Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
Gents, this is all speculation, however ... ;DI think that a decision to retire the OH-58D and use AH-64E in the roll is purely a function of dollars anticipated to be available for the next decade or so. Aviation is no doubt the biggest exclusive budget element for the Army when it comes to procurement and maintenance. In the olde tyme days when the budget got tight, Cavalry Regiments were the first to go. Nothing has changed. Second order effects like only having to ship two engine types (AH and UH [T701] and CH [T-64]), fewer rotor blades and electronics around the world along with fewer training classes for flying and maintaining certainly save money as well.I am not sure that it is a sacrifice to keep FVL light alive so much as the Army can take the risk betting that the FVL program will be able to produce a light FVL once people start complaining how expensive it is to fly a AH-64E "ubercopter" for a reconnaissance mission.Wait five years and lets revisit. By then the US military rotorcraft industry will be almost completely out of work, less CH-53K and any foreign sales. Congress may be more receptive then to the "poor Army's" desperate need for a new scout that goes further and faster than an AH-64 but cost much less to operate. Personally, I think Sikorsky is sitting very well to come back to the table with a mature S-97 capability. Oh yeah it is also the base technology being promoted by Sikorsky for FVL.
Gents, this is all speculation, however ... ;D
I think that a decision to retire the OH-58D and use AH-64E in the roll is purely a function of dollars anticipated to be available for the next decade or so. Aviation is no doubt the biggest exclusive budget element for the Army when it comes to procurement and maintenance. In the olde tyme days when the budget got tight, Cavalry Regiments were the first to go. Nothing has changed. Second order effects like only having to ship two engine types (AH and UH [T701] and CH [T-64]), fewer rotor blades and electronics around the world along with fewer training classes for flying and maintaining certainly save money as well.
I am not sure that it is a sacrifice to keep FVL light alive so much as the Army can take the risk betting that the FVL program will be able to produce a light FVL once people start complaining how expensive it is to fly a AH-64E "ubercopter" for a reconnaissance mission.
Wait five years and lets revisit. By then the US military rotorcraft industry will be almost completely out of work, less CH-53K and any foreign sales. Congress may be more receptive then to the "poor Army's" desperate need for a new scout that goes further and faster than an AH-64 but cost much less to operate. Personally, I think Sikorsky is sitting very well to come back to the table with a mature S-97 capability. Oh yeah it is also the base technology being promoted by Sikorsky for FVL.
