CMV-22B Osprey Rollout

[IKE]

VTOL S-3 could do it. And then we could also have the AEW and COD versions, too.

Think of the airframe commonality!

The MESH-2360BFHRS?

(free AI art clearly isn't as creative as the subscription stuff)

 

[Brett327]

I wouldn't call it gouge. Just wild-eyed thoughts of a platform that can fly out to a datum at 200+ ktas and then drop a dipping sonar and stay onstation for a few hours. You would know more about hover efficiency and whether it would work for a dipper. If it's a problem that can't be solved, then I'm wrong.

A capability does not a requirement make. Back to my original point... unless there is a community or N98 driving toward that, I remain skeptical.

 

[IRfly]

A capability does not a requirement make. Back to my original point... unless there is a community or N98 driving toward that, I remain skeptical.

Sure. But the apocryphal Henry Ford line, "If I asked them what they wanted, they would say a faster horse" sometimes very much applies to defense acquisition

 

[hscs]

The MESH-2360BFHRS?
View attachment 39650
(free AI art clearly isn't as creative as the subscription stuff)

Bet it’s easy to auto.

 

[Brett327]

Sure. But the apocryphal Henry Ford line, "If I asked them what they wanted, they would say a faster horse" sometimes very much applies to defense acquisition

We shall see. 🤨

 

[phrogdriver]

For the V-247, definitely as a CVW ASW platform, but also as a land- and DDG-based ASW platform. Could have the same group of dudes in a building in San Dog handing off prosecutions to each other from one asset to another. I know we have a lot of money invested in the P-8 program, but in thirty years airborne ASW could be one platform to rule them all.

Besides ASW, can't say whether V-280 can take over the entire -60 mission set, but certainly can do SSC, transport, probably planeguard and vertrep? I don't think the -280 folds up as neatly as the -247, either. Or the -60. But I think that the range/speed/endurance combination will just outclass the -60s to the point that we'll re-think our CONOPs to get the platform in.

And there might be something in it for the helo bubbas, too--will tiltrotor time count as fixed-wing time when they go to the airlines?

Yes, T/R counts as fixed-wing for the purposes of the airlines now. Didn't used to, putting T/R folks like me in a tough spot a few years back, since it didn't count as helo time either. The "powered lift" is widely accepted in commercial fixed wing, as long as you have the other requisite FAA tickets, which most guys easily get now.

Yes, FLRAA (V-280 is the company's term for the demonstrator, not USG-approved nomenclature) could do all those things. It doesn't fold yet, because the Army doesn't need that capability at this time, but it could be made to. Now you're in the world of engineering trades.

Would love to know where this gouge is coming from.

I don't work in The building, but in my building (acquisitions and engineering), most of the FVL talk centers on a Seahawks 2.0 idea.

I'll give you SSC/MISR and LOG* for the range/endurance capes of tiltrotor.

LOG is an asterisk for the same reason I won't give you SAR: downwash is real. I'm not too sure about having folks under a V-280 or similar to hook up a VERTREP load, especially as the helo approaches. The baby-sized rotors lead to much higher downwash velocities for similar thrust/weight.

I'm not sure about ASW either. I know there's this desire to do AOR-wide ASW from a single platform, but hover efficiency isn't there for tiltrotors, so you're putting all your eggs in a different, possibly exotic sensor basket.

Lastly, no current tiltrotor of appreciable size is going on a CRUDES, so the Navy would also have to be willing to lose the awesome high availability we've enjoyed by having so much commonality between 60B/F/H/R/S for decades.

My $0.02

What would SeaHawk 2.0 look like? A SLEP for 60's or a new design? The problem with helos is that their speed and range are inherently limited. At some point, dipping at 150nm becomes irrelevant as the theat has sensors and weapons that reach far further than that.

FLRAA has significant differences from the V-22. While disk loading is still higher than a helo, it's lower than an Osprey's. Having a side door means the wing shields aircrew from downwash to work the hoist, fast rope, etc. Also, Osprey downwash tends to be the worst fore and aft.

No manned tiltrotor of appreciable size is going on a CRUDES. While you wouldn't have the same commonality, you'd gain capability.

At this point, so much centers around aircraft size and design, why not build the SH-60T and call it a low-cost, low-risk technical solution?

Because it also would be a marginal increase in capability at best now. By 2035, they'll be completely outclassed. Helicopters are already considered nearly irrelevant in DMO. The distances we're talking about are extremely challenging, to the point that even PMC by helo would be difficult. You'd be limited to planeguard and VERTREP.

 

[IKE]

FLRAA has significant differences from the V-22. While disk loading is still higher than a helo, it's lower than an Osprey's. Having a side door means the wing shields aircrew from downwash to work the hoist, fast rope, etc. Also, Osprey downwash tends to be the worst fore and aft.

No manned tiltrotor of appreciable size is going on a CRUDES. While you wouldn't have the same commonality, you'd gain capability.

FLRAA = Neat.

UAS = Fair point.

 

[IRfly]

The V-247, in addition to being smaller, also folds into a small-ish footprint to be usable on CRUDES. Doesn't have the log capability, though.

 

[Gatordev]

I'm still struggling to understand, out of ignorance, how UAS is going to stand up to a contested environment. Especially given some of the shenanigans that have already occurred over the last few years. I would guess it would be stutter-step progress where UAS works great for a bit, then has issues, then we figure out how to defeat those issues and it works great again, and then wash and repeat.

I'm not expecting anyone to respond, just making the comment. I get UAS is here to stay for now.

 

[IRfly]

I'm still struggling to understand, out of ignorance, how UAS is going to stand up to a contested environment. Especially given some of the shenanigans that have already occurred over the last few years. I would guess it would be stutter-step progress where UAS works great for a bit, then has issues, then we figure out how to defeat those issues and it works great again, and then wash and repeat.

I'm not expecting anyone to respond, just making the comment. I get UAS is here to stay for now.

That's an important piece of the future of warfare in a nutshell. But I'm curious--are your concerns more for physical threats (i.e. getting shot down) or EW threats (loss of C2, mission kills, navigation spoofing, etc)?

 

[Flash]

I'm still struggling to understand, out of ignorance, how UAS is going to stand up to a contested environment. Especially given some of the shenanigans that have already occurred over the last few years. I would guess it would be stutter-step progress where UAS works great for a bit, then has issues, then we figure out how to defeat those issues and it works great again, and then wash and repeat.

With a near-peer or peer enemy, not very well. They still have their place in a contested environment, but it won't be anywhere near as predominant as it has been the last two decades for us.

That's an important piece of the future of warfare in a nutshell. But I'm curious--are your concerns more for physical threats (i.e. getting shot down) or EW threats (loss of C2, mission kills, navigation spoofing, etc)?

F) All of the above.

 

[taxi1]

With a near-peer or peer enemy, not very well. They still have their place in a contested environment, but it won't be anywhere near as predominant as it has been the last two decades for us.

Could be the other way. In a contested environment, drones will go where its too dangerous to put humans. Expendable and potentially kamikaze.

The lines will blur between what is a drone and what is a smart weapon that has been made intelligent enough to be considered a drone on a one-way trip.

 

[sevenhelmet]

The lines will blur between what is a drone and what is a smart weapon that has been made intelligent enough to be considered a drone on a one-way trip.

Have blurred.

 

[Flash]

Could be the other way. In a contested environment, drones will go where its too dangerous to put humans. Expendable and potentially kamikaze.

The lines will blur between what is a drone and what is a smart weapon that has been made intelligent enough to be considered a drone on a one-way trip.

Those already exist, and are being used in combat right now.

But they are really nothing more than cheaper cruise missiles at that point, so are they really UAV's at that point...?

 

[Uncle Fester]

I'm still struggling to understand, out of ignorance, how UAS is going to stand up to a contested environment. Especially given some of the shenanigans that have already occurred over the last few years. I would guess it would be stutter-step progress where UAS works great for a bit, then has issues, then we figure out how to defeat those issues and it works great again, and then wash and repeat.

I'm not expecting anyone to respond, just making the comment. I get UAS is here to stay for now.

I work in UAS plans and policy at HQMC these days and as such we talk to just about everyone in DoD who flies drones. All I can say in open source is that this topic is discussed, a lot. I'd say it's the main UAS thing we talk about at the inter-service level, and quite a bit of attention is focused on how things are going in/around the Black Sea AOR. There's some really neat shit being developed by private industry and within the DoD.