Bell wins Blackhawk replacement contract

So they want one aircraft to do the job of both the Blackhawk and Apache? Did I read that correctly?

“it will take over the roles of the Black Hawk, long the workhorse of the Army for getting troops to and around the battlefield, and the Apache, focused on attack missions.”
 
willpgn said:
So they want one aircraft to do the job of both the Blackhawk and Apache? Did I read that correctly?

“it will take over the roles of the Black Hawk, long the workhorse of the Army for getting troops to and around the battlefield, and the Apache, focused on attack missions.”
Click to expand...

There are a few helo's built by European companies that use the same 'chassis'/frame for both transport/assault, and attack. They do it because it's cost effective. I wonder if it's the same theory.
 
ronn47 said:
Twice as fast, twice as far, twice as big of a "wing" span.

First 2 are good, last I think is going to be a problem.
Click to expand...

I didn't read the article but the image overlays i've seen on size comparisons show the foot print of the "new" bird isn't much bigger when orientated 90 degrees from the Blackhawks longest dimension.

I would think a tilt rotor may have limitations in the rotary bird world but I'm not an aviator, don't know what I don't know and all that. The unmanned option seems interesting from an attack standpoint. Don't think i'd feel all warm and cozy riding passenger in a UAS though.
 
hp468 said:
I didn't read the article but the image overlays i've seen on size comparisons show the foot print of the "new" bird isn't much bigger when orientated 90 degrees from the Blackhawks longest dimension.

I would think a tilt rotor may have limitations in the rotary bird world but I'm not an aviator, don't know what I don't know and all that. The unmanned option seems interesting from an attack standpoint. Don't think i'd feel all warm and cozy riding passenger in a UAS though.
Click to expand...
When you throw in the swing of the 2 blades, I think that will be an issue.
 


Definitely a sleeker version of the Osprey. Looks like a Blackhawk with a wing/tilt rotors put on top.
 
Sort of sad to see this. I grew up just a few minutes from the Sikorsky plant, and many folks who stuck around after high school now work there. They used to regularly buzz the treetops where I lived. Always amazed me how quiet their blade signature was - you could never hear them until they were darn near overhead.
 
I was just thinking the other day how perfect the Blackhawk has been. I first rode on one in 1983 and it was a HUGE improvement over the Huey in every aspect.

Through today, I can’t imagine what improvement could be made to that airframe and what capability it lacks.

Granted, I’ve been out of the game since 2000 and additional/evolved missions may have created need for additional capability.

In most aspects, the Blackhawk will have to go down as one of the greatest military aircraft designs in history.

I would think they’ll be around long after their successor comes on line.
 
The biggest problem with VTOL/Tilt Rotor aircraft is support. A friend of mine in the Marines flies Super Hueys and says they pretty much cannot support the Ospreys--they fly too fast and too far to keep up. So they either have to pull the range in and restrict the footprint of the Ospreys (which is dumb because the aircraft was made to fly further) or have some logistical miracle to have support meet them at the LZ. Or, worst case, they go without.

But if all aircraft (lifting/transport and gunships) can keep the same pace and range, then that issue goes away.
 
steelciocc said:
I was just thinking the other day how perfect the Blackhawk has been. I first rode on one in 1983 and it was a HUGE improvement over the Huey in every aspect.

Through today, I can’t imagine what improvement could be made to that airframe and what capability it lacks.

Granted, I’ve been out of the game since 2000 and additional/evolved missions may have created need for additional capability.

In most aspects, the Blackhawk will have to go down as one of the greatest military aircraft designs in history.

I would think they’ll be around long after their successor comes on line.
Click to expand...
I agree. Every branch has their own version of that helo. I'm sure the Coast Guard will keep saving lives with JayHawks for many years to go. We don't need no baby Osprey...
 
Alabamacoastie said:
I agree. Every branch has their own version of that helo. I'm sure the Coast Guard will keep saving lives with JayHawks for many years to go. We don't need no baby Osprey...
Click to expand...

The Marines never used the Blackhawk*.

Even though the contract is changing, I am sure they will be supporting the Blackhawk for decades to come. The Marines still fly a Huey and Viper (Cobra) variant, and will for probably 20 more years.

Edited to add, HMX-1 ("Marine One") does fly it, but I would consider that a specialty squadron and not operational use.
 
Last edited:
There is one thing to be said for Bell: they've certainly gone through the trials and tribulations with working out the gremlins in tilt rotor aircraft and the related physics with the Osprey. Probably a big factor in their award.
 
willpgn said:
So they want one aircraft to do the job of both the Blackhawk and Apache? Did I read that correctly?

“it will take over the roles of the Black Hawk, long the workhorse of the Army for getting troops to and around the battlefield, and the Apache, focused on attack missions.”
Click to expand...

MH-60 DAP has been around since 1989.


 
Textron owns Bell Helicopters. Textron does everything in a big way. I worked for Textron for over 13 years in one of their fastener divisions. In early 1990 we were overwhelmed with orders for military contracts. In January 1991, the bombing in Iraq began.
 
willpgn said:
Understood…just questioning taking one of the best mover of things and one of the best destroy of things and expecting to get those best ofs in one platform. @Hammer12b said it best above
Click to expand...
Here's the fun part,
The tilting blades remove the ability for the Osprey to have door gunners. The Osprey only has a ramp gunner, and no forward aiming arms.

So, to your and @Hammer12b how in the heck do they arm this machine?
 
I’m pretty damned ignorant of what makes a good military aircraft, but are they using fairy dust to pay for this? Cause we are worse than broke. Might be time to reel it in a bit.
 
JBoyette said:
Here's the fun part,
The tilting blades remove the ability for the Osprey to have door gunners. The Osprey only has a ramp gunner, and no forward aiming arms.

So, to your and @Hammer12b how in the heck do they arm this machine?
Click to expand...

There's a few variants with a belly-mounted gun system. I've seen a couple AFSOC V-22s with them, but I don't know anything about them.

V-22 Osprey Weapon System - How it should be...

An article about the initiative to providea forward looking weapon system to V-22 Osprey that is to be remotely controlled with a helmet tracker. The main armament is a three barreled 12.7mm (.50cal) gatling gun.
warfaretech.blogspot.com warfaretech.blogspot.com
 
I‘m someone who loves new tech especially when I was in the military.

If it’s solid, tough and viable.

I honestly can’t think of a really good reason to replace the Blackhawk but even if I could I can’t see replacing them with a tilt rotor.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom