.
And almost all fixed and or rotor craft are based off a design . ?
It's a civilian aircraft modified for military use - much like the TH-57, OH-58, and TH-67.
The first line of your link - The UH-72A Lakota is a military version of the Eurocopter EC 145, and is built by EADS North America. - clearly states that the original design was not military by any means. ....
... The UH-72A is a commercial aircraft designed to conduct light general support tasks in permissive, non-combat environments. ...
Army.mil source
Not least because he didn't make sure that Franks and Zinni or anyone else _backed_ his 'uhh well, uhhhh I guess I would have to rely on the combat commanders but uhhh about what we've got uhhhh mobilized?' statements. Critics are like hyenas. Roar the truth like a lion and they will wait and see how things play out with slitted eyes. Show uncertainty and weakness and they attack you regardless of proof of righteousness 'after the fact'.
This is because EXPERIENCE has shown that this is how we fight the best. You seem to forget (or may have never realized) that no war has ever been fought with endless resources. You have to manage within the constraints you are given.
Conversely, the fact that (in another repeat of Vietnam) ... yours or theirs, amounts to another 6 months before the mission is considered done.
I don't disagree that this is where they thought it was most likely to be used, but 1. it's silly to think that after fighting WWII, Korea, and Vietnam that the US would design a multi-billion dollar weapon system that was theater specific to Europe? (that's basically what you are saying) and 2. Flexibility is built into weapon systems. Not just for where they can fight, but also the doctrine and tactics for which they can be used.
The Comanche was designed in a European Hotwar ... I was speaking to because it is the context which LHX was formulated with, back when Ronnie Raygun was in office.
Actually, my father was quite the rebel, and survived SEA with nearly 2 dozen air medals. I would say he probably knows what works, as that it was tactics tend to gravitate towards. He said it was a matter of experience, and not listening to what the REMF's thought. And yes, according to the e-mail I just received from my little sister in Iraq, she has ridden in the back of an F/A-18D.
And they are undoubtedly, 'institutional men' whose Key West defacto mentality if not mendacity in endorsing 'the way -I- fight' deprives them of a balanced intuit into how they MIGHT as a functionally achieve the same mission, better, as much as how they SHOULD. Tell us, have any one of your annointed relations taken a ride in a UAV shelter or the backseat of a Marine F-18D to even /comment/ on 'my what a nice view you have up here'? What about an OV-10D? A Mohawk? A P-47?
I didn't think so.
Originally posted by jaehkimx
Now that the US Army has abandoned the tandem seat, no passenger RAH 66 for the side-by-side ARH 70 which can take passengers, what are EADS, Agusta and all the rest going to do with their Tigers and Mangustas?
With the end of the cold war and the threat of Soviet armour gone, Europeans are converting the PAH concept to UHT (for instance with the German Tigers). The Westland Lynx had it right all along. We could have had up-armoured EC 155s (ËC 655) instead of the Tiger at half the price (the EADS Tiger actually costs more per unit than a Boeing Apache); or an Agusta A 109 Hirundo to do what the Tiger and Mangusta now claim to be their ARH roles.