What would cheyenne look like today?

[Caveman]

Fairly simple question I think but the visualisation is beyond me.

What would this aircraft


(for those not in the know...cant imagine there are that many... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne)

look like now if it had gone into service and been updated and upgraded over the years?

For example here are a couple of aircraft which have been developed/upgraded

This


has become this



And this


became this



So what would cheyenne look like in service today?

[PR19_Kit]

It was SO far ahead of it's time that not much would have been changed I reckpon.

Some upward pointing anti-IR exhausts perhaps? If Westland-Agusta had anything to do with it, it'd have BERP rotor blades of course 

I'm not sure what that 'balancer cross beam' above the main rotor did, but maybe they'd have advanced the rotor deisgn so they didn't need it, and perhaps added a Longbow style radar-viewing dome above the rotor? How about a fenestron tail rotor, at least the sideways pointing one anyway. The underwing weapons would be more 'of the century' by now, but that's easily done. And maybe angled cockpit glass like the Marine's Cobras?

[rickshaw]

A taller rotor mast, perhaps? 

Its sensors would have had to be seriously upgraded.  You'd see a FLIR, perhaps a Millimetre radar.  Armament would have changed - Hellfires, different rockets, its cannon would have changed to a chain gun more than likely.

Perhaps its biggest change would have been in tactics and employment.   It was designed to attack like an aircraft, nowadays, helicopters attack from the hover, popping up from behind cover to fire and then disappear again.   The Cheyenne was designed to attack at high speed, like an aircraft.  Effectively it was a gyrocopter, not a helicopter as a consequence.

[martinbayer]

Perhaps a shroud or ducted fan for the pusher propeller.

Martin

[rickshaw]

Perhaps a shroud or ducted fan for the pusher propeller.

Martin

The rear fuselage would need to be extended for that to work.  The two rear rotors are intermeshing.

[martinbayer]

Perhaps a shroud or ducted fan for the pusher propeller.

Martin

The rear fuselage would need to be extended for that to work.  The two rear rotors are intermeshing.

They are actually not, as can be seen here http://www.aviastar.org/foto/lok_cheyenne.gif.

Martin

[ChernayaAkula]

- chaff/flare launchers. Lots of 'em! If you look at the Israeli Apaches, they carry more weight in flares than in ammo!
- a DIRCM system as in the AMASE pods to protect against IR-guided munitions
- maybe that ducted fan for the pusher prop and a NOTAR-like set-up for the anti-torque tail rotor. Or dispense with the anti-torque tail rotor completely and use a co-axial main rotor.

I wonder whether you could adapt an ATGM hard-kill system like Rafael's Trophy (LINK) to an aircraft?  

<...> nowadays, helicopters attack from the hover, popping up from behind cover to fire and then disappear again.   <...>

I don't think that's the current standard. An attack chopper pilot on ARC said, that, yes, they still train that, but on the actual battlefield, they go by "speed is life", not slowing down unless it is absolutely necessary. Especially in asymmetric conflicts, where you can't be sure you're hovering over "friendly" territory. Sitting duck for anyone with shoulder-launched SAM, RPG or even a Dushka/other small arms.
In a fast ship like the Cheyenne, I'd assume that would've been even more the case. You'd lose one of the biggest assets of the Cheyenne by slowing down all the time.
Looks like the Soviets never bought into the hover-and-pop-up-method and always relied on their helicopters to be fast and agile and attacking from shallow dives.
Friend of mine talked to an artillery spotter. Said artillery spotter was credited with a couple of "kills" in an exercise when he ordered a fire mission on a flight of Bo 105/PAH-1 hovering in their firing positions. Okay, this is an extreme example, but it shows that a hovering helicopter is rather vulnerable.

<...>The two rear rotors are intermeshing.

No, they're not. They're very close, but not intermeshing.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

EDIT: Looks like Martin was faster.

[famvburg]

   My guess would be modifications that made it similar to the Lockheed CL-1700. http://www.helis.com/70s/

[rickshaw]

   My guess would be modifications that made it similar to the Lockheed CL-1700. http://www.helis.com/70s/

Rather loses the pleasant lines of the Cheyenne, doesn't it?

Both ChernayaAkula & ChernayaAkula are right and I was mistaken.  The rotors don't intermesh.  I must have picked up the impression from somewhere.

As to tactics, they tend to revolve around capabilities and what the opponent does.  The Cheyenne was designed for high speed attacks originally with unguided rockets and then later TOW.  Other nations after the Cheyenne's demise decided to adopt the hover and shoot tactic because they felt the terrain favoured it.  Obviously that would have to be different when facing an insurgent enemy to a conventional one.

[RussC]

Just my 2 cents, from the time I first saw illustrations of Cheyenne's on mid 1960's issues of Popular Mechanics, always liked its design and it is probably because it looks a lot like an aircraft as much as a helicopter. I'm not a big rotary wing enthusiast, in fact built only 3 in the 30 years on the hobby bench. So take my ideas from that POV as you read.

   The Machine looked strong and robust versus the spindly nature of some helo's and it looked fast despite being a VTOL. These are probably why it was and is still my favorite heli' with the Osprey right on its tail and the Chinook third. The rest really don't do much for me.

Given the propensity of government and military procuring, the design if built and committed to Southeast Asia would have followed the cobra and been unchanged for ten years then facelifted in the 80's and acknowledging both competition from the Mi-24 and potentially other big Warsaw Pact Attack copters spurred forth by the Cheyenne design itself.
   So the facelift would be major, first of all- more power, much bigger engines followed by more armor and more electronics. Yes the tail prop would be ducted for aerodynamic and even some early stealth considerations, with a larger size prop, maybe even 8-bladed contra prop(s) and a aerodynamic ducting to replace the tail rotor.

   Another re-pop for the 1990's with lots more stealth added, and yet more computing.

   A further rebuild of some airframes into drone systems following Sept. 11 01.

[The Wooksta!]

I doubt it would need bigger engines.  The Cheyenne was marginally less powerful than an Apache and the latter had two engines.

[famvburg]

    Come on guys, helicopters ARE aircraft. Perhaps y'all mean 'airplane'.

[The Wooksta!]

IIRC the correct term is "compound rotorcraft".

[sandiego89]

I agree with most of the above, especially FLIR/Sensor, weapons fit, defensive counter measures and IR surpression.  I don't think changes to the tail rotor or pusher would help much.

I think a twin pack engine would be a logical choice.  All long serving helos increase in weight quite a bit with new sensors and weapons being added, and additional power is almost always needed.  Although original power was more than adequate, higher power would undoubedly been required eventually, and two engines can be better for survivabilty.  Quite a few helos have added an additional engine to deal with power demands (Cobra, CH53E, H-43, SeaSprite, etc).

Might be a great platform for special ops insertion with a pod for a few troops.   

[pyro-manic]

What about replacing the diddy little XM140 30mm cannon turret with an Oerlikon KCA? Fixed forward-firing, for anti-tank work. I'd suggest a GAU-8, but that would probably be too big. Upgrade the nose turret to a 20mm M197, a la Cobra.