Stealth Helicopter?

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by 2ndgenz28

We do need stealth for copters, but im sure its like the stealth bomber.
if your within eyeball range, its not a Hudini ship. [sight or sound]

Id love to see some big advancements in copters though,
we need one as armored as our best tank but as nimble as a bumblebee
[which also by the physics should not be able to fly].

Let them be able to fly in low and slow and take all the small to med arms fire they want to toss as it and not even need to bat and eye. Just sit there n let em use up ammo, then fire a rocket up their..............

No, it won't disappear but if you can cut the minimum detection distance in half its a lot easier to go un-noticed.

As for your 'airborne tank' ... the Apache does have some strategically placed armour and I think its resistant to most small arms fire (not impervious like a tank, but able to take a few hits without issue), with some areas resistant to light AAA. Built in redundancies increase its survivability in case important systems take damage. Not exactly sure how nimble it is, but nimble enough to fly down a river valley ... lined with trees. It also has a gun that is linked to the pilots head movement. He looks where he wants to shoot then squeezes off 30mm rounds. That gun is also a much more effective countermeasure to small arms fire than waiting for them to reload.

[Ovenmitt]

Originally Posted by DGthe3

No, it won't disappear but if you can cut the minimum detection distance in half its a lot easier to go un-noticed.

As for your 'airborne tank' ... the Apache does have some strategically placed armour and I think its resistant to most small arms fire (not impervious like a tank, but able to take a few hits without issue), with some areas resistant to light AAA. Built in redundancies increase its survivability in case important systems take damage. Not exactly sure how nimble it is, but nimble enough to fly down a river valley ... lined with trees. It also has a gun that is linked to the pilots head movement. He looks where he wants to shoot then squeezes off 30mm rounds. That gun is also a much more effective countermeasure to small arms fire than waiting for them to reload.

The gun being linked to the helmets generates comedy among mechanics Hey man cut that shit out LOL

[CamaroSkooter]

What's funny to me is that...

We're using super-high-tech flying machines to come in stealth and take out high-level targets. These high-level targets don't exactly have radar or night-vision or infrared. Their radar consists of some punk kids sitting a block away in every direction with walkie talkies. So, in relation to the high-value targets, we only need something that's quiet on approach until it's practically in the compound. Paint it flat black (or some other dark color, which they already do) and it just blends into the night sky.

The only reason we need these helicopters with minimal radar and IR signatures is to avoid detection by the host countries technology. Which I also find funny because they're supposedly our "ally," but that's an entirely different conversation...

[aldaron327]

Originally Posted by GTAHVIT

Coming from a former Navy Helo crewman who was able to work with Navy SEALs on Combat SAR training...

You'd be surprised what we can do do minimize the sound signature on approach...

Now in a hover that's a differnt story... you are obviously most vulnerable and noisy when in a hover.

As a former AH-64D Pilot, I'm familiar with many of the "techniques" you elude to as I used them on a daily(Nightly) basis to hunt IED emplacers and other "nefarious riff-raff" in Iraq, but no technology can make a helicopter "whisper quiet", especially when it's a quiet night. It's physically impossible. You have a main rotor turning at Hundreds of RPM, and a tail rotor turning much faster than that. Then, there are the engines whose turbines are turning at thousands of RPM and burning fuel and air.

Again, I'm not saying that you can't do some things to mitigate some of the noise/radar signature, but helicopters can never be as stealthy as a "stealth" jet simply because they are rotary wing aircraft vs. a fixed wing as in an F-22 or the B-2.


*NOTE: This isn't intended for the purposes of showing off, getting into a pissing contest, or proving someone else wrong. I'm not talking about this stuff for that. I just want to ensure that technical facts are accurate (to a point...). As always, I have nothing but respect for all of you guys, but wanted to make sure that the "cockpit" perspective made it into the discussion since this is what I did for a living for a decade. Please read on...*


I also wanted to point out that a Helicopter's Rotor system doesn't maintain an absolutely constant speed. I'll give you a "For Example" from my own personal experience as a former pilot.

An Apache Longbow (AH-64D) has a main rotor that turns at a certain RPM. Within the cockpit, we had a "triple tach" that displayed the rotor speed (represented as %NR) and the Power turbine speed (represented as %NP). When we were sitting at idle with both engine power levers to fly, we had an NP and NR speed at 101%. Depending on several factors, including how much collective we pulled in, what our bank angle was, how hot it was outside, how heavy the aircraft was, etc., it was possible to underspeed or overspeed the rotor. As a young pilot, I learned pretty quickly how easy that is to do, but managed to not crash or die or do any damage to an aircraft. I was lucky. There are obviously systems built into the modern airframes that try to keep the engines and rotor "tied together", i.e. provide more power to turn the rotor as forces act against it (i.e. a HOT day in Afghanistan with the max weapons load an aircraft could carry), but a pilot still had to maintain a watchful eye to ensure that everything stayed "in the green", especially when environmental considerations came into play.

So umm... yeah... Helicopter Stuff...

[CamaroSpike23]

Originally Posted by Ovenmitt

The gun being linked to the helmets generates comedy among mechanics Hey man cut that shit out LOL

tell me about it. I remember blocking in my first apache.... I kept moving to one side... the gun kept following me....

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

What's funny to me is that...

We're using super-high-tech flying machines to come in stealth and take out high-level targets. These high-level targets don't exactly have radar or night-vision or infrared. Their radar consists of some punk kids sitting a block away in every direction with walkie talkies. So, in relation to the high-value targets, we only need something that's quiet on approach until it's practically in the compound. Paint it flat black (or some other dark color, which they already do) and it just blends into the night sky.

The only reason we need these helicopters with minimal radar and IR signatures is to avoid detection by the host countries technology. Which I also find funny because they're supposedly our "ally," but that's an entirely different conversation...

the other side of that argument is that who knows what kind of secret tunnels might have been built into the "mansion" that if we had come in "loud and proud" that Bin Laden could have dived down a tunnel and escaped. wouldnt be the first time a high level target has used such means to evade capture.

as for the host countries... no comment... But I agree with you

Originally Posted by aldaron327

As a former AH-64D Pilot, I'm familiar with many of the "techniques" you elude to as I used them on a daily(Nightly) basis to hunt IED emplacers and other "nefarious riff-raff" in Iraq, but no technology can make a helicopter "whisper quiet", especially when it's a quiet night. It's physically impossible. You have a main rotor turning at Hundreds of RPM, and a tail rotor turning much faster than that. Then, there are the engines whose turbines are turning at thousands of RPM and burning fuel and air.

Again, I'm not saying that you can't do some things to mitigate some of the noise/radar signature, but helicopters can never be as stealthy as a "stealth" jet simply because they are rotary wing aircraft vs. a fixed wing as in an F-22 or the B-2.

the other thing with fixed wing (and using your two planes as examples), you wont ever hear a B-2 on a bombing run. you might hear a whistle before you turn into jelly from the 2000lb'er that just obliterated your building. but you wont hear the plane. no need to fly that low anymore with laser guided munitions.

same goes with the F22, it can lock onto a target from a mile(+) away, fire, and turn around and head out and the missile will continue onto its intended target while the F22 heads home or onto the next target.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

tell me about it. I remember blocking in my first apache.... I kept moving to one side... the gun kept following me....

I'm picturing the "new guy" going to drop the blocks, the pilot with a sh*t-eating grin on his face watching the "new guy's" every move, and the "new guy" getting on his coms to tell anyone who's listening to tell the pilot to quit it

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

the other side of that argument is that who knows what kind of secret tunnels might have been built into the "mansion" that if we had come in "loud and proud" that Bin Laden could have dived down a tunnel and escaped. wouldnt be the first time a high level target has used such means to evade capture.

as for the host countries... no comment... But I agree with you

Right, we don't need guy's on bull-horns yelling, "We gon' get you!!" but we don't really need something that sounds like a Chevy Volt either...

Originally Posted by CamaroSpike23

the other thing with fixed wing (and using your two planes as examples), you wont ever hear a B-2 on a bombing run. you might hear a whistle before you turn into jelly from the 2000lb'er that just obliterated your building. but you wont hear the plane. no need to fly that low anymore with laser guided munitions.

same goes with the F22, it can lock onto a target from a mile(+) away, fire, and turn around and head out and the missile will continue onto its intended target while the F22 heads home or onto the next target.

That's the real advantage of the B-2 and F-22. The stealth factor is cool and all, but the fact that they (the F-22's) have the technology to "see" incoming bogeys that are literally hidden behind the curvature of the Earth (i.e. they haven't even come up above the horizon yet) is just freakin' mind-boggling. And the B-2's are so awesome because of how far they can travel on one tank of gas and at what altitudes they can cruise at comfortably.

That's why you hardly see any movies like "Top Gun" anymore. There is literally no other country on Earth that has the military technology that could stand even the slightest chance against ours. There's just no contest anymore. That's why you always see movies now where the Americans have to fight aliens

[ViperTomcat]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

That's why you hardly see any movies like "Top Gun" anymore. There is literally no other country on Earth that has the military technology that could stand even the slightest chance against ours. There's just no contest anymore. That's why you always see movies now where the Americans have to fight aliens

Russia and India both have aircraft and technology that would pitch a great fight, and the Israeli's set the standard for not-to-be-****ed-with.

[2ndgenz28]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Russia and India both have aircraft and technology that would pitch a great fight, and the Israeli's set the standard for not-to-be-****ed-with.

but you forget what we don't see, think of the best of the best stuff you know they have, and a black projects are already years ahead of it. But future tech needs to be suppresed for many years, to keep that advantage, as soon as something comes out for real, they copy it somehow.

why the Gov position is there iare no UFO's
[ unidentified flying object ]
They know what it is

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by ViperTomcat

Russia and India both have aircraft and technology that would pitch a great fight, and the Israeli's set the standard for not-to-be-****ed-with.

Russia and India both have aircraft, yes. And they both have technology, yes.

But not in the same sentence And certainly not in the same atmosphere as what the U.S. has (both public and behind closed doors)

Israel's got some very well-trained ground troops, and I would assume that carries over into their air force as well. But if our alliance was ever jeopardized and Israel tried to fight the U.S., we would destroy them just in sheer numbers

My only fear when it comes to military threats, really, is China. They might not have the same level of technology as we do, but they're close and they have a VERY large population that they're not afraid to throw at a problem... (see: Olympic games )

[CamaroSpike23]

dont forget we are selling the F35 Joint strike fighter to all of our "allies" while we keep the F22. its like the maro compared to the vette

[CamaroSkooter]

I had an Air Force guy saying he preferred flying in the F-18 saying they were still more dominant than the F-22's or F-35's.

I wanted to ask him if he was on crack, but I decided not to bother with it

[SSBUSDRVR]

I had an Air Force guy saying he preferred flying in the F-18 saying they were still more dominant than the F-22's or F-35's.

I wanted to ask him if he was on crack, but I decided not to bother with it

Comes down to the pilot. The SuperHornet can hold it's own and has taken out the F-22 in training exercises.Highly contested but there is HUD proof. Google it in your spare time it's a pretty hot subject. LOL

[DGthe3]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

My only fear when it comes to military threats, really, is China. They might not have the same level of technology as we do, but they're close and they have a VERY large population that they're not afraid to throw at a problem... (see: Olympic games )

"Quantity has a quality all its own"
-Joseph Stalin

[nova]

Originally Posted by aldaron327

As a former AH-64D Pilot, I'm familiar with many of the "techniques" you elude to as I used them on a daily(Nightly) basis to hunt IED emplacers and other "nefarious riff-raff" in Iraq, but no technology can make a helicopter "whisper quiet", especially when it's a quiet night. It's physically impossible. You have a main rotor turning at Hundreds of RPM, and a tail rotor turning much faster than that. Then, there are the engines whose turbines are turning at thousands of RPM and burning fuel and air.

The trick with suppressing the acoustic signature of a helicopter is not so much suppressing the overall noise level but reducing the sounds that scream "HELICOPTER INBOUND" to people on the ground.

Blade tip vortex interference, interference beats due to tail rotor and main rotor vortex interference and a host of other effects produce an acoustic signature that is unmistakably a helicopter to anybody who's ever heard one in the past.

If you can modify and/or mitigate those sounds, people on the ground will hear you, but it won't click in their brain that what they're hearing is a helicopter. The scissored tail rotor on the Apache is pretty simple way to get a fairly significant signature reduction/change.

The things I'm seeing in that stealth helicopters tail rotor go waaay beyond that. At least 5 blades with an odd spacing, the shroud that looks Comanche derived, blade chord that looks like it increases towards the tip. All way beyond my aerodynamic knowledge so I won't even venture a guess what the combined effect is.

Knew I'd find a more useful purpose for this damn aero engineering degree besides holding a desk chair down....