The great Helo debate

[SynixMan]

Huh?

We keep doing incremental improvements on a design from 1970 and making it do things it wasn't designed to do. I love the Sierra to death, but they made some weird decisions with it. Sadly, America hasn't successfully fielded a completely new helicopter design since the Blackhawk (unless you count the Osprey, which they tried to kill too many times to count), and probably won't while I'm still flying.

 

[Pags]

We keep doing incremental improvements on a design from 1970 and making it do things it wasn't designed to do. I love the Sierra to death, but they made some weird decisions with it. Sadly, America hasn't successfully fielded a completely new helicopter design since the Blackhawk (unless you count the Osprey, which they tried to kill too many times to count), and probably won't while I'm still flying.

I'd agree that helo development has stagnated. It's taken until the 53k to get a lot of the technology that has been commonplace in fighters for a generation into helos. Part of that is availability of money and part is why spend the money when it already works? For instance, the Army is still flying the Chinook, which has been around since Vietnam. Same with the H-1, H-46, and H-53. Although the 60 design seems dated, it's at least a generation of RW development ahead of many of its peers.

The Sierra was a compromise of an airframe to begin with that USN got on a steal. And while the Navy has done some different things with it, many of the capabilities are ones that the 60 has been able to do for a long time. USA 60s carried hellfires, rockets, and guns back in the 80s. The 60r is far more capable than the 60b or 60f, both of which were improvements over the h-2 and h-3. About the weirdest thing the Navy has done with the 60 is try and make it tow. But they've done that with almost every other RW airframe as well to include the H-3, H-46, and H-53.

Some of sikorskys foreign customers have even added gun turrets to the airframe. It really shows the versatility of the base 60 design that it can successfully do so many disparate missions.

 

[Renegade One]

We keep doing incremental improvements on a design from 1970 and making it do things it wasn't designed to do. I love the Sierra to death, but they made some weird decisions with it.

Is there some new breakthrough RW technology upon which Navy and/or Marine Corps Aviation could re-capitalize?

Putting enhanced capes [and more] on what you have is sometimes better than the wet-dream of the next-best technology…which probably couldn't be fielded within your career, if today's RFP/ proposal/competitive contract award/design/prototype/industry fly-off demos/final contract award/full-scale development/LRIP/DTE/OTE/FRP/IOC timelines are relevant.

 

[Pags]

Is there some new breakthrough RW technology upon which Navy and/or Marine Corps Aviation could re-capitalize?

Putting enhanced capes [and more] on what you have is sometimes better than the wet-dream of the next-best technology…which probably couldn't be fielded within your career, if today's RFP/ proposal/competitive contract award/design/prototype/industry fly-off demos/final contract award/full-scale development/LRIP/DTE/OTE/FRP/IOC timelines are relevant.

This article discusses that USN and USA will be working together for replacement RW platforms:
http://news.usni.org/2013/12/24/navy-work-army-next-generation-helicopter-program

That said, some of the designs they're considering seem to be optimized for the assault role vice the maritime role. Several tilt rotors designs and a couple of compound helo designs, a la sikorsky's X-2. This is just my opinion, but these platforms seem to be designed more as aircraft that land vertically than a helicopter. For instance, the V-22 is really an airplane that can land like a helo. If you want it to do helo missions other than land vertically, it's not as good at those as it is as flying fast/far as compared to helos. But it's not very good at doing things that the Navy would want it to do, such as SAR and VERTREP. I also imagine it wouldn't be very optimal at ASW or SUW. to make up for the difference in operating cost it'd have to be a lot better to make it a worthwhile trade in my opinion.

 

[Gatordev]

I'd agree that helo development has stagnated. It's taken until the 53k to get a lot of the technology that has been commonplace in fighters for a generation into helos.

Within the confines of helo stuff versus fighter-centric stuff, what is the -53K getting that the Romeo doesn't have? The biggest thing I could think of would be a useful glass cockpit/nav system, but technically the -53 already had much of that before the K. ASE could be another one, but even the Sierra has had something mildly fighter-like for a while (right?).

Is there some black box you're referring to? Most of the things I can think of wouldn't be useful on a Log bird, so I'm curious to hear. I have no doubt I don't know what I don't know.

 

[Renegade One]

This article discusses that USN and USA will be working together for replacement RW platforms:

Pretty sure that's a formula for success…the missions being so common and all...

If you want it to do helo missions other than land vertically, it's not as good at those as it is as flying fast/far as compared to helos. But it's not very good at doing things that the Navy would want it to do, such as SAR and VERTREP. I also imagine it wouldn't be very optimal at ASW or SUW. to make up for the difference in operating cost it'd have to be a lot better to make it a worthwhile trade in my opinion.

My opinions seems to align with yours. Which is kinda weird...

 

[Pags]

Within the confines of helo stuff versus fighter-centric stuff, what is the -53K getting that the Romeo doesn't have? The biggest thing I could think of would be a useful glass cockpit/nav system, but technically the -53 already had much of that before the K. ASE could be another one, but even the Sierra has had something mildly fighter-like for a while (right?).

Is there some black box you're referring to? Most of the things I can think of wouldn't be useful on a Log bird, so I'm curious to hear. I have no doubt I don't know what I don't know.

The big differences in the 53k are fly by wire and lots of weight saving to include composite construction, lighter gearboxes, etc. also included are improved dynamic components (motors and rotors for the FW crowd). Very much an evolutionary step vice revolutionary, which is ok.

I'm petty sure most USMC RW ASE suites are fairly up to date. H-46s and 53s both had DIRCM incorporated during OIF/OEF.

A few years ago the 60r and 60S had basically identical ASE suites, so not sure what you're talking about.

 

[Gatordev]

The big differences in the 53k are fly by wire and lots of weight saving to include composite construction, lighter gearboxes, etc. also included are improved dynamic components (motors and rotors for the FW crowd). Very much an evolutionary step vice revolutionary, which is ok.

Ahh, okay, makes sense.

A few years ago the 60r and 60S had basically identical ASE suites, so not sure what you're talking about.

The S has an APR, the R just has a faux RWR that's really just a graphical depiction of the RWR using the normal ESM system. I'm honestly not sure what's public or not at this point, so I'll stop there, but they're very different systems with different capabilities for their respective missions.

 

[busdriver]

The JMR program is 15-20 years into the future, everything else is really just evolution of current types and systems integration improvements. To be fair, there hasn't really been a revolutionary change in fixed wing stuff either. As compromised as the V-22 is, it's probably the closest thing to revolutionary aerodynamic change the aviation world has seen in a long time, despite flying the XV-15 back in the 70's.

 

[Pags]

Ahh, okay, makes sense.



The S has an APR, the R just has a faux RWR that's really just a graphical depiction of the RWR using the normal ESM system. I'm honestly not sure what's public or not at this point, so I'll stop there, but they're very different systems with different capabilities for their respective missions.

Huh, didn't know that....concur, prolly best to discontinue open forum ASE discussions.

 

[Pags]

Pretty sure that's a formula for success…the missions being so common and all...

My opinions seems to align with yours. Which is kinda weird...

On my last float the SAR bubbas had both their birds go down and we were left trying to fulfill the SAR requirements in LHD NATOPS from the ACE. With a Phrog ACE this was pretty easy, you just made the ACE cough up a Phrog and made them fly HC appreciation bags. With a VMM ACE this got a bit more interesting and I think every RW T/M/S except the snakes got to play SAR crew at least one raft kicker flight, including the SAR shitter.

I even asked the VMGR rep if his guys wanted to tank overhead so I didn't have to worry about refueling the SAR-sprey on deck. Our Air OpsO, who was a cobra driver, was even less enthused with my idea of rigging a raft to the cobra BRU so they could fly raft kicker/pickler too.

 

[Hotdogs]

Some of sikorskys foreign customers have even added gun turrets to the airframe. It really shows the versatility of the base 60 design that it can successfully do so many disparate missions.

With out an integrated sensor, large caliber HEI round, and point/shoot fire control system with a solid bore sight, those dudes might be pissing into the wind. Uncompensated fixed guns would probably be accurate as long as the arm length isn't so far off the longitudinal axis of the aircraft that it kicks the fuselage around. You can strap all kinds of stuff on a 60, but unless you make some serious design changes a la original UH-1 to AH-1 Vietnam style, it's not going to be as effective as a dedicated attack platform. A nice fit in a pinch role? Probably.

 

[Flash]

I'd agree that helo development has stagnated.

How can that be so if the Chinese are making their own H-60/S-70's now, the 'Z-20'?

 

[lowflier03]

Gun Turret on a -60 done right. (At least done better than the current abortions the USN is known for)
However I guarantee that despite all the hand wringing over close defense, lethality gap, and armed helos, the USN will never spend money on a single one of those.

 

[Pags]

With out an integrated sensor, large caliber HEI round, and point/shoot fire control system with a solid bore sight, those dudes might be pissing into the wind. Uncompensated fixed guns would probably be accurate as long as the arm length isn't so far off the longitudinal axis of the aircraft that it kicks the fuselage around. You can strap all kinds of stuff on a 60, but unless you make some serious design changes a la original UH-1 to AH-1 Vietnam style, it's not going to be as effective as a dedicated attack platform. A nice fit in a pinch role? Probably.

Agreed. I think Sikorsky markets the "battlehawk" towards countries that cant afford multiple TMS and instead want one aircraft to do it all. Is it on par with an H-64? Doubtful. But it's a cheap step up from door guns for countries like the UAE.

@Flash, not surprised to see that the PRC has cloned an H-60. As the terribly written link you provided states, china has had S-70s since the 80s. They also operate a license built dauphin, the z-9.