Multi purpose helicopter

[RodrigoMF_BR]

A multi purpose helicopter like

 

Blackhawk, Bell 412, Mi-171, etc..

 

A much larger kind of missions.

 

CSAR, exfil-infil, cargo, cargo hook, SAR, etc..

 

Only shoot with attack helicopters are for kids.

[Jona33]

If it's going to be a utility/transport helicopter it should be a chinook or Merlin. Do something not US or Russia for a change

[OutOnTheOP]

hate to burst your bubble, but Chinook IS US designed and built. Has been since the '60s. Built by Boeing Vertol. Quick check; if it's a helicopter, and it's named after an American Indian tribe, it's probably of US origin. That means Apache, Kiowa, Iroquois (proper name for the "Huey"), Cheyenne, Commanche, Cayuse, Black Hawk (both an informal name for the Sauk tribe, and was the name of their leader during the war of 1812, when they fought on the side of the British, AND the name of an alliance of tribes that fought in Utah in the 1860s. Confusing, no?) There's exceptions, of course: the AH-1 Cobra isn't named after a tribe (though it was called the "Iroquois Warrior" in development), and the V-22 Osprey isn't named after a tribe, though the "V" designation instead of "H" leads me to believe it's treated as a fixed-wing aircraft rather than a helicopter.

 

That said, something of European design would be nice, yes. HOWEVER, I would prefer to have one nation with a full stable of aircraft before moving on to another. That way you can engage in real combined operations. It would be kind of a cludge having to use a Russian attack helicopter, Japanese scout helicopter, US CAS aircraft, British strike fighter, Chinese interceptor, and French multirole fighter all on the same team. That'd be just wierd.

 

They're better off doing it like they are: Russian attack helo, US CAS aircraft, US multirole fighter, Russian multirole fighter, Russian CAS aircraft, US strike fighter, Russian Strike fighter, US heavy bomber, Russian heavy bomber, and THEN do European multirole fighter, attack helo, CAS aircraft, and strike fighter (I can't really think of any modern European heavy bombers) in that order.

[AlphaOneSix]

and the V-22 Osprey isn't named after a tribe, though the "V" designation instead of "H" leads me to believe it's treated as a fixed-wing aircraft rather than a helicopter.

 

The Indian tribe naming convention is only for U.S. Army aircraft (both rotor AND fixed wing...e.g. OV-1 Mohawk) so since the Osprey is not in use by the U.S. Army, it doesn't have an Indian-based name. Same goes for other aircraft that were never used by the U.S. Army: H-53 and H-3 are just two examples.

[AlphaOneSix]

It would be kind of a cludge having to use a Russian attack helicopter, Japanese scout helicopter, US CAS aircraft, British strike fighter, Chinese interceptor, and French multirole fighter all on the same team. That'd be just wierd.

 

We did an op a few weeks ago using AH-64's for cover and Mi-17s for the assault, but I understand this is the exception, not the norm. ;)

[OutOnTheOP]

Good point on the Army only, but even then there's exceptions; the OV-10 Bronco and O-2 Skymaster come to mind as fixed wing.

[Frostiken]

Someone wanted an Osprey? :D

 

 

I'd rather walk!

[AlphaOneSix]

Good point on the Army only, but even then there's exceptions; the OV-10 Bronco and O-2 Skymaster come to mind as fixed wing.

 

OV-10 and O-2 were not U.S. Army aircraft.

 

The O-1 Bird Dog would be an example, however it came into service before the Army Regulation about using Indian names came into effect.

 

EDIT: There are still more examples, but again, the regulation calling for the use of the Indian naming convention did not come into effect until 1969, so any aircraft in service before that date would likely not be named after and Indian tribe.

Edited May 29, 2011 by AlphaOneSix

[AlphaOneSix]

Someone wanted an Osprey? :D

I'd rather walk!

 

Would you fly in a Black Hawk? I hope your answer is no.

[OutOnTheOP]

Have and would. The UH-60 is relatively reliable, as helicopters go, and is one of the most crashworthy airframes out there, so when it DOES crash (and let's face it, all aircraft crash at some point or another), you're more likely to walk away.

 

The only reason people think the Black Hawks crash all the time, is because Black Hawks FLY all the time. Who else operates helicopters with anywhere NEAR as many flight hours (both total and per airframe)? The local news channel? The local air ambulance? Some rich tycoon? Really? No one else does, or can afford to, fly so many rotary-wing hours. So when you have 100x as many UH-60s flying 200x as many total hours as any other helicopter, in rougher conditions and under more demanding mission profiles, if there are 10x as many crashes, should this REALLY be considered a bad record?

Edited May 30, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[AlphaOneSix]

You're misunderstanding me.

 

I'm referring to the early days of the UH-60 when it had some similar teething troubles as the Osprey. When the UH-60 had a reputation as a death trap, like the Osprey has gotten. Time has proven the UH-60 to be a solid airframe. Time will prove the same for the Osprey.

 

Oh, and hours? Civilian outfits, specifically things like offshore support and long-line work, fly more hours than the military can even dream of. The UH-60 is this generation's Huey. It does NOT fly more than any other helicopter, although it certainly flies its share, and there are many other airframes operating just as well in the same rough environment and under the same mission profiles. I love the Black Hawk to death, but it's no wonder-bird. (That would be the Chinook)

[OutOnTheOP]

An INDIVIDUAL civilian outfit may fly an INDIVIDUAL airframe, or even a handfull of airframes, at a higher flight-hour rate than an INDIVIDUAL military airframe. However, they do not fly enough aggragate hours on an individual model for the aggregate crash record to draw news. Maybe if every civilian company used the same airframe, but some use Bell 206s, some use MD500s, some use EC130s, some use Daufin, et al.

 

For that matter, it doesn't make news at ALL if a civilian helicopter with two or three persons aboard goes down. ANY time a military helicopter goes down, it's news.

 

Also, according to US Army accident rates from a 2001 Army Aeromedical Research Lab publication, the Blackhawk has only a slightly higher accident rate than the Chinook, and less than half the accident rate of the Apache. Yet the Apache has never managed to gain a reputation for "falling out of the sky like rain". I would be equally interested to know the crash rates for, say, Mi-8/17. Though I rather doubt some of the operators bothered to maintain (or at any rate, publish) crash records.

[AlphaOneSix]

Sorry for all the confusion, I'm not trying to start an argument. My response about the Black Hawk was for Frostiken specifically, and nobody else. You've completely misunderstood my point (which is my fault as I did not explain it).

 

My point, for Frostiken, is this: The UH-60 HAD that reputation for a while, and now it doesn't. The Osprey HAS that reputation now, but given time, it will not. The Osprey has proven to be a good bird over here so far and is already shedding its past, at least in military circles. My comment, again to Frostiken, was an implication that if you wouldn't want to fly in the Osprey because of its past, then you also would not want to fly in the Black Hawk, due to ITS past.

 

And re: Mi-8/17, I wouldn't go there if I were you...there are just too many of them in service. It's an amazing aircraft that gets a bad rap, but we've crashed 4 of them where I work, and all were pilot error. That thing is built like a tractor. Not really comparable to most Western aircraft simply because of the differing design philosophies.

[Frostiken]

I thought the Blackhawk's dubious history was mostly owed to the fact that it flies in some extremely dicey places.

 

Whereas the Osprey just forgets to stay in the air.

[AlphaOneSix]

I'm referring specifically to the "lawn dart" days of the UH-60.

 

The Osprey stays in the air just fine.

[OutOnTheOP]

No, the UH-60 definitely had a checkered past, mechanically. Something about the elevator aerodynamic surfaces giving uncommanded down-pitch at high speeds. That, and the older models had much, MUCH less available power than the newer models.

[Pyroflash]

I thought the Blackhawk's dubious history was mostly owed to the fact that it flies in some extremely dicey places.

 

Whereas the Osprey just forgets to stay in the air.

 

Correction, the Osprey USED to not fly well. However, that was during development where you would expect these kinds of glitches. As it stands in deployment today, it works just fine.

[Jona33]

OP. I kmow that the chinook is UK built. What i meant is having an RAF variant of it. where`d you get the info about DCS doing heavy bombers. I hope to God that isn`t true. BORING. UH-60 is OK if we aren`t getting a uk/europe aircraft/helo for a while. The osprey would be kind of interesting since it` got the tilt engines. Bet that could take a while to learn to fly though.

Edited May 31, 2011 by Jona33

[OutOnTheOP]

I don't have ANY information on ED making heavy bomber. I was merely pointing out that it makes sense to have the full gamut of roles/ airframe types for one nationality or enduring coalition (or for two opposing nationalities or coalitions) completed before moving on to third party nations so as to have some commonality for the massive multiplayer virtual war environment that is the stated end goal of the DCS project.

 

That said, it's pure speculation, but to accomplish that goal (the massive multiplayer virtual war), one would need to simulate heavy bombers- and even SAM systems, JTAC vehicles/ personnel, main battle tanks, IFVs, and infantrymen. But sticking to aircraft, yes, a heavy bomber would be an logical (if only eventually) release

 

*edit* then why would you even say something about wanting "not Russian or US for a change"? I mean, what's different on a UK Chinook versus a US one? I very much doubt it goes far beyond the paint scheme. US ones have add-on flare dispenser packets in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I suspect the door gunners are better armed in some of the US ones (does the UK put M134 or .50 cal in helicopter door mounts?) but other than that...? Maybe UK version is the legacy cockpit instead of the newer "glass" cockpit? If you want a UK heavy lift helo, go with Merlin or something.

Edited June 1, 2011 by OutOnTheOP

[Jona33]

Alriggh i`ll have a Merlin for a UK helicopterv then. Pretty sure we put M134 on the sidws and an M60is common on a semi lowwred tailramp i think. Instemuntation is diferent as well i think. But good point. I`ll be quiet now. Man it`s difucult to type on a kindle.

[blackhatch46]

Have and would. The UH-60 is relatively reliable, as helicopters go, and is one of the most crashworthy airframes out there, so when it DOES crash (and let's face it, all aircraft crash at some point or another), you're more likely to walk away.

 

The only reason people think the Black Hawks crash all the time, is because Black Hawks FLY all the time. Who else operates helicopters with anywhere NEAR as many flight hours (both total and per airframe)? The local news channel? The local air ambulance? Some rich tycoon? Really? No one else does, or can afford to, fly so many rotary-wing hours. So when you have 100x as many UH-60s flying 200x as many total hours as any other helicopter, in rougher conditions and under more demanding mission profiles, if there are 10x as many crashes, should this REALLY be considered a bad record?

 

the 60 is great, my second favorite helo.however there is definitely one that supersedes it for the medium lift helicopter role both in longevity and reliability. the CH-46, accepted in 1964. in 2005 when i was in iraq all 13 of our birds had over 15,000 flight hours. we maintained readiness of over 89 percent at all times. this includes phase and mods.