My Personal Opinion on LHX Program

[hesham]

Hi,

in the beginning,please I don't want a big agreement or debate,I just offer my
personal opinion about it.

The LHX program is the best one did for helicopter in all over the world,but they
were not good enough (no offense) to choice the right design and concept.

Two main mistakes had been done;

First : selected Sikorsky RAH-66 as a winner,if we examine with a keen eye,there’s no a lot differences between it and Bell AH-1,on the contrary,the new developments and improvements for Bell’s design,can reach to that level, on the other hand,the cost was too expensive.

Second : Lightweight Attack Helicopter means as I guess,

1- single seat form, to save one pilot and money.
2- light airframe and smaller fuselage to can use against armored little tank (M-113,… etc),armored vehicle,normal vehicle (Jeep) and a gathering of soldiers,in secondary mission to destroy big tanks.
3-low rotor diameter to apply among hills and mountains,also in cities,at demand.
4- high-speed and capability for high maneuverability to avoid missiles and cannons,also it can make a low-attack on air defense basis.

So if I was responsible by that time,I will pick up the McDonnell concept,with making some changes,such as add tail fin …..etc.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the only opportunity for make concept like this is to Russian helicopter Kamov
Ka-58,by reduce pilot into one and redesign a scale down of it,to achieve the
mission; Lightweight Attack Helicopter.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Two main mistakes had been done;

First : selected Sikorsky RAH-66 as a winner ,if we examine with a keen eye,t here’s no a lot differences between it and Bell AH-1,on the contrary ,the new developments and improvements for Bell’s design,can reach to that level, on the other hand,the cost was too expensive.

1) You haven't seen Bell's design. None of the artist's impressions depict their actual design.
2) RAH-66 is very different to the AH-1 externally and more importantly internally.

Second : Lightweight Attack Helicopter means as I guess,

Best not to guess, best to read the actual requirement.

So if I was responsible by that time, I will pick up the McDonnell concept ,with making some changes, such as add tail fin …..etc.

1) If it doesn't need a tail fin adding one is extra weight for no reason.
2) I suspect this concept was not anything related to a serious proposal.

 

[hesham]

1) You haven't seen Bell's design. None of the artist's impressions depict their actual design.
2) RAH-66 is very different to the AH-1 externally and more importantly internally.

Well,of course I see the Bell's design,but it was heavier than McDonnell also,and
really RAH-66 differs from AH-1,but they are very close concepts ?.

Best not to guess, best to read the actual requirement.

Also I know it was a lightweight helicopter experimental to replace AH-1,but it falled totally as in Wikipedia;
In March 2004, the Army Chief of Staff terminated the Comanche program. The termination occurred for several reasons; Among them are unrealistic and unachievable overall requirements, high projected production costs, changing Army aviation mission (refusal to consider the changing threat environment), lack of adequate funding for other critical aviation needs, and failure to achieve reduced risk of certain risks. Key techniques and chronic groupthink.

1) If it doesn't need a tail fin adding one is extra weight for no reason.
2) I suspect this concept was not anything related to a serious proposal.

I understand it was just a hypothetical design,but in my opinion,it was
very nearly to the whole meaning of LHX,as I think.

 

[hesham]

Hi,

the only opportunity for make concept like this is to Russian helicopter Kamov
Ka-58,by reduce pilot into one and redesign a scale down of it,to achieve the
mission; Lightweight Attack Helicopter.

I forget Kamov Ka.90 ?.

 

[RavenOne]

Well,of course I see the Bell's design,but it was heavier than McDonnell also,and
really RAH-66 differs from AH-1,but they are very close concepts ?.



Also I know it was a lightweight helicopter experimental to replace AH-1,but it falled totally as in Wikipedia;
In March 2004, the Army Chief of Staff terminated the Comanche program. The termination occurred for several reasons; Among them are unrealistic and unachievable overall requirements, high projected production costs, changing Army aviation mission (refusal to consider the changing threat environment), lack of adequate funding for other critical aviation needs, and failure to achieve reduced risk of certain risks. Key techniques and chronic groupthink.


I understand it was just a hypothetical design,but in my opinion,it was
very nearly to the whole meaning of LHX,as I think.

also the money was more importantly needed to sustain the army aviation frontline AH-64A/d, Bell O/AH-58D Sikorsky UH-60A/L and Boeing h-47D in two theaters of conflict - Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom plus any mods, especially sensors to help with brown-out landings. The latter cost a fair few accidents,,,

cheers