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

TomS said:
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.

Helicopter hangers aboard United States Navy frigates, cruisers, and destroyers can house two helicopters. Does it cramp the United States Navy's style too much if one of those rotorcraft replacing a SH-60 Sea Hawk is a Sikorsky Maritime MH-97 Raider? Again the S-97 Raider cabin holds six, which TomS believes is a showstopper for the platform being used for SAR, medevac, and VERTREP missions. Does Raider offer no utility for these missions? How does Raider compare to Lynx/Wildcat in service with the Royal Navy? Raider is too small to deploy two combat swimmers and a winch operator to rescue one or two service people? It can't medevac?

Can the United States Navy or the United States Marine Corps fund a new helicopter development program to replace their existing fleets of SH-60/HH-60/MH-60 and UH-1Y helicopters? Or do they have to leverage off of another service's new rotorcraft development program like JMR/FVL? If we are dead certain that the SB>1 Defiant is too large to fit through the hanger doors of legacy United States Navy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers, what are the alternatives available to the United States Navy? Continued manufacture of the Sikorsky S-70 with improvements or retrofits? Continued retrofits for the Bell UH-1Y Venom? And the Maritime MH-97 and SB>1 Defiant discussion presumes that Sikorsky-Boeing will prevail in the JMR-Medium competition. If Bell prevails with the V-280 Valor, does that rotorcraft fit through the hanger doors of legacy frigates, destroyers, and cruisers when folded and is this discussion rendered moot?
 
Yes, I'll stand by this. A helicopter with a cabin significantly smaller than the SH-60 is too small for the range of missions flown off combatants these days. Once you add mission systems for the LAMPS mission, you don't have a six-man cabin. In fact, you probably have about two or at best three seats left after the SENSO and his console get fitted. You need a helo that VERTREP a couple of tons of palletized cargo, carry a boarding party, etc. It also has to be able to carry a bunch of relatively heavy weapons and sensors (torpedoes, radar, dipping sonar, etc.) Swapping down to an S-97 airframe for the manned shipboard element gves up to much lifting capacity.

Now, if FVL-Medium can fit in an SH-60 hangar, it's golden, but if the choice is to go down to the FLV-Light/S-97 size, I say it would be time to see how long they can stretch the Seahawk design. Possibly even pull an MH-53K on it (keep the nameplate and build a new aircraft around it.)
 
So since we are all seem to be in an argumentative state let me get in on this three way gun fight.
First my concern for the Sikorsky coaxial compound on frigates is height. It has a rotor system at least twice the height of the H-60. You may be able to fit it into the hangar by squatting the landing gear, just not sure of that. I could be wrong but I think the SB-1 is longer than an H-60 and the H-60 I am told barely fits in the space on the existing ships. Conversely I suspect that the operating envelop for the coaxial compound is far better than current conventional rotorcraft. How many can hover/station keep with a 50 knot tail wind? Level body?
As to the size of the Raider, well I might agree that it is not sized well for what the USN would want for a utility platform, but given the level of miniaturization of equipment these days it is not hard to believe that if there is even anyone in the back of the aircraft (why not send the data to the CIC on the ship) at all, they might be using tablets vice whacking great video terminals to do ASW missions. This is out of my lane of expertise so I won’t make a great argument of it. Interestingly the Coast Guard is probably waiting in the wings looking for a faster responding helo to replace the HH-65 that have been at it for a long time.

Raider was pronounced “the next step in Army Aviation.”, at its role out. It is mostly aimed at two customers: The Special Operators looking for an AH-6 replacement with greater legs (thus room for six inside vice planks on the sides), and the Regular Army that wants to replace the OH-58D, even though it is doing so with AH-64 at the moment. If Sikorsky-Boeing can get the USN and the USMC interested in the aircraft that is gravy. That’s my prognostications…
 
I'd agree that Sikorsky does not regard the Navy as a major customer for this aircraft. I don't think they brought much, if any, Defiant-related material to the Sea-Air-Space show earlier this month, which is pretty telling, IMO.
 
Screenshots from Sikorsky video.

Source:
https://twitter.com/jamesdrewnews
 

Attachments

  • CFojvy2WoAARBEh.jpg large.jpg
    CFojvy2WoAARBEh.jpg large.jpg
    26.3 KB · Views: 205
  • CFokROQWoAAmCAX.jpg
    CFokROQWoAAmCAX.jpg
    22.9 KB · Views: 196
  • CFokRPgWYAAfaii.jpg
    CFokRPgWYAAfaii.jpg
    22.4 KB · Views: 192
  • CFokRilWYAAfVnQ.jpg
    CFokRilWYAAfVnQ.jpg
    22.8 KB · Views: 189
  • hqdefault.jpg
    hqdefault.jpg
    21.9 KB · Views: 191
"VIDEO: Boeing confident in SB-1 design for Pentagon's FVL"
By: James Drew
Philadelphia
Source: Flightglobal.com
18:44 22 May 2015

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/video-boeing-confident-in-sb-1-design-for-pentagon39s-412705/

Boeing is banking on its partnership with Sikorsky on the SB-1 Defiant demonstrator to help usher in the next generation of rotorcraft for Army but still anticipates that its long-serving AH-64 Apaches and CH-47 Chinooks will continue to dominate the skies out to 2060.

The SB-1 Boeing and Sikorsky are developing for the Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstration programme is expected to fly in the third quarter of 2017 at West Palm Beach in Florida.

The propeller-pushed, lift-offset coaxial aircraft is being developed alongside the Bell Helicopter-Lockheed Martin V-280 Valor, a tilt-rotor design, to inform way ahead in the medium-weight class of the Army’s Future Vertical Lift programme. If successfully validated in testing, a Defiant or Valor type of rotorcraft would start replacing US Apache and Black Hawk helicopters in the 2030s.

The company released a new video this week showing how the Defiant is expected to operate.

Speaking at press tour at Boeing’s rotorcraft manufacturing facility in Philadelphia, the company’s director of future vertical lift at Phantom Works, Pat Donnelly, says the Army wants a speedy, multi-purpose aircraft that flies faster and farther than a traditional helicopter and carries more payload, but must “operate like a helicopter and cost like a helicopter.”

“We are helping the government decide what they want for future vertical lift-medium,” Donnelly says. “They’ve put together a requirements list that’s exhaustive. What we’re doing in our SB-1 Defiant is helping them understand what the implications of any one of those design features does to the aircraft.”

The SB-1 is designed with stiff, counter-rotating blades mounted close together to reduce drag. The blades will slow as the aircraft is propelled to speeds of more than 250kt, roughly 90kt faster than a UH-60 Black Hawk. Donnelly says the propeller reverses pitch to slow the aircraft and even act as a parachute.

“There are advantages to the tilt-rotors, there’s advantages to the coaxial,” he says. “A tilt-rotor is a more mature platform, but we are relying heavily on what Sikorsky has done in this environment. They flew the X2 to 250kt about four or five years ago, and they’re going to fly their Raider.”

Boeing and Sikorsky are 50-50 joint partners on the SB-1 programme, which will benefit from Sikorsky's separate development of the S-97 Raider, also a rigid coaxial rotorcraft prototype. The Raider conducted its first flight this week and is built to cruise at 240kt.

“We’re pursuing our vehicle in our [coaxial] configuration because we believe it buys helicopter capability as well as speed,” Donnelly says. “The focus of our aircraft is its agility at low speeds like a conventional helicopter. We believe for the requirements as specified a couple of years ago, this configuration is the best.”

At an earlier press briefing, Boeing said its CH-47 Chinooks and AH-64 Apaches will remain in production through 2020 at least, depending on future sales. The Army expect to keep flying both aircraft types through 2060, by which time its Future Vertical Lift programme is expected to deliver a replacement in both mission areas.

There are approximately 850 Chinooks currently in operation globally, and Boeing has delivered more than 2,100 Apaches since their introduction in 1984. The company says the US government will need approximately 4,000 future vertical lift platforms in the future to replace its legacy helicopter fleets.

“We fly in 2017, and [we’re] probably flying for about one year,” Donnelly says, noting that the Army will consider the SB-1 and V-280 designs in an analysis of alternatives before publishing its final medium-class Future Vertical Lift requirements document. Developing a heavy-lift platform to replace the Chinook is a longer-term priority for the Army.

In addition to its Joint Multi-Role programme, Boeing hopes to develop a next-generation vertical lift platform based off its Phantom Swift, a ducted fan tilt-rotor aircraft.

Donnelly says Phantom Swift is designed to be much more efficient in hover than the SB-1, and reach cruise speeds of 300kt to 400kt.

Boeing expects to complete its preliminary design later this year before the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency selects one of four competing aircraft designs to carry forward. Donnelly says the aircraft will be autonomous but that is not the main focus of the competition.
 
TomS said:
I'd agree that Sikorsky does not regard the Navy as a major customer for this aircraft. I don't think they brought much, if any, Defiant-related material to the Sea-Air-Space show earlier this month, which is pretty telling, IMO.

Doesn't look like Sikorsky will propose X2 Technology for the United States Navy's MH-XX competition according to former Sikorsky Chief Executive Mick Maurer. An article from March 3, 2015. Selected quotes.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-explores-coaxial-applications-beyond-raider-409714/

The company also is angling for the US Navy’s MH-XX maritime helicopter programme, but [Sikorsky Chief executive Mick Maurer] says coaxial rotors are not likely to be offered for that competition.

“I don’t want to presuppose a technical solution. That’s a possibility,” he says of a coaxial rotor configuration. “The tough thing with coax and the navy is fitting in a ship hangar. They want something that can be on station for a long time. So the premium on some of the things that a coax will do, let’s say for the army, in terms of mobility, high-hot performance, the speed for the army or even the Marine Corps, that proposition is a little different for the navy.

“I wouldn’t say never, but it doesn’t feel like that’s the right application for it,” Maurer adds.
 
I would agree. Navy is never going to rebuild hangars on their ships to accommodate a new aircraft size. Nor are they going to see a need for speed for Anti-Sub work. The Admiral at the recent American Helicopter Society Forum made her point that changing ships was not really an option, rather sternly.
 
yasotay said:
I would agree. Navy is never going to rebuild hangars on their ships to accommodate a new aircraft size. Nor are they going to see a need for speed for Anti-Sub work. The Admiral at the recent American Helicopter Society Forum made her point that changing ships was not really an option, rather sternly.

I wonder if MH-XX might give us an improved Sikorsky Sea Hawk much like the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is an improved version of CH-53E Super Stallion. Perhaps creating a notional Super Sea Hawk that leverages the investments made in JMR Medium/FVL Medium? Carbon-composite airframe, more fuel-efficient engines, improved avionics, distributed aperture, etc.
 
Triton said:
I wonder if MH-XX might give us an improved Sikorsky Sea Hawk much like the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is an improved version of CH-53E Super Stallion. Perhaps creating a notional Super Sea Hawk that leverages the investments made in JMR Medium/FVL Medium? Carbon-composite airframe, more fuel-efficient engines, improved avionics, distributed aperture, etc.


Wouldn't that just be a Sikorsky JMR with the coax rotor/compound drive train replaced by a single rotor/counter torque/compound drive train? Common from the gearbox down? Otherwise to fit the coaxial rotor hub within the height limits of the shipboard hangar they would have to embed the engine and gearbox into the fuselage (rather than sit it on top) and cut into cabin space. Which would certainly be doable with a modular naval mission system like in the NH90 that has the sensor operator stations, acoustic processor, sonar, etc all in racks that can be quickly unplugged and pulled out the side door turning the cabin into open space for passengers, mail bags, etc.
 
[font=]The problem (acknowledged by Sikorsky by the way) is height. Even with the transmission sitting central to the airframe, vice on top of it like the UH-60, the aircraft just does not make it into the hangar. Now with collapsing landing gear and a telescoping rotor system it might make it. [/font]The idea of a telescoping main rotor hub is likely the long poll in the effort. I suspect that the Sikorsky Team along with their compadre’s at Boeing are actively looking at how to fit the X2 technology into “the box”.
 
Triton said:
yasotay said:
I would agree. Navy is never going to rebuild hangars on their ships to accommodate a new aircraft size. Nor are they going to see a need for speed for Anti-Sub work. The Admiral at the recent American Helicopter Society Forum made her point that changing ships was not really an option, rather sternly.

I wonder if MH-XX might give us an improved Sikorsky Sea Hawk much like the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is an improved version of CH-53E Super Stallion.

The only thing common between the E and the K is the name and the rough silhouette.
 
Hey guys! I just noticed that the AVX concept is almost exactly as tall as a CH-53. "17 feet to top of mast" Check out the attached pics!

BR Michael
 

Attachments

  • ch-53d-1.jpg
    ch-53d-1.jpg
    108.9 KB · Views: 356
  • AVX-JMR-FVL_GrahamWarwick.jpg
    AVX-JMR-FVL_GrahamWarwick.jpg
    83.6 KB · Views: 360
  • AVX vs CH53.jpg
    AVX vs CH53.jpg
    192.2 KB · Views: 358
VTOLicious said:
Hey guys! I just noticed that the AVX concept is almost exactly as tall as a CH-53. "17 feet to top of mast" Check out the attached pics!

BR Michael

That tall huh? No wonder they lost.
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
I wonder if MH-XX might give us an improved Sikorsky Sea Hawk much like the Sikorsky CH-53K King Stallion is an improved version of CH-53E Super Stallion.

The only thing common between the E and the K is the name and the rough silhouette.

Probably wasn't the best analogy then.
 
sferrin said:
VTOLicious said:
Hey guys! I just noticed that the AVX concept is almost exactly as tall as a CH-53. "17 feet to top of mast" Check out the attached pics!

BR Michael

That tall huh? No wonder they lost.
Recall that they were primarily focused on the Army requirement (since the Army was/is(?) footing the bill) that only required below deck on LHD if I recall correctly. The DESIRE to fit on smaller Navy combatants is still just that... I think.
 
I don't think the height of the Avx concept was a problem,since the V-22 osprey is also a "tall "aircraft and still fits on an LHD class ship,i still think the AVX concept was a lot better than the Sikorsky proposal...


best regards


Pedro
 
The reason they didn't win is that the economic interest of that project was too low, well, that is what I guess :p :p
 
pedrospe said:
i still think the AVX concept was a lot better than the Sikorsky proposal...


best regards


Pedro

Based on. . .
 
malipa said:
The reason they didn't win is that the economic interest of that project was too low, well, that is what I guess :p :p

There are a couple of other considerations. First, the two "big guys" are known quantities to the "I want to pick the least risk to minimize my looking bad" crowd. Second, Army wants JMR contractors to kick in substantial amounts of funding for JMR with no guarantee that they, or anyone, will get a FVL (if it isn't canceled) contract. In point of fact the Sikorsky and Bell team are going to have to put in even more money than was originally expected. This is a bit of an unusual situation, and AVX and Karem were probably viewed as not have a deep enough financial back bench to be able to fund their portion of the JMR program. If they had to pull out because of financing, this would make the Washington program people Look Bad.

Looking Bad is one of the most feared things in DC; it diminishes your power. So, the advanced technologies from the "big guys" were the safe bet. Of course, now they have to worry about that, with Sikorsky if United Technologies spins them off.
 
F-14D said:
malipa said:
The reason they didn't win is that the economic interest of that project was too low, well, that is what I guess :p :p

There are a couple of other considerations. First, the two "big guys" are know quantities to the "I want to pick the least risk to minimize my looking bad" crowd. Second, Army wants JMR contractors to kick in substantial amounts of funding for JMR with noe guarantee they they'll, or anyone, will get a FVL (if it isn't canceled) contract. In point of fact the Sikorsky and Bell team are gong top have to put in even more money than was originally expected. This is a bit of an unusual situation, and AVX and Karem were probably viewed as not have a deep enough financial back bench to be able to fond their portion of the JMR program. If they had to pull out because of financing, this would make the Washington program people Look Bad.

Lokking Bad is one of the most feared things in DC; it diminishes your power. So, the advanced technologies from the "big guys" so they were the safe bet. Of course, now they have to worry about that with Sikorsky if United Technologies spins them off.

Spot on.
 
sferrin said:
pedrospe said:
i still think the AVX concept was a lot better than the Sikorsky proposal...

best regards Pedro
Based on. . .

That's right, what exactly is the AVX proposal?

As far as I know they planned to build a 70% subscale demonstrator powered by 2x YT706 engines (1,967 kW each).
Is the 8000lb internal, 13000lb external load, 14 troops, 2100nm range and 230 kts cruise to be achieved with this demonstrator? Is a sling load of 13000lb feasible with the installed power?

...interestingly, Sikorsky will use 2x T-55 engines (3,631 kW each!). And by looking at the pictures they seem to pay a lot more attention to drag reduction (rotor hub/mast fairings, streamlined fuselage).

However, without knowing the exact numbers a objective comparison is impossible.
 
If I am not mistaken both of the smaller companies are still on contract with the government. So while they are not building demonstrators they are continuing to work on their technology approach.
 
yasotay said:
If I am not mistaken both of the smaller companies are still on contract with the government. So while they are not building demonstrators they are continuing to work on their technology approach.

...the AVX coax-canard-ducted fan-configuration is interesting for sure. Personally I would love to see a concept demonstrator flying. Maybe on a smaller scale? A single seat mini-AVX - think X2 ;D
 
One of the reasons because i liked the AVX concept more than the other proposals,was the fact that their concept had an spacious interior,that could acomodate more troops or even small vehicles,like the V-22 or NH-90 can,and the rear ramp could make it easier the load or unload cargo,and the smaller length of the concept would make it easier to fit on frigates class ships, without the need to fold the rear or the wings which is necessary on the V-22 or the V-280 concept,i´m sure that if they had the money,they could do as better as sikorsky is doing on their SB-1 defiant,of course things on paper is not the same as the real thing,but just look at the V-22 example,it took years of research to make it work,and now it is a valuable asset on the U.S. armed forces.
 
I suspect that the biggest challenge for the AVX design to fit on a frigate or destroyer would be the height of the rotor system.
 
Can the Bell V-280 Valor fold to fit in the hanger of a frigate or destroyer or is it too large like the Sikorsky Boeing SB-1 Defiant? Is the Navy hoping to enjoy economies of scale to lower the unit price by joining the Army program?
 
Triton said:
Can the Bell V-280 Valor fold to fit in the hanger of a frigate or destroyer or is it too large like the Sikorsky Boeing SB-1 Defiant? Is the Navy hoping to enjoy economies of scale to lower the unit price by joining the Army program?

Remember that Navy has not yet signed aboard as a driver for JMR. JMR is a technology demonstrator and although it's likely that the FVL will look a lot like the JMR demonstrator that's not a guarantee. We may see diffferent craft using the technologies for USN and USA, assuming Navy does join. They may not, seeing as their MH-XX (H-60 replacement) studies do not yet specify the speeds Army is looking for in FVL, and their RFI did say "helicopter". They might decide that hte lager ecomonimes of scale from joining FLV may not be enough to offset the higher costs of such a vehicle and potentially its size.

The illustrations I see of a folding V-280 show a wing rotation similar to that of a V-22, but not so elaborate. For one thing, there is no requirement to keep the wingspan such that rotated it fits within the length of the fuselage. The way they handle the V-tail is that one of them folds down so the wing/nacelle can slide over it.
 
I think that there is at the present a feeling in DoD that the "one size fits all" (as in F-35) may not realize the cost saving that warranted compromise. So I would not be surprised to see the services agree that it is not the correct approach. The Navy is not going to resize there ships to fit a new rotorcraft. The Army is not going to pay for a bunch of folding that drives the weight and cost of the aircraft up. If the USMC wants to fold a version they can do so on their dime.

My opinion of course, and I could be surprised to see the Army agree to buy aircraft that can go on a ship any time. I do make my assertion with the knowledge that the Army has not paid for auto-fold, rotor-brakes and anti-corrosion on any of its aircraft.
 
Assembly work starts on V 280 fuselage:


http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en_US/News/PressReleases/NewsRelease/NewsRelease.html?ReleaseID=29d023ed-d3e9-4a51-926c-65f7b2695600




Fort Worth, Texas, (June 15, 2015)Bell Helicopter, a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, and Spirit AeroSystems Inc. (NYSE: SPR) today announced major assembly has started on the Bell V-280 Valor fuselage.
“Spirit AeroSystems brings decades of composite manufacturing experience to the team which allows us to quickly build an aircraft like the V-280,” said Phil Anderson, Spirit AeroSystems senior vice president of Defense. “This is a major milestone for the technology demonstrator unit. Spirit AeroSystems is proud to be on Team Valor and we are excited to be designing and building the composite cabin and cockpit for the V-280.”
Visit these links to see images of the Bell V-280, and of the fuselage assembly.

 
United Technologies says goodbye to Sikorsky:


http://www.utc.com/News/News-Center/Pages/UTC-Announces-Intention-To-Exit-Helicopter-Business.aspx





UTC Announces Intention To Exit Helicopter Business6/15/2015All financial expectations in this release are on a pro forma basis and exclude Sikorsky, unless otherwise notedUTC will pursue a separation of Sikorsky from the rest of UTC, subject to final Board approval.Removing Sikorsky from the portfolio will better position UTC to focus on providing high-technology systems and services to the aerospace and building industries.Ex-Sikorsky, UTC expects 2015 EPS of $6.35 to $6.55 on sales of $58 to $59 billion.HARTFORD, Conn., June 15, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) today announced that it will pursue the separation of the Sikorsky Aircraft business from United Technologies, subject to final Board approval. This announcement follows a review of strategic alternatives for Sikorsky announced earlier this year. A decision on whether Sikorsky will be spun off or sold is expected by the end of the third quarter.



And now the great speculation begins on who will buy. I would bet on Boeing since Vertol is limited to CH-47's and "other people's helicopters" (including the V-22). Of course I also wouldn't be surprised if Boeing sold Vertol.
 
yasotay said:
I think that there is at the present a feeling in DoD that the "one size fits all" (as in F-35) may not realize the cost saving that warranted compromise. So I would not be surprised to see the services agree that it is not the correct approach. The Navy is not going to resize there ships to fit a new rotorcraft. The Army is not going to pay for a bunch of folding that drives the weight and cost of the aircraft up. If the USMC wants to fold a version they can do so on their dime.

I would think it would be much easier to make an X-2 layout easier to go to sea (Blackhawk/Seahawk) with the folding rotor, than it would the V-280 where they have to rotate the entire wing in addition to folding the rotors.
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I think that there is at the present a feeling in DoD that the "one size fits all" (as in F-35) may not realize the cost saving that warranted compromise. So I would not be surprised to see the services agree that it is not the correct approach. The Navy is not going to resize there ships to fit a new rotorcraft. The Army is not going to pay for a bunch of folding that drives the weight and cost of the aircraft up. If the USMC wants to fold a version they can do so on their dime.

I would think it would be much easier to make an X-2 layout easier to go to sea (Blackhawk/Seahawk) with the folding rotor, than it would the V-280 where they have to rotate the entire wing in addition to folding the rotors.
You could be right. However there are two challenges. First is the height of the rotor systems. It would most likely fit under-deck on anphibs and carriers, but I don't think it would work on the smaller ships DDG and smaller. Second is that all of the Navy mandated automatic fold equipment that would have to go onto the rotorhead will be a big challenges and add a lot of weight to the very top of the aircraft. Recall that Sikorsky announced it was the future of Army Aviation and to my knowledge has never really focused on the USN/USMC with the X2 tech. That said, I have no doubt they are dilligently working on this.
V-280 as you point out would have to fold up as well and that will add considerable weight. However because its drive train is lateral vice vertical there is little challenge to have the power train fit under deck without potential significant modification. I do seriously doubt the V-280 would fit in a DDG even if it did fold. With all of the pain of learning with V-22 I would have to believe that Bell has already done significant work to make the V-280 desirable to the USMC.
I imagine since all vendors have significant experiance with rotorcraft on naval vessels they have most likely done a fair amount of work on making their product shipboard capable.
 
fredymac said:
United Technologies says goodbye to Sikorsky:


http://www.utc.com/News/News-Center/Pages/UTC-Announces-Intention-To-Exit-Helicopter-Business.aspx





UTC Announces Intention To Exit Helicopter Business6/15/2015All financial expectations in this release are on a pro forma basis and exclude Sikorsky, unless otherwise notedUTC will pursue a separation of Sikorsky from the rest of UTC, subject to final Board approval.Removing Sikorsky from the portfolio will better position UTC to focus on providing high-technology systems and services to the aerospace and building industries.Ex-Sikorsky, UTC expects 2015 EPS of $6.35 to $6.55 on sales of $58 to $59 billion.HARTFORD, Conn., June 15, 2015 /PRNewswire/ -- United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX) today announced that it will pursue the separation of the Sikorsky Aircraft business from United Technologies, subject to final Board approval. This announcement follows a review of strategic alternatives for Sikorsky announced earlier this year. A decision on whether Sikorsky will be spun off or sold is expected by the end of the third quarter.



And now the great speculation begins on who will buy. I would bet on Boeing since Vertol is limited to CH-47's and "other people's helicopters" (including the V-22). Of course I also wouldn't be surprised if Boeing sold Vertol.
I'm still betting slightly in favor of a spin-off, even if they're getting better offers than they expected for Sikorsky the tax and regulatory situation would be a whole lot smoother and faster.


Boeing wouldn't shock me even though it would take a little bit of reshuffling of both to make work. Lockheed won't happen unless the legislature, DoD, and regulators all completely ignore the sale. Wouldn't rule out BAE. The nightmare scenario, though, is someone like Cerebus.


This is still a dumb sale/spin-off.
 
I think in all honesty it will come down to who has the least tax liabiliity for UTC. I do not have a clue about Corporate tax law, but have heard that the liability for the likes of Boeing and Lockheed is pretty high. Given how soft the rotorcraft industry is right now, that might be a hard sell to investors.
 
Airbus Helicopters, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, and Textron are interested in Sikorsky per the following story from The Wall Street Journal.


"Airbus Eyes Sikorsky, No Word on Possible Bid"
By Robert Wall
June 16, 2015 3:44 a.m. ET

Source:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/airbus-eyes-sikorsky-no-word-on-possible-bid-1434440695

Selected quotes

LE BOURGET--Airbus Helicopters is keeping an eye on United Technologies Corp.’s plan to unload helicopter maker Sikorsky Aircraft, President Guillaume Faury said on Tuesday though he wouldn’t commit to making a bid for the business.

UTC said on Monday it would sell or spin off Sikorsky, the maker of Black Hawk helicopters and a major U.S. defense contractor, within 60 days.

“We are in a fast changing environment,” Mr. Faury said as he called the Sikorsky development “important in our industry.” Airbus Helicopters is a wholly owned unit of Airbus Group SE, best known as a maker of passenger jets.

UTC’s decision to ditch Sikorsky comes as business demand for helicopters is under pressure as falling energy prices have led to cost cutting in the oil and gas sector. “The market is a difficult market as we speak,” said Mr. Faury.

Airbus isn’t the only company possibly interested in Sikorsky. UTC’s review of the business has also triggered interest from Boeing Co., Lockheed Martin Corp. and Textron Inc., according to people familiar with the situation.
 
"Paris Air Show 2015: Boeing eyes up possible Sikorsky buy"
Gareth Jennings, Paris - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
15 June 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/52233/paris-air-show-2015-boeing-eyes-up-possible-sikorsky-buy

Boeing is in dialogue with United Technologies Corporation (UTC) for the possible acquisition of the group's Sikorsky subsidiary, the president and CEO of the company's Defense, Space & Security (BDS) division, Chris Chadwick, said ahead of the Paris Air Show.

Speaking at BDS' St Louis headquarters in Missouri in late May, Chadwick said that the opportunity of procuring Sikorsky has fostered "a lot of discussions" with UTC, but he declined to divulge any further details at this time.

UTC is still considering the alternatives for the future of Sikorsky, with a reported sale for USD10 billion being one of the options being touted. According to CNBC, the evaluation will be complete by mid-2015.

According to the company, a sell-off of Sikorsky is being considered as the company's business is intrinsically linked to the defence sector, and with US Department of Defense (DoD) spending being cut, the future prospects are far from certain.

"The issue with Sikorsky here is not that Sikorsky is a bad business. Sikorsky is a great helicopter business," a UTC spokesperson told CNBC. "As we think about the portfolio, though, it's really a question of, 'How do you position yourself for above GDP growth, for higher margin into the future?'"

Besides Boeing, Airbus and Lockheed Martin have been reported to have shown interest in a possible acquisition of Sikorsky.
 
"Will Sikorsky and Textron Come Together Through A Reverse Morris Trust?"
June 17th, 2015 by Trefis Team

Source:
http://www.trefis.com/stock/utx/articles/300594/will-sikorsky-and-textron-come-together-through-a-reverse-morris-trust/2015-06-17

In a recent article, we discussed the options at hand for United Technologies if it decided to sell its Sikorsky helicopter division as opposed to spinning it off. United Technologies’ Board is expected to meet before the end of this week to review the offers it has received for divestiture of the division. According to market sources, it is starting to seem likely that if the company decides against a spin-off, Textron will be the likely partner it chooses. However, rather than an outright sale it would likely be a merger through a Reverse Morris Trust. [1]

Our current price estimate for UTC is $123, which is slightly ahead of its market price. Our price estimate for Textron stands at $43, which is slightly below its market price.

See our complete analysis for Aerospace and Defense companies: UTC | Textron | Lockheed Martin | Boeing

Textron’s Concern Is The Price, UTC’s Concern Is The Tax Bill

Textron’s Bell Helicopters looks to be a great strategic fit with Sikorsky. Driven by declining orders in its key program, the V-22, Bell Helicopters has been struggling to find growth in the helicopter industry. A potential acquisition of Sikorsky, which signed deals valued at approximately $3 billion in the past year, would breathe new life into Textron’s existing helicopters business. The value added by acquiring Sikorsky would be huge for Textron, as it currently trails behind Boeing and UTC in the rotorcraft industry by a significant margin. However, Textron, at its market value of $13 billion, would struggle to engage in a direct purchase of Sikorsky, which is valued at approximately $8 billion.

For United Technologies, a spin-off is a more attractive possibility over a sale because a sale would come with a hefty tax bill. Sikorsky has been a part of UTC since 1929, and its value has appreciated significantly since it became a part of the company. As a result, it is anticipated that Sikorsky’s sale could come with an enormous tax bill of $3 billion. [2]

Tax-Effective Options At Hand For UTC: Spin-Off Vs. Reverse Morris Trust

UTC could opt for a tax-free spin-off of Sikorsky, which we have explored in depth here, which would launch Sikorsky as an independent company. The one disadvantage here would be that a spun off business could be subject to regulations that prohibit it from engaging in M&A activity for a certain window of time. So, although Sikorsky would have control over how it utilizes the cash it generates once it is independent, it may not be able to invest in certain M&A opportunities to grow the business, which could delay potential growth in returns for shareholders. [3]

UTC has another tax-free alternative in the form of a Reverse Morris Trust (RMT) in collaboration with a bidder, which is essentially a combination of a spin-off and a merger, which helps avoid the tax bill that is associated with a direct sale. To commence this transaction, Sikorsky will be made a subsidiary of United Technologies. and then the bidder will be able to merge with the newly created subsidiary. For a RMT to be successful, UTC shareholders should have a majority stake in the new entity created by the merger. It is therefore important that the bidder is not too large in size, so that upon the merger of the bidder and Sikorsky, UTC shareholders continue to hold a majority stake in the new entity. [4] Textron, with its market cap of $13 billion, is a much smaller company than United Technologies, which has a market cap of over $100 billion, and is therefore an appealing ideal partner for a RMT over other bidders such as Boeing and Lockheed Martin, which have market caps of $97 billion and $60 billion, respectively.

Reverse Morris Trusts are complicated and time consuming undertakings, and UTC will have to evaluate if enough extra value is created by undertaking this process before deciding to go through with it. As part of this evaluation, UTC will have to specifically consider whether it wants to be an investor in Textron. Textron, on the other hand, may have to sell some of its assets to be able to participate in a RMT. Over the long run, this would help Textron become a more lean and focused company. This will especially hold true if it decides to let go of divisions that aren’t well aligned with its aircraft and rotorcraft-related businesses.

UTC confirmed on Monday, June 15th that it will be exiting the helicopter market. The Board has been reviewing the spin-off and sale options since the beginning of this year. The company anticipates the exit to be completed by the end of the third quarter this year. [5]
 
"Paris Air Show 2015: Boeing touts JMR-TD/FVL technology for future Apache and Chinook upgrades"
Gareth Jennings, Paris - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
15 June 2015

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/52234/paris-air-show-2015-boeing-touts-jmr-td-fvl-technology-for-future-apache-and-chinook-upgrades

Boeing sees potential for incorporating technology it is developing for the US Army's Joint MultiRole-Technology Demonstrator/Future Vertical-Lift (JMR-TD/FVL) programme into its current portfolio of rotary-wing platforms.

Pat Donnelly, programme manager for FVL, said technology such as mission systems, affordable rotor blades, and pusher-propellers Boeing is developing in partnership with Sikrosky for the SB>1 (SB-1) Defiant compound co-axial helicopter could find itself in future iterations of both the AH-64 Apache and H-47 Chinook.

Along with Bell Helicopter and its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, Boeing and Sikorsky are under contract to the US Army to build a JMR technology demonstrator to inform the service's FVL decisions.

Speaking ahead of the Paris Air Show, Donnelly told reporters at Boeing's Philadelphia production facility that the first flight of the Defiant is on track to take place in the third quarter of 2017.

The Department of Defense (DoD) has launched its JMR/FVL programme to create a family of platforms to replace its current helicopters. This family is to be divided into FVL Medium (to replace the Apache and Black Hawk platforms) and FVL Heavy (to replace the Chinook).

The US Army's current emphasis is on FVL Medium, and it is for this requirement that both the Defiant and Valor are being developed (in addition to Boeing-Sikorsky and Bell, the army has awarded contracts to AVX and Karem to continue their research into future helicopter technologies).

While FVL Medium is one requirement, it might not necessarily be satisfied with a single platform. It could be that FVL Medium includes an attack platform along the lines of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider and a medium-lift platform, such as the Defiant or Valor.

The army plans to field FVL Medium in the 2030s, with FVL Heavy following in the 2040s. To bridge the gap between now and then, Boeing has touted the possibility of enhancements to both its Apache and Chinook platforms, with notional AH-64F and CH-47H/MH-47HG platforms to be developed.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom