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.

 

future attack helicopter?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 07:24 AM
link   
Definitely with Realist on this; the UAV's are going to pick up some workload.
On top of that, rotorwing companies are looking for the next generation platform and it is going to be different from the traditional rotorwing A/C, but they will be manned. Humans have this thing about being there; we won't relinquish all action to UAV's or robotics.




posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Well, I hope the content of my posts through out ATS will matter much more than why I know what I know. Your and everyone's judgement will be formed regardless of what I may be. I can't just tell you, "trust me I know" The content of my posts will be sufficent. I will only provide information which is already available to the public and/or not considered proprietary to any office or buisness. I also take peices of information coupled with my experience and I am able to make a "good guess" as to what may be going on.

Do a search on my posts if you care to. Reguardless this is a fun forum.

Not bad for a 13 year old........................just kidding.





Originally posted by Murcielago

ignorance is a plenty
Not to sound boastfull, but you could say I have the "inside" track on whats going on.

no offense, BUT, everyone & anyone who says things like that, I dont believe.

Because I cant tell if you a 50 year old USAF general, or a 13 year old kid trying to sound important. (thats the downside of text)

So in otherwords you dont have any proof?


[edit on 7-1-2005 by ignorance is a plenty]



posted on Jan, 7 2005 @ 03:32 PM
link   
bodrul says:

"why was the comanche canceled?"

The RAH-66 was designed to be a high-tech helicopter that could carry some armament and munitions. The AH-64D caught up with the Comancheas far as its high-tech capabilities are concerned -- and it can carry lots of armament and munitions.

In other words, the Comanche didn't have a place in the Army's inventory anymore, and they didn't want to pour good money after bad.

There are some whizzbangs that the Comanche had that the D-model and even the future block mods don't and won't have -- but the Army didn't think it was worth procuring a second helicopter over.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 01:50 PM
link   
Don't forget the Army didn't totally scrap the Commanche project; it could come back later on; they also didn't scrap the Commanche technology either; they are going to utilize a lot of it.

As for rotorcraft, who knows. The Marine Corps has used the CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters (I think that's what they're called) for like 40 years now; they're going to replace the one model with the Osprey tilt-rotor which has the range of a conventional plane but can hover like a helicopter.

They are upgrading the AH-1W SuperCobra with newer avionics and a 4-bladed rotor, which allows better maneuverability and a higher maximum altitude. And they also still use the Huey (the famous helicopter from Vietnam), albiet a much more upgraded version.

The Huey and the Cobra are technically the same helicopter, especially their newer models. They will use the same engines, same cockpit, same rotors and tailrotors, etc.....so that pilots trained in one can be trained in another very easily, and the parts are very interchangeable.

So I mean the helicopter isn't going the way of the dodo anytime soon.



posted on Jan, 8 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   
Broadsword says:

"Don't forget the Army didn't totally scrap the Commanche project; it could come back later on; they also didn't scrap the Commanche technology either; they are going to utilize a lot of it."

True. As a matter of fact, the Army has relesed an RFP for an Advanced Reconnaissance Helicopter ("ARH"), proposals for which are due within a month or so. One of the requirements is that the one or two actual aircraft testbeds must be provided at contract award, which means the Army is looking for off-the-shelf aircraft only.

What will be added later on in the LRIP and full-scale production articles will be certain packages, which may or may not incorporate technologies developed for the RAH-66 aircraft.

But I doubt if you'll see any of the key players propose an aircraft with, say, a fly-by-wire system, because the Army wants an off-the-shelf airplane; or the NOTAR system, because the MD520N isn't as agile as the equivalent MD530 hot-'n'-high version.

"As for rotorcraft, who knows. The Marine Corps has used the CH-46 and CH-53 helicopters (I think that's what they're called) for like 40 years now; they're going to replace the one model with the Osprey tilt-rotor which has the range of a conventional plane but can hover like a helicopter.

True. the marines no longer use the Phrog (CH-46) and are phasing out the CH-53. The V-22 is absolutely key to the Marines' future force projection strategies.

"They are upgrading the AH-1W SuperCobra with newer avionics and a 4-bladed rotor, which allows better maneuverability and a higher maximum altitude. And they also still use the Huey (the famous helicopter from Vietnam), albiet a much more upgraded version."

Actually, the Whiskey Cobra already has a 4-bladed rotor; and the Zulu Cobra has even more fancy whizzbangs. Unfortunately, Bell has fallen way behind schedule and the Marines will not see their new helicopter for a long time. For obvious reasons, I'd love to see the Marines tell Bell to take a hike and then procure a raft of AH-64Ds, but they probably won't.

"So I mean the helicopter isn't going the way of the dodo anytime soon"

I hope not; at least not for another three years. Then I'll be retired, anyway.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   
Well, the Marines won't procure the AH-64D for a couple of reasons. One is cost. That is an expensive chopper! Second, the weight. The AH-64D is the battletank of attack helicopters. It is too heavy and complex for the Marines speedy expeditionary ways. Third is the added cost of parts. Adding AH-64D's as the attack helicopter alongside Hueys means each helicopter requires its own parts, which makes things too expensive, and on top of that, the AH-64D requires some expensive stuff.

Using Cobras with Hueys is less expensive, and now that the Cobras and Hueys will use the same engines, cockpit avionics, controls, rotors, etc.....just different fuselages, that is a HUGE money difference. And the Corps is always short on cash, since they get essentially what the Navy decides not to spend.

Remember also the Marines want to replace the Harrier and the F/A-18 C/D Hornets they have with the F-35 Joint Strike fighter when it arrives, so they need extra money as well.



posted on Jan, 9 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
The Marines usually get what they want; they have a great PR machine and many friends in Congress.

As you might be aware, it is in the US Marines' interest that the AH-1 Zulu (or Whiskey) be procured by foreign customers as well; that way, they get someone else to share in the non-recurring costs of a new aircraft, which can be huge. For the same reason, the Army would like international customers to procure the AH-64D . The difference is that the Marines sometimes go overboard, actually pushing the Bell product. Sometimes this backfires.

Back in 2001, I was in Japan during the last six months of the JDF's attack helicopter procurement. Japan cannot buy weapons from foreign companies; if they bought Cobras, they'd be Mitsubishi Cobras; if they bought Apache Longbows, they'd be Fuji Jukogyo ("Subaru") Apaches (built under license to their respective designers, of course). Fuji was proposing the Apache, but our team from Mesa was in Utsunomiya in Tochigi Prefecture doing a lot of the logistics and engineering design writeups.

A Marine two-star made huge headlines when he came out and said to the biggest Japanese daily, Asahi Shimbun, that the Japanese would be better off with the Bell product. Needless to say, the Japanese government took a rather dim view of this, since it's considered bad form for an American -- especially an American general -- to try to put his nose into a domestic procurement.

I don't think that cost Bell the procurement; we offered a platform which was schedule-compliant and much more of a force multiplier (admittedly, it cost 50% more). But we did win, and I haven't the faintest idea what happened to that Marine.

I doubt if he'll ever see a third star, that's for sure!



posted on Jan, 11 2009 @ 04:04 AM
link   
According to me the rotor based weapons platforms are here to stay at least for the next 50 years or so. What the next gen fighter helicopters would incorporate are charecteristics like
1. increased stealth to minimise armour and in turn the reduction in weight.
2. reactive armour.
3. more sophisticated long range anti tank missiles.
4. beyond sight attack capabilities.
5. use of advance composite materials.

The comming few years will see the use of gunships, particularly attack helicopters particularly in anti terrorism operations. Here the requirement of a manned platform is important (to take decisions) which an unmanned ariel vehicle lacks.



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



posted on Jan, 17 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
Isn't the F-34 join strike fighter able to hover and use it's full payload?
Maybe this is what they will be using instead of attack choppers.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 02:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius

Originally posted by bodrul
why was the comanche canccled?
the design of it is good and so on
......................................................


Because if $10 million apache's are being shot down by $100 dollar rocket launchers in iraq... losing a $20 million commanche is only going to make things worse.

There are cheaper and more effective options these day's

Rocket launchers in iraq are somewhat inaccurate against Helicopter gunships, so Comanche still needed in combat.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 03:00 AM
link   
If they do build another attack helicopter they should build it as tough as an A10 Warthog.



posted on Oct, 18 2009 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Well, the Geneva Convention is explicit about the need to avoid non-combatant involvement – the term “collateral damage” seems to describe that obligation nowadays.

On that basis there is a view (which I share) that you will always need a man (or woman) close to the action to make human decisions. The question is whether an unmanned aircraft can have an operator who feels a part of the battlefield and has awareness and understanding “as if he was there”. I am satisfied that there is scope for unmanned and autonomous aircraft and that they will play an increasingly important and pivotal role in the future.

I am not satisfied that a bloke sitting 5,000 miles away from the battle, staring at a computer screen and using an x-box console can have the same involvement and understanding as a person sitting (say) 100 metres away from the action. The latter will have empathy and connection to the battle – the former could be my son playing a game.

Therefore I think that military planners will always seek to retain the manned option as it would be militarily and politically sensible. The replacement for the current stock of attack helicopters will be very interesting. I wonder what the time scales are in replacing assets like apache and whether we will see a merger of roles e.g. inclusion of transport like the Mi-24 Hind.

Regards

edit: to correct a typo

[edit on 18/10/2009 by paraphi]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:20 AM
link   
here is the Comanche replacement RAH-68theadvancedboy.blogspot.com



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 11:38 AM
link   
Well you know if you want to kill something the best way to do that is have an Apache do it for you...

Oh wait you guys are talking about the helicopter right?

Sorry a little Red Skin humor....

Anyway from what I've read over the past few years it seem like DARPA the Army and Marines all have a hard-on for UAVs ... remotes and robots are where the research money is going... that even extends to this new gen of attack fighters we get glimpses of....

Does make me wonder how long its going to be before a solder gets to sit at home log-in with his/her laptop and go to war!



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 08:46 PM
link   

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


Attack helicopters carry guns, rockets and a variety of guided missiles for a reason. A drone at high altitude needs intel to acquire a target for it to attack, and they're usually only armed with a single missile type (if not just the single missile).

And guess what happens when drones engage an enemy with some kind of basic fighter capacity? Drones started dropping to the ground. Anyone else watch that video from the Georgian drone over Russian airspace observing a Flanker coming straight at it, followed by a white streak in the air coming straight for the camera, followed by static?


Also what happens when the signal from the UAVs face jamming devices/techniques?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join