It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Lucretius
drones are relatively cheap and disposable.
I pilot is not.
The only time attack helicopters would be advantageous is in a large conflict between major powers... not when your hunting small scale insurgents in a nest of buildings.
The apache is a product of the cold war
Originally posted by bodrul
why was the comanche canccled?
the design of it is good and so on
......................................................
LongBow
I don't believe helicopters will need radar stealth, because they are flying so low that it is not required.
Longbow
Future helicopter should have no vulnerable tail rotor (I think Boeing NOTAR system is great)
skippytjc
id rather have an Apache manned with two highly trained people in it above my head armed to the teeth taking out enemy tanks just over the horizon than a fixed wing drone a mile up taking video armed with one or two missiles and thats it.
Longbow
About unmanned projects - I think they will be not succesfull. The whole UCAR program has no future.
Originally posted by Murcielago
LongBow
I don't believe helicopters will need radar stealth, because they are flying so low that it is not required.
(some) Helicopters can fly over 20,000ft, so stealth is something you want. One of the biggest causes of helo crashes while in combat was the pilot who was basically overloaded was focusing on to much and flew it into the ground. So staying that close isn't something you always want to do, the ability to go up out of the range of people with rpg's or (normal) guns, but remain radar stealthy is a good thing.
Longbow
Future helicopter should have no vulnerable tail rotor (I think Boeing NOTAR system is great)
I also like the the notar, but remember, that if an rpg hit its tail it would have the same effect. But for other reasons (like maintainence) its a good choice.
skippytjc
id rather have an Apache manned with two highly trained people in it above my head armed to the teeth taking out enemy tanks just over the horizon than a fixed wing drone a mile up taking video armed with one or two missiles and thats it.
Of course during an all-out assault you would prefer the choice with the most weapons, a predator A, is not made for that. Its more of a recon, but in case you get lucky and see something going down you dont need to call for an airstrike by some-other means because you have a couple silver bullets yourself.
Longbow
About unmanned projects - I think they will be not succesfull. The whole UCAR program has no future.
I'm assuming you only refering to unmanned helos, with that remark.
I partially agree with you on the UCAR, I like it, but I also liked the Comanche, and I dont know if it has a very big role for something that will cost so much.
I think instead of developing an all new unmanned helicopter, they will put that money towards arming the ones that they allready have or are still in there testing phases, like the Fire Scout & Hummingbird.
Fire Scout (RQ-8A) is a Navy Unmanned Helo (but will probably also go Army), they have tested it with (unguided) rockets, but have future plans to put a heat seekin head on it. and also give it other options like laser guided and imaging guided missiles. It will be stationed on the LCS (Littoral Combat Ship) and other then recon will be used to protect the LCS, by fast moving small boats and/or ships.
(A-160) Hummingbird is more for long endurance (24 hours). But I think it will be getting harded to compete in the market unless your UAV is armed. As far as I know there has being no armed Hummingbird, but its probably going to happen.
ignorance is a plenty
The RQ-8B (new model) is already being implemented with the Army's FCS program.
The reason why it is going on the LCS is for relay purposes.
The UCAR program funded by DARPA is not funded for 2005.
Originally posted by Murcielago
ignorance is a plenty
The RQ-8B (new model) is already being implemented with the Army's FCS program.
The Army is doing more and more backing away from there FCS initiative. The war in Iraq is a big reason, they just dont have the money. Instead they are moving it more to the back burner, while they focus on more important things like vehicle armor.
I like the whole "everyones connected" thing, but it will be longer then people think before its reality.
The reason why it is going on the LCS is for relay purposes.
In 2004 the Navy added that it wanted the ability for it to be able to take out fast boats.
The UCAR program funded by DARPA is not funded for 2005.
- Any Links? Because as far as i'm aware of Darpa will be moving on to Phase III in early 2005, which will cut it down from the 3 contenders (Lockheed, Northrop, Boeing) and will pick only one to continue there R&D.
ignorance is a plenty
Not to sound boastfull, but you could say I have the "inside" track on whats going on.