Boeing's "Future Attack Recon Aircraft" unveiled

[Hook]

Like the old saying goes - it's better to lose *an* engine than *the* engine.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Silenoz]

On 3/4/2020 at 4:15 PM, Slater said:

...this is Lockheed Martin/Sikorsky's candidate:

 

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/s-97-raider-helicopter.html

 

...and Bell's:

 

https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-360

must admit these have more appeal to me then the Boeing version. The latter looks good as a concept study for a futuristic game...

[Max Headroom]

I knew that tail rotor reminded me of something....

 

https://www.rockbymail.com/captain-scarlet---spectrum-helicopter-postcard-20283-p.asp

 

Trevor

[mhaselden]

On 3/4/2020 at 2:52 PM, Robert said:

Gosh, l will keep my thoughts to myself in the future.

 

Regards

Robert

 

No need for that.  Like others have posted, I couldn't really understand the point you were making unless you were suggesting that a helicopter isn't an aircraft (hence my post).

[Tim R-T-C]

The multi rotor tail area looks like it would be sensitive to missile strikes from behind, which with MANPADs in use in most conflict zones, is surely the primary concern?

 

[Giorgio N]

9 hours ago, Paul Bradley said:

Ah, but as Dassault apparently (successfully) argued to the Marine for their Super Etendard in competition against the twin-engined Jaguar M - the Jaguar M wouldn't be able to stay in the air if one of it's two engines went out...........😉

 

1 hour ago, Hook said:

Like the old saying goes - it's better to lose *an* engine than *the* engine.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

But having two engines implies a higher probability of an engine failure, reason why if the aircraft can not stay in the air on a single engine a two-engine solution is not necessarily safer.

There's usually a whole chapter on this subject in every work on preliminary design of aircraft, with all the relevant charts and formulas that should help engineers decide which solution is safer. And many times, one single engine is indeed safer than having two

[Hook]

6 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

But having two engines implies a higher probability of an engine failure

Not necessarily. All things being equal, one of the two engines will fail at the same rate as the single engine. 

 

I know what I would prefer over the battlefield. 😎

 

The one remaining engine might not be enough to continue the planned mission, but ideally it should enable you to get out of Dodge and return to base in one piece.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Hook]

6 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

But having two engines implies a higher probability of an engine failure

Not necessarily. All things being equal, one of the two engines will fail at the same rate as the single engine. 

 

I know what I would prefer over the battlefield. 😎

 

The one remaining engine might not be enough to continue the planned mission, but ideally it should enable you to get out of Dodge and return to base in one piece.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

[Giorgio N]

24 minutes ago, Hook said:

Not necessarily. All things being equal, one of the two engines will fail at the same rate as the single engine. 

 

 

One will fail at the same rate of the single engine, but you have two engines on board, so the probability of a failure to the propulsion system is higher. I can't remember the formula but it's basic statistics.

Of course the probability that both will fail is lower and this is why two engines are chosen in certain situations, but if one engine alone can not keep the aircraft in the air its presence is of very limited use in case of a failure of the other.

 

minutes ago, Hook said:

 

I know what I would prefer over the battlefield. 😎

 

The one remaining engine might not be enough to continue the planned mission, but ideally it should enable you to get out of Dodge and return to base in one piece.

 

Cheers,

 

Andre

 

The problem is that in many cases when it comes to helicopters, the remaining engine is not capable to bring you back to base in one piece as not all twin engined helicopters can maintain level flight on one engine. Others will have enough power to continue flying but only within a very narrow flight profile that may or may not be possible to stick to.

And these are problems that caused by a simple failure that will only affect one engine. In many cases a failure to one engine can lead to problems that will also affect other vital parts or even the other engine, even more so in a combat environment. There is a reason why attack helicopters have the engines well spaced apart as otherwise damage to one unit can spread to the other.  And ideally the engines are as far as possible from the main rotor shaft to avoid that damage to the engine can lead to a loss of the rotor.

As always in aircraft design, this is an area where there is no absolute perfect solution and while military helicopter today generally tend to have two engines, the debate on the reliability and survivability of the different configurations is far from over.

 

 

[Jabba]

2 hours ago, Giorgio N said:

 

The problem is that in many cases when it comes to helicopters, the remaining engine is not capable to bring you back to base in one piece as not all twin engined helicopters can maintain level flight on one engine. Others will have enough power to continue flying but only within a very narrow flight profile that may or may not be possible to stick to.

And these are problems that caused by a simple failure that will only affect one engine. In many cases a failure to one engine can lead to problems that will also affect other vital parts or even the other engine, even more so in a combat environment. There is a reason why attack helicopters have the engines well spaced apart as otherwise damage to one unit can spread to the other.  And ideally the engines are as far as possible from the main rotor shaft to avoid that damage to the engine can lead to a loss of the rotor.

As always in aircraft design, this is an area where there is no absolute perfect solution and while military helicopter today generally tend to have two engines, the debate on the reliability and survivability of the different configurations is far from over.

 

 

 

One of my Chiefs favourite sayings was "a Sea King has two engines so that when one fails the other takes it to the scene of the crash", and yes he did used to work on Sea Kings.

[IanHx]

Looks like the illegitimate love-child of a Boeing Commanche and a Lockheed Cheyenne....

[junglierating]

3 hours ago, Jabba said:

One of my Chiefs favourite sayings was "a Sea King has two engines so that when one fails the other takes it to the scene of the crash", and yes he did used to work on Sea Kings.

Hmm I can see it's a joke ...as it happens not many UK Sea King fell out the sky due to engine failure (I cannot say for other nations )most due to catastrophic gearbox or blade strike or flying in to the Oggin.

As for engines most helos have two engines to get them in the air....or share the load to the transmission when load lifting .When taking off...a call is made for safe single engine ....the transision from land to a safe flying speed is kinda critical hence two donkeys or more ..I bet chewbacca will be able to tell you more I just fixed 'em...and I'm Avionics 😃🍺

[Slater]

Or if you're the CH-53E or K, you get three engines.

[Calum]

A single engine keeps weight and cost down.  It's supposed to be a scout helicopter not a gunship 

[whiskey]

Everything is too damn complex to be a scout helicopter. Keep it simple stupid. Doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles that make it look like it stepped out of a video game or a science fiction novel. The real art of surviving the battle space will be with the abilities and skills of the crews. Happened in Vietnam and Iraq. It'll happen again, even with near-peer engagements. Look at the Air Cav units during the Cold War that trained tirelessly to defend the Fulda Gap. 

 

I may not have been a pilot, but being a scout I know what works and what doesn't when your in the business of finding the enemy. This is all just more opportunities for companies to push their proposals through with in order to get the government to write checks and fund the military industry. Keep the exorbitant costs to a minimum, use what we know already works, and utilize technology that only enhances the critical skills of crewman, not making them overly reliable upon them.

[Max Headroom]

Thread drift alert!

 

I remember going to a talk by a Wessex pilot about ops in the North Sea and how on one occasion he was hovering over a ship whilst lowering someone onto a ship. He was looking out of the window to spot hazards and make sure he didn’t drop the other bloke into the oggin when he glanced back at his dials and noticed one engine had failed. He hadn’t even noticed because of the excess power!

 

Trevor

[Calum]

On 3/7/2020 at 2:36 PM, whiskey said:

Everything is too damn complex to be a scout helicopter. Keep it simple stupid. Doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles that make it look like it stepped out of a video game or a science fiction novel. The real art of surviving the battle space will be with the abilities and skills of the crews. Happened in Vietnam and Iraq. It'll happen again, even with near-peer engagements. Look at the Air Cav units during the Cold War that trained tirelessly to defend the Fulda Gap. 

 

I may not have been a pilot, but being a scout I know what works and what doesn't when your in the business of finding the enemy. This is all just more opportunities for companies to push their proposals through with in order to get the government to write checks and fund the military industry. Keep the exorbitant costs to a minimum, use what we know already works, and utilize technology that only enhances the critical skills of crewman, not making them overly reliable upon them.

So you suggest a militarised Bell 407, AS350B3 or MD 90?

[Agent K]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 3:36 AM, whiskey said:

Everything is too damn complex to be a scout helicopter. Keep it simple stupid. Doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles that make it look like it stepped out of a video game or a science fiction novel. The real art of surviving the battle space will be with the abilities and skills of the crews. Happened in Vietnam and Iraq. It'll happen again, even with near-peer engagements. Look at the Air Cav units during the Cold War that trained tirelessly to defend the Fulda Gap. 

 

I may not have been a pilot, but being a scout I know what works and what doesn't when your in the business of finding the enemy. This is all just more opportunities for companies to push their proposals through with in order to get the government to write checks and fund the military industry. Keep the exorbitant costs to a minimum, use what we know already works, and utilize technology that only enhances the critical skills of crewman, not making them overly reliable upon them.

I'm led to believe that the military produce a requirement/specification and holds a tender to companies to produce a design that meets that? and the responders will promote their design and absolutely and rightly push technology to meet that, it's happened throughout the 100+ years of aviation.

[EwenS]

On 06/03/2020 at 23:11, Slater said:

Or if you're the CH-53E or K, you get three engines.

Or an EH101/Merlin. Or even an SA.321 Super Frelon, if you care to go back to the 1960s.

 

But for multiple rotors I don’t think anything beats (in the ugliest stakes at the very least!) the Cierva Air Horse from 1948. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cierva_Air_Horse

[Slater]

Looks like the US Army has downselected to Bell and Lockheed Martin.

 

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/army-modernization/2020/03/25/lockheed-and-bell-will-compete-head-to-head-to-build-us-armys-future-attack-recon-aircraft/

[whiskey]

On 3/27/2020 at 1:36 AM, Calum said:

So you suggest a militarised Bell 407, AS350B3 or MD 90?

I don't think going totally off the shelf would be necessary. But I do think that making a "scout" helicopter higher performing than the actual attack aircraft and look like something out of GI Joe or a sci-fi movie is a bit too far.

 

I would think skids are a must. Observation helos will be fast yes, they need to be fast as hell to get outta dodge when need be. But they'll be in the weeds primarily (Kiowa Warrior ring a bell?). Always have been. I don't think crews will be thinking to lower the landing gear if they get hit and have to autorotate, which if they're as low as they should be they probably won't have time to do that. At least with skids it'll automatically offer some level of cushion.

 

Maybe come up with a simple design but use what was successful on other previous platforms and make it better. Armament could be marking projectiles and self defense. That way there's no confusion about who's role they're in. Once you add anti-armor capabilities you're just gonna piddle off the Apache lovers in The Pentagon. And yes they exist. They're the real reason the Comanche was nixed. One could make the airframe wired to carry a few anti-armor weapons but in either a wingman or self defense role. Not an attack role. This will help keep the size and weight down. 

 

Avionics, not an expert on but definitely need to have the most state of the art navigational and communication aides for sure. Scouts fight with the radio first and foremost. 

 

I dunno what else to think of at the moment as I'm too tired but that seems efficient enough. If the Army wants to get into the stealth game again, well good luck with that. Scouts play low and slow, then shoot and scoot once the SALUTE is identified and relayed to the bigger guns. I dont ever see that changing. Unless aliens really do exist. 👽

Edited March 29, 2020 by whiskey

[Alan P]

The Invictus is effectively a militarised 525 already. the objective is to make the aircraft as cost effective as possible while meeting the Army's requirements.

 

For me it's a no-brainer, The LM-Sikorsky option is more complex, more costly and over-capable. like hammering a nail with a Cadillac. If the Bell Textron isn't selected, i'd have to cry foul.