Sikorsky X2

[Zachstar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_X2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyqOYr1fYUQ

This is an AWESOME design!

It is perfect in that it will have the lack of a RPG magnet (Tail Rotor) And it will be FAST! which is perfect in an age where conflicts can be won or lost in a matter of minutes.

I like how small it is. Granted this will mean it wont have the punch of an Apache. But it surely will have enough to keep the enemy busy until more support arrives.

But if you know how I have been talking lately you know the real reason why I want it small. PERFECT UAV material! Rip out the human control parts and improve its computer and these things can be made in an assembly line and fit into packages ready to be shipped anywhere in the world to deploy fast!

Will be half a decade before this gets into the hands of pilots for military use surely. However, I am glad to see that we are getting serious about hovering craft that do not cost many many millions.

[panzer 49th]

Now it becomes a SAM magnet instead of an rpg magnet. :P

Nice design though, can't wait to see how it flies.

[Zachstar]

Quite hard to hit a helo when it can duck behind small trees. Trees quicky ruin radar lock and the foliage and wildlife cause massive confusion to heat seekers.

That is why the Hind is so crappy outside of soviet and US forests. It is too big to duck under all but the large trees and it cant maneuver fast enough.

This travels so fast there is less time to get a lock with an easily targeted sam launcher and Stingers are useless when it is in cruise. It will be out of sight long before you can lock it.

Not to mention modern jamming systems which make older Sams useless.

Its too hard to lock, Will be able to jam, and Is fast.

I think it will be a weak magnet at the very most.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I'll admit, it's an impressive-looking piece of equipment, with some equally impressive capabilities, but it's hardly a panacea. A really cool find, though.:up:

For those same reasons, I almost hate to point out the following (please forgive:oops:);

1) Tail-rotors are not "RPG-magnets", despite whatever conclusions you drew from Black Hawk Down. The tail rotor is not a large part of a helicopter, so it's actually less likely to be hit by an unguided weapon like an RPG. Of course, that is irrelevant on a small helicopter like this, since an RPG hit anywhere would almost certainly be fatal. RPG's use hollow-charge warheads capable of penetrating several inches' worth of steel armor. Even the most heavily-armored helicopters, generally, are only capable of withstanding 20mm cannon strikes.
In fact, large helicopters like the Hind are less likely to be disabled or destroyed by RPGs and the like because their vital components are more spaced out and they contain a large central cavity full of air.

2) I think that you misunderstand the concept of "jamming", as well as a host of other tactical considerations. Firstly, while it is possible to jam a radar-guided missile by flooding the target area with powerful radio energy, it makes you a huge beacon for anti-radiation homing missles, which exsist in several air-to-air and surface-to-air variants.
Secondly, while this vehicle's speed is impressive for a chopper, it is certainly not going to be immune to modern AA missiles. Speed is not the helicopter's strength.
Take a lesson from the AH-64D Longbow, which uses a periscope mount to fire hellfire AGMs from behind hills and the like. The speed is useful, no doubt, but even this chopper couldn't rely on it to the extent you describe. And that's not even factoring in hostile aircraft with look-down shoot-down radar.

3) Since there is only a limited amount of technical data available, I can only hazard an educated guess here, but using this vehicle as a UAV would be inefficient at best.
According to the Sikorsky website, and your first link, this vehicle requires a 2-man crew. It also has an avionics suite. These things are not advantages for a cheap, expendable, unmanned craft. Honestly, I can't say what the potential is for this vehicle as a UAV, or really divine what role you intend it to fulfill, but I have a better substitute for you already. The Kamov KA-50 is a single-seat attack/fighter helicopter utilizing the same contra-rotating blade configuration. Unlike the X2, the Kamov doesn't have a tail rotor or anything like it and does not require one. It is the fastest military helicopter in the world, and reportedly, can be flown like a plane while cruising.
If you want a UAV chopper, that's your best bet. It is everything that the LHX program never was, and given a reconfigured fuselage design, might be stealthable as well, and at a fraction of the cost of the X2.

[Zachstar]

I know about Jamming and its disadvantages. I learned while reading why my jamming was making me into a target.

And I said older sams. A modern same would blow this out of the sky in a heartbeat like any other chopper. However only a few nations have such ability and this chopper would be nowhere near THAT hot zone. That is a job for missile boat and decoy UAVs.

As for the Black Shark. I highly doubt that we will be buying those any time soon.

And as for conversion. They are already converting Little Birds to be used in manned and unmanned roles (To spot for Apaches or to fly into a hot zone and evac without risking more lives)

It wont be super cheap but yes these things can be made cheaply IF that is the role we want. AH-64s are expensive because they arent meant to be thown in and have maybe a quarter escape. So they are filled to the brim with stuff to prevent such.

You build a 1000 of these a year in an assembly line and you have that ability. Half go in and be bait and blow up what they can while the other half go in and mop up. Dirty but will work all the time because there is nothing the bad guys have that can eat 1000 of these before the force is wiped out. Especially when their air force is held back by F-22s.

[UnderseaLcpl]

I know about Jamming and its disadvantages. I learned while reading why my jamming was making me into a target.

And I said older sams. A modern sam would blow this out of the sky in a heartbeat like any other chopper. However only a few nations have such ability and this chopper would be nowhere near THAT hot zone. That is a job for missile boat and decoy UAVs.

As for the Black Shark. I highly doubt that we will be buying those any time soon.

And as for conversion. They are already converting Little Birds to be used in manned and unmanned roles (To spot for Apaches or to fly into a hot zone and evac without risking more lives)

It wont be super cheap but yes these things can be made cheaply IF that is the role we want. AH-64s are expensive because they arent meant to be thown in and have maybe a quarter escape. So they are filled to the brim with stuff to prevent such.

You build a 1000 of these a year in an assembly line and you have that ability. Half go in and be bait and blow up what they can while the other half go in and mop up. Dirty but will work all the time because there is nothing the bad guys have that can eat 1000 of these before the force is wiped out. Especially when their air force is held back by F-22s.

I'm blinded by the brilliance of your optimism. But allow me to explain.

Firstly, the Kamov KA-50 and KA-52 are hardly unobtainable. We posses working models already, and it isn't a difficult craft to replicate, in any case.

Secondly, you're entirely too rigid in your approach to the problem. It may be feasible to build 1000 X2 UAVs and lose half of them in a single attack in theory, but the aggregate costs would be crippling in a large theatre of war, even for the U.S. What you are advocating is the "massed firepower" doctrine, albeit with the use of UAVs. Historically, this has never been efficient, and you're at least two generations' worth of military technology behind or ahead of the times. UAVs are not economical enough for this type of employment right now. VTOL UAVs are especially unsuitable because of the complexity of their propulsion systems and fuel consumption.

Furthermore, establishing a doctrine that only works against 3rd-world nations with garbage AA is a waste of resources. What good do 10,000 expensive UAVs do if they are worthless against a real opponent?

As I said in your last UAV thread, you're on the right track, but you're thinking too far ahead. Certainly, the military should continue research into UAVs and they have vast potential, but we can't rely on them just now. If you were a an American Civil War General, you would be advocating machine guns. A great idea, but the technology is not ready and by the time it is, warfare will likely have changed.

I could go on and on about the "what ifs" and "maybes" that you are casually disregarding (including relying on the F-22 to establish air superiority) but I'll just tell you this, to save a lot of typing. The key elements in any military strategy or doctrine in modern warfare are speed, adaptability and flexibility. A UAV strategy offers netiher for the time being. Communications technologies are not ready for that leap yet, and leave a massive weakness to be exploited.

UAVs are still a supplementary arm, and should be so until a proper electronic infrastructure can be developed to support them.

[Zachstar]

Um just to shut that all down.

A machine gun during the Civil War that actually was mass produced would have ended it quickly. Or atleast caused it to bog down to a trench war instead of mass slaughters.

Are you kidding me? A gun that would have stopped all charges dead in their tracks too far ahead? What about all who died because that gatting gun was only used in small quantities instead of being produced in mass and used to quickly defeat the south.

What I see here is trying to rationalize UAV fear more than anything else. You and others either worry that they will be hacked or they will make fighter pilots useless. The "God gave us the best computer" doctrine.

Losing masses of UAVs will be better than losing one soldier. Period! No ifs or buts about it. It's because of UAVs spotting IED placement crews that we have lost only a few thousand rather than 10 thousand or more.

Funny thing is it dosent mater that I love UAV or another hates them. The military is getting more UAVs than Aircraft starting in 2009 not 2050 or 2020. And the trend is going towards more of em.

Let me make it clear BTW. The United States Military will NEVER use the KA-50 or 52 in combat. NEVER. At best we may buy one to play with or study weaknesses with but NEVER use it combat. Oh and BTW the KA-50 sucks compared to even an Apache-A much less a Longbow.

And while I do not believe the X2 will be THE model that first becomes the massed firepower UAV. It would do fine as such.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Ok, forget the machine gun thing, it isn't worth nitpicking over things like how a gatling gun is not a machine gun, and totally misses the point of the analogy.


What I see here is trying to rationalize UAV fear more than anything else. You and others either worry that they will be hacked or they will make fighter pilots useless. The "God gave us the best computer" doctrine.
For the record, while some may "fear" UAVs, I am not amongst them. I love UAVs. Worked with them before, and they are great, when they work. And I'm a groundpounder, so I already think fighter pilots are useless:p

It's because of UAVs spotting IED placement crews that we have lost only a few thousand rather than 10 thousand or more.


Maybe, but I'd have to see a source for that before I believe it. I wouldn't know about Afghanistan, but in Iraq the most common IED deployment methods make UAVs (or indeed, any aerial platform) singularly unsuited for detecting them.
The UAV probably won't be flying in a sandstorm, and it isn't going to see guys emplacing the device one piece at a time through a hole in their car's floor over the course of several days.

Let me make it clear BTW. The United States Military will NEVER use the KA-50 or 52 in combat. NEVER. At best we may buy one to play with or study weaknesses with but NEVER use it combat. Oh and BTW the KA-50 sucks compared to even an Apache-A much less a Longbow.

Does it? Well, I guess that's to be expected since it's designed for a completely different role, but oh well. I was just suggesting that the design might be suited to a UAV conversion for simplicity of operation and to keep costs down.