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
I know it's not my place to question the geniuses running things down in DC but perhaps Army aviation could have used some addition funding in 2004 that would have allowed for production of the RAH-66 while keeping upgrade plans for the CH-47, UH-60, and AH-64. Going through all that effort just to cancel it because of fears that it's going to eat the budget seems incredibly wasteful.Going back even further I think axing the light utility helicopter from LHX was a mistake too. That could have had a lot of potential on the export markets even.Could the RAH-66 return? I don't see why not if there is a willingness to accept that it is still going to cost a large sum of money to update the design and establish the chain of production. If you're looking for a survivable reconnaissance helicopter I think picking up where they left off might be smarter than starting with a clean sheet of paper.FARA is a bit different though because of the focus on speed and I don't see a way you could achieve the sort of signature reduction the RAH-66 did while using a compound helicopter or tilt-rotor configuration. Although I don't think a tilt-rotor is in consideration for FARA anymore now that Bell said their offering will be derived from the Bell 525 instead of the V-280 Valor.So I'd say if whatever Sikorsky offers based on the S-97 for FARA doesn't work out it should return. I suppose I shouldn't rule out the other contenders but Bell's offering of what is probably going to be a conventional design without extensive signature reduction doesn't seem like a great choice to me when there are other options on the table.
I know it's not my place to question the geniuses running things down in DC but perhaps Army aviation could have used some addition funding in 2004 that would have allowed for production of the RAH-66 while keeping upgrade plans for the CH-47, UH-60, and AH-64. Going through all that effort just to cancel it because of fears that it's going to eat the budget seems incredibly wasteful.
Going back even further I think axing the light utility helicopter from LHX was a mistake too. That could have had a lot of potential on the export markets even.
Could the RAH-66 return? I don't see why not if there is a willingness to accept that it is still going to cost a large sum of money to update the design and establish the chain of production. If you're looking for a survivable reconnaissance helicopter I think picking up where they left off might be smarter than starting with a clean sheet of paper.
FARA is a bit different though because of the focus on speed and I don't see a way you could achieve the sort of signature reduction the RAH-66 did while using a compound helicopter or tilt-rotor configuration. Although I don't think a tilt-rotor is in consideration for FARA anymore now that Bell said their offering will be derived from the Bell 525 instead of the V-280 Valor.
So I'd say if whatever Sikorsky offers based on the S-97 for FARA doesn't work out it should return. I suppose I shouldn't rule out the other contenders but Bell's offering of what is probably going to be a conventional design without extensive signature reduction doesn't seem like a great choice to me when there are other options on the table.
