Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Whiskey said:

Ball-ping hammer

Never got to use that one, we were light, but I was around for the trash bag test, that was funny watching a guy try to hold that bag up to the turbine exhaust, lucky they had no hair to burn off anyway. Forgot about the Chem-light batteries, that was fun too. The last one, you even have me stumped, but my platoon sergent had very few laughs in him, anyone trying to get him to be involved, as the E7, would not have enjoyed his response, unless a foot in the fool was their thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/30/2019 at 8:12 PM, Sarathi S. said:

I'd be really interested to see any MARHUK pics you have, Bryan.

After looking through EVERYTHING, I looked at the top of my desk and guess what...

 

The shot is of HMLA-369 AH-1J "5" 15778, the 25th AH-1J produced. the bird is on a long sweep to land on the LPD, just over the rotor blades.  The bird has expended it rockets from the 7 shot pod, so this is likely post mission.  In the only other shot I have, the 7 shot pod is loaded with 10 Lb FFAR's with VT or proximity fuses as opposed to impact fuses.  In the two shots I have, only the outboard stations have pods.  The other shot is of "0", no BuNo.

 

The "gray" paint around the wing root and on the leading edge of the horizontal stabilize is to protect the finish from the Zuni blast when it launches.  Most Helo FFAR have a kicker charge that get the rocket clear of the tube and it ignites out in front of the launcher.  Don't think that is included in the Zuni, so it generates a hell of a lot of heat from the get go.  I know at least one USA Cobra pilot that used the Zuni on AH-1G.  They were initially scared it would open up the back of the stabilizer where it's riveted together.AH-1J_157781_MARHUK_of_NVietNam_SM_ARC1.thumb.jpg.61ac87aa90277c139b810f80383cc860.jpg

 

The MARHUK crews interdicted barge traffic along the coast and on at least one occasion started a "Mini War" around one of the sea ports engaging gunboats and shore batteries.  They generally did not go inland as the AH-1J's would have been very vulnerable to ground fire.  But they did shoot up the occasional gun boat...

 

As I indicated earlier, I got these shots from one of the MARHUK pilots.

 

Bryan

Edited by BWDenver
spiling....
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, BWDenver said:

 

 

  I know at least one USA Cobra pilot that used the Zuni on AH-1G.  They were initially scared it would open up the back of the stabilizer where it's riveted together.

 

Sounds about on par with what I've heard about Whiskey guys.  With Hellfire and TOW being a thing, the need for Zuni kind of evaporated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BWDenver said:

USA Cobra pilot that used the Zuni on AH-1G.

With all the new info you have brought to the thread, has lead to yet another question by me. Last night I was thinking about the different configurations that have been tested/used by the AH-1. Was the M28 turret capable of carrying two of each weapon system, ie, two mini-guns or two M75 grenade launcher and does the M28 allow from firing both weapons at the same time? I realize that the combo of the 7.62 and the 40mm have two very different trajectory profiles, but a double 40 would be a very lethal combination.

 

Looking over the M75, it is a gorgeous machine. I finally cheated a tiny bit, and did a search on the M28 turret, just to have a bit more detail and lead me to interesting questions that I prefer to get from those who are actually familiar with these systems, over what is basically a page that can be edited by anyone, including people like me that know next to nothing about the subject, making the info contained, very suspect.

 

I wonder if the rotor heads can create a category for helicopter lines, similar to this, hopefully becoming a "one stop shop" for subject research and walk-around included in the same thread. Maybe this already exists to some extent, but if you like US Military firepower, this would be great references for all those committed to creating accurate, historical models.

 

I may never become that good, but I already know that many of you guys are, some spend months researching subjects before building. It would probably be nice to have the collected wealth of information located under one roof.

 

Wishful thinking I guess,

 

Anthony

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Stalker6recon said:

. Was the M28 turret capable of carrying two of each weapon system, I realize that the combo of the 7.62 and the 40mm have two very different trajectory profiles, but a double 40 would be a very lethal combination.

 

Yes it could as I stated in my first post of the thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Whiskey said:

Yes it could as I stated in my first post of the thread. 

Brain fart, trying to consume too much info, forgetting what I have already learned. Did you answer the other question as well, the "can you fire both systems simultaneously?", that was also a question I wanted to ask, but can't remember if I did. Old age and a LOT of pharmaceuticals make life a bit fuzzy most of the time, but it is better than being in debilitating pain constantly.

 

Anthony

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything that I've ever read or heard about it stated that only one weapon system could be fired at a time. I'm no Cobra pilot so I cannot say that with 100% certainty however.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, not entirely correct.

Regarding the AH-1G (and I'm only talking about the G) and the XM24 turret as tested on 66-15283.  Weapons qualification testing regarding the turret with various mixes of weapons.  Between 10 Jan 1968 and 9 February 1968 the tested the turret with both 40mm and Mini guns with the intent on seeing if firing multiple weapons at one could upset the stability of the aircraft.

The initial test was with the 2x XM-129 firing simultaneously, followed by the Miniguns and finally a hybrid confutation with a min gun and the 40 mm in Phase B Part 5 of the overall qualification testing.  Both weapons were fired together without any adverse impact to the stability of the aircraft.

What they did find out was the 40mm ammo was crap, very poor quality control.  They also had to modify the 40 feed unit as it rubbed through on some of the components and resulted in feed failures.  Some of the more successful AICE's of WW II would only allow the ground crews to load ammo that was individually inspected.  They had less feed failures, and more kills...

67-15691 was used to flight test the 2.75” FFAR

66-15246 Testing of Gross weight and lack of directional control at 81000 GWT

Weapons testing was conducted at Yuma Proving Grounds.

Phase D Tests Prototype 66-15247 and prod 67-15695, 13 June 1968 to 29 July 1969 Vibration test flights, lights in nose, single XM-134 in single nose turret at (if I recall) Edwards.

They even looked at a 30mm firing the same ammo as the GAU-8.  But that would have threatened the AH-64, or so the AH-64 mafia believed...

Bryan

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BWDenver said:

30mm

I would have quoted the whole segment, but in the interest of saving space, just that part was selected. The entire post you made is quite interesting, until I started modeling again, I knew very little about these systems, even the modern ones, as my MOS was different, making my knowledge only glancing at best. Wonder why the 30mm wasn't chosen, would be interesting to see what drove that decision. As always, the 20mm is nice, but for the ground guys, the 30 is always better. You kill for us, preventing us from facing the big guys, so we always want you to have bigger guns and lots more ammo. As I stated before, when I was in the Bradley, I wanted the same gun used by the Apache. I loved the 25mike mike, but again, bigger/better.

 

Furthermore, it wasn't until this site that I learned of the rotating barrel 50cal, I had no idea those existed, and would have LOVED trigger time with one of those, nasty weapon for sure.

 

This has become my defacto War College, and I hope to continue learning more and more, not by the FM, but from the guys that experienced the systems first hand. Far better than any manual can possibly be!

 

Great stuff!

 

Anthony

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m very surprised they would consider a gun firing GAU-8 ammo on something like a Cobra.  30mm GAU-8 ammo is nothing like the the 30mm ammo used in the M230 carried on the AH-64.  GAU-8 ammo is 30x173 mm and M230 ammo is 30x113 mm.  The weight of even a single barrel gun to fire GAU-8 ammo would be considerable, and it seems unlikely that a single engined Cobra could handle the weight of the gun plus the ammo, not to mention the massive recoil force, especially if fired with the gun off centerline.  It’s doubtful that even the larger and more powerful AH-64 could handle such a weapon.  If this was considered, I can’t imagine it was more than a passing thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrel was a cut down version, and they did state in the doc I saw that the ammo would be "limited".  Remember it was a "Feasibility STUDY".  Like the "Quiet" OH-58, a paper study.  They did do a "quit" OH-6, but decided it was a bad idea as it could only lift the pilot.... 

 

Blue Thunder it was not...

 

In any event the Powers That Be elected to not up-gun the AH-1S (designation used when I was on active duty) because it was feared by the Apache mafia it would directly compete with the AH-64.  Everyone knew they needed a 30 mm for A2A, but they refused to consider it for the Army Cobra.  Why encourage the thinking that the airframe was more useful.

 

The "GCAL" 50 cal Gatling gun is most often mounted on the 160th birds, specifically the MH-47's & MH-60's.  I was at the rollout of the MH-47E and they had a 50 GCAL on one side and a 20mm on the other.  They may (probably) have mounted it on the MH-6 airframes.  Not sayin other units besides 160th use it, but it was sort of developed for them.

 

There were other tests with the AH-1 airframe, like a PNVS style helmet sight and other night vision gear.  I don't think they got too exotic on the guns.  And on one test bird they mounted an AH-64 sight turret and Hellfire rails, but it was only an aerodynamic test, not a firming test.

 

Bryan

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the second shot I have of a MARHUK AH-1J, Modex 0, just under the pilots hand.  I interviewed this guy for Mike in the late 80’s and completely forgot his name.  The 0 has been hand painted over with black like the insignia.

MARHUK_AH-1J_LPD_7Shit.jpg.3dfc2f54165335bb3c498497dc038cf3.jpg

 

 

 

Note this bird is lacking the gray protective paint on the wing roots and stabilizer.  So I would appear they did not mount the Zuni on all airframes.  I have no idea what the BuNo is, although it is likely they delivered sequential numbers to the unit.  They were all in the first batch of birds Bell built.

 

 

Also I have not been able to ID the fuse type on this rocket.  It is likely a proximity or radar fuse of some type, as I would assume an airburst would be more productive on small barge traffic.  But this is likely only one of the rocket loads they used.

 

 

The FFAR is not an “easy” round to put through a key hole.  They are very sensitive to the relative wind.  If you're a tad out of trim to the right, they go off to the left.  In a dive is you're pulling power, they tend to fly “up”.  While some pilots were very skilled at using them, a good number were not. 

At least one MiG was killed with a Zuni, off an A-4C, so if you were good, you were really good with rockets.  And TCDR Swartz was VERY good.

Bryan

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Get with @Rotorman for all the different testbed versions of the Cobra that the Army utilized. About 10 years ago he went to the Army Aviation Museum at Rucker and digitally copied pretty much all of the photos they had filed away. Pretty cool stuff to see what was going on back in the 70's and 80's like you've talked about.

 

I do recall a story my dad telling me about his unit at Hood flying specially outfitted Cobra's doing tests to determine survivability, defense measures, and offensive tactics against SAM sites. Something having to do with a lot of laser beams, NoE, radars, and buzzing the hell out of the test personnel. I think it was with Lockheed or Raytheon. Wish I wrote it all down.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What the Cobra offered, and the Marine Corps so brilliantly still understand, was an ease of use supply chain were similar components are on hand versus the hodge podge Army Aviation became of disparate parts in their inventory system. The Cobra also met the requirements for what was then called AAH, Advanced Attack Helicopter. AAH was superseded by AAFSS, Advanced Aerial Fire Support System, which was the AH-56A Cheyenne they then killed for the Apache Mafia crowd and to please the Air Force who sashayed all the way to Washington to complain because the Cheyenne had 'wings' and was taking over a role the Air Force insisted they solely owned, CAS, Close Air Support. A cat fight that would see the death of fixed wing Army Aviation assets leaving only rotary wing in Army Aviation and a mandate that any stub wing not have ailerons and be fixed to a short length.

 

Col Jay D. Vanderpool stated one of the reasons for selecting the Cobra for the AAH program was:

 

"The Bell Huey Cobra, although a Tandem cockpit gunship, employed proven aerodynamic and structural components which were already in the Army inventory. Additionally, the Huey Cobra employed the Lycoming T53-L-13 engine which was an outgrowth of the Lycoming family of engines long tested in the UH-1 family of utility helicopters. Over ninety percent of the required repair parts were common items in the Army maintenance inventory. Existing tools and test equipment were compatible with the Huey Cobra."

 

I guess because Im a sucker it's a world I largely miss until I get the reminders of the personality disorders you often encounter and the need to come to work in a raincoat to protect yourself from the constant streams from pissing contests. Then there are the lessons learned that often occurs in fielding anything signed off on and then put into operation.

 

Are you in good hands?

Ah-1G+inflight+fire.jpg

AH-1G.jpg

 

Edited by snake36bravo
Left 15, up 20
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Sarathi S. said:

GAU-19 isn't used by SOAR as a door gun to my knowledge

Maybe so, but it was on the 1st MH-47E at the Boeing plant for the rollout.  And the Boeing guys I was talking to indicated they they did the mounts for the 160th...

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, snake36bravo said:

which was the AH-56A Cheyenne they then killed for the Apache Mafia crowd 

The Cheyanne was in a competition as it were with the original S-67 Blackhawk gunship, the sole S-67 crashed at Farnborough in '74 when the pilot executed a loop at too low an altitude..  Sinofsky was willing to commit to production of the S-67 with as little as 10 airframes ordered. 

 

The next scheduled stop for the S-67 was Israel...  What might have been...

 

The AH-1G was hail marry pass, as Bell used "existing" structures to build a "modification" to the UH-1.  Hence the designation as UH-1/AH-1...  The Cobra took root as it were.  Everyone knew it was a whole new airframe but they just went along because they needed somethin in Viet Nam that was a bit better than a Charlie model gunship.  And it fast tracked the development to deploy it as a "modification" rather than a whole new aircraft.

 

One of the main reasons the Army elected not to go with the 56 is it was primarily it was too advanced, too complex, and had a lot of bugs, for the average wrench tuner to maintain.  One of the few remaining examples was a museum piece long before the AH-64 cane on the scene.  One of the few surviving examples was parked behind the museum at Rucker when I showed up for instrument training and Tactics at Rucker in July of '73.  Primary Flight was still at Wolters, but it was winding down fast.  They had killed the 56 in the '69 time frame, and issued an RFP for what would be the AH-64 in mid 72.  So the Apache mafia a had no real impact on the 56, but they did limit the AH-1 development.  

 

bryan

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Whiskey said:

I do recall a story my dad telling me about his unit at Hood flying specially outfitted Cobra's doing tests to determine survivability, defense measures, and offensive tactics against SAM sites. Something having to do with a lot of laser beams, NoE, radars, and buzzing the hell out of the test personnel. I think it was with Lockheed or Raytheon. Wish I wrote it all down.

That was likely HQ MASTER, later TCATA.  They were based out of West Ft hood and did a lot of tests.  I dated one of the gals that worked there.  

 

Not sure what MASTER stood for but we said TACATA was for "Those Clowns Are Testing Again".  MASTER had one of the first distributed computer systems in the Army,  A WANG, Wang was of course a real guy, and the inventor of the Magnetic Core Memory.  Think really expensive distributed word processor, along with other capabilities.

 

They hosted all kinds of tests.  Up to include the OFCON test.  Below is a shot (I think) of the AH-1R doing it's NOE thing, although it might be an S as the outboard weps are a bit long for a rocket pod...

.2091324619_AH-1R_XX-XXXXX_NOE_from1000feet_2_AH-1S-AH-1R_OFCON_Test_1975_BryanWiblurnSM.thumb.jpg.a27d54d9e1cb039ec869a4255bb776c3.jpg

 

Yeah I know its a crap shot but the only one I have.  And it was taken from about 500 feet up with a 50mm lens...

 

For those who have been at hood, I'm pretty sure that is Cowhouse Creek near Jacksons Crossing....

 

And for the astute folks, the shot I posted earlier of the AH-1S, was actually a YAH-1S,. 70-16055..

 

The OFCON tests were conducted with one of the two YAH-1R, the R was an AH-1G with the 703 engine, an AH-1J XSM with beefier mounts, push pull tubes for the Tail rotor controls and a 212 tail rotor, 8’ 6”, 11.5” chord  One of the 2 YAH-1R was SerNo. 70-15963.  63 was tested at the Bell pant in Feb and March of 73, and is likely the bird used in the OFCON tests.

 

Bryan

Edited by BWDenver
YAH-1R info
Link to post
Share on other sites

AH-56A Cheyenne ‘v’ S-67 Blackhawk

 

I was an academic instructor at Ft. Rucker between 1984 and 1987.  During that time, I would talk helicopters in general and AH-1G’s in particular with anyone willing to talk.  I was fortunate enough to meet a former AH-56 test pilot who had also flown the S-67 while it was being touted by Sikorsky to the Army.

 

As I recall he stated the S-67 was everything that the Army was looking for in the AH-56 and it worked.  Sikorsky had taken the engines, transmission, rotor system and drive train designs from their S-3 helicopter and built a sleek Attack Helicopter around these already proven components, the same way Bell built the Cobra around the components used in the ‘Charlie’ Model gunship.  Once the bills were totaled up following the cancelation of the AH-56 the Army had no intention of backstepping into the Sikorsky offering.  

 

About 20 years ago I contacted Sikorski while researching the S-67.  I was fortunate enough to speak with an engineer that had worked on the S-67 project.  It is my opinion that he was still ‘displeased’ that the Army did not take a closer look at the S-67 back it the day.

 

As for the AH-64 Mafia and the Cobra community, that too is an interesting story.  The old budgeting rule of, ‘Why purchase something new when you still have something old that works’ came into play here as well.  During early 90’s. the army was giving high time TOW cobras to the Marine Corps.  They would be flown to NAS Pensacola where the TSU’s and TOW systems were removed, refurbished and installation on AH-W’s. The Army Cobras were the crushed and stacks of them could be seen in a parking lot not far from the front gate to NAS Pensacola.  Get rid of the old helicopters and Congress will ‘have-to’ provide money for new helicopters.

 

Anyone notice how fast the OH-58D’s disappeared a few years ago?  Anyone notice what took the place of the OH-58D?

 

Michael A.

Edited by Michael A.
clarity
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cheyenne was killed 9 August 1972 not in 1969. 10 November 1972 is when Kenneth Rush, Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the release for RFP to industry. It was 29 March 1973 when Gen. Creighton W. Abrams, Chief of Staff, US Army made his 'Big 5' announcement a decade after Secretary of the Army Cryus B. Vance did on AAFS which lead to the Cheyenne:

 

"The weapon systems which I will now discuss are referred to as the 'Big Five'. They represent a family of weapons essential to our success on the battlefield of the 1980's...The "Big Five" are the most important of today's weapons developments for tomorrow's Army." Gen. Abrams to 93rd Congress, subcommittee on Defense, US Senate, first session 29 MAR 1973

 

1. An Advanced Attack Helicopter (AAH)  AH-56A replaced by the YAH-64A

2. New main battle tank (XM1), M1 Abrams

3. A mechanized infantry combat vehicle (MICV), Bradley IFV

4. A modern utility and transport helicopter (UTTAS), Sikorsky Blackhawk

5. A versatile, highly sophisticated air defense system (SAM-D) Patriot Air Defense

 

AH-1G Chronology

JUL 1965 Vietnam War requirement stated

MAR 1966 DoD Approval

APR 1966 Contract signed

SEP 1966 First prototype delivered

JAN 1967 Weapons test firing

MAR 1967 First Production Delivery

JAN 1968 Final Flight Certification

 

AAFSS

3 NOV 1965 Lockheed awarded contract for AAFSS 10 prototypes

MAR 1966 AH-56A Engineering Development Phase

3 MAY 1967 Lockheed unveils first AH-56A prototype AAFSS

21 SEP 1967 AH-56A Cheyenne first flight

12 MAR 1967 Prototype Cheyenne destroyed by Half-P-Hop phenomenom

AUG 1970 Review of AAFSS program commences

20 SEP 1971 Bell unveils the AH-1 King Cobra

1972 US Army decides to conduct effectiveness study to examine Cheyenne and other candidate helicopters

1972 Major General Sidney M. Marks designated as Advanced Attack Helicopter Task Force Director

1 JUL 1972 Competitive evaluations begin at Hunter Liggett Military Reservation between Cheyenne, Blackhawk, and King Cobra

7 AUG 1972 Mark's Task Force submits it's evaluation of Cheyenne, Blackhawk, and King Cobra to Secretary of the Army

22 JUN 1972 Secretary of the Army Howard H. Callaway, reveled that Bell Helicopter and Hughes Helicopter were winner of a competitive evaluation designed to provide the US Army with an AAH in early 1980

9 AUG 1972 Secretary of the Army officially terminates the Lockheed AH-56A program and simultaneously announces initiation of a program to develop an advanced attack helicopter

10 NOV 1972 Kenneth Rush, Deputy Secretary of Defense approved the release for RFP to industry

JUN 1973 Contract award. Mock-up review and critical design reviews completed during third and fourth quarter FY 74

31 JAN 1975 Bell YAH-63 ground test vehicle unveiled

JUN 1975 Contractor ground test vehicle operation

30 SEP 1975 first initial flight

JUN 1976 initiation of government competitive tests

AUG 1976 Source Selection Evaluation Board convenes

SEP 1976 Completion of government competitive tests

NOV 1976 DSARC II and Phase II Contract award

SEP 1978 Completion Phase II Development contract

AUG 1979 DSARC III

AUG 1981 first production aircraft delivery

 

And all during the above timeline in FY73 FY74 and FY 75 they were allocating funds for AH-1 upgrades for the MOD-S, AH-1Q, Sea Cobra, and even AAH.

 

Acquisition+costs+FY73-75+AH1.jpg

 

It was JUN 1972 when Callaway awarded Bell and Hughes competitive awards for what would become the Apache. Three months later AUG 1972 he killed the Cheyenne.

 

The AH-1G was already in the pipeline around the time the first UH-1C models made it to Vietnam and the subsequent Mike models arrived in-country or the Charlies already there got the Mike model engine upgrade. The powers that be only kept the AH-1 alive with upgrades until they could move their approved AAH program to PROD and in this case it heralded a move away from Bell Helicopter. I was there for the death of the AH-1, UH-1, RAH-66, and finally OH-58. 3 out of 4 of those were Bell Helicopter. I left PEO AVN at the CH-47J.

 

 

 

Edited by snake36bravo
Outboard personnel refused to STAND UP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...