Tuffel: Not quite.

The technical issues were ultimately ironed out as demonstrated in Prototype 7. The cost wasn't a final determinant in cancellation. By the time the Secretary of the Army cancelled it, the program was under attack on all sides politically especially by the Air Force, not due to costs.

Looking at its issues, if you want to conclude that the Cheyenne was a flaming pile of crap, you're going to need to re-evaluate the F-35. The Cheyenne had far fewer problems in development and delays than the F-35 has had so far.

Tom: Yes quite. The excessive vibration was never properly addressed, instability was never fixed, maintenance issues persisted across proto-types, and the weight issue was never addressed in any extant model. Most of those issues had to do with how it was designed and were deeply rooted inherent flaws. Those flaws Tom, had to do with how it flew and operated its main rotor and tail rotor and anti-torque mechanisms.

The constant rising costs and delays is the primary cause not the Air Force. The Army itself pointed out that any program paths to address the issues would take a lot more time and money than was feasible and would only drastically increase program cost across the program and final production models. By the time the Air Force had started to put any real pressure on the program it was already tanking badly because of constantly rising costs and delays. The AH-1 on the other hand filled the Niche and was notably more affordable than any future completed Cheyenne would have been. The Army had what they wanted and needed and the Cheyenne's prospects were looking very bad at the time so it was dropped.

F-35 has nothing to do with this and is a completely different project and program never mind and entirely different type of craft. Stop trying to distract form the fact that the Cheyenne would not have panned out because it was deeply flawed.

Oh before I forget. It had poor Night Time Capability and lousy weather tolerance and part of the collection of flaws had to do with the fact it was using analog and mechanical systems instead of the superior electrical and digital.

edited 13th Apr '17 10:13:05 PM by TuefelHundenIV

The Cheyenne had a flight profile that left it vulnerable to MANPADS. The AH-64 took the best ideas and compensated for the changing threat.

The biggest mistake in the F-35 program was letting the Marines add in VTOL. They should have been told to go eat their crayons. An evolved Harrier designed or a clean sheet design would have solved that problem. The Marines wanted their own F-35 because NAVAIR loves to take their squadrons and stick them in the surface fleet.

Never forget that the F-14, F-15 and F-16 had no end of problems. The F-16 outflew it's first pilots, the F-15 was hella expensive, the F-14 had all kinds of problems (one of which was a plot point in Top Gun). The F-111 was so bad that it's faliure led the to F-14. The B-1 was a joke, an expensive hangar queen that sat out the Gulf War. The B-2 is so expensive that only 21 were built.

The F-35 ain't nothing special.

The craft was designed and proto-types built at one of the worst moments to do so. During a technology roll over. Transition in numerous avionics packages including redesign was already occurring and was part of the future cost spikes, electric and digital equipment was rapidly replacing the old mechanical and analog systems, new night fighting equipment was coming out, new NOE kit was arriving, and new guided weapons were showing up all over the place on multiple platforms. They would have had to basically redesign the craft almost from the ground up to not only address its existing programs and problems but to adopt the new technologies.

edited 14th Apr '17 4:14:24 PM by TuefelHundenIV

Going off the discussion alone, if one of the Cheyenne's biggest problems was difficulty operating as a helicopter, it sounds like the F-35 is already ahead of the curve there since it is demonstrably capable of flying as a plane. Like others have said, the VTOL capability seems to be to blame for most of the complications outside of raw cost.

Adding to the list of designs with serious growing pains: The B-29 Superfortress was underpowered and would set itself on fire, the Iowa class battleship was at one point being designed with turrets that wouldn't fit in the ship due to a miscommunication that lasted much longer than it should have, the same battleship design had no Anti-Air protection from head-on attacks whatsoever, the P-51 Mustang and F 4 U Corsair were very unforgiving to inexperienced pilots (during takeoff and landing, respectively; a fully-loaded P-51 was notoriously unstable at low-speed, and it wasn't unheard of for a D-model Mustang to spin out into the English countryside less than a minute after leaving the runway, the Corsair had finicky handling and a huge honking nose that eclipsed the pilot's view of the flight deck), the Lexington had a main battery of 8 inch guns which were entirely useless and could cripple the ship if fired in the wrong direction, etc. etc. etc.

So you guys know that time that the US bombed the wrong country in WWII?

Any one got some sources so I can share with some one?

Well, both the Amis and the Britisher schweinhunde bombed Switzerland and every other neutral European country including Sweden at one point or another.

Arthur 'See A Town? Burn It Down' Harris just couldn't help himself. There was so much Europe that hadn't asploded yet.

Here's one from a US Air Force website: The Diplomacy of Apology: U.S. Bombings of Switzerland during World War II.

Of particular interest is that Colonel James Stewart (in another life famous for starring in "It's a Wonderful Life") presided over a court martial concerning this very topic.

On a similar note, the Luftwaffe bombed the Republic of Ireland at least once (they meant to bomb the British territory of Northern Ireland). Navigation by air over long distances can be difficult, as small errors compound into big errors, and oftentimes the enemy is making an active effort to interfere with your effective navigation for obvious reasons. In WWII, this ranged from enforcing blackouts over cities to the use of electronic warfare to interfere with radio navigation aids.

Not to mention flak and combat air patrols. Those are kind of a pain when you're trying to figure where the F you're supposed to go.

More like air navigation in the 1940's was shit. Something Denmark would have found out had it bothered to stay in the war for at least a week.

Didn't help when you were trying to keep a low profile and weather caused problems. The Germans got it worse because the allies started fucking with their guidance signals.

With the memory of the Danno-Prussian War a scant 80 years before, an army that hadn't been mobilized and the strategic depth of a paddling pool?

Bad air guidance would have helped precisely dick.

Apparently Boeing and possibly other groups are again pursuing blended wing design for more conventional aircraft use.

Plane spotters in the UK got to see some F-35's in the "Mach-Loop"

The USAF Finally Gives Its AC-130W Gunships The Big Gun It Desperately Needs.

I know Tuffel has a mad-on against flying gun platforms (and floating gun platforms) but in this case it really is the better answer. None of the AC-130's armament is really that standoffish and you can't and don't use AC-130s of any stripe when the airspace is contested either by aircraft or SAM's. (And it's not like ISIS or Taliban or what have you have much in the way of Anti-Air. Why waste 100,000 dollar missiles on a target that's easily pasted by a 400 dollar howitzer round? I guarantee you can carry a lot more 105 rounds than Griffin/Hellfire missiles and SDB's.)

I dunno, I bet a C-130 could carry a lot of Hellfires. I mean, the thing can carry trucks. I've heard it can even carry Your Mom.

I wonder how hard it would be to fit a missile launcher and ammo feed system hooked up to a magazine inside the cargo bay?

It can carry a lot of missiles sure, but is it really cost effective? A hellfire costs about 115,000 where as the howitzer round costs 300.

And I just checked Tom, you undersold the gun rounds, there only 300usd, not 400.

edited 4th May '17 8:30:10 PM by Imca

True, but then there's also those upgraded smart rockets they've been playing with. Not $300 cheap per round, but much cheaper and lighter than a Hellfire.

Either way, as long as it works.

Tom: Oh how you never learn or pay attention. In case you missed it the AC-130's started to not rely on the 105mm because it puts them well within range of SHORAD. You can have air superiority but still face SHORAD ala Gulf War and yes the AC-130 is fully expected to possibly operate in that environment. Unlike you the USAF quite overtly has not forgotten that lesson and "Dragon Spear" craft fit both Gunslinger Systems for Griffin Missiles and Viper Strike bombs as well as wing mountable hard points for Hellfire and SDB's when they need avoid being suicidal low. Give you hint what they will use if they expect any possible SHORAD threats. It is something not firing bullets or shells.

Immy: Less accurate, shorter ranged, riskier to use near friendlies and civvies, loud obvious report with a near sub-sonic projectile, and shooting it literally pushes the aircraft around. Gunslinger system projectiles are the exact opposite. Longer reach, significantly higher accuracy, foot prints that mean you can use them much closer to friendlies and civvies, and gunslinger has negligible effect on the craft when installed and fired. Pylon mounts have bigger foot prints but are more accurate than the 105mm and have smaller foot prints and have a lot longer range then the shortened 105mm.

AFP: Which ones? There are like four variants of the damn things now.

edited 5th May '17 12:52:41 AM by TuefelHundenIV

Yeah, but the 105 looks impressive on camera. And in the age where the US military is responsible for compensating for Trump's tiny hands, that's all that matters.

Same reason they used a MOAB to splat less than a hundred people or wasted fifty tomahawks on an empty airbase.

Oh it has it's uses but most of them are for targets you don't have to worry about collateral and to use it accurately it has to come lower then if it fired the 105.

Less accurate and cant be used around friendlies?

Thats why the C-130 had the lowest rate of collateral/friendly fire instances scaled for use last time the report came out? And the F-16 was near the top with its missiles?

I think you might have that backwards.

On paper the missiles are more accurate yes, but not really in practice due to how the respective platforms are used.

edited 5th May '17 3:09:29 AM by Imca

The most well-equipped, overall powerful military in the world is a public relations arm of a real estate developer and reality TV show host.

2017 is fuckin' weird.

edited 5th May '17 4:51:13 AM by math792d

Funny, because they're re-adding the gun precisely because they don't operate AC-130's of any stripe in an Anti-Air environment. They found out being a missile truck with not a lot of backup options isn't all that worth it. Once again, cheap and accurate beats out the slight increase in range.

Especially considering the cost. Remember, Hellfire/Griffin missiles cost up to 100,000 dollars each. You pay a fraction of that for a 105 round. A tiny fraction at that. And against the type of targets an AC-130 is used against anymore, you rarely need to engage with heavy expensive weapons.

Otherwise, why would you add it back?