So, HTs now have a new selection out of Advanced?

[lowflier03]

Thats part of my problem with it. What capabilities does it bring that cannot be covered by a global hawk variant? (or even better, a real armed variant) If you have a team on the ground that may need cover, (enough that you are going to station a boat there), you could much more easily and cheaply orbit a global hawk in the vicinity. Or even better, assign a couple to cover an entire AOR, then they are always on station without tipping anyone off.

Helos have very useful capabilities in support of guys on the ground, an unmanned FLIR slung under a rotorhead does not use any of these.

 

[Gatordev]

Welcome back, Fester.

 

[Uncle Fester]

Good to be back.

Short answer is, different mission. GH is strategic reconnaissance and a national asset. That's not ISR, and it's not what the SOF guys want or need. You're not going to task a Global Hawk, U-2 or satellite to recce a convoy route or sit on a suspect camel corral for a week, and you wouldn't get it if you asked for it. Preds do ISR, but have to be based dirt side somewhere near the target area, and that's where the political complications come in. Several host countries have suspended Predator flight ops due to safety or political concerns.

Believe me, no one is saying that a FS can replace a -60, either.

This is a unique mission niche, right now there's a demand for it, and FS is suited for it in a way nothing else quite is. One thing to keep in mind is that FS was spun up to fulfill a specific mission. We've just got used to doing things the other way 'round - i.e., buy an airplane and adapt missions and tactics to its capabilities.

 

[lowflier03]

Good to be back.

Short answer is, different mission. GH is strategic reconnaissance and a national asset. That's not ISR, and it's not what the SOF guys want or need. You're not going to task a Global Hawk, U-2 or satellite to recce a convoy route or sit on a suspect camel corral for a week, and you wouldn't get it if you asked for it. Preds do ISR, but have to be based dirt side somewhere near the target area, and that's where the political complications come in. Several host countries have suspended Predator flight ops due to safety or political concerns.

Believe me, no one is saying that a FS can replace a -60, either.

This is a unique mission niche, right now there's a demand for it, and FS is suited for it in a way nothing else quite is. One thing to keep in mind is that FS was spun up to fulfill a specific mission. We've just got used to doing things the other way 'round - i.e., buy an airplane and adapt missions and tactics to its capabilities.

You are missing my point. We don't need "The Global Hawks" to do that. We need our own version that we can task ourselves. A Naval asset with similar capabilities could do a better job at that mission, with real onsta time, for a fraction of the cost of the FS plus training, plus ship, plus deployed ships crew, plus deployed computer operators, plus deployed mx...etc. (how about just expanding the Triton program?) add on the fact that we are trying to reinvent the wheel with operator training, development, etc. the AF has been operating an asset for years, why would we ever try to learn from that?

 

[Uncle Fester]

You are missing my point. We don't need "The Global Hawks" to do that. We need our own version that we can task ourselves. A Naval asset with similar capabilities could do a better job at that mission, with real onsta time, for a fraction of the cost of the FS plus training, plus ship, plus deployed ships crew, plus deployed computer operators, plus deployed mx...etc. (how about just expanding the Triton program?) add on the fact that we are trying to reinvent the wheel with operator training, development, etc. the AF has been operating an asset for years, why would we ever try to learn from that?

I guess I am missing your point. I'm not clear what you're advocating. A Navy Global Hawk is the Triton, and it's going to be used for Navy tasking, but it's got the same (political) issues with land-basing as any other big UAV. Plus, you don't always want a big-wing, high-altitude asset. Its not always suitable for the tasking, and it's not a universal ISR solution. Otherwise, you're making the same argument as the AF makes when they say you don't need carrier strike assets when you can just fly B-52/-2s from the States.

 

[helolumpy]

What capabilities does it bring that cannot be covered by a global hawk variant? (or even better, a real armed variant) .

It deploys on a small boy as a tactical asset under the command of that ship's CO. The Triton (follow-on to BAMS-D) will be tasked by someone way above the ship's CO do much bigger picture tasking than tactical recce.
It also can be flown into an area where the threat or political situation means you can't send a Romeo or Sierra.

IMO, the FS will be used like we are using the Scan Eagle except the Navy will own it, vice leasing it from Boeing (as it was on my ship). The Scan Eagle also had some sensor limitation due to it's size and payloads.

It's not perfect, but it's the first generation of rotary wing UAS to operate from a ship.
I look at the first generation of US jet aircraft and they did not perform as well as the front line piston fighters of the day. Gut give it time, I'm sure the Navy will eventually develop the FS (or follow-on variants) to a capable platform because even a blind squirrel can find a nut sometimes!

 

[statesman]

1. Is there anything to the fact that this thing looks exactly like a Bell-206 with no windows?

2. Triton was supposed to be a sacrificial lamb that accidentally got funded, which is a lot of the reason no one knows how its going to work. So when you say community politics, there are some very real actual politics going on there as well.

 

[xmid]

1. Is there anything to the fact that this thing looks exactly like a Bell-206 with no windows?

It's a bell 407 with no windows, which if you ever get a chance to fly one I suggest you jump on it. The one with windows... And the manned kind...

 

[Rocketman]

This is why they call'em skids right?

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

This is why they call'em skids right?

I think I have seen similar maneuvers on youtube before, and I don't think I have seen it done successfully once.

 

[Pags]

I think I have seen similar maneuvers on youtube before, and I don't think I have seen it done successfully once.

What maneuver, a run-on landing by a skid helo?

 

[BigBadBoJenkins]

What maneuver, a run-on landing by a skid helo?

Don't know what it's called. Stuff like this:

 

[Pags]

Don't know what it's called. Stuff like this:

That's called flathatting . In the 60 it was called a course reversal. I've heard others call it a rotor over. A FW guy would call it a wing over. The maneuver is nothing special, unless people try and tie the low altitude record with it.

 

[insanebikerboy]

That's called flathatting . In the 60 it was called a course reversal. I've heard others call it a rotor over. A FW guy would call it a wing over. The maneuver is nothing special, unless people try and tie the low altitude record with it.

Course reversals are actually pretty fun. Course reversals that run into the ground, on the other hand, suck...

 

[Uncle Fester]

It deploys on a small boy as a tactical asset under the command of that ship's CO. The Triton (follow-on to BAMS-D) will be tasked by someone way above the ship's CO do much bigger picture tasking than tactical recce.
It also can be flown into an area where the threat or political situation means you can't send a Romeo or Sierra.

That was the original concept - FS as the eyes of the LCS. Then it died, and was reborn when there was a requirement for ship-based ISR from the eaters of snakes. The other way of doing it is Scan Eagle, as you mentioned, though it's small and limited in capabilities and payload.

The Fire Scout-B is adequate; the C is an upgraded version that's intended to address the B's shortcomings. Different airframe, but the 'drone boxes' (which are the hard parts to develop) are all the same. The running joke was that the B's become a testbed for the C.

Fire Scout's not a "drone LAMPS". There's not any even remotely theoretical discussion about making it into one. It's for ISR and that's it. Maybe armed reconnaisance at some point - big maybe. It's very far from perfect, but it does the job and there's not really any other alternatives. Most of the conceptual discussion is about what to do with FS once the requirement goes away, and it'd need a lot of modification to do anything other than ISR, but frankly, I don't think the guys we were working for are going out of business any time soon.