• 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

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
More of both than we currently have!
Does the Navy truly need more of either for HSM? Honest question. I get dash speed is always welcome, but big picture, is 2.5+ and ~80-110 knots not meeting current needs (assuming the current restraints of on rotor w/ a tail rotor). I get a tilt-rotor makes a lot of that better, but as discussed, I'm not sure that's realistic, currently.

So again, not being sarcastic here, what does speed AND endurance do that a current 2.5-3.0 aircraft with a crazy good radar not do now?
 

thump

Well-Known Member
pilot
if the mission is to park sensors at bucket airspeed and altitude for 3.0, sure, we can do that. I think that is a UAS mission though. If we’re talking about dipping, those numbers get a lot smaller as I’m sure you know.

The threats and ranges in play imply a requirement to dash somewhere far away quickly, and then stay and/or dip there for awhile. I’m not trying to be a smartass but any less vague is probably a discussion for another forum.

Bottom line is that the present day Romeo strengths are future drone missions, and the present day weaknesses need improvement. I am assuming that the tilt/hybrid solutions will be improvements, though, so standing by to be wrong there!
 

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
if the mission is to park sensors at bucket airspeed and altitude for 3.0, sure, we can do that. I think that is a UAS mission though. If we’re talking about dipping, those numbers get a lot smaller as I’m sure you know.

The threats and ranges in play imply a requirement to dash somewhere far away quickly, and then stay and/or dip there for awhile. I’m not trying to be a smartass but any less vague is probably a discussion for another forum.
No, no, I get it and good points. I do wonder (because I don't have the knowledge, not because I think I know better) how well a dipping "tilt-rotor" would work. That's of course if "they" decided to go that direction. That just goes back to what I was asking originally...how well either design fits into the Navy's usage, versus the Army's. Again, a rhetorical question and one that might not quite have answers just yet.
 

Jim123

DD-214 in hand and I'm gonna party like it's 1998
pilot
I thought a tilt rotor dipper would inherently make a lot more self-noise than a helicopter (just a function of disc loading and speed of the downwash). Maybe we've figured out a way around that.
 

Pags

Pope of Chili Town
pilot
Speed would bring with it range. Finding something farther away from Mom is always good.
I thought a tilt rotor dipper would inherently make a lot more self-noise than a helicopter (just a function of disc loading and speed of the downwash). Maybe we've figured out a way around that.
Dip from a higher hover?
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
The question, to me, is really: do we need hover endurance (co-axial) or forward-flight endurance (tiltrotor). Either paradigm gives us better top speed and range. IMO, VERTREP, and the classic Navy Helo versions of SAR and ASW demand hover performance.
 

thump

Well-Known Member
pilot
The question, to me, is really: do we need hover endurance (co-axial) or forward-flight endurance (tiltrotor). Either paradigm gives us better top speed and range. IMO, VERTREP, and the classic Navy Helo versions of SAR and ASW demand hover performance.
A lot depends on what the power curves of tilts/hybrids look like. I’d argue for forward flight performance + hover endurance. We don’t typically run out of power in a dip, for example, but we burn a ton of gas.

There’s also the trap of building the platform around a single sensor (radar/dome) and then finding that sensor obsolete when the new ride gets fielded ten years later...
 

HSMPBR

Not a misfit toy
pilot
A lot depends on what the power curves of tilts/hybrids look like. I’d argue for forward flight performance + hover endurance. We don’t typically run out of power in a dip, for example, but we burn a ton of gas.

There’s also the trap of building the platform around a single sensor (radar/dome) and then finding that sensor obsolete when the new ride gets fielded ten years later...
Instead of building an aircraft to put a dome (sorry, @IKE) in the water, why not put that money into making active sonobuoys that are on par with dipping sonar?
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Instead of building an aircraft to put a dome (sorry, @IKE) in the water, why not put that money into making active sonobuoys that are on par with dipping sonar?
Because they'd be too heavy to carry and too expensive to be expendables. Look at the sheer power advantage and reusability of the dome. You might as well tell me you've built a truly efficient/economical solar panel to replace coal/nuclear. Dipping sonar isn't going away, but I will accept arguments that it should be on a UAS or USV.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
A lot depends on what the power curves of tilts/hybrids look like. I’d argue for forward flight performance + hover endurance. We don’t typically run out of power in a dip, for example, but we burn a ton of gas.

There’s also the trap of building the platform around a single sensor (radar/dome) and then finding that sensor obsolete when the new ride gets fielded ten years later...
There's also a danger of building a platform that compromises on excelling at anything to be able to do everything with mediocrity. I would argue that Navy helos have swung too far to the compromise side of the pendulum presently.

I think both coax and tilt will bring V_end and V_rng efficiencies, but I think coax will have better hover efficiency (and therefore endurance) and better low-speed maneuverability (VERTREP/SAR/DDG landings).
 

thump

Well-Known Member
pilot
There's also a danger of building a platform that compromises on excelling at anything to be able to do everything with mediocrity. I would argue that Navy helos have swung too far to the compromise side of the pendulum presently.

I think both coax and tilt will bring V_end and V_rng efficiencies, but I think coax will have better hover efficiency (and therefore endurance) and better low-speed maneuverability (VERTREP/SAR/DDG landings).
Wasn't that a Col. Boyd talking point? The drive toward "multi-role" over a specialized platform resulting in aircraft that sucked at everything?

Agreed on the performance points. One could counter-argue that tilt is a (relatively) proven technology and may be more useful should sensors evolve beyond dipping ASW... Downwash in SAR would be a problem though.

Sidebar: Do we really need a lot of low-speed agility for small-deck landings? Within the wind envelopes and stick skills of the average H-60 bubba, etc. I've never felt limited by the plane over deck and only rarely have seen situations where the envelopes constrained us. But that's just my own anecdotes, sadly never got to fly any dynamic interface during my time as a babysitter of navair engineers.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
I have too many kids and no time to read, so I don't know if Boys made the same argument. I also did not fly any DI at HX, but I would also submit this with my argument for Navy buying coax vice tilt:

During detached DDG ops...
Dead pusher prop = land on DDG same as always
Tiltrotor stuck in fwd flight mode = ditch
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I have too many kids and no time to read, so I don't know if Boys made the same argument. I also did not fly any DI at HX, but I would also submit this with my argument for Navy buying coax vice tilt:

During detached DDG ops...
Dead pusher prop = land on DDG same as always
Tiltrotor stuck in fwd flight mode = ditch
"Tiltrotor stuck in forward flight mode" has happened 1x in over 500,000 flight hours, and that was at 60-ish degs and taken to a runway without incident (yes, I know about blue water ops). It's not a "never happens" thing, but that's not a rate that should affect a buying decision.

The fact that the FVL pusher coax has flown about 15 hours total would tend to make me believe that they have failure modes that have not been fully explored yet.

The X-2 collided with itself, for example.
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
I would also say to broaden your idea of conops.

Which is a more capable ASW platform? A P-8 or an 60R?

If you had a Poseidon-type patrol capability that could take off from a DDG, would that not be worthwhile?
 
Top