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.

breakingdefense.com

A ‘Pathfinder’ for the Army: FLRAA will be a first for MOSA in helicopter design - Breaking Defense

MOSA and the digital backbone give the Army a vendor-agnostic path to make aircraft system modifications from the outset of Future Vertical Lift.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
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.

breakingdefense.com

A ‘Pathfinder’ for the Army: FLRAA will be a first for MOSA in helicopter design - Breaking Defense

MOSA and the digital backbone give the Army a vendor-agnostic path to make aircraft system modifications from the outset of Future Vertical Lift.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
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:
yasotay said:
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.
Click to expand...
Okay, I can see that. Not sure where that'd be a good idea, but I'm sure the capability is there.



yasotay said:
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.
Click to expand...
I think it'll have a gun, too. The only gun in the entire CCA-CAS package.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I think it'll have a gun, too. The only gun in the entire CCA-CAS package.
Click to expand...
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.
 
yasotay said:
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.
Click to expand...
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...
 
“We’re broadly moving [FLRAA] up, you know, several years … into the 2028 timeframe is what we’re looking at,” Army Chief of Staff Gen Randy George told members of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee today.
Click to expand...

breakingdefense.com

Army leaders want FLRAA by 2028, sidestep questions on Black Hawk's fate - Breaking Defense

“We are unwilling to make commitments that are [not], in our opinion, in the best interest of soldiers...,” Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll said of the fate of a new multi-year UH-60M procurement deal.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
YT engines? So do they have to fly with special derogations across civilian airspace?
Click to expand...
Given that the SOAR is seen training in and around major Metropolitan areas, whatever procedure they must use to fly in civil airspace is now routine.
But I would expect you are correct.
 
Scott Kenny said:
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...
Click to expand...
With the cancellation of the ITE T901 engine, the upgrade path for the Apache and Blackhawk get murkier.

breakingdefense.com

Army aviation shakeup continues with ITEP, FTUAS programs grinding to a halt - Breaking Defense

“We're ceasing investment and procurement into those two programs as part of the army transformation initiative so we can free up those resources and reinvest them,” an Army spokesperson told Breaking Defense today.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
It’s hard to not find this trend a bit worrisome amongst Army Aviation.

Last year FARA is cancelled and Shadow is retired, with it being touted that this would allow investment in further Blackhawks, ITEP upgrades for the type, and the forthcoming FTUAS.

Now, just over a year later, ITEP and FTUAS are cut, the Army is refusing to commit to further Blackhawk production after all…

So what future awaits FLRAA? Is its future made more secure now that ITEP is dead and makes Blackhawk upgrades less compelling?
 
Aviation is the lowest priority on the Army budget just now. The Army is the lowest priority for funding in the U.S. DoD. This is a periodic thing. Army went from 10,00 UH-1 to 2000 UH-60 and everyone thought the aviators were going away.
 
e-Graphite said:
With the cancellation of the ITE T901 engine, the upgrade path for the Apache and Blackhawk get murkier.

breakingdefense.com

Army aviation shakeup continues with ITEP, FTUAS programs grinding to a halt - Breaking Defense

“We're ceasing investment and procurement into those two programs as part of the army transformation initiative so we can free up those resources and reinvest them,” an Army spokesperson told Breaking Defense today.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
Click to expand...
Well, crap.

Because SOAR and USN really needed T901s for their aircraft.
 
@HaveVoid : sadly, it's probably not going to remain an isolated incident but mark a new path toward easing the way for Venture Capital to reign on defense spending:

breakingdefense.com

Army secretary says it will be 'success' if prime contactor dies on his watch - Breaking Defense

“My best guess is that they will start to realize in the coming days, weeks and months, that they are going to have to adapt and change or die. We are not going to come to bail them out again as a nation," said Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com
 
China factor is driving the administration's philosophy in tearing everything down and rebuild from ground up rather than incremental reforms. However, that requires a team of extremely competent people with fresh thinking in leadership roles, not just people with fresh thinking. The administration is stuck between the fantasy of hiring exceptional high IQ outside the box thinkers and the reality of hiring yes men for political reason. Yes men are not exactly high IQ outside the box independent thinkers.

Pick one. If hiring yes men is more important politically, then please go back to doing things as is and occasional incremental reforms. You can't have both.
 
I am not sure that these decisions are not historically the American way of preparing for war. If you think about it when America entered WW1 it was almost completely reliant on Europe for a significant amount of its' combat technology. After the war there was what is tantamount to a technology revolution, especially in aviation. Curtiss, Bell, Northrup, Lockheed,, etc., while not exactly venture capitalist, they certainly were independent thinkers. Many backed by what we call 'Venture Capitalist.' The United States in the 1920s and 30s was certainly as aggressive as any country in the rapid exploitation of technologies, while Ford, Chevy, Dodge and many other Capitalist enjoyed funding profiles to make large factories and train more people to build things on a huge scale. The United States Army Air Corps had a multitude of varied aircraft types that it tested. To me that it was, by today's parlance; "try-fly-decide."
So the 21st Century technologist/industrialist are not drastically different than their predecessors of a century ago if you ask me.
Remember that the Army is trying to move away from vendor lock, so that other than the core airframe, everything else can be changed out as desired, or required. We will see how that works. Sometimes I think that this notion of Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA), that the FLRAA program is the poster child for, is the real reason it has been safe to date. We will see.

@Scott Kenny - sometimes "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". The program was already years behind schedule and significantly above the original funding line. As the U.S. Army now has a decrement funding profile, an anemic program like this was easy pickings.
 
yasotay said:
@Scott Kenny - sometimes "the juice isn't worth the squeeze". The program was already years behind schedule and significantly above the original funding line. As the U.S. Army now has a decrement funding profile, an anemic program like this was easy pickings.
Click to expand...
Still very much needed by USN and SOAR.
 
How can you cancel ITEP and still build FLRAA? Oh, and FLRAA is going to be heavier than originally envisioned so it can be easier to support the small commitment to Special Operations aircraft? What the fuck? Also, in announcing the cancelation of ITEP, the person quoted mentions going back to Bell to ask if ITEP is a make or break... Shouldn't you know that before you cancel an engine program you have been working on for years?
 
SlothmanAllen said:
How can you cancel ITEP and still build FLRAA? Oh, and FLRAA is going to be heavier than originally envisioned so it can be easier to support the small commitment to Special Operations aircraft? What the fuck? Also, in announcing the cancelation of ITEP, the person quoted mentions going back to Bell to ask if ITEP is a make or break... Shouldn't you know that before you cancel an engine program you have been working on for years?
Click to expand...
Because FLRAA isn't using ITEP. V280 is running on Osprey engines!

ITEP was for FARA and to refit H60/H64s.
 
The U.S.Army has literally hundreds of T700 engines. The T901 did not have the great increases in capability it was to have.
Given the decisions on AH and UH, buying new engines for $$$ was an easy decision.
 
TomcatViP said:
Wait, didn't the T901 offers 50% more power in the same volume?
Click to expand...
They did... and then it didn't.
The fuel savings promised were also unrealized.

This was part of the reason that the FLRAA vendors were given the latitude to go with other engines, since the 901 would have under powered their aircraft significantly, and the promised increase in range would not have been "twice as far."
 
I suspect that Bell Flight politics hard to stay with the Rolls Royce engine. First they knew what they are getting into, second the USMC had the engine so "when" they joined the FLRAA program they would not have to come up with a new program and series of maintainers for the aircraft.
I suspect the very same rational was why the Sikorsky-Boeing Team went with Chinook engines. Less risk and an engine already in service.

Both likely also had industrial intel that the 901 was not getting where they advertised it would be.
 
yasotay said:
They did... and then it didn't.
The fuel savings promised were also unrealized.

This was part of the reason that the FLRAA vendors were given the latitude to go with other engines, since the 901 would have under powered their aircraft significantly, and the promised increase in range would not have been "twice as far."
Click to expand...
FLRAA moved off ITEP because the performance parameters for FLRAA went beyond ITEP, which was bound by the requirement to operate in an unmodified UH-60, not due to shortfalls in the engine. FARA was still supposed to use T901 before it died, and refits of the existing fleet were considered a critical need 6 months ago.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom