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.

 

Bell's V-280 Valor is Rockin and Rollin

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 12:50 AM
link   
Let's see.

UH-60 - still in production
CH-47 - still in production
AH-64 - still in production
OH-58 - already retired
UH-72 - still in production
V-22 - will work for the Army too
CH-53K - will work for the Army too

Future Vertical Lift is unnecessary, fiscally irresponsible and militarily relevant against emerging threats.
Dont arm for yesterdays wars. Dont replace something that still does the job well, just because there is something better around. Especially if you cant afford it.

Amazing technological feat, but twenty years late and twenty years early at the same time.




posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

CH-53K is a mess right now.

V-22 is too big and won't do what they want the medium and light FVL.

Also, with the exception of the Chinook (and possibly the new mega ultra Sea King, I haven't seen the numbers) all those things absolutely suck hot and high, which you might have noticed is where the Army currently finds itself in combat.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 08:13 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The V-22 is the only one with the range they want for the middle sized but the Osprey is way, way too expensive to field as a direct replacement for the Blackhawk.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 08:42 AM
link   
a reply to: anzha

It's bigger, heavier, louder and more expensive than the Valor. It can't do what the Army wants from it. That's why Bell pitched the smaller Valor. Both have a giant footprint, too, which probably will hurt it in the medium and light requirements. For heavy lift requirements, a V-22 or V-22 analog is probably fine, though maybe a bit light on payload as the Chinook outlifts it by some margin.

Would not surprise me to see Chinooks soldier on for quite some time. I don't think they want to keep recapping with Blackhawks though. This program has actually been done right. They haven't even set requirements in stone yet. They asked industry to show them what's possible first instead of making a pie in the sky wishlist. It's been largely self-funded through the comtractors to date. Then they can firm up exactly what they can afford after seeing it is really possible.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 08:48 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

The Blackhawks don't have the range or speed the Army needs in the pacific for that matter either.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 12:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: RadioRobert
a reply to: mightmight

CH-53K is a mess right now.

V-22 is too big and won't do what they want the medium and light FVL.

Also, with the exception of the Chinook (and possibly the new mega ultra Sea King, I haven't seen the numbers) all those things absolutely suck hot and high, which you might have noticed is where the Army currently finds itself in combat.


Stop arming for yesterdays wars. The Army has fought in Afghanistan for 18 years and the existing rotorcrafts were good enough. They wont be there in another 18 years. FVL is the wrong program in a time of shifting priorities. The Army needs to make due with good enough.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight


Stop arming for yesterdays wars.


How is the much longer range and improved speed preparing for yesterday's war(s)?



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 03:32 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha
The Army rotorcraft fleet has no relevant role to play in the Pacific, regardless of range.
The Army also doesnt have to have an tiltrotor aircraft, just to have the neccessary range to be able to play some ort of a role. That's what the Air Force is for. Or rather, any of the other Air Forces of the other US armed forces.

The US cant / wont afford to do everything at once. There is more than enough work to be done, embarking on yet another mega replacement program without an actual militairly need is not justifiable at this point. The Army had its show for the last twenty years. The comming decades will belong to the Air Sea Battle and little else.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight




The Army rotorcraft fleet has no relevant role to play in the Pacific, regardless of range. 


US experience in Korea and Vietnam/Laos/Thailand (not to mention the ongoing experience of the Philippines, Malaya, Kashmir, Myanmar, Papau, etc) seems to belie that belief...



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert
I doubt there is much support for fighting a land war against China.

It's not the job of the Army to project airpower over hundreds of miles of ocean.
Thats why there is an Air Force. And a Navy. And a Marine Corps. I'm all for increasing their rotorcraft fleets if there is a reason to do so, i'm very much against the Army acquiring capabilities that already exist.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha

especially the Mighty Consumers of Crayons!


Thank you very much for the label... as a ex-squid with two jar-head brothers


But this was painful right after...

As I said, color me impressed.


Py



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 05:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

I don't see many scenarios where we are involved in a war in Asia that doesn't require us to honour treaty obligations to Korea.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

And UH-60s... would just do fine in Korea.

I dont see any automatisms. The South Koreans will have little interest to fight alongside the Japanese or to fight period if they dont have to. They have a hell of alot more skin in the game than anyone else afterall.
China would probably try to contain the conflict anyway, to fight the US with as few allies as possible.
And the US would likley not press the issue, risking a ground war in Korea by using its bases there to strike the Chinese if South Korea remains neutral seems unlikley.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

South Korea.
Japan.
South China Sea.

Those seem to be what we would be involved in.

That bottom is as much a hot spot as the top and is exactly where we need the longest range.



posted on Jan, 25 2019 @ 08:57 PM
link   
If a shooting war starts in that neighborhood, I don't think Korea gets the choice of not participating. China just lets go of it's leash and complicates the US response.

The West is more likely to roll over on the Spratleys and other isdued anyway. The Chinese seem well aware that there's zero desire for another protracted conflict in Asia. That's why Korea would go hot if the West doesn't roll over first and the shooting starts.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Bell is pumping the brakes.

Makes you wonder what they might have heard:

www.flightglobal.com...



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Probably that the Army is going to slow the program to let Boeing catch up.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

They certainly do.

Better too much range--is there such a thing?--then too little.

Over the Pacific, or anywhere, for that matter.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:54 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

It's not their job? Maybe not, but that doesn't preclude having the capability. Because that capability could be, and probably would be, used elsewhere as needed.

It's always nice, as one who has flown over harsh unforgiving terrain in the far north, to have extra go-juice available. I can't imagine its any different for an Army combat pilot.



posted on Jan, 28 2019 @ 02:57 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

They were going to demo autonomous flight and a lot more maneuverability in tight spaces to alleviate Army tilt rotor angst.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join