I presume that the aircraft that started to look more attractive during development of the AH-56 Comanche were the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk and the Bell Model 309 Kingcobra?
overscan said:The turf wars between the Army and USAF are an interesting topic in their own right. Could have seen the Northrop/Hawker Harrier in Army service.
Triton said:I presume that the aircraft that started to look more attractive during development of the AH-56 Comanche were the Sikorsky S-67 Blackhawk and the Bell Model 309 Kingcobra?
Archibald said:Don't think so. The "official successor" of the Cheyenne was the AH-64 Apache, started in 1972.
It was supposed to be less costly than the Cheyenne; in the end, the sole Apache avionic set was as expensive as a whole Cheyenne.
The Comanche had roots in the LHX, itself planned successor of the OH-58 Kiowa, which entered service in the late 70's. OH-58 are still flying as of today.
Footnote: I LOVE the AH-56 Cheyenne. What a machine... doomed from the start by crazy specifications. Le Fana de l'aviation, July-August 2000 edition, had a superb article crammed with photos and drawings. Highly recommended.
Archibald said:Footnote: I LOVE the AH-56 Cheyenne. What a machine... doomed from the start by crazy specifications. Le Fana de l'aviation, July-August 2000 edition, had a superb article crammed with photos and drawings. Highly recommended.
sferrin said:Add to that the LARGE external load capacity.
Abraham Gubler said:With full external fuel it had a ferry range of over 4,600km which is enough to cross the Atlantic if the weather was right. Which was strategically significant if the Soviets ever invaded West Germany. Being able to ferry your USA based attack helicopter force into Europe without the need for airlifters and all that entails (huge logistics burden) would enable NATO to massively and rapidly boost its anti-tank force.
The two turrets could engage separately with the gunner controlling one through his swivel seat and the pilot with the helmet mounted sight.
Considering the reason the AH-56 never entered production was the US Army was sold a design to cost AAH (which was bogus) and the endeavours of Hughes in illegally subverting the LOH contract... And had to wait ~15 years for the night capable attack helicopter the might-have-been AH-56 story is pretty soul destroying.
If the Cheyenne would have entered production I'm sure it would have ended up like the Chinook with multiple generations being built up until this day:
AH-56A
AH-56B USMC twin engine (real proposal)
HH-56C USN CSAR with 30mm replaced by ladder and cabin for two rescued pilots (real proposal)
AH-56D second generation with Hellfire, digital systems and twin engines
HH-56E second generation USN/USAF CSAR with single cockpit, winch and new cabin for two rescue operators, four rescued pilots
PH-56F USN sea control with surface search radar and Harpoon (real proposal for Apache)
AH-56G third generation with MMW radar, Longbow Hellfire
Triton said:Are you saying that upgrades to the AH-56 Cheyenne would have given it the same capabilities as the AH-64 Apache? Such as night and all-weather attack capability that later became a requirement of the US Army?
It really sounds like politics and inter-service rivalries really killed the program.
Triton said:Are you saying that upgrades to the AH-56 Cheyenne would have given it the same capabilities as the AH-64 Apache? Such as night and all-weather attack capability that later became a requirement of the US Army? It really sounds like politics and inter-service rivalries really killed the program.
Rosdivan said:I recall reading that the AH-56 was intended to use high speed diving type attacks while Apache was "lurk at low level and fire missiles from where they can't hit you" and that the former was too vulnerable to WP AAA and MANPADS. Was that not true, or a misunderstanding, or something else?
Abraham Gubler said:As to vulnerability there is nothing protection wise the Apace could have that the Cheyenne couldn't. That the Cheyenne was significantly faster with much (much!) better acceleration and deceleration would have significantly made it harder for anyone to hit it with gunfire.
Sea Skimmer said:AH-56 had one engine. The AH-64 has two engines separated by an armor bulkhead rated to stop a 23mm HEI round from disabling both at once. That is a huge survivability advantage.
Sea Skimmer said:That single engine, and the simpler lighter transmission it allowed is a major factor in why AH-56 had such high aerodynamic performance.
Sea Skimmer said:It was also clearly unacceptable for a future attack helicopter in view of combat experience in Vietnam when over a thousand single engine helicopters were shot down, the vast majority by weapons no heavier then 14.5mm machine guns.
Sea Skimmer said:Converting AH-56 to twin engines might be possible, it was done with Cobra, but it will cost a great deal of weight, time and money.
Sea Skimmer said:Apache was also designed with suppression of its thermal signature from the onset, while AH-56 has a big ass tail pipe sticking off the back just begging to swallow a MANPADS. That’s another change AH-56 is gonna need that will cut into its performance yet more. Mixing in cold air and adding shrouds means more drag, less speed.
Sea Skimmer said:AH-56 could fly about 250mph, which is 70mph faster then an AH-64. Nice, but really none of these speeds provides much meaningful defence against anti aircraft guns. Gunfire chopped down 300-400mph fighters in WW2 without much trouble at all, the allies lost close to two thousand planes to flak over Normandy for example.
Sea Skimmer said:The costs of AH-64 and AH-56 cannot be reasonably compared without accounting for the 1970s stagflation.
Sea Skimmer said:Cheyenne was great for fighting the Vietnam War in the Vietnam era. It needed far too many changes to be acceptable on 1970s and 1980s battlefields against a sophisticated enemy. After a point a clean sheet beats modifications, that’s what we did and we got a great aircraft out of it.
Sea Skimmer said:Abraham Gubler said:As to vulnerability there is nothing protection wise the Apace could have that the Cheyenne couldn't. That the Cheyenne was significantly faster with much (much!) better acceleration and deceleration would have significantly made it harder for anyone to hit it with gunfire.
AH-56 had one engine. The AH-64 has two engines separated by an armor bulkhead rated to stop a 23mm HEI round from disabling both at once. That is a huge survivability advantage. That single engine, and the simpler lighter transmission it allowed is a major factor in why AH-56 had such high aerodynamic performance. It was also clearly unacceptable for a future attack helicopter in view of combat experience in Vietnam when over a thousand single engine helicopters were shot down, the vast majority by weapons no heavier then 14.5mm machine guns. Converting AH-56 to twin engines might be possible, it was done with Cobra, but it will cost a great deal of weight, time and money.
Apache was also designed with suppression of its thermal signature from the onset, while AH-56 has a big ass tail pipe sticking off the back just begging to swallow a MANPADS. That’s another change AH-56 is gonna need that will cut into its performance yet more. Mixing in cold air and adding shrouds means more drag, less speed.
AH-56 could fly about 250mph, which is 70mph faster then an AH-64. Nice, but really none of these speeds provides much meaningful defence against anti aircraft guns. Gunfire chopped down 300-400mph fighters in WW2 without much trouble at all, the allies lost close to two thousand planes to flak over Normandy for example. The USAF went in Vietnam thinking its 600mph plus jets would be safe from anti aircraft gunfire. That didn’t work out too well either when the NVA simply used barrage fire and took advantage of the jets inability to turn rapidly at high speed. Thus is why the A-10 was a straight wing 400mph plane with heavy armor and two engines.
The costs of AH-64 and AH-56 cannot be reasonably compared without accounting for the 1970s stagflation. That enormously increased to cost of weapons systems and nearly destroyed several programs and defence projects just as the Tarawa class LHAs. It is very unlikely that a night capable AH-56 redesigned with twin engines would have ended up any cheaper then AH-64 to build. We might not even save any money on R&D since all those Apache optronics systems were bleeding edge for the time. They’ll be expensive to package into any airframe, let alone one not designed with space or cooling or electrical power for them in the first place.
Cheyenne was great for fighting the Vietnam War in the Vietnam era. It needed far too many changes to be acceptable on 1970s and 1980s battlefields against a sophisticated enemy. After a point a clean sheet beats modifications, that’s what we did and we got a great aircraft out of it.
Triton said:Topping model of Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne.
JohnR said:A question which I have also had about the AH-56; bearing in mind I am a relative technical Luddite :, what was the purpose of the swiveling gunner/weapons operators seat. The system on the AH-64 with the sight following the gunners head seems more sensible and simpler, what was the necessity of having the gunners entire body move with the sighting system. What would have happened if the seat system had jammed during combat?
circle-5 said:Triton said:Topping model of Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne.
To be perfectly accurate, all desk models of the Cheyenne, including the one pictured here, were made for Lockheed by the Par-Tool Company in Los Angeles. Topping Models / Precise Models were never involved with this particular contract.
HeavyG said:I know this is a wee bit off-topic...decent looking model...is this one of those mahogany wood models and where can one obtain one?
GAU-8 Avenger said:It just might be unrealistic picturing modernized AH-56s still in service in 2009.
John21 said:The video mentioned changes in military philosophy were a part in its demise. What were these changes? The aircraft seems pretty fricking capable to me, and way a head of its time...perhaps a bit too ahead.