Tilt rotors replacing helicopters?

No.

>>32821333
Nice trips, but I was looking for a more in depth answer.

>>32821318
>murder boxes
>doing anything at all ever
xaxaxaxaxaxa

>>32821318
Let's make something more complicated and more prone to error so that we can stretch out one specific specification that doesn't matter with our military doctrine of the last 75 years. No, they will keep the tech and ability on the back burner incase they ever need it but it won't take over regular helicopters for a long time. There is a reason helicopters came first.

>>32821318
Yes, actually. It is certainly possible. However, I personally think that the SB-1 Defiant will win the program.

>>32821464
The v-22 does not even have the lift capability of a king stallion. There are positives and negatives to their use, like everything else.

>>32822663
The CH-53 is a different class of vehicle entirely. It's 88 and a half feet long compared to the V-22's 57. The CH-53 is heavy lift helicopter. The V-22 is medium lift. If you knew a goddamn thing, you'd have realized this.

>>32822712
>The CH-53 is heavy
>23,628 lb empty

>The V-22 is medium
>33,140 lb empty

>>32822712
Dude, do you realize how fucking huge is the Osprey ? It looks like a small cargo plane.

>>32823116

Current versions of CH-53, E and K, both are 33000 lb empty.

Also range difference between V-22 and CH-53 is massive.

V-22
>Range: 879 nmi (1,011 mi, 1,627 km)
>Combat radius: 390 nmi (426 mi, 722 km)
>Ferry range: 1,940 nmi (2,230 mi, 3,590 km) with auxiliary internal fuel tanks

CH-53K
>Range: * 460 nmi (852 km) no reserves
>Combat radius: * 110 nmi (126 mi, 204 km)

>>32823116
I believe you have confused the older 2 engine CH-53 with the newer 3 engine ones (CH-53 E or K).

File: CH-53_Sea_Stallion[1].jpg (232KB, 1500x2100px) Image search: [Google]

232KB, 1500x2100px

>>32822486
There's a reason that vacuum tubes came before transistors too; it's because it was a simpler technology. New =/= less reliable.

>>32823131
So does the CH-53

OP here, I looked into the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration and the Future Lift Initiative this morning. Found these videos showing off the simulator for both the SB1 and the V280. Which one do you like more?

http://breakhttp://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/fly-with-us-kinda-in-bells-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-video/ingdefense.com/2016/10/we-defy-you-to-ride-the-sb1-simulator-with-us/

Fucked up the links, here you go.

http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/fly-with-us-kinda-in-bells-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-video/
http://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/we-defy-you-to-ride-the-sb1-simulator-with-us/

>>32823131
Osprey has a pathetic tiny payload. It's not "huge" either.

>>32823369
Both can IFR

>>32823888
>Osprey has a pathetic tiny payload.

So 'muhreens should get rid of medium lift helicopters as well? Maybe they should replace every helicopter with CH-53K.

>Both can IFR

That isn't something they do on most missions. Osprey was designed to have substantially longer range than helicopters it replaced. Concept of Over-The-Horizon Amphibious Operations 'muhreens have been fapping over since early 90's relies heavily on unrefueled range of Osprey.

>doctrinal shifts to airframes that guzzle MORE fuel than comparable role craft

i hope fucking not, energy security is a big fucking deal

The Navy is replacing their c-2 greyhounds with v22s.

>>32824014
Not for a very long time exceeding the lifespan of any current airframes. US and Canada are in fine shape for petroleum and coal.

>Concept of Over-The-Horizon Amphibious Operations 'muhreens have been fapping over since early 90's relies heavily on unrefueled range of Osprey.

For raids at best since Osprey is a delicate and non-stealthy target. Marines aren't serious about amphibious ops because against anyone capable they will be bloodbaths. Even Saddam was able to make attacking him cost-prohibitive.

Marines buy oddball airframes to differentiate their procurement from everyone else. Their legacy of crashed Harriers shows how that doesn't pay off.

http://articles.latimes.com/2002/dec/15/nation/na-harrier15/3

>>32824098
Greyhound is too old to keep forever. Osprey has 2Klb less payload but that's not critical and it won't be getting shot at while delivering goods.

Greyhound is an interesting bird but light military fixed wing airlift is mostly obsolete for the US. Navy needs it but rest of US forces have C-130.

>>32824134

Osprey is not a delicate target, that's pure memery. Rather, it's no more delicate than a plane or helicopter depending on its mode.

Marines also intend to use it more for raids, they have 160 of the damn things paid for, and own 120ish.

USAF uses it for raids.

File: US_Navy_070221-N-6482W-221_A_CH-53E_Super_Stallion,_assigned_to_Medium_Marine_Helicopter_Squadron_Two_Six_Four_(HMM-264)_(Reinforced),_lifts_palettes_of_Meals-Ready-to-Eat_(MRE)_from_amphibious_assault_ship_USS_Bataan_.jpg (769KB, 2100x1396px) Image search: [Google]

769KB, 2100x1396px

>>32824134
>Marines buy oddball airframes to differentiate their procurement from everyone else.

No, they buy their oddball aircraft because they have different fucking missions than Navy or Air Force.

>Their legacy of crashed Harriers shows how that doesn't pay off.

Without Harriers, US capability of naval power projection would be limited to carrier battle groups, amphibious battle groups wouldn't be as autonomous as those are today. They are good enough for spanking unruly 3rd world dictatorships.

>>32823116
Yes, anon. The CH-53 is heavy lift. It fills the heavy lift role. No, that does not equate to empty weight.

>>32823131
I believe I just mentioned how long the CH-53 was, or did you miss it? The CH-53 is fucking massive.

>>32821318
Remember when everyone wouldn't shut the fuck up about the Osprey being a waste of money?

>>32824808
People still don't shut the fuck up about it.

Fuck the media. Fuck the god damn GAO too, when have those cucks ever been right about any military project?

>>32824851
Doesn't the Osprey actually have one of the lower deaths/accidents per hours of flight? So whenever an Osprey has a crash or fatality, it is reported and people ignore the safe flights that outnumber these accidents, right?

>>32825139
I don't know if it's still the case, but for a while the Osprey had a lower death/accident per hour of flight rate for both active service and pre-service than the Blackhawk's pre-service rate.

>>32825139
100% correct.

The osprey is the #1 safest helicopter in USMC inventory, and that's straight from Mattis.

Seriously, fuck the gao. I'm thinking about starting a thread highlighting how historically wrong they were. Spoilers: that were against nuclear carriers.

>>32825165
What other things are the gao against? Being against nuclear powered carriers is fucking autistic.

>>32825165
>>32825211
The GAO is concerned only with accounting. To use them to extrapolate anything other than whether or not a project is on time, on budget, and delivering what was promised is retarded.

>>32825254
this

>>32821318
It appears that it vomes down to two things: having two exposed rotors just asking to be a target (it's as if it is holding out its hand saying "here, shoot this"), or one rotor encased in the rest of the main fuselage, causing for more casualties as the only way to bring it down is aim where the troops are. Both have their positives and negatives.

>>32825165
Do it

>>32825211
F-16, F-18, etc.

>>32825254
>>32825316
They use "muh cost" as a segway into overall effectiveness. Thier predictions are also hilariously inaccurate.

See exhibit A of retardation.

http://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-98-1

God I hate them.

>>32825362
>nuclear carriers cost more than regular carriers
No way, holy shit.

File: 350px-H2AD77.jpg (20KB, 350x208px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 350x208px

>>32821318
>Could helicopters actually be replaced with tip rotor aircraft in the future?

If they ditch the rotors and use jet engines instead, yes.

Good luck getting that shit to work. I'm just ready for somebody to start making Pelicans

>>32825420
The Soviets tried that in Afghanistan. No go.

>>32825430

Yeah but they were drunk commies and we're America.

File: image.jpg (98KB, 604x442px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 604x442px

>>32825441
>Ivan, we need not aircraft with tilty engines. Use mosins to tilt engines themselves.

>>32824173
Thats not true
most choppers have protections against small arms, the osprey does not
The osprey also can't auto-rotate, choppers can do a controlled descent if they lose power, the Osprey will just kill everyone in it

>>32826372
Osprey however is twin engine with a driveshaft connecting both. It can run on one turbine.

>>32826387
If its in forward flight, sure
And is able to land on a full sized runway destroying the props in the process...

Otherwise good fucking luck

It's not a helicopter, and can't be flown as one. Which is why the army is never going to buy a tilt rotor

>>32826372
>The osprey also can't auto-rotate
This is false.

>>32821318

If good lines make for good aerodynamics, then it's a fucking miracle that anything as ugly as the Osprey can make it off the ground...

The problem with tilt rotor aircraft is that you add a lot of complicated, expensive mechanisms for a disproportionately small advantage.

Helicopters are complex and dangerous enough as it is, and helicopter pilots already have enough of a workload. Anything that further complicates helicopters either mechanically or operationally had better bring serious advantages. I just don't see enough advantages to tilt rotor aircraft that warrant the increased mechanical complexity and pilot workload.

>>32825420
It already works. What do you think the rotor is powered by? It starts with turboshaft and ends with jet engines.

Source: I fucking build them

>>32826686
>increased pilot workload

I think you mean mechanics.

>>32826686
Twice the range, half again as fast and a significantly lower accident rate don't qualify as 'serious' advantages over conventional helicopters to you? Are you a GAO employee?

>>32827198
If they had the osprey doing the same things they used to do with CH-46's, it would have a much higher failure rate