trying to make sense of this ARH move by the army....

The ARH candidate by Bell is basically an improved Kiowa Warrior. It uses the same basic airframe as the KW, which is also based on the Bell Jet Ranger. It is longer, which allows more crew or gear to be carried, has more power and better engines, better avionics, etc., etc.

The MMS is not really used much anymore anyhow. It was designed for a battlefield full of Soviet armor, the KW was designed to hide behind the trees, spot and put a laser onto the tanks for artillery to shoot Copperhead laser guided projectiles at and for Apaches to shoot laser guided Hellfires at. Now that the AH-64D Longbow has better capabilities and uses radar guided Hellfires and the Copperhead is pretty much obsolete as well, the MMS is not really needed any longer. The FLIR mounted on the nose of the ARH is more capable than the MMS anyhow.

Also, Bell ARH has a 4-blade rotor system like the KW as well.

Bottom line, the KW is 1970's technology and it is time to change to an aircraft that better meets today's needs.

Here is more info on it: http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/ARH/bellARH3.cfm

The Army's decision to field the ARH is a cheap replacement for Comanche, since that program was essentially cancelled. That's also why it sort of came out of the blue ... it's a big wad of off-the-shelf technology cobbled together to match a mission profile specification.

Didn't the Army try this out 20 years ago? Wasn't the LHX (later Commanche) at one time supposed to have been part of a two-fold program, with the other part being what we're calling today LUH?

You are wise, Grasshopper. In fact the Oh-58D is also a stop-gap measure generated from the LHX money-burnoff. And the Styker vehicle is a warmed-over LAV-25 that we tested here at Fort Lewis in 1982 ... history repeats itself. I was one of the program managers at the time and they made the same mistakes now as they did then. They wanted an armored gun system but didn't want to pay for tracks, so they went with an existing wheeled vehicle while they tried (and failed) to find a substitute. This time, they just fielded it anyway.

thanks for the info...I didn't realize the ARH was a four blade. makes sense what you say regarding the mast mounted site. It appears unless we go to war with North Korea the days of massed enemy armor formations are possibly over.....

Korea isn't an area will you will see massed armor, small valleys and high mountains

Not only is the KW 1970's technology, it is getting too heavy. I have read that replacing the KW with O-T-S equipment was cheaper than upgrading the airframe and giving it the power that it needs to carry all of the weight that has been added to the airframe. Is the airframe chosen the ansewr to this problem?....Only time will tell.

Mac

QUOTE: Originally posted by grandadjohn Korea isn't an area will you will see massed armor, small valleys and high mountains

Agree with grandadjohn on the above. N. Korea is an artillery centered army, not armor centered. Most of their tanks are older types as well, T-55/62 varients and Chinese copies. They have the most artillery of any army in the world, granted, most of it is old and obsolete,. But with a round flying through the air though, it doesn't matter what fired it. The country is very mountainous and most of the valleys and cuts in the mountains will only support one or two vehicles across. The open areas only occur south of Soeul and toward the sea in the southeast part of the country. The fight there will be to secure key N-S valleys and E-W passes and defeat their artillery first with airpower, then counter-battery artillery fires. The whole ground plan is to support movement of artillery forward/north to gain range and destroy N. Korean artillery. Attack Helos are key in this as well as they can get in and out quickly to also attack artillery positions that are close to the front lines.

The ARH isn't quite the same airframe as the Kiowa Warrior. It's the extended fuselage, built at Bell's Mirabel plant in Canada.

QUOTE: Originally posted by hollenbaugh The ARH isn't quite the same airframe as the Kiowa Warrior. It's the extended fuselage, built at Bell's Mirabel plant in Canada.

Yup. That is basically what I said above...

QUOTE: The ARH candidate by Bell is basically an improved Kiowa Warrior. It uses the same basic airframe as the KW, which is also based on the Bell Jet Ranger. It is longer, which allows more crew or gear to be carried, has more power and better engines, better avionics, etc., etc.

Has Gino stated, an improved KW, first step was the Bell 206B-3(Jet Ranger), second step the Bell 206L-4(Long Ranger), third step the Bell 407(improved Long Ranger)

the ARH(sorry for the small size, best I could download)
and for those interested

the Bell H-4, the 1960 entry in the LOH competiton(which the OH-6 won) that became the OH-58Kiowa(Jet Ranger)