Talk:ARH-70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	ARH-70 is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

To-do list for ARH-70:	edit · history · watch · refresh
Development System Development Demonstrator (SDD) First flight First flight with Honeywell HTS-900-2 Mission Equipment Package (MEP) selection YRH-70 Prototype First flight Contract considerations funding cuts in 2007 and effects on the program Just mark through the completed item with the <s>strikethrough</s> html code and your name: (~~~~). (Born2flie 22:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Contents 1 ARH-70 2 OH-58 and OH-6 vs ARH-70 content 3 RAH-66 Comanche 4 Infobox

[edit] ARH-70

This page needs to be retitled to the correct aircraft designation. --Born2flie 19:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a source that it's the ARH-70? The developmental name was ARH, subsequently renamed to RAH-70 when it was purchased [1].

The source you quoted is the only source I can find that is referring to it as the RAH-70. Every other news source (1, 2, 3, etc.), including this one claiming it as the official designation (other than the obvious typo at the end), state that it is the ARH-70A. I also work with a fellow Army aviator who recently served on the Task Selection Board for the ARH and the official Army documentation he received had ARH-70A as the designation as well. I have, however, looked in vain to find an official DoD or Army Press Release stating the designation. The only official word I can find is this document which would make us both wrong for the moment, but it does tend more towards it eventually being ARH- or just plain RH-.

The kicker for me, though, is this release from Textron itself...other than believing my fellow pilot, of course. (Born2flie 01:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Gotcha, I found only one link for the ARH-70 but I see google's been refreshing and it's mostly being called the ARH-70A. Is the Arapaho designation semi-official? I.e., should the title be ARH-70, ARH-70A, or ARH-70A Arapaho? --Mmx1 02:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

No, there is nothing official about "Arapaho" that I've been able to find. It was a humorous anecdote when the aircraft was finally selected that it would be called the ARH-69 Arapaho. There were also rumors that Arapaho would be the name from the US Army Aviation Warfighter Center, but nothing in the DoD or the Army press releases. (Born2flie 03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC))

Gotcha. Moving to ARH-70 --Mmx1 03:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OH-58 and OH-6 vs ARH-70 content

I removed a paragraph from the article that attempted to contradict the COTS status of the aircraft only by further proving it, as well as trying to reintroduce the history of the OH-58 and OH-6 into the article.

There is way more history involved in the OH-58 and covered in the OH-58 Kiowa article than can be or should be included in an article on this aircraft. The Army is starting over with a new aircraft. That the 407/427 share rotorhead design with the OH-58D and is essentially taking over the mission (albeit modified with an urban focus) does not directly tie it into the OH-58 history. The MH-6M MELB was a contender and should not "share" space in this article with the ARH. It is a footnote to this aircraft's program, an "also ran", that should be more fully covered in the Hughes H-6 article. (Born2flie 10:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC))

Of course there is a much more involved history, but a 3 sentence summary of the ARH origins is highly pertinent to the entry, and especially the development sub-section. A75 05:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not when you construct it as an illogical statement that contradicts itself. The 206 is part of the 407's development, but not part of the ARH's. (Born2flie 21:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC))

The military development of the 206 is irrelevant to the COTS status of the ARH program. It's called sunk costs. --Mmx1 22:11, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Well I will concede the COTS issue then, but the reader has a right to know the origins of the 406. A75 01:57, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The 406? You mean the 407, right? Couldn't they just get the information by clicking on the link to the 407, since that information is already part of that article? Must we make it a part of every aircraft article that is eventually derived from the Bell model 206 of 1961? (Born2flie 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] RAH-66 Comanche

Does the reference to this aircraft in the introduction make any sense? It's like we're stretching to include the RAH-66 and give it credit that it never earned, since it was never produced. "part of the mission that the RAH-66 Comanche would have done." I don't mean to sound derisive, but that part bothers me everytime I read through the article. It's vague, and misleads by suggesting that this aircraft has anything more to do with the RAH-66 than benefitting from that program's cancellation. (Born2flie 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Infobox

The picture is of the SDD, not the prototype (YRH-70) and I thought WP:Air was getting away from Infoboxes. I personally don't like it since it doesn't really contribute to the page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Born2flie (talk • contribs) 14:03, October 28, 2006.

Oops on the picture. I've correct it to the original caption, though it may still be wrong. Is a "technology demonstrator" the same thing as an SDD? To me, a technology demonstrator is usually a one-off aircraft testing a new desing principle. I believe the X-32 and X-35 were originally classed as such, hence the X-series designations.

On the Infobox, I read through much of WP:Air beforehand, and got the impression it was an accepted practice, if not poilicy. In fact, even today the infobox template has been modified, and there is ongoing discussion on it here. I thought I was helping conform the pages to WP:Air policy. If I am wrong, I apologize, at least for not realizing adding them would be contentious. If you have a specific link to a policy or discussion page discouraging its use, please post it, and I will take a look.

There was an older infobox on the SH-2 Seasprite page, which contains basic info, and detailed specs. I understood that this was being replaced with the in-text "Specifications" template, and that the smaller basic infobox took the old box's place at the top of the page. A copy of the old SH-2 infox is still on that page, for info transfer to the new specs list.

I have spent much of the past two weeks adding the "Aircraft Infobox" to a number of articles I have been frequenting. I had assumed that most of them were recent articles, or they were articles on recent aircraft (like the ARH-70). Personally, I like the infoboxes, and feel they bring a "uniform" look to the beginning of the aircraft articles. I won't be adding any new infoboxes for the time being.

However, I will be seeking a definitive answer from the Project on the issue, and will abide by its consensus.

Thanks. --BillCJ 22:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Bill, yeah, sometimes I forget to tag on my signature, thanks! Please don't take my comment personally, as none of my "rancor" is directed to you, just infoboxes. I've seen the infobox thing around, but never seen that as a page content guideline. In fact, check this out.

The System Design Demonstration (SDD) aircraft is different from a technology demonstrator. (Born2flie 03:04, 29 October 2006 (UTC))

It's OK, I didn't take it personally (much :) ). Thanks for posting this issue on WP:Air. I see you noticed I have a note at the template page. It seems that they may have been working independently, which is understandable given the size of Wiki. Hopefully we can get some kind of consensus from this, something we both can live with. --BillCJ 03:15, 29 October 2006 (UTC)