I saw that, but Google (hard info is difficult to come by) tells me that the folded length is 48.5 feet, which I think is still too long for a DDG hangar. Google/Jane's tells me that the internal volume of the H-92 is 685 ft3 versus H-60 410 ft3. Would increased internal volume be a plus for a future helo? I could see it for Sierras, but are Romeos volume-limited? The increased power (3000 shp x 2) sounds good, as does the increase in TO weight. The VH-92A has been problematic, but I think that is a POTUS secure comms issue rather than an H-92 issue.I believe the tail folds as well. The footprint is supposed be smaller than that of the Sea King S-61/H-3.
View attachment 39884
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hot new helicopter/rotorcraft news
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
From a purely numbers point of view, the Romeo is significantly more volume limited than the Sierra with all of the boxes and mission racks/systems in the back. Plus the ALFs, if installed.
I've mentioned this before, but when talking to a -299 rep at a NARG one year, the engineers ran the numbers and in order to put new engines in a Seahawk, you have to replace the blades so not to over-torque the tranny. So one potential FVL entrant might be a -60 Seahawk airframe with -60W spinny bits, and maybe even a new transmission for the inevitable life extension.
@IKE mentioned there was some smaller -401D (I think?) upgrade coming, but he's got the goods on that.
Army canceled FARA last week.
Whatever coattails the navy was hoping to ride there are gone.
Long(er than we probably expected) live R/S for the navy.
Whatever coattails the navy was hoping to ride there are gone.
Long(er than we probably expected) live R/S for the navy.
I don’t disagree, but FARA isn’t FVL. Isn’t FVL where all the hotness is now?
So…how many Armed Reconnaissance programs has the Army cancelled now? Are we in the double digits yet?
I wonder if the army guys are over on their site talking about zombie Kiowa’s?
FARA was FVL. It just wasn't very ambitious FVL.
This doesn't affect anything for the Navy. I don't think it was ever in the market for a 2-man scout helo designed for NOE.
As long as the Navy is wedded to the DDG it will be stuck with the 60 and perhaps some type of UAS to fly off its deck. No manned high speed designs will fit, and no other helo a sufficiently better than H-60 to make a switch cost effective.
I wonder if it would be possible in the longer term to reinvent the 60: FBW (as with H-92)? T901 engines at 3,000 shp each? new transmission? improved rotors? Et cetera.
PRC basically did this with the Z-20. Not a game-changer.
You need speed for range and retreating blade stall doesn’t care about infinite shp.
As @thump said, all the SHP increase in the world won’t get you a ton more a Sea Level. The up-engined SOAR birds needed it to work in high/hot/humid conditions we just don't see off boats. I'd love to see a S-92 variant that could fit in a DDG hangar (the big brains at Sikorsky and PMA know already) so we don't have to live with the legacy of the H-60 being C-130 ship-able from a 1960s Army requirement.
I don't know if another variant of the -60 is the right option, with some stuff from the -W and -M. FWIW a few PaveHawk dudes I talked to were mad about the W being a fat pig and just wanted SOAR -M models with a few mods. It seems like the industry is stuck in the current generation and the FVL options (Tilt and Pusher) get you speed/range but with huge design tradeoffs.
I really think Big Navy needs to eat the costs with a new design that can move beyond the S-92. At some point you can't just keep building more Hawks.
I don't know if another variant of the -60 is the right option, with some stuff from the -W and -M. FWIW a few PaveHawk dudes I talked to were mad about the W being a fat pig and just wanted SOAR -M models with a few mods. It seems like the industry is stuck in the current generation and the FVL options (Tilt and Pusher) get you speed/range but with huge design tradeoffs.
I really think Big Navy needs to eat the costs with a new design that can move beyond the S-92. At some point you can't just keep building more Hawks.
The last line is the key one.
The DDG requirement is what is killing any chance to do that. Your manned FVL designs don't fit, whether tiltrotor- or blender-based.
That leaves you with other helicopters, none of which represent big improvements (I don't know why people have stuck on S-92...it's not that great), or various H-60 SLEPS. Adding 5-40KIAS and a little more lift isn't exactly game-changing. There's little reason to absorb the EXORBITANT cost of a new design (not just the aircraft--training, spares, manning, basing, etc.) unless there's a huge leap. So if you want a manned platform that's DDG compatible, it's various flavors of H-60 all the way down.
You could commit to a large UAS to replace the R. That's probably the real solution, but a VTOL UAS that large is a good amount of time and money away. Given competing priorities, that's a ways off.
Lastly, you could split the fleet and have a big-deck aircraft and DDG aircraft. If you're on the big deck, a navalized FLRAA (for example) would work great. You could put the "C" back in CSAR and reach a long ways from Mother. It could also hunt small surface threats a lot better than F-18s.
Yep, two types that excel in their respective jobs is probably better than one types that can do both, sort of.
I think there's opportunity to move forward a generation, but as mentioned, it would need to be financed by Uncle Sam. Bell and Sikorsky put too much money into FVL that likely won't see full adoption (just my speculation), so they aren't going out on a limb without a money parachute. Any Hawk derivative is still using design fundamental concepts from the 1970s. I mentioned the S-92 since it isn't crutched by the "fit two into a C-130" requirement that was unique to the Hawk, so you can actually stand up in it. The tiny ass cabin of the Hawks (and no ramp) is stuck in that requirement and lots of compromises come from it. Maybe I'm crazy that we need another generation of manned helicopter. 🤷🏼♂️