 |
| @one_bell concept for attack variant of V-280 Valor tiltrotor for @USArmy Joint Multi Role/Future Vertical Lift |
Ya know, one day the powers that be are going to get it in their heads that converting utility helicopters into gunships is a bad idea.
When that day finally arrives we're going to see some marvelous and efficient, purpose built tilt rotor gunships that will probably revolutionize aviation.
Quite honestly I don't know why Army Aviation isn't all over the tilt rotor movement. Sized properly they could cut dependence on the USAF by at least half. Everything from CAS, to long distance resupply to even some forms of Airborne forcible entry ops could be done in a single service format if they just took the tilt rotor plunge.
Very pretty aircraft. Although I suspect it would be seriously expensive, and droppable by some 3rd world hillbilly with a PKM and a box of AP ammo...or even regular ammo.
ReplyDeleteI do wonder about the unit cost and if it would be crippling, otherwise, the concept would be attractive as you have pointed out.
ReplyDeleteThe Army is already heading in that direction. V-280 some of the vids show a gunship type in them also. The V-280 improves on the V-22 in that just the props rotate rather than the whole engine nacelle. That change is big it will mean door gunners, exits through the sides.
ReplyDeletei don't understand this comment. the pic above is of a gunship V-280. perhaps i wasn't clear. a purpose built tilt rotor gunship will change the way the ARmy provides CAS. a purpose built C-130 sized tilt rotor will allow the Army to conduct forcible airborne entries without the aid of the USAF. that's what i was trying to get across and that was the reasoning behind this post.
Deletei'm well aware of the current concepts and also know that tilt rotors aren't the only thing being pitched to the army.
my bad I thought this was just concept art you sometimes post. Looking at it now I see it, I guess the jaw on the nose threw me off.
DeletePer hour of operation, which do you think is more expensive, the F-35 or the V-22?
ReplyDeleteHow many Apaches or Super Tucanos you can buy for one V280? How many Biafra Babies? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malm%C3%B6_MFI-9#MiniCOINs
ReplyDeleteFor sure the V280 gunship looks cool but someone has to pay. A-10 anyone?
How this separation of the US Air Force and Army work? I mean how much helicopters and planes/jets of various sorts can the Army have before the Air Force steps in? Are there legal limits?
ReplyDeleteby necessity the Key West Agreements are going to have to be re-worked. the USAF is talking about being an Aero-Space force so they should be good with it...but they won't because they're jealous of anyone that flies.
DeleteSol I used to believe that too, then the more that I learned about tilt rotors the more I disliked them.
ReplyDeleteQuite simply the compromises to create a VTOL aircraft are enormous. Just to give a comparison of current aircraft the C-27J and the MV-22 use the same engines and have roughly the same mission, to haul cargo internally. The difference is the MV-22 is capable of taking off and landing vertically while the C-27J needs several thousand feet of runway. But in every other way the MV-22 is inferior to the C-27J; unit cost, operating costs, payload, range, cruise speed, maintenance and reliability.
The other comparison is the F-35B and the F-35A. If you look at just the hard specs the F-35B has a 450 vs. 570 nm range. 60,000 vs. 70,000lbs gross take off weight. 7.5 max Gs vs. 9.0.
The only area the F-35B outperforms the A is vertical landing and short take off. The Army would be smart to not pursue a large number of tilt rotors because the engineering compromises required to make a VTOL aircraft outweigh the benefits in almost all circumstances.
Everyone in the military keeps thinking that the engineering answers are just around the corner but they have been thinking that for the last 20-30 years. It has never come true because we have not developed a better weigh of making lift.
USMC 0802.
Deletei hate that you're making me do this but in defense of those two platforms consider this. the MV-22 was spec'ed out to operate in the same role as the CH-46. just better. that means that it was sized in such a way as to make it shipboard compatible, but move out at a faster speed. the proper comparison isn't between the MV-22 and the C-27J but in a tilt rotor that is sized to compete with the C-27. i contend that we've already seen what that looks like but that the military abandoned that research. specifically the XCH-142A. it was perfect but they tossed it because of excess vibration. quite honestly its what we want but institutionally we all forgot about it.
this part pains me to no end, but don't compare the F-35B to the A, but the F-35B to the Harrier. in this comparison the F-35B is clearly superior. if this program was just about building a Harrier replacement it would be perfect. lose some of the lines of code, the fancy helmet and the stealth and this is the Harrier III on steroids.
I under your comparison but my point was that purely from an engineering standpoint this is what you lose by requiring a VTOL or STOVL capability.
DeleteThe comparison of the F-35A and B is particulary telling because otherwise those planes are identical. But as a pure aircraft the A is far more capable than the B which does ONE thing better, it can take off and land in a shorter distance.
Tilt rotors require massive compromises in the prop-rotors themselves. They are neither effecient as a aircraft propeller nor a rotary wing. They suck as both because they are required to do both jobs. That is the only way the technology can work. If the Osprey had another system that could do the vertical take off and landing the wing and propellers would be far different. The downside is that creating another system to handle the take off and landing would add even more weight than the compromised prop-rotors.
I think that if the US Army pursused this technology it would cost them billions of dollars that would lead to an aircraft an expensive hangar queen that would leave them wishing for they had gone for a traditional rotary wing helicopter. I honestly believe that tilt rotor is not the future, the engineering efficiency is just not there.
I think I'm with USMC 0802 on this one. Using a tilt-rotor sounds very Marine-ish. The Army doesn't generally operate in areas that would require VTOL anyway; what benefit does it get them?
ReplyDeleteI guess that explains why the Army has no VTOL craft. No need.
DeleteWait? What was that? You mean the Army has thousands of VTOL craft?
What? The US Army has almost as many VTOL aircraft as the USAF has total aircraft?
What? The US Army has more VTOL aircraft than any other country has aircraft in their military?
I think that quite a few people are forgetting that pretty much the entirety of US Army aviation is VTOL aircraft or that fact that a helicopter is a VTOL aircraft!
Stating that the US Army doesn't require VTOL aircraft is stating that the US Army doesn't need Helicopters.
As far as dependency on the US Air Force goes, I'd rather absorb them back into the US Army than try to compete with them. Competition in this case just sounds like Uncle Sam having a bond fire with tax dollars.
ReplyDeletewell it shouldn't be a competition. the USAF has the number of transports it has because of the need to support the Army. if that need goes away then so does the requirement for those squadrons.
Delete