Posted on 05/11/2025 3:59:20 PM PDT by Libloather
It’s a plane. It’s a helicopter. It’s both. Meet "FLRAA," the Army’s new tiltrotor for Future Long-Range Air Assault. This is how the Army will island hop in the Pacific to fend off China. And by the way, Chinese President Xi Jinping has nothing like it.
With a stunning announcement, the Army did more than ax 40 generals and open the door to AI. The Army bet its future on this radical aircraft, whose engines swivel to take off and land like a helicopter, or fly high and fast like an airplane.
This aircraft was on pace to enter the Army inventory in the early 2030s.
Then came the Army shake-up. On May 1, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth directed the Army to focus more on the Indo-Pacific. In that region, sheer distance and Chinese missile threat rings are locking out current helicopters. For the mission of air assault – when troops move into hostile and contested areas by rotary-wing aircraft – the hard truth is that the Army has a looming capability gap.
"We can't actually do the large-scale, long-range air assault today" with the speed and distance required in modern warfare, Maj. Gen. Brett Sylvia, commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault) at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, said last year.
That’s unacceptable, given Xi’s growing appetite for military confrontation.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
‘1,700 nautical miles without refueling and carry 12 passengers at a speed near 300 mph.’
That number “12” is kinda significant. Unless hung on hard points the A 10 usually has a capacity of one. (pilot)
see #42, below. Different job.
Guessing... that’s the receiving pocket for when the engine rotates into the full forward flight mode.
It’s a gross amount of parasitic drag, but it goes away incrementally as the engine rotates.
It would be exposed or in such a configuration upon static takeoffs and vertical landings.
The drag is acceptable for the trade-off in capabilities.
In this model, only the nacelle with the gearing swivels. The engine does not. Less mass to move, less problems. The airframe is much more aerodynamic.
Sooo, they're invisible, too?
The A10 has got upgrades...better radars and fire and forget missiles.
However the A10 can't land and leave soldiers...
The new can do this.
Anyone have an idea how many troops can be carried,,,,?... thanks in advance.
The article states 12.
That’s what I figured, too. But it sure looks ugly when in VTOL or STOL mode, doesn’t it?
It's still going to kill everybody on board in the event of a double engine failure so, no, it's not "much better than the Osprey," and it puts our servicemen at unnecessary risk every time it leaves the ground.
Update the Avionics suite and switch to transparent Aluminum cockpit glass and do a run of 1250 of them. Keep the assembly line and parts production alive by purchasing 200 more each year.
It bears mention that except for the F-35 and a few small flight training platforms, all of the US Navy’s aircraft are multi-engine. And they still lose an airframe on average about once every two years because of a double-engine failure, usually due to fuel contamination.
So in time these things are going to start killing people because they failed to engineer in the ability to perform a safe landing in the event of all engines inop.
Agreed.
I don’t know what all goes on today, but in my Army days the Army had its own navy. Yes, I even had a ride on one of their ships way back in 1974. And I also recall Army ships supplying an Army garrison in Ethiopia on the Red Sea.
There’s duplication all over the place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ships_of_the_United_States_Army#Currently_active_ship_classes
“During World War II, the U.S. Army operated about 127,800 watercraft of various types.[1] Those included large troop and cargo transport ships that were Army-owned hulls, vessels allocated by the War Shipping Administration, bareboat charters, and time charters. In addition to the transports, the Army fleet included specialized types. Those included vessels not related to transport such as mine warfare vessels, waterway or port maintenance ships, and other service craft.”
“For example:[1]
Troop and cargo ships over 1,000 gross tons that often carried the U.S. Army Transport ship prefix “USAT” with their name if they were Army owned or bareboat chartered: 1,557 ships
Other ships over 1,000 gross tons, including hospital ships (prefix “USAHS”), cable ships, aircraft repair ships, port repair ships and others without any title other than “U.S. Army” and a number or name: 108 ships
Vessels under 1,000 gross tons of numerous types that include the 511 FS (”Freight and Supply”) small nonstandard coastal freighters of numerous designs, 361 minecraft with the large Mine Planters carrying U.S. Army Mine Planter (prefix “USAMP”) with a number above a name, 4,343 tugs of all types and a varied array of 4,697 launches and small service craft just designated U.S. Army with a number or name: 12,379
Barges and non-propelled watercraft that included 16,787 pontoons: 25,383
Amphibious assault craft: 88,366”
The Army still maintains a sizable navy.
The U.S. Army Has a Pretty Well-Kept Secret: It Has Its Own Navy
Made up of “army mariners” instead of sailors, here’s how the Army’s navy stacks up against foreign navies.
https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a45690242/us-army-has-its-own-navy/
Yes. It looks like an in-flight bird strike.
It seems to me that there has been an excess of crashes with the Osprey design, on the way to building a better “mousetrap.” In other words, painful lessons have had to be learned along the way at great cost.
Maybe it’s that they are scrutinized more because of the radical hybrid design.
Another corrupt uniparty political grift boondoggle, as assinine as the Osprey; which kills everyone in the event of engine failure.
The A10 has got upgrades...better radars and fire and forget missiles.
****************************************************
They didn’t have radars when I worked them 45+ years ago.
Having said that....
They have wiring out the wazoo to the weapon pylons for anything we’ve got, including weapons with tv cameras and radars routed to displays in the cockpit; the pilots used the sensors hung on the racks to figure what to hit. Worked pretty neat.
“It’s much better that the Osprey ...”
Engine fails everyone dies..
stupid smile me that yoyo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.