Army gets new Tilt-Rotor

[wopilot]

I didn't even know that they had H-1's in the AF.

 

 

 

VIP and Missile transport/movement

[wopilot]

You guys are acting like the Bell has already won.

 

I honestly think the Sikorsky/Boeing JMR will win the bid.

 

Bell has a lot of ground to make up in regards to where they have been the last few years on other platforms.

 

Both Boeing (CH-47/AH-64) and Sikorsky (XH-60) already have proven themselves to make upgrades and support the fleet. OH-58 is the last Bell product, and lets be honest, it does a great job of overachieving, but is behind the power curve.

[Jester2138]

There's also the AVX coaxial rotors / ducted fans concept... but I think that's an even longer shot than a tiltrotor.

http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html#JMR

[Hotdogs]

Marines may want need but the Army doesn't really need it. Again, think about the mission sets. Expidtionary vs Fixed ops.

 

Those are aren't mission sets, I don't even know what you're trying to say. Both the Army and Marines are practitioners of Maneuver and combined arms warfare, it would non-sensical to not expand their ability to reach out and touch some one. Potentially making the entire 82nd Airborne obsolete.

[Velocity173]

 

Those are aren't mission sets, I don't even know what you're trying to say. Both the Army and Marines are practitioners of Maneuver and combined arms warfare, it would non-sensical to not expand their ability to reach out and touch some one. Potentially making the entire 82nd Airborne obsolete.

Perhaps 82nd is already obsolete. When was the last time we needed to send large numbers of troops to parachute a great distance into enemy territory? Kandahar, but of course those were rangers and not even critical for overall mission success. You try and send paratroops a great distance into any country that has a decent air defense (Iran, Korea) and it will be a suicide mission.

 

Once you're setup in theater, long range engagement isn't necessary. Everyone covers their own AO. All the air assaults that we did were easily within the range of a helicopter and the added speed that a tilt rotor would provide would be of little significance. It's not like you can outrun an SA-16 so it comes down to ASE that we all have.

 

So, a tilt rotor would be vital for CSAR (Libya F-15E) but not much else. I agree it could be used to transport a VIP quickly to a FOB / COB that a C-12 cant do. The biggest detriment of tilt rotor is its outrageous cost. 10 grand per hour of a MV-22 and roughly 60 % FMC compared to a Black Hawk at 3 grand and 90 % FMC. I'll take the Black Hawk.

[Velocity173]

Deleted

Edited July 27, 2013 by Velocity173

[revaequitas]

in regard to the JMR, that's what my pilots were talking about/leaning towards for winning. An you're right, Bell hasn't won yet.

 

As for the EAPS, there are two doors, about two palms width on each forward, or upper depending on nacelle position, that are electronically actuated. Yes, there are a lot of components up there and they did well to cram them in there lol

[revaequitas]

There's also the AVX coaxial rotors / ducted fans concept... but I think that's an even longer shot than a tiltrotor.

 

http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html#JMR

They seem to have it all figured out...on their models lol. I think, if possible, their 5deg down approach concept is a nice possibility if plausible.

[Hotdogs]

Velocity173, on 26 Jul 2013 - 21:55, said:

 

So, a tilt rotor would be vital for CSAR (Libya F-15E) but not much else. I agree it could be used to transport a VIP quickly to a FOB / COB that a C-12 cant do. The biggest detriment of tilt rotor is its outrageous cost. 10 grand per hour of a MV-22 and roughly 60 % FMC compared to a Black Hawk at 3 grand and 90 % FMC. I'll take the Black Hawk.

An Osprey turns an AO the Size of Texas, into the size of Connecticut. CASEVAC? It can move your critical patient in twice or three times the speed of conventional helicopters. It preforms better in every single category than a blackhawk, yet you cite it's cost. Laughable.

 

I'm not going to discuss the last two sentences. We're already been there. I'm content with the Army not getting tilt-rotors though, it pretty much ensures they'll continue to be the red-headed step child of military aviation.

 

...and for the record you can fly above a SA-16.

 

...imagine if the Army didn't need the USAF's C-130s/C-17s?

[Velocity173]

An Osprey turns an AO the Size of Texas, into the size of Connecticut. CASEVAC? It can move your critical patient in twice or three times the speed of conventional helicopters. It preforms better in every single category than a blackhawk, yet you cite it's cost. Laughable.

 

I'm not going to discuss the last two sentences. We're already been there. I'm content with the Army not getting tilt-rotors though, it pretty much ensures they'll continue to be the red-headed step child of military aviation.

 

...and for the record you can fly above a SA-16.

 

...imagine if the Army didn't need the USAF's C-130s/C-17s?

Yeah I've already mentioned CASEVAC would be possible.

 

Cost matters. This isnt a dream world where we have an unlimited budget. Look at the F-22 / F-35 debacle. They are building far fewer than originally planned and we still need legacy fighters to fill the gap. We don't have unlimited funds and if this new tilt rotor's acquisition and operating costs are anywhere near an Osprey's we're not going to be able to replace hundreds of helicopters with it. If they get get costs to a manageable level to where we can replace say 75 % of our lift force, then I'd say buy it.

 

SA-16 is a generic example. They aren't going over an SA-4. My point is, it's extra 100 kts over a helo isn't going to mean life or death. ASE isn't perfect and you can't out run a SAM.

 

C-130/C-17? Why would any branch need to replace those aircraft. It's no comparison. Transporting 160 people at 450 kts compared to 24 at 250 kts with less range. Good luck getting people in and out of theater with that. I won't even bring up a C-130 comparison because you can buy one and operate it for less than an Osprey. Of course a C-130 doesn't need a traditional runway either. Not that it matters because everywhere we go we have runways these days.

 

Red headed step child? Yes, I imagine the other services might look at us that way but there's no way the last two wars could have been fought without us.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Velocity173

[Joe_P148]

Hotdogs

 

I dunno what your background is but I'm assuming you have some kind of bias towards tilt rotor.

 

Also, you have been implying that rotary is obsolete which just isn't true. I know you hate this term but our "mission set" does not require that type of airframe.

[Velocity173]

Hotdogs

 

I dunno what your background is but I'm assuming you have some kind of bias towards tilt rotor.

 

Also, you have been implying that rotary is obsolete which just isn't true. I know you hate this term but out "mission set" does not require that type if airframe.

He's a Marine Cobra guy who is constantly criticizing Army Aviation capabilities.

 

There's service rivalry then there's bashing. He does the later. He's only one on these forums that does that. It's amazing that he keeps coming back to a predominately Army Aviation forum to jab us. At least the rest of us can honestly evaluate an aircraft and bring up both pros and cons instead of just saying its the best thing ever and the Marines have it.

 

I'll be the first to say Army Aviation played an important role in both wars. Yes, I believe we were the most relevant of any service. That's not a bias because I was in the Army, it's just an everyday observation from someone who's flown in both theaters. That doesn't take away from the impact the other branches had though. Without C-17s no way we could get troops and supplies to where they need to be. Without A-10s, F-18s, B-1s etc, can't have CAS. I've worked with awesome people in all branches. Yes, even the French have quality people as well.

[Joe_P148]

A healthy debate is good but cheap jabs are just un necessary.

[Yamer]

ha, clearly the apache reigns supreme in everything... what's this guy talking about lol he must be coocoo for coco puffs or something

[akscott60]

Sigh. Everyone cool your jets. We are all on the same team.

[Hotdogs]

Yeah I've already mentioned CASEVAC would be possible.

 

Cost matters. This isnt a dream world where we have an unlimited budget. Look at the F-22 / F-35 debacle. They are building far fewer than originally planned and we still need legacy fighters to fill the gap. We don't have unlimited funds and if this new tilt rotor's acquisition and operating costs are anywhere near an Osprey's we're not going to be able to replace hundreds of helicopters with it. If they get get costs to a manageable level to where we can replace say 75 % of our lift force, then I'd say buy it.

 

SA-16 is a generic example. They aren't going over an SA-4. My point is, it's extra 100 kts over a helo isn't going to mean life or death. ASE isn't perfect and you can't out run a SAM.

 

C-130/C-17? Why would any branch need to replace those aircraft. It's no comparison. Transporting 160 people at 450 kts compared to 24 at 250 kts with less range. Good luck getting people in and out of theater with that. I won't even bring up a C-130 comparison because you can buy one and operate it for less than an Osprey. Of course a C-130 doesn't need a traditional runway either. Not that it matters because everywhere we go we have runways these days.

 

Red headed step child? Yes, I imagine the other services might look at us that way but there's no way the last two wars could have been fought without us.

 

So basically, I make a comment about the Army getting left in the dust and all of the sudden I feel like I'm in a nursery with a bunch of crying babies. Grow some thick skin. Jesus.

 

My intent about the C-130 comment was that they'll be needed less in theater. Not so much a C-17 though, and definitely not completely replaced, but of course you take the exaggerated and melodramatic course and don't think about the comment critically.

 

I won't touch the other comments because A) We've disagree on it before and B)Your numbers are so backwards, yet you continue to pontificate them as the truth. (Which is the sad part) Your experience with Ospreys is probably zero and not significant but you continue spout off erroneous numbers....and that makes me the bad guy here?

[Joe_P148]

An Osprey turns an AO the Size of Texas, into the size of Connecticut. CASEVAC? It can move your critical patient in twice or three times the speed of conventional helicopters. It preforms better in every single category than a blackhawk, yet you cite it's cost. Laughable.

 

 

Ok Hotdogs I gotta call you out on this one.

 

In Helmand Province at low pressure altitude I could see this statement to be true, but I'm pretty sure that a V-22 does not have OGE power at 6,000 + ft 35C with it's standard mission configuration. That's where the UH60 and the CH47 shine. It's the performance in hot and high altitudes. The V-22 wasn't designed for heavy lift and it wasn't built around hovering performance. This is a huuuge deal for the Army as we conduct a lot of OGE operations in high and hot conditions and we also conduct external loads. Furthermore, the UH60 noise profile much much lower than that of an osprey. If the V-22 is so great why is the 160th SOAR not using them? Why did they use 60's and 47's to infiltrate pakistani airspace?

 

I appreciate your debate but don't come around here throwing out stats that just aren't true. The V-22 has its role and it just doesn't fit into what Army Aviation needs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1. According to this Boeing handout P.48 the V-22 is capable of carrying a 7500 lbs load at 6000 ft PA OGE hover with no tempature specified and enough fuel to travel 200nm, again no specified GW of the aircraft.

 

2. Acoording to UH-60L hover data at 6,000 ft PA and 20C the aircraft max GWT OGE is 19,900lbs with a gwt on average between 14,500 lbs and 16,000 lbs you are only looking at a payload weight of between 5,400 lbs to about 4,600lbs with no power margin for max tq available.

 

3. My argument is that the numbers that boeing is putting out about the V-22 are fuzzy, i.e. they don't take into acount tempatures which is huge at altitude and they don't take into account additional weights to the aircraft such as crashworthy fuel tanks, guns, ammo and all the other crap we throw on the aircraft for combat.

 

4. Also to note, the GWT of a V-22 is like 32,000 lbs while the GWT of the UH60 is between 14,500 - 16,000. Purley looking at the ratio between the two aircraft I would say that the UH-60L can lift way more in it's class. Also if you put aircraft of the V-22's size and power against it i.e. CH53E or the CH-47F Chinook they double if not triple the payload carrying capacity of the V-22.

 

If you don't believe me read the facts here.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/V-22-Osprey-A-Flying-Shame-04822/

[Hotdogs]

...and that's where I bounce out of the conversation.

 

Using too many brain cells on useless conversation on a sunday afternoon.

[Joe_P148]

...and that's where I bounce out of the conversation.

 

Using too many brain cells on stupid sh*t on a sunday afternoon.

 

Says the Cobra Pilot...

[revaequitas]

Chill out guys.

 

Joe, I'm not understanding why you're comparing the V-22 to those other platforms excluding the hawk which is medium lift. The V-22 can take off with about 60k, fuel and everything included however at max load this will be a STO. Also, the external lift is 15k dual hook.

[Rob1237051]

What makes this thread great is that I think we all realize future acquisitions will purely be based on corruption and crooked politics...Not merit or lack thereof.

[Joe_P148]

Chill out guys.

 

Joe, I'm not understanding why you're comparing the V-22 to those other platforms excluding the hawk which is medium lift. The V-22 can take off with about 60k, fuel and everything included however at max load this will be a STO. Also, the external lift is 15k dual hook.

 

Based off of a comment made earlier, saying the V-22 out performs the 60..

 

15k on paper, just like the UH-60 can carry 9,000 yeah right... even at sea level, with a 1/4 tank of gas.. pucker factor 10 on a 9k load!

[Velocity173]

Chill out guys.

 

Joe, I'm not understanding why you're comparing the V-22 to those other platforms excluding the hawk which is medium lift. The V-22 can take off with about 60k, fuel and everything included however at max load this will be a STO. Also, the external lift is 15k dual hook.

I agree with you. My comparison with a 60 to a V-22 isn't really relevant. A Chinook is and I'd agree an Osprey would edge it out.

 

Since this tilt rotor is in the running to replace the Black Hawk, that's were we should start. Speed. Yep, I've read estimates between 230-280 kts. Let's go halfway and say it goes around 250 kts. That's roughly twice as fast as a 60. Speed is nice for getting back to the chow before it closes, but is it tactically significant? As I said before, you're not going to outrun a SAM or SAFIRE so it really doesn't hold much weight for survivability. So where does it matter? CASEVAC and MEDEVAC. Those are situations where time is critical. Problem is, how fast can this thing get airborne? Any 60 guys out there know that a MEDEVAC 60 is airborne within 5 mins of a phone call. Also, any 60 guys out there that have flown behind say a 47 or a 64 knows that their airframes aren't suited to getting airborne quickly. It's like in EMS, an S76 can beat my 407 in the air, but if I'm airborne in 3 mins and it takes them 8 mins, while I just negated the majority of the speed difference and operating at half the cost.

 

Range. 250 nm radius is significant. Did you all know a 60 can easily pull that off with externals? So why don't we utilize that capability in combat? Because we don't need to. We're embedded with the infantry pushing them forward. They aren't 250 miles ahead of us. Our trips are short hops anywhere from 50-100 miles and back. Once we've "set up shop" in a country we've got FARPS everywhere so 250 miles isn't needed. We went into Iraq with Robertson AUX tanks thinking we would be needed for long range stuff but within 2 months realized the range isn't needed and took them out. We aren't flying long distances off a ship (Marines) or long distances for CSAR (Air Force). If we need to, slap some CEFS on and throw in a 500 mile range. I've done it in Europe and also did C2 once and logged 6 hrs orbiting without ever touching the ground...still had about 45 mins of gas to spare! Oh yeah, all that gas is external so if things go south you can jettison it in a hurry. Much rather have a bunch of gas outside instead of inside in a crash scenario.

 

Payload. That's an easy one. Bell says this aircraft carries 11 troops same as us. As far as slinging, it doesn't say and I could care less since it won't be long before UAVs dominate that area.

 

So, as I said, this aircraft is needed for the Army, It just won't be leaps and bounds over a 60. Then of course we live in a world of fiscal constraints. The same restraints that killed the Commanche. You see, we don't need 360 tilt rotors like the Marines want. Our fleet far out numbers theirs. This aircraft is replacing the Black Hawk. What do we have current Hawk guys, close to 1,500? I'm not saying this thing is going to replace everyone of them but I'd say we'd at least need 1,000. You can bet it's going to cost far more than a Black Hawk. That's why I say, if we can get this thing for maybe twice the cost of a 60, it might be doable.

 

I think the point also was made earlier about Sikorsky is in the running as well so it hasn't even been chosen yet. I love the pusher concept (S-97) I'm just worried about that prop being so close to the ground. Dust landings would be interesting.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Velocity173

[revaequitas]

See that was a nice, well thought post, I'm pretty sure there will be no issues with that.

 

Yeah I'd say speed for Dustoff would be the big thing, further expanding the range for those serious amputees that would normally be outside of the "golden hour". So that would be nice

 

Something is replacing the Hawk, but as I said earlier, it looks like that Coax design may be the best. Did we talk about the AVX Kiowa? http://www.scale-rotors.com/galerie/2-attack-helicopters/4694-oh-58d/avx-kiowa-warrior-academy.html

If they get that thing all the way through, who knows what is in store. I know that was model website but I think it actually shows more than the AVX site lol.

 

Just one thing about the Marines, not really relevant, but they're not always boat deployments. For my deployment we were at AL Asad (Camp Cupcake) so we were able to fly all over Iraq and neighboring countries in the AO. It was just nice to be able to cover that much ground and yes, come back for some chow lol.

[ospreydriver]

 

I'm pretty sure it has cost more time, money, and lives in its development than any aircraft in history. It's a giant political stunt, and the v-22 two pilots I've spoken with agree (both of whom are former Army pilots). They tell me that you pretty much need perfect weather to fly in them.

 

My big problem with the thing is if both engines fail there is no autorotating or glide path to rely on. That, and one went down 3 miles from my house. http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20120830/NEWS/208300307/Report-Misjudged-wake-caused-CV-22-crash

Then I will come right out and call those guys either frauds or liars. I've got over 1000 hours in V-22s. They have outstanding instrument capabilities. Having flown in bad weather in a helo and in a V-22, I'll take the V-22 any day.