It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

AH-56 Cheyenne VS AH-64 Apache?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:01 AM
link   
The AH-56 Cheyenne was designed to support US troops in vietnam but becouse the US Army already had AH-1 Cobras posted over there, The Cheyenne was cancelled.

The Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne was roumoured to be a highly advanced chopper back then in 1967. It had a 30mm automatic gun underneath the fuselage, underwing pylons and a 7.62 Minigun/40mm Grenade Launcher in the chin turret. Its main feature was a propellor at the tail so it could push itself 250 miles per hour. It is somtimes described as a chopper version of the OV-10 Bronco and with its wings and its distinctive propellor, Its pilot also described it was like flying a plane.

Although i do admire the AH-64 Apache, i was thinking the Cheyenne would still smoke it off. It also could have been still in service now.

www.globalsecurity.org...
www.internetage.com...

www.studenten.net...
www.militaryfactory.com...

avia.russian.ee...
www.helis.com...

Was the RAH-66 Commanche supposed to replace the Apache fleet?

[edit on 23-11-2005 by Browno]




posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Nice thread


But I wouldn't put my money on this chopper... It isn't as agile as the AH-64, and propably slower too, because it only has one "engine" to give extra thrust ... the weaponry wouldn't be as good either, does it even have a machinegun in the front...???

I am not sure if the RAF-66 ere supposed to replace the Apaches, In my opinon they would have been far better of serving together...
because the Commanche isn't an attack helicopter, it's more of a "recon" type...



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
The Cheyenne died because it was too complex. Having one today, with the high-horsepower computing power available to monitor its systems, might be successful, but there are inherent problems with a helicopter going that fast, things like retreating blade stall, for example.

The other thing that makes the Apache a better fit for the battlefield is that we use helicopters for their ability to take off and land in small areas, loiter motionless long enough to acquire and designate a target and launcch weapons to defeat it, and to carry enough fuel and ordnance to be able to go from here to there in a reasonable amount of time, hang out there and fight for a long time, then come back here again. Blazing speed is not that big of a deal if you have to sacrifice other capabilities, including a short logistics tail and ease of maintenance and repair (which the Cheyenne definitiely did not have).

And as far as the Comanche is concerned, it was too heavy, to expensive and -- in the final analysis -- too late.

By the time the Comanche had managed to get its teething pains resolved and finally get to IOT&E, the Apache had already progressed to the AH-64 D, which would do 95 percent of what the Comanche offered, carry a lot more ordnance, and have much lower non-recurring costs, too.

And by the time you see our Block III D-models on the ramp, we'll have a helicopter that is superior to anything in the inventory (and anything ever envisioned), and we'll have it available for the next thirty years.



posted on Nov, 23 2005 @ 12:30 PM
link   
Inter-service politics also played a role in the cancellation.

As it deined that the USAF controls all winged aircraft procurement and the claimed that the Cheyenne had wings' that provided a significant amount of lift as well as carrying weapons, thus they said the aircraft's procurement came under their control.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Nice thread


But I wouldn't put my money on this chopper... It isn't as agile as the AH-64, and propably slower too, because it only has one "engine" to give extra thrust ... the weaponry wouldn't be as good either, does it even have a machinegun in the front...???

I am not sure if the RAF-66 ere supposed to replace the Apaches, In my opinon they would have been far better of serving together...
because the Commanche isn't an attack helicopter, it's more of a "recon" type...


The Cheyenne did have a 30mm gun underneath and an optional 7.62 Minigun/40mm GL in the chin turret. It may have not been as agile as the Apache but it had a top cruising speed of 250MPH, The Apache does 185ish MPH.

This Commanche can swerve sideways at 70MPH. Shame the US cancelled the whole thing, they should just have put it on hold.

The Cheyenne was also called by it pilots 'Guns a Go Go'.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   
Yes, but speed isn't everything... There must be a good reason why the Apache doesn't go as fast... When you take points away from "top-speed"... the points are bound to jump in another place... like agility... besides a chopper does a lot more with agility than with speed...



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 07:04 AM
link   
LOL! There is no reason for me to look into these threads as long as OTS is here. He's pretty much right on target, from what I know and understand.

You know, I should go and take some pictures of the Cheyenne; it is outside in front of the Ft. Rucker Army Aviation Museum.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 05:33 PM
link   
TC, as you probably know, Ft. Rucker is the Pilot's school for Army aviators (the maintainers' school is in Ft. Eustis, VA, near Norfolk). Probably half of my colleagues are reqtirew Army W-4's and a maintenence test pilots (MTPs) at Rucker. Nt okder suster, a retired USAR LTC nurse, used to spend her two weeks active duty a Rucker doing physicals and stuff (here reserve unit was in north Florida).

I, on the other hand, have never been to Ft. Rucker (or Ft. Eustis, for that matter). If you go the Rucker, post those pictures of a Cheyenne; I'd love to see one!



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 06:46 PM
link   
One of my fist threads here on ATS Dealth with this very topic

The Lost Tribe

While it was a marvel esp. for the time, it was not deemed survivable against the MANPADS that were comming on line at the time. It was dependant on a high speed dive of sorts to make its attack runs and that made it vulnerable.

It also ran afoul of the Key West Agreements with the USAF as it was too much like a aircraft and that also put pressure on it to be killed.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 11:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Nice thread


But I wouldn't put my money on this chopper... It isn't as agile as the AH-64, and propably slower too, because it only has one "engine" to give extra thrust ... the weaponry wouldn't be as good either, does it even have a machinegun in the front...???

I am not sure if the RAF-66 ere supposed to replace the Apaches, In my opinon they would have been far better of serving together...
because the Commanche isn't an attack helicopter, it's more of a "recon" type...



Hence the RAH designation. "R" stands for reconnaissance. Besides, the program was cancelled in Feb. 2004. So you're looking at the Apache sticking around for quite a while.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CyberianHusky



Hence the RAH designation. "R" stands for reconnaissance. Besides, the program was cancelled in Feb. 2004. So you're looking at the Apache sticking around for quite a while.


Isn't that what I said...???



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Isn't that what I said...???



Not exactly. You said it was "more of a 'recon' type". That isn't a declarative statement that it is a recon chopper. At any rate, my point was that it is a cancelled project.



posted on Nov, 29 2005 @ 07:33 PM
link   
OTS, I'll see about going this weekend. The problem is that I work 3rd shift now, and by the time I wake up, it's a bit on the dark side.

I'll give it a shot to wake up in time to take some pics, and to not be so tired that I'm ill enough to chew car rims and spit roofing tacks.

If I get there in time, I'll go in and take some pics of some other stuff, too. It's a great museum.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by CyberianHusky

Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Isn't that what I said...???



Not exactly. You said it was "more of a 'recon' type". That isn't a declarative statement that it is a recon chopper. At any rate, my point was that it is a cancelled project.



RAH = Recconnaissance Attack Helicopter, surely? So not just a recconaissance type then, as FIN said.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
One of the pics of this beautiful chopper:



It's a really a pity that comanche got cancelled. According to FAS its RCS is smaller than its weapon, the hellfire! Great for penetraing behind enemies lines. Games simulating driving a comanche came out even though it will never get into production line. Comanche will make the apache looks like a toy.

EDIT: Opps came back to look at it and found it off-topic. Sorry!


[edit on 30-11-2005 by NotheRaGe]



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 06:49 AM
link   
The Commanche was a concept for the Cold War; woodland combat. Conventional thinking doesn't have us there in the anywhere-near future.
Also, the military demand over-ran what the airframe was able to give, and some serious beefing was necessary. Too much for a system that time passed by.

I laid hands on one right before the system was cancelled. It was a nifty-looking little bird, no doubt, and I was told it would be more of a joy to work on than the S-70 or S-76. Them-thar's the breaks, though.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 07:26 AM
link   
Well, I wont second guess the Pentagon's decision to take the Apache now. It is battle proven and will be an asset in the American Military for some time to come, who knows what kind of improvements/modifications they are cooking up.



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos


RAH = Recconnaissance Attack Helicopter, surely? So not just a recconaissance type then, as FIN said.


I said that it's more of a "recon" type... I never actually claimed that it wouldn't be an attack chopper...



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
Yes, I know. I was backing up your point as CH seemed to be suggesting it was just a recon type. Maybe I misread him too? I should keep my nose out



posted on Nov, 30 2005 @ 09:20 AM
link   
Give me a super lynx over the commanche any day

I would be interested too seeing this "cheyenne".....very interesting...



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join