AUSA hosts the Army Aviation Symposium this week, which gives me the perfect excuse to ask one of my favorite questions: What will it take to get US military helicopter technology out of its long and barren rut?
I believe the last all-new aircraft designed, built and fielded for the US military was the UH-60A Black Hawk. The Army spends about $3 billion a year on helicopters, but all of that money pays for derivatives of technology originally deployed between 30 and 50 years ago, or militarized versions of civil helicopters.
Arguably no other sector of advanced US military technology fighters, airlifters, UAVs, ships, fighting vehicles, missiles, satellites, etc has tolerated a longer and deeper drought of deployable innovation.
Think about it: the last all-new aircraft designed for the army was the Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 Comanche, and that program was cancelled in 2004 after only two prototypes were built.
The Comanche would have been the first helicopter to introduce stealth design characteristics, but the fundamental limitations of helicopter performance speed, range and payload have been stuck in a paralyzing rut since the late-1960s.
Of course, there are a few programs in the very early stages of concept design that may offer a solution, but each faces an agonizing and perilous path to delivering a finished product sometime after 2015. Namely, they are the payload-limit-busting Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) aircraft (post-2015) and the speed-barrier-busting Joint Multi-Role (JMR) aircraft (post-2020).
Elements within the army want to launch an X-Plane flyoff for JHL starting in 2010, but that project will face intense competitive pressure. The alternatives come from the USAF, and they range from the futuristic AJACS concept to near-off-the-shelf derivatives of the C-17, A400M or C-130J.
Requirements and technologies for JMR will continue to coalesce over the next five years or so. But the defense industry is already jockeying to be in competitive position. Sikorsky plans to fly the speedy X2 demonstrator this year (the original first flight date was postponed in December). Boeing is working with Piasecki on the X-49 compound Black Hawk. Boeings real interest is to apply the technology to the AH-64 Apache, either as a JMR-lite if the army starts pinching its pennies, or as a testbed for an all-new platform.
Another, more near-term, idea is to deploy the technology on the H-1 Cobra, to serve as an armed escort for the US Marine Corps MV-22 fleet. Sikorskys X-2 will likely also battle for the contract if this requirement emerges over the next few years.
The ground for greater leaps in technical sophistication is being prepared by DARPA, which is supporting BellBoeings evolving concept for a folding tiltrotor or tilting stop-rotor. Boeing also is working with DARPA to develop the concept for a new hybrid aircraft design called Rotor Disk.
It all comes down to funding, as usual.
Like I said in previous discussions, Sikorsky is footing the entire bill for all the X2 work. The only reason we can afford to do this is because sales of S76 and S92 are doing well (along with hawk Mike & Sierra models and 53k’s for the military).
In addition, I can personally attest to the fact that its usually the military who is wary of new designs. We can spend millions being innovative, but nobody wants to spend money and have the customer balk at seemingly “unproven” technology.
What exactly today is missing fom the equation? The helicopters can carry what they need and fly at near 200 mph. The V-22 is supposed to be so great but has been horribly overbudget and is not much faster than the 50 year old Chinook family.
The only innovation I see needed is electronic warfare and engine efficiency. A helicopter has no high need for stealth since its small and can fly low below radar and if a threat is there, fighters or stealth bombers are the ideal weapon.
I’ve got some figures comparing the MV-22 and the CH-47. I think it’s comparing apples with oranges because of the intended roles of both aircraft.
But if we compare mr Poskiki
What the hell. You know for a country that funds it’s schools to create the perfect janitors and fast food employees of the future, we sure love to spend money on crap we don’t need. Can someone explain to me what this alleged rut is? You make it sound like the Apache and Blackhawks are model Ts. They are not, if we make sure they don’t get physically 30 to 40 years old I think we’ll be okay for some time.
Here’s a concept for you, a helicopter is old technology, you have a twirly bit on the roof to provide lift and thrust and a smaller whirly bit on the tail(usually) to keep it from twisting from the torque. The only real improvement would be in the avionics( you know the smaller bits with all the wires and circuits). Don’t start with all the BS about composites either, they still haven’t been proved over the long haul. I can see the stink raised when we find out our fleet of stealth helicopters gets grounded because some epoxy or other failed.
But, I guess this is going to happen when we have an administration that would rather bomb a country than actually talk to it.
I personally think we (and the Russians) have maxed out the capabilities of the conventional helicopter.
C., I like the idea of the X-2. I think this is where we should be spending our money instead of the ARH (which is just an improved H-58). But if you get much bigger than an armed attack/recon helo I can’t see this being a viable aircraft. But armed attack/recon is the area where we need the most help right now too. I don’t like the AH-64 and never really have. To me (and I think the USMC has proven this), the AH-1 is just as good but with inferior electronics.
With the excepton of the V-22, transports are transports. Whether they are H-60s, H-47s, H-53s, or C-130s, C-17s. They are always vulnerable. That is why they need the best escort aircraft available.
And why hasn’t Cole responded to this yet? I figured he would be foaming at the mouth on this one.
DC2
The V-22 is not the best helicopter or the best plane. It is a hybrid. What it is great for is to fly faster (~40–50%) and higher than regular helos.
Now, sorry guys, as there is math involved here, but if you fly 50% faster for two hours, you’ve cut off a full hour off of the normal flight time. That means you can deploy more, from a naval group farther out, further into the country.
You can throw your hands up and pout all you want, but helicopters are severely limited to the warfare of the future when we will need to sea base our assets much further away than we currently have them (due to sub threats, mines, anti-shipping missile batteries, etc, all which are very real).
The V-22 does things helicopters cannot, which is why we bought it. And thank god for small miracles.
Count yourselves lucky. You could be in the Canadian military.
“The much-delayed arrival of new military helicopters to replace Canada’s worn-out Sea King fleet has been postponed yet again — this time by as many as three years
Hey Fellas,
For the record, I mean no disrepect to the Chinook, Black Hawk or Apache. Each does the job it was designed to do and does it well. But each of those has been around a long time, and there is no all-new platform being designed anywhere to replace them. You may argue that it’s not necessary, but I find that a strange position. As I said in the blog, you won’t find anyone in the fighter, bomber, airlifter, UAV, naval or land vehicle communities who would accept such a dearth of new innovation for so long.
Another Stephen disagrees,
I highly doubt there is much left to be innovated in helicopter design. Now unbunch your panites, I’m not done yet, the only real innovations will be is subsytems, engines, avionics, weaponry, and so forth.
I’m no pacifist, but, I think we waste too much of our resources on re-inventing the wheel. How could the cost justify dubious performance gains? What good are a couple of more round trips between ship to shore if we could have built a couple of more ships with helicopters instead of blowing it researching a new design. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it. God forbid we ever let the Marines do what they asked for, which was a CH-53 built a foot wider so a HMMWV could fit inside.
You’re also ignoring the biggest cost of all. Maintenance. I pretty confident that at this point we know all that tends to go wrong with CH-53,s and 46’s, H-60’s and the Cayuses. Just having new craft to the inventory places huge burdens on the system. Nevermind all the old hands who’ve worked on the same craft for over a decade to hand down knowlege to the kids.
It would be a far better use of time to look through the boneyards like they did with the B52’s. You find out what goes wrong on the structure. You fix it, then you build the new ones with updated subsystems. New airframes, engines, avionics. The only thing ever wrong with an old design is when the equipment is as old as the design. If everything old is so bad why do M1 Abrams have Browning machine guns on the roof? It’s because, even after nearly a century, it still gets the job done.
Gotta agree with Tremble on this one and that alone is enough to scare me to death. But lets look at all of the leap ahead technologies that military aviation has thrown away “due to budget” constraints. The AH-56, the Comanche, almost the V-22, but the most famous of all to me is the XCH-142. All of these aircraft, with the exception of the V-22, would have brought evolutionary advancements in the way the Army conducts aerial combat but were left to whither and die. I particularly find the story of the ‘142 to be sad. It was a C-130 sized transport developed in the 60’s that would have solved many of the issues facing the Army in Afghanistan. We have the technology, however someone somewhere is preventing it from coming to the fore.
steve seriously i know you hate the gubment and all but seriously just talk tech wit this one
as to the v22 it has it problems but as MANY others have pointed out.…its new tech its going to have them and also as many have pointed out we need to stay ontop of the weapons rd game
so look i wish we never had to go to war i, a huge fan of the space program i believe it may be our only salvation even if you dont believe in global warming9yes the earth is getting warmer wether its man made i dont think so but its getin hot in here), evolution, or that big rocks in space going fast pwns all.
for the last 50yrs we have betrayed and callusly dealt with many countries true. ill say it here and now and realy try never having to mention it again IF WE LEAVE IRAQ WE BETREY ANOTHER COUNTRY ANOTHER PPLS and if we do we once again betrey our values are we a ppl that shove aside friends when politicaly motivate or stand by them good times and bad?
ok im off my soup box but also remember when our helos were gettin shot down by iranian missiles well that could be worked on more so could a vehicle that can both transport the ment and gound support like an apache ok ok sorry yes i ramble and rant i apologize but nough evil evil gubment speach
oh yea one other thing what was it that finaly scrapped the commanche i keep hearing it was computer problems or somethin
Sorry for misspelling your name Trimble and the correct designation is the XC-142
The corporation I work for supports Army Aviation training in a number of ways. We support Flight School XXI Simulation, Training Support Packages/Exercises Simulatio for deploying aviation units, TSPs for FCS, IMI for other Aviation training, and doctrine writing.
Guess you could say we are true believers.
While the Marines have good arguments for V-22 given the need to fly far/fast from well offshore, the Army fight is much more local. We don’t have a distant gas station where we can suck down 2,000 gallons. That much fuel would nearly empty our 2500 gallon tanker in one pass. And we don’t have C-130s wet wing defueling…but I made sure that was included along with CH-53 and C-17 ground defueling capabilities when I was writing arming/refueling and other aviation doctrine a few years back as a contractor.
But when you have a 2–50 knot ground force, its kind of irrelevant if you can fly 250 knots. You can’t use it locally because the Soldiers aren’t moving that fast and we support them. IMHO. Being able to fly attack/reconnaissance/air assaults at 120 knots, at night, low to the ground, and in high brown-out conditions into smaller LZ/PZ is our mission forte. We can bed down in multiple firebase/field locations that a V-22 could never fit in.
I recall reading that the Air Force didn’t see much value in flying IED route reconnaissance. Can see why at that altitude and airspeed. Wonder how the Marines can do an “aeroscout” mission from 8000′ and 250 knots. Someone needs to be able to fly lower/slower to look down alleys, on rooftops, under trees.…and shoot from that same altitude to provide close combat support and visual ID of friendlies and enemies.
We fly so low that we crash running into electric/phone lines and antennas. We mount wire cutters on helicopters, but can’t see doing that or flying as low in a tilt rotor. In many air defense threats, flying that low can defeat many systems in higher intensity conflicts. And we know you purple guys will kill the radars as quickly as you can for us,;)and vice versa. Did you know the Army Vice Chief Gen Cody, owned the Apache attack battalion that took out radars on hour one of Desert Storm…with the help of Air Force CH-53s.
And a V-22 carrying an external load M777 howitzer is not going to fly a whole lot faster than a CH-47 with the same external load…and more ammo underneath,
And then there is that V-22 and other technology money thing.…
I did find Mr. Trimble’s article interesting for the future tech. But if you google Comanche and find an old briefing somewhere about its demise, you will likely see a slide with a balancing scales showing Comanche on one side and modernization of a whole bunch of other Army aircraft on the other. They were about balanced.
So we are glad we are getting aircraft refits and modernization evolution at the same time, IMHO. And if you saw my posted stats elsewhere, its awfully hard to question the success of 150,000 Soldiers and 5550 tons moved about the battlefield in a one year period by one aviation brigade…no doubt saving countless lives and costing the enemy plenty of their own. Reconnaissance, attack, UAVs…we do it all pretty darn well with the humble helicopter and slow moving fixed wing.
And we do it all while costing the Army only an average of $2.2 billion a year in procurement costs between 1986 and 2005.
Why is it that so many readers on this blog don’t like progress. The V-22 is NOT a heavy lift transport! At least not in the C-17/C-5 sense. It’s also not yet an assault aircraft, I say not yet, because it hasn’t been operational for that long. Once the V-22 has been proven in its current role, it will branch out. In ten years you might see a couple of cannons hanging out the side.
The V-22, just like the F-22/35 are evolutions in the progress of flight. Remember at one time the Blackhawk was unproven technology.
Cole,
I agree with what you are saying with regards to teh V-22 and the Army’s needs and capabilities. But the V-22 definitely has a niche that it can fill.
The Marines need it (and the M777 will fit far better under the H-53E. You know, the helo that does the heavy lifting for the 3rd ID in Iraq. And special forces need this aircraft, probably more than anybody. Heck, I’d even like to see the air assualt guys look at deploying them.
But more importantly, I think we need to look at the technologies we have and which developing technologies we can use to help us leap ahead militarily. The RAH-66 was a wonderful helicopter, but it was not necessary any longer. But like I said in a previous post here, that X-2 might be a leap worth investigating with regards to armend recon.
IMHO, the H-60 and H-47 are about the best helicopters you are going to find in their role. That is one reason they have been around so long, especially the H-47. All they really need are avionics and engine upgrades.
DC2
I’m currently in an active OH-58 helicopter unit.
My aircraft has been an “interim” aircraft (thanks to Comanche, which, by the way, the large majority of recon pilots agree was not a good replacement for the OH-58 and were very happy to see it cancelled) since the mid-90’s. We have a .50 cal that is virtually unchanged since WWII, rockets that are little changed from Vietnam, a hellfire system (that we have to trade for fuel in any full combat load), a thermal imaging system that is pitiful by cutting-edge modern standards, power management is an issue for EVERY flight. NVGs that have marginally improved over the past 10 years.
Given all that, we are still a HUGE combat multiplier for full spectrum of combat operations. Getting into the fight with the guys on the ground is what we are all about.
Here’s what I would consider revolutionary in my world (not necessarily an helicopter):
–An aircraft that has NO power issues (which will never happen since someone, somewhere will find
–Low to no noise (UAV’s have a huge advantage here)
–Active camouflage that would essentially “cloak” the aircraft to optical acquisition
–An aircraft that can self-diagnose it’s own mechanical and electrical problems.
–A system that would automatically acquire and slew weapon systems to known enemy weapons systems (i.e. acoustic acquisition of enemy gunfire)
–A hyper-spectral (Near/far IR/UV?/visible) sight system with enormous (and continuous) zoom capability
–Project full peripheral NVG/Thermal mix onto the inside of my helmet. (No soda straw effect)
–Project friendly/enemy locations and graphics from a BFT or FBCB2 type feed onto the helmet in such a way that it lays out on the terrain in full 3D.
–I want to see an enemy, lock him up and shoot him within 5 seconds out to a range of 10 kms
–An aircraft that could fly for 6–8 hours without refuel
–An aircraft that could fly itself back to a pre-determined location if it sensed that the pilots had become incapacitated.
–Active missile defense system that could defeat all known and projected missile threats.
–A maintenance free aircraft (or more reasonably capable of 40–50 hours without any required maintenance action. I want it to work as well or better than my $17,000 car.
These are wildly hopeful concepts. I wouldn’t care how they actually get accomplished, but any one of them would be truly revolutionary. The Comanche was not revolutionary in any way that I could see. The ARH is not revolutionary in any way.
Would anything above be worth the money? I have no idea. Money would probably be better spent on revolutionary ideas that sit directly in the hands of the soldier on the ground. Like self-healing uniforms, “cloaking” uniforms, energy systems that eliminate batteries… that sort of thing. Or maybe a swarm of insect sized robots that would have the sensor and communications abilities to essentially project a real time 3d model of the battlefield into a tactical operations center.
Maybe I should write sci-fi novels instead.
Additionally, pilots will be replaced by UAVs unless we can prove that the added situational awareness provided by an onboard pilot outweighs the requirements of having an onboard pilot. I believe that for the next couple decades that an onboard pilot on a frontline aerial reconnaissance vehicle is a necessity.
eh, minutiae: can’t hang weapons out of the side of the V-22; you would either shoot the rotors when they are in airplane mode or the rotors could hit the weapons barrels. Neither good. So they might be able to fit a chin turret to the airframe, and that would be fine.
Hell, might even transform the airframe into a missile bus with the Dominator UAV etc. THere’s alot of possibilities with the weapon system.
“Maybe I should write sci-fi novels instead.“
Heh.
Quote:
“eh, minutiae: can’t hang weapons out of the side of the V-22; you would either shoot the rotors when they are in airplane mode or the rotors could hit the weapons barrels. Neither good. So they might be able to fit a chin turret to the airframe, and that would be fine.“
Didn’t we solve that problem sometime around 1941? I can see it now…It has the ability to clear its own landing area and off-load soldiers.
Pretty awesome stuff Pete. That was an interesting list, and I bet a lot of it is in the works if not all of it.
Pete, nice wish list. Don’t understand half of what you listed does.
I flew Bell Uh-1 C model gunships in VN back in 68–69.{TopTigers/Mustangs 68th AHC Bien Hoa.}
When the AH-1 Cobra starting coming in to replace our fat hueys, the major point of discussion with the pilots and crew was the Cobra’s lack of the 2 extra gunners we had, those 4 extra eye balls and 2 pairs of ears that could look back at the tail boom, and fire underneath the a/c and hear shots being fired at us.
…and back then when we attacked it was in a dive, head on: no stand off, fire and forget technology. Our rocket sight was a little light reticule on a drop down device that we always backed up with grease pencil markings on the canopy.
All this must sound like Roman chariot warfare to you guys doing the mission today.
Let’s make sure that we understand what we’re talking about here, because there seems to be a certain degree of confusion.
If the V-22 *isn’t* an assault craft, then it’s failed in its fundamental mission. Along with EFV (then AAAV) & LCAC, V-22 was the third leg of the tripod for the Marines’ “over-the-horizon” vision, developed in the face of the mounting threat from anti-ship missiles. It was never designed with USA needs in mind. As a number of posters have pointed out, it’s capabilities are not necessary for the Army Aviation mission.
The Comanche was ultimately cancelled for a simple reason: it was designed for a war in Central Europe. Army Aviation is unlikely to encounter a whole lot of ZSU-23s and Tunguskas any time soon while fighting off massed tank divisions — and any that are in the area are going to be tasked to the USAF.
There are budget decisions that need to be made. The likelihood of developing the latest and greatest “wonder-copter” any time soon is fairly unlikely. As Pete pointed out, there are basic, evolutionary upgrades that would be far more useful, and far less expensive.
Regarding the Chinook.
It does need a couple of thing desperately.
How about a full size window,(like a Huey sliding doorwindow) in the R/H upper door instead of that porthole.
Can’t see much when it’s down.
An how about enlarging by 2 vertical feet the R/H gunner’s emergency Hole( iwon’t dinify it by calling it a window. Then fitting it with a retractable door like the upper R/H side door. Right now it’s the same removable emergency hatch it’s been since the A-model of 1962. So you freeze in winter and get soaked in the rain.
Maybe these both might have a small removable panel so you could close it with the door machine gun mounted. It gets cold up there in the mountains of A-stan ya know
Make both gunners seats standard, not just the R/H side.
Speaking of door guns…
How about an extension to the R/H & L/H machinegun mount so it can fire towards the rear more, because it’s still unchanged since the A-model.
There’s one on the Blackhawk for an example.
I’m a former FE with over 1000 combat hours. Thanks.
Regarding the Chinook.
It does need a couple of thing desperately.
How about a full size window,(like a Huey sliding doorwindow) in the R/H upper door instead of that porthole.
Can’t see much when it’s down.
An how about enlarging by 2 vertical feet the R/H gunner’s emergency Hole( iwon’t dinify it by calling it a window. Then fitting it with a retractable door like the upper R/H side door. Right now it’s the same removable emergency hatch it’s been since the A-model of 1962. So you freeze in winter and get soaked in the rain.
Maybe these both might have a small removable panel so you could close it with the door machine gun mounted. It gets cold up there in the mountains of A-stan ya know
Make both gunners seats standard, not just the R/H side.
Speaking of door guns…
How about an extension to the R/H & L/H machinegun mount so it can fire towards the rear more, because it’s still unchanged since the A-model.
There’s one on the Blackhawk for an example.
I’m a former FE with over 1000 combat hours. Thanks.
Regarding the Chinook.
It does need a couple of thing desperately.
How about a full size window,(like a Huey sliding doorwindow) in the R/H upper door instead of that porthole.
Can’t see much when it’s down.
An how about enlarging by 2 vertical feet the R/H gunner’s emergency Hole( iwon’t dinify it by calling it a window. Then fitting it with a retractable door like the upper R/H side door. Right now it’s the same removable emergency hatch it’s been since the A-model of 1962. So you freeze in winter and get soaked in the rain.
Maybe these both might have a small removable panel so you could close it with the door machine gun mounted. It gets cold up there in the mountains of A-stan ya know
Make both gunners seats standard, not just the R/H side.
Speaking of door guns…
How about an extension to the R/H & L/H machinegun mount so it can fire towards the rear more, because it’s still unchanged since the A-model.
There’s one on the Blackhawk for an example.
I’m a former FE with over 1000 combat hours. Thanks.
Nice work Pete
I wonder why “… Comanche…the large majority of recon pilots agree was not a good replacement for the OH-58 and were very happy to see it cancelled” ?
Regarding the Chinook.
It does need a couple of thing desperately.
How about a full size window,(like a Huey sliding doorwindow) in the R/H upper door instead of that porthole.
Can’t see much when it’s down.
An how about enlarging by 2 vertical feet the R/H gunner’s emergency Hole( iwon’t dinify it by calling it a window. Then fitting it with a retractable door like the upper R/H side door. Right now it’s the same removable emergency hatch it’s been since the A-model of 1962. So you freeze in winter and get soaked in the rain.
Maybe these both might have a small removable panel so you could close it with the door machine gun mounted. It gets cold up there in the mountains of A-stan ya know
Make both gunners seats standard, not just the R/H side.
Speaking of door guns…
How about an extension to the R/H & L/H machinegun mount so it can fire towards the rear more, because it’s still unchanged since the A-model.
There’s one on the Blackhawk for an example.
I’m a former FE with over 1000 combat hours. Thanks.
shrink the v 22 to attack copter size
Two points please; As a fresh out of collage engineer in 1985 working on the V-22 I was allowed to sit in on a few Critical design reviews. The Question was asked of our customer multiple times, “Do you want wepons provissions on this aircraft?”. The answer was always “NO”.
Point two: When the comanchy was an X program in the late 80’s (LHX) Bell had a neat design on the board called the BAT (bell advanced tiltrotor). It was a single seat attach tiltrotor. After screams from Sikorsky the LHX requirment was re-writen “NO tiltrotors”.
Such is life with NAVAIR.
sorry dan, but the BAT was dequal-ed because it was a pig. The requirement was never “re-written” to specify tiltrotors or not.
“f the V-22 *isn’t* an assault craft, then it’s failed in its fundamental mission.“
No, it hasn’t. The reason it hasn’t is that we don’t do the Black Hawk Down thing anymore. Gunships are fine, but as a support for armor, not a replacement.
The V-22 is for over the horizon deployments and for rapid movement of men and material. The assault role is pretty much restricted nowadays and for good reason; you lose birds in urban battle.
I say that with regret. I have 1000 flight hours in the H46, the bird being replaced by the Osprey. The H46 squadrons don’t fly in Iraq, unless they really really REALLY have to. And so even for assault ships, the assault role disappears as well.
Pete
Have you had a chance to look at the X2 we are working on at Sikorsky? Level acceleration/deceleration, trainable gun, and 250+ kts.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cb/X2_attack.JPG
How does something like that strike you, as a Kiowa driver?
Pete,
Hear a lot of what you are saying. I was amazed at what you scout weapons teams did in 25th CAB. On the power thing, just be glad you aren’t in Afghanistan with a 58D.;) Not that I ever was, but those boys are flying high/hot.
To answer a few of your well-thought out requirements:
–An aircraft that has NO power issues (which will never happen since someone, somewhere will find
ARH has 970 shp vs. 650 for 58D at lower max gross weight? Hope they fixed tail rotor authority and wonder how it autorotates. Google NTSB on ARH
–Low to no noise (UAV’s have a huge advantage here)
Yeah, just read that too much helicopter activity may have scared folks off in this ongoing Phantom Phoenix thing.
–Active camouflage that would essentially “cloak” the aircraft to optical acquisition
I’ve read about projection systems for ground vehicles. Can picture one A/C projecting blue sky onto another in a scout weapon team…but only from one direction likely away from enemy.
–An aircraft that can self-diagnose it’s own mechanical and electrical problems.
That is already here and coming with Condition Based Maintenance. It’s one of the things they apparently discussed at Aviation Symposium yesterday. Fix based on detected wear instead of numbers of hours.
–A system that would automatically acquire and slew weapon systems to known enemy weapons systems (i.e. acoustic acquisition of enemy gunfire)
Acoustic detection seems a big thing these days for sniper detection. Just wonder how well it work given helicopter noise.
–A hyper-spectral (Near/far IR/UV?/visible) sight system with enormous (and continuous) zoom capability
Think I read that the Division Sky Warrior UAV and ARH will share a common multi-spectral FLIR based on Predator/Reaper UAV systems. But also think it is a point of contention since another company had been awarded the FLIR contract by Bell
–Project full peripheral NVG/Thermal mix onto the inside of my helmet. (No soda straw effect)
Fusion of imagery is coming as is aided target recognition and onboard fusion systems. How would you fly if it was projected on your visor. For copilot only? Think multi-functional displays will accomplish the same goal.
–Project friendly/enemy locations and graphics from a BFT or FBCB2 type feed onto the helmet in such a way that it lays out on the terrain in full 3D.
Again sounds like a multi-functional display solution coming with the Common Avionics Architecture System displays.
–I want to see an enemy, lock him up and shoot him within 5 seconds out to a range of 10 kms
Not sure laser technology is there yet given attenuation, beam spread, etc. Teaming with UAVs should help. If he is 10 kms away you have some time. Would worry about the close in stuff though!!
–An aircraft that could fly for 6–8 hours without refuel
Careful, you will put yourself out of business. That is a UAV capability. Wonder if they could put an aux tank in the backseat area of the ARH?
–An aircraft that could fly itself back to a pre-determined location if it sensed that the pilots had become incapacitated.
I thought that was why you had two pilots? I’ve got a buddy who was an enlisted aerial observer in Desert Storm. Think he kind of got screwed by going to all pilots.
–Active missile defense system that could defeat all known and projected missile threats.
Heh, you boys are gettin close to that soon with some of this neat Aircraft Survivability Equipment
–A maintenance free aircraft (or more reasonably capable of 40–50 hours without any required maintenance action. I want it to work as well or better than my $17,000 car.
Condition-based maintenance will help. When I was reading about the CH-53E, depending on the source they were claiming $20K-$27K expense PER FLIGHT HOUR and 44 man hours maintenance following each flight. Ouch. Guess a big selling point of the K model is better reliability, but it will still be expensive to operate with a 2,000 gallon gas tank.
The Comanche was very revolutionary in a number of ways but also had some oddities like a fixed gun at end of program, and think Longbow radar was going to cost extra and come later.
But I note that it was cancelled due to being able to crank out only 650 aircraft for $36B while the F-22 gets only 183 for $70B. Ouch. And they want more…and the JSF.
Think about it. At an average of $2.2B annually for the 20 years between 1986 and 2005, we cost the Army just $44 billion. Compare that to the cost of the $70B and counting F-22 and who knows how much JSF. Faced with a $500K solution of fixing F-15s, the USAF would rather pay 320 times as much to buy new F-22s. That has been my point all along. There is a double standard when it comes to costs of Army aircraft and the costs that other services get away with.
But you can’t blame Army leadership trying to balance their budgets. We are a small part of the overall Army and use up A LOT of their procurement dollars. The Army needs a bigger share of the Joint pie.
Cfoskey,
Really like the X-2 idea as an attack aircraft, but can’t see justifying it as a scout only. These days, thought, even Apaches are considered scouts.
Like the smaller rotor diameters that two counterrotating blades brings. Scouts always have problems with tail rotors, too, and blade strikes down in the trees. So maybe a small version would work as a scout. These days scouts are all about high energy maneuvers and firing instead of hovering observation/fires.
Think the Army has already committed to Block III Apache. But if the ARH ends up failing or costing too much, maybe a small X-2 could be sold as a joint AH-1W/OH-58D replacement. Joint seems to work these days.
Pete, where did you hear that the passenger capability had disappeared from ARH. I kind of liked that idea for light passenger transport, team insertion of ground scouts, and limited internal aerial resupply, to include perhaps carrying your own extra Hellfires.
And we already talked about the possibility of using that area for internal aux fuel.
Cole and Pete,
–An aircraft that can self-diagnose it’s own mechanical and electrical problems.
I take it youve heard of HUMS, no?
Cfoskey,
Of course this is all just my opinion.
When I thought about it, they need a rapid 58D fix so don’t think it could be ready in time as a 58D replacement. Maybe an ARH replacement down the line late in any Marine buy? I know the Marines want an AH-1Z but maybe they could be persuaded otherwise?
Pete, last thing wanted to mention was that having the FLIR in the nose of the ARH should allow you guys to look down better when flying over urban areas/forests. Should mean greater cruise airspeed of 113 knots due to the semi-conformal nose FLIR and more power. No more jokes about 80 knot aircraft.…;)
I’m home sick in case anyone thinks I’m goofing off on the job. I try to post before and after work and during lunch.
The future of Army aviation is (1) the C-27J fixed wing aircraft, (2) the drones, and (3) guided ammunition from a variety of sources (e.g. artillery, drones and Air Force planes).
Drones and precision munitions (e.g. the Excaliber, Viper Strike and Small Diameter bomb, as well as the capabilities the Zumwalt is supposed to have) are gobbling up much of both the recon and small ordiance strike functions previously filled by the Apache AH-64 and the Kiowa. The Apache’s disappointed tank killing performance in the early days of the current Iraq War has also given non-helo forces the upper hand in that role.
The C-27J performs (in terms of range, speed and fuel capacity for a given cargo capacity) in a manner vastly superior to any vertical landing craft available (including the Osprey MV-22) if a short field runway is available.
And, the well developed U.S. strategic doctrine of air striking the hell out of any potential destination for U.S. ground troops until the opposing force has no tanks, no large artillery, no anti-air capability and no aircraft reduces the urgent need to land somewhere that you can’t build a field airstrip.
Certainly, the Army still needs new helos, but the mission of the next generation of helos has been squeezed, and there is a natural bureacratic instinct to avoid procuring a system whose mission is changing.
It is also notable that one of the contracts the Army put out (until it was botched) was the LUH contract designed primarily for use in roadless U.S. bases. Part of what the Army needs to replace the Blackhawk is cheaper helos that are less capable, not expensive ones that were more capable.
There have been clean sheet recent designs done elsewhere, eg the NH-90. NZ is buying a few to replace 70s Hueys. An excellent (if late) aircraft by all accounts.
But does it really do anything much better than the latest model UH-60? The fact that there have been no new designs for the US is a bit of a non-issue for helicopters IMO (unlike say the need for f-22/35 but that another argument).
I think you US taxpayers should be happy that a sane decision has been made that the best replacements at the moment for old UH-60s are…new UH-60s. Likewise the –47. And the idea for off-the-shelf light helis was good too, although implementation seems to have gone a bit haywire.
And since there are experts around; for the JHL, I was wondering why not a twin rotor configuration like a scaled up chinook? I’d always heard that was a very successful design and would appear a natural for HL.
Revive the Comanche?
Have the Army reuse USCG copters???
Or Royal Army, Royal Marines– UK
Aerospatile copters??
Rethink composites & Fly By wire.
Have Indie Design contest.
Rethink Apache Gunship??
Rethink CH47
Reuse HH53??
All done via CAD & Auto CAD & CG animations from files.
Change the systems & Army procurement.
Maybe reuse the hit movie copter BLUE THUNDER from 1983 movie same name.
Its something.
“what is the “next step up” from a tilt rotor?
a tilt jet? a tilt turbofan? “
This is an alluring concept, but it has some problems. First off, rotors provide thrust over a large area, jet engines over a very small one. With regards to balancing a hovering vehicle, this means that a single large rotor will keep it level, while with jets you’d need at least 3 points of thrust to be stable. Secondly, jet engine exhaust can be problematic when it is vectored downward. Thousand degree plus gases exiting the engines at several hundred MPH are hard on most any surface you might want to land on, not to mention the complications they cause to the process of loading and unloading cargo. Furthermore, jet engines are really intended for high speed movement. They are not at home in situations involving stagnant air, and they are nor efficient at low speeds. If you hover with jets for very long in one place, you risk an engine stall as the oxygen hungry engine starts sucking in the large volumes of hot exhaust that are building up. These are not insurmountable problems, after all the Harrier tackled them, but they are significant enough to make the concept of a tilt-jet aircraft unfeasible at this time.
Get rid of Helicopters and get rid of the best insurgent fighting weapons ever invented. When people hear the wop-wop of roter blades, the act in a cartain way, they duck! That is the thing our troops still needs-the duck time is crucial to all of our operations. The wop-wop factor, such a small thing, provides our troops a time factor that cannot be measured be those who have never been in contact before.Former Assult Helicopter, CPT Burgess Carter, USA, Retired.
@Vercingetorix:
That’s news to me — that the USMC no longer intends to use the MV-22 for heliborne assault during beach landings. If so, it raises the obvious question: just why are we spending the money on this instead of the H-53 family, which is cheaper, more reliable, and has greater lift capacity?
That was the whole point of “Forward from the Sea,” as I understood it — V-22 offers the capability to enhance the vertical envelopment ability of the Corps in the modern battlespace. No longer true?
CapnVan,
Vertical Envelopment is still in the game plan, but the move is toward dispersed forces with an eye toward Effect Based Operation. In short you by-pass the beach head, insert forces at positions to control the enemy (Rapid Dominance) with the ultimate goal being Rapid Decisive Operations. Believe it or not the Air War College website has the best primer on the subject that I’ve seen. So the V-22 is essential and it also explains why a 30 ton sea skimming armored fighting vehicle is also needed in future USMC plans. Iwo Jima and Tarawa is avoided if Marine Corps planners have any say in things.
The V-22 is not suitable for assault because of flight limitations — that’s why it’s just being used as a truck in Iraq.
The future is unmanned: less boots and more ‘bots in the near future. Using humans for assault will be as backward as advancing on foot against machine guns.
> That actually was a BIG hope of mine for the ARH. At one point is
>was being advertised as being able to carry 2–3 passengers. I
>don’t believe that is the case anymore. Shame. It would be ideal
>to put two door gunner/aeroscouts in the back of that thing. Give
>them some optics capablities, M249/M240, maybe even some
>type of gyro-stablized sniper rifle.
Given that we are not truly a helicopter (no hovering …) we are working at C-LVL on a modified light autogyro that would be able to fit a pilot and 2 observer/gunners and fly around 85–90 knots for observation/reconnaissance with low maintenance and no need for air fields.
http://www.c-lvl.com/
There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Black Hawk. Who says that we have to design a new helicopter? The UH-60 is the most reliable and highest performing helicopter that the Army has ever had. So long as you keep armaments, electronics and power plants current, this aircraft could be used for decades if not a century. We should be building more of them to retire ageing UH-60’s that are beyond their useful life. The UH-60 is perfect for Army operations. If the Navy & Air Force want a fast deep terain vehicle, although I don’t know why as they do not command Army soldiers on the ground, then let their budgets go after a limited use rotary wing hybrid. The UH-60 fits perfectly into the Army’s battlefield of today and the future, which is a fast attack/support utility aircraft to advance the battlefield along established supply routes.