Register here

Author Topic: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs  (Read 318566 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« on: September 02, 2011, 01:04:49 pm »
Latest JMR news:


Fourth Team To Join JMR Rotorcraft Studies

Sep 2, 2011


 
By Graham Warwick
 
 
A fourth team is to join Boeing, Bell-Boeing and Sikorsky in competitively studying concepts for the Joint Multi Role (JMR) medium utility rotorcraft, which could replace U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters beginning late next decade.

Boeing, Bell-Boeing and Sikorsky were awarded 18-month configuration trades and analysis contracts at the end of June. Each is worth around $4 million, with industry contributing a similar amount.

“We are negotiating with one more, and should award a contract in the next couple of weeks,” says Ned Chase, platform technologies division chief at the Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD). He spoke Aug. 31 at a conference in Patuxent River, Md., organized by vertical-lift technical society AHS International.

Concept studies are the first step toward the planned awarding of contracts to build two different JMR technology demonstrators that would fly by fiscal 2017 as a precursor for development of a new medium utility rotorcraft to be fielded around 2027-28.

The three teams already under contract are taking different approaches. One is “doing a deep dive on a single configuration,” Chase says. Another is studying three different concepts, while the third is looking at all possible options, he says.

Bell Helicopter CEO John Garrison has said previously that the Bell-Boeing team responsible for the V-22 Osprey proposed a tilt-rotor configuration for the JMR studies.

The fourth contract is taking longer to negotiate because the unidentified entity is not as experienced in contracting with the Defense Department, “but they have a good proposal,” Chase says.

The Pentagon has compiled a list of desired attributes for a JMR family of vertical-lift vehicles to replace its current fleet of helicopters, including the AH-64D Apache, UH-60M Black Hawk and CH-47F Chinook. These include 200-kt.-plus speed, 230-nm combat radius, 6,000-ft./95F hot/high performance and increased affordability, durability and survivability.

The configuration studies “will distill out the things that bring the most value, and get from a list of attributes to the design requirements for a next-generation rotorcraft,” Chase says. “They will provide the performance specification for the demonstrator aircraft.”

The same list of attributes for a medium utility JMR have been supplied to an independent government design team that is looking at advanced helicopter, compound helicopter and tilt-rotor concepts, Chase says.

The government designers are providing data on the three configurations to an operations analysis team at Fort Rucker, Ala., which will run scenarios to establish the relative operational values of the desired attributes.

AATD plans to award multiple contracts in fiscal 2013 to begin design of JMR demonstrators. Following preliminary design reviews, the Army in fiscal 2015 will downselect to two contractors to build the aircraft.

Phase 1 of the demonstration will involve flight tests of the demonstrator air vehicles. Phase 2, following two years later, will involve the design and integration of open-architecture mission systems into the demonstrator aircraft.
 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/09/02/02.xml&headline=Fourth
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #1 on: September 14, 2011, 06:46:45 am »
From Aviation Week:

Army Begins Defining Future Vertical-Lift

Sep 14, 2011


 
By Graham Warwick
Washington
 


Finally responding to calls from operators and industry to begin work on replacing its hard-pressed helicopter fleets, the U.S. Army is moving ahead with a program to develop the next generation of rotorcraft. But the service faces a challenge securing sufficient government and industry funding to sustain competition until a development program can begin around the end of the decade.

The Army has kicked off the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) program not knowing exactly what it wants or which of its helicopter fleets it will replace first. Instead it has a list of desired attributes and a rough timescale—2027-28—for fielding its first all-new rotorcraft in 50 years. The task of turning those attributes into requirements for a next-generation aircraft falls to a pair of technology demonstrators the service plans to build and fly in 2017.

In a sign the Army is getting serious, its budget for rotorcraft science and technology (S&T)—which has long run at a mere $100 million a year—is being augmented for the JMR demonstrators. But additional funding, as well as industry cost-sharing, will be needed if the service is to fly two robust demonstrators with mission systems and so keep its competitive options open.

“It’s a major breakthrough that we are not flat-lined at $100 million and they have been successful in getting Army leadership to increase S&T funding for the JMR demonstration,” says Michael Hirschberg, executive director of American Helicopter Society (AHS) International, a technical body. “It remains to be seen whether it will be enough to do everything they want the technology demonstrators to do.”

JMR is seen as a family of vertical-lift vehicles, from light to ultra-heavy, sharing common technologies. As a starting point, the Army has selected the middle of the range and the medium utility JMR. Not only would this replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks that make up its single largest helicopter fleet, but studies over the next two years will show to what extent technologies required in a medium utility JMR could scale down to the light scout and up to the heavy transport classes.

Distilled from several recent Army and Pentagon-level analyses that identified gaps in U.S. rotorcraft capabilities, the list of desired attributes for the JMR family of vehicles includes speed exceeding 200 kt., up from less than 150 kt. for today’s helicopters, a combat radius of 230 nm and 6,000-ft./95F hot-and-high performance. In addition to better affordability, durability and survivability, other attributes include a common core avionics architecture and an optionally manned capability.

“The capabilities demanded cannot be achieved through upgrading the current fleet,” says Ned Chase, platform technologies division chief at the Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD). “We want to build two technology demonstrators to pursue capabilities lacking in the current fleet while maintaining competition and providing different alternatives.”

The list of attributes for the medium utility JMR has been provided to three industry teams that received configuration trades and analysis contracts at the end of June. Awarded to Bell Boeing, Boeing and Sikorsky, the 18-month contracts are each worth $4 million, with industry contributing a similar amount. “We are negotiating with one more, and should award a contract in the next couple of weeks,” says Chase.

The configuration studies “will distill out the things that bring the most value, and get us from a list of attributes to the design requirements for a next-generation rotorcraft,” he says. “They will provide the performance specification for the demonstrator aircraft.”

The JMR demonstrators will not be prototypes, as the YUH-60 and -61 were for the Black Hawk or YAH-63 and -64 for the Apache. For one thing, they are expected to be smaller than the objective vehicles to reduce cost. And secondly, Chase says, the Army has committed to industry to have another competition for development and production.

The three teams already under contract are taking different approaches. One is “doing a deep dive on a single configuration,” says Chase. Another is studying three different concepts, while the third is looking at all possible options, he says. Bell Helicopter CEO John Garrison has said previously that the Bell Boeing team responsible for the V-22 Osprey proposed a tiltrotor configuration for the JMR studies. The fourth contract is taking longer to negotiate because the unidentified entity is not as experienced in contracting with the Defense Department, “but they have a good proposal,” says Chase.

The same list of attributes for a medium utility JMR has been supplied to an independent government design team that is looking at advanced helicopter, compound helicopter and tiltrotor concepts, he says. The government designers are providing data on the three configurations to an operations analysis team at Fort Rucker, Ala., which will run scenarios to establish the relative values of the desired attributes. “They will consider the performance of a fleet of aircraft to establish what operational value each attribute brings to the table,” Chase says.

“We need to understand which attributes are most important on the battlefield, and most cost-effective to implement,” he says. “We need to understand how to get the right mix of capabilities on the aircraft. The decisions we make will impact rotary-wing aviation operations for the next 50 years.”

The aim is to develop a draft requirement for the medium utility JMR—“it’s about this big, goes this far, does these things and we have an idea we can afford it,” Chase says—and use that to derive the demonstrator specification.

At the same time, an acquisition team involving the Army, Navy, Special Operations Command and other potential customers is developing an initial capabilities document (ICD) establishing the requirements for the JMR. This is expected to be completed by mid-fiscal 2012, says Chase. The ICD is a necessary precursor to an analysis of alternatives and Milestone A approval for a new acquisition program, and it is not clear yet whether the ICD will be for the overall JMR family of vehicles or just for the medium utility class.

“We have established a joint-service team through the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Future Vertical Lift [FVL] working group,” he says. This brings together rotorcraft operators within the Pentagon and was directed by Congress to determine capability gaps, develop an S&T road map and strategic plan for vertical lift, and identify funds for technology development.

With the ICD in place, AATD plans to award multiple contracts in fiscal 2013 to begin design of the JMR demonstrators. Following preliminary design reviews, the Army in fiscal 2015 intends to downselect to two contractors to build the aircraft. “We are putting funding in place for two. They may be the same or entirely different configurations,” he says. Phase 1 of the demonstration will involve flight tests of the demonstrator air vehicles. Phase 2, following two years later, will involve the design and integration of two open-architecture mission systems into the demonstrator aircraft.

Work on defining the common core architecture has already begun. “We’ve started that first, to build a Defense Department/industry consensus on an open systems architecture,” says Chase, adding that the program office responsible for developing the Army’s Victory open architecture for combat vehicles is involved. The goal is to develop a common standard for a scalable architecture to be used in mission-system development in Phase 2. As with the air-vehicle Phase 1, the plan is to award two demonstration contracts to avionics integrators “as a hedge against risk,” says Chase.

With U.S. military rotorcraft production facing a cliff around the end of this decade as procurement programs end, AHS has been campaigning for more investment in technology development to sustain industry capabilities and lay foundations for the next generation.

“The Defense Department needs to ensure there is enough funding for the JMR demonstrators to really be relevant,” says Hirschberg. “This is the Pentagon’s one chance to realize a significant advancement in capabilities—they can’t afford to be timid.”


ATTD concept [IMAGE CREDIT: Aviation Week]


http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/09/12/AW_09_12_2011_p30-366840.xml&headline=Army%20Begins%20Defining%20Future%20Vertical-Lift&next=0
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2011, 11:59:21 am »
And the fourth JMR team is:


[IMAGE CREDIT: Ares Blog/ AVX]

AVX Wins JMR Helo Study Contract

Sep 30, 2011


 
By Graham Warwick graham_warwick@aviationweek.com
WASHINGTON

 
 
 
AVX Aircraft, a small Texas company staffed largely by former Bell engineers, has won a U.S. Army contract to study a potential replacement for the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter.

AVX joins Bell Boeing, Boeing and Sikorsky in conducting 18-month configuration analysis and trade studies for the Joint Multi Role (JMR) program, which aims to fly two competing rotorcraft demonstrators in 2017.

No further awards are anticipated, says the Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, which is managing the JMR technology demonstration program.

Under its contract, the Forth Worth-based company will identify technologies and develop concepts for both a demonstrator and an objective medium-utility rotorcraft that could enter service in the 2025-30 time frame.

AVX’s design will feature a coaxial rotor and ducted fans for propulsion and control — a similar configuration to that being proposed by the company to upgrade the Army’s Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior to meet its Armed Aerial Scout requirement.

Bell Boeing is studying a tiltrotor, Boeing is looking at a range of configurations and Sikorsky is evaluating an advanced helicopter, tiltrotor and a compound helicopter using its X2 high-speed coaxial-rotor configuration.

The study contracts are each worth around $4 million, with the major manufacturers matching the government funding for a total of $8 million. “We will be close to that,” with funds from the company and nine industry partners, says Ian Brown, AVX director of program management.

AVX also is talking to industry partners and private investors about funding a demonstrator for the OH-58D upgrade. This would take a commercial Bell 206L and fit it with coaxial rotors, ducted fans and new transmissions.

The demonstrator could be flying within 18 months of go-ahead, Brown says, and would be flown for about a year to validate the configuration being offered to the Army. A 206-based design also could find application in the commercial market, he says.
 

LINK

Follow on Story at Ares:

JMR - Tiny AVX Joins the Big Boys

Posted by Graham Warwick at 9/29/2011 3:26 PM CDT 


Fort Worth, Texas-based AVX Aircraft is the mysterious fourth team to win a $4 million contract from the U.S. Army to study concepts for the Joint Multi Role (JMR) medium replacement for the UH-60 Black Hawk.


[IMAGE CREDIT: Ares blog/ Aviation Week]

AVX, staffed largely by former Bell Helicopter employees, is best known for its proposal to meet the US Army's Armed Aerial Scout requirement by upgrading its OH-58D/F Kiowa Warriors with coaxial rotors and ducted fans, which would replace the tail rotor and provide both control and propulsion.

AVX is still pursuing the OH-58 upgrade, and working to corral funds from industry partners and private investors to build a demonstrator, but the JMR contract is the first time it finds itself head-to-head against the big players. Three other 18-month configuration analysis and trade study contracts have been awarded by the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate: to Bell Boeing, Boeing and Sikorsky.

Under the cost-sharing contracts, the companies will identify and prioritize technologies to meet the Army's desired attributes (which include a speed of at least 200kt), and develop concepts for both an objective JMR medium rotorcraft that could enter service in 2025-30 and a technology demonstrator that could fly in 2017.


Tags: ar99,  rotorcraft

[LINK]
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Matej

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2617
  • Multiuniversal creator
    • Hitechweb - bizare aviation
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #3 on: October 01, 2011, 12:23:28 am »
I think that JMR deserves its own topic. I also recommend to visit the AWX Aircraft website for the nice high-res images:

http://www.avxaircraft.com/image-gallery.html

Bizarre aviation expert.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #4 on: October 01, 2011, 09:08:01 am »
Ha! That will teach Bell what happens when you dump half of your development staff on the street.
It would be nice to have a little competition back in the rotorcraft industry.
 
 

Offline amsci99

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 238
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #5 on: October 19, 2011, 05:30:26 am »
I'm no aerospace engineer and pardon my ignorance but the coaxial rotor system employed by AVX (based on the concept drawings) seem to resemble those employed on the Kamov series. Would they not present a high drag profile when they are being offloaded by the ducted fans?

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #6 on: October 19, 2011, 09:46:33 am »
Yes, coaxial rotors do impose some drag penalties, but they're not insurmountable.  Even in a straight helo comparison, detailed design can matter more -- the coaxial Ka-50 is a hair faster than the conventional Mi-28 on the same engine power and roughly similar weights. 



Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2011, 04:35:11 am »
Four teams are under contract to conduct configuration trades and analyses for the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstrator program.
  • Bell-Boeing
  • Boeing (IMHO with Piasecki/Vertol heritage?!)
  • Sikorsky
  • AVX Aircraft
Source: Ares - A Defense Technology Blog: JMR Tech Demo -- the Concepts; posted by Graham Warwick at 10/31/2011 4:35 PM CDT
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #8 on: November 05, 2011, 04:55:38 am »
Four teams are under contract to conduct configuration trades and analyses for the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstrator program.
  • Bell-Boeing
  • Boeing (IMHO with Piasecki/Vertol heritage?!)
  • Sikorsky
  • AVX Aircraft

Maybe not so sure. Piasecki is very much alive and still a company. Boeing can only claim the technology developed by Piasecki prior to the takeover, circa 1960. All technology developed afterwards (which culminated in the X-49 Speedhawk and all the related designs) is in the hands of Piasecki.
« Last Edit: November 08, 2011, 01:15:34 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #9 on: November 06, 2011, 05:33:54 pm »
Four teams are under contract to conduct configuration trades and analyses for the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstrator program.
 
  • Bell-Boeing
  • Boeing (IMHO with Piasecki/Vertol heritage?!)
  • Sikorsky
  • AVX Aircraft

Maybe not so sure. Piasecki is very much alive and now part of Sikorsky. Boeing can only claim the technology developed by Piasecki prior to the takeover, circa 1960. All technology developed afterwards (which culminated in the X-49 Speedhawk and all the related designs) is in the hands of Sikorsky.

I think your news of Piasecki being a sub element of Sikorsky might be a surprise to Mr's. Piasecki. I think you are mixing them up with Schweitzer Aircraft that was bought out by Sikorsky.

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #10 on: November 07, 2011, 11:23:11 pm »
unsuccessful Baldwin Technology Company, LLC Mono Tiltrotor (MTR) JMR entry presentations
(including armed MTR)
http://www.baldwintechnology.com/JMR_Presentation.pdf
http://www.baldwintechnology.com/JMR_Response.pdf
« Last Edit: November 07, 2011, 11:26:27 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #11 on: November 08, 2011, 01:20:06 am »
I think your news of Piasecki being a sub element of Sikorsky might be a surprise to Mr's. Piasecki. I think you are mixing them up with Schweitzer Aircraft that was bought out by Sikorsky.

True.  :-[ And it's not the first time I've made that mistake! What confused me was the X-49 Speedhawk, which is a Piasecki program using a Sikorsky helicopter. And yes, I got confused with Schweizer, which has indeed become part of Sikorsky...  :-\

My deepest apologies to whomever might have been offended by my mistake, especially people from Piasecki — if ever they visited this site... I have the deepest respect for Mr. Piasecki's visionary take on rotorcraft, which are at long last developing in full swing, and very glad to see so many new projects emanating from the current Piasecki company!  ;)

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #12 on: November 09, 2011, 04:07:21 pm »
Four teams are under contract to conduct configuration trades and analyses for the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstrator program.
  • Bell-Boeing
  • Boeing (IMHO with Piasecki/Vertol heritage?!)
  • Sikorsky
  • AVX Aircraft
Source: Ares - A Defense Technology Blog: JMR Tech Demo -- the Concepts; posted by Graham Warwick at 10/31/2011 4:35 PM CDT


What's particularly (and pleasantly) interesting to me is that at this stage three of the four teams are considering Tilt-Rotor. 

Offline unclejim

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #13 on: November 09, 2011, 04:54:42 pm »



"What's particularly (and pleasantly) interesting to me is that at this stage three of the four teams are considering Tilt-Rotor. "
While tecnically interesting, ASAH gonna raise the cost through the roof!

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #14 on: November 09, 2011, 06:15:55 pm »



"What's particularly (and pleasantly) interesting to me is that at this stage three of the four teams are considering Tilt-Rotor. "
While tecnically interesting, ASAH gonna raise the cost through the roof!


I must not be in the know because I am  not familiar with the abbreviation 'ASAH' in this context, and neither, apparently is Google. 

That aside, it's not particularly obvious at this point that Tilt-Rotor would be dramatically more expensive than other concepts shown, most of which are not as mature as it is. 

Offline unclejim

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • **
  • Posts: 77
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #15 on: November 09, 2011, 07:57:34 pm »
ASAH-as sure as hell

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2011, 09:23:17 am »



"What's particularly (and pleasantly) interesting to me is that at this stage three of the four teams are considering Tilt-Rotor. "
While technically interesting, ASAH gonna raise the cost through the roof!

I must not be in the know because I am  not familiar with the abbreviation 'ASAH' in this context, and neither, apparently is Google. 

That aside, it's not particularly obvious at this point that Tilt-Rotor would be dramatically more expensive than other concepts shown, most of which are not as mature as it is.
Well it has been a few months since the last TRA* so why not...

I doubt there is an argument that somehow a tilt rotor is less expensive than other technologies, for acquisition.  However there are other metrics that go into the argument and ultimately you have to take into account total operating cost for the aircraft over the lifespan of the aircraft.  Indeed the American's now have a requirement to look at fuel efficiency when developing new weapons, and wingborn flight is more efficient than rotor born flight.  This is one of the reasons three of four are looking at tilt rotor.  The only place that a helicopter is more efficient is in a hover (unless you do interesting things with the prop-rotors, like morphing them).  Now there are a few missions in the military where the rotorcraft spends a majority of time below translational lift, such as naval VERTREP, so the helicopter is not completely outclassed.  However if you look at most of the missions attack, lift and sustainment, less than 10% of the mission is conducted at a hover.  So one has to consider what and where one must invest.  The ability to complete a set number of missions within a given day is another efficiency metric. There are any number of studies that show that missions below 100 miles (pretty sure they were all done in miles) there is no effective reason to go faster.  The return on investment occurs beyond that.  This is why the USMC has stayed the course with V-22 because as more countries get long range anti-shipping missiles the Navy has to operate further from shore to allow the ships defenses time to try and defeat those missiles.  When you have a limited number of spots on a deck to operate from you have to make the evolutions from ship to shore very fast so that the initial assault force is not hanging out.  The Army is now operating (and expects to continue to operate) over much more dispersed areas.  This is what has caused the Army to announce that they expect any future aircraft to go faster. The old maxim: "Time is money" still rings true, especially for medical evacuation where the 'golden hour' is more than a catch phrase.  So ultimately it will likely be the total aircraft cost that will drive the decision.

That said I think that there will be two technologies going forward; rigid rotor-ed compound and tilt rotor.  In fairness the other compound rotorcraft currently in the hunt offers much less risk for an aircraft so it may actually get to move forward.
 
*Tilt Rotor Argument

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2011, 02:49:31 pm »



"What's particularly (and pleasantly) interesting to me is that at this stage three of the four teams are considering Tilt-Rotor. "
While technically interesting, ASAH gonna raise the cost through the roof!

I must not be in the know because I am  not familiar with the abbreviation 'ASAH' in this context, and neither, apparently is Google. 

That aside, it's not particularly obvious at this point that Tilt-Rotor would be dramatically more expensive than other concepts shown, most of which are not as mature as it is.
Well it has been a few months since the last TRA* so why not...

I doubt there is an argument that somehow a tilt rotor is less expensive than other technologies, for acquisition.  However there are other metrics that go into the argument and ultimately you have to take into account total operating cost for the aircraft over the lifespan of the aircraft.  Indeed the American's now have a requirement to look at fuel efficiency when developing new weapons, and wingborn flight is more efficient than rotor born flight.  This is one of the reasons three of four are looking at tilt rotor.  The only place that a helicopter is more efficient is in a hover (unless you do interesting things with the prop-rotors, like morphing them).  Now there are a few missions in the military where the rotorcraft spends a majority of time below translational lift, such as naval VERTREP, so the helicopter is not completely outclassed.  However if you look at most of the missions attack, lift and sustainment, less than 10% of the mission is conducted at a hover.  So one has to consider what and where one must invest.  The ability to complete a set number of missions within a given day is another efficiency metric. There are any number of studies that show that missions below 100 miles (pretty sure they were all done in miles) there is no effective reason to go faster.  The return on investment occurs beyond that.  This is why the USMC has stayed the course with V-22 because as more countries get long range anti-shipping missiles the Navy has to operate further from shore to allow the ships defenses time to try and defeat those missiles.  When you have a limited number of spots on a deck to operate from you have to make the evolutions from ship to shore very fast so that the initial assault force is not hanging out.  The Army is now operating (and expects to continue to operate) over much more dispersed areas.  This is what has caused the Army to announce that they expect any future aircraft to go faster. The old maxim: "Time is money" still rings true, especially for medical evacuation where the 'golden hour' is more than a catch phrase.  So ultimately it will likely be the total aircraft cost that will drive the decision.

That said I think that there will be two technologies going forward; rigid rotor-ed compound and tilt rotor.  In fairness the other compound rotorcraft currently in the hunt offers much less risk for an aircraft so it may actually get to move forward.
 
*Tilt Rotor Argument

 Agree with Yasotay.
 
 Generally speaking, a Tilt-Rotor is going to be more expensive to acquire than a conventional helicopter of comparable size, although you'll get that back in fuel and overall maintenance.   If all you want/need is what a conventional  helicopter can do, then it's harder to make the case for TR.   If, on the other hand, your requirements take you beyond that limited region, then you're looking at an advanced rotorcraft concept, and all of them cost more.  TR's leg up, if you will, is that it is a mature technology while other technologies are still in the experimental or "hope for" stage.   Sikorsky's X2 technology  has the potential to fill part of the need, but at this point, it has only demonstrated a few limited flights above the regular helicopter performance envelope.   It looks like the S-97 is unfortunately out of the running for the OH-58 replacement, because it won't be flying in time.  Brave press releases notwithstanding, it's not likely the Army is going to accept , on such an advanced concept, "It's OK, we'll do simulations.  Trust me". 

It's interesting to note that both the Boeing and Bell-Boeing Tilt-Rotor concepts seem to now have the engines in the fuselage vs. in the nacelles.   There are advantages and disadvantages with both concepts.  Ironically, Sikorsky's Tilt-Rotor seems to have the engines in the nacelles. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2011, 08:45:40 pm »
Quote
Bell Boeing responded to the US Army's joint multi-role (JMR) studies with concepts for next-generation tiltrotors. These images were displayed in Boeing's exhibit booth at the Association of the US Army's annual convention on 10-12 October in Washington DC. Note the three pairs of scissor blades and the V-tails.

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/picture-v-22-tiltrotor-version.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #19 on: December 05, 2011, 08:51:59 pm »
Quote
The US Army wants to buy a new family of high speed rotorcraft by 2030. Four companies have been awarded study contracts by the Army Aviation Technology Directorate (AATD) -- AVX Corp, Bell Boeing, Boeing and Sikorsky.

Three of the four concepts were on display in the exhibit hall of the Association of the US Army's (AUSA) annual convention in Washington DC. It was especially nice to see Boeing's future rotorcraft concepts, which we had not seen before this event.

Boeing future rotor.jpgBottom-left image seems similar to the Piasecki X-49 Speed Hawk, and we're told the pusher propeller can swivel for anti-torque capability.

The next image shows a growth version of a conventional CH-47 Chinook.

The third image from left to right shows Boeing's futuristic DiscRotor concept, which is being funded by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA.)

The upper-right image is a second-generation tiltrotor by Bell Boeing, which we'll write more about later today.
Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2011/10/ausa2011-boeing-displays-ideas.html

Offline 500 Fan

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 76
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #20 on: December 14, 2011, 11:49:58 am »
I don't know if this has been posted already, but it looks interesting.

500 Fan.


Quote

" U.S. Army developing next-generation helicopter[/b] [/t]
[/size][/color]

[/size]12:50 GMT, December 13, 2011[/size] (Released Dec. 9, 2011) WASHINGTON | The Pentagon and the U.S. Army are in the early stages of a far-reaching Science and technology effort designed to engineer, build and deliver a next-generation helicopter with vastly improved avionics, electronics, range, speed, propulsion, survivability, operating density altitudes and payload capacity, service officials said.

The Army-led Joint Multi-Role, or JMR program is a broadly-scoped Pentagon effort, including input, officials and working group members from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, other military services, Coast Guard, Special Operations Command and NASA, among others.

"Our overall philosophy from a program perspective is to leverage what we are learning from the user communities and establish what technologies will provide the desired new capability. Right now the Future Vertical Lift community is working on developing the capabilities document," said Ned Chase, chief, Platform Technology Division, Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, and science and technology lead for the JMR Technology Demonstrator Program.

VISION OF CAPABILITIES

Building a helicopter able to sustain speeds in excess of 170 knots, achieve an overall combat range greater than 800 kilometers (combat radius of 424 kilometers) and hover with a full combat load under high/hot conditions (altitudes of 6,000 feet and 95 degrees F) are among the many capabilities sought after for the JMR.

Plans for the next-generation aircraft also include having a degree of autonomous flight capability or being "optionally manned," successful weapons integration and compatibility, a core common architecture in terms of next-generation electronics, sensors and on-board avionics, manned-unmanned teaming ability and shipboard compatibility.

"We're trying to create a vision," Chase said, referring to the effort to harness technological innovation with a mind to looking beyond current force technology and identifying possible next-generation solutions in a range of areas such as propulsion, airframe materials, rotor systems, engine technology, survivability equipment and Mission Systems, among others.

The JMR program, which seeks to begin designing several "demonstrator" aircraft by 2013 and conduct a first flight in 2017 as a series of first steps toward developing a next-generation fleet of helicopters, is a subset of the Pentagon's Joint Future Vertical Lift effort squarely aimed at exploring emerging technologies and best identifying the realm of the possible with respect to future aircraft and helicopter capabilities.

The DOD plans to begin fielding a new fleet of next-generation helicopters by 2030.

TECHNOLOGY TO YIELD SAVINGS

"The JMR Program is a key part of our strategy to modernize vertical-lift capability long term. With current budget pressures, it is critical that a strong industry-government-academia team be fleshing out the technology enablers in integrated relevant contexts to establish a solid case for both the operational and fiscal benefits of these advanced aircraft," said Army Chief Scientist Scott Fish.

"This team will be leveraging not only lessons learned from recent conflicts, but a broad spectrum of Army and DOD basic and applied research investments made in areas which include: engine and driveline efficiency and cost reduction, advanced materials including polymeric and metal matrix composites, sensor/weapon/other payload integration cost reduction, and very high-performance aerodynamic and reliability modeling and simulation. These investments position us well for risk and cost reduction in our vertical-lift endeavors," Fish said.

JMR CONFIGURATIONS

Planned mission sets for the JMR include cargo, utility, armed scout, attack, humanitarian assistance, MEDEVAC, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, land/sea search and rescue, special warfare support, vertical replenishment, airborne mine countermeasures, and others, according a Nov. 9 Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator Phase 2 Mission Systems Demonstration Request for Information, or RFI.

The over-arching JFVL efforts span a range of four classes of future aircraft, ranging from light helicopters to medium and heavy-lift variants and an ultra-class category designed to build a new fleet of super-heavy-lift aircraft. The ultra-class aircraft will be designed to lift, transport and maneuver large vehicles around the battlefield such as Strykers and mine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles known as MRAPs. The ultra-class variant, described as a C-130 type of transport aircraft, is part of an Air Force led, Army-Air Force collaborative S&T effort called Joint Future Theater Lift, or JFTL.

TWO PHASES

The JMR Technology Demonstrator effort is broken down into two distinct, measurable phases; phase one includes an 18-month Configuration and Trades Analysis, or CT&A, designed to explore technological possibilities for a new platform or Air Vehicle. Phase one also includes the design, fabrication and test of several demonstrator aircraft, Chase explained.

Phase two will be focused on trade studies and the development of mission systems. The idea is to build several "Technology Demonstrator" helicopters as a method of refining and informing the requirements for the new aircraft, requirements which will likely evolve and change as technologies mature and emerge over time, officials said.

The JFVL effort, which includes both the JMR acquisition program as well as the JMR Technology Demonstrator effort, is designed to incorporate findings from a series of OSD-led studies and analyses on Future Vertical Lift directed by the secretary of Defense in 2009, including a Rotorcraft Survivability Study, a capabilities-based assessment, an S&T plan and a strategic plan.

FOUR INDUSTRY TEAMS

The JMR S&T effort, led by the Army's Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, or AMRDEC, at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., has awarded "concept trade and analysis" deals with four industry teams tasked with examining the set of attributes, designs and technologies needed to build a new, more capable attack or utility helicopter, said Dave Weller, science and technology manager, Program Executive Office - Aviation.

"The real focus of JMR is to get at the three major tenets: improve the performance, improve the survivability and significantly reduce the operating cost. The next-generation aircraft will have to be a whole lot less expensive to operate than the current fleet," Weller added. "Also, a big issue is increasing reliability and shortening the supply chain to get the logistical benefits of commonality of parts. When we did an adjunct capability-based assessment done to identify gaps, we came up with some 55 gap areas. The number one gap was reliability."

While the JMR program includes the exploration of light, medium and heavy-lift helicopter variants, the effort will initially focus on medium-lift options.

The Army' s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate, or AATD, at Fort Eustis, Va., which leads the execution of the tech-demo effort on behalf of AMRDEC, awarded 18-month Technology Investment Agreements to Boeing, a Bell-Boeing team, Sikorsky and a 15-month contract to the AVX Corporation. The first phase of the process will be for the government and its industry partners to conduct analytical studies and trade assessments designed to articulate the scope of what might be technically possible. These initial findings will help inform the specifications to describe the rotorcraft demonstrator vehicles which will then be built.

TWO DEMO AIRCRAFT

"Right now the plan is to go through the first phase to define what the state of the possible would be, followed by a down-select to build two demonstrators. The idea is to identify, develop and demonstrate the best trade solution that covers the attribute matrix. The government is doing the same kind of analysis that industry is doing, so we plan to compare our results," Weller explained.

Initial results from these efforts are due by the end of next year, Weller said.

"We're doing these trade studies to figure out the best way to optimize aircraft. We are working very closely with our user committees who have identified the types of capabilities they would like these future aircraft to have," Chase added.

Building a new aircraft from the ground up is part of an overall strategic effort to harness the best new technologies, allow for the platform to be upgraded as new technologies emerge, integrate systems into a common architecture and, perhaps most of all, drive down costs.

AFFORDABILITY IMPORTANT

Affordability is the utmost priority with the JMR effort, Chase and Weller emphasized.

"It is envisioned that some of these novel ideas may not only drive down the acquisition cost, but also allow much easier and cheaper incorporation of upgrades to the aircraft and its systems," the JMR RFI documents state.

With these Configuration Trades and Analysis studies, Army S&T has taken the lead in exploring the operational benefit and technical feasibility of advanced vertical lift air vehicles, working in concert with the Army's acquisition and requirements communities, said Mac Dinning, AMRDEC aviation liaison for the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology.

"While this program is currently wholly funded by the Army, other services are actively participating to define and develop a Joint Service Air Vehicle system that might replace the existing Black Hawk/Seahawk and Apache medium fleet aircraft," Dinning said.

PHASE I - Air Vehicle

The goal of the JMR S&T program is to leverage the S&T needed to successfully influence the development of a program of record, Weller explained. The program plans to have an approved initial capabilities document by April 2013.

The areas of S&T focus on the JMR Technology Demonstrator program span a wide spectrum of emerging technologies from composite materials to electronics and various rotor configurations designed to increase speed without compromising hover ability, Weller said.

For example, one of several existing "compound helicopter" technologies under examination is the potential use of a coaxial rotor system. With this technology, the idea is to place auxiliary propulsion technologies or "thrusting" devices at the back end of the aircraft to provide extra speed, Weller explained.

Another example of these so-called configurations is to build a helicopter which uses two turbo-shaft engines and two small fixed wings on each side of the aircraft fitted with a pusher-propeller for extra propulsion.

TILT-ROTOR TECHNOLOGY

Also under examination is the potential use of tilt-rotor aircraft technology such as that currently used for the V-22 Osprey; with this design, the aircraft can reach high speeds in airplane mode and then maintain its ability to hover successfully in helicopter mode.

"When you develop capability like these, however, you give up some hover ability. A main focus of the research is to look at ways of increasing speed without sacrificing the ability to hover," Weller said. "Part of the Science and technology program is to look at different configurations."

One of the options being taken up through this effort is the exploration of multi-speed transmission capability, a unique configuration designed to increase speed while avoiding the aerodynamic phenomenon of transonic shock, Dinning explained.

"All of the helicopters we develop now are built with a single-speed transmission. We are looking at how we can leverage technology and put in a multi-speed capability," he said.

NEW MATERIALS

In addition, the new Air Vehicle may contain composite materials and or items now in development, Chase explained.

"We are exploring how to get the most efficiency out of the new structure that we can. One way to do that may be by using composite materials," he added.

Increasing Air Vehicle speed can shorten the response time for these extended missions or combat radius, a critical necessity for saving lives through MEDEVAC operations, and getting supplies such as food, water and ammo to forward-positioned forces, Dinning explained.

"Current helicopter systems are designed to operate for about two hours without refueling. Typical cruise speeds of 140 knots limit the range that these aircraft can operate in," Dinning said.

Short of off-loading payload (troops, weapons, cargo) to add extra fuel bladders, extended-range operations must rely on Forward Arming and Refueling Points, or FARPs, where fuel and armaments are prepositioned.

"The Army recognizes the need to reduce the manned footprint of these forward operation positions," Dinning said.

Non-linear, asymmetric or counterinsurgency-type environments, such as the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, underscore the need to reduce the risks associated with having deployed units travel to potentially hostile prepositioned locations to set up FARPs, he said.

Phase 1 will be followed by a Phase 2 extensive Mission Systems and Aircraft Survivability Equipment, or ASE S&T developmental effort.


----
By Kris Osborn / Army News Service "
Unquote.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2011, 11:53:52 am by 500 Fan »

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2935
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #21 on: December 14, 2011, 12:02:16 pm »
Already discussed here:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13812.0.html

Worth merging, because I think there are more numbers here.


Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22822

Offline RavenOne

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 156

Offline hesham

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 22822

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #26 on: May 04, 2012, 05:41:27 pm »
Couple of interesting models at the American Helicopter Society this last week.  More will be posted at the bar.
 

Offline mboeller

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 35
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #27 on: May 05, 2012, 11:10:11 am »
maybe the Design from Oliver-VTOL has a place here too:
http://olivervtol.homestead.com/AHL.html

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2012, 10:46:22 am »
maybe the Design from Oliver-VTOL has a place here too:
http://olivervtol.homestead.com/AHL.html

Very sexy.  Just what the military needs, aircraft with SIX engines... each.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #29 on: May 08, 2012, 04:18:33 pm »
Artists's impression of AVX JMR concept.

Source:
http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #30 on: August 20, 2012, 06:58:35 am »
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #31 on: August 21, 2012, 12:23:00 pm »
JMR Tech Demo Targets Leap in Rotorcraft Capability (Aviation Week/Ares blog)

Artist's impression of Bell-Boeing JMR concept.

Artist's impression of Boeing JMR concept.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky JMR concept.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2012, 05:18:46 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #33 on: November 11, 2012, 07:21:43 am »
DoD reveals FVL thinking

06 November 2012 - 15:14 by Tony Skinner in London



The US Department of Defense (DoD) has revealed more of its thinking about its next generation rotorcraft, following an industry conference on 1 November.

At Fort Magruder in Williamsburg, Virginia, attendees were briefed on the first two phases of the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) Technology Demonstrator (TD), which will eventually lead to a formal Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme of record. The FVL aircraft will replace the majority of DoD rotorcraft sometime from 2034.

According to briefing slides released on 5 November, the Phase 1 of the JMR TD programme – now in its third year – will include the design, fabrication, and test of two air vehicle demonstrators, with contract awards expected to be made in FY13.

Alongside this effort, Phase 2 will concentrate on the ‘concepts, tools and processes’ to develop the required mission systems architecture – although it is too early to design the actual mission equipment package (MEP) for FVL. Phase 2 will concentrate on the attack mission as the most ‘stressing’ for mission systems development.

Six companies have been awarded Missions Systems Effectiveness Trades and Analysis (MS ETA) contracts to help define the scope of work undertaken under Phase 2. These included: Boeing, looking at mission scenarios/interoperable communications analysis; Honeywell Aerospace, carrying out a sensor fusion study; Lockheed Martin for a range of efforts, including cockpit HMI, MEP and weapons studies; Rockwell Collins, for a mission systems architectural study; Sikorsky, for a survivability optimisation analysis; and Survice Engineering for lethality and survivability systems analysis tools.

It was also confirmed that the FVL is unlikely to be a conventional helicopter design. Ned Chase, JMR TD programme manager at the US Army Aviation and Missile Research, Development, and Engineering Center, revealed that ‘operations analysis’ had found that compound helicopter and tiltrotor aircraft were more effective than the conventional helicopter across ‘all of the aviation missions studied’.

Chase noted that the higher speeds achieved by such rotorcraft were most valuable in medevac, air assault/movement and close combat attack missions.

‘The ability to operate army aircraft over a broader altitude range presents opportunities to widen the possibilities for executing aviation missions,’ Chase stated.

Programme managers had considered demonstrating Phase 2 mission systems components on the Phase 1 air vehicles but cost and risk considerations meant they will now be kept as independent efforts.

A draft solicitation for Phase 1 is expected to be issued at the start of December, with a formal BAA release at the start of January. Proposals will be due within 63 days followed by multiple initial contract awards in mid-September.

An indication of the JMR Model Performance Specification (MPS) was also given, which is currently on its fifth iteration. While the current MPS does not define the performance of the final FVL aircraft, the DoD is currently looking at a rotorcraft suitable for a range of missions (ASW, ASuW, VERTREP, SAR, medevac, special ops), which has utility/attack commonality.

The utility variant will be required to carry 12 troops over a 424 km radius, have a 30 minute loiter capability, and provide ballistic protection and crashworthy attributes. The cabin height must be at least 1.67m and the FVL will either be self-deployable or transportable in a C-17.        

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #35 on: December 18, 2012, 10:25:56 am »
"Army Targets High Speed For Rotorcraft Demo"
by Graham Warwick
Aviation Week & Space Technology
December 03, 2012

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_12_03_2012_p26-522523.xml&p=1

Quote
As it draws up requirements for an advanced rotorcraft to replace its Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks after 2030, the U.S. Army wants to demonstrate configurations capable of speeds up to 230 kt.—50% faster than today's helicopters.

The Army's initial requirements for the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Medium utility rotorcraft call for speed in excess of 170 kt.—still faster than current helicopters. But its Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) plans to focus the upcoming Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstration (TD) on the 230-kt. target.

The FVL Medium model performance specification (MPS) now being finalized with inputs from government and industry configuration trade studies “reflects what we think would describe the aircraft if we snapped a line today,” says Ned Chase, AATD's JMR TD program manager. “It's a reasonable place to start.”

The “singular difference” between the model performance specification and AATD's science and technology (S&T) plan is speed, says Chase. That is because the Army has already invested heavily in conventional helicopter technology. The JMR TD program is an opportunity to balance the portfolio by investing in high-speed rotorcraft so a wider range of options will be available when FVL Medium begins around 2020.

“We have an MPS to provide an overarching description of the next-gen aircraft. It is intended to reflect the thinking of the requirements community across the Defense Dept., and their view is still 170-kt.-plus,” says Chase. “[But] we want 230 kt.”

Configuration studies by AVX Aircraft, Bell Boeing, Boeing and Sikorsky, as well as a government team, will be completed in the next 2-3 months. But results so far suggest only a compound helicopter or tiltrotor can meet the FVL Medium requirements. The analyses point to a 30,000-lb. gross-weight aircraft, down from the original 40,000-lb. estimate, but heavier than today's Black Hawk at 22,000 lb.

Under Phase 1 of the JMR TD, AATD plans to issue a broad agency announcement in early January calling for proposals to build demonstrator aircraft to fly in 2017. “We expect a compound or tiltrotor, but there may be others,” says Chase. AATD has funds for two demonstrators.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #36 on: January 21, 2013, 07:52:06 am »
Boeing Teams with Sikorsky on JMR program
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/sikorsky-boeing-team-us-armys-jmr-td/
Nice way to hedge your bet.  As Boeing is also teamed with Bell on Tilt-Rotor there is a good chance now that Boeing will be involved in the Joint Multi-Roll effort regardless of who wins.
As the only potential game in town in the US, it will be interesting to watch the coalesence of the teams in the next few years.  Assuming the program survives the budget.
 

Offline Nils_D

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #37 on: January 23, 2013, 05:01:00 am »
That last concept interestingly looks a lot like the swiveling tailrotor which was tried on the S-61F and intended for the S-66.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #38 on: January 23, 2013, 12:13:19 pm »
If you are talking aboutthe picture in #36, I'd rather think, it's just a pusher prop, like the
one intended for the Kamov Ka-92 ( http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2766.30.html )
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #39 on: January 23, 2013, 01:27:59 pm »
I tend to concur with the assertion the tail prop is swiveling. Unless the single, main rotor is tip driven, there is no other way to counter torque in hover. The kamov has co-ax rotors which can deal with that. Anyway, anyone remember why the swiveling arrangement (called 'rotoprop' or 'rotaprop') was not pursued? I guess the AH-56 Cheyenne did the same thing but with two separate fixed rotors.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #40 on: January 23, 2013, 06:40:00 pm »
swiveling.

Offline Nils_D

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 223
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #41 on: January 24, 2013, 06:04:00 am »
I wonder if we will eventually see something like the S-66 / AH-56 replace the Apache around 2030-ish.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #42 on: February 28, 2013, 12:28:25 pm »
Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator based on Sikorsky's X2 technology:

Quote
Sikorsky and Boeing plan to submit a joint proposal to a develop and build a new prototype helicopter based on Sikorsky's X-2 high speed rotorcraft design for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator (TD) phase 1 programme.

"By leveraging our proven design, we can offer the Army reduced risk, a 100-knot (185 km/h) improvement in speed, a 60% improvement in combat radius, and 50% better high-hot hover performance," says Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky's military aircraft division.

Mehta says the joint proposal will use the X-2's counter-rotating coaxial main rotors, pusher propeller, and advanced fly-by-wire system. The aircraft will efficiently cruise at 230 knots (426 km/h), and have improved hover efficiency, Mehta says.


Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-and-boeing-to-pitch-x-2-based-design-for-us-army-jmr-td-effort-382897/

[Image Removed: Larger image of Sikorsky artist's impression later in this topic.]
« Last Edit: March 04, 2013, 12:17:47 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #43 on: February 28, 2013, 12:35:39 pm »
Quote
The coaxial-rotor, pusher-propeller X2 configuration was picked to meet the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate's (AATD) requirement for a cruise speed of up to 230kt - at least 50% faster than a conventional helicopter. Sikorsky's company-funded X2 Technology demonstrator exceeded 260kt is September 2010 and two industry-funded S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter prototypes now being built are designed to cruise at 235kt clean and 220kt with weapons. The first Raider will fly in 2014.

Boeing and Sikorsky say the X2 configuration was also chosen for its coaxial-rotor hover efficiency. Before teaming in January, the two companies independently studied advanced conventional and compound helicopters and tiltrotors. After teaming, they jointly conducted another "analysis of alternatives" using their separate studies as the baseline. This resulted in selection of the X2 configuration.

AATD plans to award cost-sharing contracts for two competitive air-vehicle demonstrators to fly in 2017. JMR is a precursor to the planned FLV Medium utility program to field a replacement for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks beginning in 2035. An X2-configuration FVL Medium would cruise at 230kt, a 100kt improvement over the UH-60M, have higher hover efficiency, 60% longer combat radius and 50% better hot-and-high performance, says the team.


Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A43e82fd7-8611-43a1-8517-9daf08468732

Offline Deino

  • Our China Correspondent
  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2453
« Last Edit: March 02, 2013, 01:36:05 am by Deino »
He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last forever; I was wrong.
...
For nothing now can ever come to any good.
-------------------------------------------------
W.H.Auden (1945)

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #45 on: March 01, 2013, 10:38:27 am »
A smart move really.  Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk.  Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on.  Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #46 on: March 01, 2013, 10:48:42 am »
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #47 on: March 01, 2013, 10:55:10 am »
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.

Elaborate.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #48 on: March 01, 2013, 01:07:11 pm »
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.

Elaborate.
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #49 on: March 01, 2013, 02:24:43 pm »
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.

Elaborate.
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.

And this? "should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects"
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #50 on: March 01, 2013, 02:50:13 pm »
A smart move really.  Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk.  Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on.  Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.

Does Boeing see Sikorsky's X2 as a less risky technology than Bell's tilt-rotor JMR proposals?

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #51 on: March 01, 2013, 03:31:24 pm »
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.

Elaborate.
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.

And this? "should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects"
These things are going to cost more but will still not shed the huge vulnerability that Rand so keenly described some years ago. Increasingly less space for development shortfalls that cost alot. Survivability suites, including DEW and 'armaments to overall payload' ratios for each member of the increasingly costly, family of craft, for instance, should demand detailed oversight.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #52 on: March 02, 2013, 07:24:32 am »
A smart move really.  Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk.  Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on.  Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.

Does Boeing see Sikorsky's X2 as a less risky technology than Bell's tilt-rotor JMR proposals?
I suspect that it is actually a case of an easier industrial teaming approach.  Whereas the BB Tilt-Rotor is a straight  50/50 across the board that leaves both parties with an equal vote/veto (a situation both partners have likely been frustrated with) I see in the press release Sikorsky is focusing on the air vehicle and Boeing is focused on mission equipment.  Really savy for Boeing if you ask me.  If the X2 does not work out as a medium weight rotorcraft, Boeing can take its MEP work to another vendor with a successful rotorcraft.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #53 on: March 04, 2013, 12:27:54 pm »
Thank you for your response, yasotay.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing JMR concept.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:43e82fd7-8611-43a1-8517-9daf08468732


Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2013, 05:10:50 am »
HELI-EXPO: Bell will pitch third-gen tilt-rotor for JMR/FVL    By:  Dave Majumdar Las Vegas  11 hours ago   Source: Flight   
 
Bell Helicopter will pitch a third-generation tilt-rotor design for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role/Future Vertical Lift (JMR/FVL) programme, a top company official says.
"We felt we needed to lead on tilt-rotors going forward on the JMR/Future Vertical Lift," says John Garrison, president and chief executive officer of Bell Helicopter, speaking at the Heli-Expo 2013 trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. "We think that puts us in the best position to exploit the capabilities of the tilt-rotor in the JMR/FVL arena."
Garrison says that his company's proposed third-generation tilt-rotor design will be unveiled in April at the Army Aviation Association of America conference in Dallas, Texas. He adds that the company is attracting high-powered design talent for the effort.
While a risk-sharing partner might prove to be beneficial, Bell does not need outside financial help to develop its new tilt-rotor design, Garrison says. Nonetheless, the Bell is currently looking at potential partners. Garrison cautions, however, any partner would have to contribute both technically and financially.
Bell is one of four companies that have been selected by the US Army to pursue high speed rotorcraft designs for its JMR/FVL programme, which the service hopes will enter service in the 2030s. Proposals are due in to the army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) by 6 March.
Boeing, which is partnered with Bell on the current generation Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, has teamed with rival Sikorsky to propose a compound helicopter design for the JMR/FVL programme based on the later company's X-2 prototype.
But Garrison says that the army believes that tilt-rotors are the most "operationally effective" high-speed rotorcraft concept. He added that he expects that the JMR/FVL programme will ultimately come down to a battle between a tilt-rotor design and a pusher-propeller design like the X-2.
Garrison notes that the Boeing teaming up with Sikorsky has no bearing on their collaboration on the V-22 programme.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2013, 06:38:45 am »
 Can Tiltrotors meet all mission requirements in increasingly dense urban environments and be the center of family of new generation rotorcraft? There is place for but...

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2013, 12:54:17 pm »
Can Tiltrotors meet all mission requirements in increasingly dense urban environments and be the center of family of new generation rotorcraft? There is place for but...
A good question.
One of the admirable traits of a tilt rotor is that it does not require an anti-torque device at the end of a long tail boom.   Other than the (ill) famed “Blackhawk Down” incidents in Somalia, there have been a number of helicopters downed due to debris going into the tail rotor in urban environments.  They call it hard landing so that it does not peck the interest of the press.   Power lines (which have much more liberal placement issues outside of the western 1st world) do very bad things to tail rotors as well.  Likewise brushing your tail boom onto a building does not do well for whirling things at the back of the rotorcraft.  In fairness it does not do well for any whirling parts, but most rotorcraft you can judge where your rotors are in relationship to obstructions better than you can your tail boom.  Many an accident occurs when the tail rotor gets planted in a tree.  Now someone will bring up downwash/outwash and that is a fair concern for tilt rotors.  I would caution that the V-22 has the higher velocity due to the size of the prop rotors; prop rotors that have to fit onto a very specific location on a landing ship.  I would be very surprised if the purveyors of tilt rotor technology are not diligently working on ways to solve this.  Most likely with larger prop rotors.
Another area I believe the tilt rotor has an advantage is with winds.  Before anyone mentions the MV-22 accident in Morocco, taking off with a tail wind in almost any aircraft is a big no-no (Aviator 101 stuff).  I also suspect that big “whale fluke” of an H tail did not help matters at all.  If you notice in the AW-609 the purveyors of tilt rotor have moved to a T tail with smaller surface area.  I could be wrong on this and will let the aero-engineers amongst us discuss.  My logic is that I think, like any tandem rotor rotorcraft it has less challenge with cross winds than conventional helicopters.  Anyone who has flown helicopters in the urban environment can tell you that the ten knot head wind above the buildings can become a twenty knot turbulent mess coming at you from the side down in the urban canyons.   Rectangular and trapezoidal shapes stuck into a wind flow can do VERY ugly things.  Again this can challenge anti-torque systems, especially if the helicopter is operating at or need its maximum gross weight and engine power available.  Conventional helicopters can use fifteen to thirty percent of the available power to overcome the torque.  This power penalty is not paid in tandem or counter-rotating (Kamov, Sikorsky X2) systems.
Finally tilt rotors are all likely to be wider than a conventional or single point rotor aircraft.  However I suspect they are not as long, needing to get the anti-torque system at the right moment point.  So while the landing space might not be wide enough in one direction it works just fine if you turn the tilt rotor ninety degrees.   This of course will depend on the point design of the tilt rotor.

So I think that the tilt rotor has promise, but it may not be the best solution overall.
It is a good question that the services will have to work on in the coming years.
 
« Last Edit: March 05, 2013, 12:58:23 pm by yasotay »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #57 on: March 05, 2013, 03:23:35 pm »
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

 Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #58 on: March 05, 2013, 04:54:15 pm »
As a general rule, for a given power input you get more thrust out of a large diameter actuator (this could be a fan, ducted fan, propeller, rotor...).
So if you have power to spare it's usually better to put it in the rotor- unless you are using it for something else, like control.
But maybe the designers of that particular concept were doing something different. Do you have a link to the image?
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2013, 07:50:10 am »
My guess is there is a rotor and separate lift fans to provide anti-torque in hover. There doesn't seem to be a tail rotor in that concept.
There are at least two options: One, the rotor and fans are driven by separate [edit: i meant common!]powerplants, and two, they are driven by separate engines. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In either case it would be advantageous to let the rotor autorotate at high speed and use the fans for propulsion.
Still, the DARPA BAA calls for speeds greater than 300-400kts, so a compound of this type may not be ideal for this speed range.
My .02  :)
« Last Edit: March 07, 2013, 05:01:13 am by AeroFranz »
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2013, 10:40:04 am »
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

 Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?

Also, the duct isn't just draggy, it adds more weight/cost as well.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2013, 10:59:58 am »
My guess is there is a rotor and separate lift fans to provide anti-torque in hover. There doesn't seem to be a tail rotor in that concept.
There are at least two options: One, the rotor and fans are driven by separate powerplants, and two, they are driven by separate engines. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In either case it would be advantageous to let the rotor autorotate at high speed and use the fans for propulsion.
Still, the DARPA BAA calls for speeds greater than 300-400kts, so a compound of this type may not be ideal for this speed range.
My .02  :)
Good points, Thank you ..still learnin

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2013, 11:01:21 am »
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

 Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?

Also, the duct isn't just draggy, it adds more weight/cost as well.
roger copy :)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #64 on: March 08, 2013, 11:37:23 am »
EADS (ie Eurocopter) Bids for Army's JMR (Ares blog)

Quote
EADS North America confirms it has submitted a bid to build one of two advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstrators planned under the the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) program - putting its foot on the first rung of a ladder that could lead to replacing all of the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks and AH-64 Apaches beginning in the mid-2030s.
 
EADS is not saying what configuration it has proposed for JMR, but the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate has called for a cruise speed of 230kt - 50% faster that a conventional helicopter - so it is likely to be based on Eurocopter's X3 hybrid helicopter technology demonstrator, which has reached 232kt in flight test
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #65 on: March 08, 2013, 02:14:13 pm »
Eurocopter patent drawing from the above article. A hint at the configuration of EADS's JMR proposal?

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #66 on: March 08, 2013, 03:50:19 pm »
So which 4 companies are taking part again?

Boeing + Sikorsky
Bell
EADS
?

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #67 on: March 08, 2013, 03:59:18 pm »
AVX, I believe.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #68 on: March 08, 2013, 05:56:56 pm »
AVX as mentioned.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #69 on: March 09, 2013, 03:07:16 am »
Eurocopter patent drawing from the above article. A hint at the configuration of EADS's JMR proposal?

For AVX, which if I remember correctly is a coax with dual push fans, it wouldn't be hard to emulate the eurocopter patent design but with a coax rotor. Which solves one aspect of the cargo/human approach issues, but also starts leading towards X-50 Dragonfly multiple lift surfaces to further offload the coax rotor. Bad idea of the day is CRW with coax rotors (with an X2 style mast cover) stopped to produce an X when viewed overhead...

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #72 on: March 19, 2013, 10:58:45 am »
The article posted by fightingirish mentions that the United States Army, through the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD), intends to develop a new 3,000shp turboshaft engine named the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE) late this decade that may power the FVL Medium and be used to re-engine the UH-60M and AH-64E.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2013, 11:46:52 am by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #73 on: March 19, 2013, 01:04:20 pm »
Special Operations Forces (SOF) Future Vertical Lift (FVL) from DTIC:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012SOFIC/ThursdaySOFFutureVerticalLift.pdf

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot



Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #77 on: April 13, 2013, 02:44:26 pm »
Even AVX went with a common airframe for lift and attack.  Seems to be a trend.

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #78 on: April 14, 2013, 01:54:26 am »
Even AVX went with a common airframe for lift and attack.  Seems to be a trend.

Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #79 on: April 14, 2013, 02:41:53 am »
 
Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
 to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?

With the contemporary electronic warfare self-protection suites attack helicopters are flying high to see and hit more and still be survivable. So some of the low profile for survivability design drivers for traditional attack helicopters are no longer as strong as keeping program cost down. With a F-35 style EODAS capability the field of view issue would certainly be solved.
 
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #80 on: April 14, 2013, 07:35:50 am »
Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
 to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?

With the contemporary electronic warfare self-protection suites attack helicopters are flying high to see and hit more and still be survivable. So some of the low profile for survivability design drivers for traditional attack helicopters are no longer as strong as keeping program cost down. With a F-35 style EODAS capability the field of view issue would certainly be solved.


Have to agree that current philosophies may need to be reconsidered.  Senior officers talking about this indicate that the JMR won't be fielded until ~2034.  Given Moores Law, who knows what the state of avionics, survivability equipment and visioinics will be.  I would also remind everyone that the US Special Operation Aviation Regiment prefers heavily armed Blackhawks over dedicated attack helicopters.  They more than anyone can get aircraft they desire.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #81 on: April 14, 2013, 09:28:06 am »
I would also remind everyone that the US Special Operation Aviation Regiment prefers heavily armed Blackhawks over dedicated attack helicopters.  They more than anyone can get aircraft they desire.

They would have loved the S-67.   :'(
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #82 on: April 14, 2013, 11:45:19 am »
With the contemporary electronic warfare self-protection suites attack helicopters are flying high to see and hit more and still be survivable. So some of the low profile for survivability design drivers for traditional attack helicopters are no longer as strong as keeping program cost down. With a F-35 style EODAS capability the field of view issue would certainly be solved.

It's more to do with a change on threat profile, Apaches were designed to operate against Soviet armoured formations with organic short and medium range air defence so being down low was the safest place to be. In Iraq and Afghanistan it was found that it was best to either be high (no credible AD threat) or very low to keep engagement windows down. EW systems won't do anything to an RPG or manually operated ZU-23-2.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #83 on: April 14, 2013, 03:42:32 pm »
 
It's more to do with a change on threat profile, Apaches were designed to operate against Soviet armoured formations with organic short and medium range air defence so being down low was the safest place to be. In Iraq and Afghanistan it was found that it was best to either be high (no credible AD threat) or very low to keep engagement windows down. EW systems won't do anything to an RPG or manually operated ZU-23-2.

The change in profile has little to do with a lowering of the threat as it was developed in the 1990s via improvements in technology and is designed to be survivable in the face of SHORADS and radar guided guns. Because EWSP is a catch all phrase which covers more than just ECM. It includes the all-important threat detection sensors automatically tied in with countermeasure systems.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #84 on: April 14, 2013, 04:11:55 pm »
The change in profile has little to do with a lowering of the threat as it was developed in the 1990s via improvements in technology and is designed to be survivable in the face of SHORADS and radar guided guns. Because EWSP is a catch all phrase which covers more than just ECM. It includes the all-important threat detection sensors automatically tied in with countermeasure systems.

It has everything to do with the lowering of the threat. There is still not a credible gunfire detection system in widespread use and aside from aggressive manoeuvre there is no countermeasure to RPGs even when they are picked up by IR threat detection systems. It is entirely possible, theoretically (though I would not want to be in a crew that tried it), to jam something like Pantsir or deploy counter-measures against IR missiles but gun/cannon rounds fired from the back of a Toyota Hilux or an RPG from inside a mud compound are going to stay on their trajectory irrespective of any fancy electronic or pyrotechnic wizardry. Hence, helicopters either stay very low to make targeting windows as small as possible or high where most small arms fire will either miss or cause little damage even if it does hit. The latter, as you rightly say, makes finding things easier.   

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #85 on: April 14, 2013, 05:11:10 pm »
The "technology game" between guided weapons and countermeasures will continue unabated.  I have to agree that if the countermeasures are more effective than the guided weapon (radar and IR missiles) there is no reason to fly down where the unguided (and usually volumous) weapons fire can be effective.  However if the guided weapons regain the edge then the rotorcraft will have to come down low again until the countermeasures can regain effectiveness.  Although I would doubt that NOE tactics will regain prominance, terrain flight at cruise speeds (higher) or maneuver speeds (lower) would likely be in vogue.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #86 on: April 14, 2013, 05:48:47 pm »
 
It has everything to do with the lowering of the threat.

So you’re saying the DAS/EWSP (depending on your local lingo) fitted to the Westland Apache, ARH Tiger and other contemporary generation attack helicopters were simply because of the demise of the Soviet Union?
 
There is still not a credible gunfire detection system in widespread use and aside from aggressive manoeuvre there is no countermeasure to RPGs even when they are picked up by IR threat detection systems.

The defence against barrages of RPGs and 12.7mm HMG (and similar) is to fly high (a few thousand feet above ground level). While high the aircraft relies on the DAS/EWSP to give it initial protection from SHORADS. These DAS/EWSP have already proven themselves in multiple occasions defeating IR guided missiles. In the case of the more serious SHORADS like Pantsir part of the survivability onion is their own lethality. In the case of these attack helicopters they have MMW radars with fire and forget missiles which can potentially defeat something like an unmasked Pantsir before it can engage the helicopter. That is if it is operating with EMCON as one would expect it to be in the face of a western SEAD/DEAD system.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #87 on: April 14, 2013, 05:51:53 pm »
 
Although I would doubt that NOE tactics will regain prominance, terrain flight at cruise speeds (higher) or maneuver speeds (lower) would likely be in vogue.

Or they could leverage data links to use stand-off attack. Something like the original munitions set for NLOS-LS fired by helicopters from over the horizon. First the loitering ISR missile to determine where the enemy ground force is and maybe take out a key GBAD system or two and then the long range anti-tank missiles.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #88 on: April 14, 2013, 06:13:30 pm »
One of the other interesting factors is the relative shoot-down rate of Apaches vs. Kiowa in Iraq. If I recall correctly it is about equal. Part of it is how they're employed - but it isn't like the Kiowa pilots haven't been using their weapons plenty over the last decade. This is also fighting mainly small arms - something the Apache should have a significant advantage in dealing with.

It is also worth noting that about two-thirds of the casualties in these prolonged assymetric warfare environments are due to weather, pilot error and mechanical failure - not enemy fire.

In a combat environment with modern arms helicopters will have trouble getting close enough for armour to be important (e.g. to withstand ambushes form heavy machine guns). That said - armour and ejection seats are very attractive things to have. But I do see the logic.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 06:15:11 pm by Avimimus »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #89 on: April 15, 2013, 02:04:31 am »
So you’re saying the DAS/EWSP (depending on your local lingo) fitted to the Westland Apache, ARH Tiger and other contemporary generation attack helicopters were simply because of the demise of the Soviet Union?

That is not what I am saying and I never suggested that.
 
Quote
The defence against barrages of RPGs and 12.7mm HMG (and similar) is to fly high (a few thousand feet above ground level). While high the aircraft relies on the DAS/EWSP to give it initial protection from SHORADS. These DAS/EWSP have already proven themselves in multiple occasions defeating IR guided missiles. In the case of the more serious SHORADS like Pantsir part of the survivability onion is their own lethality. In the case of these attack helicopters they have MMW radars with fire and forget missiles which can potentially defeat something like an unmasked Pantsir before it can engage the helicopter. That is if it is operating with EMCON as one would expect it to be in the face of a western SEAD/DEAD system.

One approach is to fly high, the other is to fly low, fast and unpredictably; as I can assure you has been done in both Afghanistan and Iraq, especially the former where there are few power lines or other tall structures to get in the way. DAS have certainly proved themselves against early generation MANPADs, against something like Igla-S or the 57E6 series and EO targeted guns things become much more questionable though. Engaging an air defence battery is all well and good but if the helicopter can see the Pantsir then the Pantsir can almost certainly see the helicopter and currently a 56E6 out-ranges a Hellfire. Ultimately the current high level operations are a product of the very limited air defence threat in Afghanistan and Iraq; limited to small arms, RPGs and poorly used early generation MANPADs at most which make high flying practical and survivable. When focus shifts back to facing opponents with sophisticated mobile air defence capability (China takes mobile air defence in its ground forces very seriously; see PGZ-07 and Tor-M1) low level flying will become important again.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 06:22:29 am by JFC Fuller »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #90 on: April 15, 2013, 02:33:46 am »
The "technology game" between guided weapons and countermeasures will continue unabated.  I have to agree that if the countermeasures are more effective than the guided weapon (radar and IR missiles) there is no reason to fly down where the unguided (and usually volumous) weapons fire can be effective.  However if the guided weapons regain the edge then the rotorcraft will have to come down low again until the countermeasures can regain effectiveness.  Although I would doubt that NOE tactics will regain prominance, terrain flight at cruise speeds (higher) or maneuver speeds (lower) would likely be in vogue.

Quoted for agreement, especially your last sentence. Ultimately low and fast keeps potential engagement windows to a minimum- the question is which threat is prolific in the particular operational environment one finds ones self in- in recent years the unguided threat has been the most prolific- against the Soviets or the Chinese the guided was/is the most dangerous. If defensive aids suites were a panacea B-52s would still be penetrating defended airspace at 45-50,000ft.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 02:46:34 am by JFC Fuller »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #91 on: April 15, 2013, 03:38:57 pm »
 
That is not what I am saying and I never suggested that.

You did say repeatedly that high altitude tactics is something introduced by the low threat yet the fielding of integrated DAS and work on the tactics that can be enabled by them all began well before the OIF, OEF counter insurgency mission. Perhaps you are just confusing the use of high altitude tactics by American Apaches in OIF with the use of same by Brtish Apaches in OEF. The key difference being the American Apaches have only been getting integrated DAS from 2010 and started flying high (BTW which is about 3,000 feet) because of lack of threat in Iraq whereas the British Apaches with their integrated DAS from 2004 flew high in OEF in the face of the Taliban MANPADS threat while American Apaches were still flying NOE.
 
DAS have certainly proved themselves against early generation MANPADs, against something like Igla-S or the 57E6 series and EO targeted guns things become much more questionable though. Engaging an air defence battery is all well and good but if the helicopter can see the Pantsir then the Pantsir can almost certainly see the helicopter and currently a 56E6 out-ranges a Hellfire.

It’s not up to the Taliban’s arms supply networks to decide the effectiveness of the integrated DAS on contemporary and future attack helicopters. They are designed to defeat more than just old Iglas or 20 year old Stingers. As to engaging Pantsir the later relies on radar to outrange Hellfire and between the two there is only one platform that is going to get SEADed or DEADed if it sits around illuminating.
 
Ultimately the current high level operations are a product of the very limited air defence threat in Afghanistan and Iraq; limited to small arms, RPGs and poorly used early generation MANPADs at most which make high flying practical and survivable. When focus shifts back to facing opponents with sophisticated mobile air defence capability (China takes mobile air defence in its ground forces very seriously; see PGZ-07 and Tor-M1) low level flying will become important again.

Not really because the other element in allowing high altitude tactics for helicopters is the significant increase in sensor range from early Apaches to the later ones. Which allows for much greater standoff engagement. So they stay up high to see over terrain and knock off GBAD at the outer edge of their missile engagement range (which will be 16km with JAGM). Which is also the outer edge of the engagement range of SHORADS. Which since they aren’t lasers means long time of flight and with the integrated DAS giving early warning of the engagement provides the attack helicopter lots of opportunity to defeat the engagement.
 
If defensive aids suites were a panacea B-52s would still be penetrating defended airspace at 45-50,000ft.

The operational difference between the two examples makes this nothing more than a hollow comment. Bombers penetrate enemy air space. Attack helicopters in conventional ops fight the front line of the enemy force. While some attack helicopter units have a deep penetration mission they would never penetrate at high altitude because apart from the increased risk it would also defeat the surprise of their mission. High altitude tactics are viable in conventional ops because the improvement in survivability and engagement range is determined by the helicopter’s new capabilities not the enemy’s lack of them.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #92 on: April 15, 2013, 03:54:30 pm »
You did say repeatedly that high altitude tactics is something introduced by the low threat yet the fielding of integrated DAS and work on the tactics that can be enabled by them all began well before the OIF, OEF counter insurgency mission. Perhaps you are just confusing the use of high altitude tactics by American Apaches in OIF with the use of same by Brtish Apaches in OEF. The key difference being the American Apaches have only been getting integrated DAS from 2010 and started flying high (BTW which is about 3,000 feet) because of lack of threat in Iraq whereas the British Apaches with their integrated DAS from 2004 flew high in OEF in the face of the Taliban MANPADS threat while American Apaches were still flying NOE.

No I did not, I said higher altitude tactics are viable where there is not a credible AD system and useful where there is an unguided low altitude threat; for instance in Afghanistan and Iraq. I am not confusing anything, DAS is nice to have and very effective against early generation MANPADs used by poorly trained non-networked opponents, it's utility against an advanced low-medium altitude AD network is a very different proposition. British Apache's flew both mission types depending on the precise requirements of any particular mission and any associated threat reports. 
 
Quote
It’s not up to the Taliban’s arms supply networks to decide the effectiveness of the integrated DAS on contemporary and future attack helicopters. They are designed to defeat more than just old Iglas or 20 year old Stingers. As to engaging Pantsir the later relies on radar to outrange Hellfire and between the two there is only one platform that is going to get SEADed or DEADed if it sits around illuminating.

Radar and EW is infinitely more complex than that. An emitting Apache is visible to passive RF sensors (Strela units had radar warning receivers in the 80s) and most AD systems now include EO sensors whilst the likes of Pantsir can and do use off-board sensing systems. Apache versus Pantsir is a very even fight and it is absurd to suggest otherwise. 
 
Quote
Not really because the other element in allowing high altitude tactics for helicopters is the significant increase in sensor range from early Apaches to the later ones. Which allows for much greater standoff engagement. So they stay up high to see over terrain and knock off GBAD at the outer edge of their missile engagement range (which will be 16km with JAGM). Which is also the outer edge of the engagement range of SHORADS. Which since they aren’t lasers means long time of flight and with the integrated DAS giving early warning of the engagement provides the attack helicopter lots of opportunity to defeat the engagement.

Yes, really, just as Apaches have gained greater stand-off range so ground based air defence systems have gained greater ability to see and hit them at range; Pantsir systems and improved Tor systems being prime examples. Just as DAS and airborne sensors and munitions have improved so have the systems intended to defeat them.
 
Quote
The operational difference between the two examples makes this nothing more than a hollow comment. Bombers penetrate enemy air space. Attack helicopters in conventional ops fight the front line of the enemy force. While some attack helicopter units have a deep penetration mission they would never penetrate at high altitude because apart from the increased risk it would also defeat the surprise of their mission. High altitude tactics are viable in conventional ops because the improvement in survivability and engagement range is determined by the helicopter’s new capabilities not the enemy’s lack of them.

No it does not. Fly an Apache at medium to high altitude at a sophisticated ground based air-defence network and it is going to die just as a B-52 flying at high altitude over the Soviet Union in 1989 was going to die. Threats improve on both sides, both aggressor and defender. HeliDAS is a great piece of kit but it does not magically allow an Apache to hover in direct line of sight (radar or visual) of an advanced air defence network with impunity in the same way Praetorian does not allow a Typhoon to fly straight at a modern IADS. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 04:07:42 pm by JFC Fuller »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #93 on: April 15, 2013, 04:06:40 pm »
 
Fly an Apache at medium to high altitude over a sophisticated ground based air-defence network and it is going to die just as a B-52 flying at high altitude over the Soviet Union in 1989 was going to die. Threats improve on both sides, both aggressor and defender.

So what part of my writing that in conventional ops high altitude tactics (~3,000 feet) are not to fly over the top of enemy forces but to use altitude to improve standoff engagement didn’t you understand? And as to you thinking that threats change on both sides I guess that’s why tactical implementation of warfare has remained completely static over the past 3,000 years?
 
Attack helicopters now have the capability to automatically detect and precisely localise missiles launched at them and automatically implement the appropriate countermeasure. In a JMR 2020s attack helicopter this could even include a high power DIRCM or a HPM to defeat the missile. What’s the countermeasure to this? Stealth anti-aircraft missiles or armoured ones?
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3104
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #94 on: April 15, 2013, 04:18:39 pm »
So what part of my writing that in conventional ops high altitude tactics (~3,000 feet) are not to fly over the top of enemy forces but to use altitude to improve standoff engagement didn’t you understand? And as to you thinking that threats change on both sides I guess that’s why tactical implementation of warfare has remained completely static over the past 3,000 years?
 
Attack helicopters now have the capability to automatically detect and precisely localise missiles launched at them and automatically implement the appropriate countermeasure. In a JMR 2020s attack helicopter this could even include a high power DIRCM or a HPM to defeat the missile. What’s the countermeasure to this? Stealth anti-aircraft missiles or armoured ones?

The Apache still has to face the AD system, an AD system that is likely to outrange it. The abilities of defensive aid-suites are impressive but they rely on being superior to the threats they face, and those threats themselves evolve to defeat the defensive aids systems. Attack helicopters are now in the same technology game as fast jets, between evolving countermeasures and evolving threats. DIRCM and HPM will not be a Panacea either just as the first development of the RF jammer did not render radars obsolete and chaff did not render missiles obsolete. For instance, I know for a fact that a number of methods for defeating MAWS are being looked at including making the missile harder to detect. JMR will not enter service (assuming it does) until the 2030s based on the current DoD schedule, a lot can happen in that time but certainly neither DAS or IADS technology will stand still. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2013, 04:27:38 pm by JFC Fuller »

Offline Reaper

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 199
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #95 on: April 15, 2013, 07:22:37 pm »
Bell Helicopter unveiling V-280 Valor tiltrotor concept:

http://bellv280.com/


Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #96 on: April 17, 2013, 09:16:21 am »
So what part of my writing that in conventional ops high altitude tactics (~3,000 feet) are not to fly over the top of enemy forces but to use altitude to improve standoff engagement didn’t you understand? And as to you thinking that threats change on both sides I guess that’s why tactical implementation of warfare has remained completely static over the past 3,000 years?
 
Attack helicopters now have the capability to automatically detect and precisely localise missiles launched at them and automatically implement the appropriate countermeasure. In a JMR 2020s attack helicopter this could even include a high power DIRCM or a HPM to defeat the missile. What’s the countermeasure to this? Stealth anti-aircraft missiles or armoured ones?

Actually I think you both have made some good points.  In all honesty a good commander is going to operate his aircraft in the smartest most survivable method that can accomplish the mission.  Almost all efforts now are ‘combined arms’ mission.  There are signal and cyber intelligence efforts on going and it is being conducted from the front line to rear area.  By 2020, at least for the US most helicopter units will operate in conjunction with unmanned air vehicles, out looking for the air defense systems.  Just like a fixed wing strike package the attack helicopter will rarely operate in a major battlespace by itself.
If there are TOR and Pantsir out there, I very much doubt the helicopter is going to be flying at altitude.  I also doubt the helicopters are going to be out flying NOE in bad guy land if there are copious amounts of small arms.  IF they have to fly through bad guy land they will likely do as the Israeli’s did in 2006 with their Blackhawks; fly as low and fast as they could make the helicopter fly to the very last moment, land and leave as quickly as they got there.  The USAF CSAR missions in Kosovo operation (a high end integrated air defense network for sure) did the same to rescue an F-117 pilot.  Attack aircraft will likely use running fire tactics to the extent they can to not be easy targets for light weapons.
If there are no high end AD systems to deal with and the MANPAD threat is known to be incapable of overcoming the aircraft survivability equipment by all means I would expect the helicopters to operate at altitude.  Indeed in some cases they will fly well above the 3000 ft (above ground level) mentioned.  They do this because at the higher altitudes the sound of the rotor system rarely can be heard on the ground. This is obviously dependent on the atmospheric conditions, but at night flying slowly at high altitude allows Apaches to operate with relative impunity.
From personal experience I can tell you that twenty two years ago I was flying as fast and as low as I could wary of the dread ZSU23-4, and Igla.  Twenty years ago flying the same profile but without the dread nemesis, and after my wingman called an RPG zipping between the two helicopters, we immediately started flying missions at 2000 ft  minimum altitude.


The Apache still has to face the AD system, an AD system that is likely to outrange it. The abilities of defensive aid-suites are impressive but they rely on being superior to the threats they face, and those threats themselves evolve to defeat the defensive aids systems. Attack helicopters are now in the same technology game as fast jets, between evolving countermeasures and evolving threats. DIRCM and HPM will not be a Panacea either just as the first development of the RF jammer did not render radars obsolete and chaff did not render missiles obsolete. For instance, I know for a fact that a number of methods for defeating MAWS are being looked at including making the missile harder to detect. JMR will not enter service (assuming it does) until the 2030s based on the current DoD schedule, a lot can happen in that time but certainly neither DAS or IADS technology will stand still.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #97 on: April 19, 2013, 02:06:42 pm »
Photos of the Sikorsky/Boeing JMR/FVL Medium concept from the AAAA convention posted by the American Helicopter Society (AHS) International on Facebook.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151516962220528.1073741829.80119815527&type=3
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 02:09:34 pm by Triton »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #98 on: April 19, 2013, 02:16:57 pm »
Photo of AVX windtunnel model and AVX booth from the AAAA convention posted by the American Helicopter Society (AHS) International on Facebook.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10151516962220528.1073741829.80119815527&type=3
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 03:00:00 pm by Triton »

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #99 on: April 20, 2013, 03:44:02 am »
For a split second, I thought the AVX wind tunnel model was something a bunch of rotorcraft guys thought up as an alternative to the Cormorant UAV. Nobody is working on a submersible/amphibious UAV rotorcraft to fit in trident tubes, right?...

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #100 on: April 20, 2013, 03:54:06 am »
Nobody is working on a submersible/amphibious UAV rotorcraft to fit in trident tubes, right?...


Nice idea and maybe landing it near the sub would be a little bit easier, but I think, launching
a lot more difficult.
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #101 on: April 22, 2013, 10:08:00 am »
Quick question: What is the cannon armament? All of the JMR contenders are shown with the same module mounted.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #102 on: April 22, 2013, 11:28:26 am »
Quick question: What is the cannon armament? All of the JMR contenders are shown with the same module mounted.
I suspect that the armament has not been defined yet.  Likely be somewhere in the 20mm to 30mm range if they stay with traditional weapons.  But 2030's... who knows could be photons and phasers.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #103 on: April 22, 2013, 01:26:27 pm »
For a split second, I thought the AVX wind tunnel model was something a bunch of rotorcraft guys thought up as an alternative to the Cormorant UAV. Nobody is working on a submersible/amphibious UAV rotorcraft to fit in trident tubes, right?...


At one point DARPA was working on a UAV that turned into a submarine, but I don't believe it was a rotorcraft. Recovery was by some mechanical arm that extended out of a VLS tube, I think a 21 incher, and pulled it in.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #104 on: April 22, 2013, 02:08:54 pm »
Then there was the American Helicopter Society Annual student design competition several years ago where they asked the students to design a small helicopter that fit into a refurbished missile tube.  There were a couple of very innovative concepts that the college teams came up with.
Now back to the JMR stuff.
I note that the AVX team went with both doors and a ramp.  Seems to this old helicopter guy that the crunchies (er... Infantry) would like having more ways off the bus, especially if they have things with wheels, like heavy mortar systems etc.
« Last Edit: April 22, 2013, 02:16:59 pm by yasotay »

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 394
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #105 on: April 22, 2013, 03:15:48 pm »
It also facilitates carrying palletized break bulk stuff and just sliding it off, and sizeable parachute drops for resupply in hostile conditions. All the more so now that GPS guided parachute rigs sort of work, and could at least get very close to a typical FOB, if not necessarily inside the perimeter of a small one. This kind of capability apparently got a lot of attention on the CH-53K. Once you go to all the expense of making a high speed helicopter you really want to minimize use of sling loads anyway.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #106 on: April 22, 2013, 04:39:22 pm »
The ramp will also help with loading the internal weapons bays of the attack version. Because a ramp is orientated fore and aft like the launched weapons (Hellfire, JAGM, 2.75"). You will just be able to drive a fork lift or something up the ramp lower the ordnance to the level of the retracted rail or tube and slide them forward and into place. With sideways access you will have to reach in to behind (or forward) of the retracted launcher from (each) of the side doors to slide them into place, or scrable around under the fuselage with the launchers lowered, or completely swap out the firing modules meaning a much heavier lift in and out anda requirement for twice the number of launchers. None of them simple or practical solutions.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #107 on: April 24, 2013, 01:53:34 pm »
From the Rotor & Wing magazine page on Facebook.

Quote
Features of the AVX Aircraft JMR concept in the attack configuration. Look for our story on JMR/Future Vertical Lift in the May issue.

Source:
https://www.facebook.com/rotorandwing?filter=3

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue

Offline John21

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 140
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #109 on: April 24, 2013, 02:47:43 pm »
Does anybody here thinks the AVX designs have any hope for procurement compared to other manufacturers in these times of budget austerity?

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #110 on: April 24, 2013, 03:03:15 pm »
Is there any evidence that the designs of the other manufacturers would be cheaper?

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #111 on: April 24, 2013, 03:13:14 pm »
Which is the latest version considered?
The one with the integrated ducted fans into the fuselage or the one with the the ducted fans on pilons?
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #112 on: April 24, 2013, 03:40:53 pm »
I believe that John21 is asking if it is too risky for the United States Army to go with the design of a startup helicopter company that has not built any aircraft. Despite the fact that it was started by ex-Bell employees.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #113 on: April 24, 2013, 03:53:30 pm »
I am not sure how much of an advantage is that but the attack version of the V-280 seams to be capable of carring double the required weapons load via stores bellow the wing.


This is the only image I could find on page 11 of the media PDF available here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135276053/20130409-FVL-AAAA-Media-Brief-Final#download


Could the extra weapons load simply be a side effect of having such large wing and the space to mount those weapons or is it indicative of its payload lifting ability?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 02:05:47 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #114 on: April 24, 2013, 04:45:20 pm »
Though I need to ask how committed is the United States Army to the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, Boeing AH-64 Apache, and the Boeing CH-47 Chinook in light of budget cuts? Does it consider the FVL compound rotorcraft to be essential for the service's capabilities in the future?

Is this Bell V-280 Valor-based attack tilt-rotor concept intended to replace the Boeing AH-64 Apache? A similar concept to the Sikorsky S-70 Battle Hawk?



Will the US Army jump on board the European Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) program with the Boeing/Eurocopter replacement for the CH-47 Chinook?

« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 05:04:48 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #115 on: April 24, 2013, 05:39:01 pm »
Does anybody here thinks the AVX designs have any hope for procurement compared to other manufacturers in these times of budget austerity?

No.  And their actual proposal doesn't look like that but in the most basic details.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #116 on: April 24, 2013, 05:51:20 pm »
Quote
Is this Bell V-280 Valor-based attack tilt-rotor concept intended to replace the Boeing AH-64 Apache?
Yes it is and it does look meaner than the gunships in Avatar, doesn't it? :))

Bell markets it as double the range and double the payload vs a BlackHawk. I assumes this translates into much higher operational hover altitude for the same payload too
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #117 on: April 24, 2013, 08:17:28 pm »
I believe the AVX concept with the canards is the latest version.  As to their likelyhood of getting a contract, they are probably a long shot compared to the big three.  However if they do get selected I am sure that they will attract the interest of one of the larger defense companies willing to take on the task.
As to the US Army being willing to stay the course in finacially constrained times, well it is anyones guess.  Recall though that both the H-60 and the H-64 requirements were developed in finacially restricted times as well and went through a long period of doubt as well. Indeed Sikorsky was a long shot for the UTTAS selection with few thinking they would be able to compete with the giant Boeing.  There are strategic issues that resonate with the rotorcraft situation.  It has been ~40 years since a combat rotorcraft was designed in the US.  I can tell you that it is not a pick-up game that any old aero engineer can whip up.  Also with all of the adventures the US has been involved in, the life expectancy of they current fleet is greatly deminished.  While rebuild and new build current aircraft may work in the short run, in 2030 when the entire situation may be completely different, asking a Boeing airline aero engineer to make a combat rotorcraft is not any smarter than asking an heart specialist to conduct brain surgery.
As to tilt rotors... if you look at slide three of the Bell brief they quote a US Army study that says that tilt rotor is the best option for the future.  Rather surprising to me as I always found the Army to be very wedded to their current version of the horse...

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #118 on: April 24, 2013, 08:46:47 pm »
I am not sure how much of an advantage is that but the attack version of the V-280 seams to be capable of carring double the required weapons load via stores bellow the wing.


This is the only image I could find on page 11 of the media PDF available here
http://www.scribd.com/doc/135276053/20130409-FVL-AAAA-Media-Brief-Final#download


Could the extra weapons load simply be a side effect of having such large wing and the space to mount those weapons or is it indicative of its payload lifting ability?

Probably both.  If those are all Hellfires, then it looks like it's carrying a total of 24.  The wing  mounted weapons, though, could only be fired once the proprotors have rotated up sufficiently (not necessarily all the way to vertical) for clearance. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #119 on: April 24, 2013, 09:03:24 pm »
If the AVX Aircraft Company concept wins the FVL Medium contract, I wonder how long it will be before the company is acquired by another defense contractor?

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #120 on: April 24, 2013, 09:11:36 pm »
I believe that John21 is asking if it is too risky for the United States Army to go with the design of a startup helicopter company that has not built any aircraft. Despite the fact that it was started by ex-Bell employees.

The other risk is that no one has built an aircraft quite like that.   There has been a lot of experience with Tilt-Rotor, a lot of flgiht time on the X3 demonstrator (although I'm not sure how adaptable that technology is to this application), and while X2 is pretty limited, they did at least get an aircraft in the air. 

I suspect that AVX may be hoping that Army will fund one low risk design, which at this level woud be Tilt-Rotor, and one "far-out-but-high-return-if-it-works" concept.  Even if they didn't win, it would establish the techology as viable and could open the door for other civil and military applications.   They could be looking at the long game. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #121 on: April 24, 2013, 09:14:48 pm »
Is there any evidence that the designs of the other manufacturers would be cheaper?

Conversely, is there any evidence that they'd be more expensive?  We're talking a whole new concept here. For some time both in design and in flight testiing, our philosophy has become not so much as to maximize return as to limit risk. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 11:23:56 am by F-14D »

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #122 on: April 25, 2013, 12:56:14 am »
Those rocket/missile packs under the wings of the Bell V-280 look great, but they seem to be
usable only from the hover ...
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #123 on: April 25, 2013, 01:09:13 am »
That's a great point about the rotors obstructing launch of weapons from under the wing in cruise.
The extended range of the V-280 was enough for Bell to claim its self deployable, (no need to have complex folding wing) so those stations may only be for carrying its own ammunition to the theater, much like the F-22 ferry droptank + 2 missiles combo was going to work.

from Bell's PR:
*. Significantly smaller logistical footprint compared to other aircraft
*. Strategically Self-Deployable - 2100nm Range

On the other hand, the V-280 (judging from this part of the PR clip) may be fast enough compared to AH-64 in hover mode too. And it's not as if today's helicopters fire only at full speed anyway.
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 02:23:03 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline fightingirish

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2087
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #124 on: April 25, 2013, 02:14:11 am »
Those rocket/missile packs under the wings of the Bell V-280 look great, but they seem to be
usable only from the hover ...

Maybe that missile might have a dual launch mode e.g. like the AIM-120?  :-\
1. launch and ignite from a rail.
2. drop/ catapulted under the aircraft and then launch and ignite.
Lock on after launch probably in that case then.
Slán,
fightingirish

Slán ist an Irish Gaelic word for Goodbye.  :)

Avatar:
McDonnell Douglas Model 225 painting by "The Artist" Michael Burke (Tavush) 2018, found at deviantart.com and at Secret Projects Forum » Research Topics » User Artwork » McDonnell Douglas Model 225 Painting

Offline Jemiba

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 7936
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #125 on: April 25, 2013, 02:52:16 am »
I used on eof the pictures from the site linked by lantinian to check, if the
missiles perhaps would pass the rotor by a whisker, but now I'm sure, that
there's no such chance.
Thought about drop before ignition, too, but as the y are carried in a twin-storey
launcher and AFAIK, this would be a completely new launch mode for something
like a hellfire, I think, here it is just a kind of artistic freedom
It takes a long time, before all mistakes are made ...

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #126 on: April 25, 2013, 05:33:55 am »
It's probably not in the requirements but the illustration above reminded me that of all proposals Bell' is by far the most adaptable and would benefit the most by the addition of air refueling capability.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #127 on: April 25, 2013, 07:51:41 am »
Notwithstanding the quality of the AVX proposals (and the fact that it is made up of many former Bell people), why would the DoD place a contract with a nascent company that has no record of mass-producing any type before when there are other capable and proven contenders with a half-century-long experience of military contracts? I doubt the military and government are very prone to such risk-taking, especially in the difficult economic context.

Does AVX stand any chance at all on JMR? And what of Karem? Is there hope for such new players to ever find their rightful place in the big leagues?

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #128 on: April 25, 2013, 08:02:34 am »
Probably both.  If those are all Hellfires, then it looks like it's carrying a total of 24.  The wing  mounted weapons, though, could only be fired once the proprotors have rotated up sufficiently (not necessarily all the way to vertical) for clearance.

28 (there are two layers of hellfires under the fuselauge). Note that the AVX proposal carries 16 internally (compared to 8 internally and 20 externally of the V-280 concept art).

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #129 on: April 25, 2013, 09:11:09 am »
I don't know Avimimus. I've been staring at that zoom of picture for a while now and rather than a 5th row of Hellfires under the wing the right most white dots seam like a visual artifact of the previous missiles. Zoom very closely and you will see them further up than the others.
It just makes no sence to have 1 custom 2x5 launcher, rather than 2 standard 2x4 ones

What I also don't see is the Hydra rocket pod and its place, under the shadow of the wing there seams to be the white siluette of a Sidewinder missile.

Finally, check the nose. This version does seams to have a refueling boom sticking out in addition to the gun. I have not seen this on any other image of the V-280 online...and I tried
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #130 on: April 25, 2013, 09:30:00 am »
I just opened the original PDF I linked to, zoomed to that actual picture and took another screenshot and increased the exposure of one area of interest.
So it's much clearer now.
- 24 Hellfires ( 8 internal, 16 external)
- 2 Hydra Rocket pods
- 2 Missiles of unknown kind ( a bit short for AIM-9) on the top of the small wings under the shadow of the main one!!!
- 1 Non revolving gun
- Mid-Air refueling receptacle like on V-22!!!
- Extra windows on the side of the fuselage compared to all other PR images of the attacked version > MI-24 like version???
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 09:36:55 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #131 on: April 25, 2013, 11:08:28 am »
I just opened the original PDF I linked to, zoomed to that actual picture and took another screenshot and increased the exposure of one area of interest.
So it's much clearer now.
- 24 Hellfires ( 8 internal, 16 external)
- 2 Hydra Rocket pods
- 2 Missiles of unknown kind ( a bit short for AIM-9) on the top of the small wings under the shadow of the main one!!!
- 1 Non revolving gun
- Mid-Air refueling receptacle like on V-22!!!
- Extra windows on the side of the fuselage compared to all other PR images of the attacked version > MI-24 like version???

Some of the things noted may just be a function of the marketeers reusing existing artwork and modifying them to fit whatever is being illustrated for this depiction.  For example, Vought for its depictions of the USAF A-7F retouched artists' concepts previously used for its pitch to the Navy for the A-7X. 

The windows may just be there because they forgot to take them out.  Then again, they could be depicting an alternate configuration, where there would also have door gunners.  A combination of Hellfire, APKWS, the nose gun and door gunners would be particularly lethal and effective  in an urban environment .  Then again, these are marketing drawings and should only be considered "representative".  After all, since the sensors to be used haven't ben specified yet, the nose shown is somewhat generic. 

 Regarding the gun, it's not clear whether it can pivot or not.  An underside view of the model shows a slot near the aft end of the fairing that may allow for translation at lower speeds (at higher speeds, probably everyone's gun is going to be firing fixed). 

The refueling probe is probably detachable since on most missions in this class of a/c it's not going to be needed.   Some pictures will depict it, some won't.  This pic is probably in the presentation  to imply how much this bird can lift and the versatility of the design. 

Remember, it's marketing... 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:13:23 pm by F-14D »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #132 on: April 25, 2013, 11:16:08 am »
As to tilt rotors... if you look at slide three of the Bell brief they quote a US Army study that says that tilt rotor is the best option for the future.  Rather surprising to me as I always found the Army to be very wedded to their current version of the horse...

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Where did Bell find that pull quote?

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #133 on: April 25, 2013, 11:18:20 am »
As to tilt rotors... if you look at slide three of the Bell brief they quote a US Army study that says that tilt rotor is the best option for the future.  Rather surprising to me as I always found the Army to be very wedded to their current version of the horse...

Yeah, I was wondering about that too. Where did Bell find that pull quote?


Look at where JHL was going towards the end before the program collapsed.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #134 on: April 25, 2013, 11:23:18 am »
Those rocket/missile packs under the wings of the Bell V-280 look great, but they seem to be
usable only from the hover ...

Maybe that missile might have a dual launch mode e.g. like the AIM-120?  :-\
1. launch and ignite from a rail.
2. drop/ catapulted under the aircraft and then launch and ignite.
Lock on after launch probably in that case then.

Probably wouldn't want to go to that level of complexity and cost making a new version, plus there might be issues if you're flying at 50-100 ft.  Besides, it wouldn't be necessary, IMO.  Just tilt the proprotors up far enough to clear. 

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #135 on: April 25, 2013, 12:00:27 pm »
I hope I have not missed it but I don't recall this presentation being linked to before.

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/JMR_AMRDEC01.pdf

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #136 on: April 25, 2013, 12:24:48 pm »
 
So the white dots are really the spacing between the front and rear set of doors on the bottom of the aircraft. Agree the smaller missile on the side of the aircraft is a generic place holder. I can't imagine Bell thinking the Army would go for a non-flexing gun on an attack rotorcraft, so I'm in the camp that they just don’t show it flexing. In fact, for long range flight I would expect them to stow it to the rear to reduce drag. I agree that everyone is going for simple ($$) so I doubt the missiles under the wings can be launched without the rotors being out of the way, vice fancy changes having to be made to the missile software. The briefing just posted gives a little more visibility on the Army’s study. I am told that the General from Army Aviation briefed slides earlier this year that talked about much longer distances and self - deployment and longer loiter times. The more you make the desires look like an airplane...
 
I give AVX 30% because of their innovation with their effort.  That said I have to agree with the CEO from Bell who said that the fight for FVL would be between the compound (suspect he was referring to X2 technology) and the tilt-rotor.

F-14D - Army helicopters are now routinely flying at altitudes up to ~7000ft.  So technically they could drop iron bombs, but USAF Inc., would get really mad and throw a tantrum.
 
 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:29:31 pm by yasotay »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #137 on: April 25, 2013, 12:25:23 pm »
Quote
The windows may just be there because they forgot to take them out.

Unlikely.

  • The 1st window that's closer to the cockpit does not correspond in size to the same one on the troop carrying version. Its larger.
  • The window itself shows complex reflections of a missile and the wing which proves that this is a 3D model rendering and I am fairly certain Bell has different 3D models for each version.
  • With so much attention paid to the other details, its unlikely that Bell artists will just intentionally "screw up" on such a detail.
Its more likely that the PR version of the other images we've seen don't show the full proposal being submitted and that Bell may be holding on to some advantages it does not feel will need to boast at this time. Advantages in capability not mandated by the requirements.

This image was part of the original Power Point presentation a the AAAA press briefing. It's possible that it was explained in more details there by the presenter.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 12:28:16 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #138 on: April 25, 2013, 12:25:36 pm »
I hope I have not missed it but I don't recall this presentation being linked to before.

http://www.defenseinnovationmarketplace.mil/resources/JMR_AMRDEC01.pdf

Excellent find!

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #139 on: April 25, 2013, 12:40:16 pm »
Quote
The windows may just be there because they forgot to take them out.

Unlikely.

  • The 1st window that's closer to the cockpit does not correspond in size to the same one on the troop carrying version. Its larger.
  • The window itself shows complex reflections of a missile and the wing which proves that this is a 3D model rendering and I am fairly certain Bell has different 3D models for each version.
  • With so much attention paid to the other details, its unlikely that Bell artists will just intentionally "screw up" on such a detail.
Its more likely that the PR version of the other images we've seen don't show the full proposal being submitted and that Bell may be holding on to some advantages it does not feel will need to boast at this time. Advantages in capability not required by the requirements.

This image was part of the original Power Point presentation a the AAAA press briefing. It's possible that it was explained in more details there by the presenter.

I've actually seen this happen, especially in a "minor" shot as background on a slide.   To draw a  real life parallel, a major  work came out in 2011, a 512 page book, "The Age of Airpower".   A lot of work and thought went into it, with the author and publisher wanting to present it also as a reference on history and application of airpower. 

The front cover of the book is a picture of the F-16CJ.   It's printed backwards....

Just sayin' it happens, not sayin' it did. 
« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 02:34:10 pm by F-14D »

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #140 on: April 25, 2013, 01:03:53 pm »
A bit more thoughts on the V-280 Speed and Maneuverability.

In hover mode, the V-280 engines continue to point aft which allows for all the trust to be available for speed and yall maneuvering. In this respect the V-280 is like a conventional helicopter and unlike the V-22 will fly very fast in hover mode. Probably as fast as a conventional helicopter. That is seen here

So I don't see any issues with the underwing pilons being of limited use since the aircraft will more likely transition to hover mode for combat operation anyway. The disadvantage of having the engines stay in horisontal mode is that their trust cannot be used for lift, but that extra lift is only needed on the much heavier V-22.

Because the engines are spaced so far apart, V-280 can turn either very precisely with minimum trust input or very fast. The high turn rate is evident here (right hand side) in the gunship going to overwatch. The disadvantage to this is that a lost of one engine will make the aircraft quite difficult to control.


« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 01:11:56 pm by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #141 on: April 25, 2013, 02:06:56 pm »
Does the Sikorsky/Boeing FVL Medium concept use any components from the UH-60 Black Hawk, such as the fuselage, or is this just family resemblance?

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8522
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #142 on: April 25, 2013, 02:33:54 pm »
Some of these concepts have range, ceiling and payloads to the point that could an all internal weapons carriage version be a brand new iteration called the 'Helicopter Bomber' and carry a few JDAMs?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Sundog

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2535
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #143 on: April 25, 2013, 04:08:06 pm »
Some of these concepts have range, ceiling and payloads to the point that could an all internal weapons carriage version be a brand new iteration called the 'Helicopter Bomber' and carry a few JDAMs?

Technically, yes. Politically, no. The USAF wouldn't allow it.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #144 on: April 25, 2013, 04:16:12 pm »
Some of these concepts have range, ceiling and payloads to the point that could an all internal weapons carriage version be a brand new iteration called the 'Helicopter Bomber' and carry a few JDAMs?
I don't think that the Army will advertise the ability to bomb, as the USAF Inc., will scream.  Especially when the budget is deminishing.  then someday an enterprising soldier will figure out how to do this in the field.
I think that the reason both the Sikorsky and the Bell have a resemblance to the H-60 is that there are a lot of mission similarities; side-by-side flight crew, ~11 troops and two crew member.
The V-280 will have cross shafting like the V-22 so the loss of an engine (should) allow the power to both prop-rotors.  Most rotorcraft only have residual power from the engines (like 5%) so loss of an engine should have minimal if any affect on the aircrafts controllability.

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #145 on: April 25, 2013, 04:18:25 pm »
 
Some of these concepts have range, ceiling and payloads to the point that could an all internal weapons carriage version be a brand new iteration called the 'Helicopter Bomber' and carry a few JDAMs?

There is no reason an Apache today couldn't carry some 500 lb bombs on its pylons. At least unlike the future JMR internal carriage it would actually have space to carry the store. You won't be able to drop JDAMs from the JAGM sized bays on the JMR proposals because the bomb is too long. Maybe an SDB or two could fit.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #146 on: April 25, 2013, 04:28:40 pm »
 
Does anybody here thinks the AVX designs have any hope for procurement compared to other manufacturers in these times of budget austerity?
 

 
Well the US DoD would have judged them as being able to do so in order to award them a developmental contract. They won’t win the contract if they ask for more money to build their JMRs than their rivals. By looking at the comparative conservatism of their design compared to the tilt rotor and more complex coaxial hub of their competitors I would expect they could probably offer a cheaper bid.
 
If the AVX Aircraft Company concept wins the FVL Medium contract, I wonder how long it will be before the company is acquired by another defense contractor?

Acquisition is a process initiated by the thing to be acquired. You can’t just walk into their office plomb a suitcase for of cash on the table and say “I buy you!” In order to get this far in the bidding process AVX would have demonstrated to the US DoD their capacity to fund a build program for JMRs. So they would not need to sell all of their stock to secure investment. Also after winning a contract they would be plush with potential cash and would want to keep their stock to soak up the dividends.
 
There seems to be a lot of simplistic assessment of AVX as just another pseudo aircraft builder with only a web presence or hopeless start up all designed to soak up mom & pop investment dollars before going broke. But they are more like Hughes Tools Aircraft Company (later Hughes Helicopters) than a Stavetti with a considerable technical presence and by looking at the detail of their offer a big input from a lot of established aerostructure and aerocomponent builders.
 
They can win this as much as the other guys depending on if their technical proposal can meet the requirements. Which is a question every bidder faces.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #147 on: April 25, 2013, 04:34:41 pm »
From DefenseTech over at Military.com
Army Details Next-Gen Helicopter Timelineby Kris Osborn on April  25, 2013U.S. Army — Graphic Illustration of potential JMR  configurationU.S. Army officials plan to award up to four design contracts by the end of  fiscal year 2013 for vendors to build the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) demonstrator  aircraft, a next generation helicopter fleet, Army leaders said Thursday.
Current plans call for two JMR technology demonstrator aircraft to be  designed and built for a first flight by sometime in 2017, said Todd Turner,  director for the Army’s Research and Technology Air Portfolio.
“This is an S&T [Science and Technology] effort for the development of a  new, medium-class platform. The goals are to design, fabricate and demonstrate  an advanced vertical lift vehicle with a combat radius of 424 kilometers, that’s  an 848 kilometer range, un-refueled, at speeds of up to 230 knots,” Turner  said at the National Defense Industrial Association’s 14th Annual Science & Engineering Technology Conference/Defense Tech Exposition, National  Harbor, Md.
A key goal for the program is to be affordable, and develop an aircraft that  can reach much greater speeds and extend mission possibilities without  compromising an ability to hover, Turner said.
Army officials said the S&T effort is designed to lower risk, reduce  costs and inform requirements for what will be a Future Vertical Lift formal  program of record designed to deliver new aircraft by 2030.
“We’re currently completing what we call configuration trades and analysis  portions of this effort which will finish this year. The trades we considered  were cost, weight and power requirements, mission equipment packages and  life-cycle costs.  All configurations were considered,” Turner said.
The configurations currently being examined include a tilt-rotor possibility,  like today’s Marine Corps and Air Force V-22 Osprey as well as various compound  configurations such as air vehicles with a rear-thrusting mechanism and co-axial  rotorblades, Army officials explained.
The service is evaluating responses to an Army solicitation to industry  to build designs. Service officials plan to down select to two design teams  by the fourth quarter of fiscal year ’14, Turner said.
The JMR effort also plans to include next-generation mission equipment and  avionics along with integrated sensors and weapons systems.
Turner said Army S&T is working on advanced rotor designs, autonomy  algorithms and concept analyses wherein they assess air-vehicle design  methods.
“We currently have a good handle on how to build systems when we have a  database. What we are trying to do is move towards where we can design new  systems at a more rapid pace. Get that design closer to what the air vehicle  will look like, he said.
The FVL aircraft is slated to be powered by an Improved Turbine Engine  Program (ITEP), a more powerful, 3,000-horsepower, more fuel-efficient engine  also being informed by an ongoing S&T Program, Advanced Affordable Turbine  Engine effort.
“It’s transitioning out of S&T this year to the ITEP program. It’s  showing benefits of 25-percent reduced burn rate and a 35-percent reduction in  production and maintenance costs,” Turner said.
Army S&T is also in the early phases of developing the Future Affordable  Turbine Engine, a 7,000-horsepower heavy class engine for larger rotary  platforms such as the CH-47 Chinook.
“We’re developing material and component technologies for the compressor and  turbine sub-systems,” he added.

Read more:  http://defensetech.org/2013/04/25/army-details-next-gen-helicopter-timeline/#ixzz2RWN3Py5Y
Defense.org

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #148 on: April 25, 2013, 05:59:39 pm »
Some of these concepts have range, ceiling and payloads to the point that could an all internal weapons carriage version be a brand new iteration called the 'Helicopter Bomber' and carry a few JDAMs?
I don't think that the Army will advertise the ability to bomb, as the USAF Inc., will scream.  Especially when the budget is deminishing.  then someday an enterprising soldier will figure out how to do this in the field.
I think that the reason both the Sikorsky and the Bell have a resemblance to the H-60 is that there are a lot of mission similarities; side-by-side flight crew, ~11 troops and two crew member.
The V-280 will have cross shafting like the V-22 so the loss of an engine (should) allow the power to both prop-rotors.  Most rotorcraft only have residual power from the engines (like 5%) so loss of an engine should have minimal if any affect on the aircrafts controllability.

Agree 100% on no Army bombing from an FVL.  USAF would scream and work to kill the program.  I believe there is actually an agreement somewhere that states that Army rotorcraft  may only carry guns or forward firing ordnance. 

If you look at the history of the AH-56, USAF didn't complain too much when it was described as only an escort for troop carrying helicopters.  They started taking notice and complaining when it was also talked up as doing CAS, and they really went ballistic when some Army folks said that if you put the pusher prop into Beta, it could dive bomb.  From that point on, USAF actively worked to kill it, and they might do the same here.   In fact, that's one of my worries about the V-280.  Proprotors forward, it looks  a lot like a fixed wing airplane.  I may be paranoid, but I fear the Army might decide that if they pursue that technology AF will fear it treads on their "roles and missions" and lobby against it, so Army won't give it a fair shot.   
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 02:36:27 pm by F-14D »

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #149 on: April 25, 2013, 06:16:36 pm »
 This issue has nothing to do with JMR. Via internal carriage of stores JMR will have less capability to drop Mk 80 series bombs than current attack helicopters. Just because it has bay doors does not make it a bomber. One of the worse cases of “it kind of looks like therefore it is” theorising on the internet. Maybe we should call these comments “Reddits”.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #150 on: April 25, 2013, 07:06:24 pm »
A bit more thoughts on the V-280 Speed and Maneuverability.

In hover mode, the V-280 engines continue to point aft which allows for all the trust to be available for speed and yall maneuvering. In this respect the V-280 is like a conventional helicopter and unlike the V-22 will fly very fast in hover mode. Probably as fast as a conventional helicopter. That is seen here

So I don't see any issues with the underwing pilons being of limited use since the aircraft will more likely transition to hover mode for combat operation anyway. The disadvantage of having the engines stay in horisontal mode is that their trust cannot be used for lift, but that extra lift is only needed on the much heavier V-22.

Because the engines are spaced so far apart, V-280 can turn either very precisely with minimum trust input or very fast. The high turn rate is evident here (right hand side) in the gunship going to overwatch. The disadvantage to this is that a lost of one engine will make the aircraft quite difficult to control.

I'd thik a more accurate description  might be "rotorborne" and "wingborn"e.  "Hover mode" tends to sound like the engines only go vertical for hover, but actually they'd stay up until the wing can take on a signficant amount of lift.  From the video, it seems this can be  fairly  rapid.  Also, since translation or being at an intermediate point doesn't impose any maneuvering limitations, they can be stopped in between.  Granted, this is a semantic quibble. 

Almost all of the power of the engines is going to be used to power the proprotors, the residual thrust left in the exhuast I'll wager is not going to be an important factor.  I can't see them really expecting to do much with that thrust for yaw when in rotorborne mode, you'll get all you need from the proprotors and not have to put up with the complexity of differential power settings on the engines (which could also engage the crosshaft.    Bell has said that they get their high speed as a fallout from the power for the 6K/95F requirement. 

Regarding why the engines tilt on the V-22, Tailspin Turtle posted a good explanation here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19036.msg184058.html#msg184058 .

Basically, he explains it was because tilting the engines weighed less. 

The V-22 is a transport, and great agility  at low speeds or the best speed in rotorborne flgiht was not a driver.   The idea is to fly as much of your mission as you can wingborne, because that's where you get the best speed and range.  No particular reason to fly  fast rotorborne, although I'd wager it could match a Black Hawk's cruise speed while  in that mode, but it would be inefficient.  I do believe the Osprey holds the world speed record with an external load, but in that case the engines were partly tilted. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #151 on: April 25, 2013, 07:15:28 pm »
This issue has nothing to do with JMR. Via internal carriage of stores JMR will have less capability to drop Mk 80 series bombs than current attack helicopters. Just because it has bay doors does not make it a bomber. One of the worse cases of “it kind of looks like therefore it is” theorising on the internet. Maybe we should call these comments “Reddits”.

I do not disagree that the comments about carrying bombs is superfluous. However the points about how the USAF Inc., would react to any perceived threat to its domain are not in my opinion unrealistic to consider.
 
I have the same trepidation as F-14D that the V-280 may cause angst to both the Army and USAF Inc., due to the potential perception of mission creep. There are numerous precedence of this exact thing happening.
 

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #152 on: April 25, 2013, 08:00:20 pm »
 
I have the same trepidation as F-14D that the V-280 may cause angst to both the Army and USAF Inc., due to the potential perception of mission creep. There are numerous precedence of this exact thing happening.

Those precedents are not fully replicated because there is no comparable USAF program under threat. The previous cases included Cheyenne vs A-10, C-27 vs C-130 (and even Caribou vs Hercules) and all had some sort of actual or supposed duplication of effort. USAF has nothing that could possibly compete with a Black Hawk replacement and no capacity to offer that kind of scale of service even if they did. Even an attack version of the V-280 with under wing ordnance stores could never be mistaken as a competitor to the F-35. Maybe to the A-10 or a Super Tucano but they are not going to be significant assets in USAF’s future.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #153 on: April 26, 2013, 02:03:50 am »
Quote
Regarding why the engines tilt on the V-22, Tailspin Turtle posted a good explanation here:http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19036.msg184058.html#msg184058 . Basically, he explains it was because tilting the engines weighed less. 

Indeed. I actually thought I was posting on that topic, so the moderators should consider moving most of our comments from yesterday that were only related to the V-280 over there.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2013, 03:46:53 am by lantinian »
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #154 on: April 30, 2013, 11:34:32 am »
US furthers next-generation helicopter studies
30 April 2013 - 15:29 
by   Tony Skinner  in London       
Plans for a next generation US helicopter to replace the AH-64 Apache and UH-60 Black Hawk have moved forward with three different configurations under evaluation.
Further details of the Joint Multirole (JMR) technology demonstration (TD) programme emerged in evidence to the US House Armed Services Committee on 16 April.
Mary Miller, deputy assistant secretary of the Army for Research and Technology, said three different configurations of JMR aircraft had been designed – a conventional helicopter, a large-wing slowed rotor compound helicopter, and a tiltrotor.
‘We are investigating various design excursions to fully explore the size and environmental characteristics of interest to the DoD, including shipboard operations. As part of the JMR TD programme, an industry/government Configuration Trades and Analysis (CT&A) effort… is nearing completion,’ Miller said.
Four companies – AVX Aircraft, Bell, Piasecki Aircraft, and Sikorsky – have been contracted to assist in defining the ‘trade space’ for Phase 1 of the JMR TD air vehicle demonstration.
Two companies are expected to be downselected in September 2013 to design, manufacture and test two air demonstrator vehicles, with first flights scheduled to occur in the fourth quarter of FY17.
‘The JMR TD objectives are to validate critical aircraft configurations, technologies and designs at the vehicle system level, and demonstrate vertical lift capabilities superior to those in the current fleet,’ Miller said.
Earlier this year, Sikorsky and Boeing announced that they will submit a joint proposal for Phase 1, with a design based on the Sikorsky’s X2 Technology rotorcraft design. In April, Bell unveiled its V-280 Valor tiltrotor as a candidate while EADS North America is also likely to have submitted a proposal.
A concurrent second JMR phase is focused on assessing mission systems effectiveness with six companies now contracting to carry out these studies.
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/us-further-next-generation-helicopter-studies/

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #155 on: April 30, 2013, 12:17:20 pm »
GKN chases JMR involvement
30 April 2013 - 15:20 by Tony Skinner in London

Source:
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/gkn-chases-jmr-involvement/

Quote
GKN Aerospace is in talks with Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky about possible involvement in their bids for the US Joint Multirole (JMR) next-generation helicopter project.

Speaking at a media conference in London on 30 April, Marcus Bryson, CEO of GKN Aerospace and Land Systems, said the company had entered dialogue with both companies about providing its composite technology into the JMR/Future Vertical Lift effort.

GKN already provides the CH-53K aft transition fuselage section, cargo ramp and overhead door structural assemblies to Sikorsky. It was also selected to provide metal and composite structures for the new Bell 525 Relentless medium helicopter.

‘You have to keep a foot in both camps but we are having some very good quality discussions with both of them,’ Bryson said.

‘The only reason we are there talking to them is because of our technology. If you look at what we have done with Sikorsky with the CH-53K – that whole aft section of the 53 – we delivered it on time, to cost, to specification.

‘And similarly for the last two years we have been working quite hard to develop a relationship with Bell, which we really didn’t have before.’

GKN’s involvement in the JMR TD programme would centre on its composite technology and self-sealing fuel tanks.

The company has opened a fuel tank facility in Alabama in the US to become an indigenous manufacturer and gain access to the US market and is providing parts to US prime contractors, such as fuel tanks to Bell.

Four companies – AVX Aircraft, Bell, Piasecki Aircraft, and Sikorsky – have been contracted to assist in defining the ‘trade space’ for Phase 1 of the JMR TD air vehicle demonstration. Two companies will be downselected in September 2013 to design, manufacture and test two air demonstrator vehicles, with first flights to occur in the fourth quarter of FY17.

Meanwhile, Bryson explained that the downturn in military budgets in the US and around the world had led the company to increase its civil business in recent years. In 2013 the proportion of civil revenue for the company is expected to reach 70% versus 30% military – an inverse of the balance from five years ago.

‘On the civil side, we are really in the middle of a super cycle of civil aerospace. On the downside are worldwide defence budgets and all countries bar none are cutting back on their budgets. We are beginning to see some impact – although not huge on our company at the moment – but inevitably we don’t see defence as a growth sector for the next four to five years.

‘It is still a profitable sector, it is still a place we want to play, but where we have positioned the company now where 70% of our revenues is on the civil side, is exactly where we want to be.’

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #156 on: May 09, 2013, 10:33:02 am »
"AVX Presses Case For Coaxial-Rotor JMR Demonstrator"
by Graham Warwick
Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology
May 6, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p18-575342.xml&p=1

Quote
Can a small company pull off an upset and win a role in the most important rotorcraft demonstration of this decade? It may face competition from giants Bell Helicopter, Boeing and Sikorsky, but AVX Aircraft believes it can.

More than that, the Fort Worth company argues the U.S. Army, to be true to the intent of its Joint Multi-Role (JMR) program, should pick AVX for one of two high-speed rotorcraft demonstrators planned to fly in 2017.

The stakes are high. The JMR technology demonstration is a precursor to the planned Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Medium program to replace thousands of Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters from the mid-2030s.

It is a prize so large that Boeing and Sikorsky have teamed for JMR and FVL. They are offering a compound helicopter based on Sikorsky's X2 high-speed coaxial-rotor configuration. Bell is offering a tiltrotor. Even EADS North America has put in a bid, likely based on Eurocopter's X3 hybrid helicopter.

AVX's design (see image) combines coaxial rotors with ducted fans and small wings. It is not the only small player with hopes of winning. Piasecki Aircraft has proposed a winged compound helicopter with a vectored-thrust ducted propeller, as flown on its X-49A SpeedHawk.

Established by former Bell employees, AVX was set up around the coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan concept. The company proposed the configuration to upgrade the Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout, but its breakthrough came when—with Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky—AVX won an Army contract to study concepts for JMR and FVL.

Coaxial rotors provide high hover efficiency and eliminate the power drain of a tailrotor, says Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer and former head of engineering at Bell. The ducted fans provide propulsion, so the rotors only provide lift, greatly reducing the power required. At the 230-kt. speed sought by the Army, two-thirds of power goes to the fans and a third to the rotors.

Not tilting the rotors to provide thrust reduces blade loads and cuts vibration by at least 50%. “We also fly with the fuselage a little nose-up for lower drag, so we get more speed with the same power,” Gaffey says. “The focus of the configuration is aerodynamic efficiency.” Ducted fans are smaller and lighter than open propulsors, with better cruise efficiency, he says.

At maximum speed, only 60% of lift is from the rotors; the other 40% comes from small forward wings and the aft ducts and stub wings. But, at 230 kt., the Kamov-style rotors generate half the drag—as much as the airframe—so AVX is testing hub-and- mast fairings in a bid to reduce rotor drag by a third.

The high lifting capacity of the 56-ft.-dia. rotors allows the helicopter to carry significant external loads, Gaffey says. As proposed, the aircraft weighs 27,000 lb. carrying 12 troops and four crew, versus 22,000 lb. for the UH-60M. But it can lift 13,000 lb. externally, versus 9,000 lb. for the Black Hawk. “It is more like a Chinook from a cargo standpoint,” he says.

One source of the lifting capacity is the engine power needed to go fast. To fly 200 kt. with the basic 4,300-lb. payload would require 3,100-shp engines, but the target of at least 230 kt. would need more than 4,600 shp. “In the hover, that's a lot of extra power, but a large part of the Black Hawk's mission is lifting heavy loads,” says Gaffey.

All the compound-helicopter candidates face the same problem. “The main issue with 230 kt. is the power in the aircraft. Bigger engines cost more and burn more fuel, but the side benefit is enormous lift margin,” he says. If the Army decides speed costs too much, AVX can remove the ducted fans. “Without fans, speed is in the 170-kt. range.”

AVX has assembled a large team of suppliers to build the aircraft, but why should the Army choose an outlier for such an important program? For Gaffey, it lies in the Army's edict that JMR bidders must show a “compelling need” to fly a demonstrator to reduce risk for FVL.

“We don't see any point in flying another tiltrotor. When there has already been the XV-15 and V-22, what is in Bell's V-280 that needs to fly?” asks Gaffey. “It's almost the same for the X2—they have flown it and it works. And the X3 has been flown by Eurocopter.

“In our case, the coaxial rotors and ducted fans need testing to verify the efficiencies,” he says. “The big manufacturers will probably continue on their own as long as FVL is on the horizon, so we are hoping the Army will keep the little guy in the program to provide a little competition.”
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 10:34:45 am by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #157 on: May 09, 2013, 10:59:57 am »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #158 on: May 09, 2013, 12:32:29 pm »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #159 on: May 09, 2013, 12:38:56 pm »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

How many rotorcraft has AVX produced?  They're basically a startup consisting of disgruntled former Bell employees.  I don't doubt that they know about rotorcraft but I do question their ability to tackle a program like this.  I think their's is the most interesting of the four concepts but I'd put them at the bottom of the list for actually winning this thing.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 12:41:40 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #160 on: May 09, 2013, 02:52:57 pm »
I have the same trepidation as F-14D that the V-280 may cause angst to both the Army and USAF Inc., due to the potential perception of mission creep. There are numerous precedence of this exact thing happening.

Those precedents are not fully replicated because there is no comparable USAF program under threat. The previous cases included Cheyenne vs A-10, C-27 vs C-130 (and even Caribou vs Hercules) and all had some sort of actual or supposed duplication of effort. USAF has nothing that could possibly compete with a Black Hawk replacement and no capacity to offer that kind of scale of service even if they did. Even an attack version of the V-280 with under wing ordnance stores could never be mistaken as a competitor to the F-35. Maybe to the A-10 or a Super Tucano but they are not going to be significant assets in USAF’s future.

Abraham,

Sorry for the lateness of this post, and don't want to take this too far off topic.  What my, and I think Yasotay's, fear is not that a particular USAF system might be threatened.   I fear, based on history, that  if USAF perceives a system  looks like it might threaten its "roles and missions", it could strive to kill that system, even if AF didn't have any particular desire to perform the job itself.  For example, you cite the C-27J, but it wasn't Army's intent to challenge the C-130.  It was to provide light intra-theater transport in lieu of the CH-47 for those areas where VTOL capability wasn't required.  It would be cheaper to operate than the Chinook and would also help to preserve C H-47 blade life.  But it was a fixed wing, so that was a no-no.  Once Army intimated that AH-56 could do CAS, and especially with the prop in Beta could dive bomb, USAF took that as a challenge and struck back, with lobbying and other tactics.  It's often said  that this was at least half the impetus behind the A-10. 

My concern is that a 280  knot Tilt-Rotor JMR looks too much like a fixed wing and could be perceived as threatening the "R & M". 
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 10:23:14 am by F-14D »

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #161 on: May 09, 2013, 04:49:46 pm »
Regarding the 170kt AVX variant:

How is it ductedless fanless? I'd assumed that the AVX efficiencies were based on using the rotor for lowspeed lift and the fans for rotational control / propulsion once velocity was achieved. I could see smaller ducted fans... but would the 170kt version just be a co-axial helicopter?

Offline flateric

  • Deputy Administrator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 8659
« Last Edit: May 09, 2013, 06:59:32 pm by flateric »
"There are many disbelievers in
stealth, more than a few of them truly technically ignorant and proud of it." Sherm Mullin, Skunk Works

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #163 on: May 10, 2013, 06:20:35 am »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

How many rotorcraft has AVX produced?  They're basically a startup consisting of disgruntled former Bell employees.  I don't doubt that they know about rotorcraft but I do question their ability to tackle a program like this.  I think their's is the most interesting of the four concepts but I'd put them at the bottom of the list for actually winning this thing.
The USG needs to stand up and assume the risk..this should not be another product party.. it should be focused on military effectiveness..and the USG can and should lead collabs. etc.
The AVX is the only design which would even have a chance of internally housing a survivable veh..( mid-future)
The other designs will be deadly all right.. to the carried dismounts who are left w/o a vehicle.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #164 on: May 10, 2013, 07:22:50 am »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

Troy Gaffey didn't say that at all. AVX Aircraft Company can't fund a technology demonstrator like the Sikorsky X2 Demonstrator so it needs help from the United States Army to build one. As for least experienced, you don't think that Troy Gaffey, AVX president and chief engineer, didn't get experience as former head of engineering at Bell Helicopter? If the United States Army is totally risk averse, why bother to increase the rotorcraft performance bar at all?

How many rotorcraft has AVX produced?  They're basically a startup consisting of disgruntled former Bell employees.  I don't doubt that they know about rotorcraft but I do question their ability to tackle a program like this.  I think their's is the most interesting of the four concepts but I'd put them at the bottom of the list for actually winning this thing.
The USG needs to stand up and assume the risk..this should not be another product party.. it should be focused on military effectiveness..and the USG can and should lead collabs. etc.
The AVX is the only design which would even have a chance of internally housing a survivable veh..( mid-future)
The other designs will be deadly all right.. to the carried dismounts who are left w/o a vehicle.

How do you figure?  I don't see why the Sikorsky or Bell concepts would be anymore "deadly to dismounts" than the Blackhawk or Osprey. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #165 on: May 10, 2013, 12:56:04 pm »
The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs.  If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 12:57:58 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #166 on: May 10, 2013, 01:16:06 pm »
The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs.  If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.

And all that has to go into the bid.  Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that?  (Minus tooling of course.)
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #167 on: May 10, 2013, 02:09:00 pm »
And all that has to go into the bid.  Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that?  (Minus tooling of course.)

Perhaps. But you have to presume that the United States Army and Department of Defense are willing to pay for this next evolution in rotorcraft and wants this increase in capability or why increase the speed and range bar?

Offline Avimimus

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1866
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #168 on: May 10, 2013, 04:18:36 pm »
The question that I have is how committed is the United States Army and the Department of Defense to the Joint Multi-Role and Future Vertical Lift programs.  If they are dedicated to improving rotorcraft performance, the contracts could build an aviation company like AVX Aircraft Company if it wins. Ground could be broken and concrete poured for factories, employees hired, a customer support and training infrastructure created. AVX Aircraft Company may be a startup, but it isn't teenagers in a garage.

And all that has to go into the bid.  Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that?  (Minus tooling of course.)

Couldn't AVX win the design and another company bid on the production? This *sometimes* actually works in aviation.

Offline ouroboros

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 352
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #169 on: May 10, 2013, 05:33:08 pm »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #170 on: May 10, 2013, 07:33:23 pm »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #171 on: May 10, 2013, 07:36:24 pm »
And all that has to go into the bid.  Who do you think is going to be more expensive, a company that has to build a production line from a bare patch of dirt, and hire and train a workforce, or a company who already has all that?  (Minus tooling of course.)

Perhaps. But you have to presume that the United States Army and Department of Defense are willing to pay for this next evolution in rotorcraft and wants this increase in capability or why increase the speed and range bar?

AVX's entry isn't "the next revolution in rotorcraft".  It's an attempt at an X-2 knockoff that swaps out a pusher prop for ducted fans, being promoted by a company that's never built anything.  The thing doesn't even have a rigid rotor.  Look beyond the fancy powerpoint slide. 
« Last Edit: May 10, 2013, 07:40:46 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #172 on: May 10, 2013, 11:34:53 pm »
I said next evolution, not revolution, of rotorcraft.  :)
 

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #173 on: May 11, 2013, 05:53:52 am »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist..   ..experienced at what?  taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #174 on: May 11, 2013, 07:55:23 am »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist..   ..experienced at what?  taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..
What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years?  What has AVX delivered?  Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now? 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #175 on: May 11, 2013, 09:13:38 am »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...
There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist..   ..experienced at what?  taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..
What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years?  What has AVX delivered?  Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?
just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #176 on: May 11, 2013, 09:27:10 am »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...
There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist..   ..experienced at what?  taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..
What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years?  What has AVX delivered?  Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?
just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....
AVX would be the most expensive, most risky proposal whos merits are dubious at best.  It ain't gonna win. There's no way the US Army is going to take that kind of risk in this fiscal climate.  In response to your question though let me ask you a question.  When's the last time the DOD funded the creation of a new company for a new weapon system of that magnitude? 
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 09:30:26 am by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #177 on: May 11, 2013, 09:50:02 am »
One could make the argument that sponsoring AVX for a demonstrator builds a foundation for a new member of the industry, as a mean of maintaining the industry as a whole to maintain competency. One could argue that if AVX plays it like SpaceX, doing almost no outsourcing, and using only modern CADCAM, they have a substantially lower cost structure compared to the incumbents. But that would require a lot of prudent forward thinking in government...
There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

Thus spoke the paid 'established nomenclatura's' lobbyist..   ..experienced at what?  taking 'more than enough" and delivering nothing..
What has Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell delivered over the years?  What has AVX delivered?  Yeah, who's "delivering nothing" now?
just want to know in the past 20yrs maybe 30yrs which aircraft contractor has (w/o a doubt) 'reduced to practice' per the 'FAR' entirely at their 'own risk'..ie no USG funding etc--assistance in any way..
would venture to say since the 60s no contractor has won any contract w/o assistance....
AVX would be the most expensive, most risky proposal whos merits are dubious at best.  It ain't gonna win. There's no way the US Army is going to take that kind of risk in this fiscal climate.  In response to your question though let me ask you a question.  When's the last time the DOD funded the creation of a new company for a new weapon system of that magnitude?
Not sure how price can be judged apriori...please inform..
don't want to continue to bring up collabs again and again but willl.
No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #178 on: May 11, 2013, 11:00:17 am »
Not sure how price can be judged apriori...please inform..

A new manufacturing facility, completely new workforce, etc. doesn't come free.  Which part of that is difficult to understand?

No internal vehicle capability...
Is it a requirement?  No?  So let's add "unnecessary excess cost" to the list of negatives as well.
 
dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...

Yes, you've mentioned it twice now without justifying it.  Please do so.  [/quote][/quote]
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline 2IDSGT

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 371
  • Ah tale yew wut!
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #179 on: May 11, 2013, 01:52:30 pm »
No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..
Uh... I'm confused... was in an AASLT unit, don't recall anything about vehicles other than the LPC (leather personnel carrier) when it came to Blackhawks.  This is about a UH-60 replacement, isn't it? 

Yeah, we get it; everyone loves the underdog.  Unfortunately, the AVX offering isn't over-aweing anyone (neither is the European bodge).  There's no money to play around with, so it's pretty much down to the X-2 or tilt-rotor ideas (not that I'm optimistic the Army will follow through anyways).

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #180 on: May 11, 2013, 02:13:31 pm »
If the JMR/FVL programs are about supporting the established domestic rotorcraft industry then it is a race between Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 03:04:32 pm by Triton »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #181 on: May 11, 2013, 07:00:29 pm »
If the JMR/FVL programs are about supporting the established domestic rotorcraft industry then it is a race between Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.

As well as if they're looking for the most viable option.  Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2013, 07:07:19 pm by sferrin »
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #182 on: May 12, 2013, 05:48:14 am »
No internal vehicle capability... dead dismounts (again as stated earlier)...then Large vulnerable transports and attack..drop the whole UH-60 replacement and end the concept of Air Assault Divisions...one Ch-47 carries one JTLV..
Uh... I'm confused... was in an AASLT unit, don't recall anything about vehicles other than the LPC (leather personnel carrier) when it came to Blackhawks.  This is about a UH-60 replacement, isn't it? 

Yeah, we get it; everyone loves the underdog.  Unfortunately, the AVX offering isn't over-aweing anyone (neither is the European bodge).  There's no money to play around with, so it's pretty much down to the X-2 or tilt-rotor ideas (not that I'm optimistic the Army will follow through anyways).

Thank you for your service... Army myself...For someone who served in an AASLT unit and at your high NCO rank your response is quite shocking and scary....Hopefully, not indicative. One reason why the Marines can continue to laugh at the Army is at least they understand quite old Army studies which drove development of the V-22 and its internal vehicle. Their dispersed ops concept is from quite well understood from Vietnam era.. LPC egress, evasion etc. against a real adversary equals dead dismounts.. Yasotay, a former Army Aviator recently in a previous thread discussed the dangers of sling load vehicles in contested areas.. The Chinese have been deploying at least two 8whl vehicles inside Hips for quite sometime..The Marines understand the vulnerability of ITVs and hopefully will continue survivability enhancements..

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #183 on: May 12, 2013, 02:14:26 pm »
As well as if they're looking for the most viable option.  Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.

sferrin, I was replying to your previous reply which you wrote:

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

So I interpreted your reply to mean that the JMR/FVL programs should be corporate welfare to sustain the existing manufacturers in the rotorcraft industry. We don't need a startup, that might offer a better product, that will bleed out the established, experienced players. So why is the United States Army wasting their time talking to AVX, Piasecki, and Eurocopter and waiting until September to determine the downselect?



To interpret you original comment, you seem to be favoring that the United States Army


Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #184 on: May 12, 2013, 02:37:20 pm »
As well as if they're looking for the most viable option.  Seriously this, "ooh the companies with the most experience and capability are favored, it must be a MIC conspiracy" is retarded and getting old.

sferrin, I was replying to your previous reply which you wrote:

There is barely enough to sustain what contractors there are, why would you make more just to bleed out the established, experienced players?

So I interpreted your reply to mean that the JMR/FVL programs should be corporate welfare to sustain the existing manufacturers in the rotorcraft industry. We don't need a startup, that might offer a better product, that will bleed out the established, experienced players. So why is the United States Army wasting their time talking to AVX, Piasecki, and Eurocopter and waiting until September to determine the downselect?



To interpret you original comment, you seem to be favoring that the United States Army


They're talking to AVX, Piasecki and Eurocpter because under contracting rules, they can't not talk to them at this point.  Thi sis only a demonstrator, after all, and at this point, it's not even that, only studies.   Of course, if ths wer either '50s or '60s, we'd see AVX get a contract to build their demonstrator just in case they can pull it off and to see what we can learn.  Nowadays, though, "reducing risk" (to avoid looking bad) is as big a driver as "most benefit". 

Judging by that criteria, Tilt-Rotor is the lowest risk, followed by X2 or X3, although the latter has to do something about the prop location.  That's why the betting is on Bell and Boeing/Sikorsky.   Of course, they could do what they did with LHX at the last minute: lower the speed to 160-170 knots and educe the range requirement.   Hello conventional  helo! 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #185 on: May 13, 2013, 07:24:14 am »
F-14D, your post reminds me of an old saying in IT Departments: "No one ever got fired for buying IBM."


Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #186 on: May 13, 2013, 07:26:53 am »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

There is a name for that: a gamble. The problem is that there is very little space for gambling in today's business world...

Here is what I wrote about AVX's submission a few pages ago:

Notwithstanding the quality of the AVX proposals (and the fact that it is made up of many former Bell people), why would the DoD place a contract with a nascent company that has no record of mass-producing any type before when there are other capable and proven contenders with a half-century-long experience of military contracts? I doubt the military and government are very prone to such risk-taking, especially in the difficult economic context.

Does AVX stand any chance at all on JMR? And what of Karem? Is there hope for such new players to ever find their rightful place in the big leagues?

I think we are basically saying the same thing: AVX doesn't stand much of a chance here...
« Last Edit: May 13, 2013, 07:28:52 am by Stargazer2006 »

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #187 on: May 13, 2013, 08:09:13 am »
So basically they're saying they believe they should be chosen to build the demonstrator because they are the least experienced and have the MOST risky design?   ::)  Sounds like a recipe for a winner to me.

There is a name for that: a gamble. The problem is that there is very little space for gambling in today's business world...

Here is what I wrote about AVX's submission a few pages ago:

Notwithstanding the quality of the AVX proposals (and the fact that it is made up of many former Bell people), why would the DoD place a contract with a nascent company that has no record of mass-producing any type before when there are other capable and proven contenders with a half-century-long experience of military contracts? I doubt the military and government are very prone to such risk-taking, especially in the difficult economic context.

Does AVX stand any chance at all on JMR? And what of Karem? Is there hope for such new players to ever find their rightful place in the big leagues?

I think we are basically saying the same thing: AVX doesn't stand much of a chance here...

Agreed.  I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #188 on: May 13, 2013, 08:16:03 am »
I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place.

"Not enough work"... unless they are also firmly established on the civilian market. Companies like Piper, Beech or Cessna never waited upon the military to guarantee their existence. Their production of military types was kind of a "bonus", but when the contracts dwindled, they still had a strong civilian base to keep them going... AVX or Karem don't.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #189 on: May 13, 2013, 08:18:33 am »
I understand why some would desire "new blood" or more competitors but there just isn't enough work to support them which is why the big consolidations happened in the first place.

"Not enough work"... unless they are also firmly established on the civilian market. Companies like Piper, Beech or Cessna never waited upon the military to guarantee their existence. Their production of military types was kind of a "bonus", but when the contracts dwindled, they still had a strong civilian base to keep them going... AVX or Karem don't.

Yep.  Same thing happened with Groen Brothers.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #190 on: May 13, 2013, 06:28:32 pm »
A lot of good discussion here; and I agree that it is a long shot for AVX.  Still they do have one of the most experienced military  rotorcraft design teams in the industry (darn near every Bell rotorcraft since the UH-1).  I suspect that if they get the nod as one of the teams they will find themselves courted by several of the DoD "Big Teams" who have all of the infrastructure and military design stuff anyone could need to bring a new rotorcraft to market.  While it is not the sexiest of the concepts a little research shows an aircraft that is actually slightly smaller than an H-60 (if the booth info is to be believed) with a rotor diameter the same as an H-60.  With a 6 x 6 cabin (Hugenormous compared to H-60) capable of 14 seated troops with doors and a ramp it certainly seems they have done a good job getting a assault ship put together.  From the article in Rotor & Wing they can pick up 13K lbs externally which is not shabby either.  All that said I have to agree with most here that it would be difficult to put money on AVX for the win.
Another note that might have not resonated here is that the Army is looking to get more expeditionary... yup their words.  The Army Aviation CG briefed in January some slides that showed FVL self deploying through Alaska to the Philippines.  Then there is the quote in Bells Quad A briefing that indicates the Army said Tilt Rotor was the most effective aircraft in a study.
So all that said I too have to say that Boeing/Sikorsky (cause it still looks like a helicopter) and Bell/(yet to be named)(cause the Army can't look to stoggie {the horse was still an effective battlefield weapon as late as January 1942}) are the sure bets.
Kinda hope they surprise us, but don't count on it.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #191 on: May 13, 2013, 10:48:09 pm »
The AVX solution for the JMR is based upon their other proposals so far which are basically conversion kits for existing helicopters.

So while the JMR design is new, the concept itself includes a conventional helicopter in its DNA. They even listed as advantage removing the ducted fans to scale back the speed to 170kn if the Army dropped the 230kn speed requirement.

So if even it's most distinctive feature ( the ducted fans ) is not essential how can they they claim they have the Future of Vertical Lift? There is virtually no innovation into the verticle lift part itself.

I do see a bright feature for AVX if the FTL gets the axe though. They will have a lot of helicopters to upgrade, which maybe their ultimate plan.
We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #192 on: June 05, 2013, 12:36:23 pm »
From Aviation Week at: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_06_04_2013_p0-585284.xml
 
"EADS North America has withdrawn its proposal for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role (JMR) advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstration, to focus company resources on its offering for the service’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) requirement. ...A Sikorsky-Boeing team confirms it has been invited to negotiate a cost-sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) for a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor compound-helicopter demonstrator. ...Industry sources say AVX Aircraft also has been invited to negotiate a TIA for a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan compound helicopter. The company declines to comment.
UPDATE:  Bell has also announced:  http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell-V-280-Valor-selected-for-Army-JMR-TD-Program
 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 02:02:24 pm by yasotay »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #193 on: June 05, 2013, 12:56:52 pm »
Does the cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) mean that the JMR program has already been downselected to Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX? Does this also mean that the United States Army is not interested in tiltrotor technology and the Bell V-280 Valor?
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 01:37:45 pm by Triton »

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #194 on: June 05, 2013, 02:03:53 pm »
Does the cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) mean that the JMR program has already been downselected to Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX? Does this also mean that the United States Army is not interested in tiltrotor technology and the Bell V-280 Valor?
Bell has also been selected (see last post by me).  It was late breaking news.  Also there is no confirmation yet that AVX has been selected.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #195 on: June 05, 2013, 02:41:11 pm »
Came across this article
http://www.aviationweek.com/awmobile/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/AW_05_06_2013_p18-575342.xml&p=1

wherein the President of AVX makes a rather unusual argument in pressing case.  Basically, he's saying,  'You already know that the other guys' concepts work, so pick me so we can determine if ours does'. 

If I were AVX I wouldn't consider that my strongest argument... ???

Offline Aeroengineer1

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #196 on: June 05, 2013, 04:00:22 pm »
I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is.  I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design.  These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced. 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #197 on: June 05, 2013, 04:33:15 pm »
I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is.  I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design.  These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #198 on: June 05, 2013, 04:40:16 pm »
I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is.  I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design.  These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

Oh, I know who Troy Gaffey is, and never thought any of them were crackpots.  I'm simply saying he used a really unfortunate turn of phrase to promote why they should get a contract.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #199 on: June 05, 2013, 05:13:15 pm »
I am not sure you guys understand who AVX is.  I keep seeing statements that these guys are inexperienced, but it must be remembered that many of the AVX guys are retired Bell guys that have partnered with quite a few other companies that have experience in rotorcraft design.  These guys are not crackpots, small and long shots, sure, but it would be inaccurate to label them inexperienced.

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?
Who was Frank Robinson?  They laughed at him too.  To be sure AVX has not produced one aircraft, but if the U.S. military starts looking like they are really interested, I suspect that those who have built a multitude of aircraft and does have the infrastructure to do so will be seriously talking to AVX.

Offline Aeroengineer1

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #200 on: June 05, 2013, 06:17:20 pm »
How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production.  For most of those he was a senior engineer.  When he retired from Bell he was their Senior VP of Research and Development.  He has other very senior, and well respected engineers on his direct team.  As for producing parts, most companies are now design and integration houses.  Very little production takes place on site.  There is a lot of assembly work, but not a lot of manufacturing of piece parts.  Companies like Auroa and Ducommun are big enough to do fuselage assemblies.  My company specializes in rotor blade design and manufacturer.  Others like Parker are skilled in hydraulics. 

Like I said, they are a small core group, but they are drawing on the experience from many other groups.  This core group has more experience in rotor craft design than most other groups could wish to have.  Many of these guys that are working with him created the innovations that are on many helicopters today.

The other thing to remember, these guys are doing this for fun.  They came out of retirement to do this.  It was not that they needed the work, it is that they believe in their idea. 
« Last Edit: June 05, 2013, 06:19:05 pm by Aeroengineer1 »

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #201 on: June 06, 2013, 08:49:52 am »
How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production.  For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #202 on: June 06, 2013, 09:27:33 am »
I guess being invited to negotiate a cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) does not mean that the vendor has been chosen to build a technology demonstrator.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #203 on: June 06, 2013, 10:42:32 am »
How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production.  For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."
If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint.   In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people.  I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #204 on: June 06, 2013, 12:02:44 pm »
How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production.  For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."
If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint.   In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people.  I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept.

My question for a company this size is how they will be able to handle the ungodly amount of paperwork, inspections, bureaucratic cya'ing ,etc. that is involved with a contract with the Federal Government.   In the grand scheme of federal procurement, actually buiilding the thing is almost incidental.   

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #205 on: June 06, 2013, 05:15:11 pm »

That is the difficult part. One can only hope that if they team with a larger company the buildings full of professional paper pushers will be up to the task of overcoming the legions of fedreal bureacrat with their batteries of regulations.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #206 on: June 07, 2013, 04:02:21 am »
How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production.  For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."
If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint.   In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people.  I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept.

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment.   The major players already have this up and going.  AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #207 on: June 07, 2013, 06:26:42 am »
Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment.   The major players already have this up and going.  AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

Not to mention the fact that even if it had won and the DoD didn't trust them to build up all that production effort in reasonable time, they might have asked the losing companies to bid for the manufacture of the AVX design and gone for the cheapest (this has happened quite a few times before...).

Offline Aeroengineer1

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #208 on: June 07, 2013, 06:36:28 am »

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment.   The major players already have this up and going.  AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

These days this is not nearly the issue that you make it out to be.  The biggest issue is that they would need to come up with a facility to integrate all the components.  This is a process that requires much less training as well as time to implement.  All the heavy lifting would come from companies like Ducommun, Spirit Aero, Aurora, Parker, and smaller companies.  All these components would be delivered as assemblies with things like wiring and obviously mechanical fastenting of the subsystems. 

The bigger issue is cost to generate material properties databases.  This is a costly undertaking usually in the half million for a single composite material.

I would not be as worried about the contracts department.  Oftentimes, R&D contracts are much more complicated than production.  If they are able to handle the R&D, I imagine that they are well equipped to handle the production side of things.  They most likely will, if they have not already, need to get an ISO certification.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #209 on: June 07, 2013, 07:05:19 am »

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment.   The major players already have this up and going.  AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

These days this is not nearly the issue that you make it out to be.  The biggest issue is that they would need to come up with a facility to integrate all the components.  This is a process that requires much less training as well as time to implement.  All the heavy lifting would come from companies like Ducommun, Spirit Aero, Aurora, Parker, and smaller companies.  All these components would be delivered as assemblies with things like wiring and obviously mechanical fastenting of the subsystems.

Yeah, I know how it works.  That doesn't mean assembly, testing, etc. is trivial and that a trained workforce is going to roll up from the local SOS.  Creating that infrastructure, and getting it to run smoothly from scratch costs time and money. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #210 on: June 07, 2013, 08:11:09 am »
 
http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/
 
From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."
 
Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.
 

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #211 on: June 07, 2013, 08:41:40 am »

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/
 
From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."
 
Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.

I've never understood why "crowd sourcing" was anything more than a buzzword.  Seems to me it would be the least efficient way to get something done.  Like taking "design by committee" to the nth degree.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline lantinian

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 495
  • Inspired
    • Tech-Talk Blog
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #212 on: June 07, 2013, 10:57:35 am »
Well, the AVX proposal is accepted for consideration

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/avx-joins-bell-sikorskyboeing.html

Quote
The US Army has picked AVX Aircraft Company's design for its high-speed Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program.

AVX, which was formed by Bell Helicopter veterans in 2005, says it is in negotiations with the service for a JMR-TD contract, which is expected to be awarded in mid-September. The company joins Bell and a joint Sikorsky/Boeing team in being selected for the program, which is expected to lead into the army's nascent Future Vertical Lift effort to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 and potentially the Boeing AH-64 Apache in the 2030s.

"The AVX proposal offers the capabilities the Army wants for the future fleet of utility and attack aircraft at a very attractive price," the company says. Like the Sikorsky/Boeing design, AVX's proposed design is a coaxial-rotor compound machine.

AVX says it has teamed with "a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design", which the company claims will mean a lower price tag than the competing designs.

Meanwhile, Piasecki, another smaller firm competing for the army's business, did the not make the grade. "Unfortunately Piasecki was NOT selected for the JMR-TD," the company says. Additionally, EADS North America dropped out of the program--it is not known if their design was found to be acceptable by the army or not.

Тhe second image is particularly interesting as we didn't have a high res version till now.

It shows that the AVX proposal may have the most versatile proposal yet feature the highest commonality.

There are some interesting details:
- solders can jump out under the cover of the canards and the fuselage much more efficiently
- the wide fuselage provides some payload possibilities unavailable to any of the other contenders

It seam more and more to me that all 3 contenders so far have produced proposals best suited to different parts of the FVL replacement program. Sikorsky's gets the best light design, Bell the best Medium one and AVX seams particularly optimized for the heavy lift.

With 3 good proposals so far, I wander if the US Army might not opt to let all 3 build prototypes instead of downs selecting to 2?
 

We have to shape the future or others will do it for us.....Cdr. Ivanova, Babylon 5

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #213 on: June 08, 2013, 05:37:31 am »

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/
 
From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."
 
Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.

I've never understood why "crowd sourcing" was anything more than a buzzword.  Seems to me it would be the least efficient way to get something done.  Like taking "design by committee" to the nth degree.
.                                   
 
You are probably right.  My real point was that it would be interesting to see a different model for aircraft development and fielding, other than the metastasized process-bound method that currently plagues us.

Offline Skyblazer

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 13244
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #214 on: June 09, 2013, 09:59:47 am »
This here topic is used to discuss the JMR program only.

Side discussion on how the design/engineering/production processes have changed, however interesting, has now been moved to The Bar:
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19678.0

Thanks for your understanding!

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 914
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #215 on: June 10, 2013, 09:06:33 am »
[size=78%]With 3 good proposals so far, I wander if the US Army might not opt to let all 3 build prototypes instead of downs selecting to 2?[/size]
I can't imagine the Army can make the budget case to build 3 prototypes. Unless the Valor has unforseen difficulty before then, I'd expect them to pick one compound and the tilt-rotor to advance to flight testing. That approach covers the most ground and leaves the door open to pursue both general configurations further down the road.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #216 on: June 16, 2013, 09:20:05 am »
Selected helicopter manufacturers are moving on to the next stage of the Army’s joint multi-role technical demonstrator program. But EADS North America has dropped out in order to concentrate on the uncertain armed aerial scout competition.

The joint multi-role demonstrator program is a precursor to what the Army is calling future vertical lift, a series of next-generation vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that will replace the service’s aging helicopters.

Bell Helicopter, a Boeing-Sikorsky team and a small Fort Worth, Tex.-based company called AVX Aircraft have all been chosen to negotiate cost-sharing agreements with the Army to fund demonstrator aircraft.

The Army is expected to award contracts for the technical demonstrator program in September, and companies would conduct flights in 2017.

With EADS out of the running, the Boeing-Sikorsky team has the upper hand, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group. 

"Unless anyone else can bring a really innovative technology to bear, the advantage is going to Boeing-Sikorsky just for industrial base reasons and because they hold so much of the current mission," he said. Historically, “the Army has never had any interest at all in tiltrotor technology” like Bell’s V-22 Osprey.

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1178
 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #217 on: June 16, 2013, 09:36:49 am »
The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #218 on: June 17, 2013, 05:41:10 pm »
The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #219 on: June 17, 2013, 06:06:36 pm »
The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is?  The article?  Why?
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #220 on: June 18, 2013, 08:57:30 am »
The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is?  The article?  Why?

Nothing more than the potential for legal action claiming bias in a government program leading to competitive  selection.  Other than that...

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #221 on: June 18, 2013, 12:06:19 pm »
Would an EADS (American Eurocopter) proposal have been stronger if the company still had the alliance with Northrop Grumman?

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #222 on: June 18, 2013, 03:32:45 pm »
My opinion only here, but yes I think so as they would have had more clout with senior government officials and NG would have ameliorated the argument regarding the US industrial base.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #223 on: June 18, 2013, 04:46:04 pm »
The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is?  The article?  Why?

Nothing more than the potential for legal action claiming bias in a government program leading to competitive  selection.  Other than that...

I don't see how.  The Army doesn't control what independent news sources say. 
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline HeavyG

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 73
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #224 on: June 18, 2013, 04:54:23 pm »
Keep in mind that the Teal Group is a consultancy group dealing with primarily tracking aerospace industry trends.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #225 on: June 19, 2013, 05:06:03 am »
You are correct HeavyG.. :)


Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #227 on: July 03, 2013, 06:30:25 am »
Bell V-280 Valor
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell-V-280-Valor-selected-for-Army-JMR-TD-Program
 
First time I've seen this particular picture.
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 8107
  • The path not taken.
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #228 on: July 08, 2013, 03:26:01 am »
On a tangent: The Vertical Lift Industrial Base: Outlook 2004-2014

Quote
This report was produced for the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology,
& Logistics) by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) from October
2003-June 2004. Stephen Thompson of the Industrial Policy staff led this effort.
Michael Caccuitto and Dawn Vehmeier of the Industrial Policy staff, Mike Walsh of the
Defense Systems staff, and Jim Woolsey of IDA also had major roles in the production
of this report. Support was provided under contract by First Equity Development, Inc.
Among others, special thanks are due to Matthew Mejia of First Equity for his important
contributions.

The team would especially like to acknowledge the contributions of Sikorsky, Bell, and
Boeing who provided us with data; company site visits; and valuable insights as
members of one of this report’s Red Teams. Inquiries regarding the report should be
directed to Stephen Thompson at (703) 602-4331.
The sole imperative of a government, once instituted, is to survive.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #230 on: July 10, 2013, 02:15:55 pm »
http://defensetech.org/2013/07/08/army-seeks-designs-for-next-gen-helicopters/
Interesting twist at the end.

It's an interesting twist, but not entirely accurate.  Army always new how wide the bird would be, their requirements were folded into JVX (which became the V-22).   Their original objection with the program was that they were paying a disproportionate share of the R&D given their planned buy.   This was adjusted, and lead of the program was also passed to the Marines.  This is a little ironic, since it was the Army that saved the Tilt-Rotor program when NASA, at that time feeling their job was solely research and not development, was going to ground the XV-15s.  Army came up with funding to keep one flying and develop more information (Bell leased the other one from the gov't and did their own research and promotion).  The transfer to the Marines was fortuitous, as it turns out. 

Army had a requirement for a Special Equipment Missions Aircraft (SEMA).  they were looking at up to 200 JVXs/V-22s to perform that, with another initial 24 "vanilla" units for MEDEVAC, with further numbers possible.  SEMA required the ability at times to cruise @ 30,000 feet.  This would have meant a pressurized section and changes to the proprotors.  USAF started yelling about "roles and missions"  and lobbied against an Army aircraft that could do that.  The Army SEMA mission went away.   Since there was no longer any unique Army requirements for the a/c, they figured why spend money on V-22 R&D.  They could always just buy some regular V-22s when the need arose.  This would free up a pot of R&D money that could then be used for LHX. 

I do agree, though, that pulling out was a mistake. 
« Last Edit: July 10, 2013, 04:47:11 pm by F-14D »

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #231 on: July 10, 2013, 04:15:43 pm »
Thank you for sharing some backgound F-14D.. The Army should have certainly kept the SEMA mission as the bin laden raid displayed.. Question why not 40k' altitude?
Think Paul Wolfawitz wanted the Army back in V-22..

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #232 on: July 10, 2013, 05:04:27 pm »
Thank you for sharing some backgound F-14D.. The Army should have certainly kept the SEMA mission as the bin laden raid displayed.. Question why not 40k' altitude?
Think Paul Wolfawitz wanted the Army back in V-22..

First, I must apologize for a typo in my post.  This gave the impression that this was a special ops aircraft, such as what would be flown by the 160th SOAR.  My bad.   :-[

The correct title is Special Electronic Mission Aircraft.   This is the kind of mission flown by  U-21s of various flavors , RC-12s, RC-7Bs, etc.  The V-22 would have replaced many of them.  It offered speeds as fast if not faster than Army a/c used in this role, plus VTOL capability.

The reason for no 40K cruise is that it wasn't needed for the Army SEMA mission.  40,000 feet is also above the altitude at which most turboprops fly (and in conventional mode,  the V-22 is a turboprop aircraft) , and  a 40,000 ft. cruise requirement would require really extensive changes in the V-22 design, which would wipe out a number of the economies of commonality that JVX was trying to achieve. 

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #233 on: July 10, 2013, 06:45:02 pm »
Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #234 on: July 10, 2013, 09:22:02 pm »
Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL:  You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing.  Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K. 

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #235 on: July 11, 2013, 10:00:09 am »
Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL:  You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing.  Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K.
Ironically the Army still has a significant number of fixed wing "electronic reconnaissance" (my term) aircraft in inventory.  With the exponential increase in cyber warfare they will be around for a very long time.  The Army, with budget woes has an easy decision that a ~$15M C-12 platform (before electronics) was more cost effective than ~$70M for the V-22.  The cost unfortunatley overwhelmed the tremendous mission flexibility that a VTOL platform provides.  For instance ANY C-12 seen anywhere near an active operation area is considered to be a reconnaissance platform by the neferious types.  They track them no doubt.  The VTOL platform does not have to use the local airport or air base as the Army practies routinely moving their assembly areas around (or it could fly off of a container ship off the coast) which is a bit more challenging to keep tabs on.
I would not be surprised to see this mission rolled back into the JMR mission set ... if the right aircraft type is developed.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #236 on: July 11, 2013, 12:31:57 pm »
Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL:  You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing.  Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K.
Ironically the Army still has a significant number of fixed wing "electronic reconnaissance" (my term) aircraft in inventory.  With the exponential increase in cyber warfare they will be around for a very long time.  The Army, with budget woes has an easy decision that a ~$15M C-12 platform (before electronics) was more cost effective than ~$70M for the V-22.  The cost unfortunatley overwhelmed the tremendous mission flexibility that a VTOL platform provides.  For instance ANY C-12 seen anywhere near an active operation area is considered to be a reconnaissance platform by the neferious types.  They track them no doubt.  The VTOL platform does not have to use the local airport or air base as the Army practies routinely moving their assembly areas around (or it could fly off of a container ship off the coast) which is a bit more challenging to keep tabs on.
I would not be surprised to see this mission rolled back into the JMR mission set ... if the right aircraft type is developed.

The original point of my post was commenting on the Loren Thompson piece which said the Army pulled out of V-22 because,  “the Army figured that the Osprey was not quite wide enough for a Humvee".  Since the Army was the lead service on JVX at the time the requirements were being formulated and finalized, it would seem a little odd that they wouldn't realize that the vehicle for which they had awarded a contract for 55,000 copies was a little too wide for the cargo box of a plane whose design at that point wasn't frozen.    More logically, this wasn't that big a concern for them.  They did not see JVX as a replacement for the CH-47 as the Marines did for the CH-46. 

The original intent was that their SEMA aircraft would be collocated with the rest of the operating forces, not restricted to airbases somewhere in the rear.  Those other assets This was more expensive, but looking only at purchase cost, VTOL always is.   Don't forget also that the Cold War was going strong at that point, and they wanted something that they could use in the expected fluid battlefield they were planning for.   When the SEMA mission for JVX went away, Army's requirements for number of aircraft dropped tremendously and they decided to use their R&D money for LHX, figuring they could always buy [what became] the MV-22 off the shelf later.   

Personally, I'm not sure USAF would have ever let the Army have V-22s. 


Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #237 on: July 12, 2013, 09:00:51 am »
which brings me to my question: will the Air Force be comfortable with the Army having high-speed machines? we're looking at speeds in excess of AAFSS, and we know how that went.
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #238 on: July 12, 2013, 12:52:45 pm »
which brings me to my question: will the Air Force be comfortable with the Army having high-speed machines? we're looking at speeds in excess of AAFSS, and we know how that went.


They went after AAFSS not just because of speed.   USAF's position was that "helicopter escort" was an acceptable role for an armed Army helicopter to perform.   Beyond that, it belonged to USAF.  When Army started talking CAS, even though that's a role USAF has not historically been that interested in taking on, they started yelling.  When Army then noted that by putting the prop into Beta they could dive bomb, USAF went absolutely ballistic, "...and we know how that went". 

USAF objected to the SEMA version of JVX/V-22 because it was fast, pressurized, flew at "airplane" altitudes regularly and looked like (in fact was during most of its mission) a fixed wing. 

I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.   

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #239 on: July 12, 2013, 11:04:42 pm »
I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.

Isn't JMR-Medium intended to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and variants in the United States inventory? What is the United States Navy going to use to replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk? The United States Air Force the MH-60/HH-60 Pave Hawk? The United States Coast Guard the HH-60 Jay Hawk? The United States Marine Corps the UH-1Y Venom? Wouldn't the United States Navy ally with the United States Army for this increased capability if it came to a "roles and missions" debate with the United States Air Force? I just don't see multiple medium-lift utility rotorcraft programs in this current budget climate. What other helicopter platforms are expected to match the performance of FVL/JMR-Medium?

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #240 on: July 13, 2013, 02:32:03 am »
I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.

Isn't JMR-Medium intended to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and variants in the United States inventory? What is the United States Navy going to use to replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk? The United States Air Force the MH-60/HH-60 Pave Hawk? The United States Coast Guard the HH-60 Jay Hawk? The United States Marine Corps the UH-1Y Venom? Wouldn't the United States Navy ally with the United States Army for this increased capability if it came to a "roles and missions" debate with the United States Air Force? I just don't see multiple medium-lift utility rotorcraft programs in this current budget climate. What other helicopter platforms are expected to match the performance of FVL/JMR-Medium?

Navy's program to replace H-60 series is MH-XX expected to enter service in 2028.  At present not aligned with JMR, but that could change if Army can incorporate Navy requirements.   H-1 Yankee and Zulu are just entering service, replacement not a priority yet, as it is with Army, but they'll eventually nee ed something to replace those.   Not as much conflict between USAF and USN on aircraft as in the past because once A/FX went away, Navy doesn't compete with USAF "first string" players, although sometimes USAF will lobby against a weapons system just to keep their hand in. 

USAF tends to leave the Marines alone since what they develop almost never competes with USAF desires, plus there's no DoD policy on USMC vs. USAF as there is with Army. 

Coast Guard, as usual, is facing severe cuts (1/3 in monies for new systems).  In fact, their current long-anticipated air and sea modernization program may have to be abandoned.  They were hoping to get the C-27Js from  that USAF-Army fiasco, and although Congress has authorized it, nothing seems to be happening.   They'll just have to wait and see what the other services do because they have no R&D budget for developing a new aircraft. 



USAF tends to leave helo development alone, because they aren't "real" airplanes, and besides USAF isn't interested in developing its own, but rather letting someone else pay for developing them and then they' adapt them to their needs.  Normally, this means no conflict.   BUT, should it perceive that an Army system is getting too "uppity" and not staying in its "place", they'll lobby against it. 

JMR could provide a common framework for USN-Army, but as it is Army-led USAF will probably be watching closesly, and that's my fear.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #241 on: July 13, 2013, 10:14:43 am »
USAF Inc.  has a long history of precluding US Army efforts.  The C-27 fiasco is so similar to the Caribou story of Vietnam as to be frightening.  Not only did the USAF Inc., take the fully programmed aircraft, they took the US Army funds that went with it, then promptly decided they did not need the aircraft and reprogrammed the money.  The heavy lift efforts of the US Army is another demonstration of the USAF Inc. methodology.  They did nothing until the program was a program of record, then no one less than the Chief of the Air Force got with the Army to clear up roles and missions.  The USAF Inc. took over the program, spent a couple of years studying it (two decades of Army effort were of course insufficient), then promptly cancelled all work.  Interestingly the Army has solved their problem with USAF Inc., on this, by hiring contract aviation companies to do the mission the way the US Army would like to get air movement done.

There will be some very interesting dynamics coming out of military roles and missions as the efficiencies of VTOL slink out of the primordial state they have been in.  What will likely be disconcerting to the USAF Inc., is that there is growing political interest in improving VTOL platform capabilities.  Almost six hundred rotorcraft lost compared to less than one hundred fixed wing in the wars.  With the expectation that most future conflicts will be less than total war, requiring more low altitude operations, there is more congressional support than there has been in the past.  Part of why the USAF Inc. does not mess with the USMC is that the Marines are the darlings of Congress.  How else do you get a one-for-one replacement of CH-46 with MV-22, CH-53K, UH/AH-1, F-35 all through the financial wickets in fiscally constrained political atmosphere?

Then there is the US Army aviation science and technology budget which has traditionally been funded at lower levels than the funds the USAF Inc., gets just for engine technology.  Perhaps someday a hypersonic fighter/bomber at 50,000 feet can solve a Hezbollah like enemy operating in and amongst civil populations in mega-cities, or deal with mass causalities from a fanatic weapon of mass destruction.  Until that is demonstrated I think the focus and priorities of the Air Service, to kill any effort that hints an appearance to impinge on their mission, is ill served for the defense of our country.

Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.

On topic, I think that as long as a tilt-rotor stays at V-22 size or lower, the USAF Inc., will not be overly concerned with the US Army having them as it does not really get into their cargo/troop mission or funding stream.  At least on the troop lift / utility side.  Attack tilt-rotor may present an issue for them.

Edit:  To be fair, I do not wish to disparage the men and women of the Air Force who fly and fight every day alongside the other services.  They are good men and women doing the same as any other.  My angst and frustration is with the USAF Inc., professional staffs that reside in the nations capitol, far from the fight with myopic views of how Douhetian theories will solve all military problems.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2013, 10:25:19 am by yasotay »

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #242 on: July 13, 2013, 01:07:41 pm »
Thank you F-14D for alerting me to the Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX) program by Navy Air Systems Command.

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #243 on: July 13, 2013, 01:13:41 pm »
USAF Inc.  has a long history of precluding US Army efforts.  The C-27 fiasco is so similar to the Caribou story of Vietnam as to be frightening.  Not only did the USAF Inc., take the fully programmed aircraft, they took the US Army funds that went with it, then promptly decided they did not need the aircraft and reprogrammed the money.  The heavy lift efforts of the US Army is another demonstration of the USAF Inc. methodology.  They did nothing until the program was a program of record, then no one less than the Chief of the Air Force got with the Army to clear up roles and missions.  The USAF Inc. took over the program, spent a couple of years studying it (two decades of Army effort were of course insufficient), then promptly cancelled all work.  Interestingly the Army has solved their problem with USAF Inc., on this, by hiring contract aviation companies to do the mission the way the US Army would like to get air movement done.

There will be some very interesting dynamics coming out of military roles and missions as the efficiencies of VTOL slink out of the primordial state they have been in.  What will likely be disconcerting to the USAF Inc., is that there is growing political interest in improving VTOL platform capabilities.  Almost six hundred rotorcraft lost compared to less than one hundred fixed wing in the wars.  With the expectation that most future conflicts will be less than total war, requiring more low altitude operations, there is more congressional support than there has been in the past.  Part of why the USAF Inc. does not mess with the USMC is that the Marines are the darlings of Congress.  How else do you get a one-for-one replacement of CH-46 with MV-22, CH-53K, UH/AH-1, F-35 all through the financial wickets in fiscally constrained political atmosphere?

Then there is the US Army aviation science and technology budget which has traditionally been funded at lower levels than the funds the USAF Inc., gets just for engine technology.  Perhaps someday a hypersonic fighter/bomber at 50,000 feet can solve a Hezbollah like enemy operating in and amongst civil populations in mega-cities, or deal with mass causalities from a fanatic weapon of mass destruction.  Until that is demonstrated I think the focus and priorities of the Air Service, to kill any effort that hints an appearance to impinge on their mission, is ill served for the defense of our country.

Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.

On topic, I think that as long as a tilt-rotor stays at V-22 size or lower, the USAF Inc., will not be overly concerned with the US Army having them as it does not really get into their cargo/troop mission or funding stream.  At least on the troop lift / utility side.  Attack tilt-rotor may present an issue for them.

Edit:  To be fair, I do not wish to disparage the men and women of the Air Force who fly and fight every day alongside the other services.  They are good men and women doing the same as any other.  My angst and frustration is with the USAF Inc., professional staffs that reside in the nations capitol, far from the fight with myopic views of how Douhetian theories will solve all military problems.

Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk. 

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that.  They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E:  Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft.  UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and  the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert.  Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export).    As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system.  The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs.   So, they're good buddies on this one.  Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there. 

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS.   The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing. 

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause. 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #244 on: July 13, 2013, 01:15:45 pm »
Thank you F-14D for alerting me to the Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX) program by Navy Air Systems Command.

You're welcome.

Although still somewhat ill-defined, they've already had their first industry day.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #245 on: July 14, 2013, 11:05:58 am »
Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk. 

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that.  They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E:  Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft.  UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and  the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert.  Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export).    As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system.  The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs.   So, they're good buddies on this one.  Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there. 

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS.   The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing. 

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause.
I really think that there will be little fight over a transport tilt rotor as the USAF Inc., does not want to have to deal with the movement of such small elements around the battlefield … it is not cost effective from their perspective.  I would agree that an attack variant might give them more pause, however given the capabilities the JMR is looking for, ANY of the attack rotorcraft proposed are back in the AH-56 ball park.  I think we are getting to the point where other technologies, not just aerodynamics are closing in on mission parameters set down in WW2.  Precision rockets, longer ranged dual purpose guided missiles, far more accurate guns are making the argument more difficult every day.  US Army attack helicopters are now routinely training to operate off of USN ships to support Joint operations (not just special ops either).
Then there is the point that that the US Army won the argument to have their Gray Eagle (Army Predator) capable of carrying up to four missiles.  That is most certainly an armed fixed wing aircraft with US Army on the side of it.
 

Offline F-14D

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1725
  • I really did change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #246 on: July 14, 2013, 01:41:43 pm »
Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk. 

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that.  They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E:  Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft.  UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and  the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert.  Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export).    As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system.  The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs.   So, they're good buddies on this one.  Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there. 

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS.   The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing. 

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause.
I really think that there will be little fight over a transport tilt rotor as the USAF Inc., does not want to have to deal with the movement of such small elements around the battlefield … it is not cost effective from their perspective.  I would agree that an attack variant might give them more pause, however given the capabilities the JMR is looking for, ANY of the attack rotorcraft proposed are back in the AH-56 ball park.  I think we are getting to the point where other technologies, not just aerodynamics are closing in on mission parameters set down in WW2.  Precision rockets, longer ranged dual purpose guided missiles, far more accurate guns are making the argument more difficult every day.  US Army attack helicopters are now routinely training to operate off of USN ships to support Joint operations (not just special ops either).
Then there is the point that that the US Army won the argument to have their Gray Eagle (Army Predator) capable of carrying up to four missiles.  That is most certainly an armed fixed wing aircraft with US Army on the side of it.

I understand what you're saying.  The thing about predator is that it's really small and doesn't fly around in "their" airspace.  Plus, given that CIA was already using armed Predators, it'd look really silly for USAF to object.  Plus, Predator is tightly integrated with the ground forces and under their control.  They frankly don't want that role, so they leave it alone as long as it stays in its place.   

Regarding a transport Tilt-Rotor transport, given what we just went through with C-27J, I am not so sanguine unless FVL is artificially constrained in size and range. 

Offline AeroFranz

  • Aerospace Engineer
  • Top Contributor
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #247 on: July 14, 2013, 06:01:17 pm »
Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.



Nope, yours and F-14D's long and thorough explanations are precisely what i was hoping for!
All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics.   TSR.2 got the first three right - Sir Sydney Camm



Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 9705
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #250 on: July 27, 2013, 11:10:24 pm »
The article sounds like a puff piece originally written by AVX's marketing department.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text

Offline TaiidanTomcat

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 863
  • "A wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #252 on: July 28, 2013, 09:23:44 am »
Quote
The article sounds like a puff piece originally written by AVX's marketing department.




AVX Aircraft Corporation: Taking Down the Defense  Establishment

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/avx-aircraft-corporation-taking-down-the-defense-establishment-48567/#ixzz2aHbmv6Xk
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..

yes never  ::)
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 09:37:04 am by TaiidanTomcat »
All F-35 threads will be locked, and supporters publicly outed or banned.

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 11254
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline yasotay

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 1873

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #255 on: July 28, 2013, 03:43:39 pm »
The article sounds like a puff piece originally written by AVX's marketing department.

I doubt it. The article makes two claims: in addition to a lot of straight forward description. One is that the AVX helicopter looks 'more complete' and ready than the other proposals. Which I would agree with, its is the most simple of the proposals. The other that some start ups can be quite successful, providng the example of Elon Musk and SpaceX.
« Last Edit: July 28, 2013, 03:53:54 pm by Abraham Gubler »
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline Abraham Gubler

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 3559
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #256 on: July 28, 2013, 03:53:05 pm »
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..

Yes its always about money. AVX offer a lower bid and have the paperwork to indicate they can deliver it then they can win.
 
Another aspect to consider is JMR is just a demonstrator project. Small companies like AVX, Piasceki, etc can deliver to this scope without any problems. If AVX progresses in JMR then their strategy may not be to offer a production bid themselves but to be brought out by a major. Lockheed or Northrop are major air vehicle builders without a pony in the JMR race and could step up and acquire AVX as a helicopter design division. BAES, Raytheon and many others could have the capital and systems integration expertise to make AVX competitve with Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky for a 4,000 unit production run.
 
There is a lot more to this than the rather simple explanations given in the last few posts.
"There is a tendency in our planning to confuse the unfamiliar with the improbable." Thomas Schelling

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1182
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs
« Reply #257 on: July 29, 2013, 04:57:44 am »