Beyond The Sprues
Modelling => Ideas & Inspiration => Aero-space => Topic started by: elmayerle on February 05, 2012, 07:54:14 AM
-
In addition to the obvious, such as a production derivative of the X-49, how about combining the Apache's TADS?PNVS turret onto the UH-60M, hanging suitable stores on the ESSS, and re-designating it an AH-60M? I'm thinking one of the stores, if the weights are compatible, could be a shortened version of MATRA's combined rocket pod/fuel tank. A pair of those and a double brace of Hellfires would look menacing.
-
Something like this perhaps:
(http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/images/ah-60_battlehawk.jpg)
AH-60L / S-70 Battle Hawk
-
Something like this perhaps:
AH-60L / S-70 Battle Hawk
Yeah, but with a more comprehensive sensor fit. I might try for launch rails for Sidewinders, or equivalent, on the tip of each ESSS "wing". Oh, interesting design fact, the ESSS wings attach to the same massive forged fitting on each side that the main gear shock attaches to (yes, that shock runs from the main gear all the way to the top of the cabin).
-
Or maybe this set-up the Israelis are trialling? Might even be the same EO turret as in Greg's pic, but with a much larger boxy fairing on the nose.
(http://2010.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2010/02/12/49974590.jpg)
Pic form THIS TOPIC (http://www.fresh.co.il/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=328488) on fresh.co.il, where I also found the following pic of some Blackhawk with a pylon I've never seen before. Anybody know more? Almost looks like an ESSS pylon melted in the heat! ;D
(http://2010.uploaded.fresh.co.il/2010/08/23/70835941.jpg)
-
That last one looks to be the "inner" portion of one of the earlier ESSS pylons (apparently there are several variations, I remember seeing front views of, IIRC, eight during my time at Sikorsky). There'd be another straight section that could fasten to that to add another stores station on each side.
-
There have been a number of different pylons in the H-60 series, including this one that was introduced by the Navy on the MH-60S "Knighthawk" a couple of years ago.
(http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b170/jason_schmus/Oceana09/R1-25A.jpg)
While looking for images of the ESSS, I also discovered this monstrosity:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/RAMICS_Picture.jpg)
That is the Rapid Airborne Mine Clearance System (RAMICS), featuring the Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm gun.
-
Damn, they went ahead and built it? I saw the proposals in work shortly after I started contracting at Sikorsky (Armaments Group was located right next to the Propulsion Group where I worked).
-
I recall reading about this contraption, and having a presentation (which I found at ndia.org in the proceedings section, early '2000s) showing impressive pics of this thing's forebearers in action destroying mines. Underwater!. I recall the munition used was a supercavitating thing that would lead to the development of AHSUM (Advanced High Speed Underwater Munitions, pronounced “Awesome”). Recommended: The Science of War-Weapons, Scientific American.com, special online issue no.1, 2002, article "SWIFT SUBSEA WEAPONS Warp Drive Underwater"
-
That looks cool!
-
Any ideas on what five-blade main rotor could be used on the Black Hawk to make that "special" version?
-
RAH-66 or AW101, most likely. Sea King blades probably wouldn't look "modern" enough unless someone makes a kit of the Carson composite blades used on S-61s.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_M9JRlA_879c/SJzlugrMqaI/AAAAAAAAA0M/c-JAlZ7-vnY/s1600/-sea-king-carson-blad.jpg)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Any ideas on what five-blade main rotor could be used on the Black Hawk to make that "special" version?
If that was the attack Black Hawk Jeff, wiki says it was an S-61 rotor system (Sea King)
-
Ah, I thought he maybe meant the Bin Laden stealth ones.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Was that helicopter a Black Hawk Logan ?
-
It's very much believed that it was.
Cheers,
Logan
-
I suppose that if Westland can put that faceted structure on their Lynx Wildcat, there's no reason why Sikorsky couldn't
-
Any ideas on what five-blade main rotor could be used on the Black Hawk to make that "special" version?
If that was the attack Black Hawk Jeff, wiki says it was an S-61 rotor system (Sea King)
S-67 = Blackhawk
S-70 = Black Hawk
:icon_fsm:
As to the Bin Laden black helicopters, it wouldn't be much of a stretch to apply Sikorsky's
experience with the 1980s S-75 ACAP program to a new, composite structure 'stealthy' fuselage
with S-70 motive components.
(http://1000aircraftphotos.com/Contributions/Visschedijk/7255L.jpg)
-
Any ideas on what five-blade main rotor could be used on the Black Hawk to make that "special" version?
If that was the attack Black Hawk Jeff, wiki says it was an S-61 rotor system (Sea King)
.
Ah, I thought he maybe meant the Bin Laden stealth ones.
Actually it was the "special" H-60 Black Hawk version that I was describing in my original post. I refrain from calling it "stealth" as that term is used far too often for things that do not qualify for that description.
-
C'mon Jeff, everybody knows that all ya gota do is push the 'stealth' button. ;D
-
C'mon Jeff, everybody knows that all ya gota do is push the 'stealth' button. ;D
I would rather have a smite button :)
-
Everything I've heard says it was, with various LO adaptations taken from Comanche and elsewhere. It likely retained the four-bladed rotor though the blades may have been of a different design to reduce signature and I suspect there were some "interesting" IR suppression techniques, beyond those used on the UH-60M and MH-60S, applied.
-
Actually it was the "special" H-60 Black Hawk version that I was describing in my original post. I refrain from calling it "stealth" as that term is used far too often for things that do not qualify for that description.
I understand, but it's an H-60 with LO modifications. I know it may not be "stealth", but when you say "stealth Black Hawk", everyone knows what you're talking about. When you say "'special' Black Hawk", you are inviting confusion for the sake of pedantry (as evinced by kit's understandable confusion). That's my two cents, at least.
We sacrifice accuracy for the sake of communicability every day. Everybody just draws the line in different places.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Yep, plus stealth as a word and concept is far older than concepts of invisible airplanes. ;D
-
Have I ever wondered here about the viability of engining the Black Hawk with RTM322? Would commonality of engine with AW101 add to the versatility of the series (I was thinking of a hi-low mix with AW101 for naval use) or take away from it via development expense?
Also...... can the Knight Hawk carry both RAMICS and ALMDS at the same time, or would it be a hunter-killer team?
-
Have I ever wondered here about the viability of engining the Black Hawk with RTM322? Would commonality of engine with AW101 add to the versatility of the series (I was thinking of a hi-low mix with AW101 for naval use) or take away from it via development expense?
Yes, you could, but it would definitely cost (a whole new set of engine installations plus firewall, cowling, intake, and exhaust system changes - all these will still require testing and certification). For a large enough order, I could see it, but it would need to be a good sized order.
-
I thought the RMT322 was an option for the aborted Westland version of the Blackhawk, could be wrong though. Anyway Italian AW101 use T700s which would give you your commonality for a high low mix.
-
I don't know if they did or not. The swap-out is obviously doable but I'm familiar enough with the S-70/H-60 engine installation to think that it would take some redesign and requalification work.
-
I know it was certainly on the cards for a while.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Yes I remember reading it but can't find the reference now, the prototype WS70 used GEs and I believe the export order they almost secured in ME was for GEs. I vaguely recall something about a proposal for Westland built Blackhawks replacing Wessex in the RAF.
-
The S-70A-16 is listed as the RTM322 testbed variant, and here's a 2003 Rolls-Royce article that mentions the offering.
The RTM322 is also being offered for a number of additional applications, including the AgustaWestland/Lockheed Martin US101 and the Sikorsky UH-60 Blackhawk family.
http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/rtm322-continues-to-demonstrate-reliability-153936715.html (http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-releases/rtm322-continues-to-demonstrate-reliability-153936715.html)
Thanks,
Logan
-
Here's the testbed that Rolls-Royce used from 1986 to 1995.
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7276/7414783746_d300a01b16_z.jpg)
(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7546/15937515572_a160b1fd6a_z.jpg)
And here's some Flight magazine articles about it from the 1986-1988 period.
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202303.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1986/1986%20-%202303.html)
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1987/1987%20-%200091.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1987/1987%20-%200091.html)
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%201411.html (http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1988/1988%20-%201411.html)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Pretty, and no noticable external differences. The engineer side of me would love to look under the cowl and see how the two installations compare. So, assuming someone wanted the commonality, you could operate TRM322-powered S-70 family helicopters alongside others with the same basic engine.
-
Did you click on the second link (the one from 1987)? That's pretty "under the cowl" if you ask me. The very definition, in fact.
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v132/loganov/RTM.322%20S-70C.png~original)
Cheers,
Logan
-
Quite, but not necessarily from all the angles I'd be interested in (I've been up-close and personal with the T700 installation in both Black Hawk and Naval Hawk versions as well as having updated the control rigging instructions while I was contracting at Sikorsky). It does look like there would definitely be some design work involved for a production installation of the RTM322 in place of the T700. It looks quite doable, but there's definite detail design required - I know from current experience that Proof of Concept installations don't necessarily come close to their production equivalents and I'm quite familiar with the varied T700 installations on S-70 family members.
-
Ah, gotcha. I'm sure there's some major rework done. The Flight caption cheerily mentions that it only took "a matter of weeks", which—in fairness—I know isn't very long in a flight-capable experimental installation. Still, the fact that it's no longer pursued and was never selected over 20 years of marketing might suggest that it wasn't as straightforward as something like the F110 in the F-15 and F-16.
I recently read that the UK is looking at a AH-64E Guardian-style upgrade for their Apaches, but what they'd be doing with the engines and transmission was unknown (I imagine they'll be skipping that portion). Choosing to go with different systems than the US can cause complications with comprehensive upgrade programs and add expense, I know. It seems to be a lot more straightforward for other operators as long as they have the money.
Cheers,
Logan
-
Even keeping the same basic engines, there was considerable redesign involved with the fly-by-wire UH-60MU prototype program; I can imagine what effect a full-up change of engine would do - what odds do you give that the major interfaces would be in remotely close locations. Unless there's a push like the F-15's Common Engine Bay, swapping engines could get interesting (there's enough involved with choice of engine on the F-16 to tell me that).
-
Having worked 747-400 electrical design, in the power panel group, I can
tell ya that the interfaces and wiring for the RB211 was very different from
that for the GE and Pratt engines, which in turn, while similar, were
different from each other.
-
*chuckle* And then you get into all the other systems interfaces (fuel, bleed air, controls, etc.) plus structural interfaces (parts of the S-70 forward firewalls attach to the T700 engines) and proper engine mounts.
-
Thanks Logan, I thought I was going senile for a moment there.
-
Interesting photo:
(https://pix.avaxnews.com/avaxnews/ba/50/000450ba.jpeg)
-
Nicely equipped MH-60R; I wouldn't want to be the "bad guys" facing it.
-
Everything I've heard says it was, with various LO adaptations taken from Comanche and elsewhere. It likely retained the four-bladed rotor though the blades may have been of a different design to reduce signature and I suspect there were some "interesting" IR suppression techniques, beyond those used on the UH-60M and MH-60S, applied.
How long do you suppose it'll be until we find out what on earth exactly was up with the Neptune's Spear helos? They've done so well at keeping everything except the downed tail very, very well hidden.
-
Recently acquired the AIAA book on the history and development of the Black Hawk. One of the interesting bits was a picture of the mockup of their entry against Bell and Hughes for an attack helicopter, said entry using much of the Black Hawk's engine installations and dynamic components.
For a different take, how about S-70 engines and dynamic components replacing their S-61 equivalents on an evolved S-67?
-
BlackHawk with Hellfire and Stingers(?):
(http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/blackhawk.jpg)
-
The U.S. Air Force has officially nicknamed its new HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopters as the Jolly Green II.
This moniker is a direct reference to the Vietnam War-era HH-3E Jolly Green and HH-53B/C Super Jolly Green combat search and rescue helicopters that saved the lives of countless downed American aircrews during the conflict in Southeast Asia.
(https://the-drive.imgix.net/https%3A%2F%2Fapi.thedrive.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F02%2F23523523.jpg%3Fquality%3D85?w=1440&auto=compress%2Cformat&ixlib=js-1.4.1&s=2ab2dfc0e0d35cec81d9c255d9eede55)
Source: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32384/air-force-names-new-hh-60w-rescue-helicopters-after-jolly-green-giants-of-vietnam (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/32384/air-force-names-new-hh-60w-rescue-helicopters-after-jolly-green-giants-of-vietnam)
-
The U.S. Air Force has officially nicknamed its new HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopters as the Jolly Green II.
This moniker is a direct reference to the Vietnam War-era HH-3E Jolly Green and HH-53B/C Super Jolly Green combat search and rescue helicopters that saved the lives of countless downed American aircrews during the conflict in Southeast Asia.
I think you are missing a word there. "Giant" was part of the descriptor. Perhaps they're embarrassed by how small the HH-60 is in comparison?
-
The U.S. Air Force has officially nicknamed its new HH-60W Combat Rescue Helicopters as the Jolly Green II.
This moniker is a direct reference to the Vietnam War-era HH-3E Jolly Green and HH-53B/C Super Jolly Green combat search and rescue helicopters that saved the lives of countless downed American aircrews during the conflict in Southeast Asia.
I think you are missing a word there. "Giant" was part of the descriptor. Perhaps they're embarrassed by how small the HH-60 is in comparison?
They were also referred to as "jolly Greens" with H-3 the "Giant" part usually for -53s. but I've heard them all referred to as "Jolly Greens" all across as the whole name is a mouthful.
These should honestly be Chinooks as was picked in the 2000s. but whatever. :icon_twisted:
Just silly PR. as the USAF really failed to replace the -53s with something similar. Chinook was in the bag. The USAF wanted them, the 160th was already using them. This would have expanded reliability and operational capacity along with commonality with the army and with the added bonus that Chinooks are great in high altitude situations like those found in Afghanistan, and lastly they are stupid fast for helicopters. But the USAF had to throw a competition, The Chinook won, but then the competition was declared bogus after the losers protested and the USAF bought Pavehawks instead, and here we are.
the jolly green :-\
Its really a great demonstration of how stupid procurement can be.
-
In the real world New Zealand went from UH-1Hs to NH90s. But what if they followed Australia and adopted the UH-60/S-70? Maybe a BlackHawk in this sort of scheme?
(http://www.adf-gallery.com.au/gallery/albums/NZ-Iroquois/RNZAF_Iriquois_001.jpg)
or this:
(https://www.airport-data.com/images/aircraft/000/222/222834.jpg)
-
Sounds good. :smiley:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50228014552_91aab1834f_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jwtGNU)
Kiwi-Hawk (https://flic.kr/p/2jwtGNU) by Motschke (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/), on Flickr
Also, some Seahawks for the Swedes.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50227794616_a8b54cfee8_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/2jwszqU)
Swedish-Seahawk (https://flic.kr/p/2jwszqU) by Motschke (https://www.flickr.com/photos/151156765@N03/), on Flickr
-
:smiley:
-
For anyone interested in the strap-on stealth features tested on the H-60 Black Hawk back in the very late 80s this article is for you: The Drive > Stealthy Black Hawk Helicopter (https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35342/this-is-the-first-image-ever-of-a-stealthy-black-hawk-helicopter)
A friend of mine and fellow modeler at Fort Campbell was a crew chief on one of the EH-60 Black Hawks adorned with this stuff. While I had the security clearance, I did not have the "Need To Know" to be "read on" to the program so all I had to was the verbal description and my imagination to go on as to what it looked like on the aircraft. Now all of these years later, we have an image and it looks pretty much like I had imagined it to be. Kind of chunky-clunky and an obvious maintenance obstacle for the maintainers of the aircraft.
-
BlackHog for general logistics purposes in battlefield.
(https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/BlackHog.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds) (http://"http://"https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/j340/ysi_maniac/BlackHog.png?width=1920&height=1080&fit=bounds"")
-
Very nice. :smiley: :smiley: Is doable kitbash :smiley:
-
Back in Australian service:
(https://images.defence.gov.au/fotoweb/cache/v2/8/e/defenceimagery/2023/S20233475/20231012army8567820_A1429.jpg.iierxp7bMe_rI7djwCUA.TLi3nIriji.jpg)
CFBV