US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TK3600

TK3600

Major
Registered Member
SlothmanAllen said:
I don't think that matters, as the V-280 is meant to have considerably more capability over the previous generation of helicopters it replaces. This is why it has a radical design departure over the Blackhawk, as the Army believes the missions and environments of the future require far greater capability.

Think about it like this: If this helicopter as successful as they hope (2000+ produced), then the performance characteristics it has will likely influence helicopter design world-wide. For example, maybe having greatly more engine power over the Blackhawk will not be seen as a big deal, and the Blackhawk and other helicopters might be viewed as outdated or very limited.
Click to expand...
It is simple physics that bearing revolutionary propulsion technology these aircraft of radically different engine power and weight will have vastly different cost and role.

Rather than saying it will replace blackhawk in its role it is more correct to say blackhawk's role got axed and a different class of aircraft replaced it. It is like comparing A-10 and F-35.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
Let me gaze into the Palantir....

2023-2030: developmental delays, cost blowouts.
2030-2035: low rate production at high per-unit cost. reliability/availability issues. Blackhawk production lines extended repeatedly via interim orders.
2035-2040: V-280 teething issues resolved but ongoing high costs limit the platform's ability to "fill the bathtub". Sikorsky offers "Super Blackhawk" as interim replacement.
2040-2045: Super Blackhawk program in full swing. V-280 continues production across various special order niches. New "future vertical lift program" begins.
2050: V-280 production line closes.
2055: new FVL prototype makes its first flight.
2060: Super Blackhawk production line closes, having produced five times as many units as V-280 across its lifespan.
 
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Lethe said:
Let me gaze into the Palantir....

2023-2030: developmental delays, cost blowouts.
2030-2035: low rate production at high per-unit cost. reliability/availability issues. Blackhawk production lines extended repeatedly via interim orders.
2035-2040: V-280 teething issues resolved but ongoing high costs limit the platform's ability to "fill the bathtub". Sikorsky offers "Super Blackhawk" as interim replacement.
2040-2045: Super Blackhawk program in full swing. V-280 continues production across various special order niches. New "future vertical lift program" begins.
2050: V-280 production line closes.
2055: new FVL prototype makes its first flight.
2060: Super Blackhawk production line closes, having produced five times as many units as V-280 across its lifespan.
Click to expand...
Problems for your little crystal ball.
first Bell had less issues with the V280 demonstrator than the Sikorsky Boeing team did the Defiant. Which pretty much kills a “Super Blackhawk” based on X2.

econd how do you make a black Hawk anyway that could match FVL speed and range requirements? It’s impossible by laws of physics. And if you want to argue it wouldn’t but would be a modernized black hawk. The army is already slated to get that in the interim time between now and IOC 2030. Even if that slips trying to shoehorn a Super Black hawk in wouldn’t make any sense if anything it would cost more to do both than just buy V280s. As the V280 isn’t meant to be a direct to 1v1 replacement as the US Army has over 2100 H60 in service it would take decades to replace them all meaning even if they slip or end up in an overrun for LRIP they don’t need a “super Blackhawk” as they would still have scores of modernized UH60M and UH60L. This isn’t a situation where they lack a fleet.

Third rotor craft are as a general rule cheaper than fighter aviation. By a far value. Generally the expectation of V280 production is around 52 million per unit modern dollars or roughly the same as an AH64E.

Fourth when has your model ever actually happened? Here’s an idea look in your magic ball get the lotto numbers for next week and buy a ticket tell us how you did. If you win. I’ll take your comments as more than just pessimism.

fifth 2035-2050 are actually already in FVL for capability set 4 heavy which targets to replace Chinook.
 
S

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
sheogorath said:
What's the expected delivery timeframe?. That little bit of context will likely paint a picture of the US industrial capacity

Otherwise, is just material for OSINT types to keep masturbating over on Twitter and how they will totally shit on China.
Click to expand...
I think it is over 3-5 years as it is a multi-year procurement (though certain systems could take longer due to need to build new factories). The sheer number of weapons is large regardless of time-frame though lol. There is 700 HIMARS systems in this contract, which is a huge expansion in the number of launchers.

I think the most important take-away is that this is a huge investment in their weapon production industrial base.
 
Lethe

Lethe

Captain
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Fourth when has your model ever actually happened?
Click to expand...

Elements of the pattern I described happened with Seawolf/Virgina, NATF/A-12/Super Hornet, F-22, F-35, AMSTOL, Zumwalt, EFV/AAAV, multiple efforts to replace the M-16, and no doubt many other programs.

In any case there's nothing wrong with aiming high with V-280 because, as I suggested, any delays, shortfalls etc. can be resolved simply by ordering more Blackhawks. And I suspect they will be.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Avenger and NATF were canceled before they got of the ground. F/A18 was already in the works.
Seawolf was a victim of the peace dividend. With the end of the Cold War the Russian Navy basically rusting away and China at that time deemed a liberalizing state, lacking the deep blue subs Seawolf was deemed overkill. Virginia made more sense to replace Las Angeles class due to more flexibility.
F35 was always going to follow F22 it was simply a matter of which was deemed more relevant. With the then assumption that the Russians weren’t a major threat to the west it was on China and at the time J20 didn’t seem an issue F35 was deemed enough and frankly is is the more advanced vs F22.
Slashing of the F22 orders and accelerating the F35 created issues that have been resolved.
Zumwalt was sabotaged by congress whom again viewed the Russian Navy as a joke and the PLAN as no threat. This lead to issues with the other systems. Primarily as the orders were slashed causing support and ammunition costs to skyrocket. Congress felt that the Burke class was better suited to the peacekeeping navy.
EFV suffered from a number of issues the biggest being that it’s mission became impractical. The long off shore swim that justified EFV made sense when the ASM that it was meant to counter the threat of had a range out to the horizon. Once the ASBM appeared an Amphibious assault ship couldn’t get that close and it shifted towards other doctrine.
I can’t recall an AMSTOL.

M16 replacement is a mix of drama and molehills. The AR15 was adopted in spite. The Army had just adopted the M14 rifle and had been working on a whole other rifle program. However it was decided that a bird in the hand or rather off the shelf was better.
They adopted AR15 as M16 but were still looking at what was viewed as the “future” flechette ammunition. This was terminated by congress. Though the Army had funded these programs they weren’t going to seriously offer a M16 replacement they were more or less studies. But of which ended up on M16. The M203 for example.
The Police action in Vietnam accelerated and the newly christened M16 was rushed to combat issue. Initially it worked well then they got complaints. So the first would be replacement program but in investigating they realized the issue was actually the Army. The Army found the stick propellent of the .223 ammunition expensive and difficult to keep up with demand due to its single source.
So they had told Colt to qualify the rifle with the proper cartridge but they would issue an improper one in combat powered by Corrosive higher pressure ball ammunition.
corrective measures are made. The buffer weight is added the bolt and firing pin are replaced, the barrel, chamber and gas tube are chromed. Cleaning kits are introduced. The M16A1 solves the problems of M16. M16A2 rolls around in 1982 as a product improvement.
M4 and M4A1 in 1994 has Colt, the Army and Socom seek to offer a smaller lighter version for PDW functions and SOF use. Rail systems are standardized on it at Socom’s insistence. This pays off in the Army’s Land Warrior program.
About 2003 the M16A4 is born after seeing the use of rails on M4 the Army and marines modularize the M16A2.
about 2004 the Army adopts M4 to replace M16A2
M4A1 Pip is created about 2009 with the Army adopting the A1 as its service rifle.
2010 the Marines adopt M27 IAR which rapidly moves to replace M16A2 and M16A4 as the Marines infantry service rifle.

and part 1
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top