Jump to content

RAH-66 still alive?


pz3
 Share

Recommended Posts

Last I knew the funding for it was cut.

But I swear to god I just saw one fly over my apartment....

:ph34r:

maybe some war junky that is rich bought one of the army trial choppers.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I knew the funding for it was cut.

But I swear to god I just saw one fly over my apartment....

:ph34r:

maybe some war junky that is rich bought one of the army trial choppers.

:blink: Location?.. I'm a gettin a ticket ..

although i've seen choppa's that have a simmilar rear end .. (not where i live) ..

although i see some random shnook's goin over MEGA LOUD .. Maybe some jets too ..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty familiare with Sikorsky choppers.... if it was one I would probly of recognized it.

It was moving ... was pretty quiet didnt notice it untill it was about 1/4 mile flying right at me at about a thousand feet. (not like them CH-53s lol )

The whole thing looked just like it but it was only glimpse really... the tail section thoe was very similare... but it had some small wings just before the rear rotor.

Olive Drab color, machine gun up front.

Hmmmm

*edit*

doubt this is related but intreasting aswell...

http://www.sikorsky.com/details/0,9602,CLI...ETI2307,00.html

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was an Eurocopter (they have many models with tails just like the RAH-66). Or maybe the Sikorsky S-76 (#?) prototype with the fantail. I suppose it would be hard to judge the size and details on a distance like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty familiare with Sikorsky choppers.... if it was one I would probly of recognized it.

It was moving ... was pretty quiet didnt notice it untill it was about 1/4 mile flying right at me at about a thousand feet. (not like them CH-53s lol )

The whole thing looked just like it but it was only glimpse really... the tail section thoe was very similare... but it had some small wings just before the rear rotor.

Olive Drab color, machine gun up front.

Did it have skids or was she clean? Maybe one of the LUH candidates?

Commanche was canceled months before the Crusader was.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe it was an Eurocopter (they have many models with tails just like the RAH-66). Or maybe the Sikorsky S-76 (#?) prototype with the fantail. I suppose it would be hard to judge the size and details on a distance like that.

i was thinkin s-76. Ive seen them fly over my house quite a few times and at higher altitudes they look like a commanche(the sihlouette atleast)

anywho it sounds like he did see a commanche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

here ya go guys... hard to recall the details since its been a while... but the most notable was the back... wich i got pretty much the vague shape of it and the main rotor wich was the second thing that cought my eye.

weee9sg.jpg

could be a modified cobra perhaps... not sure about that one thoe.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Well the RAH-66 does not have wings at all on the tail boom, the only horizontal stabilizers on the aircraft are mounted on the top of the vertical stabilizer in a "T" configuration. The '-66 can be configured with removable payload wings like the AH-64 for mounting extra armament or fuel, but those would hardly be near the tail rotor. The '-66 also does not have very prominent engine mounts as in your drawing ...

The orange helo posted below is a Eurocopter Dauphin used by the Coast Guard, which was my first guess reading through the thread - but most of those operating in the US are owned by the USCG and would likewise be painted bright orange ... something I imagine you would have noticed. Maybe one of the new AH-1Z Super Cobras?

Clark

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All possibilities. The UNITED STATES cancelled its funding for R&D for the Comanche. Does that mean NO ONE ELSE is interested? I doubt it.

Even though Sikorsky gets the $10billion for the contract it's owed, they produce no helicopter and no helicopter parts and no helicopter maintenance support (Field Service Representatives). They lose money in the end. So there's a good chance they'll try to do one of the following:

1.) Use existing RAH-66 airframes to continue testing new technologies to apply to existing airframes or future platforms

2.) Sell the RAH-66 to other countries, now that the USA has paid for most of the R&D work

You don't just let a $5billion bird go to waste (two flyable airframes last I heard, by a $10billion loss). They're surely flying somewhere, and the development facility WAS in West Palm Beach, FL...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.) Sell the RAH-66 to other countries, now that the USA has paid for most of the R&D work

I guess the helicopter will still be very expensive when it comes to production, parts, maintenance, training of air/ground crews and the list goes ever on. Would be much easier to aqquire the cash and political goodwill to buy a bunch of AH-64D's (or any other combat helicopter), rather than one RAH-66.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

like i said i seen it coming towards me and from the bottom at a slight angle...

most of that is guess work but the most accurate is the tail rotor... the main rotor and the bottom side of the airframe wich definitly came out on a hard edge like that with no skids.

Edited by Prozac360
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2.) Sell the RAH-66 to other countries, now that the USA has paid for most of the R&D work

I guess the helicopter will still be very expensive when it comes to production, parts, maintenance, training of air/ground crews and the list goes ever on. Would be much easier to aqquire the cash and political goodwill to buy a bunch of AH-64D's (or any other combat helicopter), rather than one RAH-66.

I can tell you from EXTENSIVE experience that AH-64D's are NOT worth the price they bring. A lot 8 Longbow with FCR, 701D engines, and all the neat software and mods comes in over $36million. You'll spend a couple hundred man hours per year on maintenance, a lot of that unscheduled. Actually, if you fly the crap out of it (like we do in Iraq) you can call that several hundred man hours of maintenance work. A couple million $$$ in parts. Per year, again. And fly 100-400 hours, depending on your luck (and that's all it is) with maintenance. Let's not forget the civilian staff to go with that. Recently Bell Helicopters asked 1/2Million$$$ to send one single Field Service Representative to Iraq for one year with a certain OH-58D/I unit which shall remain nameless. That's just for Kiowa Warriors. They suck. Imagine what Boeing is billing their FSR's out for, and then Lockheed for the FCR FSR. AMCOM and CECOM LAR's get paid too, as do contract maintenance teams from the likes of Lockheed-Martin, DynCorp, LS2, or Raytheon. Six figures each. Big money in that business.

Longbows would be no cheaper in the end. And for that matter, the Comanche would be more survivable I think. I've seen an RAH-66 tailboom assembly up close. Had my hands on it, in it, and around it. Carbon fiber is neat. Corrodes the heck out of those titanium fasteners they wanted to use. Cool thing about that carbon fiber, honeycombed tailboom was that it had BUTTLOADS of bulletholes in it of varying calibers. And it was still solid as a rock. For all the hype, Apaches routinely wet their little shorts over small arms fire. GREAT on the open battlefield, but that's not where anyone fights anymore.

And for the record, a short list of other countries that also own or will soon own the AH-64 Apache (A or D model):

Great Britain

the Netherlands

Greece

Israel

Egypt

United Arab Emirates

Kuwait

Singapore

Turkey backed out at the last minute in 2000 and chose to buy Blackhawks instead (BIG difference there, boneheads). Australia looked at the AH-64D Longbow, but settled on the French-made Tiger attack helicopter in late 2004.

Best bet? A hell of a lot of AH-6's with 160th SOAR's best at the controls. Single best investment in the history of Army Aviation...

Edited by RAbbi_74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know that about the AH-64. It was a bad example I suppose. Still doubting that RAH-66 costs less, but they might be worth more though. Can't argue with you there. But getting funds for it will still be hard. (politicians...)

AH-6 are neat as hell, but how much damage can they take in combat? Must be a lot of space and weight restrictions, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't know that about the AH-64. It was a bad example I suppose. Still doubting that RAH-66 costs less, but they might be worth more though. Can't argue with you there. But getting funds for it will still be hard. (politicians...)

AH-6 are neat as hell, but how much damage can they take in combat? Must be a lot of space and weight restrictions, right?

Damage- NO HELICOPTER OUT THERE really stands up well to bullets. Much less RPG's and the like. Think of it this way, if someone's going to shoot at my helicopter anyway, wouldn't I rather present the smallest, most agile target for them to engage? In that way, there is no competing with the H-6.

Space/Weight- true. Not as bad as the OH-58A/C, but still a small single-engine bird. Unless you're Russian, every helicopter is a compromise...

Igor Sikorsky was Russian wasn't he? I was so eager to see an attack helicoper built by his namesake...

And yeah, the Comanche would lkely be far more expensive to field, but probably wouldn't come with the same reputation for lack of reliability that folks who know, KNOW we have with the AH-64. It's great when it works right, but it NEVER works right...

Edited by RAbbi_74
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that the larger helicopters would be safer because of the double engines and armour... Do you know if Tiger and Mangusta are any more agile than the Apache? (I have a long time love affair with Agusta btw ;) )

I bet the H-6 model with the jet tail thingy (civ. 520?) would be awsome with a MMS and Hellfires... Silent and agile. Like how the RAH-66 was supposed to be. The thought of that combo makes an "old" cavalry guy like me shiver in fear. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking that the larger helicopters would be safer because of the double engines and armour... Do you know if Tiger and Mangusta are any more agile than the Apache? (I have a long time love affair with Agusta btw ;) )

I bet the H-6 model with the jet tail thingy (civ. 520?) would be awsome with a MMS and Hellfires... Silent and agile. Like how the RAH-66 was supposed to be. The thought of that combo makes an "old" cavalry guy like me shiver in fear. ;)

ARMOR is a relative term, man. Most of the AH-64's airframe is aluminum. A little magnesium in some of the gearbox housings and such, but mostly T4 aluminum. Not very bullet-resistant. So the trick was to make the airframe 'shrink' as much as possible when viewed from the most likely angle at which one would engage it. Its true survivability comes in the form of extended standoff range. The M230 30mm gun can easily tag targets at over 1Km, and who knows what the current max range is on the AGM-114 family. I'd bet in excess of 32 Km, but I can't tell you why. ;) No sniper rifle in the world has that sort of range, and most machineguns can't tag you at even 1K. Further, with the MTADS it's prety easy to read your nametag at a couple Km range, at night, in fog, under your jacket. See where that's going?

I'm not nearly as up on the Tiger, though I have pals in Oz who know them well. Call it comparable for what I know of them.

The big outstanding feature of the RAH-66 was to be its even lower rf signature. MUCH harder to spot on a radar, much harder to lock on with an IR/UV guided missile. That, like Apache's standoff capabilities, is meaningless in the modern battlefield. You must face unguided threats from all directions at short range in the least ideal possible circumstances. That's why I had more faith in the SMALLER, more AGILE and FASTER Comanche. And more yet in the H-6 family of helicopters.

FYI- there is SOME actual ARMOR on an Apache- it's all around the two pilots, and between their two respective crew stations. This does little to keep the helicopter itself mechanically sound under fire, but allows them a greater opportunity to live long enough to experience the crash landing at the end of a shootdown. In most casess, all the REALLY IMPORTANT electronic stuff lies between the pilots' armor and the likely position of the shooter. Makes sense, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Damage- NO HELICOPTER OUT THERE really stands up well to bullets. Much less RPG's and the like. Think of it this way, if someone's going to shoot at my helicopter anyway, wouldn't I rather present the smallest, most agile target for them to engage? In that way, there is no competing with the H-6.

well, one chopper surely doest know how to handle some beating.... the Hind-d falls easily into that category :)

what a nice invention that is, a flying bmp :o=

back to track, are you definently sure about that mounted gun?

not a camera ( usualy bulky, but not all are ) or antenas ?

Bell got a couple that could be it, but to my knowledge, they haven't got it in the us armed forces, flying with anything else than side mounthed, or door mounted guns, so that is the part that limits the number of posibilitis, the ah-6 is a nice little bird, but not simmilar to how i understand your sighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...