What if...? This concept helicopter wins a $100Bn Pentagon contract?
178 replies, posted
[media]http://vimeo.com/92696522[/media]
[QUOTE][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]It could become the US Army's new 'superchopper' - able to transport troops, carry heavy goods and be fitted out as a flying gunship.
This futuristic helicopter from Texas firm AVX is the frontrunner to win a $100bn contract from the Pentagon for the next generation of attack helicopter.
It uses two rotors to create lift, while fans propel it forward to reach 230 knots.
'The teaming concept has allowed AVX to keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft.'
The firm is among four vying for a $100bn contract for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator, and the firms are expected to begin a 'flyoff' contest in 2017.
The aircraft will weight 27,000lb (12,000kg), lift 13,000lb (5.900kg), and carry 12 combat troops plus 4 crew members.
'It is thrilling to see how new ideas broad by a startup aircraft company, few people ever heard before, will stack-up against the arrogance of the U.S. defense establishment.'
[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2681074/Is-US-Armys-generation-superchopper-Radical-design-dual-tilting-blades-travel-50-faster-Black-Hawk.html[/url]
[IMG]https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/111996868/2014/article-0-1F5E1E8100000578-17_964x623.jpg[/IMG]
seriously though watch the video its amazing and hilarious
Looks like a rugby ball with rotorblades
look forward to seeing this in battlefield 9
[QUOTE=Antlerp;45298591]look forward to seeing this in battlefield 9[/QUOTE]
woah woah, the chopper won't be ready [I]that[/I] early
How it's this any better than the Chinook?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;45298600]How it's this any better than the Chinook?[/QUOTE]
Well the Chinook couldn't change into gunship like this thing is supposedly able to do
The trailer could've been better by over 9000 times if they used "super freaking' chopper" as their tagline.
what if, we put 100 billion dollars into schools instead of into more stupid fucking troop transport helis.
I want this as much as the next guy, but the BlackHawk is too iconic to replace for this.
transport helicopter: yes
gunship: no
i hope they're not trying to make the f35 of helicopters
[QUOTE=Mattk50;45298624]what if, we put 100 billion dollars into schools instead of into more stupid fucking troop transport helis.[/QUOTE]
ouch i think i just cut myself on your edge
Meh AVX sounds too small time for the Pentagon, its gonna go to someone like Boeing, Bell or Lockheed or Sikorsky after the lobbyists get to them.
There was also some guy who leaked images of a blackhawk being fitted with those turbofan engines. I wouldn't be surprised if there chopper has the same thing.
Hmm, thought it was concept art for the next G.I Joe toy line
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/252Mz9U.gif[/IMG]
the future is here
$100 Billion? I wasn't aware the US had cleared their trillions of dollars of debt and a owned a flourishing economic situation with no poverty meaning they had billions left over to buy more death machines for future pointless wars.
[QUOTE=Ylsid;45298639]ouch i think i just cut myself on your edge[/QUOTE]
...that's the opposite of edgy. Edgy would have been if he wanted to spend school funds on military hardware. Why in the world would prioritizing education over military hardware be edgy?
I like how the model of the pilot looks absolutely terrified.
I wish Boeing would have continued development on the quadrotor.
[IMG]https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7143/6668649199_955d72ee06_z.jpg[/IMG]
It's like an osprey and a c-130 had a baby. But it never got past the concept stage though and the idea was probably shelved in 2009.
It could be turned into a gunship even. So that's basicly an AC-130 helicopter.
[thumb]http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b186/aangkai/be2ee171.jpg[/thumb]
[QUOTE=Streecer;45298659][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/252Mz9U.gif[/IMG]
the future is here[/QUOTE]
this gif just misses the hilarious backwards muzzle flashes they put in. Who even gets that wrong?
[QUOTE=Ylsid;45298639]ouch i think i just cut myself on your edge[/QUOTE]
Putting money into schools is the [I]least[/I] edgy thing I can think of.
[QUOTE=Mebit;45298666]$100 Billion? I wasn't aware the US had cleared their trillions of dollars of debt and a owned a flourishing economic situation with no poverty meaning they had billions left over to buy more death machines for future pointless wars.[/QUOTE]
I dont think any current superpower has a flourishing economic situation with no poverty at all. The USA is really, really freaking big, and its hard to run such a big country.
Anyways that helicopter reminds me of those aircraft from avatar with those silly ducted fans.
The football-shaped tailless design rings a bit 50's retro-futuristic.
80% of the shit on this helicopter looks like it's there just because "it looks cool" and just massively over-complicating the entire mess.
[img]http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/07/04/article-0-1F5E1E7A00000578-633_964x627.jpg[/img]
This whole shit is unnecessary and actually wasting space inside the aircraft. oh wow look 8 hellfire missiles and two hydra rocket pods Ah-fucking-mazing, you know what else has that level of [I]SHIT IS SO REAL RIGHT NOW[/I] weapons load? [B]every other helicopter in the US inventory.[/B] oh and we're not only functionally redundant, OH NO, instead of putting the weapons load [B]OUTSIDE ON THE WINGS LIKE EVERYONE ELSE[/B] putting all that wonderful free space to use this spaceage motherfucker has them [B]INSIDE[/B] the cargo hold.
You know. In the same spot it's supposed to carry 11 dudes.
So unless the guys like wearing guided missiles for hats you probably can't carry them if you feel the need to shoot something, which begs the question. why not just use an Apache or a Cobra for the same thing? But [I]NOoooo[/I] I hear the designers beginning to say. we have to pick and choose our battles! we can't carry men and have all those missiles on board a helicopter at the same time! we're advanced but we don't have the technology for such a massive feat of engineering!
Carrying dudes WHILE being a competent attack helicopter, that'd be mad-
[t]http://ripcrucible.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/hr-mi-24-01.jpg[/t]
-ness.
also don't even get me started on the retractable turret, what the fuck is this world war II? you gonna shoot down many 109s with that thing son?
I guess it could work, and if it could save room on a carrier then that's cool too... But is it worth $100 Billion when CH-47's are a better transport than this thing, because it's bigger, and we already have fleets of Apaches, and Cobras ?
It would be cheaper to just build new ones and retire the old ones. There's no real advancement here to warrant spending so much
That is.. so fucking ugly.
[QUOTE=markg06;45298689]I like how the model of the pilot looks absolutely terrified.[/QUOTE]
Well you would too if your legs would clip inside the dashboard like they did.
That reloading mid-flight thingy is pretty cool idea tho, can't transport troops at the same time yes but has pretty much the same parts. Not all bad idea if you ask me.
That helicopter looks as badass as soccer mom's minivan.
[QUOTE=Mattk50;45298624]what if, we put 100 billion dollars into schools instead of into more stupid fucking troop transport helis.[/QUOTE]
But then, kids wont get a shitty education, and wont end up in the army!
What if, we built a multirole aircraft that could support all sorts of needs and eliminate logistics problems?
What if, we built an aircraft with more advanced technology than ever before at an affordable cost?
What if, we built an aircraft with NO compromise?
What if, we built an F-35?
oh fucking wait a second
For some reason, all I can think of is the DeLorean because of the vents at the back.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.