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

While I do think the USN will avail itself of the MOSA backbone and some of the other software and hardware elements of the Army FLRAA program, I do not think that they will go with the Bell FLRAA aircraft as is. It does not fit the current line ships if I read correctly. I also think that the USN has more hover requirement than the U.S. Army. Could be wrong though.
 
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/textron-hints-at-unmanned-capability-for-flraa-tiltrotor/162739.article?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=Sendible&utm_campaign=RSS&s=03

unmanned - the new "must have", "paradigm shifting", "game changing", requirement is now part of FLRAA. And it is a "Pathfinder," that is “trailblazing” as well.

 
Last edited:
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/textron-hints-at-unmanned-capability-for-flraa-tiltrotor/162739.article?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=Sendible&utm_campaign=RSS&s=03

unmanned - the new "must have", "paradigm shifting", "game changing", requirement is now part of FLRAA. And it is a "Pathfinder," that is “trailblazing” as well.

I'm not seeing much use for an unmanned version of the V280, unless we're using the wide airframe for weapons bays.

I'm expecting a lot more unmanned stuff for the Apache-replacement part of FVL.
 
Scott - The way I see it the unmanned capability is not a distinct platform, but an ability to use the aircraft without aircrew if need arises.

I think the Apache replacement, if even necessary, is nothing more than a truck for launching medium and long-range munitions at greater distances from the front lines. People are grumbling at the loss of MQ-9 that cost as much as a UH-60.
 
Last edited:
Scott - The way I see it the unmanned capability is not a distinct platform, but an ability to use the aircraft without aircrew if need arises.
Okay, I can see that. Not sure where that'd be a good idea, but I'm sure the capability is there.



I think the Apache replacement, if even necessary, is nothing more than a truck for launching medium and long-range munitions at greater distances from the front lines. People are grumbling at the loss of MQ-9 that cost as much as a UH-60.
I think it'll have a gun, too. The only gun in the entire CCA-CAS package.
 
I think it'll have a gun, too. The only gun in the entire CCA-CAS package.
Gun, ammo, electric cables and weapon cyber systems weigh a lot. As you point out if the FLRAA becomes the replacement for Apache, that will be a significant trade. Also, the drag from the gun and mount at 230 knots will be significant, likely reducing the range of the aircraft. I am sure someone is considering this, but I expect they dare not threaten the sanctity of the Apache just yet. They might be banned from the officer's club.
 
Gun, ammo, electric cables and weapon cyber systems weigh a lot. As you point out if the FLRAA becomes the replacement for Apache, that will be a significant trade. Also, the drag from the gun and mount at 230 knots will be significant, likely reducing the range of the aircraft. I am sure someone is considering this, but I expect they dare not threaten the sanctity of the Apache just yet. They might be banned from the officer's club.
I'm expecting a streamlined/hidden mount like on the Comanche, or possibly a simple fixed mount like on a jet.

And this is "whatever will replace the Apache", even if the Apache-F model gets T901s and 6000hp installed power...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom