Trade offs .... always trade offs ...The U.S. Navy is to award Northrop Grumman a contract to supply 28 MQ-8C Fire Scout “rapid deployment capability” (RDC) vertical-takeoff-and-landing unmanned aircraft using the larger Bell 407 helicopter airframe to increase endurance and payload.Bigger, heavier, and after changes are made to navalize it to deal with at least the metric butt-ton of salt spray it will get on the back of a LCS - a different bird in every aspect but name. I think they should do more than change "B" to "C" and keep the same name. It would smell better if they did.
The notice of intent says the RDC aircraft are to be fielded by the first quarter of 2014 to meet an urgent operational requirement. The Navy has said the “endurance upgrade” Fire Scout is needed to support special operations.After also evaluating the Boeing A160T Hummingbird and Lockheed Martin/Kaman unmanned K-Max, the Navy has adopted the 407 airframe jointly developed by Northrop Grumman and Bell as the Fire-X and first flown in December. The 407-based MQ-8C will use the same unmanned systems as the MQ-8B, which is on the smaller Schweizer 333 helicopter airframe, including the existing ship-installed ground control station, data links and automatic recovery system.
The choice follows the recommendation of the Fire Scout program office. Last month, Capt. Patrick Smith, the Navy’s Fire Scout program manager, said the recommendation of the 407 airframe was “based on the time frame limitations” imposed by the urgent operational requirement to develop the MQ-8C within 24 months, for deployment in 2014
A 407 is a normal helo size. 71% the length, 80% of the height, 73% of the rotor diameter of the UH-1Y. Hmmmm ....
Hat tip Lee.
ARE YOU MAD!!! Surely you cant be suggestng what i thin you are phib!!!!!!!
ReplyDeleteHey if you can change a "C/D" to an "E/F" and get a Super Hornet, this change looks minor. ;)
ReplyDeleteI don't understand what the Navy is trying to accomplish, unless it's a desire to jump onboard the UAV program cheap. The successful UAVs (scan eagle, raven, predator/reaper, etc.) were designed from the ground up as UAVs. Taking an existing manned airframe and converting it to a remote piloted configuration is how you make target drones. Great way to get rid of old airframes.
ReplyDeleteSigh...
ReplyDeleteOne thing you can <span>GUARANTEE</span> the fools will skimp on...
Is This:
With more than 130 helicopters losses reported in Iraq since the 2003 invasion and with over a
third of these losses attributed to hostile fire such as anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air
missiles, the need to improve helicopter survivability is both grave and well-known. What’s still
missing is focus and urgency.
Anyone up for a paycheck bet that we will hear some male bovine excrement -like that spewed from the LCS bubbahs- about how the proram "meets requirements"...
The only little factor being that the requirements didn't include all that pesky stuff.
BTW, that article was written over a year before this.
That "S" word is not just sbout protecting people...its about making your equipment combat worthy enough to go into Harm's Way, get the job done, and hopefully get back home again.
ReplyDeleteThats especially true when you know up front that you will NEVER have enough...
"Staying Power" is even more critical then.
Gone are the days the USN will be able to fight from a "Position Of Plenty"
But we just seem content to build a fleet that..
Cannot Afford To Fight!
(But Damn! It sure looks Cool in the Powerpoint!)
So wait one cotton-pickin' minute here. If the bad guys were able to tag a fire scout with the Magic BB theory over Libya, then how in the fracking hell is a 75% scale up of the airframe to an OH-58/OH-6 sized frame going to prevent it from being tagged by the same Magic BB? Hello McNavAir, anyone home up there in your little head?
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression that the larger airframe could do remote split ops (ala Predator) via SATCOM link. That way the host platform could stay silent except for takeoff/landing.
ReplyDeleteHmmm. Me thinks that tiny little area off to the side in the LCS hanger might not hold anything bigger than a Firescout.
ReplyDeleteSo does that mean one 60, one little and one big Firescout? Three airframes? Three separate airframes? Or one 60 and two big (little) Firescout Cs?
There might be room but I doubt there are the manhours to do three separate airframes...
Maybe they'll flush out the bad guys with a UWB (unmanned whirly bird) that looks like its from the local news station.
If all else fails, you can put a seat and a radio in it, with pedals, collective, joystick, & enlisted pilot. Cheaper by the dozen.
ReplyDelete"The President takes pleasure in awarding AP1/c John P. Jones the Navy Cross for...."
We know the Chinese solution to that - shoot down our satellites.
ReplyDeleteThe trick here is that it's easier to "improve an existing system" than it is to "build a new system" in the acq regs and legislation. Hornet, Mk 48 torpedo to ADCAP, etc etc.
ReplyDeleteevolutionary vs revolutionary anyone? :3 now if we can switch from the LCS hull to the evolved FFG-7...
ReplyDeleteI must have missed that JUON or UNS that was referenced. Hmmmmmmmm, astro turf requirements much?
ReplyDeleteI'm laughing about utilizing the same TADIL and GCS. Different bird, more payload, same crappy link. So, instead of a small Fire Scout getting lost and flying into DC restricted airspace, a larger Fire Scout will get lost and fly into DC restricted airspace.
I know, I know..."that's just crazy talk."
from my tour of the LCS-1, I think you are bang on. There is not enough room in that space for two helos, much less one H60 and two 407s.
ReplyDeleteWell I put mu progam hat on and thought this about that:
ReplyDeleteThe Navy hay taken years to get the original Fire Scout built and through optesting. Now they propose (by sole source contract) to take a mostly new and larger bird and rush it into production with deliveries starting in 1QFY14. Which means MAYBE we will see Fire Scout-X at IOC in 2015?
Not only is that say ten years from start to IOC, but it means that 5 year old remote and sensor systems technology will be deployed in an even older airframe. You know what others have said:
ANY system which takes 10 years to deploy has by definition using technology which is out of date.
P.S, unclear to me if they are going to have pilot flown Fire Scout-X as an option?
Sid,
ReplyDeleteI don't pretend to know the numbers but I will give you this. Not one of the Southern Watch Aircraft was shot down or forced down because the flying bit quit flying. If the mechanics of the helicopter force were less observent and attentive to their duties then so be it. The Southern Watch maintainers were in a league of their own. Their pilots were blessed.
I like it! You could sell it as an "endurance upgrade" for the LCS program. I mean, it's "just" repackage the existing LCS systems in an existing frigate hull right? How hard can that be? ;)
ReplyDeleteWe just need to get someone to issue an urgent operational requirement for an LCS with "greater endurance".
Maybe GD/Bath/IZAR could ressurect AFCON and throw together a Nansen or F-100 variant in a short timeframe.
Depends on what you want to do. The SQQ-23 shared only the active array with the SQS-23, but it was an "update" because it was being put on old hulls such as the DDG37s. The SQS-53 was an evolutionary improvement to the SQS-26CX, but the new Spruance [did I just say that? Dang, I'm old.] needed a new sonar, not an old one.
ReplyDeleteMy tour was of LCS-2 which is certainly roomier than LCS-1 in the hangar. I don't have photos from inside the ship, just the outside on our tour. But if my memory serves me correctly, while bigger, the hangar had a couple designated areas for different processes, including Firescout, that would not fit something 50%+ larger.
ReplyDeleteI could easily be wrong as I am way out of my knowledge/comfort zone but that is my layman's impression.
(They also said the crews were not hand picked.)
I got on LCS-2 also and agree it is noticeably larger interior and a definite two bird hangar. I sent Phib the photos
ReplyDeleteIsn't a version of the 407 used in naval flight training?
ReplyDeleteBistro...if you haven't already, take the time to peruse that link.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I think we can safely say that the latest rotorcraft Probability of Detection reduction techniques and technologies are well and surely compromised.
Thats the problem with super secret stuff like that...
When you fight with it, you just have to assume you are going to lose it.
If its too Sooper Dooper Secret Important to fight with it...Then WHY IN THE HELL ARE WE BUYING IT?!?!
Anyway, the Dark Star Principle applies here.
So...That leaves reduction in Probability of Kill (PK) as where some real gains can should be made.
gee wouldn't that be revolutionary, and everybody know the Navy just loves being that?~~?~
ReplyDeleteROF, LMAO!!! This is such a target-rich environment, my little dumb@$$ airdale's head is going to 'splode! OK, just a wee bit of history here. NAVAIR and Big Navy never, ever wanted the Hughes/Northrop/Whatever airframe to begin with. Had a HUGE hate on about it from the get-go. However, regional job politics being what they are, they were told that was what they were going to get, like it or not. So they dawddled and drug their feet and when SECDEF Gates started firing FOGO's for not drinking the UAV Kool-Aid by the bucket-full, they got on board. But not liking it one bit.
ReplyDeleteBut in order to look Transformational in a Network-centric Warfare, remote ISR kind of way, they focused on the on-board systems, such as they are (or are not; I'll not ride on that hobby horse here) they went ahead and knew they could claim they, too were embracing the "UAV uber alles" mantra. So what they have done is develop a semi-workable remote ISR linked system that can fit onto almost anything, kind of, and are now putting it on a very proven DOD platform. The 407 flies as the TH-57 and the OH-58, albeit in some widely differing roles and employments. But the parts are there, there are NSN's for everything and yes, I'm pretty much betting that somehow there will just happen to be clear glass, a seat and manual controls that will "just happen" to be available. Or quickly installed.
I'm sensing everyone's just treading water until A) The first Wednesday in November, 2012 and B) Inaugeration Day in 2013 before they wholesale commit to a lot of this, er, stuff.
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/us-military-plane-forced-down-by-north-korean-electronic-attack-20110909-ncx
ReplyDeleteSo, it seems the NORKOs forced down one of our planes,
"The aide said the plane suffered disturbance to its GPS system due to jamming signals from the North's southwestern cities of Haeju and Kaesong as it was taking part in the annual US-South Korea drill, Key Resolve."
Um, yeah, haven't we been talking about an over reliance upon technology, loss of the basics, and some possible concerns w/ the comms link to the UAVs?
Actually, we've got a plan for an even better computer. Multi-mode, fully autonomous, capable of transference between platforms, and easily produced by unskilled labor.
ReplyDeleteIt's called a pilot.
Attention: Flag Officers, General Officers, Branch *.Secrataries, and Civilian Supergrades
ReplyDeletePlease report to Admiral Adama's office for another "I told you so..."
The problem is that this form of computer will drop offline for 8 hour mando rests, eat all the snacks out of the wardroom and drink heavily when the support ship pulls into port. Most embarrasing (5 yrs later) to senior leader-sheep.
ReplyDeleteSounds very much to this ex-attack pilot that the Dark Star Principle may be a fairly strong argument against the next super carrier.
ReplyDeleteSay not so!
A lil' surprised to see this hit the UNCLASS. Jamming is the least of our worries for a downlink/uplink.
ReplyDeleteSeen them.
ReplyDeleteLibya isn't the only AOR we need UAVs.
ReplyDeletehave a serial number that I can look up?
ReplyDeleteah yes, a trick we have been using since the USS Constellation was "refit"...eh-hem, scrapped and completely rebuilt with all new everything... but we didn't tell Congress that. Hey, she kept her name though!
ReplyDelete