+- Rogue-Nation Discussion Board (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb)
+-- Forum: Technology and Advancements (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=77)
+--- Forum: Aviation Developments (https://rogue-nation.com/mybb/forumdisplay.php?fid=80)
+--- Thread: Helicopter Development or lack there of (/showthread.php?tid=2794)
Helicopter Development or lack there of - 727Sky - 05-27-2025
RE: Helicopter Development or lack there of - FCD - 05-27-2025
A couple interesting points in this space. The video blogger talks about some of the many obstacles facing new helicopter development (in the U.S.), but he seems to overlook some of the truly major ones. For example, unlike traditional fixed wing aircraft, rotary wing aircraft can't really be designed to go much faster, or fly at significantly higher altitudes. Secondly, because a rotary wing platform is inherently unstable by its nature, you can't design helicopters to be significantly larger than the largest out there now. Yes, some incremental improvements can be made in all these areas, but nothing on the scale of say fixed wing aircraft advancing from sub-sonic to super-sonic flight, or significant advances in stealth technology.
With helicopters it's just basic physics and aerodynamics which are the biggest limiting factors. These aren't going to change.
One subject which I think is an area of opportunity for advancement in rotary wing aircraft is the use of gyros which up to this point are only used in larger numbers on much smaller platforms like drones. Of course, this quickly begs the question of ...manned vs. unmanned?...but it doesn't have to, and the two are not mutually exclusive, from my perspective.
The other thing, and I talk about this frequently here, is the mindset of U.S. military brass. For whatever reason, we just can't seem to think small; everything has to be "big" (expensive, and physically large). Just look at drones as an example. Our military can't even really call them "drones". No, they have to be called "UAV's", and this points to a mindset which is not focused on being smaller and 'skinnier' (mass, physical size and cost). One only needs to look to the Ukraine-Russia conflict to see examples of why this is such a huge mistake and oversight. (Note - I attribute this 'big' mindset of our military to the amount of financial 'room' there is in a product to line everyone's pockets with (i.e. graft and corruption). Smaller, less expensive, aircraft don't have nearly the capacity for corruption that a 'big' mindset does.)
Then, there is the V-22 and all of its derivatives / permutations. The tilt-rotor concept probably best illustrates the future rotary wing development constraints I speak of here better than any other example. Is it new? Yes. It it advanced? Very. Does it perform better than regular rotary wing aircraft? Absolutely. So, what's the problem?
The tilt-rotor perfectly illustrates the one giant vulnerability that all rotary wing aircraft have...and will always have; the wing. In order for a rotary wing aircraft to be stable enough to fly it has to distribute a large amount of lift over a large 'footprint' of air below it. The same amount of thrust applied over a small surface area would quickly become unstable when airborne. In other words, it has to have a large rotating wing (the main rotor(s)).
One of the other major vulnerability factors for helicopters is weather, and time of day. This is not something which will be improved upon soon. Yes, there is night vision, and yes there is instrument capability for operation in IMC conditions. However, as anyone who has flown a helicopter before can tell you, rotary wing instability is dramatically pronounced when in close proximity to the ground. These ground effect stability risks are only compounded by IMC and night operations. (Incidentally, IMC and night operations might be an example of areas where gyros can assist with rotary winged flight, but that's for another post). I digress.
But back to the rotor for a moment; this large rotating wing will always be a huge vulnerability and there's really no reasonable way to get rid of it. So, what about VTOL aircraft? Yes, but with VTOL aircraft starting with the Harrier and advancing to the F-35, you have a very sophisticated, and VERY expensive, amount of technology packed into a small package. As a result, these fixed wing aircraft are not 'disposable' (or anywhere near it), and they have to be further armed to the teeth to defend themselves. They also require extensive specialized training. With a helicopter, the ultimate value is contained within its utility and its lack of huge expense. With the Harrier and the F-35 (and everything else in between) you have the exact opposite; you have very limited utility coupled with a very extreme price tag. Bottom line, you didn't gain the one primary objective you need most...affordable utility in the air.
It's easy to understand why Vietnam is termed the "Helicopter War". A military would be hard pressed to find an environment which was more hostile to ground vehicles (and even to a lesser extent, boats too). The helicopter was the utilitarian and affordable answer to this insurmountable logistics challenge. The Harriers and J-35's of the S/VTOL generation could have never filled all of this role in Vietnam. And very candidly, neither could the V-22 tilt-rotor designs.
Personally, I think helicopters are a great example of..."It ain't broke, so it don't need radical 'fixin'". Maybe the reason we're not seeing giant leaps forward in rotary wing technology is because we don't need giant leaps forward. The same vulnerabilities will always exist with rotary wing aircraft, so why make them more expensive when there's not a lot of room to make them significantly better (i.e. faster, higher, better). If all you get out of a new helicopter is 'more expensive', then what's the point? But don't tell any of this to the DOD and MIC who would love nothing better than to be paid to reinvent the proverbial wheel (or in this case, 'rotor', as it were).
That's my .02 on the matter.
RE: Helicopter Development or lack there of - F2d5thCav - 05-27-2025
At FCD--
And even those old UH-1's can launch a 2.75-inch rocket with a precision guidance system. Gotta be at least a ten meter effective fragmentation radius when those things land.
RE: Helicopter Development or lack there of - FCD - 05-27-2025
"Wonder" Rockets????
RE: Helicopter Development or lack there of - Bally002 - 05-28-2025
(05-27-2025, 05:51 PM)F2d5thCav Wrote: At FCD--
And even those old UH-1's can launch a 2.75-inch rocket with a precision guidance system. Gotta be at least a ten meter effective fragmentation radius when those things land.
Yeah. Interesting little buggers. (2.75's) I used to prepare and load them and the pods on S2E's and A4's.
The crews used to practice on the range at single selection with inert warheads. Left a reasonable divot. When armed with a HE there was enough in a single warhead to take out a putting green.
Fired at 'ripple' They were quite devastating along about a par 3.
Never loaded a chopper but it was possible here with the Iroquois.
The 2.75's were used in both configurations but only as a cheaper alternative than to practice with the 5" Zuni's which were utilised for anti sub.
Loading the warhead onto the motor was quite simple. Screw the head into the motor and on the last thread twist the motor in one hand and flick the head with the other with a snap. Then load into the pod.
If the motor alone was duct taped securely to a pushbike you could see the short burst of power they had and write one 26" pushy off.
Good for a laugh.
Kind regards,
Bally)