Future battlefield reconnaissance helicopters
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: England
Age: 32
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Future battlefield reconnaissance helicopters
Now that It seems the US army is to be building the new 'F' model of the OH-58 Kiowa, and the British army already has Wildcat lined up for the battlefield reconnaissance role, I was wondering whether there was any merit in moving the sensor ball from on top to a the Underneath/Nose.
Considering these aircraft were designed for the battles of 'yesterday', is there any genuine need to have them in Afghanistan, and, more importantly, is there any real great value to be added by placing the sensor ball underneath? If a situation did come up where these helicopters were needed for their original purpose, they wouldn't be able to function anywhere near as effectively, at least not for very long...
Is this an expensive way to fix a problem that isn't really a problem? Is there a real issue with field of view with a mast mounted sight in Afghanistan?
Considering these aircraft were designed for the battles of 'yesterday', is there any genuine need to have them in Afghanistan, and, more importantly, is there any real great value to be added by placing the sensor ball underneath? If a situation did come up where these helicopters were needed for their original purpose, they wouldn't be able to function anywhere near as effectively, at least not for very long...
Is this an expensive way to fix a problem that isn't really a problem? Is there a real issue with field of view with a mast mounted sight in Afghanistan?
I don't believe she is part of the package.
On a more serious note, Jollygreengiant has an excellent point. Going back to my slightly flippant comment on procurement, Wildcat clearly has its genesis in the Cold War, when we expected our aviation assets to be operating a very low level out on the flanks, peering over hedgerows into the distance to pick up targets.
Looking out to the future and the likely mission profiles and threat environments, the ability to peer over a hedge doesn't have much utility when you are conducting urban operations or trying to provide persistent surveillance over a target - unless of course you want to set yourself up as a nice juicy target by flying constant rate turn to keep eyes on the target.
Not sure what the answer is - well - actually I know what the answer is, just not sure it is politically or fiscally acceptable in these straightened times.
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: .
Posts: 2,173
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Westland came up with this 35 years ago:
Westland "Wideeye" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
In retrospect quite a missed opportunity. Ahead of their time, and beaten by indifference from the military
Westland "Wideeye" helicopter - development history, photos, technical data
In retrospect quite a missed opportunity. Ahead of their time, and beaten by indifference from the military
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1 . Sensor/Sight on the nose gives the operator the the best of both worlds i.e. can look up and down depending on TTP in that battlefield but pretty much requires the a/c to be spec built for it. Keeping the radar high allows a theoretical TTP of 'unmasking' only the radar and keeping the majority of the a/c in cover. I wouldn't fancy being in a low energy position anywhere with SA, LTT, MANPADs etc. Moving the sights down from the mast will give greater view of the ground close in as typically we operate with air supremacy and reduced ground threat.
2. Not sure the Mildcat will be much good at anything recce/attack wise IMHO. I certainly wouldn't want to take it as my wing over another attack platform especially when sausage side in the kind of places The Arab Spring woke up.
3. Will all recce not be done by air/space or MQ-8 variants or even by those little RC Helicopters in the future? Does manned rotary recce have a place any more unless it's a double hat recce/attack platform such as AH-64?
2. Not sure the Mildcat will be much good at anything recce/attack wise IMHO. I certainly wouldn't want to take it as my wing over another attack platform especially when sausage side in the kind of places The Arab Spring woke up.
3. Will all recce not be done by air/space or MQ-8 variants or even by those little RC Helicopters in the future? Does manned rotary recce have a place any more unless it's a double hat recce/attack platform such as AH-64?
Sensor/Sight on the nose gives the operator the the best of both worlds i.e. can look up and down
Does manned rotary recce have a place any more unless it's a double hat recce/attack platform such as AH-64?
Just a thought.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agreed however, with the reducing size of our Army and specifically our infantry, will there be another occupational war such as Afghan where the ground commanders are the ones using the recce assets or will majority of future Ops be like Libya.
I'd hope that the PM would see that long term wars/conflicts cost more money than we have and more morale than we had. Short, sharp Ops like Libya are the way forward. Nipping it in the bud before it all gets a bit too big makes much more sense.
Just a thought
Speculate away.
P.S. Saw the sensor fusion kit that WesCam had on show at HeliTech last year. Amazing! If Mildcat got that then we might be talking, especially if it could be transmitted/controlled by the front seat of an AH. Almost like a manned UAV?!
I'd hope that the PM would see that long term wars/conflicts cost more money than we have and more morale than we had. Short, sharp Ops like Libya are the way forward. Nipping it in the bud before it all gets a bit too big makes much more sense.
Just a thought
Speculate away.
P.S. Saw the sensor fusion kit that WesCam had on show at HeliTech last year. Amazing! If Mildcat got that then we might be talking, especially if it could be transmitted/controlled by the front seat of an AH. Almost like a manned UAV?!
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Bristol
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- Whenever there's a thread on AH/recce it always get compared disparagingly to an Apache.
- Whenever there's a thread on SH it gets compared disparagingly to a Blackhawk.
- Meanwhile crash robustness, agility and shipborne operations are all ignored.
It's a swiss army knife of an aircraft, yes in a particular role there are probably better options, but there are few other individual aircraft that can fill as many different roles on the same flight.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great Britain
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why do you want a Swiss army knife of an aircraft? Look at Eurofighter 2000! Can't do much without a GR4.
Let AH-64D do the shooting, CH-47 do the lifting and UH-60* do the rest.
All of them are shipborne, agile as a helicopter needs to be and are battlefield proof. Lynx, sorry, Wildcat still has both of it's engines right next to each other!
The Recce function would be done with one of those little RC things or by AH.
*UH-60 could then be subdivided into various role specific types.
Let AH-64D do the shooting, CH-47 do the lifting and UH-60* do the rest.
All of them are shipborne, agile as a helicopter needs to be and are battlefield proof. Lynx, sorry, Wildcat still has both of it's engines right next to each other!
The Recce function would be done with one of those little RC things or by AH.
*UH-60 could then be subdivided into various role specific types.
Will there be any role for manned helicopter platforms in the future ?
Given the cost its argueable that the Govt's who spend the money would prefer to use it on unmanned vehicles.
Given the cost its argueable that the Govt's who spend the money would prefer to use it on unmanned vehicles.
I think theres still a case for the manned scout role or maybe have alternate manned / unmanned option like the Boeing AH-6X 
Plus who knows what tommorrows battlefield will bring and still got the problem below that could very much haunt us if Racedo's theory about the holders of the purse strings decide to go the No Mans Land way
Iran’s captured RQ-170: How bad is the damage? - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
Plus who knows what tommorrows battlefield will bring and still got the problem below that could very much haunt us if Racedo's theory about the holders of the purse strings decide to go the No Mans Land way
Iran’s captured RQ-170: How bad is the damage? - Air Force News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Air Force Times
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm starting to think the Wildcat gets a raw deal:
- Whenever there's a thread on AH/recce it always get compared disparagingly to an Apache.
- Whenever there's a thread on SH it gets compared disparagingly to a Blackhawk.
- Meanwhile crash robustness, agility and shipborne operations are all ignored.
- Whenever there's a thread on AH/recce it always get compared disparagingly to an Apache.
- Whenever there's a thread on SH it gets compared disparagingly to a Blackhawk.
- Meanwhile crash robustness, agility and shipborne operations are all ignored.
Battleworthyness would assist in preventing crashworthyness. Difficult to do with essentially a 40 year old design. Battleworthyness has to be designed from day one.
Agility - 6 tons of aircraft utilising legacy analogue AFCS, flying controls, hydraulics and a very high disk loading. A very heavy aircraft for its size compromising a key asset to a battlefield helicopter - Agility.
Shipborne operations. VERY limited endurance (with no growth potential for larger internal tanks and if the MoD decides to pay for external tanks, it will compromise any ability to carry weapon stores), all the things that made Lynx a good bet as a compact naval platform for small ships is now (or will be) an irrelevance with Type 45s and Type 23s. No folding tail. No certainty for a future weapons programme.
It's a swiss army knife of an aircraft, yes in a particular role there are probably better options, but there are few other individual aircraft that can fill as many different roles on the same flight
A short term 'cheap option' that will cost us dearly in the near future. Virtually no potential for growth.
As to the original question. Sensor on top of the nose as opposed to underneath? Wildcat has it there cos thats what is best for a naval platform but in certain circumstances, compromised for a non naval platform. To be honest, lets not get totally tied up with Ops from the past 10 years where we've had the luxury to sit at altitude carrying out ISTAR in helicopters. Helicopters are best employed in the low level environment so a sensor under the nose is even more pointless when sat in an obs position at 10'. I'm quite glad we didn't push too hard to get the Wildcat AH1s MX10 changed. Where it currently sits, its only slightly lower than where the old TOW sight was mounted. It would have cost us a fortune to change it and we've already seen that making changes post contract has meant basic capability has been costed out.
If you want to stick a camera up at a few thousand feet in a theatre where you cant guarantee the level of SA threat, best stick a UAS up.
Speaking of Manila - the PAF just taken delivery of Sokol W-3 could make a semi decent observation platform 
and thought it was Bangkok that was more gender split?
could make a semi decent observation platform and thought it was Bangkok that was more gender split?
