Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news

[Hotdogs]

SLEP the Rs until the next tech breakthrough comes, which will probably be some type of advanced UAS in the late ‘30s/early ‘40s.

The Navy is stuck on having the MS able to hangar on the DDG. The V-280 is still too big for that. So is the SB>1…see above, even if it didn’t suck.

Better question is if its worth modifying CRUDES to hold a V-280 instead of vice versa. The fuck do I know though, I'm asking a service to think outside the box and doesn't realize they're at the top of the technology/competition S-curve already. We're really just talking about the DES part of this equation during the timeframe we're referring anyways. As much as I am of a proponent of multi-mission armed UAS - moving people and things is always going to be an essential mission set regardless of the ship. That mission set will not be performed by robots anytime soon. Way to much utility in a TR in terms of operational depth and air to air refueling that provides better capability.

 

[phrogdriver]

So I’ll toss this out there…wouldn’t having a faster platform (like the SB-1) mean that you could put it on a carrier or LHD leaving the cruisers and destroyers to do their ASW/fleet defense thing free of having to conduct helicopter operations? To save time, I already cede the argument that carrier deck space is limited…I almost feel like we need to go back to the old days of having a CVS on hand…have someone at the Pentagon call me, I have an idea.

Really stuck on that SB>1, eh? It’s a lot of complexity for 50-70 more knots.

But yes, that’s an argument for a bifurcated fleet.

Being that distributed maritime operations are the order of the day, DDGs will be alone and unafraid quite a bit, though.

 

[phrogdriver]

Better question is if its worth modifying CRUDES to hold a V-280 instead of vice versa. The fuck do I know though, I'm asking a service to think outside the box and doesn't realize they're at the top of the technology/competition S-curve already. We're really just talking about the DES part of this equation during the timeframe we're referring anyways. As much as I am of a proponent of multi-mission armed UAS - moving people and things is always going to be an essential mission set regardless of the ship. That mission set will not be performed by robots anytime soon. Way to much utility in a TR in terms of operational depth and air to air refueling that provides better capability.

Increasing the size of the flight deck and hangars is no small task.

The Constellation FFGs look almost identical to the Italian FREMM they’re based on, but they’re 80% different and cost significantly more.

It’s not just the area. It’s the weight capacity, and the tiltrotor weighs 40% more than a 60 (and the SB1 even more, BTW). More structure means more weight, a higher CG, etc, etc.

This is the kind of thing that drives planners nuts.

 

[Griz882]

Really stuck on that SB>1, eh? It’s a lot of complexity for 50-70 more knots.

But yes, that’s an argument for a bifurcated fleet.

Being that distributed maritime operations are the order of the day, DDGs will be alone and unafraid quite a bit, though.

OK….OK…I guess tilt guys gotta tilt!