us-army-says-it-badly-needs-a-scout-helicopter-after-junking-the-ones-it-had

Or use the Robinson R-66 for IERW training. Many civilian helicopter pilots got their start in Robinson R-22s and R-44s. The R-44 is nice; hydraulic-assisted controls (the R-22 is all push-pull tubes). The R-66 is the turbine engined R-44.

Using the R-66 would definitely save the Army some money!

I guess as long as it flies and stays flying the fact that it looks silly isn't a big deal..

That's a horrible idea lol. That program was rampant with issues, cost overruns, and just bad ideas

SFC (Join to see) - At the end it was, yes. At the beginning, the first edition RAH-66 was a total success. And then they wanted the stealth recon helicopter to be an attack helicopter too. So they went back and added stubby wings and hung Hellfires on them (like the Apache). Once completed, then Congress said that it was no longer stealthy because of the wings and missiles. By that time, yes it was past it's expected fielding date and more expensive than expected (because of the modifications). The fact that the modifications made the stealth helicopter not stealthy had a part in killing the program. If they had left the RAH-66 as it was originally, we would still be flying them. Heck, I have an Aviation Operations manual that bases a lot of strategy on the RAH-66. Congress killed the Comanche, not the designers.

SSG(P) (Join to see) I don't disagree with you, typical case of its awesome, let's try to make it awesomer. I still feel that like the Cheyenne, it was a bit too ahead of its time to practically enter the fielding stage. I got to sit in one at Rucker three years ago, and it was a very interesting concept for sure

SFC (Join to see) - Yeah the Cheyenne was pretty cool; but it was really the "father" of the AH-64 Apache. Heck the Apache even looks like the Cheyenne.

Answered with a reference!! Man, I love our club. So when you asked in your question if "There HAD to be cheaper alternatives...." you already knew.

The Apache is not without its issues, but it handles its missions just fine I can assure you. If the 58 hadn't been mismanaged from the get, it might be still around. But typical Army runs something into the ground and then wonders why it costs so much to maintain.

A little off topic here, but this line in the linked report caught my eye... "Noted on multiple surveys was the inability of the aircraft to do touchdown autorotations (a task that will never be encountered in a dual-engine helicopter like the UH-72)."

If they say that a touchdown auto will never be encountered in a dual-engine a/c, why is that such a focus in APARTs and Evals?

I have no idea about cheaper alternative for the scout helicopter. And as for never encountering auto-rotations, that's just not true. Plus I personally think it's bad when people go "it rarely happens, so we'll just stop teaching it." Isn't the point about teaching emergency procedures about teaching the worst case scenario?