ATS Project: Attack Chopper

Something I've always thought would be cool to have on a helicopter would be a device which would play the chopping sounds out of phase. So you would have a sort of silent helicopter.

There is a system that will be used to dampen sounds from shooting ranges under developement, it should be easily adapted to helos... can't tell you anything more since it's still a bit secret.

Ok here is my idea

It's a modular system with two main variants LR Support Helo and CAS/scout helo.
Both are low cost airframes, made from COTS parts. "Twin" Rotors coupled with pusher propellor.





LR supporter is armed with 26 Brimstone/Hellfire class weapons that are stored internally and lowered into underbelly launchers from a stacked magazine. It can operate either alone as a airmobile ATGM launcher for the ground troops or as a pair with the CAS aircraft doing the targeting.

CAS/Scout is armed with nose mounted .50cal and two 2x20mm turrets that have 180/90 degree firing arcs. Guns can be pre programmed to attack known target profiles and the it can call in fire support from the LR Helo if it encounters more hardened targets. It can allso carry 8 Brimstone/Hellfire class weapons.




All input (especially negative) is appreciated

[edit on 8-8-2006 by northwolf]

Very cool design, small/compact, but efffective.

One thing, not important really, but I'm curious,
where are the landing struts/wheels,
like what configuration are they in?

Nice design Northwolf. The nose reminds me of the early Mi-24 Hind's:


The internal weapons carriage would reduce drag.

Just a couple of suggestions, but you might want to consider increasing the gap between the contra-rotating rotors. Another thing to consider is adding vertical stabalisers at the tail - the shorter the tail boom, the bigger the stabalisers (see the big stabalisers on the Kamov Ka-27 Helix )

Okay-uploaded a picture of my idea in graphic form. Sorry for the bad picture- I lost my ruler, but I think this gets the idea across. Let me reiterate that the jets on the side are capable of tilting independantly of each other. While this adds weight it makes the aircraft far more maneuverable and allows for maneuvers that few normal helicopters can manage. I also say that while fanjets this small may be impractical, it's just an idea and such jets with enough power should be avaiable within the next decade or two.

]External Image


Edit- I totally forgot to add in the link. Stupid me.

[edit on 8/9/2006 by Darkpr0

Edit 2- My God, this thing hates me.

[edit on 8/9/2006 by Darkpr0]

Ok, this submission replaces my last. The Dominator:

The most obvious features are that the two person crew is positioned one forward, one aft to give the best situational awareness of any attack helicopter, and that the main weapons are mounted on two "turrets", one above the rotor (8 x LAHAT anti-tank missiles plus sights/sensors) and one below the aircraft (4-8 x LAHAT, Starstreak or other missiles). This gives the helicopter 360degrees weapons coverage.

Another novel feature is that it has two twin-23mm cannons positioned one under the chin (frontal arc, controlled by pilot's helmet mounted sight) and one rear (rear arc, controlled by WSOs helmet mounted sight).

The tail is V shaped with a typical "scissor" tail rotor on one of the Vs - giving the WSO an excellent rear hemisphere view.

Additional weapons positions could be mounted on stub wings attached to the engines.

That's got to be one of the best helicopter designs
that I have ever seen.

The rear manned position is very unique,
I've only ever seen that on some older plane designs.

That's a neat design, I 'll give it that. The only concern I really have is the weight. That's a pretty traditional rotor size, so with the extra man and the added bulk of the new weapons systems, I have to wonder what it would take to heft the extra baggage. I think a rotor size increase may be needed, or the rotor RPM will have to go higher.

But then again, I'm no helicopter expert by any means.

Hmm since I know my limits when it comes to drawing I'll just add my two cents and hope for someone to make anything of it :
Wouldn't it be nice with a heli that used UAV/UCAV:s to further increase it's effectivness? Kind of a queen bee with workers attending it? One UAV for scouting/spotting and one for close in defence (decoy) and so on?

What say you all?

Clownface, i actually planned to implement a FO UAV to my 2 helo combo system, in addition to suggestions by planeman. I'll post a revised model and a "group" pic...

Here's the revised gunship version, the system is allso fully modular and it has a provision for mounting wingstubs and rockets/missiles into them in addition of the 8 internal missiles (24 in full missile carrier version)

Looks more realistic now, not to say it did'nt before, but yeah.

I have a question what's the mast with the sphere
on top jutting out from the rotors for?

Big "buble" is Radar
The smaller at the long pole is TV/IR for looking over terrain...

Any more ideas/questions?

ps. Landing "feets" are in 2 front of the weapon bay, 2 behind it, retractable to reduce drag

Originally posted by northwolf
Big "bubble" is Radar
The smaller at the long pole is TV/IR for looking over terrain...

Any more ideas/questions?

ps. Landing "feets" are in 2 front of the weapon bay, 2 behind it, retractable to reduce drag

Ah. I thought that's what they might be.

Nope, no more questions.

Can anyone mathematically compare the counterrotating rotor system with another dual rotor system, like the Chinook?

Another concern with Planeman's Dominator design:

I'm not entirely sure on the specifics of how well this design can maneuver, but I'm guessing from the design shape and size that agility was not the main focus. The only thing is that during the design's maneuvers I am concerned for the weight of the turret at the top of the rotor shaft breaking off. And if that thing falls on the rotor things are gonna fly-and one very big thing will stop flying.

Darkpro,

Rotor:fuselage volume/weight ratios. The picture is very much just showing a concept; obviously I haven't run the math to calculate the necessary rotor size. Actually, my render is based on this picture of the Eurocopter Tiger; the rotor is unchanged: www.eads.net...
If it's good enough for Eurocopter, it's good enough for me.

You mention the "extra" crew member - like other attack helicopters this concept has a two person crew only one is positioned forward (pilot) and one backwards (gunner/WSO) to enhance situational awareness and improve 360 degree weapons targeting.

Re the stresses on the weapons mast. That's a fair concern and clearly the construction would have to be very strong. But the stresses would be less than on the rotor arms and in parts of the engine/transmission so the structural loads certainly aren't out of the question.

A more serious concern is rotor damage (/failure) if parts of the above-rotor missiles are sucked/falled into the rotor. Clearly wire-guided missiles like TOW are out of the question as are "drop launched" missiles like Hellfire. Starstreak high velocity missile would have been my preferred choice but the 'pop' tube cover would have to be modified (it normally pops off the tube a fraction of a second before launch) and the boost phase would have to be jettisoned after clearing the rotor - which is unlikely. So with the Starstreak out of the running I've gone for the Isreali LAHAT tube launched laser guided missile which is small but has a good range of up to 13km depending on launch altitude.

You mention the "extra" crew member - like other attack helicopters this concept has a two person crew only one is positioned forward (pilot) and one backwards (gunner/WSO) to enhance situational awareness and improve 360 degree weapons targeting.

Works for me-the only complication I can see to such a design alteration would be the effects on the COG. Otherwise, it's clarified as to how reasonable and feasible that design change is.

Re the stresses on the weapons mast. That's a fair concern and clearly the construction would have to be very strong. But the stresses would be less than on the rotor arms and in parts of the engine/transmission so the structural loads certainly aren't out of the question.

Thank you for addressing that issue, which was probably my biggest concern. As you said the construction would have to be very strong, but I don't think that it's impossible to support such an idea. My concern remains that for some reason the shaft/mast assembly might fail and the turret might fall through the rotor and cause a cascade failure, but I think with proper care and design the design could be satisfactorily safe.

A more serious concern is rotor damage (/failure) if parts of the above-rotor missiles are sucked/falled into the rotor. Clearly wire-guided missiles like TOW are out of the question as are "drop launched" missiles like Hellfire.

Part 2 of "My Biggest Concern": Any sort of debris entering the rotor is probably a bad thing. Just by pondering the general structure of the overhead turret assembly and considering how it would work, I have to think that rocket pods are unlikely to be used here. Instead, I think it would be more focused on AA munitions than AG, because aiming down through the rotor=bad. Since a lot of AA munitions are pretty large (AIM-120 for example) I think it would be limited to short-range missiles, like the Sidewinder that would fit in such an assembly.

An interesting idea that had occured to me while I was pondering is that with the overhead turret and a compatability with long-range missiles (even if long-rangers wouldn't be normally used while in air) you could use this as an ultramobile SAM site. With proper radar support and some good missiles it could be a very good defense mechanism, and would put some S2A defenses in places that the "normal" breed couldn't manage. And if the fighting got really rough, and a few planes were on the way to kill you, just pick up and move it on out.

Just now another question occured to me. Judging by the size and overall shape of the turret assembly, I have to wonder how you would be able to fit in the proper joint mechanisms to twist the assembly properly as well as include firing mechanisms for a good couple missiles. If you've got such statistics finalized or at least in concept, could you give me the dimensions of the upper-turret assembly, and how many missiles it should carry?

More concern- the rear lower gun turret concerns me. I'm just not entirely sure how useful this is in its current form. It's arc of fire seems somewhat limited to me, and not entirely useful (or at least, its usefulness hasn't been maximized). The rear-lower area of the helicopter would allow for some extra gunning when the helicopter swoops in for an attack on a ground target, but to my knowledge the heli doens't have to swoop in the way a fixed-wing AC does. My advice here is to relocate the rear-lower gun turret to the very very rear of the heli, thereby providing some fire upwards as well. Just in case an enemy heli is bearing down, or a fixed-win AC is coming in for an easy gun kill.

That's all the concerns I can think of now.

Planeman,

>>
Ok, this submission replaces my last. The Dominator:
>>

Looks kinda like 'The Penetrator' (and he counts 1-2-3 for the BDSM jokes to start)

www.kulikovair.com...
avia.russian.ee...

>>
The most obvious features are that the two person crew is positioned one forward, one aft to give the best situational awareness of any attack helicopter ...
>>

The guy aft is gonna be lookin' up at the sky whenever junior stick and rudder monkey decides it's time to be movin' out and at the same time down at the dirt whenever the LZ flare (or indeed any kind of climb or airspeed bleed) happens. It's bad enough when you are both fairly tightly clustered around the CofG defined by the rotor mast (utility birds) or at least /on the same side of it/ (attack) but it generally is a guaranteed barf'n'schutzen when you play teeter totter while facing backwards.

Add to this routing of the antitorque spline shaft between the observer's nuts, uncertain access and egress and thrown acoustics on the tail rotor (or literal fragments if you actually stick it in a tree) plus no real ability to assist the pilot in FQ weapons/sensor system cueing and the entire design looks kinda sledgehammer:diamond cutting suspicious.

In terms of the pilot cabin, I would also say that the view forward is less than optimal given the WSO is no longer apparently needed to look through a DVO tube. You really need to be able to judge height well in a helicopter and that means foot windows and/or to-the-waist side canopy enclosures, if you're gonna have glass at all.

I might have the scaling wrong of course but if so, those 23mms are not large enough by half.

>>
... and that the main weapons are mounted on two "turrets", one above the rotor (8 x LAHAT anti-tank missiles plus sights/sensors) and one below the aircraft (4-8 x LAHAT, Starstreak or other missiles). This gives the helicopter 360degrees weapons coverage.
>>

_No._

In a hurryup CAS response, where you are slamming out sorties from a FARP as fast as you can stuff 70mms up a LAU, you don't want to have to stop the rotors so that some poor IYAOYAS weapon troop can scramble up 15ft in the air, pull the empty containers and fit new ones including making connectivity and hatch closure checks (no visible work platforms or weapons wings among other difficulties).

Nor do you want to make his lucky-alternate schmuck have to wriggle and crawl around the gear struts beneath the fuselage to service the drop down lower turret in the muck and the mire with 100lb weapons and questionable total ground clearance, even with the stepped fuselage. Throw in the blower on that exhaust which, IMO, is going to simply heat the sides of the fuselage and the MLG struts as presently arranged.

And someone is gonna scream 'MANPRINT!' so loudly that even Congress would wake up and smell the 'ergonomics issues'.

It's also generally unwise to break the keel of a rotated boxframe where you already have lateral openings for doors and cockpit.

>>
Another novel feature is that it has two twin-23mm cannons positioned one under the chin (frontal arc, controlled by pilot's helmet mounted sight) and one rear (rear arc, controlled by WSOs helmet mounted sight).
>>

Believe it or not, this has some merit, the IL-102 Brawny-mod (the one which competed with the Su-25) and while the Frogfoot went on to win the competition for a CAS-like platform; it was the Il-28 Beagle (Soviet Canberra) which was found to be one of the most successful and survivable bombers of the 1980s Afghan War because tail-chase flak and even MANPADS teams were easily suppressed or even occasionally shot down after launch. Mind you, depending on the altitude you're working at, it would be just as easy to mount miniguns with auto-MAWS/flash detectors and and save the cabin volume and weight of the heavier guns. I also don't recommend a Soviet caliber for anything trying to gain sales in the Western Hemisphere.

>>
The tail is V shaped with a typical "scissor" tail rotor on one of the Vs - giving the WSO an excellent rear hemisphere view.
>>

Higher up and you get more from a VTDP or similar (forward airspeed enhancing) auxilliary/compound propulsion system than the weapons and their heavy ammo. The big question being, IMO, whether you want 'glass' at all or are willing to simply go to EODAS or equivalent visionic technology in a synthetic (virtual) vision system.

The best rear hemisphere view available is a wingman to intimidate as much as suppress threat guns and an MLDS for automated defensive ASE cuing on guideds. I swear people have no clue how FAST the response have to be when you are fighting the close in CAS fight, down in the dirt and only moving at 60-150 knots. You are talking 2-3 seconds and there just isn't time or room for more than a kneejerk which begs the CFIT.

>>
Additional weapons positions could be mounted on stub wings attached to the engines.
>>

Typical for AAHs but the tendency to cluster micro-weapons so close together on open rails or open ended pods just _destroys_ the local aerodynamics. Even as it basically demands that all shots come with the nose of the helicopter pointed at the target. And can create acoustic loads on the structures not worth the trouble. All four of which are no-nos once the asset value crosses the 10 million dollar mark.

Turbine (SMACM) or Rocket+Prop (Dominator with booster) endurance systems that can use the same volumetric as a Hellfire or TOW but have the endurance to FLY AHEAD to the target area and SIT THERE with optics or grenade cassettes are your superior option. As are vertical fall weapons if you are flying over a builtup area. How you choose to load them into or beside the helo is of course your business but keep in mind that a lot of these will be fairly long and have some relatively restrictive clearance issues, either to weapons beside them or adverse flows around them. BUET in fact is /rear ejecting/ IIRR. So is Silent Eyes.

If I was going to go with a weapons wing, it would be one which provided a natural work platform, could be top loaded as an internal weapons or auxilliary fuel mount. And would significantly offload the main rotor in forward flight. All without needing to be removed to restore basic signature controls.


KPl.


P.S. Does anybody know anything about using Word 2000's Draw Feature?