Unmanned Helicopters? Black Hawks, to be specific?

[Picaroon]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...r-Sikorsky-to-build-pilotless-Black-Hawk.html

Firstly, I don't see the point of building a pilotless craft that's transporting troops. They say it could be used if the mission is particularly dangerous. Well if it's dangerous enough that you don't want to risk the pilots, what about the guys in the back? There's no way that a guy flying remotely, no matter how good a pilot, has the same situational awareness and piloting ability as someone in the cockpit. Perhaps it could be used for ASW, but again, what's really the point of taking the pilot out at great expense?

Additionally, some of the statements confuse me. At one point they say it'll "fly on its own," but that's not what Predators do, they're just remotely piloted, yes?

But hey, if they can make a Black Hawk fly with just two pilots, as the article says, well that's quite an achievement isn't it :icon_tong

I'm interested to see what the guys flying the Navy version think about this.

 

[N9148Q]

It depends on the aircraft but some can be remotely controlled "stick flown" but most others its just a "preprogrammed route basically". These birds are not like your typical home remote control plane you dont have that much control or input on most of them. There is all kinds of cool stuff in the works and even some of it out there already. If you want an idea as to what they are working on for the blackhawk your best bet is to probably look up the R-22 Maverick and all the stuff they are testing with it.

 

[N9148Q]

There is also a lot of talk about LEMV. Its a UAV airship with the option to be manned.

 

[HeyJoe]

There is also a lot of talk about LEMV. Its a UAV airship with the option to be manned.

LEMV is more accurately a hybrid airship/lifting body that many hope can lift monster amount of payload.

 

[slug]

Firstly, I don't see the point of building a pilotless craft that's transporting troops. They say it could be used if the mission is particularly dangerous. Well if it's dangerous enough that you don't want to risk the pilots, what about the guys in the back?

I think that using pilotless UH-60s in the air assault role with soldiers in the back is a false assumption that the article made. These aircraft would be used initially for sling load/vertrep/air lift missions, for example: resupplying a remote FOB surrounded by bad-guy country. Possibly they could be used for CSAR in the future--I would jump in the back of a UAV if it was my only ride out.

By the time we have pilotless air assault combat helos, we will probably have robots in the back of the aircraft too.

 

[helolumpy]

I wouldn't worry too much about UAV's replacing navy helos. Only when an Admiral willing flies in a UAV over to another ship will it be the end of manned helos in the Navy.

 

[RobLyman]

It'll take quite a feat to get a helicopter to safely land on the back of a frigate or in a confined LZ w/o a pilot. As I have mentioned in another post, our state of the art, right off the assembly line aircraft will not reliably shoot an approach to a hover when the system is working right. If there is any downslope in the approach path, the aircraft is likely to prang its tail on approach before slowing to a hover. Throw in a power failure or some other malfunction and you have a situation where automatic flight controls just cannot keep up.

Replacement of manned helicopters willl happen eventually, but I will be very surprised if Sikorsky completes construction of the aircraft by the end of 2010. Throw in many years of testing and maybe, just maybe an aircraft with those capabilities will be complete and ready to fly by 2015. I would guess it will take even longer for the military agree to replace a manned helo with an unmanned helo for air assault or any other mission carrying people. Could they supplement exisitng manned aircraft? Maybe. Replace them? No, it will be much longer before that happens.

But it will happen, eventually.

 

[HeyJoe]

It'll take quite a feat to get a helicopter to safely land on the back of a frigate or in a confined LZ w/o a pilot. As I have mentioned in another post, our state of the art, right off the assembly line aircraft will not reliably shoot an approach to a hover when the system is working right.

FireScout is already showing it can do the deed as long as trons are present and it's first deployment is aboard a FFG.

090508-N-2821G-146 ATLANTIC OCEAN (May 8, 2009) The Northrop Grumman Corporation-developed Unmanned Aerial Vehicle MQ-8B Fire Scout hovers over the flight deck of the guided-missile frigate USS McInerney (FFG 8). McInerney is preparing for an upcoming counter-illicit trafficking deployment to Latin America, where the ship is scheduled to use Fire Scout to assist with counter-drug operations. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Alan Gragg/Released)

 

[lowflier03]

Of course that is with a brand new UAV, ideal weather, and an FFG with no AEGIS running. Any takers on the odds of it working in 5 years on a DDG or CG at night with the deck pitching and rolling in the rain?

 

[gotta_fly]

I read another article that said one of Sikorsky's goals was to make a more flexible platform that could fly with two, one or no pilots, so the levels of automation will likely vary with the type of mission tasking.

 

[Scoob]

Of course that is with a brand new UAV, ideal weather, and an FFG with no AEGIS running. Any takers on the odds of it working in 5 years on a DDG or CG at night with the deck pitching and rolling in the rain?

You forgot the weakest link in the chain, the bridge watch team. Good luck Fire Scout.

 

[RobLyman]

You forgot the weakest link in the chain, the bridge watch team. Good luck Fire Scout.

OMG, I forgot about that! Thanks for bringing back memories. We used to sit down in the LSO shack and tell the OOD what course to steer to get the winds in the envelope. The CO told us to stop, because they had to learn to do it themselves. Soon after that the repeater in the LSO shack mysteriously broke.

The wind hunting circle! How I loved that!

EPs for the Fire Scout probably look like this:

AFCS Failure - Ditch
Generator Failure - Ditch
Paint gets scratched - Ditch

I'll make a prediction:

Other than a one time demonstration in a controlled environment, an unmanned Seahawk/Blackhawk will NEVER land aboard a single spot US Navy Ship. Never in an operational status. By the time that is ready to occur, another platform will have taken over for the -hawk.

 

[bert]

Other than a one time demonstration in a controlled environment, an unmanned Seahawk/Blackhawk will NEVER land aboard a single spot US Navy Ship. Never in an operational status. By the time that is ready to occur, another platform will have taken over for the -hawk.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. JMSDF already has their ship-landing assist systemon their -60's, the K-max UAS has made quite a bit of progress (though concentrating on overland at the moment), and you have to think that the push towards fly-by-wire by the Army for the 60 is geared more towards potential UAS benefits than weight saving (though the potential fatigue life benefits are there as well). To be honest, it isn't that complex a problem.

It would be very easy to argue that a lot of functions the -60R fills would be better performed by a unmanned platform - a lot of weight/space/$$$ is invested in giving us a place to sit, when an OS3 in a dark room could be performing a lot of the button pushing.

 

[bert]

As an added bonus, read here (warning, there is some math...) for an interesting paper that relates, and here (especially page 4) for a discussion of the JMSDF -60's SLAS.

 

[eddie]

It would be very easy to argue that a lot of functions the -60R fills would be better performed by a unmanned platform

Like what?