Comments on: Will Army Aviation Break Out of its Rut?

By: Dr. Belgen

Dr. Belgen — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 22:20:52 +0000

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.

By: KFRtoad

KFRtoad — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:47:32 +0000

> 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/

By: David Hambling

David Hambling — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 11:46:41 +0000

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.

By: Solomon

Solomon — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:06:07 +0000

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.

By: CapnVan

CapnVan — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 23:39:44 +0000

@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?

By: Burgess Carter

Burgess Carter — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:19:58 +0000

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.

By: ADyer

ADyer — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 18:28:14 +0000

“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.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Sat, 12 Jan 2008 02:23:51 +0000

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.

By: ak

ak — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:51:39 +0000

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.

By: ohwilleke

ohwilleke — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 22:44:00 +0000

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.