Comments on: Hummingbird Hovers Into Record Books

By: demophilus

demophilus — Tue, 27 May 2008 15:31:39 +0000

I think you mean, “as the Predator is to the Reaper.”

By: Reginald Oka

Reginald Oka — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:16:29 +0000

This prototype is to the final version as the Predator is to the Global Hawk. The interesting thing about this one is that it uses a very reliable engine off a Japanese AWD vehicle. Think UAV and future UCAV as well as use as a deep recovery SAR (UAV).

By: Trent Telenko

Trent Telenko — Sat, 24 May 2008 15:35:04 +0000

The biggest things the A-160 brings to the game is VTOL take off, high altitude performance combined with endurance.
The two performance characteristics taken together point to a communications relay role and as a wide area SAR sensor platform.
The USMC will have as much of not more use of this than the Army since it operates from amphibious ships and needs that performance set in expeditionary warfare.
It also makes a grand humbug of the Key West agreement in that, when armed and tricked out with the right sensors, it can do the close air support role using small GPS guided bombs and Hellfire missiles.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Sat, 24 May 2008 07:03:19 +0000

I was just musing how a UAS could aid Apache helicopters in an Apache Attack Helicopter Battalion.No way would I ever suggest that they replace the Kiowa Warriors or the new [hopefully] soon to come ARH-70(actually,in a perfect world,I wish they would have kept the RAH-66 Comanche).In my mind,the VTUAV is an aid,not a replacement.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Sat, 24 May 2008 06:45:54 +0000

Actually,I was thinking that one of the Apaches could control a VTUAV like the A-160 Hummingbird/MQ-8B Fire Scout to operate as a scout for the Apaches,just like the old OH-58A/C Kiowa Scouts use to do(I say this because I remember watching the Kiowas leading Cobra Gunships to their targets during training exercises at Graf during the 80’s).They could be operated much the same way with the Marines’ Cobras by their Hueys.
They proved in tests that Apaches could control unmanned AH-6 Little Birds in flight & the Marines also did the same thing with another VTUAV controlled from their Hueys.
That would work better than Shadow UAVs operating with Apaches wouldn’t it?

By: SMSgt Mac

SMSgt Mac — Sat, 24 May 2008 04:14:59 +0000

“looks junk?“
More like “looks beauty, eh!”. Of course it helps if you understand what you are looking at.

By: Cole

Cole — Sat, 24 May 2008 02:20:58 +0000

Pleuris/Roy,
I know plenty about Fire Scout but must tread carefully, and couch this all as SOLELY my opinion. Boeing used to not be able to supply any of their own products for FCS units…so even if A160 became more mature, it could not be fielded under the original FCS rules. Same applies to ARH, a Textron product vs AH-64D, a Boeing product.
In the case of both Fire Scout and ARH, conversion of civilian non-developmental airframes
has proven more difficult than envisioned. Example: Trying to integrate the CH-47F common avionics architecture with 5 displays into a 2 display scout aircraft requiring different types of information.
In the case of Fire Scout, without the variable rotor speed of the A-160, the Fire Socut can never have its kind of endurance. That means more systems are required to cover an established period of time. Fire Scout is also not as easily armed as you may believe, Roy. Maybe Pleuris is right and variable rotor speed can be integrated into Fire Scout “II.” But that certainly won’t be a NDI modified Schweizer.
ARH also can only carry limited armament, but you could make the case that AH-64D would have superior ISR and lethality with its fire control radar and greater Hellfire/rocket/30mm payload. You could substiture fewer AH-64D for a given number of ARH, just as fewer A160s could substiture for Fire Scout.
So guess I’m saying that Congress shoots itself in the foot when it imposes rules that prohibit the LSI from using better systems in FCS units. Recall that the Comanche was originally going to be part of FCS units. The ARH ain’t anything close to a Comanche…and Congress doesn’t like it either. So where does that leave us?? Something needs to replace the OH-58D and given its success in Iraq, a UAS alone will not suffice.

By: pleuris

pleuris — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:49:45 +0000

Guys, the hummingbird is a test model. A very capable one allright. So it isn’t junk just because it’s not armed. That’s not the reason why it’s build. It’s build for proof of concept, in this case
variable Nr for different flightmodes.
So don’t compare them, but just appriciate it when Firescout II comes in service with the A160T capabilities.
regards
Pleuris

By: Autonomous

Autonomous — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:47:35 +0000

Yes, the A-160 is cool, but I disagree that it's a viable near-term FireScout replacement. Get your facts straight. A-160 has impressive endurance but its payload is NOT "many times greater". FireScout is a production ready system available in various configurations while A-160 is merely a DARPA project. Don't get me wrong, I love DARPA projects, but there's a big difference between that and a production system. FireScout is simply far more mature and lower risk than the A-160. And how much will a production A-160 cost?? Your 2-to-1 replacement scheme only makes sense of A-160 is cost-effective. Northrop Grumman is the leader in autonomous UAV's and airspace deconfliction and multi-vehicle mission management is built into the system. Not a problem. As a US taxpayer, I want proven capability in the hands of our warfighters NOW. I'll take the FireScout.

By: Cole

Cole — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:07:55 +0000

My personal opinion is that this system could/should be used instead of FireScout for both the Army and Navy applications.
Its endurance and payload is many times greater. A single A-160 could easily be substituted for 2 FireScouts due to its greater endurance and payload. The system has sufficient payload to be substantially armed unlike the current FireScout platform.
Another cost factor to consider is the cost of trucks/trailers to haul around the current FireScout. Such ground transport could be eliminated with a larger A-160 flown from point A to B instead of being trucked or sent by rail…which can’t be good from a shock/vibration standpoint…or a common sense one.
You might have airspace and ground control concerns trying to fly multiple FireScouts instead of trucking them, while fewer A-160s could have the airspace deconfliction systems and adequate ground control required to eliminate the trucking both stateside and in CONUS.