Tilt Rotor Gunships Coming Your Way....

[46Driver]

Just in the Dallas Morning News (aka, home of Bell Helicopter....)
http://cnniw.yellowbrix.com/pages/cnniw/Story.nsp?story_id=53620906&ID=cnniw&scategory=Aviation&

The 609 has a collective, the V-22 has a "Blottle". Wonder which one this will have?

 

[KBayDog]

Is the 609 maneuverable enough for its proposed role?

 

[Whalebite]

Wouldn't the f-35 be the perfect airframe for this, without spending all that extra money on something that risky that hasn't proved reliable in it's first embodyment?

 

[zuggerat]

F-35? how do you mean

 

[phrogdriver]

The F-35 is a brand-new aircraft. I don't know how it can have a reputation for reliability yet. Fixed-wing CAS fills a whole different role than rotary-wing. F/W provides ordinance on a point, at a given time. R/W CAS can provide suppression, and can see much smaller targets by virtue of working lower and slower. A tilt-rotor would combine some of the advantages of each, plus would be able to work with the V22.

A skinny V22 would have a butt-ton of ordinance load, but would be outlandishly expensive. The 609 would be a better match in size, but isn't designed as a combat aircraft. We definitely need a follow-on for the Huey/Cobra. As I always point out in regards to the V22, there's only so far you can go with a helicopter. There are constraints imposed by the laws of physics on its speed. You've got to step outside the box.

 

[Whalebite]

Well,
The article talks about a VTOL support aircraft for the Osprey, while the F-35 ( if I'm not mistaken, I mean the JSF) is SVTOL, I saw a video of the demonstrator do a VTOL, transition to horizontal flight and go supersonic. Wouldn't this be a good aircraft for this (or the harrier too) I guess the only thing wrong, would be if the harrier or the JSF couldn't fly slow enough, I would think at least the harrier could as it is not designed to be supersonic. When the Osprey goes horizontal, and the jet flew slow couldn't this work? If not off the shelf, would it not make sence to make a model variant to the F-35 VTOL/lighter to support this role, than to "start from scratch" ?
This is all conjecture, I have no real facts, just an idea.

 

[skidkid]

If the Osprey is any indication 2015 really means 2051.

 

[46Driver]

Well,
The article talks about a VTOL support aircraft for the Osprey, while the F-35 ( if I'm not mistaken, I mean the JSF) is SVTOL, I saw a video of the demonstrator do a VTOL, transition to horizontal flight and go supersonic. Wouldn't this be a good aircraft for this (or the harrier too) I guess the only thing wrong, would be if the harrier or the JSF couldn't fly slow enough, I would think at least the harrier could as it is not designed to be supersonic. When the Osprey goes horizontal, and the jet flew slow couldn't this work? If not off the shelf, would it not make sence to make a model variant to the F-35 VTOL/lighter to support this role, than to "start from scratch" ?
This is all conjecture, I have no real facts, just an idea.

IF the F-35 is anything like the Harrier, it will be severely compromised in on-station time.

PhrogDriver, you are starting to sound like Scotty, "Captain, I canna break the laws of physics...." Sorry, its one of those days.......

 

[bch]

Wouldn't the f-35 be the perfect airframe for this, without spending all that extra money on something that risky that hasn't proved reliable in it's first embodyment?

I don't think you will ever find a jet that can provide the kind of CAS that R/W aircraft can. And if you were talking about the VSTOL version, it is still grossly overweight, so there is also the issue of not being able to carry a sufficent ordance load.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

Either way, it says they won't have a working gunship prototype until 2015. A lot can happen in eleven years- this speculation might be coming a bit early.

11 years.... what is this world coming to? It took less time than that to put a man on the moon.

 

[jarhead]

what kind of escort can a tilt rotor provide when at cruising altitude?

.....................

the A-10 (when they aren't targeting Marines)

I don't think you will ever find a jet that can provide the kind of CAS that R/W aircraft can. And if you were talking about the VSTOL version, it is still grossly overweight, so there is also the issue of not being able to carry a sufficent ordance load.

 

[zuggerat]

phrog you nailed the whole idea behind my "how do you mean?"

 

[squeeze]

Well,
The article talks about a VTOL support aircraft for the Osprey, while the F-35 ( if I'm not mistaken, I mean the JSF) is SVTOL, I saw a video of the demonstrator do a VTOL, transition to horizontal flight and go supersonic. Wouldn't this be a good aircraft for this (or the harrier too) I guess the only thing wrong, would be if the harrier or the JSF couldn't fly slow enough, I would think at least the harrier could as it is not designed to be supersonic. When the Osprey goes horizontal, and the jet flew slow couldn't this work? If not off the shelf, would it not make sence to make a model variant to the F-35 VTOL/lighter to support this role, than to "start from scratch" ?
This is all conjecture, I have no real facts, just an idea.

Because jet aircraft consume much greater amounts of gas than helicopters do -- turbofans are designed to be optimum performers at altitude. For a VTOL-capable aircraft to hover, it requires a great deal of fuel and would leave it with virtually no on-station time. Slow + low in a jet burns insane amounts of gas...

And like 46driver said... it's all about loiter time and ability to engage targets down low. A cobra can see and shoot a hell of a lot more than an F/A-18 can in a similar time frame.

/jet guy saying we can't do that

 

[skidkid]

Will we need this when the osprey gets cancelled? I wish Bell would concentrate on making tilt rotor work then look a derivatives

 

[phrogdriver]

Oh ye of little faith, skidkid. Unless the Communists get elected, i.e. Kerry, we are way to far down the tiltrotor road to turn back now. Think 3-5 years to even get started on something else, even if it were an already existing airframe. That's going with a 60, which is 30 years old. And that bird would have to last 20-30 years more. I just think that's short-sighted.