• 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

Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
A oft-repeated story I heard from older VP and VQ hands the crewmember who often found a sub was the FE, who was just looking out the windows.

An oft-repeated statistic when beginning "Intro to ASW." It's certainly a plus to have eyes out, but that part is actually benefited by current technology surprisingly well. Of course, sensor AND eyeballs would be my personal choice.

But for my specific scenario mentioned...

Could they put cameras in all directions like these new luxury SUVs have, where you can look left, right, front, rear, etc...?

I would argue no. Not for what you'd be looking for AND having the precision to put the aircraft right where it needs to be build a reliable solution, especially with our current weapons.
 

Ventus

Weather Guesser
pilot
Pusher prop and stubby wings!!!
Somewhere in an abandoned hangar, the X-49 Speedhawk slumbers....waiting

54400.jpg
 

hscs

Registered User
pilot
I didn't know it was a Seahawk derivative. Pitot tubes in the right place. Properly beefy tailwheel (not the baby one in the back). Love it!
Don’t hate on that baby tail wheel- it lets me dump that 13 deg within 15 ft knowledges. But I do really like those side view mirrors. You can actually use them.
 

Griz882

Frightening children with the Griz-O-Copter!
pilot
Contributor
Somewhere in an abandoned hangar, the X-49 Speedhawk slumbers....waiting

54400.jpg
That is a Piasecki design. I talked to them at AUSA and they loved how it flies. Of course they are sales guys, and it is to be expected, but they said they were keeping it around for when the Navy or AF needed it!
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Idk about the firescout, but this thing looks really neat. Would be pretty hard to scale up though.


That’s an identified problem with a lot of cool and exotic UAS designs. They work great up to Group 3, but making them big enough to carry significant payloads is very challenging/nearly impossible.

Group 4/5 UAS are real aircraft. You either need to take the people out of an existing airframe, which is sub-optimal (a shape designed for meat servos isn’t optimized for most missions) or build a clean-sheet aircraft, which we don’t have money for.
 

Ventus

Weather Guesser
pilot
When I posted that Video of the X-P4, I had no idea that they had already conducted Sea Trials for the Navy or that it is already being considered as a platform for lightweight VERTREP.
 

Swanee

Cereal Killer
pilot
None
Contributor
Could they put cameras in all directions like these new luxury SUVs have, where you can look left, right, front, rear, etc...?

As has been said earlier, bandwidth becomes a big issue (it already is), and those cameras on that SUV only have to see a few feet in front of them. We have a nose camera in the MQ-9 that is all but useful once the airplane is in the air.

I think sometimes there’s a belief that more sensors + processing/data fusion = more sa. There’s no real reason to believe that equation is really true. Hard to beat a human on station fusing inputs in their brain the old fashioned way and making independent evaluations and decisions.

Very true. There is, and will always be a push for FAC(U) and SCARC as a primary mission set for UAS- while we have a lot of tools in front of us that aid in SA, what we lack is really the battlefield command SA that a manned asset, or a guy on the ground, has simply by looking outside.

We're great with ISR, and shooting Hellfires, and buddy lasing. We're good at 500lb series precision guided bombs. But big picture SA is tough, and this community LOVES it's MIRC rooms, and get's scared of the radio.

But when you only give someone 40 hours in a DA-20 and then kick them to the simulator for the rest of their training, their understanding of aviation and flying is going to be very limited.
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
So is there an active requirement for Navy Strike FVL variant?

Yes, there is a requirement for a future vertical-lift platform capable of performing Maritime Strike. What that looks like (tilt, coax, single-main) and the specific requirements (range, payload, sensors, etc.) are TBD.

My money is on Seahawk 2.0 - more airframe changes than 60R/S, but still a Hawk.
 

Ventus

Weather Guesser
pilot
It's not that I don't think tiltrotors aren't cool or anything, but I just have concerns on whether they're as survivable in a shooting war as people seem to think they are.
I'm not a 22 guy so maybe i'm way off base here so please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Valor, for the size of aircraft that it is, is a pretty big target from the front. In a service where space is a premium, I think the ideal is to have something that folds up nice that doesn't need a whole evolution to rotate the wings and extend the blades. At least the E2/C2 can start up without unfolding its wings. The V-22 needs to be carted out all folded up.

Sure the 22 can KIND of autorotate, but not very well. In the case of a single engine failure, one nacelle can power both rotors/props through drive shafts that travel through the wings from one side to the other, but how confident are we that they'll perform with battle damage?

I just think it's not very smart to double down and put all of our eggs in the tiltrotor basket.

Sikorsky X2 tech via the Defiant/Raider definitely deserve a second look.

The Fairey Rotodyne was really ahead of its time and I think the technology could use a second look.

Kinda out there, but this is also a really neat concept. Imagine a main rotor that doesn't need the extra weight of a transmission. Bleed air from the turboprop engines is pushed through the rotor blades to tiny tip jets on the end and ignited to spin the blades. Once you transition to forward flight, the tip jets turn off and the main rotor spins entirely decoupled, essentially in autorotation the entire flight. If you lose both engines, you can auto to the deck. You can also land conventionally. #1 and #2 engines along with the wing provide enough forward thrust and lift to keep the main rotor spinning fast enough to provide lift. You don't need a tail rotor. It could carry 19,000lbs and travel 190mph.

 
Last edited:
Top