Talk:OH-58 Kiowa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for OH-58 Kiowa:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Development Light Observation Helicopter (Born2flie 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) AHIP (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) RAID utilization (Born2flie 04:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Operational History Introduction of the Kiowa into the Army inventory and the combat theater in Vietnam. Australian OH-58A in Vietnam [1][2] Cold War OH-58A shot down over North Korea (CW2 Bobby Hall) [3] Operation Just Cause (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Operation Prime Chance Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm Operation Restore Hope (Somalia) [4] Bosnia SFOR Kosovo KFOR Operation Iraqi Freedom Other Countries Any other OH-58 experience in operation Variants OH-58A (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Australia, Canada (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) RAID (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) OH-58B (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) OH-58C (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) OH-58D (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Kiowa Warrior (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Taiwain Users Austria (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) Dominican Republic (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)) United States (Born2flie 01:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC))

	OH-58 Kiowa is part of WikiProject Aircraft, an attempt to better organize articles related to aircraft. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page or visit the project page where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.See comments
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Aviation WikiPortal

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... Military aviation task force United States military history task force

Contents 1 Kiowa Warrior Armament 2 OH-58 vs Bell 206 3 Deception Point 4 Bell 5 OH-58A/C 6 Infobox 7 HO-4 was a USAF designation? 8 Army Aviation 9 Bell design vs. Hughes design

[edit] Kiowa Warrior Armament

It is my understanding that the .50 caliber used on certain OH-58Ds is not actually the M2, but a different weapon based on it. Specifically, I recall it having a shorter barrel than the venerable Ma Duce. I'll dig up some evidence of this, any help would be appreciated. (USMA2010 05:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC))

• M296

Originally referred to as the XM296, it is essentially a modified M2 mounted in a cage that houses additional components and provides mounting to the weapons point as well as a modest amount of recoil/vibration dampening for the airframe:

"XM296 .50 Cal. Machine Gun. The XM296 machine gun is an automatic, recoil-operated, link-belt fed, air-cooled, .50 Cal. machine gun, for use in the left side mounting gun pod of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior. The XM296 has a maximum rate of fire of 750-800 spm (500-650 spm desired). The XM296 machine gun functions in the same manner as the M2 .50 Cal. machine gun, except it is fired remotely using an electrical solenoid and does not have the bolt latch which allows for single-shot operation. The XM296 has not been type classified." Link

--Born2flie 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OH-58 vs Bell 206

In the original LOH competition, Bell submitted a proposal that was designated the HO-4 (later OH-4) to compete against Fairchild-Hiller's OH-5 and Hughes Helicopters' OH-6. It wasn't until the airframe was redesigned into the current model 206 that the aircraft resembled the OH-58, so I'm not quite certain that it is accurate to say that the OH-58A spawned the Bell 206 JetRanger. It would be more accurate to say that the HO-4, when modified, became the JetRanger (model 206A) which in turn was submitted to the subsequent LOH competition and became the OH-58A.

However, it would be correct to say that the OH-58D contributed to the Bell 407 which in turn has evolved into the ARH-70A. --Born2flie 19:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deception Point

Friends of mine, who are also OH-58D pilots, deride Mr. Brown for his use of the nomenclature and name of a current aircraft and changing its capabilities to one that, in part, mirrors other past and present aircraft (rotor design, passenger capacity and armament payload), and yet transcends all of them to demonstrate capabilities that none of them have.

So, my contention is that the Deception Point reference either be removed or seriously altered to show how drastically Mr. Brown misrepresented this particular aircraft. --Born2flie 11:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Added a note pointing out the ridiculous Hellfire loadout in the book. The helicopter fires 4 Hellfires during the story and is still allegedly carrying 15 more when it crashes. That makes a total of 19, while the real thing can only carry four (two if it is also carrying a machine gun, which it does in the book). 63.161.86.254 15:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I say remove it. There's way too much material discussing how a fictional representation is inaccurate. I am so very shocked. Move the content to Deception Point. --Mmx1 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

No objections, and it's been over a month. I'm moving it. (Born2flie 04:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Funny, it was already there. Anyways, it is gone. (Born2flie 04:19, 10 September 2006 (UTC))

Removed another reference to Deception Point today. hint: the mythical helicopter Dan Brown describes is not an OH-58 of any variant, except in Mr. Brown's mind. (Born2flie 22:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Bell

Should the Bell series be added to the footer? A75 00:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

First let's agree on whether we're going to agree on the WikiProject Aircraft style guidelines on designation sequence, then we can talk about whether or not we should add another sequence to argue over. Continuing to add variants (HH-60, MH-60, SH-60, or CH-53, CH-53E, MH-53, etc.) of an aircraft as a part of a designation sequence is distracting and disruptive. I don't think it is relative to the article. (Born2flie 01:21, 16 September 2006 (UTC))

First, the modified mission series are just as important as the number sequence. Nor does the non-vertical format break the "style guidlines" that self-important mob is so keen on bullying everyone into using. In addition, I never added or created the original 'vertical' CH-53 format, which was why it seemed ok to use in the first place. A75 15:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Not a team player...got it. (Born2flie 03:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

Sometimes, but they aren't a 'team'. A75 19:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have some historical issues with the project that go beyond your current username.

In regards to "Modified" mission identifiers, modified mission identifiers aren't used in the case of U.S. military helicopters, since they are primarily designated by their aircraft type ("H" for helicopter) and not by mission like fixed-wing aircraft are. Helicopter mission identifiers are more often than not tied to the series of the aircraft (A-model vs. B-model). In the case of the majority of designation sequences on Wikipedia, minus the ones that I've seen you modify for Army helicopters, the primary MDS (minus the series) that the aircraft was designed under (or first accepted for military use) is used and all others are ignored. That would appear to be a consensus standard. (Born2flie 21:18, 17 September 2006 (UTC))

The the orignal 'vertical' code was previously used on one CH-53 page. This was why I though it was "approved" and added it to other pages- I had no intention of triggering the wp:air rule nazi's. It seemed a elegant solution to seperate modified mission aircraft pages (or letter series for that matter). As you point out, often one MM is chosen, and the others ignored. Arbitarly choosing one is not accurate to the sequence when each MM is not much more important then the other. It comes down to how important maintaing the number series is, as opposed to the real world importance of the aircraft. There is a seperate F-18E/F page (and a CH-53E) page even though the vast majority of letter series are all on the same page. Its because what the aircraft represent in the real world, designations aside. If the footer sequence is going to reflect the real world, then it cannot be totally arbitrary. Somewhere between 'fiddling' and 'arbitrary' is a creative solution that reflects the reality of these aircraft. A75 22:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me quote again, what I wrote.

"...the primary MDS (minus the series) that the aircraft was designed under (or first accepted for military use) is used and all others are ignored."

Therefore, there is a rhyme and reason to this and it isn't quite as "arbitrary" as you or anyone else supposes until someone comes along "fiddling" around, injecting their own ideas without bringing the rest of the editors along in consensus. The sequence is simply to show where in the progression of the designations of military aircraft the particular aircraft design falls, and has nothing to do with diminishing the other aircraft in that design series, which are generally referenced or covered in the article to the main design MDS article anyways. So, injecting them into the designation sequence makes it less aesthetic and somewhat confusing. I disagree that it is elegant, I find it extremely cluttering and dislike the likelihood that it will confuse other editors who may not be familiar with html.

Once again, I will also state that there is no such thing as a "mission modifier" for U.S. military helicopters. They are identified by the type of the aircraft ("H") and preceded by the helicopter's basic mission (A, C, E, H, M, O, R, S, T, U, V, and X)[5] and [6] (See Attachment 2)

The idea of consensus, is that one person doesn't get to make all the decisions simply because they decide that that's the way it should be. There should be the makings of a general agreement. Which is why I seem to be wasting my time discussing it with you here so we don't keep reverting and editing back and forth (which is contrary to official policies of Wikipedia), and trying to come to an agreement on how the page and its information will be presented. I happen to be a member of WP:Air simply for the fact that I don't like to work against a group who has already declared themselves to take an interest in the thing that I'm interested in. I personally take affront at being called a Nazi simply because I point out that there are guidelines already in place and operating under consensus. (Born2flie 00:58, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

You have misunderstood me on several counts.

1st- I was not calling you a nazi, I was using it as a adjective (e.g. soup nazi) and I was thinking of the guy who deleted the entire footer from the page, not you. On the contrary, I have a great deal of respect for somone in the Army, and especially a combat pilot.

2nd- I am more then willing to abandon the HTML code (a more normal way code would be better). The irony of this is that I used that html code (which I found on the CH-53E page) because I thought it was 'kosher' with WP:AIR and thus avoid the kind of discussions we are engaged in now.

3rd- I am well aware of what a consensus is, the designation system, and footer guidlines.

4th- I am in fact earnestly interested in finding a compromise, or recognizing that I was wholly in error.

5th- I understand your interested in following the wp:air bureaucracy, and can in fact understand that.

That said, what I was interested in, is to have the sequence reflect the real world, as opposed to arbitrarly adhering to its system. It already makes execptions for the real world- multiple sequences are listed, numbers are skipped, etc.. Its not just about modified mission (or basic mission designators) but reflecting whats important. As I mentioned, the wiki has a seperate page for the F-18E/F because it makes sense, even though normally this is not standard. It seemed more logical to try and have the sequence be true to whats actually out there, in this case the other basic mission H-60 variants that had their own pages.

In any case, this has all far exceeded the amount of work its worthy of. Spending hours debating the minutiae of page formating, and agonizing if we are following the rules closely enough is not exactly a good time. Good luck on your edits and flying. A75 04:18, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I figure it was slightly less frustrating and more worthwhile than an edit war on the article page. :shrug: (Born2flie 18:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] OH-58A/C

The OH-58A/C is not a variant. It is simply lumping all OH-58A and OH-58C together, because any differences that remain, now that all OH-58A are upgraded, are usually restricted to a few structural differences.

The following is from the current Operator's Manual titled, "Operator's Manual Army Model OH-58A/C Helicopter" (dated 17 January 1989):

"1-11. DESIGNATOR SYMBOLS.

NOTE All OH-58A and OH-58C model aircraft are now equipped with the T63-A-720 Engine.

Designator symbols [A] OH-58A and [C] OH-58C are used in conjunction with text contents, text headings and illustration titles to show limited effectivity of the material. One or more designator symbols may follow a text heading or illustration title to indicate proper effectivity, unless the material applies to all series and configurations within the manual. If the material applies to all series and configurations, no designator symbols will be used. Where practical, descriptive information is condensed and combined for all models to avoid duplication.

NOTE Armament subsystems are no longer applicable to OH-58A/C aircraft. All references to armament subsystems have been removed from this manual."

The Army continues to designate this aircraft as either OH-58A or OH-58C but refers to both together as OH-58A/C when not distinguishing between either series aircraft to avoid duplication of reference. (Born2flie 12:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Infobox

I definitely do not like the infobox and feel that it doesn't add anything to the page The pictures were fine where they were. (Born2flie 18:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC))

See Talk:ARH-70 for my response on the Aircraft Infobox. Also, thanks for the correction on the TH-57. --BillCJ 20:59, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] HO-4 was a USAF designation?

Bell submitted their design for the Model 206, which was selected out of the design phase and designated as the YHO-4A;^[1] a U.S. Air Force helicopter designation, since the USAF administered the procurement for this particular program for the Army.^[2] (Emphasis added.)

I have never heard the part about the LOH program being administered by the USAF. It is not referred to in the source at the end of the paragraph. This source has a list of US Army AF (USAAF) designations, under which is listed the HO-4. According to [7] and [8], the HO-4 designation is part of the US Army Air Force's (not the WWII organization, but Army Aviation) separate desigantion system used from 1956-62. This system included the YHC-1A (the CH-46 prototype), YHC-1B (CH-47), AC-1 (CV-2/C-7), and the famous HU-1 (UH-1 HUey), all originally Army aircraft. -- BillCJ 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

After checking the article history, I found that it origianlly stated it was a US Navy designation/program. All references I've ever read point to it only having been an Army program. -- BillCJ 05:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go back to my original edit that said it was a Navy-administered program, based on this primary source document, which jibes with what I had originally understood and written. You could argue that the HO-4 was an Army designation, influenced by both the Navy and Air Force's systems of designation at the time. I have issues with both of your references since neither one shares a reference for their source of stating that the source of the designations were the Army. I guess the same issue is presented by my reference of globalsecurity.org. Specifically, the issue becomes apparent when the H-13 procured by the Air Force is named as the OH-13, and likewise, the Hiller UH-12 (company's designation) is named as the OH-23. Why do these other three helicopters have different designations?

According to Wikipedia's Air Force article, the Army shared designations with the Air Force from 1948-1962¹. It was under that statement along with others² that led me to edit the program as being Air Force-administered. Also, current designations are assigned and approved by the Air Force^3,4, since it was a modified version of the Air Force's system that was adopted across the DoD. The Army controls only the popular name of an aircraft, not its designation, although there are instances where the designation system has been subverted⁵.

It is apparent that the Army wasn't allowed to develop its own aircraft until recently. The other issue is that aviation, as it developed in the Army after the separation of the Air Force isn't well documented prior to Vietnam. It also appears that the HU-1, HC-1/HC-2 and HO-4/HO-5/HO-6 designations may have assisted in facilitating the creation of the joint designation system that adopted a modified version of the Air Force's system.

• ¹ "Until 1962, the Army and Air Force maintained one system of aircraft naming, while the U.S. Navy maintained a separate system." [9]
• ² "During the Korean War, the Air Force handled aircraft procurement, depot maintenance, and supply, while the Army determined requirements and handled supply and maintenance at the organization and field levels. This division of responsibilities created obvious problems."[10]
• ³ "The current regulations for allocating aircraft and missile designations, called MDS (Mission, Design, Series) designations, are defined by Air Force Instruction (AFI) 16-401(I)."[11]
• ⁴ From AFI 16-401(I):

"Section B— Aerospace Vehicle Designation System

4. HQ AFMC/LGSI assigns and HQ USAF/XP approves designators for DoD aerospace vehicles according to their MDS. DoD established the current designator reporting system in 1961 to standardize identification of military aerospace vehicles. This system uses letters and numbers to symbolize identifying characteristics of aerospace vehicles of direct interest to the DoD.

Section C— Procedures for Requesting an MDS Designator

5. Military Departments must submit a written request for assignment of a distinctive MDS designator as early as possible in the aerospace vehicle development cycle. Requests must be coordinated with their respective Military Department point of contact and HQ AFMC/LGSI, as soon as possible, to have an MDS designator assigned. HQ AFMC/LGSI will assign and reserve the next available consecutive design number within each basic mission for new vehicles. Do not use MDS designators before approval.[12]

• ⁵ "The RC-7B is not a modified version of the de Havilland C-7A Caribou (DHC-4). Instead, the designation was assigned by the U.S. Army to the de Havilland Dash-7 modified as intelligence gathering aircraft for the ARL-M (Airborne Reconnaissance Low - Multimission) program. Apparently, someone in the Army just liked to assign the number "7" to the DASH-7 airframe."[13]

(Born2flie 15:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

Just found this. (Born2flie 15:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

From that source:

In 1955, with an interest in a utility helicopter designed around a turboshaft engine, the Army had the Air Force develop a new helicopter for its use. At that time the Army did not have its own aircraft development capability.

Being a source from a Navy historical site, it is probably correct, so I won't quibble on LOH being an Air Force-administered program. However, an AF designation would have probably been OH-40-something (perhaps -46 or -47), not HO-4/-5/-6 series.

Also from that source:

When the Army adopted its own two-letter designation system, the H-40 became the HU-1 (Helicopter Utility). From this designation came Huey, the name by which it has remained known. The DOD standard designation system reversed this to UH-1, the first designation in the new DOD helicopter series.

This is consistent with what I have observed, that the Army had its own designation system circa 1956-62. Apparently, Army aircraft procured before 1956 were not redesignated, hence the continued use of OH-13 and OH-23, along with the H-21 and H-25. According to {http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/d/o/dob104/aviation/us/hobserve.html}, the HO-series did include and HO-1, HO-2,and HO-3, though I have not seen this anywhere else. I have seen in published sources that the Mohawk was designated AO-1 (Army), and OF-1 (Navy/MC), before becoming the OV-1 in 1962.

I agree the "RC-7B" designation was non-standard, though it is recent (1990). On 15 August 2004, the designation EO-5C was officially allocated to the ARL-M aircraft. This is one of the rare cases where a non-conforming designation was officially replaced by a correct one. [14]. This site's sources are are usually government documents. It does not cover the pre-1962 designations in any detail, except to list the ones that were redesignated under the new system. -- BillCJ 16:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, Yeah. I was already pointing out that second quote by posting the link. The Army had its own designation system, according to the Navy Historians. That's why the time stamp on that comment of finding the document is later than my earlier one and why the article is edited to reflect that the Navy administered the development contract, the Army selected the Bell (even though the Navy preferred the FH1100, and even though the Hughes OH-6 was eventually selected) and the reference to the USAF and a USAF designation is removed.

Again, the problem with the two links you shared, and as I already admitted about my link to globalsecurity, is that none of these are primary sources, as secondary or tertiary sources they are unreliable because they are unreferenced as to where they get their information. They could've just as easily gotten their information from each other as from a reputable source. As such, I hold the rest of the work in question until it can be established by a separate source, such as the Navy History source that I found. I'm actually very happy to have a source that discusses the Army's designation system in a context outside of discussing designation systems without references. (Born2flie 05:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC))

Thanks for the clarification, both here and in the article. You probaby saw the article on the TH-57 on the same site; the PDF file there confirms that the Navy conducted the LOH program, though there was nothing about the Army designations. If I can ever find documented sources on the Army 1956 system, I'll let you know. Btw, I sometimes restate the obvious; it can be annoying, even to me. Even to me. (STOP THAT!!!) --BillCJ 05:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Found this here:

According to Stephen Harding, author of “U.S. Army Aircraft,” the letters “VZ” were part of the Army designation system used between 1956 and 1962, and signified a vertical takeoff and landing aircraft.

Amazon has two used older editions, plus a recent one, of the Stephen Harding book here. Might be worth checking out. -- BillCJ 06:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm Captain Obvious, myself! (Born2flie 03:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC))

No wonder both our posts are so long! -- BillCJ 03:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Army Aviation

I've tried to find an article on the US Army Aviation, but there doesn't seem to be one. Army Aviation redirects to Aerial warfare, while Army aviation redirects to Military aviation. There is some information of the current Army Air Corps on the United States Army Air Corps page, which also covers the 1926-41 USAAC. A search for US Army Aviation or United States Army Aviation brings up a search list. United States Army Aviation and Missile Command comes up near the top, but this is a Systems Command. I didn't think that was the same thing. Anyway, does anyone know of a single article covering US Army aviation in all its forms/names since 1947? --BillCJ 05:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

US Army Aviation didn't exist until the 1980's, before then it was always Army aviation (small "a"). It was mostly considered a part of Transportation Branch and that branch was responsible for training the maintainers. (Born2flie 15:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC))

OK, thanks. --BillCJ 16:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bell design vs. Hughes design

Bill, it was intentional to say it this way for a more dramatic reading and is not a grammar issue but may seem so because of the "s" ending of "Hughes":

Once again, Bell design faced off with Hughes design.

It could be restated this way to alleviate the problem:

Once again, Bell's design faced off with Hughes' design.

(Born2flie 10:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC))