Army Scout after LHX...RAH...ARH
- Thread starter yasotay
- Start date
- Joined
- 4 July 2010
- Messages
- 2,399
- Reaction score
- 2,718
Didn't see this posted yet, but last month the Army said their AAS options are down to an OH-58 SLEP or a new-start development project as their review of off-the shelf candidates "did not find a single aircraft out there that could meet Army requirements."
Potential bad news for Sikorsky and the S-97 Raider? Or maybe the Army wants a JMR scout rotorcraft?
"U.S. Army Backing Off On AAS Plans"
By Amy Butler, Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
October 28, 2013
Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_28_2013_p32-629561.xml
"U.S. Army Backing Off On AAS Plans"
By Amy Butler, Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
October 28, 2013
Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_10_28_2013_p32-629561.xml
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,099
- Reaction score
- 4,822
A survivable, longer range, faster, more lethal AAS w/ troop carrying capability is not in the works but necessary. more risk than it appears anyone wants to manage..especially given the pervasive dysfunction..Triton said:
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
Depends on how many troops you want to carry. MH-6 carries 6 troops on external planks. Strangely the S-97 has room for 6 in an interior cabin. B) Six times ~300 lbs = ~1800 lbs. What is the payload of an OH-58D?F-14D said:
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
yasotay said:
1671 lbs. fuel and stuff. MH-6 is not a scout. S-97 has room for 6, but that's because that's how they decided to size the demonstrator, and because you aren't going to be carrying anyone externally if you want to get the speed the X2 cost premium buys you. If they just want a scout, the S-97 may be thought to be too large (gross weight is twice that of the OH-58). The S-97 is a demonstrator, which may be able to translate to a production vehicle. Maybe Sikorsky, when push comes to shove, may look at offering a smaller X2 vehicle, if possible. The S-97 could build confidence in the technology in a conservative customer. and, even if the S-97 never gets a production order it could serve its purpose by showing that X2 can be practical in the real world and not just work for a few minutes or hours.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,099
- Reaction score
- 4,822
Thinkin in times o-Hybrid warfare or whatever the new name and even Combined Arms that commanders would not at least the capability they have currently ie 2-4 troops..No more Commache'sF-14D said:
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
I think if you look at all of the contenders they all had extra space. To be sure the Army said none were suitable, but if you are trying to get a rotorcraft for the Army, SOF and maybe the Navy I suspect some extra space will be needed. I have to agree with jsport that future operations are going to require more flexibility in aircraft. I think the days of purpose built rotorcraft may be coming to an end. Besides if the Army outright cancels the AAS program, what aircraft will be doing the mission of the OH-58D once they run out of fatigue life? There is only one other armed rotorcraft in the Army fleet.jsport said:
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
yasotay said:
They all had extra space because they were all adaptations of existing designs. Maybe that was one of the reasons none of them were acceptable. The OH-58 also the extra room in the cabin. With all the weight from the permanently mounted scout avionics, the usability of that space goes down. The H-6 series doesn't lug all that around, which is why it can lift what it does.
Now the S-97 is over twice the weight and requires over four times the power of the OH-58. A lot will depend on what the Army is going to want from its AAS. They may just want a pure scout like the OH-58, in which case the S-97 itself might be overkill. That doesn't rule out a somewhat smaller X2-technology bird. As I said, if the S-97 builds confidence in X2 technology, it's a complete success even if only two are ever built. OTOH, if Army wants the ability to carry around all those avionics and do light attack and transport a few troops, the S-97 itself may be more apt, although at that point you're also infringing on FVL Light.
I'd like to see the technology go further, although I'm not sure what this size vehicle would offer the Navy. It is true in any case that we shouldn't keep kicking the OH-58 can down the road. I mean, at some point you've got to stop rebuilding them (I hope).
yasotay said:
Won't mast height also be an issue with air transport?
- Joined
- 11 March 2006
- Messages
- 8,631
- Reaction score
- 3,470
Not for the C-17,I think:
(Drawings spoiled from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm
and http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:ca16a87f-ade6-47a4-a043-523bfbadb861)
(Drawings spoiled from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/c-17.htm
and http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog:a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost:ca16a87f-ade6-47a4-a043-523bfbadb861)
Attachments
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
Triton said:
Sikorsky claims they'll be able to pack four S-97s in a C-17, but are not specific how much disassembly will be required. Does anyone know the overall height of the S-97 gear down and gear up? Those numbers don't show up in the specs or illustrations.
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,833
- Reaction score
- 1,915
I've always advocated that the US Army for the $7 billion dollar's they waisted on the LHX program in return for nothing. It would have been better of adopting the Agusta A 129 Mangusta International (with five-bladed rotor, M197 gun in a customized nose turret, support for Hellfire and Stinger missiles, advanced avionics equipment and two LHTEC T800 turboshafts) and it's light battlefield helicopter variant - the A 129 LBH. Not would have it been $billion's cheaper, it would have meet the compatibility requirements of the combat scout and light transport requirements of LHX, as well as it being in operational service more than a decade ago!!
The only stumbling blocks I could see with the adoption of the Agusta A 129 derivatives in US Army service:
1/ The arrogance and ignorance of Buy American Only lobby within Congress and U.S. defence industry
2/ There is no doubt in my mind that the US Army would have taken this cost effective and workable proposal of the A 129/A 129 LBH and tried to reinvent the wheel , added stupendous and unreasonable modifications, added crazy amounts of sensors and weapon systems, re-engine it ............
Regards
Pioneer
The only stumbling blocks I could see with the adoption of the Agusta A 129 derivatives in US Army service:
1/ The arrogance and ignorance of Buy American Only lobby within Congress and U.S. defence industry
2/ There is no doubt in my mind that the US Army would have taken this cost effective and workable proposal of the A 129/A 129 LBH and tried to reinvent the wheel , added stupendous and unreasonable modifications, added crazy amounts of sensors and weapon systems, re-engine it ............
Regards
Pioneer
Attachments
- Joined
- 21 May 2006
- Messages
- 2,833
- Reaction score
- 1,915
Oh did I add, that the A 129 (in it's Scorpion model to the Australian Army's AIR 87 competition) can be readily deployed by Lockheed C130 Hercules with very quick turn-around. Preparation time for embarkation is just three hours and it can be readied for operations at the other end in less than four hours. It is also marinised (salt water protected) for prolonged ship-board deployments. This only would have added to the flexibility and deployable aspects of the Mangusta in the LHX requirement. Freeing up strategic assets like Lockheed C-5 Galaxy's and McDonnell Douglas (Boeing) C-17A's
Regards
Pioneer
Regards
Pioneer
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
Pioneer said:
Once the Army "dumbed down" the requirements for LHX, a lot of people asked questions similar to this although not necessarily pointing to the A129, which has not been a blazing success on the export market. The thought was if you're not asking for much more than regular helicopter performance , except for "stealth", why not just put the new avionics in an updated existing design?
Of course bureaucratic empires are not built that way so that idea went nowhere.
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
A-129 is a pretty good bird. It has one small problem - NIH
I do not believe the AW felt there was enough willingness to go to the wild side (i.e. Eurocopter or AW) within the US government. There is a significant difference between corporate mentality and government.
It would not surprise me if the Army decides to let the scout effort lapse in the current funding situation. Yet they will still face the wrath of the Congressional delegations from the great states of Arizona, Texas, Conneticut and perhaps Pennsylvania. That is just for the primes.
I do not believe the AW felt there was enough willingness to go to the wild side (i.e. Eurocopter or AW) within the US government. There is a significant difference between corporate mentality and government.
It would not surprise me if the Army decides to let the scout effort lapse in the current funding situation. Yet they will still face the wrath of the Congressional delegations from the great states of Arizona, Texas, Conneticut and perhaps Pennsylvania. That is just for the primes.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
yasotay said:
NIH is always a problem, but I think the situation here was more that Army wanted more performance (although not as much as was the original plan), and "stealth", and they wanted their own program. There was also talk of buying the "Four Bladed Whiskey", whcih was the Marines' AH-1W with a new rotor (this is not the same as the AH-1Z) with new avionics, but that got shot down as a peceived threat to Apache.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,099
- Reaction score
- 4,822
... investing in a next generation scout worth 'investing in' needs to rival Apache in many respects including lethality as threats will not remain static. The Russians seem capable of holding troops (however cramped) in an attack helio...again a new design and yes more risk..Could be largely base on an enlarged Commache.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
jsport said:
That would be JMR/FVL medium. Scout is smaller. Of course, the question arises, is a dedicated scout worth the cost anymore?
Actually the only Russian "attack " helicopter that carries troops is the MI-24/MI-35. The closest Western comparison would be with the stillborn AH-3/S-67. Mi-28 and KA-52 are two seaters, the latter having side-by-side seating as apparently will FVL- Medium attack.
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,099
- Reaction score
- 4,822
The Mi-28 is now quite famous for it's compartment. This has been known for sometime. The compartment fits three troops however cramped. Three is good number if someone needs to be rescued.F-14D said:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?99988-Russian-Photos-(updated-on-regular-basis)/page3135
Cdrs want observers placed on high ground and not to use a Blackhawk size craft to accomplish that task regardless of the type of conflict.
A combined scout/atk may be an option but using a lifter for attack and scout is a bad idea. A armed FVL size should be considered some sort of standoff gunship as it would not suited for the close fight for multiple reasons.
The Mi-28 is not well suited for fast roping etc. so a projected Scout/Atk must be able to quickly & safely deliver and recover a sniper/observer tm to an urban rooftop .
jsport
what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
- Joined
- 27 July 2011
- Messages
- 7,099
- Reaction score
- 4,822
Ok, the Sikorsky X-2 AAS looks impressive. Contension would that a clean stealth AAS (troop carrying)/ Atk (internally stowed msls) would still be faster, stealthier and more capable in close including possibly even air to air fight. . Whoopee for passengers in a dogfight.
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
If you design the aircraft to be agile with ~1500 lbs., of payload and then only put ~600 lbs., you will have a lot of power to manuever with. Sikorsky has made a lot of claims about maneuverability of the X2, but I don't think we have actually seen them do that with an X2 aircraft. With all of the torque at the rotorhead that might be real, but they have not done it yet.jsport said:
Could the pusher prop of the S-97 Raider be used to manuevers? Is it forward only or is reverse possible? Sikorsky has also claimed that X2 had one third the turning radius of a conventional helicopter.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
Triton said:
It can go to flat pitch and even into Beta. Since the ABC/X2 concept cancels torque, usually used for yaw in conventional helos, I'd guess that will have to come from some kind of additional differntial pitch fo the rotor blades as necesssary
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
In forum Sikorsky has claimed a number of maneuver benefits for the X-2. It's ability to turn in one third the space of a conventional helicopter is predicated on having thrust to sustain the g loading through the maneuver. So I think this is a valid claim. Certainly having a means to develop negative thrust along the centerline of the aircraft (prop into beta) will have the same effect as doing so with a prop on landing as we commonly see with turbo-prop aircraft. Likewise, acceleration, over conventional helicopter should be significantly improved.
- Joined
- 3 October 2007
- Messages
- 1,960
- Reaction score
- 1,159
yasotay said:
What I was wondering about is agility, especially yaw, in the hover/low speed regime.
Of course, the danger with the beta prop is that it can be used as an airbrake which permits diving attack maneuvers. Remember that although USAF always opposed the Cheyenne, they didn't yell all that much until Lockheed/Army showed that with its pusher in beta it could dive bomb. Then they really went ballistic. Don't want that complication to show up for JMR or AAS.
- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 4,085
- Reaction score
- 4,464
No doubt the X2 will have the same capability. I recall a video showing the X2 backing up and doing a "snap" turn to deal with a threat. I too am interested in how well the yaw rate can be generated around the hub. I recall that someone told me that the Kamov helicopters are slow to start yaw, but accelerate rather quickly once started. I have no idea how this compares to conventional rotorcraft.
Similar threads
-
A fictional C-2 Greyhound successor?!- Started by fightingirish
- Replies: 1