|
Community Links |
Social Groups |
Pictures & Albums |
Members List |
Search Forums |
Advanced Search |
Go to Page... |
|
Thread Tools |
10-19-2009, 12:16 PM | #471 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
EDIT: I was going to go into detail about why helicopters have fallen into disfavour as special operations insertion vehicles, but the following article by defense analyst Dr. Carlo Kopp from Air Power Australia sums it up better and more eloquently than I could: "Are Helicopters Vulnerable?" by Dr. Carlo Kopp (449 Kb PDF file via sendspace) Last edited by zuludelta; 10-19-2009 at 07:17 PM.. |
10-20-2009, 08:36 AM | #472 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Master Thespian's questions about helicopters and how I see them fitting in with my take on GI Joe as a small airborne force had me thinking, said thinking resulting in the following short piece:
The thing about helicopters and the roles they've traditionally been associated with in combat is that American rotary wing aviation doctrine was shaped by the realities of the Cold War and the assumed battlespace of a conventional, open, set-piece campaign against the Soviet Union (a clash that, thankfully, never happened). As offensive assets, helicopters were envisioned as the modern cavalry, advancing only slightly ahead of the main body of troops, serving as scouts, troop carriers, and airborne tanks. Employed this way, the main drawback of helicopter technology is mitigated (relatively limited operational radius compared to fixed-wing aircraft, thus requiring support facilities and capable ground transport to be in near proximity). It wasn't until the Vietnam War that the assault helicopter's vulnerability to small arms fire was truly exposed. Ten per cent of all deaths in the conflict were of helicopter crews (pilots and enlisted aircrew) and a startling 40% of the 12 000 helicopters used by the American side in the conflict were brought down by hostile small arms fire or otherwise destroyed on the ground. Helicopter pilot deaths accounted for almost 30% of all Vietnam War officer (commissioned and warrant) casualties. The high number of helicopters brought down by small arms fire was the result of a combination of inflexible air assault doctrine and the limitations of the technology itself. UH-1s on air assault missions were routinely tasked to fly at altitudes less than 450 meters to minimize the risk of radar detection, putting them well within the effective range of assault rifles and man-portable rocketry. The Vietnam War wouldn't be the last time that mission planners would fail to recognize the limitations of the helicopter as an assault platform. In 1993, a poorly thought-out helicopter-borne assault in Mogadishu resulted in the loss of three Blackhawk helicopters to small arms fire and man-portable rocketry and the deaths of 18 American servicemen and 1 Malaysian soldier (although to Public Affairs' credit, they managed to turn the incident into something of a media coup, largely saving General William F. Garrison from public and professional embarrassment for his ill-advised decision to use helicopters to assault a well-armed insurgent enclave in broad daylight). This not to say that the helicopter is an outmoded piece of military hardware. As an airmobile ambulance, search and rescue platform, and ship-based submarine hunter, its versatility is unmatched. As a short range troop and cargo transport, it serves as a perfect complement to wheeled logistics systems. But barring an exponential improvement of the helicopter's speed, range/fuel economy, and small arms survivability, its utility as an expeditionary assault platform will continue to be limited. Last edited by zuludelta; 10-20-2009 at 08:57 AM.. |
10-20-2009, 11:11 AM | #473 |
G.I.Joe medic
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Litchfield, ME
Posts: 3,169
|
Interesting points, Zulu. I remember reading in Tom Clancy's "Marine" non fiction book that an Iraqi POW from Desert Storm said in regards to the Whiskey Cobra, "We saw many planes, but it was the skinny bird we feared the most." As a tank killer, it seems that the A-10 is a far better platform than the Apache, IMHO. I thought that the now-cancelled Commanche was supposed to alleviate some of the problems associated with speed and fuel, but I guess that's a moot point. It sounds like what's needed is something akin to the Osprey, but larger, with more cargo capacity.
|
10-20-2009, 11:48 AM | #474 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Interesting points, Zulu. I remember reading in Tom Clancy's "Marine" non fiction book that an Iraqi POW from Desert Storm said in regards to the Whiskey Cobra, "We saw many planes, but it was the skinny bird we feared the most." As a tank killer, it seems that the A-10 is a far better platform than the Apache, IMHO. I thought that the now-cancelled Commanche was supposed to alleviate some of the problems associated with speed and fuel, but I guess that's a moot point. It sounds like what's needed is something akin to the Osprey, but larger, with more cargo capacity.
The thing about the modern attack helicopter is that the push and pull between survivability and fuel economy are exaggerated to a much higher degree than in fixed wing attack aircraft. By the very nature of the missions they're sent on, attack helicopters will be more exposed to ground-based small arms fire and man-portable rocketry than their fixed-wing counterparts like the AC-130U or the A-10 Thunderbolt, which operate at higher altitudes. The simple solution, of course, is to pile on the armour. But more armour = heavier aircraft = poorer fuel economy (and maybe a smaller weapons payload). When the attack helicopter is used properly though (that is, when its operational radius and small arms vulnerabilites are properly taken into account), this shouldn't be a big problem. But as recent as 2003, there were unconfirmed reports of AH-64Ds being brought down with small arms fire (AK-47s, to be specific). Last edited by zuludelta; 10-20-2009 at 11:51 AM.. |
10-20-2009, 08:00 PM | #475 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
New images:
Hard Drive, Big Red, Knockdown Design notes:
Thanks for looking! Last edited by zuludelta; 10-22-2009 at 08:42 PM.. Reason: FPS pic deleted |
10-20-2009, 10:12 PM | #476 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Stone Mountain, GA
Posts: 658
|
NERDS!
BTW, thanks for that detailed helicopter explanation. |
10-20-2009, 10:15 PM | #477 |
W.O.R.M.S. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Back in the US of A! (NoVA)
Posts: 10,649
|
Awesome Zulu these are Great. Knockdown is a knock-out. FSP looks good too. What's the deal with him and that rifle? Hard Drive looks great too. One of the most over the Top joes based on filecards, maybe that's why I always liked him? Big Red I'm not familiar with. Can't say i love him but I'm sure that his outfit is appropriate.
|
10-20-2009, 11:14 PM | #478 |
W.O.R.M.S. Commander
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Back in the US of A! (NoVA)
Posts: 10,649
|
Very Informative Article Zulu. Still it doesn't really solve the problem of how Special Operations Forces tend/need to operate. As long as they keep improving the ballistic tolerance of the current fleet, there will probably be improvements on weapons to defeat whatever countmeasures are developed. I think there needs to be a real life Airwolf helicopter. It would have to be totally silent, ridiculously fast, yet with a roomy interior and handcrafted leather, I mean cargo space. I wonder if they can take that Commanche Tech and apply it to a something meant for carrying troops. How big? I don't know. What would be ideal for special operators? crew of 3 and room for 6 operators or 12?
I figure perhaps we may see the attack helicopter fall out of favor eventually, if there is no longer massive troop movement by Helicopters. But still, in both Vietnam for the Americans, and Afghanistan for the Russians, we were operating in an environment where troop movement by any other means was not always possible. So the Helicopter Doctrine with Gunship Support developed. I guess it morphed into a more Tank killer doctrine eventually, because they weren't doing much of that in Vietnam. If you look to the middle-East, as well as the Soviet Union, vast open spaces where Tanks can operate. Although I don't really conger up images of Helicopters in any of the Arab-Israeli conflicts. I guess this is where the idea of the Apache was born. Yet with today's UAV's as well as Satellite Technology tanks can't really hide. I guess it may cost less for an A-10 or a F-16 or F-18 to go on Tank runs, since they tend to have better survivability. Not sure who gets the bill for that though? Can you imagine If they moved away from Attack Helicopters to more Ground Attack aircraft? They'd have to take the money from one (Army) and give it to the other (Air-Force). The Army would be pissed. The Helicopter industry would be pissed. Hmmmm. I wonder how many new Helicopters the Army is slated to purchase this year or next? This is why I love the Supersonic Transport from the Resolute Cartoon, as well as the Aircraft they used in the Movie. Ultimately this type of aircraft would need to be the end goal. |
10-21-2009, 09:23 AM | #479 |
EQ-Viper
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 4,343
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I figure perhaps we may see the attack helicopter fall out of favor eventually, if there is no longer massive troop movement by Helicopters. But still, in both Vietnam for the Americans, and Afghanistan for the Russians, we were operating in an environment where troop movement by any other means was not always possible. So the Helicopter Doctrine with Gunship Support developed. I guess it morphed into a more Tank killer doctrine eventually, because they weren't doing much of that in Vietnam.
Quote:
Yet with today's UAV's as well as Satellite Technology tanks can't really hide. I guess it may cost less for an A-10 or a F-16 or F-18 to go on Tank runs, since they tend to have better survivability. Not sure who gets the bill for that though? Can you imagine If they moved away from Attack Helicopters to more Ground Attack aircraft? They'd have to take the money from one (Army) and give it to the other (Air-Force). The Army would be pissed. The Helicopter industry would be pissed. Hmmmm. I wonder how many new Helicopters the Army is slated to purchase this year or next?
But I don't really see these changes happening too soon. The helicopter as an assault and scouting platform is too entrenched in Army doctrine (not to mention that there are all those supplier contracts that are signed and good for until god knows when) for the realities of 21st century combat to change conventional military thinking as to how they can best be used (even though the recent move by conventional infantry to Stryker-based Battalion Combat Teams is already a partial indicator of the helicopter's diminishing value as an assault vehicle in contemporary warfare). Last edited by zuludelta; 10-21-2009 at 09:26 AM.. |
10-21-2009, 10:42 AM | #480 |
Iron Grenadier
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Stone Mountain, GA
Posts: 658
|
Quote:
Ah well. To be honest, I didn't really give this one much thought... not to slight any of the character's fans, but I just felt disinterested in the character (Sgt. Hacker? Seriously?) and the design of the original, so I just threw stuff together that I liked in combination, with little regard for how well they meshed with the "Sgt. Hacker" concept. Might revisit him at a later point and reuse this image for somebody else (I like the whole PCU + shorty M14 look). As for the name, I was choosing between FPS and haxzor (l33t-speak for a player who exploits programming flaws to defeat others in a multi-player networked PC game). Might go for the latter.
You know, you've already covered all of my favorite characters with the exception of Major Bludd. So at this point, it's rarely a case of me being particularly fond of a character, it's more about trying to give you another set of objective eyes. But as a fellow (non-practicing, lol) artist, I think it's important to try to look at every character with the same kind of purpose. I know it's impossible to try to maintain that kind of focus (and I didn't get anywhere near as far with my project as you have) so I think critiquing is an important part of the process. As your project has gotten more expansive, I think it's key to get the fundamentals of each character down; when you only had 50 or so well known Joes, you could be more loose. "Black guy with some climbing gear and a hat? Alpine!" But in time, you started to go back and refine those details on your earlier offerings, and they look better for it. The same mindset should apply to everyone, even if a character is a bit boring or out of touch. I just figure that you've gone to the trouble to make nearly every character you use have a basis somewhere, that I want to encourage you to stick to those design principles. The elephant that's always in the room. It's sad, but that's the way things go. |
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
cobra hiss concept art | gijoe071681 | G.I. Joe Customs General Discussion | 4 | 01-18-2011 12:16 AM |
Custom Cobra Commander from Gentleman's Concept Art | Kambei | G.I. Joe Customs Finished Projects | 14 | 04-12-2009 02:45 PM |
Concept Art For Cobra Commander REleased. | lerath666 | G.I. Joe News and Rumors | 27 | 07-08-2008 11:20 PM |
Sgt. Slaughter Triple T box and Cobra officer filecard | Novacaine | G.I. Joe Buy Sell Trade | 1 | 04-26-2008 12:55 PM |
|
|
Recent Off Topic Threads |
What song are you listening to? |
1:18 Airwolf kickstarter |
4" Fortnite from Jazwares |
JazWares 18th Halo |
Marvel Universe 3.75" figures |