Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX)

[Triton]

An RFI was issued by Naval Air Systems Command on April 18, 2013 for the Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX).

Synopsis:
Added: Apr 18, 2013 11:27 am

This announcement constitutes a Request for Information (RFI) and an announcement for Industry Day for planning purposes. This is NOT a Request for Proposals. NO SOLICITATION DOCUMENTS EXIST AT THIS TIME.

SUBJECT:
A market survey for ship based, maritime helicopter key capabilities in the 2028 timeframe

KEY DATES:
01 May 2013 Industry Day Registration Due
07 May 2013 Industry Day
21 May 2013 Responses Due

BACKGROUND:
The Director for Air Warfare (OPNAV N98) has requested NAVAIR Warfare Analysis and Integration Department (AIR-4.10) to conduct a Capabilities Based Assessment (CBA) to support MH-60 Seahawk helicopter recapitalization decisions.

The MH-60 Seahawk helicopters are the pillars of the Naval Helicopter Concept of Operations for the 21st century. The Warfighting Capability provided, whether deployed as Carrier Air Wing squadrons embarked on aircraft carriers under the leadership of carrier air wing commanders or as Expeditionary squadrons embarked on LHAs/LHDs, surface combatants and logistics vessels, is broad and unparalleled in naval warfare.

The MH-XX CBA is being conducted to ascertain capability gaps incurred with aging and expected retirement of the MH-60 Seahawk helicopters beginning in the 2028 timeframe. In addition, the increasingly sophisticated near-peer threat will alter the operational environment and serves as the second driving force for this CBA.

The MH-XX CBA evaluated MH-60 supported mission areas across a broad range of scenarios in the 2028 timeframe, including Major Combat Operations, Conventional Campaigns and Steady State Security Postures. Eight representative Tactical Situations (TACSITs) were defined and assessed for capability gaps encompassing elements of Surface Warfare, Deep and Shallow Water Anti-Submarine Warfare, Mine Warfare, Navy Special Warfare and Combat Search and Rescue, Logistics Support, Medical Evacuation and Humanitarian Assistance / Disaster Relief.

MARKET RESEARCH:
In support of the CBA, AIR 4.10 is conducting market research to obtain industry feedback regarding possible technological or system solutions to the identified gaps in MH-60 supported mission areas. Key technologies and potential game-changing capabilities are of specific interest as well as timelines for any needed development programs.

RESPONSES:
Final responses for technologies or systems to potentially mitigate the CBA identified gaps are required to be received no later than 5:00 PM EDT 21 May 2013.

Source:
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=66c5708022c9b3002035f1d505827ac0&tab=core&_cview=0

 

[Triton]

"US looks to frame requirements for next-generation MH-XX helicopter"
Richard Scott, London - IHS Jane's Navy International
22 April 2013

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/12074/us-looks-to-frame-requirements-for-next-generation-mh-xx-helicopter

The US Navy (USN) is taking the first steps towards identifying a potential successor to the MH-60 helicopter family after 2028.

In a solicitation issued on 18 April, the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) requested industry to provide information on a notional MH-XX maritime helicopter to support an ongoing capability audit.

Replacing seven legacy rotorcraft types, the ship-based MH-60R and MH-60S helicopters are at the core of the USN's Helicopter Master Plan. The MH-60R Seahawk is primarily roled for anti-submarine warfare and anti-surface warfare; the MH-60S supports anti-surface warfare, combat support, humanitarian/disaster relief, combat search and rescue, special warfare and organic airborne mine countermeasures.

 

[Triton]

"USN to hold industry day on Seahawk replacement"
by David Majumdar 06:56 1 May 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usn-to-hold-industry-day-on-seahawk-replacement-385372/

The US Navy will hold an industry day on 7 May seeking information on a potential replacement for its Sikorsky MH-60 Seahawk helicopters for the post 2028-era. Registration for the event is due on 1 May.

The MH-XX capabilities-based assessment is the initial step in the US military's acquisition process, but it does not always lead to a funded programme.

At this stage, the study will examine what capabilties would be lost as the anti-submarine and combat search and rescue platform is retired as planned in the 2028 timeframe, the Naval Air Systems command wrote in a requet for information (RFI) posted recently.

The RFI describes the replacement aircraft as a "helicopter", but it is possible that other types of vertical lift aircraft could be considered in the NAVAIR assessment.

NAVAIR also will consider how "increasingly sophisticated" threats will change the environment in which the MH-60 currently operates.

NAVAIR says that "key technologies and potential game-changing capabilities are of specific interest as well as timelines for any needed development programs".

NAVAIR envisions the MH-XX helicopter flying during a "broad range of scenarios in the 2028 timeframe".

The service has defined eight situations the prospective aircraft would have address including surface warfare, deep and shallow water anti-submarine warfare, mine warfare, navy special warfare and combat search and rescue, logistics support, medical evacuation and humanitarian assistance / disaster relief.

Responses to the navy RFI are due on 21 May.

 

[yasotay]

Well this is great news to me! Now the JMR program can stop worrying about having a rotorcraft that can fit on the back of a ship less than an amphibious carrier.

 

[Triton]

Well this is great news to me! Now the JMR program can stop worrying about having a rotorcraft that can fit on the back of a ship less than an amphibious carrier.

I wonder if Sikorsky/Boeing offered their FVL/JMR-Medium X2 concept or Bell offered their V-280 Valor concept for the the MH-XX? It will be interesting to see who responded and what they offered.

 

[F-14D]

Well this is great news to me! Now the JMR program can stop worrying about having a rotorcraft that can fit on the back of a ship less than an amphibious carrier.

I wonder if Sikorsky/Boeing offered their FVL/JMR-Medium X2 concept or Bell offered their V-280 Valor concept for the the MH-XX? It will be interesting to see who responded and what they offered.

JMR/FVL is further along. MH-XX is stil in the concept defintion phase.

 

[yasotay]

If you cannot make it fit inside the hanger of a DDG, you need not apply. X-2 = very tall mast and V-280 = way to wide. I suspect the USN will be happy with an H-60X. (by "X" I mean ITEP engines and new electronics).

 

[Triton]

If you cannot make it fit inside the hanger of a DDG, you need not apply. X-2 = very tall mast and V-280 = way to wide. I suspect the USN will be happy with an H-60X. (by "X" I mean ITEP engines and new electronics).

Would Sikorsky/Boeing be able to manufacture a folding FVL/JMR-Medium X2 that could be folded for shipboard use? Wouldn't the helicopter also need to fold for transport by C-17 or C-5? Or does the helicopter need to be dissembled for air transport and then re-assembled at the destination?

 

[F-14D]

If you cannot make it fit inside the hanger of a DDG, you need not apply. X-2 = very tall mast and V-280 = way to wide. I suspect the USN will be happy with an H-60X. (by "X" I mean ITEP engines and new electronics).

In the case of the V280, I have seen sketches of a version of it that has the wing on a "hump" similar to the V-22's and the wing rotates as it does on the Osprey. One of the two V-tails folds down in order for the nacelles to clear. Because it's smaller than the Osprey, this may be a semiautomatic operation rather than full auto.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Interesting that the AVX JMR design has fuel carried in side sponsons rather than under the cargo deck like on a Kamov and the X2 counter rotating rotor helicopters. This enables the AVX helo to have lower height compared to these two counter rotating designs.

 

[Triton]

In the case of the V280, I have seen sketches of a version of it that has the wing on a "hump" similar to the V-22's and the wing rotates as it does on the Osprey. One of the two V-tails folds down in order for the nacelles to clear. Because it's smaller than the Osprey, this may be a semiautomatic operation rather than full auto.

Thanks for the information.

 

[yasotay]

The X-2 will be challenged to fold blades with the rigid rotor system, but I will bet that Sikorsky will figure out how to do that. I think their biggest challenge (and AVX too) will be with the height of the rotor systems toward fitting into DDG or into C-17/C-5. To make their designs do so will likely mean increased weight and complexity.
V-280 can probably fold, but it will be interesting to see if the USN will be willing to have a non-fully automated fold system. Even with manual fold it adds weight and complexity.
Increased weight and complexity means increased cost. Hard decision making awaits the US DoD on future rotorcraft commonality.

 

[F-14D]

The X-2 will be challenged to fold blades with the rigid rotor system, but I will bet that Sikorsky will figure out how to do that. I think their biggest challenge (and AVX too) will be with the height of the rotor systems toward fitting into DDG or into C-17/C-5. To make their designs do so will likely mean increased weight and complexity.
V-280 can probably fold, but it will be interesting to see if the USN will be willing to have a non-fully automated fold system. Even with manual fold it adds weight and complexity.
Increased weight and complexity means increased cost. Hard decision making awaits the US DoD on future rotorcraft commonality.

On the AH-1Z and UH-1Y they use a semi-automatic system that's part automatic and part manual, but I agree that adding that to a V280 based design is going to add weight and complexity even if externally powered.

I suspect that MH-XX may turn out to be a conventional helo because except for range the technologies the Army is looking for seem more suited for USMC missions, and CSAR from a large deck ship.

 

[yasotay]

US Navy Eyes C-2, H-60 Replacement Programshttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20130714/DEFREG02/307140004/US-Navy-Eyes-C-2-H-60-Replacement-Programs

 

[Triton]

From the article referenced above:

The Navy is steadily replacing its SH-60B, SH-60F and HH-60H models with new MH-60R and MH-60S models, but procurement for the R and S production lines will end after 2016. After that, the H-60, based... on a design first developed in the 1970s, will need a replacement.

Led by the Army, the Pentagon has been working on a service-wide future vertical lift effort, a partnership among all of the military services and industry. Within that, the Navy’s program to replace the MH-60Rs and MH-60Ss is dubbed the Maritime Helicopter, or MH-XX.

“We are putting our own MH-XX papers through the system, getting that started today to develop what we think are going to be the capability gaps for that, and the kind of technologies we would like to see,” Moran said. The effort is in its earliest stages.

Is the Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX) program just NAVAIR's two cents in the Army's Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program? Perhaps how NAVAIR would like its variants of the FVL to be fitted?

 

[yasotay]

I believe the USN believes that the parameters for the Army led JMR effort will result in a rotorcraft that is going to be way more than the USN wants to invest in.

 

[F-14D]

I believe the USN believes that the parameters for the Army led JMR effort will result in a rotorcraft that is going to be way more than the USN wants to invest in.

I totally agree regarding the SH-60 replacement; Maybe for other missions, especially involving USMC, they might be interested. After all, can't have a "Joint" program unless there's someone to be joint with...

 

[Triton]

Do you believe that NAVAIR may be interested in the NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFH) variant of the NHIndustries NH-90, perhaps built by American Eurocopter, for the MH-XX program or another existing helicopter platform for this requirement? The Sikorsky promotional video featuring an ASW X2 helicopter being wishful thinking by Sikorsky?

 

[F-14D]

Do you believe that NAVAIR may be interested in the NATO Frigate Helicopter (NFH) variant of the NHIndustries NH-90, perhaps built by American Eurocopter, for the MH-XX program or another existing helicopter platform for this requirement? The Sikorsky promotional video featuring an ASW X2 helicopter being wishful thinking by Sikorsky?

I can't see USN having any interest there for a number of reasons.

First, that program has had such a troubled history, you'd almost think it was one of ours! ;D

2nd, while it may have be somewhat better than the SH-60, it's certainly not that much better, enough to justify the cost of bringing on a whole new type. If that's all they want, they'd probably just buy more H-60s.

Third, they don't want this thing until the late 2020s, so they'll be wanting to take advantage of more advanced technology.

Regarding X2s, the H-60s do more than just ASW (including jobs they're not particularly suited for), and it would depend on how well they do those. In any case, the words of Yasotay are particularly apt:

"If you cannot make it fit inside the hanger of a DDG, you need not apply."

To which I would add: or an LCS.

 

[Triton]

Perhaps the idea that the H-60 family was too old because it was designed in the 1970s to be of interest for the MH-XX program may have been a conclusion made by author Christopher P. Cavas. Maybe this is not the opinion shared by NAVAIR concerning the H-60 family. I also have never understood why a design is said to be old if it is still in production or is continually being retrofitted. I presume that there have been product improvements from the Sikorsky UH-60A helicopters manufactured in 1979 to the Sikorsky SH-60R/SH-60S that are being manufactured through 2016. It's like asserting that the Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental is a late 1960s aircraft and is too old and presuming it is exactly like the 747-100. Can you really assert that it is a 40-plus-year-old design?

Perhaps we might even see new technologies developed for the JMR/FVL Medium finding their way into a notional Sikorsky SH-60T Sea Hawk. For example, the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE) being developed by the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) may find its way into later production SH-60 helicopters.

 

[F-14D]

Perhaps the idea that the H-60 family was too old because it was designed in the 1970s to be of interest for the MH-XX program may have been a conclusion made by author Christopher P. Cavas. Maybe this is not the opinion shared by NAVAIR concerning the H-60 family. I also have never understood why a design is said to be old if it is still in production or is continually being retrofitted. I presume that there have been product improvements from the Sikorsky UH-60A helicopters manufactured in 1979 to the Sikorsky SH-60R/SH-60S that are being manufactured through 2016. It's like asserting that the Boeing 747-8 Intercontinental is a late 1960s aircraft and is too old and presuming it is exactly like the 747-100. Can you really assert that it is a 40-plus-year-old design?

Perhaps we might even see new technologies developed for the JMR/FVL Medium finding their way into a notional Sikorsky SH-60T Sea Hawk. For example, the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE) being developed by the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) may find its way into later production SH-60 helicopters.

What USN is looking towards is what to replace the H-60 with when they wear out. Not just because they're "old", but because expired airframe life is going to force them to acquire something. They're looking 15 years ahead. Whether they want to continue to use a design that old is something under consideration. There's only so much you can do before it becomes better to start fresh. Consider the H-3 vs. the H-60. 747-8 is probably the last major iteration we're going to see in the 747 design. For Boeing, it didn't cost as much to develop as a totally new system, which is why they thought they could offer it a a competitive price. It's selling, but not at the rate they hoped. The real interest is in the 777X.

Maybe there will be a super H-60 (although note that the Army isn't intersted in that either), with technology from JMR/FVL or maybe it will be someting new. For now we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I believe the USN believes that the parameters for the Army led JMR effort will result in a rotorcraft that is going to be way more than the USN wants to invest in.

Too fast and too big. Even if you could swap out the >4,000 hp engines for <3,000 hp engines and ditch any lifitng wing bodies and the like the JMRs are never going to be able to fit into Seahawk sized hangars. The later are usually 18 feet high, 18 feet wide and 31 feet long. I doubt any of the JMRs will be able to get in the width and height even with folding. The AVX JMR could probably make the height and the width if it ditched the ducted fans and wings but never the length. And it looks like by far the most compact offer.

 

[F-14D]

I believe the USN believes that the parameters for the Army led JMR effort will result in a rotorcraft that is going to be way more than the USN wants to invest in.

Too fast and too big. Even if you could swap out the >4,000 hp engines for <3,000 hp engines and ditch any lifitng wing bodies and the like the JMRs are never going to be able to fit into Seahawk sized hangars. The later are usually 18 feet high, 18 feet wide and 31 feet long. I doubt any of the JMRs will be able to get in the width and height even with folding. The AVX JMR could probably make the height and the width if it ditched the ducted fans and wings but never the length. And it looks like by far the most compact offer.

Don't forget FVL is supposed to end up with a whole family of aircraft, some larger and some smaller than the three JMR demonstrators. That said, Abraham's point is still valid, it'll be hard to beat a conventional helo for fitting into existing hangars.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Don't forget FVL is supposed to end up with a whole family of aircraft, some larger and some smaller than the three JMR demonstrators. That said, Abraham's point is still valid, it'll be hard to beat a conventional helo for fitting into existing hangars.

But the JMR demonstrators are being sized around the 12 seat cabin which is the same space a Seahawk needs to carry its maritime warfare stuff. Lifting power of the JMRs may be far higher than needed but cabin surface area is about the same. So I doubt they'd be able to carry out the Navy's mission with the smaller Kiowa/Lakota replacement from the JMR family.

Despite the sizing issues a high cruise speed, high lift helo like JMR could be very useful for the Navy. Cover seaspace faster, respond quicker, getaway from bad guy shooter is all good for the Navy. Also the high lift potential of a high speed helo would be very useful for VERTEP. And some Navy ships like the Independence LCS shouldn't have much problem accomodating JMRs.

 

[AeroFranz]

Too fast and too big. Even if you could swap out the >4,000 hp engines for <3,000 hp engines and ditch any lifitng wing bodies and the like the JMRs are never going to be able to fit into Seahawk sized hangars. The later are usually 18 feet high, 18 feet wide and 31 feet long.

I apologize for going on a tangent, but does anyone know if there are public domain documents specifying the hangar size on US Navy ships?

 

[yasotay]

Too fast and too big. Even if you could swap out the >4,000 hp engines for <3,000 hp engines and ditch any lifitng wing bodies and the like the JMRs are never going to be able to fit into Seahawk sized hangars. The later are usually 18 feet high, 18 feet wide and 31 feet long.

I apologize for going on a tangent, but does anyone know if there are public domain documents specifying the hangar size on US Navy ships?

Not answering your question, but I do not believe there is an exact hangar size, even within each of the types. Not my area of speciality, but I recall hearing from a USN fellow that there is something different with almost every ship. That said I am sure there is a specified size for a ship class.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I apologize for going on a tangent, but does anyone know if there are public domain documents specifying the hangar size on US Navy ships?

The USN operating and VERTEP area layout diagrams for each class of ship include hangar dimensions.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-564/AG.HTM

 

[AeroFranz]

Much appreciated

 

[F-14D]

Don't forget FVL is supposed to end up with a whole family of aircraft, some larger and some smaller than the three JMR demonstrators. That said, Abraham's point is still valid, it'll be hard to beat a conventional helo for fitting into existing hangars.

But the JMR demonstrators are being sized around the 12 seat cabin which is the same space a Seahawk needs to carry its maritime warfare stuff. Lifting power of the JMRs may be far higher than needed but cabin surface area is about the same. So I doubt they'd be able to carry out the Navy's mission with the smaller Kiowa/Lakota replacement from the JMR family.

Despite the sizing issues a high cruise speed, high lift helo like JMR could be very useful for the Navy. Cover seaspace faster, respond quicker, getaway from bad guy shooter is all good for the Navy. Also the high lift potential of a high speed helo would be very useful for VERTEP. And some Navy ships like the Independence LCS shouldn't have much problem accomodating JMRs.

All of this is true. The thing I'm alluding to is that for the JMR demonstrators, the abilitiy to be hangared on a Navy non-aviation ship is not one of the requirements, and the three participants do not seem to have included it in their designs. What may come out of the operational FVL family might be a different story. Or, it might not.

 

[yasotay]

Don't forget FVL is supposed to end up with a whole family of aircraft, some larger and some smaller than the three JMR demonstrators. That said, Abraham's point is still valid, it'll be hard to beat a conventional helo for fitting into existing hangars.

But the JMR demonstrators are being sized around the 12 seat cabin which is the same space a Seahawk needs to carry its maritime warfare stuff. Lifting power of the JMRs may be far higher than needed but cabin surface area is about the same. So I doubt they'd be able to carry out the Navy's mission with the smaller Kiowa/Lakota replacement from the JMR family.

Despite the sizing issues a high cruise speed, high lift helo like JMR could be very useful for the Navy. Cover seaspace faster, respond quicker, getaway from bad guy shooter is all good for the Navy. Also the high lift potential of a high speed helo would be very useful for VERTEP. And some Navy ships like the Independence LCS shouldn't have much problem accomodating JMRs.

All of this is true. The thing I'm alluding to is that for the JMR demonstrators, the abilitiy to be hangared on a Navy non-aviation ship is not one of the requirements, and the three participants do not seem to have included it in their designs. What may come out of the operational FVL family might be a different story. Or, it might not.

I think it more a realization that the lack of discovery of "Unobtainium" and new physics has precluded them from developing their designs to meet significantly disparate missions.

 

[Pioneer]

I believe the USN believes that the parameters for the Army led JMR effort will result in a rotorcraft that is going to be way more than the USN wants to invest in.

I totally agree regarding the SH-60 replacement; Maybe for other missions, especially involving USMC, they might be interested. After all, can't have a "Joint" program unless there's someone to be joint with...

Sorry to diverge of topic, but...... I don't know if its just me, but I can not but help see the merit in 'Joint' service programs! To me 'joint' programs, in many cases makes sense in terms of R&D and operational service life costs.
Unfortunately though, the three-principle military services see and operate on the basis reminiscent of corporate competiveness. As opposed to a unified fighting force. They all wanting to be the principle service of these 'joint' programs. They all wanting their needs prioritising the other services needs, as opposed to allowing some compromises. The fact that longer than I care to remember, being an officer in charge of such critically important projects, such important positions and responsibilities, is predominantly viewed as a way and a means to promotion or a career in a military industrial corporation! I seriously think that the U.S. Government needs too draw the line in the sand and say enough is enough. I believe the Pentagon should be explicitly told 'if you can not get your act together, make this 'joint' program work efficiently and within budget, you will forfeit your opportunity to develop a replacement for Weapons System Z, and will be forced to make do with existing Weapons System! Or is it a case where the U.S. Government needs to enforce an experimental project, by where, the services are excluded from tampering and continuously changing the goal-posts on a design/program, and the entire program is done from 'A' to 'B' by civilian corporations? As much as I fear the prospects of a 100% civilian controlled design and build of a weapons system, and the abuse and manipulation of the Military Industrial Complex. I'm really wondering if it could be any worse than what the Pentagon has been doing for the past five-decades (aka USAF/USN TFX/F-111 program, US Army/USN/USAF Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX)/ V-22 Osprey program, USAF/USN NACF / F/A-18 Hornet program, USN/USAF Advanced Tactical Aircraft (ATA)/A-12 Avenger II, and now the USAF/USN Joint Strike Fighter / F-35 program

Regards
Pioneer

 

[Stargazer]

I also have never understood why a design is said to be old if it is still in production or is continually being retrofitted.

Totally agree. With that logic, the new Poseidon is a 1960s airliner, and the E-3 AWACS, KC-135 and RC-135 are 1950s airliners...

And yet the Boeing 707 and 737 continue to spawn new derivatives which feature bona fide, state-of-the-art technology in line with today's demands. Hey, after all the venerable Antonov An-2 and An-12 are still produced in derivative forms, and the B-52 has entered its SEVENTH operational decade! Think also of types like the Huey, the Skyhawk or the Intruder. I'm pretty certain their operational career spanned more years than the Black Hawk.

 

[F-14D]

I also have never understood why a design is said to be old if it is still in production or is continually being retrofitted.

Totally agree. With that logic, the new Poseidon is a 1960s airliner, and the E-3 AWACS, KC-135 and RC-135 are 1950s airliners...

And yet the Boeing 707 and 737 continue to spawn new derivatives which feature bona fide, state-of-the-art technology in line with today's demands. Hey, after all the venerable Antonov An-2 and An-12 are still produced in derivative forms, and the B-52 has entered its SEVENTH operational decade! Think also of types like the Huey, the Skyhawk or the Intruder. I'm pretty certain their operational career spanned more years than the Black Hawk.

Ah, yes... except for differences in the fuselage, wings, engines, landing gear, equipment, cockpit and avionics, the P-8A is virtually identical with the 737-100. Regarding the B-52, it hangs around because it's already here and cheap. As a bomb truck it still serves us well, but I doubt if USAF would ever seriously consider using it again in its design role, going up against a sophisticated air defense. In the case of the Antonovs, they aren't being asked to do much more than what they originally were asked to do, so they win hands down vs. a new desing. They still make Cessna Skyhawks don't they?

In the case of the 707, all of the new roles are being applied to existing airframes. The tooling to build new ones no longer exists. In the case of the 737, once you've built 10,000 of the things, you pretty much know what you can stuff in it. The various new roles take advantage of this. No one's got the money to develop a new a/c for the limited number of military sales, so until there's sufficient advance in technology to convince airlines to buy a clean sheet design, we work with what we've got. In the case of the Huey, the Yankee is pretty much the end of the line for that design. It's impressive as heck, but you're not going to see much more done with that airframe (in fact, if USMC didn't already have a bunch of UH-1s and no money to introduce a totally new type, there wouldn't have been a Yankee).

MH-XX is not being driven by the fact that the H-60 design is "old". It's being driven by the fact that the airframe life of the a/c in service is going to run out, and what do we want to replace it? In the last decade or so, there has been significant advancement in rotorcraft technology. After 2028, will it be more cost-effective to continue to produce H-60s, or will it be better to take advantage of newer technologies, possibly leveraging some that come out of JMR/FVL? That's what MH-XX is trying to find out.

 

[yasotay]

I also have to wonder if part of the problem with the new aircraft stems from the fact that we do not design aircraft as frequently as we used to. So we have teams that know how to put a new widget on an existing aircraft but few remain in the industry that has done a REAL whole-cloth new aircraft. I know this has been a challenge in the US rotorcraft industry as I witnessed it firsthand. They come up with big heavy rotorcraft because that is what they know. I have no statistical data but I am told that very few of the graduates of Aerospace Engineering go into the business. Two years ago the then CEO of Eurocopter laminated in front of the American Helicopter Society that more graduates went to work in the F1 motor-racing teams than went into the European rotorcraft industry. As he put it "Why labor over a new rotor tip when you can design a whole car."

Then there is the fact that there is a lot more visibility of what goes on with new military aircraft than there used to be. I was in one of the very first Apache battalions to form in the United States and the helicopter was a nightmare. Horrible readiness rates, horribly expensive and complex and you could have built twice the number of aircraft it replaced for the same cost. I almost quit the Army when they told me I was going to get transitioned into the Blackhawk (affectionately called "Crashhawk", Lawndart", "Sikorsky Suicide Sled" at the time) as they were crashing at a pretty good rate (worse than the V-22 by the way). But there was no internet and pervasive information in those days so they did not get the press, or at least as much.

 

[AeroFranz]

Yasotay, there aren't that many schools with aerospace engineering programs to start with, and of those, as far as I know, there are only a handful which teach helicopter classes (GeorgiaTech, U. of Maryland, Pennsylvania state). Students simply don't get exposed to helicopters. Plus, as the CEO of Eurocopter said, the car industry is more glamorous. In the time it takes Sikorsky to win a new program and build a helicopter (measured in decades), you could be working on dozens of new car models, a much more rewarding prospect.

 

[F-14D]

I also have to wonder if part of the problem with the new aircraft stems from the fact that we do not design aircraft as frequently as we used to. So we have teams that know how to put a new widget on an existing aircraft but few remain in the industry that has done a REAL whole-cloth new aircraft. I know this has been a challenge in the US rotorcraft industry as I witnessed it firsthand. They come up with big heavy rotorcraft because that is what they know. I have no statistical data but I am told that very few of the graduates of Aerospace Engineering go into the business. Two years ago the then CEO of Eurocopter laminated in front of the American Helicopter Society that more graduates went to work in the F1 motor-racing teams than went into the European rotorcraft industry. As he put it "Why labor over a new rotor tip when you can design a whole car."

Then there is the fact that there is a lot more visibility of what goes on with new military aircraft than there used to be. I was in one of the very first Apache battalions to form in the United States and the helicopter was a nightmare. Horrible readiness rates, horribly expensive and complex and you could have built twice the number of aircraft it replaced for the same cost. I almost quit the Army when they told me I was going to get transitioned into the Blackhawk (affectionately called "Crashhawk", Lawndart", "Sikorsky Suicide Sled" at the time) as they were crashing at a pretty good rate (worse than the V-22 by the way). But there was no internet and pervasive information in those days so they did not get the press, or at least as much.

Yasotay:

Regarding your first paragraph, Ben Rich lamented about that very thing way back in 1990. Regarding your second, in Desert Storm, Apaches reportedly required more maintenance per flight hour than any other type of aircraft, but still had major reliability and availability problems. I assume that over the years that's improved.

 

[Triton]

Navy joins Future Vertical Lift program.

Source:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13812.msg207565.html#msg207565

 

[Triton]

If the Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant and the Bell V-280 Valor are too large for an air-capable ship smaller than an amphibious assault ship, what about the size of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider? Can this rotorcraft replace the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk in the surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare role and carry LAMPS Mk III or a notional LAMPS Mk IV? Could the Navy conceivably use FVL-Light for this role?

 

[AeroFranz]

Questions of size aside, the S-97 would have to be re-engined at the very least- not sure the Navy would want a single-engine helo.

 

[F-14D]

If the Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant and the Bell V-280 Valor are too large for an air-capable ship smaller than an amphibious assault ship, what about the size of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider? Can this rotorcraft replace the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk in the surface warfare and anti-submarine warfare role and carry LAMPS Mk III or a notional LAMPS Mk IV? Could the Navy conceivably use FVL-Light for this role?

S-97 is probably too small. Of course, JMR/FVL intends to develop scalable technology, so it's possible that the USN would use technology from it in an aircraft optimized for them. After all, the hot and high requirement isn't' so critical for a shipboard aircraft.