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

yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
Click to expand...
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors
 
VTOLicious said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
Click to expand...
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors
Click to expand...
I doubt there will be a one-for-one exchange. There have been rumblings within the Army that whatever they buy, it would be obsolete by the time they finished a one-for-one replacement. I expect the buy to be ~500ish and the Army will try for even better capability in ten years. Perhaps sans aircrew. Whatever it is, it may not be a tilt rotor, but I am quite sure it will not be a conventional helicopter either. Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
 
yasotay said:
Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
Click to expand...
What is the operating concept for this? Ultra long range "amphib" assault? Wonder if the naval element needs to exist at all if VTOL can "island hop" air assault without ships at all.

From my limited vantage point, it seems like army helicopter's greatest advantage is crossing hostile and difficult terrain safely, with speed and range not really that useful outside of spec ops missions. The other thing I expect is that availability and cost is a bigger issue, providing only a fraction of the force and logistic chain with air mobility. With that kind of perspective the whole development FVL and beyond is not comprehensible to me, what is these requirements for? I don't see how a small force very mobile infantry can be useful enough to justify this.
 
shin_getter said:
yasotay said:
Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
Click to expand...
What is the operating concept for this? Ultra long range "amphib" assault? Wonder if the naval element needs to exist at all if VTOL can "island hop" air assault without ships at all.

From my limited vantage point, it seems like army helicopter's greatest advantage is crossing hostile and difficult terrain safely, with speed and range not really that useful outside of spec ops missions. The other thing I expect is that availability and cost is a bigger issue, providing only a fraction of the force and logistic chain with air mobility. With that kind of perspective the whole development FVL and beyond is not comprehensible to me, what is these requirements for? I don't see how a small force very mobile infantry can be useful enough to justify this.
Click to expand...
Good argument. If the Army remained an industrial age force with 700,00 troops and six of fifteen heavy divisions, along with two divisions worth of support brigades (six Aviation Brigades in Europe alone at one point), forward deployed to focal areas, I doubt I could make a compelling argument regarding the necessity for longer range and speed. Of course that is not the case as the Army will likely not see 500,000 soldiers and the number of divisions and supporting brigades continues to decline, with maneuver brigades replacing divisions as forward deployed. Combat Aviation Brigades only deploy for deployment training exercises, with smaller Task Forces supporting ground operations regularly. The US government has decided to swing their focus to the Pacific Rim. This environment is so drastically different that the equipment the Army designed (very well) for ground combat in Europe, and now the Middle East are not well suited to this new environment. The distances are so much greater that most of the current helicopters are marginally useful. Because of the average speed that current helicopters fly at operating over these distances means significantly more flight hour and thus more maintenance hours and therefore more cost. The acquisition cost of an aircraft is usually less than 50% of its total lifetime cost. It is not the acquisition cost of the F-35 alone that is causing angst. There are a number of places where the "water gap" between a divisions ground maneuver brigades will be far greater than the range of our current helicopter fleet. Even in the technologically utopian future there will be need to mass more than very small mobile infantry forces on occasion. Until C3PO, who can talk and empathize with the population comes about, humans interacting with humans will be important. Navy's can sail away in the night (ask the US Marines), Air Forces can fly away. Boots on the ground means commitment to allies. It is still the diplomatic "all in" of governments. However, since you mention "a small force very mobile infantry" we have to remember that the program must also support the requirements for Special Operation. Clearly a force that already operates over very dispersed areas. In the Information Age, decision cycles have shrunk from days to hours. Getting and staying inside the decision cycle of the opponent will require greater rapidity and agility, thus speed over larger distances makes sense to those who have to consider national strategy and its' implementation for the future.
 
yasotay said:
shin_getter said:
yasotay said:
Getting and staying inside the decision cycle of the opponent will require greater rapidity and agility, thus speed over larger distances makes sense to those who have to consider national strategy and its' implementation for the future.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Good points. The other thing to keep in mind is the US won't have the budget to have as many aircraft that they can deploy as many of them in as many places as now so whatever we do have is going to have to have more speed and range to make up for that.
 
VTOLicious said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
Click to expand...
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors
Click to expand...

Not on a one for one basis, but they wouldn't be able to do that even with conventional helicopters.
 
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...

The key for this is that Sikorsky is going to have to do a <u>lot</u> better with Raider-X than they've done with the X2 aircraft they've built so far in order for Army to pick their higher risk and probably more expensive proposal.
 
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
Click to expand...
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Click to expand...
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Click to expand...

The key for this is that Sikorsky is going to have to do a <u>lot</u> better with Raider-X than they've done with the X2 aircraft they've built so far in order for Army to pick their higher risk and probably more expensive proposal.
Click to expand...
I think Sikorsky is better off with Raider - X as they do have a flying rotorcraft (S-97) that is demonstrating much of the required flight profile. Bell while designing and constructing a relatively "safe" concept, does not have a flying demonstrator, regardless how much they say they are drawing from 525. Conversely, Bell has a flying H-60 replacement and Sikorsky has... a sometimes (not in several months) flying demonstrator. There is a maxim of truth in the U.S. Army - perception is reality.
 
IMOHO there is still today great odds that the US Army could buy both design to replace their Blackhawk: an expeditionary contingent with V280 and a front line one with SB-1.
Then what would happen with RaiderX and Defiant Invictus might depends solely on what available budget is left.

(Edited)
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
IMOHO there is still today great odds that the US Army could buy both design to replace their Blackhawk: an expeditionary contingent with V280 and a front line one with SB-1.
Then what would happen with RaiderX and Defiant might depends solely on what available budget is left.
Click to expand...
SB-1 IS Defiant.
 
breakingdefense.com

FVL: Key RFP Coming This Summer - Breaking Defense

Despite tightening budgets, the Army’s pushing ahead with its plan to replace the Reagan-era UH-60 Black Hawk with a high-speed Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA). It’ll pick between Bell’s V-280 and the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant-X next year, with the winner entering service in 2030.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
A good articulation of all the arguements Sikorsky has promoted. Bell of course has responded with "Show me! We demonstrated everything the Army asked, and more. How about you?" I am sure that there will be a Bell response with things like "What are the logistics of an aircraft with sixteen rotorblades each?" "How about the complexity of the transmission?" and a plethora of other things.

On a different angle, somewhat hinted at in the editorial, is that the USMC does not want the US Army to have aircraft capable of doing some of the USMC missions. Because if the US Army can do some of the missions of the USMC, that put the USMC budget at risk.

Battle is joined now on the FLRAA program, I expect more pointed articles and adverts in the coming months.
 
yasotay said:
On a different angle, somewhat hinted at in the editorial, is that the USMC does not want the US Army to have aircraft capable of doing some of the USMC missions. Because if the US Army can do some of the missions of the USMC, that put the USMC budget at risk.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I thought that was really funny -- "crisis response and forcible entry are the Marines' jobs, not the Army's" as if the Army hasn't had Rangers and Airborne units for exactly those sorts of tasks for decades.
 
It's also pretty funny to cite the need to keep sustainment costs down, an area in which Sikorsky had not demonstrated any advantage in real data over Bell's configuration, and the handwave a bunch of reasons why training on what would be the first production high-speed compound medium-lift helicopter will be dramatically easier than on a tiltrotor.
 
The question remains unanswered:
1. should the marines or army "get" the pacific ground theater? What should the force structure be like?
2. should helicopters be heavily invested as means of mobility as opposed to other aeronaval options for the pacific theater?

The marines are planning a set of capabilities to remain relevant in a fight that the united states does not appear to want to commit serious land forces fighting (tell me plans for getting divisions onto Taiwan~). On the other hand, stationing air defense and long range precision strike isn't exactly a unique task like amphib assaults.
------

Helicopters, with the current ecosystem does not seem economical relative to traditional aircraft, as:
1. The conflict involve extreme distances that demands long range (large and heavy) weapon systems, likely beyond helicopter capacities
2. The mission is defensive, air strip can be invested in and no much need to penetrate AD. Attrition/Mass of infantry is also the last issue for a fight like like this.
3. The naval environment offer less cover to an low air approach, which is tightly watched and utilized by far more dangerous weapons like high speed/stealthy cruise missiles that threatens high value targets. This is unlike land warfare with terrain cover and cruise missile have difficulty hitting high value mobile targets due to ISR limits and vehicle scale.

Now, #1 is not a hard constraint: perhaps families of weapon systems that have relevant ranges for the pacific can be developed to work off medium helicopter payload. One can imagine field assembly of missiles and light weight weapons made for range like loitering munitions, but the US doesn't seem to have much interest. One also wonder if risking men and so many assets is worth it relative to investing in XLUUV with weapons capability.

An alternative line of thinking would have air strip building engineering equipment fit inside medium helicopter payload, however the conflict is likely too fast for that kind of thing.
---------
Imagine the IJN having this next century capability, and it wouldn't have helped them all that much. Compare that with literally everything else....
 
shin_getter said:
The question remains unanswered:
1. should the marines or army "get" the pacific ground theater? What should the force structure be like?
2. should helicopters be heavily invested as means of mobility as opposed to other aeronaval options for the pacific theater?

The marines are planning a set of capabilities to remain relevant in a fight that the united states does not appear to want to commit serious land forces fighting (tell me plans for getting divisions onto Taiwan~). On the other hand, stationing air defense and long range precision strike isn't exactly a unique task like amphib assaults.
------

Helicopters, with the current ecosystem does not seem economical relative to traditional aircraft, as:
1. The conflict involve extreme distances that demands long range (large and heavy) weapon systems, likely beyond helicopter capacities
2. The mission is defensive, air strip can be invested in and no much need to penetrate AD. Attrition/Mass of infantry is also the last issue for a fight like like this.
3. The naval environment offer less cover to an low air approach, which is tightly watched and utilized by far more dangerous weapons like high speed/stealthy cruise missiles that threatens high value targets. This is unlike land warfare with terrain cover and cruise missile have difficulty hitting high value mobile targets due to ISR limits and vehicle scale.

Now, #1 is not a hard constraint: perhaps families of weapon systems that have relevant ranges for the pacific can be developed to work off medium helicopter payload. One can imagine field assembly of missiles and light weight weapons made for range like loitering munitions, but the US doesn't seem to have much interest. One also wonder if risking men and so many assets is worth it relative to investing in XLUUV with weapons capability.

An alternative line of thinking would have air strip building engineering equipment fit inside medium helicopter payload, however the conflict is likely too fast for that kind of thing.
---------
Imagine the IJN having this next century capability, and it wouldn't have helped them all that much. Compare that with literally everything else....
Click to expand...
Neither the US Marine Corps nor Army is large enough to work the (as you point out) vast Pacific Rim alone. Fixed airfields are precision fire magnets (considering CVN are targetable, non-maneuvering airfields are even easier). The USAF has in fact started looking at VTOL means assist in operating in smaller groupings. To stop VTOL operations you have to bomb every football pitch, parking lot and farmers fields. Then the Army has acknowledged that conventional helicopters have marginal (at best) utility in the theater. This is one of the main drivers for the FVL efforts. As to the less cover, I will agree with you on that, but the world is round(ish) and radar still has to follow the rules of physics.
 
shin_getter said:
The question remains unanswered:
1. should the marines or army "get" the pacific ground theater? What should the force structure be like?
2. should helicopters be heavily invested as means of mobility as opposed to other aeronaval options for the pacific theater?

The marines are planning a set of capabilities to remain relevant in a fight that the united states does not appear to want to commit serious land forces fighting (tell me plans for getting divisions onto Taiwan~). On the other hand, stationing air defense and long range precision strike isn't exactly a unique task like amphib assaults.
------

Helicopters, with the current ecosystem does not seem economical relative to traditional aircraft, as:
1. The conflict involve extreme distances that demands long range (large and heavy) weapon systems, likely beyond helicopter capacities
2. The mission is defensive, air strip can be invested in and no much need to penetrate AD. Attrition/Mass of infantry is also the last issue for a fight like like this.
3. The naval environment offer less cover to an low air approach, which is tightly watched and utilized by far more dangerous weapons like high speed/stealthy cruise missiles that threatens high value targets. This is unlike land warfare with terrain cover and cruise missile have difficulty hitting high value mobile targets due to ISR limits and vehicle scale.

Now, #1 is not a hard constraint: perhaps families of weapon systems that have relevant ranges for the pacific can be developed to work off medium helicopter payload. One can imagine field assembly of missiles and light weight weapons made for range like loitering munitions, but the US doesn't seem to have much interest. One also wonder if risking men and so many assets is worth it relative to investing in XLUUV with weapons capability.

An alternative line of thinking would have air strip building engineering equipment fit inside medium helicopter payload, however the conflict is likely too fast for that kind of thing.
---------
Imagine the IJN having this next century capability, and it wouldn't have helped them all that much. Compare that with literally everything else....
Click to expand...
You are correct, when the Pacific theatre is considered, helicopters are an industrial welfare program. The VTOL 'Wheel of Shame" wines laughingly.

Though the majority of the worlds populous is in or near the Littoral, so ships could help, future scouts landing on the standard city four corners,where wires hanging across streets, renders helicopters suboptimal potentially to the extreme.
 
Then of course the US Army has many other areas to concern itself with where water is not the dominant terrain type. None of the US Services have the luxury of building to a specific theater.
While I agree that helicopters will likely not frequent downtown road intersections in major combat operations it is a consideration in other operations and is trained for by the Special Operations community.
 
Not part of FVL:

78845_diagramfromactivesailbladeapplicationcbellanduspatenttrademarkoffice_872574.png

www.flightglobal.com

US Air Force signs research contract for ‘Bell’s High Speed VTOL’

The US Air Force Research Laboratory has contracted Bell to research a high-speed vertical take-off and landing aircraft.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

(notice I do not have access myself to the report, so feel free to post the most interesting part for those in the same case)
 
Bell has been working on the "stop-fold" technology for some time now. Both the USAF and the USMC are interested in going faster/further than traditional tilt rotor can likely operate, but without the challenge of even higher disc loading associated with some of the other options for faster VTOL. Fan-in-wing is possibly the other option for high speed and relatively low disc loading.
From the article - “At least our initial thinking in AFSOC is that we’re looking at a generation beyond current tiltrotor technology,” said Lieutenant General James Slife, commander of AFSOC, last September. “We’re not just looking at marginal improvements, in terms of speed, range and reliability, but we’re looking at a generational movement for a vertical take-off and landing capability going into the future. I think it’ll be probably something quite different than the V-22.”
This was mentioned earlier in this thread.
Also - “There are a number of technology and drive system proposals out there that look like they may be within the realm of possibility; that they could provide like a generational step ahead in technology, get us up into jet speed kind of capabilities,” Slife said. “When you look at the future operating environment, where range and access are going to be challenging across the board… I think whatever comes next is going to have to be a generation [ahead] yet again.”
I think it is Northrop who has the "fan-in-wing" technology, that might be able to have similar disc-loading. I suppose some of the ideas for EVTOL might be an option, but suspect that they might not scale up very well.
 
Last edited:
This is interesting (and shown in the diagram) : "Foldable rotor blades have other advantages too, says a Bell patent application published by the US Patent & Trademark Office last December. Actuators, which would be used to fold and open blades in flight, could independently extend rotors on the end of each wing to create an “active sail blade” that could provide another control surface and would increase the aircraft’s total lifting surface, possibly enhancing stability and increasing range."
“The airfoils on rotor blades may be optimised to perform better as static wings than as proprotor blades in order to support the sail blade functionality,” says the patent application. “This optimization may degrade proprotor efficiency for hover and helicopter mode flight but would improve efficiency for airplane flight mode.”
 

FARA Enters Mix For MH-60 Gunship Replacement | Aviation Week Network

A decision point is set for 2025 on how to replace the MH-60L Direct Action Penetrator, a subfleet of the MH-60M and MH-60L troop transports operated by the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

Behind pay wall, but you get the idea. Not surprising really, assuming FARA is all that. If for no other reason than the MH-60 DAP airframes will be well used by then, since they are likely running at very high weights operationally.
 
Lots of very careful wording there from the CEO
 
Moose said:
He says
Defiant will do over 230 knots, which is that threshold requirement.
Click to expand...
Not "Defiant has done over 230 knots."
Click to expand...


Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the FLRAA threshold requirement 250 knots? Or has Army lowered the requirement to accommodate Sikorsky?
 
Guess we will find out next month when the RFP drops, although I suspect it will be kept close hold.
@F-14D - I would not be surprised to find out you are right.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom