JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

I wonder if you could appreciably increase the useable volume of a Seahawk-based aircraft while keeping it inside the hangar and flight deck footprint of the MH-60R. Maybe by going to a shape more like the S-92?
 

Attachments

  • NH90_maritime.JPG
    NH90_maritime.JPG
    114.8 KB · Views: 259
Moose said:
...Also worth noting some other navies, like China and the UK, are starting to use pretty big naval helicopters. So the Navy may be looking at larger aircraft in the future than they would like to today.

Indeed ;D
 

Attachments

  • Fat-Soldier-Needs-To-Lose-Weight.jpg
    Fat-Soldier-Needs-To-Lose-Weight.jpg
    109.2 KB · Views: 254
VTOLicious said:
Moose said:
...Also worth noting some other navies, like China and the UK, are starting to use pretty big naval helicopters. So the Navy may be looking at larger aircraft in the future than they would like to today.

Indeed ;D

Great oogelde-booglede!!! Helicopter crews worst nightmare. Centerline seating only.
 
yasotay said:
Great oogelde-booglede!!! Helicopter crews worst nightmare. Centerline seating only.

In case anyone is wondering, the kid in this picture is NOT an actual soldier. Note the total lack on insignia on his uniform (plus there are a bunch of minor things wrong with his gun and gear).
 
Yeah I know. Airsoft gamer. Still... given the amount of kit REAL soldiers are wearing these days, they are not much less wide than the gamer here.
 
marauder2048 said:
VTOLicious said:
TomS said:
I wonder if you could appreciably increase the useable volume of a Seahawk-based aircraft while keeping it inside the hangar and flight deck footprint of the MH-60R. Maybe by going to a shape more like the S-92?

NH90 comes to my mind ;)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/docs_wsw/PDF/NH90_brochure.pdf

And it's still going to be in production in the 2030 - 2040 timeframe?
The NH90 has been something of a mess to develop and field, with a fair amount of customer complaints. It might not be in production in 2025.
 
Moose said:
marauder2048 said:
VTOLicious said:
TomS said:
I wonder if you could appreciably increase the useable volume of a Seahawk-based aircraft while keeping it inside the hangar and flight deck footprint of the MH-60R. Maybe by going to a shape more like the S-92?

NH90 comes to my mind ;)

http://www.nhindustries.com/site/docs_wsw/PDF/NH90_brochure.pdf

And it's still going to be in production in the 2030 - 2040 timeframe?
The NH90 has been something of a mess to develop and field, with a fair amount of customer complaints. It might not be in production in 2025.

Yes, far too many corners were cut with the NH90, something far too common with defense programs from the 1990s onwards.
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-pushing-new-light-reconnaissance-helicopter-423008/
 
Hi,

http://archive.aviationweek.com/image/spread/20140520/29/2
 

Attachments

  • 1.png
    1.png
    337.9 KB · Views: 760
https://medium.com/@RDECOM/army-researchers-explore-future-rotorcraft-technologies-7ddd077da9fd#.fc72z6abm
 
New lethality strategy approved for Army helicopter weaponry

Senior Army leaders have approved a new strategy for making helicopter-fired weapons more accurate and deadly, according to the head of the service's aviation branch
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-army-starts-firming-fvl-requirements-as-rfi-deadl-424023/
 
"DOD encouraged to speed up FVL and buy more V-22s"
21 April, 2016 BY: James Drew Washington DC

The US House Armed Services panel on tactical air and land forces says in its mark of the fiscal year 2017 defence policy bill that current funding levels for FVL are “inadequate”.

The legislative proposal, which will be considered by the full committee on 27 April, seeks a briefing by the army on its FVL and Joint-MultiRole Technology Demonstrator efforts. That briefing would include a status report on the Bell V-280 Valor and Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant programmes as well as an analysis of “potential options and required resources” for accelerating FVL.

he directive comes as the army seeks approval from the Pentagon to begin a programme of record for Future Vertical Lift, which aims to introduce a next-generation family of rotorcraft with approximately twice the speed and range of today’s types. An analysis of alternatives will begin next year, if approved.

“With the exception of the V-22 Osprey, all US rotorcraft deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan were designed during or before the Vietnam War,” the panel notes. “The committee continues to support the development of future vertical lift aircraft and encourages the department to expand the prototyping programme.”...

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dod-encouraged-to-speed-up-fvl-and-buy-more-v-22s-424488/
 
http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/show-daily/aaaa/2016/04/28/joint-multi-role-demonstrators-race-starting-line/83611932/

635973837022395476-D2-Army-Ground3-2-.jpg
 
I understand commonality being a strong driver, but i can't help but feeling that a narrow-fuselage, tandem seating, gunship version of the Valor would look positively - pardon the technical expression - badass.
 
AVX would replace heavy-lift Chinook with tiltrotor

30 APRIL, 2016 BY: JAMES DREW WASHINGTON DC
The US Army is in no hurry to replace the venerable Boeing CH-47 Chinook that has carried its soldiers into battle since the Vietnam War, but when it does finally decide to move on, AVX Aircraft would offer up a 27.2t (60,000lb) tiltrotor replacement with 13.4m (44ft) propellors.[...]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avx-would-replace-heavy-lift-chinook-with-tiltrotor-424834/
 

Attachments

  • AVX_Future_Vertical_Lift_FOS_Concepts_FI_20160430.jpg
    AVX_Future_Vertical_Lift_FOS_Concepts_FI_20160430.jpg
    80.2 KB · Views: 1,296
JAMES DREW said:
Piasecki touts winged compound helicopters for Future Vertical Lift
01 MAY, 2016 BY: JAMES DREW WASHINGTON DC
Piasecki Aircraft chief executive John Piasecki sees an enduring place for the company’s winged compound helicopters within the US Army’s Future Vertical Lift strategy despite the robust competition that has emerged between compound coaxial and tiltrotor types currently engaged in a Joint MultiRole technology demonstration effort.[...]

Source: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/piasecki-touts-winged-compound-helicopters-for-futur-424841/
 

Attachments

  • CH-47 Tilt Duct compound helicopter concept with Rolls-Royce T406 engines.jpg
    CH-47 Tilt Duct compound helicopter concept with Rolls-Royce T406 engines.jpg
    86.4 KB · Views: 1,136
  • AH-64 Speed Apache compound helicopter.jpg
    AH-64 Speed Apache compound helicopter.jpg
    98.6 KB · Views: 1,158
  • PA61-4N model.jpg
    PA61-4N model.jpg
    103.6 KB · Views: 1,198
Hi,

Piasecki PA61,very odd designation,we know up to PA101 ?.
 
Source:
https://twitter.com/jamesdrewnews
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avx-reveals-new-attack-helicopter-configuration-for-424831/
 

Attachments

  • ChZw3w-UgAApliA.jpg large.jpg
    ChZw3w-UgAApliA.jpg large.jpg
    80.4 KB · Views: 1,038
  • AVX01.jpg
    AVX01.jpg
    85.7 KB · Views: 142
  • AVX02.jpg
    AVX02.jpg
    98.1 KB · Views: 138
  • AVX03.jpg
    AVX03.jpg
    64.7 KB · Views: 139
ITEP (T700 replacement) advances (from Aug. 22, 2016 DoD Contracts)

Advanced Turbine Engine Co., Phoenix, Arizona, was awarded a $154,039,658 fixed-price-incentive contract for procurement of a preliminary design review for a new technology centerline improved turbine engine for use on UH-60 Blackhawk and AH-64E Apache helicopters. Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Work will be performed in Phoenix, Arizona, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 21, 2018. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $20,825,111 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-16-C-0046).



General Electric Co., GE-Aviation, Lynn, Massachusetts, was awarded a $102,045,900 fixed-price-incentive contract for procurement of a preliminary design review for a new technology centerline improved turbine engine for use on UH-60 Blackhawk and AH-64E Apache helicopters. Bids were solicited via the Internet with two received. Work will be performed in Lynn, Massachusetts, with an estimated completion date of Aug. 21, 2018. Fiscal 2016 research, development, test and evaluation funds in the amount of $17,884,700 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity (W58RGZ-16-C-0047).
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=npMsNJfMt68

CSIS Future Vertical Lift Panel
 
Great find. Thank you for posting BM.
openly stating these requirements took 'years' and they they're still 'working on them".. WTFO.. there is no program management discipline.

Marine is correct there has been no pushing technical boundaries ..the majors want the highest cost for the lowest product and they make the decisions as the PEOs have no real input (maybe they shouldn't given their quality).

Sure SOCOM, range payload speed and sustainability and survivability but how about no specialty boutique SOCOM aircraft. Future Vertical Lift should all have the modularity, range/refuel and best sensors, defensive measures for all craft. NAVSPEC/USASOC/AFSOC can keep their pilot organization and even there assets but there is only one standard family of aircraft. Better operational security anyway because they all look the same.
 
jsport said:
the majors want the highest cost for the lowest product and they make the decisions a

Take off the tinfoil hat. The DoD is who's determining the schedule, not the Grand Wizard MIC. And if you think keeping a team "warm" for 15 years, while the DoD figures out what it wants, is cheap. . .well, you haven't been paying attention.
 
Indeed the MIC is the one pressing to make production decisions faster. The DoD is the organization that is expecting to take fifteen years to get a new rotor-craft on the street. Industry is also probably very excited at the Army's track record with putting new VTOL aircraft on the street. To be sure there are no saints in the mix, but like most things it takes two to tango. If no one knows how to dance any more, well...

Some other CSIS discussions with JMR folks from the government:

https://www.csis.org/events/future-vertical-lift-service-perspectives-requirements
 
http://www.realcleardefense.com/2017/01/18/military039s_stealth_future_vertical_lift_fvl_289530.html
 
https://www.csis.org/events/future-vertical-lift-family-systems

Also recommend that the name of thread be changed to reflect both JMR and FVL
 
Good to see some imagery of the Sikorsky/Boeing attack variant in that. Yet where would one place the Longbow radar or whatever replaces that system? If this is to eventually replace the AH-64 I worry that it will lack the same survivability on the battlefield due to the need to expose most of the aircraft to utilize its sensors.

Why is there such a large margin of "lift offset" between the rotors? For safety and to reduce vibration?
 
"MH-60 updates could feed into Future Vertical Lift"
03 April, 2017 SOURCE: Flightglobal.com BY: Leigh Giangreco Washington DC

Source:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/mh-60-updates-could-feed-into-future-vertical-lift-435840/

A set of mid-life updates to the US Navy’s MH-60R Seahawk helicopter will likely appear in the Future Vertical Lift rotorcraft, along with the service’s next MH-XX maritime helicopter, according to the H-60 programme manager.

In order to keep the MH-60 relevant through the 2030s and even 2040s, the Navy is planning a series of upgrades that will migrate new avionics and mission systems onto the existing aircraft. The service will implement HOST (Hardware Open Systems Technology) and the Future Airborne Capability Environment (FACE) standards, an open architecture initiative led by the navy that supports the integration of off-the-shelf hardware and common software across aviation platforms.

Those upgrades would begin in 2025 and continue over the next decade, and then migrate into the Navy’s next generation helicopter, Capt Craig Grubb told reporters 3 April at the annual Sea Air Space conference outside Washington.

“Hopefully [we’ll] migrate as either a risk reduction to whatever comes next from an air vehicle standpoint,” Grubb says.

The modifications would come at the same time as the service’s planned service life extension programme for the MH-60 and the open architecture capabilities wouldn’t require redevelopment for the FVL or MH-XX, he adds.

Apart from avionics, the next-generation helicopter may closely resemble the legacy MH-60. Whatever comes next for the Navy must fit into a destroyer’s hangar, creating some unique requirements for the service’s follow-on helicopter, Grubb says. The service hasn’t thrown out the idea of a tiltrotor aircraft, but is steadfast on the destroyer requirement.

“It will be a similar size, similar shape-ish, at least from a fuselage standpoint [and], likely, how it’s propelled, to be determined based on FVL or what we call MH-XX,” he says. “We’ll look at what that FVL might look like for a H-60 follow on.”
 
Colonial-Marine said:
Why is there such a large margin of "lift offset" between the rotors? For safety and to reduce vibration?

High G turns +/- at high speed I would imagine.
 
For someone who doesn't follow rotary wing aircraft, what's the point of building these expensive gold plated helicopters? Is the little bit of extra speed even operationally relevant and worth the billions of dollars to build these instead of more conventional helicopters? If the DoD builds these, then I guarantee you fewer numbers are going to be procured than if conventional helicopters were procured in their place and we'll be worse off over all. These aren't akin to the leap in capability from legacy fighters to Raptors and Lightnings where 1 stealthy fighter can do the job of 2 or 3 F15s and 16s... Helicopters carry soldiers and equipment into battle, that's it. So is the little bit of extra speed worth having fewer quantities? Sorry for the naive question, but I don't see the point in these gold plated machines when we'll end up with less than we need and only have a couple extra knots of airpseed to show for it. Aircraft like the Osprey have their place, but these multirotar helicopters with a little extra airpseed seem like an unnecessary luxury.
 
Airplane said:
For someone who doesn't follow rotary wing aircraft, what's the point of building these expensive gold plated helicopters?

Obviously because the US military likes wasting money and stealing tax dollars. ::)
 
Airplane said:
For someone who doesn't follow rotary wing aircraft, what's the point of building these expensive gold plated helicopters? Is the little bit of extra speed even operationally relevant and worth the billions of dollars to build these instead of more conventional helicopters?
Well, for tiltrotor solutions extra bit is x2 increase in cruise speed. Pushprop helicopters are somewhere in between, but increase is fundamental nevertheless.
Also range, hot'n'high, acoustic stealth, etc.
 
Airplane said:
For someone who doesn't follow rotary wing aircraft, what's the point of building these expensive gold plated helicopters? Is the little bit of extra speed even operationally relevant and worth the billions of dollars to build these instead of more conventional helicopters? If the DoD builds these, then I guarantee you fewer numbers are going to be procured than if conventional helicopters were procured in their place and we'll be worse off over all. These aren't akin to the leap in capability from legacy fighters to Raptors and Lightnings where 1 stealthy fighter can do the job of 2 or 3 F15s and 16s... Helicopters carry soldiers and equipment into battle, that's it. So is the little bit of extra speed worth having fewer quantities? Sorry for the naive question, but I don't see the point in these gold plated machines when we'll end up with less than we need and only have a couple extra knots of airpseed to show for it. Aircraft like the Osprey have their place, but these multirotar helicopters with a little extra airpseed seem like an unnecessary luxury.

You get what you ask for (user requirements). Let's not forget that Sikorsky invested a lot of its own money to mature X2-technology and claimed the S-97 would be "15 Million a copy" at full rate production.

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2768.msg236194.html#msg236194
 
Airplane said:
For someone who doesn't follow rotary wing aircraft, what's the point of building these expensive gold plated helicopters? Is the little bit of extra speed even operationally relevant and worth the billions of dollars to build these instead of more conventional helicopters?

The increased cruise speed is more a fallout from attaining a useful and tolerable sortie generation rate/average sortie duration
@ the required ~ 2x increase in unrefueled combat radius.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom