JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

Fact is that you don't need an airrcraft that can transition from helicopter mode to airplane for that. My understanding is that the best thing that can help during the Golden hour is to have something that can land close to the frontline, hover at any alt, in any kind of heat and fly nap of the earth out of any enemy treats (there is no point in loading some injured soldiers just to be blown up 20 miles further away!).

That thing, intuitively (only), doesn't favor a tilt rotor setup per se.
 
I think it depends on the type of conflict that one is dealing with. If you are operating in environments like the US has dealt with over the last two decades, I will agree with you that there is less of a compelling case. I would note that the Congressman does not specify a particular aircraft type (even if obvious). However if you are fighting a major conventional conflict against other well equipped forces, there will likely be far more casualties than you can manage to pick up forward and it is unlikely that the other combatant is going to let you land anything within reach of their weapons. The cruel decisions for the medical community on who gets help and who does not will be a reality. Those who can be saved will most probably have to be moved by ground some distance, before they can be moved to better treatment facilities. At that point it will be larger spaces to get as many platforms as can be sent to move the greater number of casualties.
My humble opinion.
 
Fact is that you don't need an airrcraft that can transition from helicopter mode to airplane for that. My understanding is that the best thing that can help during the Golden hour is to have something that can land close to the frontline, hover at any alt, in any kind of heat and fly nap of the earth out of any enemy treats (there is no point in loading some injured soldiers just to be blown up 20 miles further away!).

That thing, intuitively (only), doesn't favor a tilt rotor setup per se.

I'm not sure why this would argue against Tilt-Rotor technology per se. There's nothing inherent in the concept that would prevent it from landing as close to the frontline as other technologies. The footprint is part of the required specifications, and the V-280 meets that. Regarding hot and high, I think it's a bit broad to say any altitude at any temperature. That said, Army has specified their requirements for HOGE for FLRAA. I may be getting this wrong, but I believe it's 6,000 feet on a 95° day with the nominal load. That's pretty impressive. Bell claims they will meet or even exceed this somewhat. An interesting side note: Bell has said that this HOGE requirement, not speed or range, was what determined the power required for the vehicle. The way the 280 knot speed they promised came about was that the power necessary to meet the HOGE requirement resulted in a predicted 280 knot speed, which they have exceeded. . Sikorsky, BTW, claims they will substantially exceed the requirement. This would be a function of the greater hover efficiency of a conventional rotor versus a Tilt-Rotor, assuming this carries over to an X2.

As far Nap Of the Earth performance, that was demonstrated decades ago with the XV-15 in its testing. There's nothing inherent in Tilt-Rotor design that precludes this. For the most performance it would be done in airplane mode or with the proprotors at an intermediate angle. Here's the thing about extended NoE in the Medevac role: If your cabin is filled with wounded soldiers and medics trying to save them using the equipment onboard, would you really want to be bouncing around with all kinds of angle changes and rapid dramatic course and speed changes, or would you want to get hell out of Dodge as smoothly and as fast as possible? Not to mention to be able to work with facilities farther away for any given timespan. .
 

As far Nap Of the Earth performance, that was demonstrated decades ago with the XV-15 in its testing. There's nothing inherent in Tilt-Rotor design that precludes this. For the most performance it would be done in airplane mode or with the proprotors at an intermediate angle. Here's the thing about extended NoE in the Medevac role: If your cabin is filled with wounded soldiers and medics trying to save them using the equipment onboard, would you really want to be bouncing around with all kinds of angle changes and rapid dramatic course and speed changes, or would you want to get hell out of Dodge as smoothly and as fast as possible? Not to mention to be able to work with facilities farther away for any given timespan. .
Several valid points. One could argue that the RAF did NOE at ~300 knots regularly in the ETO in wooden bombers, at night without vision aids. Flying low and fast with computer assistance and vision aids should, I would think, be less demanding.
The point about bouncing around with critically wounded patience is spot on. You don't. This is why I expect that (air) MEDEVAC in major combat will be pushed further back to larger medical areas. I suspect these medical areas will be temporary as a competent enemy will likely notice places where aircraft are going in and out of frequently, and move to end that activity as efficiently as possible.
 
I totally agree with the remark. My point was more that there might be a need for both design. Something moving close to the tree top and another fast above the ridge line.
And even, I am nor sure that the massive flying gear box that looks to be DefiantX would be the most appropriate solution, even if would like so much to be it: a tactically working design.
 
I personally think that the X2 technology does not scale up well past the Raider X sized platform. Especially not to the size required for the Army's Blackhawk replacement requirement. I do hope that both technologies find their way into service since the "rough edges" of technologies can be refined and made into very viable flying machines.
 
For full disclosure I must again acknowledge that after looking at both technologies for some time, I am in the Tilt-Rotor camp, so evaluate my comments accordingly.

Regarding FLRAA/FVL-Medium, there really isn't a need for both designs, even if there was the money for both, which there isn't. It isn't practical to always have both technologies at the relevant base whenever and wherever you might need them. So you've got to select the one that can meet all (or at least most) of the requirements better on the most cost effective basis. I don't see anything that would make a Tilt-Rotor have significant problems close to the tree line. Frankly, I believe Defiant's marketeers made that video because Bell has more than shown everything they need to show with Valor and grounded it months ago. So, there's no danger of a "counter-video" showing V-280 in and among the trees.

I agree about the scaling up. Among other things, ever since the X2 flight test demonstrator was designed it's become apparent that an X2 requires all of the cockpit and cabin to be forward of the mast/transmission, which wastes fuselage space. The larger the craft, the harder this would be to do. Years ago I saw an article where Sikorsky tacitly admitted this. They thought the best choice for FVL CS-4 (FVL-Heavy) was a derivative of their upcoming CH-53K. For CS-5 (FVL-Ultra) they thought...wait for it... a Tilt-Rotor.
 
53K with minimal mods would likely be a satisfactory Cap Set 5, the only issue might be range as the U.S. Army (other than SOAR) have not invested in air refueling.
 
53K with minimal mods would likely be a satisfactory Cap Set 5, the only issue might be range as the U.S. Army (other than SOAR) have not invested in air refueling.
Minor note: Isn't Cap set 5 for the FVL-Ultra, which is essentially a VTOL C-130 type rcaft (wonder if such a thing will actual come about)., while Cap Set 4 is for the FVL-Heavy, which would be for an H-47/53 replacement?
 
Is there money in the kitty for FVL heavy and ultra? FVL light and medium are already cannibalizing one another's schedules and budgets.

Plus the geopolitical landscape has tilted greatly toward great power competition, rather much different than the situation in 2009 when the roadmap was sketched out.

A vtol C-130 sized aircraft would be cool and nice to have, but isn't it a bit of an extravagance?
 
Is there money in the kitty for FVL heavy and ultra? FVL light and medium are already cannibalizing one another's schedules and budgets.

Plus the geopolitical landscape has tilted greatly toward great power competition, rather much different than the situation in 2009 when the roadmap was sketched out.

A vtol C-130 sized aircraft would be cool and nice to have, but isn't it a bit of an extravagance?
They are further out than FLRAA and FARA, only in the talking stage at this point.

Regarding a VTOL C-130, an F-35 or a missile like Meteor would have been looked at as an extravagance 30 years or so ago. Besides, the best indicator that such a vehicle would be a viable idea is that USAF has decided they want to pre-empt Army in developing one:

 
A vtol C-130 sized aircraft would be cool and nice to have, but isn't it a bit of an extravagance?

Assuming what you mean with C-130 sized VTOL is VTOL with C-130 cargo capacity, well US version of this would be very useful.
And you can get three of those for the cost of one CH-53K.
 
Northrop Grumman to develop prototype Artificial Intelligence Assistant 01


Northrop Grumman Corporation has been awarded a contract from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency’s (DARPA) Perceptually-enabled Task Guidance (PTG) program to develop a prototype artificial intelligence (AI) assistant. The prototype will be embedded in an augmented reality (AR) headset to help rotary pilots perform expected and unexpected tasks.

Northrop Grumman, in partnership with the University of Central Florida (UCF), will develop an Operator and Context Adaptive Reasoning Intuitive Assistant (OCARINA) that will support UH-60 Blackhawk pilots, who fly with both visual and instrumented flight, which varies with weather, time of day and other environmental factors.

“The goal of this prototype is to broaden a pilot’s skillset,” said Erin Cherry, senior autonomy program manager, Northrop Grumman. “It will help teach new tasks, aide in the recognition and reduction of errors, improve task completion time, and most importantly, help to prevent catastrophic events.”

Rotorcraft aircrews face numerous demands particularly when flying in close proximity to buildings, terrain, people and from the threat of adversary RADAR systems. Today, simple warning systems are the most common means for aiding a rotorcraft aircrew, such as auditory alerts to increase altitude. These warning systems are limiting and can induce unanticipated cognitive burdens on pilots. Studies have shown that inattentional blindness to such warnings can occur, often making them ineffective for the aircrew.

DARPA’s PTG program aims to develop AI technologies to help users perform complex mental and physical tasks. The goal is to provide users of PTG AI assistants with wearable sensors that allow the assistant to observe what the user perceives and know what the user knows. Using advanced information processing and an AR interface, the goal of the program is to have the AI assistant provide feedback and guidance through speech and aligned graphics at the right place and time to augment the aircrew.

Using powerful, proven algorithm development and implementation processes, Northrop Grumman develops and integrates leading-edge AI solutions into large, complex, end-to-end mission systems that are essential to our national security. Northrop Grumman’s artificial intelligence systems are developed using responsible AI principles. The company’s AI technologies are equitable, traceable, reliable, governable, auditable and protected against threats.

 

And this one is only thinly veiled in his support for Defiant, with commentary verbiage focusing on "very tight places" and "confined areas"...and then the pivot to "lift capability and range" (note the omission of speed) and talk of sling loading and M777 deployment. I wonder who sent the check, Lockheed or Boeing?

This type of superficially objective propaganda is nauseating.
 
Fact is that you don't need an airrcraft that can transition from helicopter mode to airplane for that. My understanding is that the best thing that can help during the Golden hour is to have something that can land close to the frontline, hover at any alt, in any kind of heat and fly nap of the earth out of any enemy treats (there is no point in loading some injured soldiers just to be blown up 20 miles further away!).

That thing, intuitively (only), doesn't favor a tilt rotor setup per se.

As far Nap Of the Earth performance, that was demonstrated decades ago with the XV-15 in its testing.

Nailed it

View: https://youtu.be/uudfFbErYVU?t=259
 
Both teams are going to "pull out the stops" as this is the biggest game of the decade (or more). Bell got Congressionals going already. It will be who is cheaper, who is least risk.
 
Both teams are going to "pull out the stops" as this is the biggest game of the decade (or more). Bell got Congressionals going already. It will be who is cheaper, who is least risk.
We don't have enough data yet to know enough to compare on criteria one (we don't even know exactly how they'll calculate it), but at this point in time three are good indications on criteria 2.
 

This should not surprise anyone.

"Similarly, the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft — a new rotorcraft that will replace the service’s Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters — could also face potential cancellation, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“That’s a program that if it doesn’t get killed outright, I think it gets pushed out, slipped into the future to pay bills,” Harrison said, adding that it will be difficult for the Army to justify why it needs that capability.
“If we’re supposed to be focused on high-end competition, helicopters aren’t going to get anywhere near the fight,” Harrison said. In a fight against low-end threats, the MQ-1C Grey Eagle drone “can provide that scouting and a limited attack capability, and you’ve got your legacy helicopters that you can keep around a little bit longer.”

As has been mentioned numerous times in this forum, the quote from a former senior Pentagon official, that I paraphrase here - "We {DoD and pundits} have an almost perfect record in predicting the next war. We have been wrong almost every time."

The track record for delayed programs has been appallingly dismal.
 
They'd better implant a Blue fly brain into their Predators if they really think that their drone would be able to do likewise NoE and survive. I don't understand how something as fundamentally incorrect can be the base of a discussion for a military program?!

Scoot helicopters are necessary to go where large UAV can't because of peer level of defenses. Inherently, at this stage of technology, you can' t replace them.
 
Last edited:
The FARA options were never enough of a leap to justify the cost, nor are they survivable so will agree w csis. Likewise, ALE in current configurations is not worth anything but conceptualization either.
 
FARA's leap is on the cost curve: 21st century Scoot helo will operationally do as much as a 1990's Comanche for a fraction of the price...
That's a significant advantage in military terms!
 
FARA's leap is on the cost curve: 21st century Scoot helo will operationally do as much as a 1990's Comanche for a fraction of the price...
That's a significant advantage in military terms!
I only think one of the 2 FARA competitors could reasonably claim to be a fraction of the price of an RAH-66.

There's no precedence for cost-basis on a rigid rotor coax ship with 8 main rotor blades, 16 pusher prop blades, a fuselage stuffed with myriad force generators, and one of the most ungainly transmissions ever installed in a rotary wing vehicle.

The Army is probably disingenuously applying conventional helicopter parametrics to garner up a cost estimate that is probably nowhere near reality.
 
FARA's leap is on the cost curve: 21st century Scoot helo will operationally do as much as a 1990's Comanche for a fraction of the price...
That's a significant advantage in military terms!
I only think one of the 2 FARA competitors could reasonably claim to be a fraction of the price of an RAH-66.

There's no precedence for cost-basis on a rigid rotor coax ship with 8 main rotor blades, 16 pusher prop blades, a fuselage stuffed with myriad force generators, and one of the most ungainly transmissions ever installed in a rotary wing vehicle.

The Army is probably disingenuously applying conventional helicopter parametrics to garner up a cost estimate that is probably nowhere near reality.

;)
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-x2-family.2768/post-236194
 
FARA's leap is on the cost curve: 21st century Scoot helo will operationally do as much as a 1990's Comanche for a fraction of the price...
That's a significant advantage in military terms!
I only think one of the 2 FARA competitors could reasonably claim to be a fraction of the price of an RAH-66.

There's no precedence for cost-basis on a rigid rotor coax ship with 8 main rotor blades, 16 pusher prop blades, a fuselage stuffed with myriad force generators, and one of the most ungainly transmissions ever installed in a rotary wing vehicle.

The Army is probably disingenuously applying conventional helicopter parametrics to garner up a cost estimate that is probably nowhere near reality.

;)
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/sikorsky-x2-family.2768/post-236194

I love that old $15 million claim! I don't think you could buy a green airframe, gearbox, and blade set for that!
 
Bell’s Invictus gets new tail, is 75 percent complete

BY DAN PARSONS | FEBRUARY 3, 2022

Estimated reading time 6 minutes, 10 seconds.

Bell’s 360 Invictus advanced helicopter is 75 percent complete and has had its new open tail rotor system attached at the company’s facility in Amarillo, Texas.

Originally designed with a canted, ducted tail rotor, Invictus’ entire tail boom structure was reconfigured to simplify the design and speed building Bell’s pitch for the U.S. Army’s Future Attack Recon Aircraft.

2022-Bell-360-Build-Update-Approved-1024x531.jpg

The Bell 360 Invictus competitive prototype at the company’s manufacturing facility in Amarillo, Texas. Bell Photo

A new photo shared by Bell shows the tandem-cockpit, single-main-rotor helicopter on its build stand, its fuselage nearly complete and the tail boom attached. The company released artist renderings of the helicopter with a ducted tail and built the tail but decided when the aircraft was already half built to completely redesign the anti-torque system.

Keith Flail, Bell’s executive vice president for advanced vertical lift systems, said the redesign was a result of building a competitive prototype (CP) while at the same time refining the design of the ultimate FARA weapon system.

“One of the things we looked at is as we were doing a competitive prototype, and at the same time are iterating on a weapon system of what the [engineering and manufacturing development] aircraft is going to be — the increment one aircraft — and the way we’re organized is to maintain the connective tissue between those two so that we can keep them as close as possible in terms of what we’re doing on the CP and what the weapon system will be,” Flail recently told reporters on a media trip to Texas.

2019-10-01-Bell-360-Invictus-003-1024x683.jpg

Initial concept art of the Bell 360 Invictus attack reconnaissance helicopter. Note the ducted, canted tail rotor. Bell Image

When Bell rolled out the Invictus prototype helicopter concept in 2019, much emphasis was placed on the efficiency and added lift that would be generated by its ducted tail rotor, canted at 20 degrees to provide extra lift while hovering. Midway through building the prototype that will compete in a fly-off against Raider X, the company has redesigned everything behind the bulkhead separating the body of the aircraft from the tail boom and replaced the ducted rotor with a conventional open tail rotor system.

“Given the pace of the program, the competitive prototype, there was not the opportunity to optimize in some of the areas in terms of weight and things like that, that you would expect because you’re trying to go so fast,” Flail said. “But one of the things was that as we got to explore further the tail rotor, we started with a ducted tail rotor and as we continued to iterate and look at the holistic optimization of the aircraft, we saw from a growth potential standpoint and maximizing our hover performance and increase performance, that switching to the open tail rotor was the right answer to give that capability to the Army.”

In August, Chris Gehler, Bell’s vice president and 360 Invictus program director, explained that “the open tail provides more efficiency, and so it really came down to weight, efficiency and performance,” of the aircraft based on an Army requirement that a single General Electric T901 Improved Turbine Engine power FARA.

“We would get more performance and really, more future growth for the Army using the open tail,” Gehler said in an August interview.

Concurrent to building the actual aircraft, the Invictus’ main rotor gearbox, supplemental power unit gearbox, engine reduction gearbox driveshafts and couplings are being tested at Bell’s Drive Systems Test Lab (DSTL).

Designed to fly at least 180 knots, per Army speed requirements, Invictus borrows its main rotor system from the 525 Relentless, which has been flown at speeds above 200 knots in test flights. Both the shrouded hub and rotor blades have been “ported over” from the 525 program, but will be scaled to fit the Invictus. Where the 525 has five blades, Invictus will have four and will not exceed the Army’s 40-foot rotor disc size limitation.

Bell’s sole competition for FARA is the Sikorsky Raider X, a compound helicopter with coaxial, counter-spinning main rotors and a pusher propeller. That aircraft also is at least 70 percent complete, but Sikorsky has not published photos of its competitive prototype being built at the company’s flight test facility in West Palm Beach, Florida.

THIS IS THE NEW TAIL:

bell-360-invictus-in-flight-rendering-social.jpeg
 
Just like FLRAA....total crickets again from Sikorsky. Claims of being at a similar completion percentage however zero photos or any further details.

Could they have made a configuration change? Are they actually behind again and again lying through their teeth about it?

It is still a little bit mind boggling to read the old FLRAA quotes about Defiant's progress when the reality was completely different, so nothing would surprise me.
 

This should not surprise anyone.

"Similarly, the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft — a new rotorcraft that will replace the service’s Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters — could also face potential cancellation, said Todd Harrison, director of defense budget analysis at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“That’s a program that if it doesn’t get killed outright, I think it gets pushed out, slipped into the future to pay bills,” Harrison said, adding that it will be difficult for the Army to justify why it needs that capability.
“If we’re supposed to be focused on high-end competition, helicopters aren’t going to get anywhere near the fight,” Harrison said. In a fight against low-end threats, the MQ-1C Grey Eagle drone “can provide that scouting and a limited attack capability, and you’ve got your legacy helicopters that you can keep around a little bit longer.”

As has been mentioned numerous times in this forum, the quote from a former senior Pentagon official, that I paraphrase here - "We {DoD and pundits} have an almost perfect record in predicting the next war. We have been wrong almost every time."

The track record for delayed programs has been appallingly dismal.
The whole FARA program is a sign of a barren innovation culture, whether from a resource choked or decadent industrial decline in general, the ourcome is the same. FARA is an industrial welfare program.

"Next War" will likely be a high IADS threat. Furture Pilots would ask "you want me to fly where and do what, your kidding right. These creatures would make good Border Patrol craft.
 

USN/USMC view of FVL
 
Lockheed Martin Sikorsky-Boeing Selects Honeywell Engine to Power DEFIANT X

Philadelphia, Feb. 10, 2022 — Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin Company (NYSE: LMT), and Boeing (NYSE: BA) today announced Honeywell (NYSE: HON) as the engine provider for DEFIANT X, the advanced helicopter for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition.

With Honeywell providing the HTS7500 turboshaft engine, Team DEFIANT brings unsurpassed Army Aviation experience to revolutionize Army air assault while seamlessly integrating with legacy platforms, proven tactics and existing infrastructure. DEFIANT X® will be the fastest, most maneuverable and survivable assault helicopter in history.

“Team DEFIANT’s strength is built on the experience of Sikorsky and Boeing, and a commitment to Army Aviation,” said Mark Cherry, vice president and general manager of Boeing Vertical Lift. “Honeywell’s history with Boeing and the U.S. Army makes us even more confident that DEFIANT X® is the best fit for the Army’s total mission.”

“DEFIANT X® is a transformational aircraft, and Honeywell is giving us a transformational engine to power it,” said Paul Lemmo, president of Sikorsky. “DEFIANT X® is optimized for operational effectiveness, sustainment and interoperability with the enduring fleet, and will transform the Army.”

DEFIANT X® is a complete weapon system that builds on the handling qualities and capabilities proven by the team’s technology demonstrator, SB>1 DEFIANT®. It flies twice as far and fast as the venerable Black Hawk helicopter it is designed to replace. Currently undergoing testing in a digital combat environment, the aircraft continues to prove itself as the most survivable platform for mission requirements.

“Honeywell is excited to be a part of Team DEFIANT and proud to play a part in the future of vertical lift for the U.S. Army,” said Ricky Freeman, president, Defense & Space at Honeywell Aerospace. “We’re confident our HTS7500 engine on the DEFIANT X® platform will provide the Army with an agile, fast and maneuverable platform that will help ensure overmatch capability in the future battlespace.”

Sikorsky-Boeing submitted the proposal for DEFIANT X® for the U.S. Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft in September 2021. Contract award is expected this year.


What other platforms is the HTS7500 being used on?
 
Originally, Army wanted FLRAA bidders to design their production vehicles around the FATE engine, for which they gave them projected specifications. However, Army kept slipping FATE further to the right to the point that it wouldn't be ready when it would be needed for FLRAA. Army released them from the requirement and said they could pick their own engine.

Bell selected the Rolls Royce AE1107F, a variant of the AE1107C in the Osprey.
 
Last edited:
FATE... a prophetic name.
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.

Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.

In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
 
FATE... a prophetic name.
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.

Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.

In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Likely it will be repeated in FARA. ITEP engine.
 
They'd better implant a Blue fly brain into their Predators if they really think that their drone would be able to do likewise NoE and survive. I don't understand how something as fundamentally incorrect can be the base of a discussion for a military program?!

Scoot helicopters are necessary to go where large UAV can't because of peer level of defenses. Inherently, at this stage of technology, you can' t replace them.
We've had cruise missiles since forever, and nowadays you can probably get NoE algo out of github of all things. We are now looking at UAVs that fly below tree canopies between trees, the real constraint here is vehicle maneuverability and size.

Manned scout helicopters are nice to have because spamming loitering munitions and other autonomous death-bots at everything is not suitable for all conflicts, especially since killing the enemy isn't hardly ever the biggest problem.
 
Last edited:
Some slight precisions:
- the technologies you are mentioning to fly at tree top or under the canopy are not mature enough and are yet unable to be transferred to UAV with a significant military size.
- the systems and armaments necessary for a military useful Scoot are still bulky and heavy if we compare them to an UAV with a size able to fly NoE as mentioned above.

The solution to the equation is quite clear: Scoot helicopters are unavoidables.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom