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

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04...d-about-job-cuts-at-sikorsky-helicopter-unit/

The Connecticut delegation is of course primarily concerned about the jobs aspect of things, but I do wish there was some more questioning about the Army's logic with this decision. How much input did Army helicopter crewmen get in the big picture? How can we be reassured they aren't making the same mistake made 20 years ago when the RAH-66 was cancelled citing the exact same reasoning?

Personally, I am still in favor of having such a manned dedicated reconnaissance helicopter used as FAC for drones. If the "nothing but drones" crowd always has their way it won't be long now before we start seeing cuts to the fleet of AH-64s. And despite the talk I have yet to hear anything about a new program for a relatively large, unmanned rotorcraft like UCAR was supposed to be.
 
yasotay said:
At this point there really is no choice.
Click to expand...
Camr across these 3 AH-6Js at Drake Field in Fayetteville, AR back on March 9th. 35 years old and still going strong. Always wonder what parts are still on there from the production line....

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • z89-25353 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    z89-25353 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    548.5 KB · Views: 77
  • z89-25366 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    z89-25366 AH-6J - 1.jpg
    850 KB · Views: 46
  • z89-25374 AH-6J - 3.jpg
    z89-25374 AH-6J - 3.jpg
    536.3 KB · Views: 39
  • zMG_5443.jpg
    zMG_5443.jpg
    456.4 KB · Views: 44
yasotay said:
MH-6M still the staple of 160th SOAR for urban ops. Not likely to be replaced soon.
Click to expand...
Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark
 
Desertfox said:
Question is, what will the Marines do to replace the Cobra?
Click to expand...
Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark
Click to expand...
SOAR has two versions of the aircraft, based on a standard airframe. They define the gunship as AH-6M and the lift birds as MH-6M. I speculate that they can be made interchangeable, however, I am not sure if the "AH" version has specific targeting equipment that would make changing the MH "plank bird" into an AH "gun bird problematic and vice versa.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.
Click to expand...
Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.
 
yasotay said:
Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.
Click to expand...
Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.
Click to expand...
If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.
 
yasotay said:
If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.
Click to expand...
V-247 Factsheet...
Screenshot_20240423_203426.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20240423_203555.jpg
    Screenshot_20240423_203555.jpg
    680.2 KB · Views: 55
  • bell-v247-fact-sheet.pdf
    461.6 KB · Views: 9
Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.
 

Attachments

  • AVX_doc.pdf
    1.7 MB · Views: 53
  • AVX_doc1.pdf
    1.5 MB · Views: 35
  • AVX_doc2.pdf
    734.4 KB · Views: 34
  • AVX_Light.pdf
    1.6 MB · Views: 30
  • AVX_Light1.pdf
    2.8 MB · Views: 38
  • AVX_Med.pdf
    2.2 MB · Views: 36
  • AVX_Med1.pdf
    993.9 KB · Views: 30
yasotay said:
Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.
Click to expand...
Finally retiring? What'cha gonna do when you grow up? :D
 
yasotay said:
First some AVX FVL work.
Click to expand...
What was your assessment of the AVX designs?

E.g. Their gross weights always seemed quite light for their size… a little over optimistic perhaps?
 
H_K said:
What was your assessment of the AVX designs?

E.g. Their gross weights always seemed quite light for their size… a little over optimistic perhaps?
Click to expand...
AVX was very aggressive with non-metalic structures and components. Many had a "this is great ... if you prove it" position regarding the weights. Honestly, I think the main gear box was most likely to be the highest risk for them, as the dynamics were adaptation from functional dynamic components found elsewhere. The rotor interaction with the ducted fans was a watch point but was mostly dealt with by down select.
Most would have liked to have seen AVX have an opportunity to fly, as the concept appeared to be very much in line with the expected requirements. Like other concepts however, once the DoD elected to make the Pacific the primary theater AVX got behind in meeting specifications.
 
The large chord wing under the coaxial rotor downwash was not boding well for the performances. Add the twin fan rotors with the short moment arm and you´ve got some weird design choice as seen from outside the project.

See how Airbus choose a different approach with their Racer:
- long moment arm
- short chord wings (biplane, wing staggered)
- Anhedral

At least for the point discussed here, that makes more sense.

But notice that with the single main rotor configuration, the high wing due to the rotor downwash is subject to rapid cyclic variation every time the cyclic is activated. With a thick wing with rounded leading edge and camber, inherent from a short chord, the local AoA and lift vector is affected and the roll stability perturbed. With tip rotors and the box wing, the effects are tempered but not toward the wing root.
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I mean, the MD530F is still in production, so it's not like they can't just buy some new Little Birds.
Click to expand...

True but their previous owners and neighbours next door Boeing will probably want to hang onto A/MH-6 /or whatever is intended to be next BUT as i posted last week during the SOF WEek exhibition in Tampa, with the Little Bird replacement being canned...it does kinda make sense to keep tried and tested Little Bird.

There could be another example with the Airbus Helicopters Inc A/MH-125 Ares

us.airbus.com

AH-125 & MH-125 Ares

The first American-made military versions of the H125 offer unparalleled capability, reliability and flexibility for U.S. partners and allies around the world.
us.airbus.com us.airbus.com

cheers
 
Airbus certainly has a viable off the shelf option. There are a significant number of special requirements that would have to be integrated onto the platform (like folding to fit 2 aircraft into a C-130, 15 minutes from folded to flying, high end secure communications, etc.). There are other requirements that are currently in place with Boeing that might be hard to replicate in a new contract.
 
yasotay said:

US Navy’s plan to replace fleet of MH60s moves forward | Shephard

The US Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike) has been an effort to recapitalise Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters which have an out-of-service date in the late-2030s.
www.shephardmedia.com

$50 says it is a UH-60X.
Click to expand...

Bet the only thing it has common with the MH-60R is the nameplate, though. T-901 engines, improved rotors, and a new cabin pushed all the way out to the maximum volume they can stuff into a Burke hangar. Call it the King Hawk.
 
yasotay said:

US Navy’s plan to replace fleet of MH60s moves forward | Shephard

The US Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike) has been an effort to recapitalise Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters which have an out-of-service date in the late-2030s.
www.shephardmedia.com

$50 says it is a UH-60X.
Click to expand...
No bet.

TomS said:
Bet the only thing it has common with the MH-60R is the nameplate, though. T-901 engines, improved rotors, and a new cabin pushed all the way out to the maximum volume they can stuff into a Burke hangar. Call it the King Hawk.
Click to expand...
Also no bet.

T901s, 5 bladed or 6 bladed rotor to handle the power, and the tapered section at the end of the cabin where it narrows down to the tail boom pushed like 5ft aft to end at the tail wheel.
 
The Navy version would have an unmanned component. That should be something that gather all the sexiness in innovation. The rest would probably be a larger cabin (wider is my own bet).

Alternatively, a de-cabined UH-60, made similar to the CH-54, could be a good addition to the mobility concept. Probably an extra 4000lb in underslung load. (hence 9000 + 4000 = 13 to 15000lb). Add some hybridization to boost short duration power for T.O and hover in the drop zone and the UH-60 might transform itself into a hulking mini-beast, not too far from today CH-47D.

UH-60 SkyCrane like.jpg
Someone would probably draw that much better than me!
 
Last edited:
It already exists minus the T901s. And the Marines already have a version in service.
 

Attachments

  • B177D9CD-99A5-4E45-B92B-BCDAE0BA2583.jpeg
    B177D9CD-99A5-4E45-B92B-BCDAE0BA2583.jpeg
    159.8 KB · Views: 22
  • 147CE8DD-D473-4EE9-A728-E49AB59229DD.jpeg
    147CE8DD-D473-4EE9-A728-E49AB59229DD.jpeg
    138.4 KB · Views: 23
Devin said:
It already exists minus the T901s. And the Marines already have a version in service.
Click to expand...

No, the S-92 is much bigger, Sea King scale. It's around 7.5 feet longer even with folded tail (as the CH-148), more than 6 feet wider (thanks to the sponsons), and 2 feet taller. It won't fit inside an Arleigh Burke hangar, which is sized to just barely fit a Seahawk.

1716336797829.png
 
TomS said:
(...) Arleigh Burke hangar, which is sized to just barely fit a Seahawk.
Click to expand...
Which is the real problem.

Any Romeo-Sierra replacement needs to fit in that footprint.

So I think we're going to end up with a Seahawk of Theseus: replaced the engines twice, redesigned the transmission once, redesigned the fuselage twice...
 
TomcatViP said:
The Navy version would have an unmanned component
Click to expand...

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Right now, even though ships are often designed for two helicopters, it's typical to embark only one and use the other hangar for storage or other things. Occasionally, you do see a UAV in one side and a Seahawk in the other but not often (and I think Fire Scout is retiring soon without immediate replacement).

If you end up with a LAMPS successor that requires both manned and unmanned air vehicles, the whole system gets much more expensive and harder to sustain. Once upon a time, people talked about a typical UAS deployment being three drones in the footprint of one manned helo, but as the drones get bigger and more capable, it becomes clear that they will not be that compact or inexpensive.
 
yasotay said:
I suspect whatever it is, it will optionally manned. Of note Sikorsky has demonstrated an uncrewed Blackhawk several times.
Click to expand...

But what's the upside of optional manning on a helicopter like this?

I guess you could automate the excruciating but stunningly boring task of VERTREP. But very few other missions seem like there would be a huge benefit, and the Mk1 eyeball remains a valuable sensor for maritime surface search.
 
TomS said:
But what's the upside of optional manning on a helicopter like this?

I guess you could automate the excruciating but stunningly boring task of VERTREP. But very few other missions seem like there would be a huge benefit, and the Mk1 eyeball remains a valuable sensor for maritime surface search.
Click to expand...

The truth is that such "autonomous" features are only beneficial during wartime. In peacetime pilots would rather sit in the aircraft, because they would need to monitor the flight from a control station anyways... and having a hard time not falling asleep ;)
Also, a big problem for remote pilots is to maintain or get situational awareness when manual intervention becomes necessary.
 
Last edited:
VTOLicious said:
The truth is that such "autonomous" features are only beneficial during wartime. In peacetime pilots would rather sit in the aircraft, because they would need to monitor the flight from a control station anyways... and having a hard time not falling asleep ;)
Also, a big problem for remote pilots is to maintain or get situational awareness when manual intervention becomes necessary.
Click to expand...
I am in agreement with you. Humans do not require bandwidth. That said, the rational is likely that with a functioning network, the different mission specialist currently found in the back of the aircraft could do their mission from the ship.

The trick is to retain a functioning network.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom