i'm not sure. i like them both. what i hope happens is that we see an actual contest to see which fulfills the requirement best in all categories...attack, utility, scouting, medium and heavy lift.
we might see a case where the scouting and heavy lift are best solve by X2 tech and utility and medium by tilt rotor---i really get the feeling that the attack mission will be a case of what tactics the service in question uses.
what has me scratching my head though is that after the C-27 debacle, why isn't the Army all over tilt rotor tech anyway in the form of the V-22? it could serve as a sort of "interim/light weight" C-27 till a larger version comes along to actually take the Sherpa role (wait, the MV-22 can do the Sherpa mission now).
Regarding X2, while an exciting technology, we really don't have a lot of experience with it. The XH-59 was not a success, and the X2 demonstrator only really covered a portion of the envelope in its 20 flights and in total had less than an hour at 250 knots. So, unlike Tilt-Rotor, there's a lot we don't know yet.
As for why Army doesn't buy V-22, they don't have the money and they're concentrating on the CH-47. Besides, USAF would lobby against it because it looks too much like an airplane and those are "theirs". Witness C-27J debacle.
If the Army ever got serious about using the 101st the right way then you would see a unit that could probably put more combat power directly to trouble spots than the 82nd for sure. a big tilt rotor the size of the Chinook and a bunch of these could refuel in the air and be almost anywhere in the world...that would be one hell of a capability.
Can Tilt rotor aircraft auto-rotate? Last time i bothered checking the auto rotate requirement was deleted from the V-22.
Also the attraction of running headlong into ever more expensive and complex replacements for 'legacy' equipment is confusing to me. Surely the helicopters in widespread use by the armed forces should be solid, simple, relatively inexpensive workhorses. I don't know if I'm being crazy but it seems the biggest threat to western military power is the ever increasing costs of equipment coupled with the greater complexity.
It's not that the requirement was deleted. The requirement was that a crash be survivable via Autorotation OR gliding. Since you can glide much farther than you can autorotate, and since most of the time you're going to be in fixed-wing mode, that's how they chose to meet the requirement. You probably wouldn't want go through an unpowered reconversion at the flare. It's doable, but why introduce that complication at hat point?
If the V-22 happens to be hovering or in vertical mode when a double power failure is experienced, then it can autorotate to a survivable landing, depending on altitude. it won't do it as well as a Kiowa, but then neither does, say, a CH-46. Were
I see Sikorsky's X-2 Technology as the best concept.
ReplyDeletei'm not sure. i like them both. what i hope happens is that we see an actual contest to see which fulfills the requirement best in all categories...attack, utility, scouting, medium and heavy lift.
Deletewe might see a case where the scouting and heavy lift are best solve by X2 tech and utility and medium by tilt rotor---i really get the feeling that the attack mission will be a case of what tactics the service in question uses.
what has me scratching my head though is that after the C-27 debacle, why isn't the Army all over tilt rotor tech anyway in the form of the V-22? it could serve as a sort of "interim/light weight" C-27 till a larger version comes along to actually take the Sherpa role (wait, the MV-22 can do the Sherpa mission now).
Regarding X2, while an exciting technology, we really don't have a lot of experience with it. The XH-59 was not a success, and the X2 demonstrator only really covered a portion of the envelope in its 20 flights and in total had less than an hour at 250 knots. So, unlike Tilt-Rotor, there's a lot we don't know yet.
DeleteAs for why Army doesn't buy V-22, they don't have the money and they're concentrating on the CH-47. Besides, USAF would lobby against it because it looks too much like an airplane and those are "theirs". Witness C-27J debacle.
Off topic slightly I guess, but do you ever see a day when tilt-rotors overtake helicopters? Specially for units like the 101st.
ReplyDeleteIf the Army ever got serious about using the 101st the right way then you would see a unit that could probably put more combat power directly to trouble spots than the 82nd for sure. a big tilt rotor the size of the Chinook and a bunch of these could refuel in the air and be almost anywhere in the world...that would be one hell of a capability.
DeleteCan Tilt rotor aircraft auto-rotate? Last time i bothered checking the auto rotate requirement was deleted from the V-22.
ReplyDeleteAlso the attraction of running headlong into ever more expensive and complex replacements for 'legacy' equipment is confusing to me. Surely the helicopters in widespread use by the armed forces should be solid, simple, relatively inexpensive workhorses. I don't know if I'm being crazy but it seems the biggest threat to western military power is the ever increasing costs of equipment coupled with the greater complexity.
It's not that the requirement was deleted. The requirement was that a crash be survivable via Autorotation OR gliding. Since you can glide much farther than you can autorotate, and since most of the time you're going to be in fixed-wing mode, that's how they chose to meet the requirement. You probably wouldn't want go through an unpowered reconversion at the flare. It's doable, but why introduce that complication at hat point?
ReplyDeleteIf the V-22 happens to be hovering or in vertical mode when a double power failure is experienced, then it can autorotate to a survivable landing, depending on altitude. it won't do it as well as a Kiowa, but then neither does, say, a CH-46. Were