I can't see them being picked up for a SOCOMD role at all
completely wrong config for the way they do business
completely wrong config for the way they do business
Thats how the russians have done it
they've got a govt and corporate model to protect their fields. in exercises both types of forces have been issued with manpads
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
I think what is more exciting than just the S-97 is the promise of the technology being devoloped in this project. I can see a whole family of aircraft being devoloped using this configuration. ie : An eventual AH-64 replacement.
Don't pay any real attention to the S-97 raider, at least not yet. No one has ordered it as yet so any first customer will have to fund the production development. I also dealt the US will order any seeing as they are pushing the FVL program so would make little sense to acquire an untested aircraft that still needs work when you plan to start introducing something similar in 2030.
I do have hope for t he FVL program seeing as they have learnt from the F-35, Rather then trying to fit everything into one platform they have split it up into I believe 5 sections.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
Someone may be able to help me with this, i can't find anything to back me up. But if my memory serves me correctly did not Bell offer the Army the Osprey as a Huey replacement in a late 80s project eventually won by the Blackhawk. If my memory is playing tricks on me please accept my apologies.
It may have only been a bid to feel out future possiblties with Bell knowing they had little chance of winning.
It may have only been a bid to feel out future possiblties with Bell knowing they had little chance of winning.
Single door? They have hinged cockpit doors, sliding cabin doors and rear clamshell doors, it would provide better ingress and egress for more operators than the Little Bird. Unless they are looking to move up a class size or two (or three) i.e. MH-60S (which I would love but is by no definition a light helicopter), UH-1Y or perhaps Lynx Wildcat, I can't see anything more capable or flexible currently available.
On the other hand it is Eurocopter so whether the ADF would be brave enough to go down that path again......
I ignored the pilot's doors seeing as they from my knowledge dont deploy with the troops before the helo lifts off so there doors are not a determining factor.
The single door I meant is in regards to the side sliding doors, a single one on each side for which operators can only exit or enter single file, a time consuming task and all the more dangerous when under fire.
The clam shell doors while useful I have not heard of being used to deploy special forces troops, but rather used for the loading/unloading of cargo and stretchers. While it may be possible for them to deploy through the clamshell doors I need to ask, are they open/shut manually? If so can they be open/shut manually from inside? If not can it fly properly with them open?
I'm not against the product it's self but I prefer proven products and as it is no one uses this aircraft in the fast deployment of SF's/operators. Not even Airbus them selves market it to fill such a task.
MH/AH6 has a pretty short range, about 50km less than the Kiowa, the UH1Y has a similar short range, but a lot in common with the AH1Z which is a bonus. Also its a safe option, marinised and a good all round utility. If the AH1Z is selected to replace the Tiger, then I would like to see the the UH1Y selected.
Wonder if the ADF has learnt from the tiger/NH90 buy?
While I'm sure the UH-1Y would be useful and I do like it my self I have based my views around the requirements for it (3 - 4 inside a C-17) but that is still a ways away so things could still change, time will tell.
I'm not 100% certain that it being marinised under the current requirements matter, At present I get the impression they would be airlifted into theater rather then being stationed aboard the LHD's which on one hand does have a limiting effect on there use but on the other hand prevents the LHD's from being over burdened maintaining too many different types of air assets.
I could understand the importance of being able to cram 3 or 4 choppers in a C17 if you needed to deploy a dozen or more, but really, how many would we airlift into a zone at a time, we sent 3 NH90, s to Fiji on Canberra, how many blackhawks did we deploy to ET? How many Hueys did we send to Vietnam, and what did we send to Afghan? Being able to fit 1 or 2 into a C17 is pretty good, when it has the same engines as your ARH and is suitable to be deployed on the phat ships, I think they would be a more flexible option.
But they are just a wish list atm, will have to wait for an order, same with most of the white paper really, the orders are yet to come and we can speculate as much as we want.
It is a pretty exciting paper though, hope it materialises.
But they are just a wish list atm, will have to wait for an order, same with most of the white paper really, the orders are yet to come and we can speculate as much as we want.
It is a pretty exciting paper though, hope it materialises.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
We can get excited all we like about goodies in a DWP, but nothing really matters until the Goverment comes up with the money and contracts get signed. There have been plenty of capabilities in DWPs over the years that never saw the light of day. Such as tier 1 frigates and OCVs from the Dibb report.SPGs, replacement Carrier for the Melbourne. Going on the past history the chances of everything in this DWP seeing service is pretty low. Governments have other priorities for the public purse strings, so take money from Defence or requirements change. Operations like the one against IS eat up money that could have been used for procurement.
warfighting and operations costs come out of a separate bucket of money that has been protected by both sides of Govt.
Gillards govt did chew into some of that which put them on the nose as they were taken on trust and it was assumed that they would stand by that commitment.
What it comes down to is whether the desired type is a light helicopter or a larger medium one. I could see that a type such as the Little Bird or slightly larger could be desired as a replacement for the Kiowas of 173 Sqn but at the same time a larger type such as the Lynx Wildcat may be what is required.
When I read it in the DWP I initially thought the Sierra would have been ideal, or as some suggested the Venom but then I saw the reference to the MRH90. With some of the Combat Wombats intended to be outfitted for SOF support as well as a higher end CSAR and support function indicated (the potential CV-22/MH-47 acquisition) it seems that in this case light actually may mean light.
winnyfield
New Member
Quote from DWP16
SF seemed happy enough to utilise regular Chinooks and Blackhawks (not to mention Mi17s) in Afghanistan so I think 'light' does mean 'light'. I suspect the aspiration is to move helicopters, crew and SF troopers in a single lift; around region for a CT scenario.
As a bare minimum 'fire support' suggest aerial sniping.
SF seemed happy enough to utilise regular Chinooks and Blackhawks (not to mention Mi17s) in Afghanistan so I think 'light' does mean 'light'. I suspect the aspiration is to move helicopters, crew and SF troopers in a single lift; around region for a CT scenario.
King Wally
Active Member
Logic would seam to dictate to me that it would be pretty light. In order to gain a serious point of difference to the MRH-90 I think somewhere someone has pointed out a niche right down at the lighter end (probably little bird sized) that quite simply cannot be met by the current hardware mix. Bouncing off tiny urban rooftops with 2-4 man SF teams is likely what they are picturing. But hey I could be wrong.
Yes, I think that is the case and as much as I would love to see Sierra adopted the MRH90 reference seems to indicate that is a non starter. Like the Littlebird but the recent selection of the EC135 for HATS would appear to give the H135M a good chance, despite the poor experience with the Tiger and Wombat.
I'd be 99% certain the MH6/AH6 is all that will be realistically considered for the light helo role.
SOCOMD appear to want to replicate the major capabilities that the US maintain the SpecOps field.
If that is true, then this project is most unlikely to include a Eurocopter sourced, platform...
SOCOMD appear to want to replicate the major capabilities that the US maintain the SpecOps field.
If that is true, then this project is most unlikely to include a Eurocopter sourced, platform...
The commander of FORCOMD did recently tell 6 Avn Regt they were getting Little Birds.
While he won't be the bloke that makes the decision, it's a pretty good indication of the capability requirement.
Low risk and a guaranteed upgrade pathway are the key discriminators for future acquisitions, particularly for helos.
While he won't be the bloke that makes the decision, it's a pretty good indication of the capability requirement.
Low risk and a guaranteed upgrade pathway are the key discriminators for future acquisitions, particularly for helos.