For my rotor bretheren

[statesman]

http://defense.aol.com/2011/07/07/t...where-the-rotors-are/?a_dgi=aolshare_facebook

Interesting piece discussing the importance of rotors in the 21st century.

Though not explicitly, it supports my view that the F-35 isn't worth the necessary cost. Granted as an MPRA guy, and a new one at that, I have to plead ignorance about how capable the F-35 actually is, but as a tax payer its hard to justify buying the F-35 when we could buy 3 F-18s for the same price.

And maybe it's because I'm on the inside looking out, but the author spoke about the Navy's focus being exclusively TACAIR. I get the impression that the Rotor community is better represented than the author would have you believe. Granted TACAIR gets a great deal of the funds, but the Navy seems to have made a huge investment in rotors recently, with that investment seeming to grow as the Navy replaces all of the B, F, and H Seahawks.

 

[helolumpy]

The author does make a point that military rotorcraft does not have a champion. I've felt for years that the Navy needed to have a 1-star who's job title was "head rotorhead". He (or She) would answer to the Air Boss about all things helos; this person would be the sole voice of the Navy's rotary-wing community.
Right now we have two big communities (HSC & HSM) each with their own Commodore's, so that make for 4 opinions on helo matters. Then the HM guys might weigh in with their own concerns which makes for 5 people at the table. Of course then the CAGs (10 of them) not to mention NSAWC have their own thoughts on how helos should be used, so now the message gets lost in all the shouting.
The Navy needs a unifying voice when it comes to matters on helos. Kind of like how VP has the PATRECONFORLANT who sits on top of the two east coast wings, we need a single Navy helo boss who can tell all the Commodores to play nicely with each other when it's required.

 

[BigIron]

I think the article is making Navy helos out to be more bastard kids than we really are.

There's a helo master plan. Without discussing the end airframe goals #s (because I don't know them), there is a phased plan to have 3 navy helo airframes: Romeo, Sierra, Hotel (NSW). I read the Hotel will be around until 2025. Who knows about the MH-53E end date. I do know there has been a lot of money put into sustaining the MH (CNS/ATM cockpit, IMDS, - not cheap investments). The Navy will decide what to do with legacy AMCM and heavy lift. There is only so much money to go around.

As far as rotary wing innovation, you can only make rotors spin so fast and the helo falls out of the sky.

 

[squorch2]

That's why we need better than 70s-era technology - the X2 and its ilk come to mind. Fixed wing development isn't stuck in the 70s - why is rotary wing?

 

[SynixMan]

I've always wanted to know this. Since we're so crazy on the S-70 and it's many variants, why did we scoff at the S-92 when it came along?

 

[mmx1]

Yay for platform parochialism, the creation of fiefdoms, and the silly idea that future wars will look like the last two.

Aerodynamic technology has long hit the point of diminishing returns; hypersonic bombers haven't quite materialized like they were expected to in the 1980's; the next generation bomber is expected to be subsonic. The fixed-wing advances have been in low-observable tech and mission systems, and there have been similar advances on the rotor side. Low-observable is of limited benefit for us since we're as vulnerable to EM detection as we are to being seen with the naked eye, and we haven't quite worked out the invisibility thing yet. There's niche uses for FLIR/LO tech pioneered by AFSOC, and they're making their way to the mainstream, but at the same time, do we necessarily want to gucci up our entire rotor-wing fleet into eight-figure plopters? The Army didn't seem to think it was worthwhile to put million-dollar FLIR's in their workhorse UH-60M.

We are fighting this war with helicopters; doesn't mean we should be racing to develop MRAPS and plopters at the expense of intercontinental bombers and submarines. Or naval surface combatants, for that matter.

 

[mmx1]

As an example of gucci gear, I'm rather amused by the idea of putting O2 in the CH-53K - a prime example of designing for a very limited problem of today. How often are we as a sea service going to be fighting in strategically relevant terrain above 10,000k feet? I guarantee you that gear's going to sit unused, broken, and MAF'ed (something we've never seen before, of course) until the one niche circumstance where we need it. In which case I'm perfectly happy letting AFSOF or the Army take the lift.

It makes sense as a bolt-on or modular mission system, or as a niche buy for a portion of the fleet. Why the whole heavy lift fleet needs it is beyond me.

 

[phrogdriver]

but the Navy seems to have made a huge investment in rotors recently, with that investment seeming to grow as the Navy replaces all of the B, F, and H Seahawks.

Like the article says, though, those are not new technology. There are new avionics and some newer engines, but the airframes are going on almost 40-year-old designs. Same with the Army. This during a time when several all-new fixed-wing designs have come online.

Are helicopters niche hardware for the GWOT, or are today's conflicts actually harbingers of what is going to be the future? It might very well be the latter.

Strike can be done by UAS much more than assault support--i.e. in a better-planned DoD budget, there are more iterations remaining for manned helos than with manned strike.

 

[RobLyman]

Yay for platform parochialism, the creation of fiefdoms, and the silly idea that future wars will look like the last two.

Aerodynamic technology has long hit the point of diminishing returns; hypersonic bombers haven't quite materialized like they were expected to in the 1980's; the next generation bomber is expected to be subsonic. The fixed-wing advances have been in low-observable tech and mission systems, and there have been similar advances on the rotor side. Low-observable is of limited benefit for us since we're as vulnerable to EM detection as we are to being seen with the naked eye, and we haven't quite worked out the invisibility thing yet. There's niche uses for FLIR/LO tech pioneered by AFSOC, and they're making their way to the mainstream, but at the same time, do we necessarily want to gucci up our entire rotor-wing fleet into eight-figure plopters? The Army didn't seem to think it was worthwhile to put million-dollar FLIR's in their workhorse UH-60M.

We are fighting this war with helicopters; doesn't mean we should be racing to develop MRAPS and plopters at the expense of intercontinental bombers and submarines. Or naval surface combatants, for that matter.

I generally agree with what you said, but:

Yes, the military should spend more money on MRAPS and "plopters." If you haven't seen up close what is happening to our MRAPS at the hands of some pretty cheap weapons, you should look closer. You would see that this needs a LOT of attention! How about a Medevac helo going in multiple times to a small dusty LZ to pick up a soldier at a point of injury and waiving off because of the dust? The HH-60M does have FLIR. It is expensive, but it is useful. Our mission as Medevac may be a little different, but is it that much different that we need FLIR and the UH-60M (assault guys) don't need it? No!

That is one of the things the article may have glossed over, but hit the nail on the head of inadvertently. More money...not just on NEW technology, but also to spread that technology across the fleet of rotary aircraft...so ALL helos that need it can have it. Why just equip the Abbottabad helicopters with stealth technology? Why not ALL? Because it isn't needed on all? Bullshit! How many times are helos asked to do things they weren't procured to do? The answer is: All of the time.

 

[KBayDog]

Today, Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Eurocopter and the far smaller Piasecki Aircraft Corp. are all working on new "compound" helicopters that aim to match the Osprey's 250 to 275 mph cruising speed, but the companies are doing it mostly on their own dime.

This is the most important line in the article. This is the only way that technology will continue to develop in 2011's climate...and I'll leave it at that.

 

[teabag53]

As an example of gucci gear, I'm rather amused by the idea of putting O2 in the CH-53K - a prime example of designing for a very limited problem of today. How often are we as a sea service going to be fighting in strategically relevant terrain above 10,000k feet? I guarantee you that gear's going to sit unused, broken, and MAF'ed (something we've never seen before, of course) until the one niche circumstance where we need it. In which case I'm perfectly happy letting AFSOF or the Army take the lift.

It makes sense as a bolt-on or modular mission system, or as a niche buy for a portion of the fleet. Why the whole heavy lift fleet needs it is beyond me.

Amused? I think the gear should support the service ceiling. It's not just about terrain but having the ability to go over weather (think visible moisture and freezing). I can think of several times (not even in the 'stan) from personal experience where 10k wouldn't work but 12 k would and it resulted in turning around. I don't view this a 'problem of today.'

Done much LLL dusty zone externals? FLIR is good.

Dusty landings (particularly at night)? Reliable means of coupled landing sure would be nice.

Why don't we just shit can our ASE too while we're at it?

I'm a product of doing more with less to the point of it becoming retarded. Train to the level of not needing the 'gucci gear' but use it when you need it.

 

[insanebikerboy]

The helo I fly only has tacan, nothing else for navigation. Sure, it has mil gps, but it's not rated for normal nav. How much would it cost to throw in an ILS into the aircraft? The stop-gap measure? They buy us Garmin 3000's for extra SA in the cockpit but guess what, those aren't rated for IFR either, just "advisory".

I could go on, but there are a lot of little things (more ergonomic seats, better ASE gear, nav capabilities, etc, etc) that I know would be a mere drop in the hat compared to the development of the current fixed wing aircraft.

The one question I have about landing in brownout/whiteout, what would be the endstate with new technology? Flying needles to touchdown, or letting the aircraft fly it down ala auto approaches to hover? I personally think I'd be rather uncomfortable letting a helo land itself, I'd rather take it in and deal with the brownout myself.

Also, if it were me, I would equip as many helos as possible with FLIR. It's one of the best things I think you can put on them, and the randomness of tasking for helicopters would mean that it would get used much more than expected.

 

[teabag53]

^^^ WRT reduced/no vis a reliable velocity vector would be money IOT help id drift during the part where you're coming to the dust and can't see anything so you're squared away during that fleeting moment at the bottom when you can. Like you, I'd much prefer that to the coupling the a/c and letting it land itself.

Since I've had the pleasure of neither I'll let somebody else chime in that has. I think the V-22 has both options but the coupled system takes a while to get in deck as you need to be within certain parameters for it to take. Either way, I'm typing out my ass here so I'll let an Osprey guy explain it and let me know how AFU I am.

 

[hscs]

We are fighting this war with helicopters; doesn't mean we should be racing to develop MRAPS and plopters at the expense of intercontinental bombers and submarines. Or naval surface combatants, for that matter.

We raced to develop MRAPS because people were dying. When you count the number of RW aviators killed compared to FW aviators in combat since 2001 - it begs the question why we don't cut a couple of JSFs to pay for high end ASE, more survivable materials, and systems to aid landing in brownout?

 

[RotorHead04]

Also, if it were me, I would equip as many helos as possible with FLIR. It's one of the best things I think you can put on them, and the randomness of tasking for helicopters would mean that it would get used much more than expected.

Amen!

While we are adding wood to the fire, why doesn't the S have GAU-17? Proven system, already flight tested in the HAWK, and the S was known to be replacing the H. Is it really going to take the complete extinction of the H to get it implemented in the S?!?! Of course it is, because that's how we roll ...