Talk:Bell OH-58 Kiowa/Archive 2

OH-58F upgrades to start
The Army gave approval for a new OH-58F cobfiguration yesterday (21 Dec. 2010) per Defense News. But I am wondering why they are skipping the E-model? Was that reserved before but not used? -fnlayson (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it is because OH-58E is too easily confused with OH-58D. The Kiowa Warrior should have been the OH-58E model to begin with, but the politics that play in the designation game are the same ones at play during acquisition. --Born2flie (talk) 18:08, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why ask why, drink Bud Dry. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OH-58F Block II
Is this officially a Block II upgrade for the OH-58F? I'm having trouble finding this in the sources. Could someone clarify. I see that Bell is mentions an engine and rotor systems improvements on it's websites, but I can't find anything Army official. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Block II is the likely designation if Bell's improvements get incorporated on the OH-58F. Several of these are being tested according to these articles:  . -Fnlayson (talk) 15:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OH-58F was the Army's planned in-house clean up of the wiring, and upgrade of the cockpit and sensors (CASUP) without addressing the engine power limitations. The result was that the aircraft would have been a hundred or so pounds lighter than the OH-58D with more capability in mission. Block II was Bell's suggestion to meet the Army's proposed 6K/95 HOGE requirement for AAS. To show the Army that they could get there sooner with the OH-58F than a new aircraft development program. --Born2flie (talk) 01:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Reference link for my discussion above. --Born2flie (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

why is not E variant ?
jump from D to F — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.18.115.109 (talk) 19:40, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No idea. There is no OH-58E in the DoD 4120.15L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, dated 2004 and nothing on designation-systems.net.  I can't find any definitive with internet searches.  Maybe an E variant was reserved for an OH-58D upgrade but not used (??). -Fnlayson (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The interim changes of arming the OH-58D and the SEP essentially constituted a configuration change requiring a variant designation, but politics... So, it is a common assumption that the designation to the F model is a catching up of the official record. No, I have no references to support that. --Born2flie (talk) 14:31, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * This article on GS says that OH-58E was a candidate in the Advanced Scout Helicopter program. Maybe that is why it was skipped? It has some other rare candidates such as OH-64 Apache. The article states "The OH-58E was a more substantial modification that included a four-bladed rotor, a mast-mounted sight (MMS), equipped with day-television and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) -- for night operations -- and an upgraded transmission and engine. " This program lead to the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, which is what produced the OH-58D upgrade. |Global Security article A75 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Fleet retirement
So far we have a single source reporting the possibility of retiring the fleet. I think we need more than that for something this important. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 14:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At least one other source, Defense News have covered this. But it is just something under consideration at this point. The operating and maintenance costs look much worse for using AH-64s for armed scout role. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
 * We can probably archive this as we all know now that it is a done deal with only a couple squadrons left to divest themselves of their aircraft and case their colors. --Born2flie (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Advanced Scout Helicopter
"In the 1970s, the U.S. Army began evaluating the need to improve the capabilities of their scout aircraft. The OH-58A lacked the power for operations in areas that exposed the aircraft to high altitude and hot temperatures, areas where the ability to acquire targets was a critical deficiency in the tactical warfare capabilities of Army aviation."

The section has been significantly edited to claim that the US Army's search to improve scout aircraft capability in the 70s was based on an assessment that power was needed to improve high-hot performance. That is not indicated in the references used. I believe an editor has confused this period of development (Advanced Scout Helicopter) with the latest round of searching for a replacement specifically because of experience in Iraq and Afghanistan (Armed Aerial Scout/Armed Scout Helicopter). --Born2flie (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't you know it, I was the editor who made the error. While a performance increase was desired, it wasn't for high-hot performance as I presented it. Arguably, the performance increase would have been to increase airspeed and to accommodate a heavier mission equipment payload. I will look for some references to clarify this issue. --Born2flie (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Future and OH-58F
The Future subsection under Operational History and the OH-58F subsection under Variants both need revision. Future carries discussion of the LHX and Armed Aerial Scout development that may be better suited for the Development section. OH-58F has some verb tense issues due to passage of time since the edits were made. I will get to them if I have time, but wanted to highlight the issues here. --Born2flie (talk) 15:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually, reading this section made me cringe. So many non-notable details, and not a single mention of UH-72 Lakota ANYWHERE? Hello? This is the helicopter selected to replace A/C variants, with 345 on order...Wa-totem (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not right. Some UH-72s are replacing TH-67s (Bell 206s) for pilot training.  The Army's plan calls for AH-64s and UAVs to take the OH-58's role as stated in the Future section. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


 * True, Fnlayson. The 345 were to augment the National Guard's peacetime mission and ensure that capability did not disappear when NG units with combat aviation assets are deployed. Only those Lakotas with the S&S MEP was selected to replace the aging OH-58A/C in the RAID program. --Born2flie (talk) 21:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Wire Strike Protection System (WSPS)
Before going into the weeds on this, my recommendation is that this section within the OH-58 entry be reduced to a statement that later models of the OH-58 have wire strike protection without elaborating on the specifics, and making a reference to the Wikipedia entry "Wire Strike Protection System". I'd be happy to suggest that as an edit in lieu of my previous edit (and will do so at an opportune moment).

In reading the WSPS portion of this Wikipedia item, I was initially struck by how misleading this was. Quoting directly from the article: "It can protect 90% of the frontal area of the helicopter from wire strikes that can be encountered at low altitudes by directing wires to the upper or lower blades (my emphasis) before they can entangle the rotor blade or landing skids."

Anyone could come away with the impression that deflecting wire hazards into the upper rotor blades solved the problem of wires impacting the rotor blades. Of course this doesn't make sense. The reference to "lower blades" made no sense to me. I believe the confusion partly arises from the fact that in some contexts the upper and lower portions of the WSPS are referred to as "cutting blades" or "sword blades" and are easily confused with the "rotor blades" of the aircraft. This usage of "blades" is incorrect, and although the cited reference is incomplete (it says nothing about how the WSPS works) it does refer to the upper and lower components as an "upper cutter" and a "lower cutter". Not blades.

There is also a problem with the reference citation (#26 in the entry), perhaps as a Wikipedia practice (I don't know); there are two active links in that reference. If you click on it at the very beginning (the first link), it takes you to the Wikipedia entry on Magellan Aerospace, which says nothing at all about wire strike protection. If you click a little bit further along there's a link that takes you to the Magellan Aerospace page that very tersely covers their offering for a wire strike protection system. It is a problem having two active links in a citation or reference, and I suspect something was messed up when this reference was created. Beyond that neither the Magellan Aero reference or Magellan's link to the WSPS on that page discuss or disclose the "theory of operation" of the system. Helicopterpage.com/unique-to-helicopters does somewhat, but incompletely and unfortunately with problematic terminology viz. the use of "blades" instead of cutters.

As a former Army Aviator I know a few things for which I have been unable to find references so far. I'll cite them without going into detail:

(1) the cutters are composed of an inner (close to the fuselage mounting) region and an outer (away from the fuselage mounting) region. The primary function of the outer region is to capture the wire and guide it to the inner region where the cutting action occurs. The secondary function of the outer region is to score or weaken the wire preparatory to cutting. The sole function of the inner region, which has hardened and scissors shaped edges, is to cut wire. (2) Rotor blade contact with substantial wire (cable) is devastating and always leads to total loss of the aircraft. Less than "substantial" contact may lead to damage affecting safety of flight (but I'm not aware of instances of this, only "substantial" contact). (3) The rotor blade control assemblies, specifically the tubes which control blade pitch, are unable to withstand substantial lateral force and cannot tolerate shearing or cutting forces. In the case of rotating control tubes, they can be cut by rotation and friction against a cable or bent by rotating entanglement with fine wire. Either of the preceding causes total loss of the aircraft. Power lines are examples of cable contacts. Missile guidance wire, such as that from the BGM-71 TOW missile, is an example of fine wire contact (yeah, that stuff could be all over a battlefield, strung across and between trees). (4) Severe torquing moments can be catastrophically induced by substantial wire (cable) strikes at speed thereby causing loss of control and total loss of the aircraft. A pilot experiencing a wire strike has no emergency procedure to follow to mitigate the event.

None of the preceding is germane except that "total loss of the aircraft" is the most likely outcome of any wire-strike. And no, I have no written reference to cite for that. *sigh*

I'll also note that "WSPS" is a trademark of Magellan Aerospace and it is not acknowledged as such in the Wikipedia entry, nor in the Wikipedia entry on Wire Strike Protection System. I have no idea what Wikipedia policy is on the use of trademarks in entries. I'll opine that it would best be avoided.

Also there are problems with the wire strike protection system entry in Wikipedia: (1) Using WSPS throughout. (2) Multiple factual errors in the description section. (3) The references section has a dead link (#3). Carrellk (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)carrellk


 * Like you I am a former military aviator with Kiowa time, in my case in the Canadian military. I was also the government test pilot at Bristol Aerospace 1986-89. The WSPS was invented in Canada (at Bristol Aerospace in Winnipeg, now Magellan) and the Canadian military were early adopters. I have some friends who are alive today because of that decision! Trademark or not, the official Canadian Forces publications always referred to it as "WSPS". The components are usually referred to as "cutters", "arms" and sometimes as "blades", although no one I know of has ever confused them with rotor blades.
 * I agree that the section in the article is probably mostly superfluous and can be replaced by a short statement that some nations and operators have installed the WSPS on their aircraft. For the record Canada put them on all their OH-58As, from retrofit installation kits, none were manufactured with them installed. - Ahunt (talk) 03:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)