Comments by "verdebusterAP" (@verdebusterAP) on "Can this NEW Attack Helicopter Defeat China's Anti Air?" video.

  1. The winner will be the first one that puts an EO/IR/AESA mast on their aircraft Just as the longbow does sneak and peak with the radar, the EO/IR/AESA mast would allow to do the same without RF emissions modern vehicles are being equipped with SAL and RWR which allow them to detect laser and radar targeting An EO/IR capability in the mast allows it passive track without giving away its position till it fires It also allow to coordinate attacks with Apaches As Apaches are using the longer range SPIKE NLOS The FARA could attack as spotter, providing battle damage assessment or terminal guidance If the Army adds in the right capability like EO/IR/AESA it will pay major dividends in the long run for them
    5
  2.  @midgetman4206  That would be false about the F-35 interchangeability. The original goal was close to 80 percent , however its closer to 30-50 percent. Engines, radar, cockpit and sensors are the same, the major differences is the air frame The problem with the F-35 program is the A and C. The F-35B was always to going to be different from the rest. The problem is that F-35A and F-35C ended up being too far apart The only difference between the A and C should have been landing gear , strength air frame for carrier operations and folding wings Instead they specialized the F-35C too much The F-35A has more in common with the F-35B than the F-35C The common sense thing would be roll the FARA and FLRAA into one program and take a few pages from fixed wing aircraft Targeting pod allow aircraft to guide precision munitions but can also function as ISR The solution for rolling the FARA and FLRAA into would be removable equipment or fixed equipment an EO/IR/AESA That can function for both attack and ISR Instead of having two aircraft you have one, that you can equip with ISR equipment as needed or configured for strike missions
    5
  3. There is a lot bad information here so lets clear that up First the Kiowa role became moot due to increase use of drones and advances in technology. Small drones like RQ-5 and RQ-7 which could loiter for 6 plus hours. The newer MQ-1C can loiter for over 24 hours The OH-58 could only loiter for 2 hours. The AH-64E has the capability to control UAV. This allows them receive information as the UAV sees The OH-58 had no data link capability nor could it share imagery. It had to radio back to command post. Secondly drone units can be deploy much faster and easier than OH-58 They can be packed up in C-130 and flown to where ever they are needed. The AH-64D/E long bow radar was also another factor as it can target further than the OH-58 can see The AH-64D/E received a number upgrades that moot the OH-58 moot The greatness irony was the RAH-66 was the perfect replacement for the OH-58 The Bell 360 is waste of time if they are serious about it, then need to develop an EO/IR/AESA mast for it
    1