Unmanned Helicopters? Black Hawks, to be specific?

[bert]

Like what?

Most obvious example: going out to X nm in front of the boat with your sensors on and link that data back to your ship/the group.

 

[Jim123]

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.

Well the H-60 first flight was 35 years ago and the first navalized versions about 30 years ago. The autopilot/FCS on the original Blackhawk is nothing special, but the H-60B/F/H/J can do just about everything short of takeoff and land on its AFCS- and that automation is "merely" 1970s technology. The flight control mixing unit in all of the -60s was expressly intended and designed to reduce pilot workload and fatigue (for you fixed-wing only guys it pretty much coordinates control inputs from your hands and feet for you... mostly) and the goal of that was to allow flight crews to make the monkey skills easier so they could devote more attention to the mission.

I'm told the flight director in the HH-65 is amazing (develop and fly a complex search pattern for you) which really means one more set of eyes looking out the window.

So yeah, it makes a lot of sense to keep pushing the technology.

 

[RobLyman]

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.

I'm going on what I have heard and seen at the factory in WPB and my own experience with the Seahawk and the Blackhawk (A,B,F,H,L & M models). I have seen the fly-by-wire aircraft several times in WPB and in one case talked to the guys working on it. I am not sure how much I am allowed to say about what I saw and heard, but I am sticking to my prediction.

IMO, designing from the ground up to be autonomous and fly by wire is one thing. Retrofitting it into an existing airframe is a bit more difficult. It will happen, but I would not bet on them making that time frame.

Also, the latest I heard was the Army is postponing the procurement of the Block upgrade that includes fly-by-wire and the composite tail cone. They are continuing the funding for the completion of the research and development. I think I read that a few weeks back on military.com.

BTW...no mixing unit on the fbw Blackhawk. The hydraulics bay is a bit weird looking. Also, if any of you are out at Mayport or Jax, pm me. I'd love to sit down with you and compare the 60R with our new 60Ms

 

[bert]

IMO, designing from the ground up to be autonomous and fly by wire is one thing. Retrofitting it into an existing airframe is a bit more difficult.

Absolutely true, and personally I think it is a better option, but I'm not sure that is the direction they are going to go. I've had the chance to learn a fair amount about the 60 effort and the Brit's 101 effort, and I just don't think that the benefits will be there unless they go ahead with things like pitch input restrictions, etc. that could gain them the fatigue life benefits. Any weight savings will be negligible and I don't think we know enough about the reliability of the solution they are tracking to to claim maintenance/reliability benefits.

I'd love to sit down with you and compare the 60R with our new 60Ms

Discounting the obvious differences due to mission equipment, to me the Mike is a better aircraft hands-down. I was really impressed with the improvements over the Lima.

 

[squorch2]

I'd love to sit down with you and compare the 60R with our new 60Ms

There's no comparison - they have completely different mission sets.

 

[RobLyman]

There's no comparison - they have completely different mission sets.

The point was not to compare upgrades to the radar, acoustic processors, dipping sonar, ESM, etc...Despite having different mission sets, many things are similar across airframes. Many things are not. Mission set sometimes has less to do with what gets incorporated than do budget and procurement timeframe.

For instance, it would be interesting to see what AFCS package the -60R has. The HH-60M flight director is way ahead of the SH-60B AFCS. The approach and hover functions are far superior. We don't have an overwater rescue mission, yet we have a superior (over the -60B) AFCS/Flight Director for doing that mission. How about the -60R?

More examples: Does the -60R have the hydraulic hoist of the -60B or the newer electric hoist? Is the FLIR integrated into the FMS or MFDs or does it still need to be controlled through a pendant? High speed machining for some parts or still the old style? Wide chord main rotor blades or the legacy blades? Does it have integrated vibration and health monitoring and active vibration cancelling system built in?

If the answer to any of those questions is dictated soley by mission set, please explain how or why. I would genuinely be interested in hearing the answer.

The mission equipment would actually be interesting too, but more from the standpoint of what actually made it into the -60R vs what they talked about way back at its inseption some time in the early 90s. We kept hearing about the Romeo just around the corner. I never got to see one while I was in the Navy.

 

[Pags]

The 60R/S still have the same AFCS of the legacy US Naval Hawks.

The blades are still the same and the motors are -401Cs.

IMDS/HUMS and AVCS are being put into the newer a/c.

The MTS (FLIR) is controlled by the HCU (on both sides in the 60R, CP side only in the 60S) and the image is displayed on the MD.

 

[mmx1]

Army UAS roadmap:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/28/the-future-of-us-army-helicopters-pilots-optional/

50% OPV by 2025? Phew