Why the US never made a dedicated attack helicopter variant from the Black Hawk airframe?

Why the US never made a dedicated attack helicopter variant from the Black Hawk airframe?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we are capable of coming up with organic designs.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We did. S-67

      Imagine being this much of a know-nothing homosexual lol

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        S-67 Blackhawk isn't based on UH-60. Its based on Sea King.

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Apache is already a trillion times better weapons platform

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I love this little homie like you wouldn't believe.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        based and longbow pilled

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          god I wish that was me

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/Hfh5Hum.jpg

          god I wish that was me

          I didn't realise that the Indian air force had Apaches.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/Hfh5Hum.jpg

          god I wish that was me

          Looks comfy. But loud.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            WHAAT?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          So that's where the passenger went when I was playing desert strike

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Oh god this brings back memories. When I first started playing this game I had to ask my dad for help to land the helicopter as I couldn't do it.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            close but no cigar

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          That's not an apache longbow.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/hF9MVa9.jpg

        based and longbow pilled

        Neither of these are longbows.

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why the US never made a dedicated attack helicopter variant from the Black Hawk airframe?
    because they have the gunship variant
    and because the apache exists

    the cobra only existed that way due to the huey gunship being too overloaded, a loophole in army procurement allowing them to say the cobra counts as a huey derivative despite being ridiculously modified, and literally not having anything else to use
    but its not really necessary with the blackhawk since its still pretty agile even when loaded up with ammo and guns and the apache is already present

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Why would they need to exploit a procurement loophole?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Congress pinching pennies.

        Same as the Super Hornet. Congress doesn’t want to pay for a whole new airframe, but if it’s a “minor upgrade” they suddenly want to open their wallets.

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we know the HIND kinda sucks.

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Check catalog, wumao.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Battlehawk

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Came here from the front page to post this like wtf you mean no 'black hawk' with a combat kit.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Okay I want to know... Why isn't every Blackhawk a Battlehawk? Like why not? Those missiles can't be adding that much weight no?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hellfires weigh 100 pounds, so that's 800 pounds of hellfire, hydras can weigh about 25 pounds with the warhead included, so you've probably got 1000 pounds of rocket plus the pods, then you've got the winglets and structural braces to support them. You're adding 2500-3000 pounds at LEAST for all that. That's a lot of soldiers and gear you can't carry into battle.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not to mention all of the secondary and tertiary components needed just for the Hellfires to work let alone the rest of it.
          It's not just sticking a fuel line to pylons for a drop tank.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Just make more trips, what's the difference?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Alerting enemy AA.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Those missiles can't be adding that much weight no?

        Dumbfrick detected. Stop being young.

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >"This is Pequod! Arriving shortly at LZ!" - Pequod

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUAD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD!

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU MORPHO

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD
      God Quiet was pure sex

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      #NotMyMorpho

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks, Pequod.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thanks Pequod.

      V

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you Echo 419

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >You know our motto: We Deliver"

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      THANK YOU PEQUOD

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what about an attack chinook?
    it can hold more ammo right?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      A tip anon: go on wikipedia, and go to
      >list of US tri-service designations
      for aircraft post 1960 and click on literally everything that you don't recognize. The US has pumped out so many moronic one off aircraft that fill niche roles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Oh and also
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1963_United_States_Tri-Service_rocket_and_guided_missile_designation_system
        This is for basically any munition, rocket, bomb, etc. The article has a summary of what the letters mean and if you scroll to the very bottom and open up the collapsed bit it has a list of designations that link to their respective articles.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        http://www.chinook-helicopter.com/chinook/gunsagogo.html
        If the rockets and grenade launchers could be reloaded from inside the helicopter this thing could have rained down lead for hours

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They did, it’s called the MH-60L DAP, or direct action penetrator.

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    We have the Apache and Cobra attack helicopters, fricknuts.

    The Blackhawk is designed for utility. It can be weaponized, but there's not much reason for more. They hunt in packs with attack helicopters that outclass it in every way with ATTACK.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      the cobra is what OP is referring to, probably
      since its officially described as a huey variant
      though this was mostly a legal distinction, because the only thing the cobra and huey have in common is the engine

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    They did with the S-71 prototype

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/AxBZvrW.jpg

      Whole point of dedicated attack helicopter is that you don't have to drag around huge cargo area that is useless for attack helicopter. It causes drag and its structure has weight that is not used for fuel, weapons or other systems.

      https://i.imgur.com/4zbQaaJ.jpg

      You're going to post that without showing the ugly SOB that was the Boeing AAH? Here is it from the front. This was just a mockup so the real thing if built would have probably been even uglier.

      All the AAH submissions were fricking bangers, the Lockheed CL1700 was cool too

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      That is a heavy recoilless cannon on a limited arc mount isn't it. Fascinating. Somewhere there will be test results.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    You know, I have no relevant pics, but I can tell you guys that the Army currently has stealth helicopters in service other than the Black Hawks used during Bin Laden's assassination. One of these is Comanche derived or even a Stealth Apache and another is of an unknown role and generally rhomboidal in shape with a NOTAR configuration, which is shrouded, much like the exhausts on a B-2. This helicopter was flown near the NYC area and again in Chicago during the 2000s in order to prove its stealthiness (though the object was potentially visually spotted in Illinois during the 2000s (2000-early 2005, being described as triangular). This design also features special rotor blades to dampen the sound (Scimitar of Q Tip blades most likely).

    Plus a "secret upgraded E-2" (mostly performance based mods to help the aircraft fly slightly faster and be slightly more maneuverable) and an CRJ aircraft that is painted in a fake Star Alliance livery exist with a modified nose cone (not N804X or similar).

    I know a lot of you guys might think I am being schizo, but I can get some people to concur with me on some of this information. I already got shouted at a security guard a few years back for looking inside of an NG hangar with my binoculars.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Honestly it'd shock me more if we didn't have at least 1 stealth helicopter program that we're keeping incredibly tight chested like we were with the nighthawk before the crash in 86

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Hear is my list of stealth and low-observable helicopters that the U.S has looked into:
        Project Comanche
        Project Arapaho (limited capability, stealth Kiowa)
        Stealth Little Bird (eventually became optionally manned project, mostly focused on reduced heat signature vs reduced radar cross section)
        Fire Scout (Limited capability, did not ultimately deliver on this limited standard either)
        Stealth Black Hawk (StealthHawk?)
        Stealth Apache (missing link between Apache and Comanche, probably some in service)
        Project Hummingbird (Similar principle to YO-3 for stealth, cancelled? [no info on prototype status]).
        "Flying Diamond" as described. This probably will not be declassified for a while.
        There are too many aircraft to list, just know that Scaled Composites is working on one or two, Lockheed Martin has two-three projects ongoing, Boeing has at least one General Atomics has at least one and Northrop Grumman has as many as five at my last count. A lot of these aircraft are for Recon roles and are serving with the CIA in conjunction with the USAF and USN.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I also forgot about the AAI Pentrator, which would have been a stealth UH-1C Huey Gunship. The prototype became the Aerocraft Stealth Star with some upgrades and as if 2018 was rotting away in an airfield with the project having been quietly discontinued.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i keep hearing about a stealth chinook was used alongside the stealth blackhawk that crashed, and it's kind of an obvious in hindsight thing that the military industrial complex is obsessed with low observability aircraft because it's something they can quantifiably improve and get funding for. they've been monomaniacly obsessed with stealth even in instances where it seems worthless

          also the new wave of tr-3b floating triangle nonsense makes me think that they're testing a new large triangle shaped bomber like the b-2 but hell maybe they just built a giant flying diamond

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Possibly, but I think that it was more likely a DOS Sea Knight that was used than any "Stealth Chinook". Time will tell, though. (There is no evidence or witnesses to a stealth Chinook at the moment).

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            TR-3 is not one of the designs in development. There is something similar to the Cipher UAV project that was in development, this could be triangular in shape, but ultimately, this craft would be a recon UAV that is slow moving and has low radar and heat visibility (something which both Ciphers One and Two promised).

            Additionally a VTOL Strike UAV might possibly be in development, this is likely done by Vertol. The most I know is of the Eagle Eye project, which suffered from poor lateral and vertical stability (the former of which was never corrected.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >they're testing a new large triangle shaped bomber like the B2
            Have I got news for you, my under-a-rock-living friend

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Anon was speaking of hovering or loitering capabilities, something which this aircraft lacks. Also, will it have differential thrust control, like the B-2?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Anon was speaking of hovering or loitering capabilities
                ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Just UFO/Black Project theories

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I guess, I just have some evidence to suggest that the Cipher project was developed beyond the Cipher II.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    MH-60L DAP: The Direct Action Penetrator (DAP) is a special operations modification of the baseline MH-60L, operated by the U.S. Army's 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.[157] The DAP is configured as a gunship, with no troop-carrying capacity. The DAP is equipped with ESSS or ETS stub wings, each capable of carrying configurations of the M230 Chain Gun 30 mm automatic cannon, 19-shot Hydra 70 rocket pod, AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, AIM-92 Stinger air-to-air missiles, GAU-19 gun pods, and M134 minigun pods,[158] M134D miniguns are used as door guns.[151]

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dedicated
    Useless without shells

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sikorsky did that in 70's Advanced Attack Helicopter tender. Only Bell and Hughes were allocated money make actual prototypes so it was terminated with only plywood mockup being built. Boeing also proposed attack helicopter based on their YUH-61 utility helicopter that competed with Sikorsky YUH-60 for Utility Tactical Transport Aircraft System contract.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      You're going to post that without showing the ugly SOB that was the Boeing AAH? Here is it from the front. This was just a mockup so the real thing if built would have probably been even uglier.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Strokecopter

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Whoever designed this abortion deserves to be set on fire.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        this image was used to trained all the first gen AI image generators

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I like it

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >huge cargo area
    >why not made dedicated attack variant
    Because it has a huge cargo area, why not use it on Battle Hawks?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Whole point of dedicated attack helicopter is that you don't have to drag around huge cargo area that is useless for attack helicopter. It causes drag and its structure has weight that is not used for fuel, weapons or other systems.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        That's why the Apache exists, Battle Hawks fill the role of the Hind because able to provide security for themselves and each other during light transport missions freeing up Apaches for attack and CAS missions instead of escort work.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >the role of the Hind
          the Hind is a piece of shit specifically because it doesn't do anything better than a dedicated platform could, while not doing anything it does particularly well either. It looks neat and can be a serviceable attack helo, but it is in every way less than ideal.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Hind is the idea preformed poorly, instead of building a dedicated attack chopper they crippled their primary attack chopper by also making it a transport.
            The US has the Apache as a dedicated attack chopper and the Black Hawk as a dedicated transport. Turning some transports into Battle Hawks gives you all the advantages of an armed transport that can provide it's one security without gimping your primary attack chopper.

            Airframes aren't always available with several resupply missions in the GWOT being delayed because they couldn't take Apaches off CAS to run escort, the battle hawk solves this issue.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              The Hind was the product of bad doctrine. The US is perfectly capeable of kitting a Blackhawk for attack purposes, and that is s very different thing than permanently converting Blackhawks into multi-role configurations. The former is a flexible option, the latter is borrowing problems.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Hind is great for third world countries, as well as when employed in an assault, but it will never be an Apache or a Cobra or even some of the POS combat helos like the Tiger ARH or OH-1 (which is so bad that it is an "Observation Heli").

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              I will grant you that the Hind is an excellent helicopter so long as the opposing forces don't have their own airforce, anti-air capability of any kind, or are fielding any heavy armor that needs to be dealt with.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The Blackhawk is incapable of taking a useful load of both troops and weapons. It doesn’t have the power required to do that. It’s the same problem that the Hind ran into.

          It’s much more practical and effective to have dedicated attack helicopter tag along on air assaults.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            That's why I said
            >light transport missions
            You can't use an armed one to move around a section but it's fine for dropping off some food or ammo.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The whole point of a dedicated attack helicopter is to be used as a missile platform against T-72s crossing the Rhine.

        Back here in the present tense, not a bad idea to have the bus be able to stick around lend some ground support (or surpress the enemy before dumping out a bunch of boots)

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          if you're a first world country it makes more sense to send an apache along with your flight of transports instead of arming the transports, because a good place to shoot people from and a good place to drop off boots are usually two different things.

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Small arms can successfully disable and destroy armored helicopters. You do not necessarily need guided SAM systems like Stingers, which are now highly expensive and well-countered by modern helicopters.

    The high capacity AK model drum magazine has been deployed to this effect, and recently, a 50 BMG rifle purchased from Oregon used to down an armored helicopter by a cartel in Mexico.

    The AKs drum mag fielded in the jungle were Chinese 75 round steel drums in the intermediate AK cartridge. An AR loaded with a similar or one hundred (100) round magazine, optics (thermal or otherwise) and a fully automatic or rapid fire mechanism can be more effective, especially in a full cartridge as used in belt fed receivers.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >rotor mast
      >just hit a 4 square foot target moving at 100 knots from hundreds to thousands of yards
      While possible and more likely than winning the lottery it isn't a solid plan for defending again choppers that can survive a couple 23mm HE to the wienerpit or rotors.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        mast
        >>just hit a 4 square foot target moving at 100 knots from hundreds to thousands of yards
        >While possible and more likely than winning the lottery it isn't a solid plan for defending again choppers that can survive a couple 23mm HE to the wienerpit or rotors.
        Anon, are you familiar with the concept of bullet drop? You remember, from when you shot your guns, about how if the target is a long ways away the bullet actually hits somewhere lower than where you're aiming?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          I even know about lead because I worked in a mine where shooting clays was the main entertainment.
          Lead and drop don't change the target size and make it even harder to hit so I assume you agree with my point?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >Lead and drop don't change the target size and make it even harder to hit so I assume you agree with my point?
            They're not telling you you've got to hit the rotor mast, that's just the aiming point to hit the chopper in general. The frontal area of the whole bird is a shitload more than 4 sq ft. And while a very few gunships are armored to take 23mm from a significant distance, there are a lot of aircraft that will succumb to rifle fire. How much armor do you think an Mi-8 or a Little Bird has? Do you want to be tanking 7.62x39 to the windscreen in something like that if you were the pilot?

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >How much armor do you think an Mi-8 or a Little Bird has?
              None, that's why I was replying to a post that said
              >disable and destroy armored helicopters
              with the mast being the only thing that intermediate cartridges would realistically damage enough to drop am ARMOURED chopper.
              Sure you could shed a Huey with small arms but I also wouldn't call that armoured.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Meant for

                i keep hearing about a stealth chinook was used alongside the stealth blackhawk that crashed, and it's kind of an obvious in hindsight thing that the military industrial complex is obsessed with low observability aircraft because it's something they can quantifiably improve and get funding for. they've been monomaniacly obsessed with stealth even in instances where it seems worthless

                also the new wave of tr-3b floating triangle nonsense makes me think that they're testing a new large triangle shaped bomber like the b-2 but hell maybe they just built a giant flying diamond

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                meant for

                TR-3 is not one of the designs in development. There is something similar to the Cipher UAV project that was in development, this could be triangular in shape, but ultimately, this craft would be a recon UAV that is slow moving and has low radar and heat visibility (something which both Ciphers One and Two promised).

                Additionally a VTOL Strike UAV might possibly be in development, this is likely done by Vertol. The most I know is of the Eagle Eye project, which suffered from poor lateral and vertical stability (the former of which was never corrected.

                Am I seriously this fricking moronic with posting.

                P.S, if you see a BAE Hawk flying off the coast of FL, it is the E-

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >P.S, if you see a BAE Hawk flying off the coast of FL, it is the E-
                Oh shit the glowies got him.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I am still around, E-2. The hawk is registered to an Air USA Inc. and serves as a chase plane.

                Also, I can share types in Type 1000 and Type 3000 storage, the amounts are unknown:

                A-4
                F-4
                A-7
                AV-8
                CH-46
                UH-1
                AH-1
                OV-1
                OV-10
                O-2
                O-1?
                Ryan drones? (Firebee specifically)
                F-117
                Gnat? (CIA only UAV, but something tells me that the USAF et al. might have had some before replacing them)
                Predator

                That is all that I know of, there might be A-6s and EA-6s, but this is entirely speculative.

                I will also tell you that Embraer is potentially going to have a big order soon for Super Tucanos and Milleniums. It could be U.S Gov., but it could also be abroad. A KC-390 and a Super Tucano. Note that the Super Tucano has a brand new designation as A-14, so it might be a sign that they will no longer be SOC types anymore. I have no clue about the Milleniums, but the idea of a Tactical Tanker sounds promising, if I was US top brass. Again, this could just as easily be Canada or someplace else, but the fact that these flew to the U.S (to an Embraer facility) and were being displayed there (I have pics of KC-390 and A-14) tells me something is going on.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      you needed 23mm cannons to reliably shoot down helos in vietnam
      small arms are only taking down helos if they can stay low and slow and out of cover

      you arent shooting them down with oversized AKs unless you are ambushing them at close range while at low altitudes

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >you arent shooting them down with oversized AKs unless you are ambushing them at close range while at low altitudes
        that is exactly what they did in vietnam, a helicopter has to actually land to drop or pickup troops

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Not specifying if it is a handegg field or a soccer field.

      No wonder guerrilla's are mostly fail.

  18. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because we have Apaches, Cobras, and until a few years ago, Kiowa Warriors.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      And we just cancelled the 3rd damn attempt at replacing the Kiowa because the Army is currently run by morons.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Really it's role can probably be filled mostly by unmanned platforms now, which is something I find slightly depressing. I've always loved what I consider the 'underdog' aircraft. Sure it would have been cool to be a fighter pilot turning and burning while lobbing amraams. But I was that weirdo who fantasized about flying an O-1 Birddog over Laos and guiding in strike aircraft on slanty eyed commie asiatics while dodging AA fire, or zipping across the desert in a Kiowa blasting sandBlack folk with the .50.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The issue I have with that is how they said the same thing 20 years ago, when they cancelled the RAH-66 Comanche. They found out unmanned assets, while very useful, can't do the whole job as well as they'd hoped. That led us down a long path finally leading to FARA, and right as Bell and Sikorsky are getting their prototypes ready to fly they make the same proclamation they did 20 years ago.
          I've always loved the idea of being an OV-10 pilot doing FAC work in Vietnam. Getting to politely mark targets firing a WP rocket right into them so the fast movers can drop some bombs of napalm canisters on that spot. Not glamorous compared to the fighters for sure, but still very important especially back then before modern targeting pods, GPS, and all that.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            I agree there will probably be some manned recon flights required. But I also think it's going to be more limited, and that the modern Apache variants can probably fill the role well enough that it's hard to justify a specialized airframe and all the logistics that goes with that. Especially in an era where trying to recruit skilled labor into the military is nigh on impossible.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >Especially in an era where trying to recruit skilled labor into the military is nigh on impossible.

              How do you imagine the armed forces recruit skilled labor rather than train it for aircraft maintenance and support? Do you imagine keeping aircraft flying to be difficult as opposed to tedious? There are no skill issues. I could train anyone off the block to do that work as I and hundreds of thousands before me were trained. I worked Broncos and they're easy as they could be to keep flying. So are the other little birds. (OTOH Phantom was absurdly labor-intensive and manning is one reason it is not mourned on the user end. Holy shit those were pigs. )

              The cost of personnel rather than skill or training is the major issue mitigating against manned bugsmashers. That burden includes CSAR which spectators always forget. Needing CSAR also guarantees disasters like the defeat pictured in "Bat 21" which was made necessary to rescue an officer who would not even be there had decent drones been available.

              Manned recon against anyone good is moronic. Sending rotary winged targets is even worse. Thousands of helos lost in SEA should have calmed the Army but officers want to fly so we still have meatsacks in wienerpits:

              https://www.airandspaceforces.com/PDF/MagazineArchive/Documents/2003/October%202003/1003najaf.pdf

              Now picture attack helos facing drone swarms they cannot simultaneously engage at all angles of attack. Drone operators will be cumming buckets and unless helo bases are thoroughly protected will be under constant threat vs. fixed wing assets launched from distant basing.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          https://i.imgur.com/OW7nTbz.jpg

          I agree there will probably be some manned recon flights required. But I also think it's going to be more limited, and that the modern Apache variants can probably fill the role well enough that it's hard to justify a specialized airframe and all the logistics that goes with that. Especially in an era where trying to recruit skilled labor into the military is nigh on impossible.

          It still has a role in anti-cartel ops

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Kiowa's are too cheap and reliable to be appealing to the Army, they want something expensive and unreliable to keep the maintenance contracts flowing

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Kiowas are also pathetically weak and short ranged, they can barely take off carrying their own crew and sensors let alone the shit they mounted on them. They were essentially just first gen jetrangers.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They were essentially just first gen jetrangers.
            lmao they are jet rangers

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >They were essentially just first gen jetrangers.
            oh no, not one of the most successful and widely produced helicopters in history, how terrible

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              You're right, we should be still using Siouxes

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              He meant that what the Army wanted to use them, made them ineffectual. Army loaded them up heavy as frick.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the idea ive seen floated is to use the new heliplane to do the job since it has legs and capacity

  19. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >dedicated attack chopper
    >cargo chopper frame
    Pick one

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >the Cobra isn't a dedicated attack helicopter
      have a nice day moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        And it doesn’t use a cargo helicopter frame, so what’s your point?

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >implying the cobra uses a cargo chopper airframe
          have a nice day moron

          >The Huey isn't a cargo helicopter but the Black Hawk is
          I suggest suicide for being so moronic

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            NTA, but the frame, fuselege and rotor of the AH-1 is not the same as the Huey, it shares the engine and transmission though, althoug those underwent slight modification as well.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              No

              See [...]
              have a nice day moron

              You really should stop posting. You're embarrassing yourself.
              Pictel every part there is interchangeable with the UH1Y

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >UH-1Y
                You do realize the UH-1Y and AH-1Z upgrade was a 90s-00s program right?
                To fix the problem of parts commonality?
                And in the end it ended up that it was easier to build entirely new ones instead of upgrading UH-1N's?

                As designed the AH-1 shares the engine and transmision with the UH-1, that's about it.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Still not seeing a cargo frame.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The Blackhawk isn't a cargo helicopter moron.

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            See

            NTA, but the frame, fuselege and rotor of the AH-1 is not the same as the Huey, it shares the engine and transmission though, althoug those underwent slight modification as well.

            have a nice day moron

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >implying the cobra uses a cargo chopper airframe
        have a nice day moron

  20. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Oh god, it’s like an AH-64 Apache and Mil Mi-28 (Havoc) had a kid

  21. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Direct Action Penetrator though?

  22. 3 weeks ago
    robofucker

    >Why the US never made a dedicated attack helicopter variant from the Black Hawk airframe?
    why would they? you know you can use the knowledge and experience from previous designs to iterate and make new purpose built designs instead of retooling an old design for one task to try and fit another.

    and in case you didn't get it, all the Chinese know how to do is copy a western design and then strip it down to try and make it into another type of helicopter. the exact same as taking the Dauphin design and making the Z-19

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The French stuff they actually got a license for in the latter part of the 20th century. God those Frenchies were short sighted to see that they would still be making (standard and armed versions) of their designs after the licenses expired.

      It is funny how the Dauphin is in military service in the U.S and China.

  23. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think the Z-19 is based of their Dauphin clone as well.

  24. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Attack helicopters are OBSOLETE in a peer conflict

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Peer conflicts are obsolete in the 21st century

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Didn't some helicopters hit an oil depot a while back?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Who are the peers?
      They seem to be doing work while taking losses in the Russia / Ukraine peer conflict and they could decide an African peer conflict.
      The only conflict where they would be pretty useless is one where the airspace remains contested by fighter for the duration.

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >Who are the peers?
        Countries who could make a dedicated attack helicopter variant from the Black Hawk airframe

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      name a peer the U.S has fought in the last 40 years

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >40
        The last time I can think of where the US fought a near peer is WW2.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          i could probably give you vietnam because there were chinks and ru advisors doing sketchy shit inna jungle with SAMs and MIGs

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            IMO proxy wars don't count, by that logic Russia is fighting NATO.

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >by that logic Russia is fighting NATO
              they are

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                If they were the sky would be blacked out by F-16s, they are not.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                if u say so. just about every nato weapon you can think of has been deployed in ukraine. and pretty soon french sof is deploying. you need to ask yourself when its no longer a """proxy war""" (your term)

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >and pretty soon french sof is deploying. you need to ask yourself when its no longer a """proxy war"""
                The USSR had pilots in Vietnam, still a proxy war.
                >your term
                https://www.oxfordreference.com/display/10.1093/acref/9780199670840.001.0001/acref-9780199670840-e-1742

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >everything is a proxy war

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >just about every nato weapon you can think of has been deployed in ukraine
                lol cope harder

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Tempted to count the battle of Khasham but that was more of a one sided massacre than a fight.
          Well, only time I guess you could say the supposed "near peer" exchanged hostilities with the US, sort of.

  25. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    why are all the heli's named after mouthwash drinkers?

  26. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    160th uses the MH-60 DAP or "Direct Action Penetrator" which essentially takes a UH-60 Blackhawk and adds wings over the sliding doors to incorporate 4 weapons hardpoints to add whatever USASOC needs to accomplish a special mission.

  27. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    isn't the apache based on the black hawk airframe in the same way the cobra is based on the huey?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Apache isn't made by Sikorsky, so no
      The only thing they have in common is the engine

  28. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Why the US never made
    Go away ESL

  29. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Should I take pictures of some of the aircraft that I am not supposed to take pictures of. I have to be creative with the pictures, though.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Do it

  30. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    More developed MIC, I reckon. We were in a place at the time where we had a whole bunch of guys who could compete with new designs to fill that role, where as China, for whatever reason, decided to build off an already existing design like we did with AH-1.

    Seem reasonable?

  31. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  32. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because then F-15C pilots would shoot them all down.

  33. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Test

  34. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Thank you Army. I'm so glad we cancelled this program before this and the Sikorsky prototype even flew? After all why would Army pilots want newer helicopter to use? Maybe since these were designed decades after the Apache they would feature more automation and allow the crew to devote more time to utilizing supporting UAVs to their advantage? But why would we want to try something like that when we can just expect the Apache crews to do it on top of everything else?

  35. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    N

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *