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

[sferrin]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

 

[jsport]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

No it doesnt

Question is did you even watch the vid?

 

[yasotay]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

No it doesnt

Question is did you even watch the vid?

What makes you think AVX is not still in the hunt? It is my understanding that both of the smaller organizations are still working their concepts. Honestly neither of the smaller organizations have the infrastructure to turn a JMR in the time required with all of the government paperwork and bureaucratic bumf. The people with the checkbook (i.e. OSD and Congress) are really not into the “risk” thing these days with what money they are willing to put on the street.

We can lament that our leadership is not willing to take risks like they used to when aerospace was still half mystery. Reality sucks.

Frankly I am of the opinion that if neither of the two smaller organizations attract a larger industrial partner to subsidize their efforts and provide a visible means of reducing the concerns of the nervous nellies of senior government, they are conducting interesting science projects.

 

[jsport]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

No it doesn't

Question is did you even watch the vid?

What makes you think AVX is not still in the hunt? It is my understanding that both of the smaller organizations are still working their concepts. Honestly neither of the smaller organizations have the infrastructure to turn a JMR in the time required with all of the government paperwork and bureaucratic bumf. The people with the checkbook (i.e. OSD and Congress) are really not into the “risk” thing these days with what money they are willing to put on the street.

We can lament that our leadership is not willing to take risks like they used to when aerospace was still half mystery. Reality sucks.

Frankly I am of the opinion that if neither of the two smaller organizations attract a larger industrial partner to subsidize their efforts and provide a visible means of reducing the concerns of the nervous nellies of senior government, they are conducting interesting science projects.

Heard repeated 'industrial base' a few too many times why ostensibly the PM said leap ahead. Leap ahead and industrial base don't sleep in the same bed w/o an adult chaperone. Let us not kid ourselves that majors play w/ minors w/o coercion.

PS: the most leap ahead purposed was Karem at 45k ft altitude...That is and will take significant USG risk to ever see fruition but is genunily a game changer if proven.

 

[sferrin]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

No it doesnt

Question is did you even watch the vid?

Help me out here. How does whether I did or did not watch the video impact AVX's viability?

 

[yasotay]

Sponsored by one entity to assure Avx slides were not available. Imagine that. Likewise, 50-50 cost share (slathered on the stage early) to assure no innovation or dismount survival when they need an internally stored vehicle to run w/.

That AVX didn't make the cut should surprise absolutely nobody.

No it doesn't

Question is did you even watch the vid?

What makes you think AVX is not still in the hunt? It is my understanding that both of the smaller organizations are still working their concepts. Honestly neither of the smaller organizations have the infrastructure to turn a JMR in the time required with all of the government paperwork and bureaucratic bumf. The people with the checkbook (i.e. OSD and Congress) are really not into the “risk” thing these days with what money they are willing to put on the street.

We can lament that our leadership is not willing to take risks like they used to when aerospace was still half mystery. Reality sucks.

Frankly I am of the opinion that if neither of the two smaller organizations attract a larger industrial partner to subsidize their efforts and provide a visible means of reducing the concerns of the nervous nellies of senior government, they are conducting interesting science projects.

Heard repeated 'industrial base' a few too many times why ostensibly the PM said leap ahead. Leap ahead and industrial base don't sleep in the same bed w/o an adult chaperone. Let us not kid ourselves that majors play w/ minors w/o coercion.

PS: the most leap ahead purposed was Karem at 45k ft altitude...That is and will take significant USG risk to ever see fruition but is genunily a game changer if proven.

I can agree that Karem had the most innovative concept. Innovation = risk. Not a well received word in government these days.

 

[jsport]

Can not disagree w/ the current risk aversion but then to say 'we will' match potential advesaries is a misnomer.

 

[sferrin]

Can not disagree w/ the current risk aversion but then to say 'we will' match potential advesaries is a misnomer.

Not when what we ARE willing to pursue is still ahead. X-2 tech and tilt-rotors are still well ahead of what anybody else is doing.

 

[jsport]

Can not disagree w/ the current risk aversion but then to say 'we will' match potential advesaries is a misnomer.

Not when what we ARE willing to pursue is still ahead. X-2 tech and tilt-rotors are still well ahead of what anybody else is doing.

would ask whether you watched the vid yet but..

We dont even know the real level of PRC def spending let alone what goes on in the vastness of Asia and they have depicted a coaxial canard rotor wing for instance..

of the four, only Bell tiltrotor doesnt seem to have defendable independant niche case. (IMHO)

 

[sferrin]

Can not disagree w/ the current risk aversion but then to say 'we will' match potential advesaries is a misnomer.

Not when what we ARE willing to pursue is still ahead. X-2 tech and tilt-rotors are still well ahead of what anybody else is doing.

would ask whether you watched the vid yet but..

You act as though watching the video is some kind of life accomplishment. I haven't watched it, and don't plan to. Now that you know that did AVX's concept suddenly become more viable? No. No, it didn't. :

 

[Triton]

There's an old saying in Information Technology--"Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems have a long history of proven delivery to the Department of Defense. The Army will receive a lot of criticism by going with a startup firm like AVX Aircraft or Karem Aircraft as too risky, especially when the JMR-Medium program runs into technical difficulty and cost overruns. I also presume that Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky Aircraft, Boeing Rotorcraft systems have better lobbyists.

 

[sferrin]

There's an old saying in Information Technology--"Nobody got fired for buying IBM." Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky Aircraft, and Boeing Rotorcraft Systems have a long history of proven delivery to the Department of Defense. The Army will receive a lot of criticism by going with a startup firm like AVX Aircraft or Karem Aircraft as too risky, especially when the JMR-Medium program runs into technical difficulty and cost overruns. I also presume that Bell Helicopter, Sikorsky Aircraft, Boeing Rotorcraft systems have better lobbyists.

There are also the minor details of AVX having never built a flying aircraft, having no workforce to build anything with, and no facilities to build anything in. And no amount of hand-waving will change that.

 

[Triton]

There are also the minor details of AVX having never built a flying aircraft, having no workforce to build anything with, and no facilities to build anything in. And no amount of hand-waving will change that.

Though to be fair, AVX Aircraft isn't two college graduates in a garage who think it would be fun to enter the aviation business. AVX Aircraft may not have built a flying aircraft, but the management team and the engineering team certainly have. The officers' and employees' previous management and work experience, mostly at Bell Helicopter, should give AVX Aircraft some credibility.

 

[yasotay]

There are also the minor details of AVX having never built a flying aircraft, having no workforce to build anything with, and no facilities to build anything in. And no amount of hand-waving will change that.

Though to be fair, AVX Aircraft isn't two college graduates in a garage who think it would be fun to enter the aviation business. AVX Aircraft may not have built a flying aircraft, but the management team and the engineering team certainly have. The officers' and employees' previous management and work experience, mostly at Bell Helicopter, should give AVX Aircraft some credibility.

Truth.

 

[jsport]

There are also the minor details of AVX having never built a flying aircraft, having no workforce to build anything with, and no facilities to build anything in. And no amount of hand-waving will change that.

Though to be fair, AVX Aircraft isn't two college graduates in a garage who think it would be fun to enter the aviation business. AVX Aircraft may not have built a flying aircraft, but the management team and the engineering team certainly have. The officers' and employees' previous management and work experience, mostly at Bell Helicopter, should give AVX Aircraft some credibility.

Truth.

One thing is for sure sferrin didn't watch the vid (and never will) or he would have heard AVX's experience elucidated.

 

[sferrin]

One thing is for sure sferrin didn't watch the vid (and never will) or he would have heard AVX's experience elucidated.

It takes a lot more than experience. (As we saw.) And what makes you think I only base my opinion on their brochure? Oh right, it's probably never occurred to you that there's any other way. I don't need to watch a video when I've seen the stuff with my own eyes.

 

[kagemusha]

"Army aviation continues efforts for technology development"
Posted on April 13, 2015 by AMRDEC Public Affairs

Source:
http://www.army.mil/article/146362/Army_aviation_continues_efforts_for_technology_development/

REDSTONE ARSENAL, Ala. (April 13, 2015) -- The Army recently extended technology investment agreements with two commercial companies to continue concept refinement and technology maturation for future vertical lift, or FVL, research.

The Army is continuing its ties with AVX Aircraft Company and Karem Aircraft Incorporated.

"This is an opportunity to execute further technology maturation with these two partners and expand the knowledge base of the Joint Multirole [JMR] Technology Demonstrator efforts in support of FVL decision points," Dan Bailey, program director for FVL/JMR, said.

AVX will mature coaxial compound design, focusing on aerodynamic stability, high fidelity computational fluid dynamic analysis and limited wind tunnel testing scheduled for 2015-2017.

Karem Aircraft will fabricate and test subcomponent articles of its optimum-speed tiltrotor concept, which will include rotor blades and hub components such as actuators, bearings and electronics. These steps are part of a hub integration functionality test to prepare for a full-scale wing-rotor ground tie-down test in the future.

Karem Aircraft and AVX join Bell Helicopter and Boeing-Sikorsky Aircraft in the continuing efforts to refine requirements and reduce risk for the FVL family of aircraft.

 

[sferrin]

I would really like to see Karem go somewhere.

 

[LowObservable]

There's an old saying in Information Technology--"Nobody got fired for buying IBM."

There is a reason that it is an old saying...

 

[Triton]

There is also the question of whether the United States Navy, United States Marine Corps, and the United States Air Force are also going to join JMR-Medium to replace their Bell UH-1 Huey, Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk, and Sikorsky MH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. In addition, are Defiant and Valor too large for use on United States Navy cruisers and destroyers or can they be partially dismantled to fit the dimensions of the hangers on these ships.

 

[yasotay]

A good question regarding the size of the aircraft.

The other services will likely hold off investing until they see if the Army can actually do something with the program. Something they have not done in a while. No reason to throw precious dollars at a incompetently run program.

 

[kagemusha]

I would really like to see Karem go somewhere.

I prefer the AVX design instead.
It can be naturally adapted to different variants (attack, transport, cargo, gunship, naval, ambulance, SAR, etc).
The long and large open cabin affords space to accommodate different payloads (soldiers, armaments, sensors, consoles, stretchers, equipments, supplies, etc).
It can carry _internally_ many different weapons (missiles, bombs, rockets, torpedoes, cannons, lasers, etc).
The rear access ramp is used for loading cargo pallets, dropping paratroopers, carrying vehicles, rappelling, embarking and disembarking.
The AVX proposal has also a smaller size than a tiltrotor, a smaller aircraft footprint for shipboard operations and it fits into the hangar of cruisers, destroyers and frigates.

 

[pedrospe]

I also think, that the AVX design was better than Karen or Sikorsky proposals,the rear ramp,enclosed ducted fans,spacious interior,and smaller size,could make it ideal for any mission.


best regards


Pedro

 

[Triton]

A good question regarding the size of the aircraft.

The other services will likely hold off investing until they see if the Army can actually do something with the program. Something they have not done in a while. No reason to through precious dollars at a incompetently run program.

Did it come as a surprise that the other services found uses for the Sikorsky S-70 UTTAS?

 

[sferrin]

I also think, that the AVX design was better than Karen or Sikorsky proposals,the rear ramp,enclosed ducted fans,spacious interior,and smaller size,could make it ideal for any mission.


best regards


Pedro

The powerpoint might have looked prettier but there's more to it than that.

 

[yasotay]

I also think, that the AVX design was better than Karen or Sikorsky proposals,the rear ramp,enclosed ducted fans,spacious interior,and smaller size,could make it ideal for any mission.


best regards


Pedro

The powerpoint might have looked prettier but there's more to it than that.

Agreed. My biggest concern would be the amount of drag on the main rotor system and what effect that might have on the ducted fans. The drag coming off the back of the fuselage is probably pretty high too. This might make the aircraft a fuel pig.
Don't recall the dimensions but I doubt that the rotor system as is will make it under deck without some way of dropping and I wonder if it will make it into the hangar of a DDG with the necessary saftey lanes usually required in a ship hangar given its width.

 

[jsport]

I also think, that the AVX design was better than Karen or Sikorsky proposals,the rear ramp,enclosed ducted fans,spacious interior,and smaller size,could make it ideal for any mission.


best regards


Pedro

The powerpoint might have looked prettier but there's more to it than that.

Agreed. My biggest concern would be the amount of drag on the main rotor system and what effect that might have on the ducted fans. The drag coming off the back of the fuselage is probably pretty high too. This might make the aircraft a fuel pig.
Don't recall the dimensions but I doubt that the rotor system as is will make it under deck without some way of dropping and I wonder if it will make it into the hangar of a DDG with the necessary saftey lanes usually required in a ship hangar given its width.

Are we speaking about the rear (cargo door) area shape as indirect drag cause? ..want to understand please.
Understand duct fans are more drag than open props. But open props have much loss.

 

[yasotay]

Jsport - yes I am led to understand that rear ramp designs create drag as the air comes off the back of the airframe.

 

[jsport]

Jsport - yes I am led to understand that rear ramp designs create drag as the air comes off the back of the airframe.

Doesnt the Mil-8/17 design fix most of that?

 

[pedrospe]

I think that the advantages of a rear ramp,are a lot more than the disadvantages,the NH-90 or EH-101,are a good example of that,and since the rotors on the AVX concept,were smaller in size,than the rotors of any equivalent helicopter,i think it could easy fit on a destroyer class ship.


best regards


Pedro

 

[TomS]

Don't forget the other dimensions. A lot of combatant helo hangars are height-limited, and the AVX concept's conventional coaxial mast is pretty tall.

 

[yasotay]

Don't forget the other dimensions. A lot of combatant helo hangars are height-limited, and the AVX concept's conventional coaxial mast is pretty tall.

That was my main point. The AVX "appears" to be somewhat wider than other rotorcraft so I thought it might be a tight fit width wise on a DDG. The height is likely the most critical challenge on a DDG.

 

[Triton]

Due to hanger space concerns, could Sikorsky intend the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk replacement to be based on the S-97 Raider rather than the SB>1 Defiant? The Maritime MH-97 shown in this slide could be the Sikorksy heir apparent for Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS), rather than JMR-Medium, aboard United States Navy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers. Maybe we don't have to worry about how they are going to fold the rotor mast of the SB>1 Defiant to fit into the helicopter hangers of these ships? The Maritime MH-97 seems to be comparable to the Kaman SH-2 Seasprite in size.

 

[Triton]

I was also wondering if the next generation of LAMPS even needs to be installed on a manned helicopter and if the RQ-97 platform would do. Also we seem to presume that the Navy will replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk with a medium-sized rotorcraft. What about a JMR-Light-sized rotorcraft for shipboard use? Perhaps it's ridiculous to think of a Bell V-280 Valor-based or Defiant-based LAMPS variant?

 

[TomS]

Losing a manned platform the size of the current Seahawk would take away a lot of capabilities - SAR, personnel transfer, VERTREP, etc. I'm not sure the Navy mission really demands such speed -- they might be better served with a conventional helo.

 

[Moose]

I was also wondering if the next generation of LAMPS even needs to be installed on a manned helicopter and if the RQ-97 platform would do. Also we seem to presume that the Navy will replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk with a medium-sized rotorcraft. What about a JMR-Light-sized rotorcraft for shipboard use? Perhaps it's ridiculous to think of a Bell V-280 Valor-based or Defiant-based LAMPS variant?

There are enough reasons to have real live humans on your ASW platform that the Navy will not being given up in the nearish future. It's entirely possible that a mixed fleet with FireScouts carrying ASW-lite packages supplementing the manned aircraft.

 

[yasotay]

One thing I am willing to bet money on is that the U.S. Navy is not going to design new ships to fit a new helicopter.
While a conventional helicopter likely meets the current mission as we know it, one has to wonder if pervasive cyber technology along with improved unmanned technologieswill cause the defensive perimeter of a fleet will become even more expanded. If you have to cover more area, you might get to a point that conventional rotorcraft are not the optimal solution.

 

[Triton]

Losing a manned platform the size of the current Seahawk would take away a lot of capabilities - SAR, personnel transfer, VERTREP, etc. I'm not sure the Navy mission really demands such speed -- they might be better served with a conventional helo.

I said that the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk might be replaced by the Maritime MH-97 on United States Navy frigates, cruisers, and destroyers. (SH-60 is an anti-submarine warfare helicopter.) I didn't say that they might replace the HH-60 Sea Hawk on CVNs. These ships would be large enough to operate the larger JMR-Medium like the Sikorsky Boeing SB>1 Defiant. Does U.S.S. Philippine Sea (CG-58) have to launch CSAR missions with its complement of helicopters? Certainly, the SB>1 Defiant could land and take-off from the landing pad of U.S.S. Philippine Sea. I also wonder if JMR-Medium will replace the Bell UH-1Y Venom for the United States Marine Corps aboard LHAs and LHDs? Then the United States Navy has just adopted a variant of the V-22 Osprey for COD. Could this platform also be used for VERTREP?

People are thinking inside the box again. They forget that before the creation of the Sikorsky S-70 UTTAS, the United States Navy was operating the Kaman SH-2 Seasprite and the Sikorsky SH-3/HH-3 Sea King helicopters. Why do some of us presume that all of the Sikorsky SH-60/HH-60/MH-60 Sea Hawk helicopters in United States Navy service are going to have to be replaced by one rotorcraft platform? Remember that Bell proposed the Jet Ranger platform for LAMPS III.

The Sikorsky S-97 Raider is about the size of an Airbus Helicopters UH-72A Lakota and is claimed to seat six passengers. The Royal Navy operates the AgustaWestland AW159 Wildcat that is similar in size. In addition to speed, X2 Technology offers greater range and agility than conventional helicopters. We are also going to see improvement in avionics for the JMR-Medium program like distributed aperture for rotorcraft that will probably be added to the smaller S-97 Raider.

 

[TomS]

Losing a manned platform the size of the current Seahawk would take away a lot of capabilities - SAR, personnel transfer, VERTREP, etc. I'm not sure the Navy mission really demands such speed -- they might be better served with a conventional helo.

I said that the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk would be replaced by the Maritime MQ-97 on United States Navy frigates, cruisers, and destroyers. I didn't say that they would replace the HH-60 Sea Hawk on CVNs. These ships would be large enough to operate JMR-Medium like the Sikorsky Boeing SB>1 Defiant. Does U.S.S. Philippine Sea (CG-58) have to launch CSAR missions with its complement of helicopters? I also wonder if JMR-Medium will replace the Bell UH-1Y Venom for the United States Marine Corps.

You think the missions I listed aren't flown from surface combatants? If so, you're mistaken. SH-60Bs and their sucessor MH-60Rs are routinely flying SAR, logistics (VERTREP and otherwise), personnel transport, medevac, and other operations that demand a manned presence and a larger cabin than the S-97 would offer.

CSAR is a red herring -- not all SAR is CSAR. The SH-60Bs and MH-60Rs all have rescue hoists and can deploy rescue swimmers. The combatants can't be dependant on carriers to provide these capabilities, becuase they don't always operate in close company with the carriers.

 

[Triton]

One thing I am willing to bet money on is that the U.S. Navy is not going to design new ships to fit a new helicopter.
While a conventional helicopter likely meets the current mission as we know it, one has to wonder if pervasive cyber technology along with improved unmanned technologieswill cause the defensive perimeter of a fleet will become even more expanded. If you have to cover more area, you might get to a point that conventional rotorcraft are not the optimal solution.

Sikorsky claims that X2 Technology offers greater range and agility compared to conventional helicopters. The United States Navy will have plenty of legacy ships, such as Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Independence-class frigates, and Freedom-class frigates, that will need new ASW rotorcraft. If JMR-Medium is just too large for these ships, what are the alternatives? I bet Maritime MH-97 would look pretty good to the Navy as they can leverage off of the United States Army's compound rotorcraft investment.