Letters

This letter is in response to the article "Why Comanche?" (August). Being an old master aviator, I have had an association with attack helicopters, the AH-56 Cheyenne and the AAH/AH-64-Apache, and have served twice in Troop C, 1st Squadron, 9th Cavalry in Vietnam. (The 1/9 Cavalry was the reconnaissance squadron of the 1st Cavalry Division in Vietnam.) The article, written by two respected retired generals, has raised some questions about the roles being anticipated for the RAH-66 and how it will be integrated into battle.

Most RecentGovernment Articles

Since the Army is in the process of transformation, I would suggest that the same or similar process that was used in 1971-72 concerning attack helicopters be used. The following is a short history of the process that stood the Army in good stead and one that fits into the transformation process.

In the development of the AH-56 Cheyenne helicopter, under the concept of total package procurement, the procurement program was running concurrently with the development program. The death of a test pilot resulted in the cancellation of the procurement program.

The AH-56 had a pusher propeller and stub wings, as well as an anti-- torque tail rotor. In forward flight at higher speeds the main rotor was off loaded and the stub wings provided the necessary lift. This configuration allowed one to go beyond the limitation of retreating blade stall as far as forward speed is concerned. The development portion of the contract was allowed to proceed. Lockheed, the designer and builder of the AH-56, continued work on the advanced mechanical control system used to control the rigid rotor system and fixed the problem of the main rotor system becoming dynamically unstable after about 170 knots. Monies were made available to expand the flight envelope of the AH-56 and to develop a tech data package (TDP). The AH-56 achieved a top speed of 212 knots in level flight.

The AH-56, also known as the advanced aerial fire support system, was designed as a replacement for the AH-1 Cobra for use in environments like Vietnam. The fatal crash of the prototype as well as its cost and conflict with the Air Force in roles and missions caused the AH-56 to be controversial. The roles and missions issue should have been settled with the Air Force.

At this period, the United States was disengaging from Vietnam and was turning its attention to countering the Warsaw Pact armies of tanks and other mechanized systems. The Army Staff made the decision to examine whether or not the AH-56 would be suitable as a tank killer in Europe.

A task force (TF) was chartered and housed in the Hoffman Building in Alexandria. It was known as the Marks' Board for Maj. Gen. Marks, the TF commander. The Office of the Secretary of Defense insisted that a flight evaluation be made of the AH-56, the AH-1 King Cobra and the Sikorsky Black Hawk, a one-of-a-kind attack prototype helicopter. This is a situation analogous to the current situation in deciding how to proceed with Transformation in the aviation arena and gain strategic mobility.

The TF prepared a materiel-need document entitled the "Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH)." The flight testing indicated that none of the prototypes met the requirements for the AAH, and three members from the Army Staff assisted the TF in preparing the development concept document needed for going to a defense systems acquisition review council (DSARC). The DSARC I was held in August 1972 and the AAH program began. Incidentally, the DSARC I for the M-1 tank was held in September 1972. These two systems were two of the big five systems being developed for fielding in the Army. The other three systems were the utility tactical transport aviation system (now known as the UH-60), the multiple launch rocket system, and the Patriot air defense system.

With the advent of the AAH, the AH-56 program was terminated, but as was mentioned earlier, the flight envelope was completed and a TDP was delivered. The AAH was initially armed with the TOW system, a 30 mm chain gun, and 2.75 inch folding fin aerial rockets. About two years later, the switch was made to using the Hellfire missile. That required the development of the target acquisition and designation system that was coupled with a pilot's night vision system.

Given that the origins of the Comanche design dates back to the late 1980 time frame, and the multiple roles that the RAH-66 crews are expected to fulfill, it appears to me that another task force should be convened to address the aviation role in the 21st century. I would suggest that the reconnaissance mission, the armed helicopter role, and the command and control missions be broken apart and performed by airframes and crews designed and trained specifically for these three roles. I would also suggest that particular attention be given to using a technology similar to the AH-56, excluding the tilt rotor, so that greater speed can be achieved, giving the new system a rapid, self-deployable overseas capability. The use of built-in oxygen systems for operations at high altitudes should also be a prime consideration.