If the Army is still using manned scout aircraft in 20 years, god help them. They're almost an anachronism NOW.
-
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
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
If the Army is still using manned scout aircraft in 20 years, god help them. They're almost an anachronism NOW.
Agreed, it looks awesome and I think I've got a little bit of tentative airframe envy. Looking forward to seeing more about it moving forward
Keep in mind, I was looking at a mock up and I am thinking of this from the POV of a former infantry guy that has done a few air assaults. The gear pods cut you off forward and (remember I have not seen a real one) it looks like the exhaust, not the rotor wash, might prevent you from moving straight out from the sides. I used to be a Marine grunt and I will readily admit it beats the crap out of getting out of a 46 (or even worse a 53) in a hurry, but I was spoiled by the remarkably easy exodus from the Blackhawk in my army days.
If I am wrong there is no fight here, just a hip shot observation. It looks like a fine machine.
QuanticoIsCold
New Member
Is there a reason or logic behind why army has traditionally used side doors and Marine Corps has gone with tail ramp? I understand there are exceptions (chinook tail ramp in army, Huey doors in Marine Corps) but phrog, osprey and -53 all used tail ramp.
CH-47 Ramp
UH/HH-60 Sliding side doors
AH-64 Apache Canopy
LUH-72 Clamshell rear door and sliding side doors
Last edited:
hlg6016
A/C Wings Here
Quick on load and offload of cargo and wheeled equipment.
Good question...as a grunt I just ran off whatever they told me to run off of.
Marine aircraft are more likely to have to onload and offload palletized cargo from a ship.
No defensiveness here. I was just curious because it seemed straightforward. Then again, it was stationary on a factory floor.
Remember that the goal of the demonstrator is to prove that the technology is there. The finer details of ergonomics are likely going to be refined upon.
No doubt. It is certainly a capability the army needs.
Update on the SB>1 Defiant. Might not fly until 2019. The biggest problem as some of us said a few years ago was developing a flex beam and rotors stiff enough that they do not impact each other. Hope it works, but Bell's V-280 is up and flying now.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/sb1-defiant-will-be-worth-the-wait-sikorsky-boeing/
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/10/sb1-defiant-will-be-worth-the-wait-sikorsky-boeing/
Could be because the design is not size-scalable, plus it’s ugly as sin.
Tilt-rotors are ugly and less robust than coaxial deisgns, IMO. Also, they're not really helicopters.
Anyway, I think the V-280 vs. SB>1 fight ultimately comes down to whether you need performance maximized in transit (assault, logistics, medevac) or hover/maneuvering (attack and nearly all Navy missions).
Anyway, I think the V-280 vs. SB>1 fight ultimately comes down to whether you need performance maximized in transit (assault, logistics, medevac) or hover/maneuvering (attack and nearly all Navy missions).
Who cares if it's a "helicopter" or not" Do you want a capability or rotors?
Considering the only coax helicopters in service are the Russian Helix, which is a complete POS...and nothing else, I'm wondering where you get the comparison of which type of design is more "robust." An AFSOC CV got the shit shot out of it in Sudan and flew several hundred miles afterwards. I don't know of any similar situation involving a coax design.
You're presenting false dichotomy. A tiltrotor is more maneuverable than almost any helicopter. AOB, pitch up/down, G's, linear acceleration, etc are far greater than almost any helo, including a coax.
I'm trying to figure out why people are so stuck on low-speed manueverability. If the zone is hot, GTFO. This isn't Vietnam. Why are people doing high gain maneuvers at low speed? I think we learned that hover fire was bullshit when the Army had 28 or 29 Apaches get shot to hell at Karbala in 2003.
What do you mean by “high gain” maneuvers?
To be fair from an escort perspective, you guys are considerably slower on short final than a Huey. In terms of getting to the deck, dropping ramps, and inserting Marines - I’ve seen Yankees do it considerably faster than any Osprey. That’s a function of cabin design with open doors, less pax, and ability to decelerate without doing the conversion on final. That being said, Huey’s are not doing battalion and company sized inserts. I’ve also noticed a significantly faster acceleration out of an objective area from Ospreys than other rotary winged aircraft, but I’ve also seen a decent amount of wave offs more so than 53s and Yankees in some environments due to that high disk loading.
I would imagine most attack platforms replacing Cobras and Apaches will be some version of a tiltrotor in the future. Mainly for loiter time, payload, speed, range, sensor performance, and the ability for increased vertical and horizontal standoff. I wouldn’t knock a hover hold for weapons employment though, there are certain situations that it is pretty effective. The Karbala situation had as much to do with poor planning as it did tactical employment of the aircraft. There are more details to that better not discussed here. It is nice to have the size and ability to maneuver in terrain and accel/decel rapidly from 0-60 kias in elevated threat environments for obvious reasons. I am not sure current tilt rotor technology can do rapid in and out of HOGE/HIGE transitions during contour and NOE flight. Atleast not with an aircraft the size of an Osprey in the terrain that helicopters like to use to their advantage. Not to say that it won’t in the future either.
Last edited: