User talk:EH101/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main article: Apache sandbox article

Contents

[edit] AAFSS

EH101, "Anyways" is a bit informal for the article. Since you've already separated the discussion about the Sioux Scout with the section heading (AAFSS), you can just begin the discussion without needing to lead in to it.

Here is a recommended edit:

The U.S. Army issued a specification for an "Advanced Aerial Fire Support System" (AAFSS) in August 1964.[1] The AAFSS requirements led to the development of another predecessor of the Apache; the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. An engineering development contract was signed by the Army and Lockheed in March 1966 and a production contract for 375 aircraft followed the next year.[2]
The aircraft first flew on 21 September 1967, but the project suffered a setback on 12 March 1969, when the rotor hit the fuselage of a prototype and killed the pilot. The Cheyenne proved to be too complex and ambitious for its time, resulting in budget overruns and program delays due to excessive technical difficulties. The program was eventually cancelled in 1972. [1]

Not sure if this is what you're looking for. Let me know. --Born2flie (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Great! For my future study reference I post here the old version and I copy your better one in my article proposal.
Anyway, as a result of the received hint, the U.S. Army issued in August 1964 a specification for an "Advanced Aerial Fire Support System" (AAFSS) that would have been an improvement with respect to Sioux Scout limitations[1]
AAFSS requirements lead to the development of another predecessor of the Apache: the Lockheed AH-56 Cheyenne. An engineering development contract was signed by the Army and Lockheed in March 1966 [2], but the project suffered a setback on 12 March 1969 when the first prototype rotor hit the fuselage and killed the pilot. The Cheyenne resulted too complex and ambitious for its epoch, causing budget over costs due to excessive technical difficulties eventually ending with a definitive program cancellation 10 years later, in 1972. [1]

[edit] Another reference

This page talks about some more of the development of the AH-64 with some details that may or may not be of worth to you. I have not forgotten about your sandbox and will be back later to help some more. --Born2flie (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate--EH101 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAH

From a Government Accounting Office (GAO) staff study on the AAH:

In January 1972, a special Army Task Force was established to make an in-depth study of the operational requirements for an attack helicopter in the 1975 to 1985 timeframe. The study was based on analytical Investigation, supplemented by engineering flight tests of Sikorsky's Blackhawk, Lockheed's Cheyenne, and Bell's King Cobra Attack helicopter prototypes; field experiments; and Southeast Asia combat experience. As a result of the Task Force report issued in August 1972, the Army approved the initiation of a new development program for an AAH.

In November 1972, the Army approved a new Materiel Need document for an attack helicopter system which would provide greater agility, hover performance and heavier aerial fire support capability than currently possessed by existing Army weapons systems. The Army considers the AAH as its primary attack helicopter and a key factor in future military operations.

Source: Government Accounting Officer (1974). "Staff Study: Advanced Attack Helicopter" (pdf).

And from the Combined Arms Research Library:

As the dimensions of the Army's attack helicopter programs grew so did its critics. In March of 1970, the Secretary of the Army and Air Force agreed on the eight sub-tasks of close air support, which included escort of helicopters and fire support for air cavalry operations, but without agreeing on what aircraft to procure to accomplish these tasks. A high level Defense Department study released in June 1971 accepted the Army's view of armed helicopters as an extension of the ground commander's firepower without usurping the Air Force close air support role. However, dissatisfied with what it perceived as duplication between the Army's AH-56, the Air Force's A-X close support fighter, and the Marine Corps vertical take off Harrier, the Senate convened a special subcommittee on close air support. While the Army's witnesses proved unconvincing, Gen William W. Momyer, citing misleading helicopter loss data from Lam Son 719, convinced the senators that the AH-56 was redundant, inefficient, and a threat to centralized control of close air support. He did however acknowledge utility of AH-1G against unsophisticated enemies and the unique effectiveness of the airmobile divisions. The Senate report in April 1972 recommended full procurement of the A-X, limited procurement of the Harrier, and only lukewarm endorsement of continued development of a more capable attack helicopter "assuming that questions regarding helicopter vulnerability are resolved successfully".

The Senate Report doomed the Cheyenne. Anticipating the report, the Army established a special task force to reevaluate its attack helicopter requirements. The group identified the need for a more agile, smaller, less sophisticated and less costly Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH). Additionally, during the course of the study, the Army awarded the long awaited contract for an interim antitank helicopter the TOW-COBRA (AH-1Q) on 3 March 1972 and began expediting the contract to provide an aerial antitank capability for Europe as early as possible. In August, the Army officially cancelled the Cheyenne AH-56 and received authorization to start a new AAH program, with research and development scheduled through 1978.

Source: Bonin, John A., MAJ, USA (1986). "Towards the Third Dimension in Combined Arms: The Evolution of Armed Helicopters into Air Maneuver Units in Vietnam" (pdf). . Command and General Staff College

Any spelling errors are leftover from the cut and paste from the old pdf documents. --Born2flie (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

We are more and more adding data and now we have to face issues below described. Let's see.--EH101 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pre-AAH info

Seems like ot me the pre-AAH info should be summarized more, i.e. cut back on detail. Do you intend to keep all the pre-AAH details? I'd rather see more on the testing and development in the 1976-1984 time frame. Btw, I can't tell a difference with the grey coloring on the article (can on edit screen due to span formatting, duh). Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 05:10, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This is my major concern. I am firmly convinced this early story deserves a place somewhere. The data we are collecting are re-enacting the very beginning of attack helicopter development and from there we can better understand why some technical choices were done and why Boeing won against other competitors dooming some of them (Lockheed helicopters never recovered from Cheyenne's draw back and they still do not build helicopters). Question is where to put these data and in which way. I guess there are three possibilities:
All these three articles should link each other, but I need to explore more consensus on this plan.
Btw I changed grey in olive. Does it work ? --EH101 (talk) 13:20, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Design section

EH101, I used this sandbox to pull togehter/write a Design section for the main AH-64 article a couple weeks. I guessed you wouldn't mind. Take care. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Be always welcome ! I am working on the Italian version on this topic too. I will improve this sandbox article in the near future, but I am keeping an eye on the matter too. --EH101 (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)