- Joined
- 1 April 2006
- Messages
- 10,999
- Reaction score
- 8,219
Pioneer said:I still do not understand why they (US military and Bell) did not develop a operational variant of the JVX prototype?
Ok I know it is smaller than what the Yanks would like! (then again the yanks are never happy with small! )
But it would have made for a great basis for a combat / anti-tank/anti-helicopter aircraft, not to mention a great combat forward observer aircraft, which could have been in service years ago.
Added to this a combat escort variant of the JVX would make a great escort to the eventual MV-22 – as the likes of the Bell AH-1W/Z are not going to be able too keep up with the speed and range of the MV-22 Osprey.
Regards
Pioneer
F-14D said:Pioneer said:I still do not understand why they (US military and Bell) did not develop a operational variant of the JVX prototype?
Ok I know it is smaller than what the Yanks would like! (then again the yanks are never happy with small! )
But it would have made for a great basis for a combat / anti-tank/anti-helicopter aircraft, not to mention a great combat forward observer aircraft, which could have been in service years ago.
Added to this a combat escort variant of the JVX would make a great escort to the eventual MV-22 – as the likes of the Bell AH-1W/Z are not going to be able too keep up with the speed and range of the MV-22 Osprey.
Regards
Pioneer
The MV-22 is the operational variant of the JVX prototype, since the purpose of JVX was to develop the V-22. I suspect you are referring to the XV-15, which was actually a NASA/Army technology demonstrator of Tilt-Rotor technology demonstrator.
There were a number of reasons why a version based on the XV-15 didn't appear. For one thing, the XV-15 was kludged together because of limited funding. Armed versions based on that aerodynamic shape were proposed, but they would have actually been all new aircraft. You can find pictures of them on this forum. They went nowhere because with the Army effectively defining Tilt-Rotor out of the LHX competition in favor of a lower performance helo, it wasn't going to embarrass itself by developing an armed Tilt-Rotor. USMC wanted to develop such a craft and in fact had a program started called VMAO. However, in 1992-2000 there was not a chance of money being provided for a new start like that since virtually all new programs were already being restructured so that the big money requirements would show up after the 2000 US elections. Not a prayer of something totally new like that starting then. There has been some discussion of a vehicle based on the BA-609 in the next decade, and USMC has made it clear they would like to follow the AH-1Z with a Tilt-Rotor, possibly as a joint program with Army.
It comes down to money.
yasotay said:VMAO?? Any information on the efforts of the USMC with this program?.
There is a possibility that the Joint Multi-Role program... that is not really a program yet will meet the USMC requirement, in a couple of decades. More like wishful thinking by industry and some more progressive combat developers no doubt, although the (US) Army Science Board gave it a ringing endorsement in this last years report I hear.
Here is a photo from an old briefing from the bowls of file cabinet (although a rather recent addition I think).
yasotay said:Floating through old briefings I came across a couple of Bell designs. The first two are is a Pressurized V-22. It also appears to have a fixed wing , vice a turnable one for ship storage. It may be my imagination but the prop-rotors appear to be larger as well, leading me to believe that this was/is intended for a land based platform.
The third is obviously an attack TR. I think it was the final work on a Army project to do rapid assembly rotorcraft. That is however a guess on my part.
yasotay said:The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.
I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.
F-14D said:yasotay said:The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.
I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.
In Army's defense, they seem to be favoring Tilt-Rotor for the JHL component of Joint Future Lift, although if USAF takes over the program as expected we may not see this come to fruition as USAF considers a 1,000 ft. takeoff run as "Super STOL" and doesn't seem to see the need for anything better than that. I guess with the area cleared for that size runway they could get in a t lest a two hole golf course, and that could be their compromise for the joint program. javascript:void(0);
Cheesy
I always thought the forward swept canard was just a "futuristic" concept drawing, not tied to VMAO. The only pics I ever saw of concepts for that were V-tailed straight wings. But then, it's been a long time.
yasotay said:F-14D said:yasotay said:The first two come from a Bell briefing given in 2005. I know the Bell-Boeing team continues to try and find a way to get the Army to see past its helicopter myopia. Although to be fair the price tag for a V-22 is pretty rich for the Army.
I suspect that the last one was a revision to the VMAO effort that was not as "futuristic" as the canard, forward swept design that was originally worked on. Perhaps it reduced the weight and cost of the aircraft to a certain degree.
In Army's defense, they seem to be favoring Tilt-Rotor for the JHL component of Joint Future Lift, although if USAF takes over the program as expected we may not see this come to fruition as USAF considers a 1,000 ft. takeoff run as "Super STOL" and doesn't seem to see the need for anything better than that. I guess with the area cleared for that size runway they could get in a t lest a two hole golf course, and that could be their compromise for the joint program. javascript:void(0);
Cheesy
I always thought the forward swept canard was just a "futuristic" concept drawing, not tied to VMAO. The only pics I ever saw of concepts for that were V-tailed straight wings. But then, it's been a long time.
While some in the Army have started to realize that the next generation of rotorcraft will likely have to be non-conventional (other than single main or tandem (without aux propulsion), the ones who count are not willing to stand up and say anything in light of the huge reset bill that is going to occur at some point.
I think I recall reading many years ago in Wings three issue article on TR that the futuristic design was specifically designs to go below deck for the USMC and fit into the same space as a UH/AH-1. I know that a significant amount of engineering work went into it as I have a briefing (alas still marked) and a report of the dynamics for the cross shafting system. Interestingly though, the information was developed for the Army, not the USMC.
Presumably they would not perform search in hover mode, but in horizontal flight mode, if only for endurance.rickshaw said:Wouldn't the rotors interfere with the radar? Particularly if they tilted anywhere from the horizontal?
Jemiba said:"Nevertheless,
I would expect a lower radar range in the forward sector.
flateric said:Gooooogle
Triton said:flateric said:Gooooogle
I know what Dick Cheney thought of the V-22 Osprey. I wanted the thoughts of posters to the forum like yasotay. He did say that the Department of the Army did have helicopter myopia.
Would posters agree with the Time magazine article by Mark Thompson published on September 26, 2007 who describes the V-22 as a "flying shame."
quellish said:In my opinion....
1. The V-22 offers a set of capabilities that greatly aid the warfighter. How many times in afghanistan have we seen rotary wing aircraft pushed too far, too high, too hard. The V-22 is an ideal system for the conflicts we are engaged in today.
2. The original JVX was to be operational in *1988*. Pre-production V-22s were flying in 1990 - but only now are they operational, after billions of dollars and years of delays. At what cost do we get these capabilities?
Triton said:quellish said:In my opinion....
1. The V-22 offers a set of capabilities that greatly aid the warfighter. How many times in afghanistan have we seen rotary wing aircraft pushed too far, too high, too hard. The V-22 is an ideal system for the conflicts we are engaged in today.
2. The original JVX was to be operational in *1988*. Pre-production V-22s were flying in 1990 - but only now are they operational, after billions of dollars and years of delays. At what cost do we get these capabilities?
IIRC, Dick Cheney, when he was Secretary of Defense under President George HW Bush, wanted to cancel the V-22 Osprey and buy the Marines Sikorsky CH-53 Sea Stallion.
flateric said:JVX brochure from old good times
AeroFranz said:is that a sad, sad, telescopic mast-mounted sight sticking out of the top of the gunship in Hesham's last post?
GTX said:An earlier iteration/interpretation of the AEW V-22 with more conventional rotodome:
Regards,
Greg