Army replacing UH-60 Blackhawk w/ tilt rotor

[TGS]

I had no idea the US Army was seriously pursuing a tilt-rotor, given they lack the expeditionary mission like the USMC and associated need of the over-the-horizon capabilities from VTOL platforms. I've never heard the Army espousing any of these doctrines/missions, at least, and the people that do have that need would have already had that need fulfilled for over a decade now by the CV-22 Osprey in the USAF special operations squadrons.

It's also pretty small and of limited capability for such an expensive bird. I get that the Army typically uses smaller squad sizes than what I'm used to, but it can't even carry a reinforced squad, unlike the Osprey. If army squadrons are assigned to a joint crisis response force, it wouldn't even be able to carry a standard USMC infantry squad. It has very limited cargo carrying capability unlike the Osprey, and also unlike the Osprey it can't even fit light tactical vehicles used by special operations.

All that limitation compared to the Osprey for a measly 10 knots of extra speed, 280 vs 270 of the Osprey, which is meaningless. So you can fly a bare-bones infantry squad to the same place as an Osprey in virtually the same time, and upon arrival they're basically alone with no fire support, vehicles, or resupply. Using the V-280 to fly in a bare platoon, the same number of Ospreys could instead fly in a platoon reinforced with not just a machine gun squad, medical component, C4ISR element, engineer squad, LAAD team, ATGM team.......but even 81 and 120mm mortars and mortar carrying vehicles. You know, all the stuff that you kind of want for conventional over-the-horizon operations....and, on the second flight in, that same number of ospreys would be able to bring three times as much cargo/resupply compared to V-280s. All in all, the cargo/capacity footprint of the UH-60 makes a lot of sense for a typical light-medium lift helicopter like the Blackhawk......it doesn't seem to much sense in the context of over the horizon operations, though, where the units need to be totally self-sufficient and logistical resupply is as serious a challenge as fighting the enemy itself.

I don't know. Unless the publicly available data is totally wrong, this kind of looks like a bust to me. It just doesn't make sense, which makes me think we're missing some piece of information.

ETA: Tagging in @TOTS for his thoughts.

[Dog Guy]

One of the stories I read stated that it is supposed to fit in the footprint of a Blackhawk. Does that sound plausible?

[JRB]

1) What kind of pilot flies that thing? A helicopter pilot? A fixed wing pilot?
2) How do you train a pilot to fly that thing? You choose a helicopter pilot or fixed wing pilot or de novo person?

Army flight school at Ft Rucker, AL starts with rotor wing but top pilots will be selected to go fixed wing too for various smaller transport aircraft. My Brother-in-law is flying a Beechcraft C-12 Huron for the Army now, as an Army pilot. Some of those fixed wing pilots maintain a rating on Blackhawks and possibly Chinooks too depending on their assignment.
Also depending on your assignment -usually Germany or Japan- you'll get a chance to get rated for jet engine fixed wing as well. All as an Army Warrant Officer Pilot. Flight training won't be an issue.

I don't think finding/training pilots will be a problem. I'm concerned with how they're going to find folks to wrench on them for E3 money. The Army's already having problems meeting enlistment goals.

Enlistment overall is what's hurting bad.
Aviation maintainers are one of the less affected MOS's for new recruits, because it's free training to make $$$ as an aviation maintainer after one relatively easy enlistment. The problem with that program isn't finding E3's willing to wrench on aircraft, it's finding a way to get E4's and E5's to reenlist and stay a maintainer instead of ETS'ing after 4-6 years to make 1.5-2x the salary as a contractor.
Beyond that, it's keeping experienced and genuinely skilled E5's and E6's on the wrenches and maintaining if that's what they want to do, instead of forcing maintainers into bean-counting/paper-pushing BS NCO positions right around the time they're genuinely experienced maintaining a given airframe or piece of equipment. After spending my first 9 years in uniform as a maintainer I've got a LOT I could say about how poorly the Army manages maintenance across the board....


@TGS nailed the rest in far better detail than I could have. The Blackhawk is (finally) doing the job it needs to do and current iterations are pretty good. Given the loss in MTOW* I can't see the benefit at all as a 'full replacement' for the Blackhawk. Or the Osprey for that matter.
Edit* Last I read, these V280's were supposedly carrying less weight than the Blackhawk, doing some google-fu I'm seeing it now reported otherwise, which only makes me wonder why not go with the Osprey instead of adding another airframe to shake out for 20 years before it's truly reliable and useful.

[RevolverRob]

From what I read yesterday the Army seems to be thinking of this as a replacement for the Blackhawk and Apache, thus viewing it as a multi-role aircraft to replace two airframes, not just one. It also apparently has its own mini UAVs it can launch. I can envision ways in which a handful of these with a couple of UAVs each, sophisticated missiles and some good old fashioned door guns could potentially provide both overwatch and CAS.

That all said, it doesn't seem like it'll be a great utility replacement and let's be clear, that is primarily what the Blackhawk is - a utility vehicle.

[TGS]

One of the stories I read stated that it is supposed to fit in the footprint of a Blackhawk. Does that sound plausible?

Depends on the specific wording in the story and what they mean by the word "footprint".

The UH-60 rotor diameter is significantly longer, but there's just one rotor assembly and it's centrally located. The V-280 has two rotor assemblies, placed at the far edge on the sides in order to clear each other...meaning the footprint is roughly twice that of a Blackhawk. This is a limiting factor on selecting LZs during operations.

If they meant simple asses in seats/carrying capacity to plan out a logistical footprint, then yes, it's roughly the same capacity of a Blackhawk and can substitute them 1:1 in planning.

[Suvorov]

1) What kind of pilot flies that thing? A helicopter pilot? A fixed wing pilot?
2) How do you train a pilot to fly that thing? You choose a helicopter pilot or fixed wing pilot or de novo person?

Both.

At this point the training has been pretty well developed and integrates pilots from both tracks to operate tilt rotors safely.

Tilt rotors are amazing aircraft but I am sad to see Sikorsky loosing this.

From what I read yesterday the Army seems to be thinking of this as a replacement for the Blackhawk and Apache, thus viewing it as a multi-role aircraft to replace two airframes, not just one. It also apparently has its own mini UAVs it can launch. I can envision ways in which a handful of these with a couple of UAVs each, sophisticated missiles and some good old fashioned door guns could potentially provide both overwatch and CAS.

That all said, it doesn't seem like it'll be a great utility replacement and let's be clear, that is primarily what the Blackhawk is - a utility vehicle.

I have a hard time seeing a tilt rotor being able to do the job of the Apache nearly as well. The ability to hover and hide behind terrain features is what keeps gunships alive in a world of MANPADS and while tilt rotors can hover, the are definitely biased towards forward flight (especially if they are near max gross weight).

ETA - *maybe* the Army is saying this because they view the tilt rotor as a “loophole” to obtain an CAS fixed wing aircraft?

[blues]

We had UH-60's in our air wing at Homestead AFB during my time with Customs and I loved the many hours I spent aboard them...whether chasing aircraft or boats between Miami and the Bahamas...on patrol...or being ferried with the SRT I was a member of for several years.

Our pilots were awesome...all of them, that I can think of, former Marines or Army...and the Black Hawks were all provided to us via the military. (Sans door guns...unfortunately.)

Lost one friend who was co-piloting. He was never recovered, (nor the Black Hawk), in the Florida Straits while chasing dopers at night.

We did eventually grab the guys (and a little payback in George's honor). Thirty three years later, he's never far from my thoughts.

A great helicopter. It was fun to experience what it could do in capable hands.

[Basher]

Powered lift/tilt-rotor aircraft are awesome machines and great tech. But as a heli pilot, losing the ability to autorotate if needed is a bit of a turn off for me, if I’m being honest. And the V280 has a much larger footprint than the UH-60 it will be replacing, making LZ selection a big issue as noted earlier.

[TOTS]

I had no idea the US Army was seriously pursuing a tilt-rotor, given they lack the expeditionary mission like the USMC and associated need of the over-the-horizon capabilities from VTOL platforms. I've never heard the Army espousing any of these doctrines/missions, at least, and the people that do have that need would have already had that need fulfilled for over a decade now by the CV-22 Osprey in the USAF special operations squadrons.

It's also pretty small and of limited capability for such an expensive bird. I get that the Army typically uses smaller squad sizes than what I'm used to, but it can't even carry a reinforced squad, unlike the Osprey. If army squadrons are assigned to a joint crisis response force, it wouldn't even be able to carry a standard USMC infantry squad. It has very limited cargo carrying capability unlike the Osprey, and also unlike the Osprey it can't even fit light tactical vehicles used by special operations.

All that limitation compared to the Osprey for a measly 10 knots of extra speed, 280 vs 270 of the Osprey, which is meaningless. So you can fly a bare-bones infantry squad to the same place as an Osprey in virtually the same time, and upon arrival they're basically alone with no fire support, vehicles, or resupply. Using the V-280 to fly in a bare platoon, the same number of Ospreys could instead fly in a platoon reinforced with not just a machine gun squad, medical component, C4ISR element, engineer squad, LAAD team, ATGM team.......but even 81 and 120mm mortars and mortar carrying vehicles. You know, all the stuff that you kind of want for conventional over-the-horizon operations....and, on the second flight in, that same number of ospreys would be able to bring three times as much cargo/resupply compared to V-280s. All in all, the cargo/capacity footprint of the UH-60 makes a lot of sense for a typical light-medium lift helicopter like the Blackhawk......it doesn't seem to much sense in the context of over the horizon operations, though, where the units need to be totally self-sufficient and logistical resupply is as serious a challenge as fighting the enemy itself.

I don't know. Unless the publicly available data is totally wrong, this kind of looks like a bust to me. It just doesn't make sense, which makes me think we're missing some piece of information.

ETA: Tagging in @TOTS for his thoughts.

Im pretty much on board with many of the thoughts here as well as a bunch of other comments, specifically those by @JRB and @Suvorov. However. Tilt-rotor/ UAVs = future whether it makes sense or not.

As to my thoughts, you hit a lot of nails on the head, so to speak. One thing I keep thinking when acquisition decisions don't make sense, is that I'm looking things with a status quo paradigm rather than a future paradigm. It seems everything is moving to drones and drone-similar designs rather than a helicopter-similar design language. The only way tilt-rotor utility makes sense is if you have a total force model that's tilt-rotor. After deploying with and working with both Ospreys and currently working with Osprey pilots, I maintain the mantra that V-22s are great aircraft but suck at being helicopters. (Really, the airforce is the only branch that correctly utilize them, or the Navy replacing the C-2 with them) Right now, we are utilizing them as a replacement as helicopters and are hammering the square peg into a round hole. The capabilities they offer haven't been optimized by the limitations imposed by the way we employ (currently) tilt-rotor. For instance. They are either too fast for heliborne escorts or too slow for fixed wing escorts. They move too fast in fixed-wing mode to provide the level of CAS that current attack platforms provide and are too slow in helicopter mode when coming into a hot zone, making them more of a target than a similar helicopter. Etc, etc. But, in the future, if you replace all legacy platforms with tilt-rotor variants, maybe these begin to get mitigated? TR escorts fly at a similar speed, UAVs get integrated somehow, maybe in a heavy or medium lift cargo role. Im trying to give these decision makers the benefit of the doubt; who knows what the future looks like. But I was also the Capt that told the Dept Commandant of Aviation why I thought the CH-53K was a stupid idea, so...!

OK, gloves coming off. I dont see how they will ever overcome physics. In areas where low altitude tactics are employed, the margin narrows between the benefits of TR and Helos. Helicopters will always have an edge with low-speed agility, for instance. Larger rotor disc areas help traditional helicopters when operating at higher altitudes or warmer temperatures. As an assault support platform, our bread and butter was coming inbound to an LZ at 300' AGL with multiple (usually 2-6) aircraft landing simultaneously or within seconds of each other. Building this much combat power so quickly is something I dont see TR ever being able to do well. They just take too much distance to both slow, transition, and land, and too much space in the LZ. However, I will say that this may be one area where TR makes more sense for the Army than the USMC due to the Army's holding mission vice the MCs establishing a footprint through forcible entry mission.

Training adds (currently) more complexity and cost. for a V-22 pilot, his pipeline starts with T-6 (fixed wing), then, the TH-57 (helicopter), then a T-44 (twin engine fixed wing), and finally the V-22. Helicopter training is much simpler for the CH-53 students as they go straight from the H-57 to the CH-53 which is vastly more similar to flying any other helicopter than flying a TR is to anything else. To paraphrase, a helo student only has to learn two class of aircraft whereas the V-22 student has to learn three. This adds cost, time, complexity, etc. I'm currently seeing this as I work in the schoolhouses of both platforms. The V-22 squadron is always behind on production, working weekends, etc, whereas the helicopter squadrons have met their pilot training requirements year after year with ease.

Cost. Both positives and negatives. Helicopters are older technology and cheaper for parts. We're just now figuring out how to maintain V-22s and problems such as part lifespans not being as long as they were predicted, engine design flaws, gearboxes heating up with prolonged hovering or on the ground with vertical nacelles, etc have been so very long in getting worked out. However, if the next generation of TR can build off this information, the innate nature of helicopters being more complicated and much, much more maintenance intensive may make TR cheaper over the longer run?

I know I sound like a V-22 hater/ Rotorwing mafia dude, but, I'm pretty much aircraft class agnostic at this point. I'm currently dual-qualled in a helicopter and a fixed wing platform, flying both in a training pipeline, and have a couple thousand hours of time in three different platforms of jets.

I just think tilt-rotor sucks at being helicopters. But, I see the future as trying to make helicopters obsolete. And I think that's a mistake for some roles.

Hey, you asked for my thoughts!

[TGS]

of nails on the head, so to speak. One thing I keep thinking when acquisition decisions don't make sense, is that I'm looking things with a status quo paradigm rather than a future paradigm. It seems everything is moving to drones and drone-similar designs rather than a helicopter-similar design language. The only way tilt-rotor utility makes sense is if you have a total force model that's tilt-rotor. After deploying with and working with both Ospreys and currently working with Osprey pilots, I maintain the mantra that V-22s are great aircraft but suck at being helicopters. (Really, the airforce is the only branch that correctly utilize them, or the Navy replacing the C-2 with them)

I will say that the MV-22 Osprey integrated into a SP-MAGTF-CRF is a huge capability improvement to support my organization. The fact that a few well placed SP-MAGTF-CRFs can cover the significant chunk of our crisis locations is pretty game changing, and it's specifically due to the MV-22. @JRB knows what I'm talking about, given we were both in the same part of the world around early January 2020.

Or, maybe now we'll press the emergency button and instead get a few barebones squads in the cheesedick V-280 that due to the lack of capacity versus the MV-22 lack any heavy weapons and can barely even pack their own food for a week, compared to the same number of MV-22s landing a small contingent of Marines that is heavily equipped enough to operate for 30 days and have combat overmatch on 3/4s of the worlds entire militaries. A pair of V-280s can't even deliver me the split-platoon FAST element that I've worked with previously.