• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Ground Tests Today

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
There no problem with one rotor in HOGE and one out, at least not anymore.

Then there’s the fact that I saw a V-280 flying over I-20 in Arlington today, and the SB-1 only exists in someone’s imagination.
I know acquisition takes WAY too long, but we in Naval rotary don't need the next vehicle tomorrow.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
I'll confess I didn't know that the aircraft's own noise was a big issue when dipping. Are you talking the actual noise of the engine and rotors going from the air into the water, or do you mean because of the downwash hitting the water? That'd be the primary difference between the V-22 and a helicopter of similar weight, I'd think. Nothing that large is exactly whisper quiet while hovering.

In normal helicopter noise situations, the biggest noise producer on a normal helicopter is usually the tail rotor, and the V-22 doesn't have that (not to say it's not loud). However, it's a higher frequency noise, so probably wouldn't propagate through the water as much. It does propagate through the air better than engine or rotor noise, though, which is why Hawaii tour operators almost all use fenestron tail helos due to strict noise controls.

I guess what I'm asking is whether this is actually something that's been looked into as far as ASW, or are you making an educated guess to some degree or another?
How much work would it be to configure a V-280 for naval operations in a fashion similar to the V-22 (i.e., the ability to fold everything so it takes up no more space than a H-60)?
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I know acquisition takes WAY too long, but we in Naval rotary don't need the next vehicle tomorrow.
2025 will be here before you know it. The graphs from Hook started showing a helo gap around that time.

How much work would it be to configure a V-280 for naval operations in a fashion similar to the V-22 (i.e., the ability to fold everything so it takes up no more space than a H-60)?
Not very. Just a matter of setting a requirement and resourcing it.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
2025 will be here before you know it. The graphs from Hook started showing a helo gap around that time.
Is there some reason that a Fleet S-92 isn’t being considered? Isn’t it basically just a ‘Hawk with a bigger fuselage? Seems like, in terms of parts and training commonality, that’d be the way to go.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Is there some reason that a Fleet S-92 isn’t being considered? Isn’t it basically just a ‘Hawk with a bigger fuselage? Seems like, in terms of parts and training commonality, that’d be the way to go.
Do the blades fold? Automatically? Does the tail fold? How tall is it?

Any Seahawk replacement has to fit in CRUDES hangars, and probably still has to meet the original UH-60A spec of fitting 2 in a C-17 (with minor-ish disassembly). The SB-1 is too big, and the S-97 won't give us the weight margin for the endurance and mission systems we need. If the Navy does get a coax/pusher design, it will be somewhere between those two in size.
 

Uncle Fester

Robot Pimp
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Do the blades fold? Automatically? Does the tail fold? How tall is it?

Any Seahawk replacement has to fit in CRUDES hangars, and probably still has to meet the original UH-60A spec of fitting 2 in a C-17 (with minor-ish disassembly). The SB-1 is too big, and the S-97 won't give us the weight margin for the endurance and mission systems we need. If the Navy does get a coax/pusher design, it will be somewhere between those two in size.
No idea, but presumably the VH-92 meets all the same air-transportable, fold-n-stuff requirements as the VH-60, so I guess they’re comparable.
 

Pags

Well-Known Member
pilot
So I'll ask a crazy question and then be accused of being too revolutionary...but does the FVL aircraft that the Navy gets actually need to be a dipper? Would be interesting if someone proposed a solution that included manned/unmanned teaming whereby the manned aircraft acts as more a C2 node and the dipping is done by UAVs that then send the data back to the manned aircraft. Then it doesn't matter what the FVL aircraft's hover performance is, in fact then you'd want it to have a long loiter time to match that of a UAV. I imagine FVL will become more than just another helicopter that replicates the, by the time FVL is tested/fielded, 30+yr old 60R capabilities.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
So I'll ask a crazy question and then be accused of being too revolutionary...but does the FVL aircraft that the Navy gets actually need to be a dipper? Would be interesting if someone proposed a solution that included manned/unmanned teaming whereby the manned aircraft acts as more a C2 node and the dipping is done by UAVs that then send the data back to the manned aircraft. Then it doesn't matter what the FVL aircraft's hover performance is, in fact then you'd want it to have a long loiter time to match that of a UAV. I imagine FVL will become more than just another helicopter that replicates the, by the time FVL is tested/fielded, 30+yr old 60R capabilities.
Not crazy at all. While we're at it, why not make the unmanned dippers surface vessels? Anything goes wrong, and they just wait to be picked up ... No crashing, no WESS, etc.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Which raises the bigger issue...in 10 years, unless you’re carrying people somewhere, you should need to justify why people are on board at all.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Which raises the bigger issue...in 10 years, unless you’re carrying people somewhere, you should need to justify why people are on board at all.
And that's why HSC and VRC will have the last laugh, flying manned aircraft ship-to-ship while the rest of us are console-bound.
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
Which raises the bigger issue...in 10 years, unless you’re carrying people somewhere, you should need to justify why people are on board at all.
While a narrow concern in today's world, in the future, a denied environment would be a big reason, specifically for ASW.
 

Hotdogs

Leeroy Jenkins
pilot
Which raises the bigger issue...in 10 years, unless you’re carrying people somewhere, you should need to justify why people are on board at all.
When an enemy has a button(s) that can turn everything off, then that’s a pretty good reason. I don’t think we will ever be full autonomous.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
When an enemy has a button(s) that can turn everything off, then that’s a pretty good reason. I don’t think we will ever be full autonomous.
Ever? Based on the advances seen in the past decade or so, full autonomy is coming. Whether next year or 20 years, I'll admit I don't know, but the day is coming. And yes, eventually people will be riding in fully autonomous aircraft (albeit first in cities before combat).

When you say the enemy has an "off button," what are you talking about exactly?

Yes, control signals can be jammed. Pretty soon, the technology will be there to go fully autonomous for most missions, so that there won't need to be a SATCOM link to Nellis. Whether that's ethical or not, who knows, but it's going to happen eventually.

If you mean that they can take over the aircraft controls by a virus or something similar, then they can do that in manned aircraft just as easily--the next generation of manned aircraft are all FBW. They don't have backup bell cranks and cables.
 

Hotdogs

Leeroy Jenkins
pilot
Ever? Based on the advances seen in the past decade or so, full autonomy is coming. Whether next year or 20 years, I'll admit I don't know, but the day is coming. And yes, eventually people will be riding in fully autonomous aircraft (albeit first in cities before combat).

When you say the enemy has an "off button," what are you talking about exactly?

Yes, control signals can be jammed. Pretty soon, the technology will be there to go fully autonomous for most missions, so that there won't need to be a SATCOM link to Nellis. Whether that's ethical or not, who knows, but it's going to happen eventually.

If you mean that they can take over the aircraft controls by a virus or something similar, then they can do that in manned aircraft just as easily--the next generation of manned aircraft are all FBW. They don't have backup bell cranks and cables.
Those issues with the combination of having to process multiple sources of data, make a judgement based decision, and then apply it to an aircraft to put it at a place in time and space to have a certain effect on a battlespace is something that requires a pilot in the loop. Anything less will require a signal, and those can be interfered with in many different ways. So yeah, if you’re saying that a fully autonomous A.I. Attack aircraft will be dropping close to any battalion in the near future, I have serious doubts about the validity of that. To the best of my knowledge we’re not even planning for it.
 
Top