Back in the early 60's when the US Army needed a attack helicopter there were three entries, the AH-64, AH-56, and S-66. I do not have any info on
the S-66. As you all know the AH-64 won out but I want to tell abou the AH-56. The AH-56(name Cheyenne) had a crew of two. It featured a swiveling
gunner's station link to rotating belly and nose turrets. It also had a laser range finder tied to a fire control computer. The AH-56 hwas armed
with a 30mm automatic cannon in the belly turret and a 40mm grenade launcher or a 7.62mm gatling gun in the chin turret. It could also be armed with
TOWs or 2.75 inch rockets. The AH-56 had a single four- bladed main rotor, a anti-torque tail rotor, and a three-bladed pusher. It was powered by
one 3435 shp turbine engine. The AH-56 had a top speed of 214 knots, a cruise speed of 197 knots, a service ceiling of 26,000 feet, a maxium range of
547 nautical miles, and could climb at 3,420 feet per minute. The AH-56 was Lockheed's entrance into the program. In the end the AH-56 proved to be
too complicated and there were cost overruns. The Army decided to pick the AH-64 because of its simpler fire control and navgation systems.
AH-56
YAH-64(protoype AH-64)
AH-64D
So the question is, Do you think the AH-56 should of entered service instead of the AH-64 given the info here?
I await your replies.
|
If my memory of watching a History Channel (or was it discovery?) documentary about this serves me right, the cheyenne wasn't adopted because it had
an unhealthy habit of crashing unexpectedly.
Besides just look at it, its UGLY!
|
The cheyane was designed to fly like a fighter plane making high speed attack runs, basicly is was concieved before shoulder launched sams namely the
SA-7 appeared. The AH-64 was designed to fight in condition where such threats are commonplace ie the modern battlefield.
|
To me, its looks like you could down it with a 9mm.
|
As I remember from the same program, the Cheyenne did have remarkably good attack performance, but was scratched "officially" because of complexity
with the fire control linkages (having 2 separate gun stations that had to operate independently) and the propulsion system, (the pusher prop was
claimed to be problematic).
There are likely 2 other explainations that were not forthcoming... First was that the Cheyenne was too dissimilar to the normal helicopter...
Although performance may have been there, and even assuming the same reliability, traditional military commanders wanted something that looked like a
normal helicopter, because that is what they had all along.
Also, I would say that politics played a role in it somewhere. The manufacturers of the Apache likely offered a state rep more than those of the
Cheyenne....
|
...As Dragon said and the fact that we do not need a new attack helo in the near future....we will in time, since warfare is becoming more
close in orientation.
Unfortunately, I think the standoff weapons will rule the day in the next major war with Naval carriers, bombers, battleships and JSTARs running the
show............  
|
