Talk:Bell ARH-70 Arapaho/Archive 1

Archive 1

ARH-70

Born2flie: This page needs to be retitled to the correct aircraft designation. -- 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].

Born2flie: 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. --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)

Born2flie: 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. --03:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

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

OH-58 and OH-6 vs ARH-70 content

Born2flie: 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. -- 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)

Born2flie: 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. --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)

Born2flie: 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? -- 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

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.

Born2flie: The System Design Demonstration (SDD) aircraft is different from a technology demonstrator. -- 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)

ARH Specifications

Born2flie: I assume that we won't get any real figures for ARH specifications until Bell and the Army finishes the test flight program. In the meantime, I've heard a rumor that the passenger area is not actually going to be a part of the production aircraft. If you look at the prototypes, there are no windows on the rear (what would be "passenger") doors. -- 04:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What exactly does "the passenger area is not actually going to be a part of the production aircraft" mean?

1. The helicopter is going to be shorter as it does not have the passenger area. I would think that would defeat the purpose of using a COTS aircraft.
2. The passeger area will be filled with equipment.

I assume the the OH-58D also has the passenger area filled with equipment, but it's only an assumption as I don't fly one :). One of the reasons I had heard for Bell using the 407 airframe (as opposed to a shorter 406) was that the Army wanted to be able to use the passenger space for passengers (insertion, etc.) So I guess that part isn't true. - BillCJ 06:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Born2flie: What I've heard is that they simply aren't going to put seats back there. Again, a rumor. The purpose of that would be to keep commander's from distracting the aircraft from its missions. Yes, the OH-58D has equipment back in its passenger compartment, but the ARH equipment won't take up half as much room as the OH-58D. It could be used for more fuel and more ammo, or at the very worst, the Army could have plans to save the space for optional equipment they might dream up later. -- 15:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Removed the following from the article:

• Guns: .50 BMG rotary cannon
• Missiles: Joint Air to Ground Missile (planned)
• Rockets: Hydra 70 FFARockets

1. It is a gatling gun as reported by all the references I've seen. Specifically, it is reported to be the GAU-19 or GAU-17[2]. While rotary cannon redirects to gatling gun, I haven't found a reference that uses rotary cannon.
2. Even the official Bell page for the ARH does not mention JAGM. While it would seem to make sense, there are two problems; the first is that it is conjecture, the second is the missile isn't even developed yet. Again, the AGM-114 HELLFIRE is mentioned by name[3], not JAGM.
3. FFAR is a military reference to the Navy's 2.75" Folding-Fin Aerial Rockets (FFAR) developed in 1940.

Granted, I could edit and reference everything myself, but then I get accused of ownership and being childish and all kinds of other things and other editors don't "lurn nuthin". --Born2flie 19:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• Checked and updated the table. Bell lists a .50 gatling gun and 2.75 in FFAR rockets (put Hydras 2.75 in rockets). -Fnlayson 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest News

Latest news articles speculate that there will be a slippage in the timeline for the ARH. Currently, it is scheduled for the end of FY2008 (SEP 2008) to begin fielding to the first unit. Some estimates have it slipping by a month or two and some unsubstantiated opinions (which may yet prove valid) have it slipping by as much as two years. The most recent delay is based on the Army's desire to field a common sensor between UAS and the ARH (not sure if common sensor applies to the AH-64D/UH-60M's MTADS/MPNVS). Bell's subcontractor, FLIR Systems International says it is one month from fixing the last issue for integrating its TASS into the airframe.[4] Still, comments seem to be positive from the pilots flying the prototypes. Bell owes one more prototype (three out of four are flying) and the Army will take two to conduct Limited User Test (LUT)[5] starting in March. --Born2flie 02:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

On March 22, 2007 the Army issued a stop work order and gave Bell Textron 30 days to come up with a plan to get the program back on track. The current timeline has moved from Sep 2008 to Dec 2009 for delivery. Bell has stated that they cannot produce the helicopters at the cost they previously provided in their bid. Textron states that they will lose between $2 million and $4 million per airframe at the current contract price. See Fort Worth Star-Telegram March 22, 2007, page 1C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.175.214.35 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bell's friends rescue ARH --Born2flie 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Appears to be a deadlink now. For what its worth, the Star Telegram tends to sensationalize its articles. I found this article at Flight International that seems pretty "just the facts." - Davandron | Talk 13:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, you beat me to it ;^) I'll just fix it to be a reference - Davandron | Talk 14:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie, when you edit your posts (such as fixing the link) could you please mention your change. I have edited your post above as you might have done so that others can understand my comment. Thanks - Davandron | Talk 01:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary. I have deleted your entry since I made no such comment, although you felt the liberty to attach my name to it. You may feel free to address an issue however you wish in your own comments but you will not attribute a comment to me that I did not make or attempt to put words in my mouth. Thank you. In the future, please refrain from editing my comments as well. You mentioned a deadlink and I fixed the deadlink but did not edit the text of the comment. If you were concerned about how you appeared through your comment, YOU should simply add a comment that you realized that the link was now fixed, which would be apparent with my edit summary. And now, I leave you once again with the deadlink, and worrying about how others will or won't misunderstand your comment. You're welcome. --Born2flie 03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Article moves

This article had moved from "Bell ARH-70" to "Bell Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter ARH-70" without any discussion or comment here. That's redundant since ARH is an acronym for Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, i.e. Bell Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter-70. Thankfully it was moved back. Back and forth moves are not productive and often take an admin to move the article over a redirect. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Luckily the revert option worked. As you and I both know, this article is named in compliance with WP:MOS naming conventions for articles as well as the consensus of WikiProject Aircraft to abide by the naming conventions. The move was most likely a good faith intention of a relatively new editor. I probably shouldn't be the one to "welcome" them, though. --Born2flie (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for the move back. I added a WP:Aviation welcome message on the user's talk page for whatever that's worth. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bell ARH-70 Arapaho/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

This article will continue to be a stub until the aircraft is developed into an operational aircraft. (Born2flie 22:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC))

Substituted at 06:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

RAH-66 Comanche

Born2flie: 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. -- 05:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, the ARH 70 is taking the spot the RAH 66 was going to fill. The Comanche was going to become the U.S. Army's armed scout but due to budget restrictions the Army canceled the project and turned to the cheaper ARH 70 to fill the same role.--70.15.4.226 (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The ARH-70 is fulfilling a role that changed, which was why the Comanche was cancelled. Because the Army couldn't justify the expense for something that a less expensive airframe could accomplish. There's no need to pay US$32 million, or whatever the price was, for an armed police helicopter with stealth capabilities that won't be needed for flying over urban terrain in a protracted small war (counterinsurgency). --Born2flie (talk) 00:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Arapaho?

We've been hearing rumors of the ARH-70 being named "Arapaho" of a couple of years now, but there's been nothing official as of yet. As such, I find it interesting that this US Army press release uses the phrase "ARH-70A Arapaho" in the last paragraph. Interesting, huh? - BillCJ (talk) 17:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if we discussed this on one of our talk pages, but the aircraft most likely will not be named until it is accepted by the service and placed into production. --Born2flie (talk) 19:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found a reference that states the Arapaho name was officially assigned: [6]. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Great find! That explains why it was used in the US Army source I listed above. I'll make the move. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

ARH-70 will never field

Because of the small-arms fire threat (every arab has an AK-47) the army decided to abandon the single engined ARH-70 and the electronics will fly on the twin turbine EC-145 (UH-72) platform by 2014. The curse on the Comanche has made its effect on american aviation industry. 91.83.16.172 (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• This page is for improving the article and is not a discussion forum. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

There is reporting that the Army is considering cancelling the program, due to a 40% increase in program cost. Also, some news reports indicate Boeing is looking forward to another shot at selling the AH-6M to the Army as the ARH. --Born2flie (talk) 12:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Further reporting shows that Bell is confident the program will survive because of the requirements of what is needed to show that they have failed to meet the agreement. The Army has to do a full review of the program to prove their determination of Bell's costs are in violation of the Nunn-McCurdy Act caps for costs and schedule. I do find this development to be an interesting coincidence so close to GEN Cody's retirement in August. GEN Cody wanted the AH-6M MELB to be the new ARH without a competition. Apparently, the ARH competition resulted because it was required by law. --Born2flie (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

ARH in the news again. This program continues to resemble the AAFSS program more and more. --Born2flie (talk) 12:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Here's Boeing in the wings ready to swoop in and save the day. --Born2flie (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

  Is this the same aircraft as the A/MH-6X Mission Enhanced Little Bird, or is it more related to the regular MH-6 Little Bird? I'm trying to figure out what article to add it to, or even if the former article ought to be combined with the latter. - BillCJ (talk) 00:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More on the aircraft and a larger pic. --Born2flie (talk) 01:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

• And Rotorhub is calling a spade a spade. --Born2flie (talk) 12:58, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
• Conventional wisdom appears to give Bell the nod to proceed. --Born2flie (talk) 00:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Training version

I know that the caption for the infobox image is from the source location, however, this is a prototype (most likely Ship #3 of 4), and Cairns AAF is the location of the Army Aviation Test Facility. This aircraft was most likely present for the Limited Users Test (LUT). Go figure that the public affairs personnel would make the caption up because they didn't really understand what was going on. Production aircraft for training won't be available until the aircraft is accepted and production begins. --Born2flie (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Part of it could be poor word choice. Looks like they mean an unarmed test/prototype version. The red/orange colors are usually related to flight test hardware (pitot booms, etc) from what I've come across. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Understood. We can try to write something suitably neutral, just mentioning its an early ARH-70, and is at Cairns AAF (assuming they got that one right!) As an aside, the ARH was supposed to be a COTS program, and the pic further down the page looks much like a Bell 407. These later models look very different, and I'm certain that is the root of much of the time and costs overruns Bell has been experiencing. Yet they get the blame, not the ones who keep changing the requirements! Aren't government bureacracies wonderful? And the military ones are probably the best of the federal lot! - BillCJ (talk) 19:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeff, training aircraft at Fort Rucker sport panels and/or doors painted high-visibility orange. This is to increase visibility for other air traffic and to differentiate between trainers and operational aircraft. The TH-67 has the orange incorporated into its paint scheme (orange and white). Bill, I'm not sure how much blame is Army and how much is Bell. The last aircraft that Bell developed for the Army was the TH-67, and it was a true COTS program. Prior to that, the last military aircraft was the OH-58D and they never really capitalized on that program until they came up with the 407 (after the 400 and the 440). You have to question, despite their history of providing aircraft, whether or not they have the experience to get an aircraft from development to production. Bell could really use an Arthur Young (Bell 47) or Charles Seibel (AH-1G) at this time in their history! --Born2flie (talk) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The helicopter appears to be the Bell operated third prototype N445AR registered as a Bell 445, can we presume that the Bell 445 is the Bell designation for the ARH-70? MilborneOne (talk) 18:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be what the FAA registry is saying; Corporate registration to Bell with the Model listed as 445. --Born2flie (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Costs

Apparently, conventional wisdom was wrong. From the warfighter viewpoint, it feels like a death sentence to force crews to continue to fly the oldest aircraft in the inventory when every other aircraft has received significant upgrades, both in power available and systems.

In reference to the latest edit about the cancellation, I don't think the cost figures are accurate. Fly-away cost was originally scheduled to be somewhere between US$4 or 6 million. The cost of the aircraft has grown, and the first problems with the program came up when the projected fly-away cost had grown to US$6.5 million. Many of yesterday and today's articles seem to suggest that the purchase cost per airframe was US$8.5 million all along. This is inaccurate I believe this is inaccurate, so we need to reference costs as they grew, especially since this seems to be the determining factor in the cancellation. Additionally, Bell doesn't know where the Army is drawing its figures from. That viewpoint needs to be addressed as well, although I can see this shaping up to be a conspiracy theory, just as the OH-58A being selected was viewed as a conspiracy of President Johnson because his wife may have owned stock in the company.

Finally, it should probably be confirmed whether the US$8.5 and 14.5 million figures are fly-away costs or another figure.

The good news, if it can be truly called good news, is that both Bell and Boeing will get a chance to get it right during the next competition. And maybe Eurocopter will show up with an offering this time, as well. --Born2flie (talk) 10:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

True, there can be a big difference between average unit costs and fly-away (incremental) costs. The latter is based on what a new one would currently cost. Update: The Army is looking to update requirements by January.[7] Then a new RFP afterwards.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speculation reports suggest it will be 2010 before a new contract is in effect. --Born2flie (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Long Ranger replaces Comanche

Has anyone seen this page. Does anyone truly believe that the Army "favored" a glorified jet ranger over the Camanche? Come on! Comanche failed because of mismanagement, and there was no REAL follow-on program. Everything else was cheap attemtps to extend the Kiowa role. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)