Boeing FARA
Thread Starter
Boeing FARA
Boeing is going to reveal their entry to Future Attack Recon Aircraft
https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/...efense#/videos
cheers
https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/...efense#/videos
cheers
Looks very streamlined and modern! Pusher prop AND anti-torque tail rotor, six blade main rotor, a three barrelled gun with low drug but limited traverse, limited capacity on the stub wings, (are there internal bays as well?), undernose sensor ball, retractable main undercarriage but fixed tailwheel.
For Jackonicko:
As I was looking at it, those stub wings/weapons stations look to me to be the kind that fold into the fuselage, as Comanche's did.
But, I may be seeing something incorrectly.
As I was looking at it, those stub wings/weapons stations look to me to be the kind that fold into the fuselage, as Comanche's did.
But, I may be seeing something incorrectly.
Yikes, that looks like a pretty heavily armed Apache replacement. But I guess that it's concept art ... twin engine, stub wings provide lift? Tail Rotor on the outer rim of the horizontal stab? *scratches head* Pusher prop, I get that. ... man, that's complicated.
What's your perception of why AH-56 failed?
Too big, too costly, too slow in development?
An analogue and mechanical aircraft at the dawn of the digital age?
Competed with the A-10, which was a higher priority?
Or what?
Too big, too costly, too slow in development?
An analogue and mechanical aircraft at the dawn of the digital age?
Competed with the A-10, which was a higher priority?
Or what?
AH-56 airframe pushed the boundaries of what was happening at the time and there were problems with the larger rigid rotor, which were on the road to being resolved, but it was taking more time and money than expected. In fact, if the AH-56 had been on time, there would have been no AH-1 developed. Regarding analogue vs. digital, remember this was the mid to late '60s so everything was analogue. The AH-56's avionics, though, were more capable and more "digital" than anything planned for the A-10.
The A-10 played a major role, or actually USAF did. As far as USAF was concerned, Army's role for armed helicopters was as troop helicopter escort. Close Air Support, Anti-Tank and the like was part of their "roles and missions", and Army shouldn't be allowed to do them, whether USAF was doing them as a high priority or not. USAF was mostly indifferent to the Cheyenne as long as it kept to its "place". However, when Army as part of its advocacy for Cheyenne also pointed out that it could do CAS, AF rose up and started lobbying intensely against it. Then, in a tactical success but a strategic blunder, Army in a demonstration showed how AH-56 by putting the pusher into beta could dive bomb. USAF went ballistic, the lobbying redoubled and suddenly the A-X (which became the A-10) concept, which was on a low boil, became front and center as USAF lobbied heavily heavily to DoD and Congress saying the AH-56 should not be allowed to exist and there was no need for it since the AF was ready to do the task with their upcoming A-X. USAF at the time had much more influence within DoD/Congress than did the other services. Many have said that the reason AF actually went ahead with the A-10 was to kill the AH-56
Faced with the slower development, amount of money needed, the end of the Vietnam War and repeatedly having to fight off USAF attacks in budget sessions, Army suddenly canceled AH-56 in 1972 and a week later started the much less ambitious (and threatening) AAH program which led to the Apache. Meanwhile AF found itself with a program for an aircraft, one of whose big reasons for existence had suddenly disappeared, that would take funding away from their more glamorous aircraft and was singularly designed for a mission they weren't that focused on. If you look at the Warthog's history, they kept trying to phase it out almost as soon as they got it into service. Similar to how the Korean War saved naval aviation and aircraft carriers, Desert Shield/Storm saved the A-10 because it was on its way out of the inventory until reality intervened.
The pusher Apache was wind tunnel tested, probably to de-risk this config in public (less of a pain).
