Talk:Advanced Attack Helicopter

Background

Bill, does the AAFSS and 1972 AH-56/S-72/Bell 309 competitions need to be mentioned as background leading up to the AAH? -Fnlayson 02:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Well that's already covered. I guess I was looking for that to be in a Background section. -Fnlayson 02:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Jeff, I just used Greg Goebel's site info to start since it's PD. I'm sure we'll find other info to add, including from your Cobra book, as we go along. Feel free to rearrange this in any order you want, but try to keep each paragraph sourced so we know were it came from int he future. Since it's PD, we don't have to worry about rewriting every setnece completely. You know how Greg writes - it's a bit informal at times, but he does good work. - BillCJ 02:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Looks like the development after selection should be moved to the AH-64 article. Is that what you want to do? I could go ahead and copy some of that over.. -Fnlayson 03:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

AAH

Bill, two available Army references, discuss the reasons for abandoning Cheyenne:

• Office of the Assistant Vice Chief of Staff of the Army (1973). "An Abridged History of the Army Attack Helicopter Program" (pdf). Department of the Army. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
• 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). Fort Leavenworth, Kansas: Command and General Staff College. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Both files (pdf) are over 1MB to download. There is also a GAO Staff Study on the AAH from 1974 that gives a good background on the information at the time. I don't have a link for it right now. --Born2flie 08:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Bill, the Apache PM home page has some photos you might be interested in. There is also some text available discussing the initial T-Tail design of the YAH-64. Let me know if you want it.--The Founders Intent 14:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

• That'd certainty be worth looking at. What's the link to the Apache PM? I can't seem to find it on the Army.mil domain. Thanks. -Fnlayson 16:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article organization

Bill, any idea on how this article should be organized? Do you want to keep separate Bell 409/YAH-63 and YAH-64 sections? Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. That's where the text came from, I believe. I've got enough text to work with from the AH-56, YAH-63 and AH-64 articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for starting on this, Jeff, I do appreciate it. Just do what you think is best. Once this is done, if we think we have enough material to support a separate AAFSS article, then we can start one for it, but I'm fine covering it here as background if we don't split it. Both programs are definitely connected. - BillCJ (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• OK. I'm going pare the AH-56 text down a lot. The late AH-56 background sets up the AAH requirements, imo. I'm not sure AAFSS needs its own article. Seems like it would be a short one. Then again I was wrong in thinking a separate MD-90 article would be too short. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Got most of the text in there, I think. Not sure if I'm arranging things in a good order and in proper detail though. I guess ask for comments/questions on the rotorcraft task force talk page later this week. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is good enough for moving to main space now. Any objections? I'm going to do a regular move. There are no "Advanced Attack Helicopter" redirects (upper case or lower) that I can find, so should not be a problem. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for moving it, Bill. :) -Fnlayson (talk) 04:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

No probem. I wanted to {{db-user}} the sandbox page anyway, so that helped me do it right then rather than wait to and risk forgetting it (minot tho that would be!) I'll try t proof-read the article by tomorrow. And thanks for working on the txt - It's much appreciated. - BillCJ (talk) 04:37, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Prototype picture

AV-06, the Phase 2 pre-production vehicle, was the first to have the low-mounted stabilator, but I cannot find a reference that the previous prototypes and pre-production vehicles were adapted to this standard. --Born2flie (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

First flight deadline?

The Flight International article "AAH under attack" says the AAH prototypes had a deadline to fly by the end of September. Nowadays a deadline like that would mean a loss a bonus or progress payment. Maybe that has significance due to the end of the fiscal year and its budget. Any further info on this? -Fnlayson (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned the deadline right before the first flights. Some more context would be good though.. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Wife broke my laptop screen. I can only get on when nobody is watching TV...patching it through the S-Video port. I haven't found anything for context on consequences for being late. --Born2flie (talk) 04:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Advanced Aerial Fire Support System (AAFSS)

It seems inconsistent to me that an article about this topic does not exist given the existence of the AAH article. These two Army programs were virtually identical in their structure and sequential, only the players changed. Maybe this has been covered, but I just think that for consistency an article should be created. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is somewhat new and there is at least one basic difference between the 2 programs. AAH involved flight testing/evaluation of prototypes to pick a winner, but AAFSS did not. In any event, text from AH-56 Cheyenne could be used to start an AAFSS article. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, Sikorsky competed with the S-66 (see Leoni pgs 28-29). --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

There was no flyoff between Lockheed's and Sikorsky's helicopters for the AAFSS contract. Lockheed's proposal was selected. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

A flyoff is not necessary. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, was only pointing out a difference there. Building prototypes and flight testing them adds a good bit to the early program costs. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think covering the S-66 in the S-67 article is a cheap way of doing it, and an AAFSS article would be better quality. But I'm not going to fall on my sword over it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 00:53, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm neutral on an AAFSS article. Please pursue that if you want. A couple of us didn't think there was enough content for a separate S-66 article (see Talk:Sikorsky S-67. -Fnlayson (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Then maybe there should be an obvious division for the S-66 that will not cause confusion with the S-67. They were similar, and this could lead the reader to miss the fact that they were conceived at different times. I'll try to think on it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay after reviewing the AH-56 articla and the AAH article I have come to some conclusions that I think bear consideration. The biggest problem is the omission of the doctrine between the two programs (AAFSS and AAH). They are completely different. I have two sources here and here, that help describe this. The AAFSS envisioned a fighter-style helicopter that provided ground support through high-speed gun and rocket runs. The AAH envisioned a stand-off weapons platform to kill Soviet tanks with a sophisticated missile system, remaining outside the range of MANPADS. During Vietnam, the Army determine that North Vietnamese use of Soviet shoulder fired SAMs would adversely affect the operations of the AAFSS platform like the AH-56. It was not survivable to these threats. It's single engine design was one key element of this concern. The AAH (i.e., Apache) is slower yet much more survivable by design. Therefore, I propose that this difference in doctrine based on Vietnam experience be included so the reader understands the reasons for these two programs, beyond the political issue between the Army and Air Force. The two articles contain redundant information. The AAFSS programmatic content should be moved to the AAH article. I think this content depth is somewhat uncustomary for articles on military aircraft. What I propose is to change the AAH article to a AAFSS and AAH article, that discusses the doctrine of each program and the differences. It would include general mention of the players and airframers, without repeating all the technicals unique to each aircraft. I think the combined article would provide a historical perspective with some technical info related to the each programs objectives. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 15:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The changes from AAFSS to AAH are briefly mentioned in the first paragraph of the History section of this article. More details on that would be beneficial. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 10:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Advanced Attack Helicopter. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807001809/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avcobra_1.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avcobra_1.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070807001809/http://www.vectorsite.net:80/avcobra_1.html to http://www.vectorsite.net/avcobra_1.html#m4

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:50, 21 January 2016 (UTC)