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!

 

[phrogdriver]

OK….OK…I guess tilt guys gotta tilt!

SB>1 slogan:

“More complex than a tiltrotor, but almost 3/4 the speed and half the range!”

 

[Gatordev]

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?

That's not how the CONOPS work. When a CSG rolls up to its destination, all the ships don't stay in a circle next to one another. The non-AW ships may move far away (by helo standards) from the carrier to do "their ASW/fleet defense thing." And that ASW/fleet defense thing involves moving sensors around to build a bigger picture than what the ship alone can do. The ship can only really "see" about 10-20 miles unless it's looking at an air contact.

Also, wouldn't you want the ASW to be happening some distance from that DDG and still be able to put the shitty torp on top of the target, vs having the target right next to the DDG (ie, in the target's weapon range) when the DDG can shoot its shitty torp?

PLUS...independent steaming ops are still a thing.

 

[Griz882]

That's not how the CONOPS work. When a CSG rolls up to its destination, all the ships don't stay in a circle next to one another. The non-AW ships may move far away (by helo standards) from the carrier to do "their ASW/fleet defense thing." And that ASW/fleet defense thing involves moving sensors around to build a bigger picture than what the ship alone can do. The ship can only really "see" about 10-20 miles unless it's looking at an air contact.

Also, wouldn't you want the ASW to be happening some distance from that DDG and still be able to put the shitty torp on top of the target, vs having the target right next to the DDG (ie, in the target's weapon range) when the DDG can shoot its shitty torp?

PLUS...independent steaming ops are still a thing.

I don’t dispute what you write, I was simply asking the question of speed and range vs proximity. Trust me, I’m not the navy’s next A.T. Mahan, and was simply questioning why the WWII Atlantic Campaign “Hunter Killer” (airplanes working from CVE’s with destroyers) concept couldn’t be revamped ASSUMING deck landing space on destroyers and cruisers is always going to be the limiting factor in future vertical lift design. Sure, drones are the simple answer but as many here note, they are still pretty far away from the necessary capacity.

Quick side note…I think Mahan once said; “CONOPS change.”

 

[Hair Warrior]

A.T. Mahan also said it’s easy to get appointments are your nearest DEERS/RAPIDS facility, so I take his strategies with a grain of salt.

 

[Griz882]

A.T. Mahan also said it’s easy to get appointments are your nearest DEERS/RAPIDS facility, so I take his strategies with a grain of salt.

I think that was his dad, Dennis. He was an army dude and not to be trusted.

 

[croakerfish]

A vehicle in 5000-7000 lb category with 2 hour endurance would be feasible in a few years.

How is that going to feasibly replace a 60?

 

[phrogdriver]

Could be done with battery electric quad copter UAV assuming battery and electric propulsion technology continues is trajectory of innovation coupled with advances in sensor technology. A vehicle in 5000-7000 lb category with 2 hour endurance would be feasible in a few years.

But with what *useful* load?

 

[ChuckMK23]

But with what *useful* load?

Fair point.

 

[ea6bflyr]

I don’t dispute what you write, I was simply asking the question of speed and range vs proximity. Trust me, I’m not the navy’s next A.T. Mahan, and was simply questioning why the WWII Atlantic Campaign “Hunter Killer” (airplanes working from CVE’s with destroyers) concept couldn’t be revamped ASSUMING deck landing space on destroyers and cruisers is always going to be the limiting factor in future vertical lift design. Sure, drones are the simple answer but as many here note, they are still pretty far away from the necessary capacity.

Quick side note…I think Mahan once said; “CONOPS change.”

lol…😂😂😂

 

[ea6bflyr]

I don’t dispute what you write, I was simply asking the question of speed and range vs proximity. Trust me, I’m not the navy’s next A.T. Mahan, and was simply questioning why the WWII Atlantic Campaign “Hunter Killer” (airplanes working from CVE’s with destroyers) concept couldn’t be revamped ASSUMING deck landing space on destroyers and cruisers is always going to be the limiting factor in future vertical lift design. Sure, drones are the simple answer but as many here note, they are still pretty far away from the necessary capacity.

Quick side note…I think Mahan once said; “CONOPS change.”

Or maybe it was this one…

 

[SynixMan]

I don’t dispute what you write, I was simply asking the question of speed and range vs proximity. Trust me, I’m not the navy’s next A.T. Mahan, and was simply questioning why the WWII Atlantic Campaign “Hunter Killer” (airplanes working from CVE’s with destroyers) concept couldn’t be revamped ASSUMING deck landing space on destroyers and cruisers is always going to be the limiting factor in future vertical lift design. Sure, drones are the simple answer but as many here note, they are still pretty far away from the necessary capacity.

Quick side note…I think Mahan once said; “CONOPS change.”

Very capable helicopters and in flight refueled MPRA get you a lot of this capability that didn't exist in WWII.