Ok, this submission replaces my last. The Dominator
Looks kinda like 'The Penetrator' (and he counts 1-2-3 for the BDSM jokes to start)
The most obvious features are that the two person crew is positioned one forward, one aft to give the best situational awareness of any attack
The guy aft is gonna be lookin' up at the sky whenever junior stick and rudder monkey decides it's time to be movin' out and at the same time down
at the dirt whenever the LZ flare (or indeed any kind of climb or airspeed bleed) happens. It's bad enough when you are both fairly tightly
clustered around the CofG defined by the rotor mast (utility birds) or at least /on the same side of it/ (attack) but it generally is a guaranteed
barf'n'schutzen when you play teeter totter while facing backwards.
Add to this routing of the antitorque spline shaft between the observer's nuts, uncertain access and egress and thrown acoustics on the tail rotor
(or literal fragments if you actually stick it in a tree) plus no real ability to assist the pilot in FQ weapons/sensor system cueing and the entire
design looks kinda sledgehammer:diamond cutting suspicious.
In terms of the pilot cabin, I would also say that the view forward is less than optimal given the WSO is no longer apparently needed to look through
a DVO tube. You really need to be able to judge height well in a helicopter and that means foot windows and/or to-the-waist side canopy enclosures,
if you're gonna have glass at all.
I might have the scaling wrong of course but if so, those 23mms are not large enough by half.
... and that the main weapons are mounted on two "turrets", one above the rotor (8 x LAHAT anti-tank missiles plus sights/sensors) and one below the
aircraft (4-8 x LAHAT, Starstreak or other missiles). This gives the helicopter 360degrees weapons coverage.
In a hurryup CAS response, where you are slamming out sorties from a FARP as fast as you can stuff 70mms up a LAU, you don't want to have to stop the
rotors so that some poor IYAOYAS weapon troop can scramble up 15ft in the air, pull the empty containers and fit new ones including making
connectivity and hatch closure checks (no visible work platforms or weapons wings among other difficulties).
Nor do you want to make his lucky-alternate schmuck have to wriggle and crawl around the gear struts beneath the fuselage to service the drop down
lower turret in the muck and the mire with 100lb weapons and questionable total ground clearance, even with the stepped fuselage. Throw in the blower
on that exhaust which, IMO, is going to simply heat the sides of the fuselage and the MLG struts as presently arranged.
And someone is gonna scream 'MANPRINT!' so loudly that even Congress would wake up and smell the 'ergonomics issues'.
It's also generally unwise to break the keel of a rotated boxframe where you already have lateral openings for doors and cockpit.
Another novel feature is that it has two twin-23mm cannons positioned one under the chin (frontal arc, controlled by pilot's helmet mounted sight)
and one rear (rear arc, controlled by WSOs helmet mounted sight).
Believe it or not, this has some merit, the IL-102 Brawny-mod (the one which competed with the Su-25) and while the Frogfoot went on to win the
competition for a CAS-like platform; it was the Il-28 Beagle (Soviet Canberra) which was found to be one of the most successful and survivable bombers
of the 1980s Afghan War because tail-chase flak and even MANPADS teams were easily suppressed or even occasionally shot down after launch. Mind you,
depending on the altitude you're working at, it would be just as easy to mount miniguns with auto-MAWS/flash detectors and and save the cabin volume
and weight of the heavier guns. I also don't recommend a Soviet caliber for anything trying to gain sales in the Western Hemisphere.
The tail is V shaped with a typical "scissor" tail rotor on one of the Vs - giving the WSO an excellent rear hemisphere view.
Higher up and you get more from a VTDP or similar (forward airspeed enhancing) auxilliary/compound propulsion system than the weapons and their heavy
ammo. The big question being, IMO, whether you want 'glass' at all or are willing to simply go to EODAS or equivalent visionic technology in a
synthetic (virtual) vision system.
The best rear hemisphere view available is a wingman to intimidate as much as suppress threat guns and an MLDS for automated defensive ASE cuing on
guideds. I swear people have no clue how FAST the response have to be when you are fighting the close in CAS fight, down in the dirt and only moving
at 60-150 knots. You are talking 2-3 seconds and there just isn't time or room for more than a kneejerk which begs the CFIT.
Additional weapons positions could be mounted on stub wings attached to the engines.
Typical for AAHs but the tendency to cluster micro-weapons so close together on open rails or open ended pods just _destroys_ the local aerodynamics.
Even as it basically demands that all shots come with the nose of the helicopter pointed at the target. And can create acoustic loads on the
structures not worth the trouble. All four of which are no-nos once the asset value crosses the 10 million dollar mark.
Turbine (SMACM) or Rocket+Prop (Dominator with booster) endurance systems that can use the same volumetric as a Hellfire or TOW but have the endurance
to FLY AHEAD to the target area and SIT THERE with optics or grenade cassettes are your superior option. As are vertical fall weapons if you are
flying over a builtup area. How you choose to load them into or beside the helo is of course your business but keep in mind that a lot of these will
be fairly long and have some relatively restrictive clearance issues, either to weapons beside them or adverse flows around them. BUET in fact is
/rear ejecting/ IIRR. So is Silent Eyes.
If I was going to go with a weapons wing, it would be one which provided a natural work platform, could be top loaded as an internal weapons or
auxilliary fuel mount. And would significantly offload the main rotor in forward flight. All without needing to be removed to restore basic
P.S. Does anybody know anything about using Word 2000's Draw Feature?