Boeing Sikorsky Future Helicopter

[tomahawk6]

The Defiant is a one size fits all helicopter designed to replace the Blackhawk and Apache. Frankly I like the design as a troop carrier but not as a gunship.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a26040/sikorsky-boeing-defiant-fvl-medium/

The transport variant of the Defiant, like the Blackhawk, carries 11 combat troops. It also carries eight casualty evacuation stretchers instead of six in the UH-60M. The video doesn't really go into details on the armed version designed to replace the AH-64 Apache, but it now sports a nose-mounted gun, something it didn't have in previous depictions, as well as winglet-mounted rockets and missiles.

Strangely, buried towards the end of the video, the announcer touts the Defiant's "dramatically reduced acoustic signature." In other words, it's much quieter than other helicopters. You would think this would be a very important selling point, but it's practically buried in a rapid-fire list of other points.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Bit large for a gunship ain't it?  Apache and Cobra are sleek sharks, this is a fucking whale.

 

[George Wallace]

Bit large for a gunship ain't it?  Apache and Cobra are sleek sharks, this is a fucking whale.

I suppose you wouldn't then consider a HIND a gunship. 

 

[Underway]

Bit large for a gunship ain't it?  Apache and Cobra are sleek sharks, this is a ******* whale.

I you watch the video the airframe on the gunship version is different, more narrow.

 

[MilEME09]

I suppose you wouldn't then consider a HIND a gunship. 

Personally I thought the soviets were pretty smart for making their main gunship a troop transport, of course the Mi-28 Havoc came later down the road but the Mi-24 is still a great design.

 

[jollyjacktar]

I suppose you wouldn't then consider a HIND a gunship. 

Having seen Cobra and Apache up close, they're slim, like a fighter and the reason I made my comment.  I can't comment about the HIND as such, as I've never seen one in the flesh.  Seeing as the crew sit tandem, however and not side by side, I'll wager she's thinner than the proposed Sikorsky.  But yes, she's a gunship, no question.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The Cobra (tandem seating, narrow fuselage) is a variant of the Twin Huey (side by side seating, wider fuselage).  Other than the front end, most parts are interchangeable.  I believe this will be a similar case.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Having seen Cobra and Apache up close, they're slim, like a fighter and the reason I made my comment.  I can't comment about the HIND as such, as I've never seen one in the flesh.  Seeing as the crew sit tandem, however and not side by side, I'll wager she's thinner than the proposed Sikorsky.  But yes, she's a gunship, no question.

I have touched a HIND. It is an...interesting helicopter. Touching the skin is like touching an M113- there is no give at all. It is extremely well armoured. I still cannot (for the life of me) figure out how it gets airborne.

 

[Loachman]

It does not hover well, due to the large wings (which generate 28% of total lift in forward flight but interfere with rotorwash) and weight, which is why its crews conduct moving attacks. A fully-loaded Hind can only take off while moving forward.

 

[quadrapiper]

It does not hover well, due to the large wings (which generate 28% of total lift in forward flight but interfere with rotorwash) and weight, which is why its crews conduct moving attacks. A fully-loaded Hind can only take off while moving forward.

For future Canadian uses, e.g. as a Griffin replacement, would something Hind-like be a good option, rather than the separate gunship and transport mode favored by the US?

 

[Loachman]

The roles are distinct, and not just in the US.

There is no need to bumble around the battlefield on a recce/attack mission with a bunch of guys in the back doing noting for a few hours, and likely becoming unnecessary casualties if something going wrong, and no need doing a transport mission with a bunch of sensors and weapons being wasted. This also just increases size and weight, hence a decrease in performance, for no useful gain.

Hind is bigger than it needs to be for the attack role, and too small to transport an adequate number of people.

And it's "Griffon".

 

[a_majoor]

The UH 60 also has various kits to turn it into a gunship, consider the "DAP" (Direct Action Penetrator). For a cash strapped air force, this might be an economical means of getting some support capability without the logistical and support issues of having multiple fleets of helicopters:

 

[GR66]

The UH 60 also has various kits to turn it into a gunship, consider the "DAP" (Direct Action Penetrator). For a cash strapped air force, this might be an economical means of getting some support capability without the logistical and support issues of having multiple fleets of helicopters:

That being said, wouldn't it make more sense for Canada to either purchase more Cyclones or Cormorants to replace the Griffons, rather than another new airframe?

 

[Good2Golf]

That being said, wouldn't it make more sense for Canada to either purchase more Cyclones or Cormorants to replace the Griffons, rather than another new airframe?

Would you recommend replacing the MCDVs with more CPFs?  Or old MLVWs with some new build HLVWs?

 

[GR66]

Would you recommend replacing the MCDVs with more CPFs?  Or old MLVWs with some new build HLVWs?

There was a suggestion made of replacing the Griffon with something more like the Hind and a response suggesting that something like the Defiant could be equipped in a gunship-type role (similar to the UH-60) instead.  Since the Defiant seems to be in a similar size class as both the Cyclone and Cormorant I simply asked IF you were to go that general route, would you not be better off doing that with an airframe that we already use (for the sake of commonality of supply and training) rather than adding a new one to the inventory.

 

[Loachman]

That being said, wouldn't it make more sense for Canada to either purchase more Cyclones or Cormorants to replace the Griffons, rather than another new airframe?

No.

Buy the right machine for the right job.

A utility helicopter that carries a section of Infantry is the right size. Anything bigger just makes a bigger target while reducing the number of targets. Eggs 'n' baskets 'n' all.

Besides, we're stuck with Griffon for the foreseeable future.

 

[a_majoor]

The point of the MH-60 DAP was to suggest there are ways to utilize a single airframe and get more bang for the logistical buck. Yes, we are indeed stuck with the Griffon until they fall out of the sky, but if/when it becomes impossible to put off replacements anymore, then a helicopter like the Bell/Sikorsky proposal "could" be purchased in enough numbers to allow for some to be kitted as gunships so we can do our own escorting tasks.

Of course, if we were smart, we might have gone the MH-60 route back in the 80'sand purchased them in bulk for the Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard etc. and had economies of scale in both the purchase and logistical support.

 

[Kirkhill]

...we are indeed stuck with the Griffon until they fall out of the sky, ...

Given history on other programmes - B52, UH-1, CH-47 even F-15/26/18 - that day could be a long time coming.  You can cover a lot of sins with "my grandfather's axe" principle.  As long as the name-plate and registration number is intact accountants can let you get away with murder on the operations and maintenance budget and never have to touch the capital budget (assuming friendly accountants and willing politicians).

 

[Good2Golf]

...As long as the name-plate and registration number is intact accountants can let you get away with murder on the operations and maintenance budget and never have to touch the capital budget (assuming friendly accountants and willing politicians).

Ah, I see you are familiar with the USMC's UH-1Y/UH-1Z "upgrade" program.

Regards
G2G

 

[Loachman]

And our LAV "upgrades".