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

Triton said:
If I understand correctly, the United States Army naming convention is to name helicopters for Native American tribes or leaders who have been enemy combatants rather than allies.

I can remember when the Comanche name was announced the statement made a big deal out of how the Comanche had been scouts for the Army. So I doubt there is an enemy requirement to the name.

One imagines that the marketing names for some of the JMR offerings: Valor and Defiant, are more to do with internal company morale that anything.
 
Triton said:
Who, or what, inside or outside the United States Army determines the name of helicopters? Any ideas on which Native American tribe or Native American leader will be chosen for the name of the FVL Medium? If I understand correctly, the United States Army naming convention is to name helicopters for Native American tribes or leaders who have been enemy combatants rather than allies.

I vote for "Abanake"(with apologies for the spelling). Tribe from Vermont and Maine who folded after Rogers Rangers took about four shots at them. ;D
On a more serious note, I think the infrastructure that Bell/Lockheed and Sikorsky/Boeing have will make them hard to beat. Frankly I cannot see the Army, as conservative as it is, jumping exclusively toward a tilt rotor, regardless of what their studies say. They may ultimately go for a tilt rotor but I do not think they have the metal to go for that as the only technology for down select next year.
 
I stand corrected. I cannot seem to find any incident concerning the Chinook peoples in present-day Oregon and Washington states and the Continental or United States Army for whom the CH-47 is named.
 
An interesting article that explains the process of naming the UH-72 Lakota that answers my questions concerning United Army aircraft naming.

"Lakota helicopter carries tradition of service"
February 19, 2008
By Mrs. Barbara Cummings (AMCOM)

Source:
http://www.army.mil/article/7496/
 
"Sikorsky-Boeing confident SB-1 Defiant won’t be the next Comanche"
by Jon Hemmerdinger Washington DC
11:00 22 Oct 2013

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-boeing-confident-sb-1-defiant-wont-be-the-next-comanche-392025/
Boeing and Sikorsky expressed confidence today in SB-1 Defiant, their design for the US Army’s high-speed joint multi-role (JMR) technology demonstrator programme.

They also say the companies will work closer together and be more efficient than when they partnered to build the troubled RAH-66 Comanche.

Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky military systems, tells Flightglobal that the companies’ substantial investments in Defiant show their confidence in its design and in the Army’s ability to see the project through.

“If we didn’t think the Army could pull off [the JMR programme], we wouldn’t have shown up with the dollars,” says Mehta. “We are voting with our wallets.”

Pat Donnelly, Boeing’s JMR programme director, tells Flightglobal that Boeing and Sikorsky are paying “much more” than half the cost of designing Defiant, though he declines to say how much.

The executives made their comments to Flightglobal during the annual event of the Association of the United States Army in Washington, DC.

Sikorsky-Boeing are one of four bidders to win technology investment agreements to design a vertical-lift aircraft intended to replace the Army’s fleet of Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks in the 2030s.

Defiant has counter-rotating coaxial rotors and a rear pusher propeller, which executives say make it quick and nimble, with fast acceleration, fast deceleration and the ability to swerve side-to-side and hover in a nose-down, tail-up position.

Sikorsky-Boeing competes against Karem Aircraft, AVX Aircraft and Bell Helicopter-Lockheed Martin, which also won JMR technology investment agreements.

The Army is expected to chose two winning bidders next year, and first flights are scheduled for 2017. Contractors expect the Army to issue a request for porposals around 2020, once they have defined their performance requirements.

Defiant is the latest Army aircraft designed by a Boeing-Sikorsky team, following the Sikorsky-Boeing Comanche project.

Comanche, which traces it roots to the early 1980s, cost nearly $7 billion before being cancelled in 2004 by US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Boeing and Sikorsky say factors outside their control largely caused Comanche’s problems.

Comanche was hamstrung by budget cuts and “requirement creep,” says Mehta.

“I don’t pin the ultimate termination of that project on the dysfunction of the teams,” he says.

Donnelly agrees: Comanche suffered because it was drawn out over so many years. He notes Comanche was cancelled at the request of the Army.

Still, Boeing and Sikorsky say they are doing things different this time.

Donnelly says the companies will ensure their is minimal duplication of work and he says there is more trust between them.

He notes that 25 Boeing employees recently lived in Connecticut near Sikorsky’s headquarters, where they worked with Sikorsky employees on the design of Defiant’s transmission.

There are also changes to how work is divided.

During the Comanche programme, each company was responsible for different components of the aircraft, says Mehta. For instance, one built the tail, another built the cockpit.

This time, work will be done by teams composed of Boeing and Sikorsky employees, an approach that helps ensure each team benefits from both companies’ expertise.

“This is a classic [example of] one-plus-one equals three,” Mehta says.
 
How about the LSI not being the prime.

"Sweetman credits Sweden's unrivaled success to the FMV, a civilian agency than then King Augustus Adolphus set up in the wake of the loss of the battleship Vasa that sank upon launching in 1628. FMV is something like a civilian interface between the military and defence contractors. The military orders through FMV but doesn't control it. Defence contractors have to sell to the FMV. It's their customer and FMV has a well-honed eye for value and performance."
 
Source:
http://www.miltechmag.com/2013_10_01_archive.html
http://www.c4defence.com/en
 

Attachments

  • DSCN5335.JPG
    DSCN5335.JPG
    306.7 KB · Views: 222
  • defiant-530x398.jpg
    defiant-530x398.jpg
    153.5 KB · Views: 187
It'll certainly be interesting packing that up inside a C-17.
 
Yes, it will be very interesting to find out how Sikorsky and Boeing intend to fold or dismantle the SB>1 Defiant for air transportation.
 
Some assembly required. Not available in blue or red. Dealer excise and prep tax not included.
 
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
It'll certainly be interesting packing that up inside a C-17.

If they can get a CH-53E into a C-5. . . .

Yeah, but its rotors fold easily and the hub doesn't stick so far above the fuselage
 
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
It'll certainly be interesting packing that up inside a C-17.

If they can get a CH-53E into a C-5. . . .

Yeah, but its rotors fold easily and the hub doesn't stick so far above the fuselage

True. On the other hand it's mast is shorter than AVX's and it doesn't have a wing like Bell or Karem.
 
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
It'll certainly be interesting packing that up inside a C-17.

If they can get a CH-53E into a C-5. . . .

Yeah, but its rotors fold easily and the hub doesn't stick so far above the fuselage

True. On the other hand it's mast is shorter than AVX's and it doesn't have a wing like Bell or Karem.

AVX's mast looks like it'll come off or fold and compress easier, alhtough I have some questin about the width with the ducted propulsors in place.

The issue doesn't arise with Bell or Karem's birds, because you're never going to put them in a C-17. If you need the things somewhere fast you just fly them there, which is faster and probably cheaper overall
 
I hope they can manage without removing the whole rotor head and gearbox, as in the CH-53.
 
They don't have to fit the JMR into an airlifter. They are designed to be self deploying.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
They don't have to fit the JMR into an airlifter. They are designed to be self deploying.

Although they are looking for longer range than existing rotorcraft, I don't believe routine self deployment over long distances is an actual requirement of JVR/FVL. Bell and Karem differentiate the ability of Tilt-Rotor to do it as a standard practice (as a fallout of the range benefits you get from wingborne, as opposed to powered, lift) as one of the offsets for the expected somewhat higher initial unit cost of a Tilt-Rotor vehicle.
 
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2013/April/Pages/FutureVerticalLiftTakesStepForward.aspx

According to Mangum, the medium-lift variant would cruise at 230 knots, travel distances of about 263 miles and transport up to 12 combat-loaded troops. With such speed, range and payload, the Army could use the platform to “potentially self deploy [and] not be reliant on the Air Force or the Navy to get some place.”

Mangum as in Maj. Gen. Kevin W. Mangum, commander of the Aviation Center of Excellence at Fort Rucker.

AVX and Bell have made particular note in their public pitches of aux fuel storage for >2,000 NM self deploy capability. Clearly an objective of the program.

Nice tail gun:
 

Attachments

  • future-vertical-lift-web.jpg
    future-vertical-lift-web.jpg
    98 KB · Views: 299
Abraham Gubler said:
AVX and Bell have made particular note in their public pitches of aux fuel storage for >2,000 NM self deploy capability. Clearly an objective of the program.

IIRC that was one of the initial LHX (Comanche) requirements too.
 
JFC Fuller said:
IIRC that was one of the initial LHX (Comanche) requirements too.

And before that the AAFS: AH-56 Cheyenne. It makes a lot of sense for the US Army to be able to self deploy aviation.
 
Regardless of their deployability, the JMR/FVL has to operate from USN ships (LHD, CVN) so they have to fit below the deck on a routine basis. I expect there will eventually have to be some form of folding for all of them.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
JFC Fuller said:
IIRC that was one of the initial LHX (Comanche) requirements too.

And before that the AAFS: AH-56 Cheyenne. It makes a lot of sense for the US Army to be able to self deploy aviation.

Now IIRC, the Comanche (and AH-56?) would do it on an exception basis, through a series of stops w/o needing to plan for any maintenance or inspections along the way, something that had not been a requirement for previous rotorcraft. I don't think the ability to air refuel was a requirement. Some larger helos have self depolyed (especially HH-53s) on an exception basis. However, normal mode of long distance transit would be by ship or for sudden emergencies, go to wherever the USAF transports can meet them, breakdown, fly in USAF transports, reassemble, flight test and then do the mission. The (unspecified?) longer range desired for JMR/FVL may reduce the requirement for this on intermediate distances.

What I believe Karem and Bell are saying, is that when the mission demanded it they their birds would depart from their home base and proceed direct, with temporary extra tankage if desired, refueling in the air as necessary. That's why they aren't concerned with making their a/c able to fit into a C-17.
 
yasotay said:
Regardless of their deployability, the JMR/FVL has to operate from USN ships (LHD, CVN) so they have to fit below the deck on a routine basis. I expect there will eventually have to be some form of folding for all of them.

Excellent point. JMR/FVL at this point is mostly an Army program, JMR being the demonstrator and FVL being the "family" of operational vehicles. Navy has not yet bought into it. Their program is MH-XX. I think this is reflected in the lack of the contractors addressing (so far) shipboard compatibility in their JMR birds. I could see USN going off on their own with USMC being more interested in FVL.


I have seen drawings of what resembles a folding V-280. Basically, the wing mount is elevated relative to the way it's mounted on the current design. The wing pivots as on the V-22, but in this case one of the V-tails folds down so that the wing can be swung over it and lay within the fuselage length. Not enough known about Karem to see if they're after that market.
 
I wouldn't be surprise if Sikorsky is working on a navalized version of the the Defiant to replace the Sea Hawk and the Ocean Hawk. We have already seen videos from Sikorsky of a medium-sized X2 helicopter performing the anti-submarine mission.
 
Triton said:
I wouldn't be surprise if Sikorsky is working on a navalized version of the the Defiant to replace the Sea Hawk and the Ocean Hawk. We have already seen videos from Sikorsky of a medium-sized X2 helicopter performing the anti-submarine mission.

I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show.

There's also the issue of whether Navy wants/needs/is willing to pay for the speed, range and hot and high improvements that FVL will be offering. If not, AVX may have a leg up if they choose to bid for MH-XX. They've stated that if the Army chickens out and drops the speed requirement to 170 knots, they would remove the ducted propulsors for a significant savings. They could just do that for a Navy model. This would mean a significant savings for MH-XX due to greater commonality with FVL, plus it would make their vehicle thinner, which is where I see a cause for concern in a shipboard version of their technology.
 
F-14D said:
Triton said:
I wouldn't be surprise if Sikorsky is working on a navalized version of the the Defiant to replace the Sea Hawk and the Ocean Hawk. We have already seen videos from Sikorsky of a medium-sized X2 helicopter performing the anti-submarine mission.

I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show.

There's also the issue of whether Navy wants/needs/is willing to pay for the speed, range and hot and high improvements that FVL will be offering. If not, AVX may have a leg up if they choose to bid for MH-XX. They've stated that if the Army chickens out and drops the speed requirement to 170 knots, they would remove the ducted propulsors for a significant savings. They could just do that for a Navy model. This would mean a significant savings for MH-XX due to greater commonality with FVL, plus it would make their vehicle thinner, which is where I see a cause for concern in a shipboard version of their technology.
I will be very interested in seeing how they stuff that rotor system into a destroyer or frigate hangar. That is a VERY tall rotor system and a H-60 barely fits into some of the hangars as it is.
I think the X2 proposal will have a means to shut down and stop the prop in the air. Army will not want troops running around in the dark on an air assault with a bunch of "dice-o-matics" in the landing zone.
 
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
Triton said:
I wouldn't be surprise if Sikorsky is working on a navalized version of the the Defiant to replace the Sea Hawk and the Ocean Hawk. We have already seen videos from Sikorsky of a medium-sized X2 helicopter performing the anti-submarine mission.

I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show.

There's also the issue of whether Navy wants/needs/is willing to pay for the speed, range and hot and high improvements that FVL will be offering. If not, AVX may have a leg up if they choose to bid for MH-XX. They've stated that if the Army chickens out and drops the speed requirement to 170 knots, they would remove the ducted propulsors for a significant savings. They could just do that for a Navy model. This would mean a significant savings for MH-XX due to greater commonality with FVL, plus it would make their vehicle thinner, which is where I see a cause for concern in a shipboard version of their technology.
I will be very interested in seeing how they stuff that rotor system into a destroyer or frigate hangar. That is a VERY tall rotor system and a H-60 barely fits into some of the hangars as it is.
I think the X2 proposal will have a means to shut down and stop the prop in the air. Army will not want troops running around in the dark on an air assault with a bunch of "dice-o-matics" in the landing zone.

Sikorsky does in fact show the prop starting and stopping in mid air, probably for exactly the same reason you mention. Also, that prop is turning on the ground would be the concept awkward for civil use and unsalable for EMS work.

I was wondering though about the prop for Navy use. If you're launching from or coming aboard a fairly small platform that's moving along at 15 or more knots, possibly with a crosswind, would you be able to conduct the operation with the prop shut down, unless you winch the vehicle both ways with a beartrap like system or there is a lot of control authority in the ABC setup by itself. I'd guess there'd have to be, probably more so for an X2 MH-XX than in an X2 FVL. (I'd guess so) I can't envision shipboard operations from non-aviation vessels with that thing turning.
 
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
Triton said:
I wouldn't be surprise if Sikorsky is working on a navalized version of the the Defiant to replace the Sea Hawk and the Ocean Hawk. We have already seen videos from Sikorsky of a medium-sized X2 helicopter performing the anti-submarine mission.

I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show.

There's also the issue of whether Navy wants/needs/is willing to pay for the speed, range and hot and high improvements that FVL will be offering. If not, AVX may have a leg up if they choose to bid for MH-XX. They've stated that if the Army chickens out and drops the speed requirement to 170 knots, they would remove the ducted propulsors for a significant savings. They could just do that for a Navy model. This would mean a significant savings for MH-XX due to greater commonality with FVL, plus it would make their vehicle thinner, which is where I see a cause for concern in a shipboard version of their technology.
I will be very interested in seeing how they stuff that rotor system into a destroyer or frigate hangar. That is a VERY tall rotor system and a H-60 barely fits into some of the hangars as it is.
I think the X2 proposal will have a means to shut down and stop the prop in the air. Army will not want troops running around in the dark on an air assault with a bunch of "dice-o-matics" in the landing zone.

Sikorsky does in fact show the prop starting and stopping in mid air, probably for exactly the same reason you mention. Also, that prop is turning on the ground would be the concept awkward for civil use and unsalable for EMS work.

I was wondering though about the prop for Navy use. If you're launching from or coming aboard a fairly small platform that's moving along at 15 or more knots, possibly with a crosswind, would you be able to conduct the operation with the prop shut down, unless you winch the vehicle both ways with a beartrap like system or there is a lot of control authority in the ABC setup by itself. I'd guess there'd have to be, probably more so for an X2 MH-XX than in an X2 FVL. (I'd guess so) I can't envision shipboard operations from non-aviation vessels with that thing turning.
I think I recall being told that the X2 technology can operate like a conventional rotorcraft, up to normal helicopter speeds without the prop turning.
 
Attached is a capture of the Karem T-36 from last weeks Aviation Week and Space Technology.
 

Attachments

  • Karem-36.jpg
    Karem-36.jpg
    67.7 KB · Views: 693
Cleaner and larger Karem T-36 JMR concept.

Source:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jmr-fvl-the-us-militarys-future-helicopters-014035/
 

Attachments

  • AIR_TR36_JMR_Concept_Karem_lg.jpg
    AIR_TR36_JMR_Concept_Karem_lg.jpg
    135.4 KB · Views: 608
Sikorsky Moves X2 Technology Up A Size For JMR

By Graham Warwick

Source: Aviation Week & Space Technology

November 04, 2013

defiantjmr_SIKORSKYBOEINGCONCEPT.JPG


Scale is everything in rotorcraft: What works at one size might not at another, because of complex interactions between aerodynamics, propulsion, structures and control. That is why the U.S. Army plans to fly competing high-speed rotorcraft demonstrators before deciding which direction to take in replacing its utility and attack helicopters beginning in the mid-2030s.

There are four options for the Army's planned Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrators. Bell Helicopter and Karem Aircraft each offer tiltrotors. AVX Aircraft offers a coaxial-rotor compound helicopter, as does a Sikorsky/Boeing team. Following completion of preliminary design, a downselect to two aircraft is planned for July 2014, leading to first flights at the end of fiscal 2017.

For Sikorsky, the challenge is to prove its coaxial rigid-rotor technology can be scaled up from the 8,000-lb. X2 Technology demonstrator that exceeded 250 kt. in 2010, through the 11,400-lb. S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter prototypes now being built to fly in 2014, to the 230-kt. Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant JMR demonstrator—precursor to the Army's planned 30,000-lb.-class Future Vertical Lift (FVL) medium utility rotorcraft to replace Sikorsky's UH-60 Black Hawk.

“Our key goal is to show the technology is scalable,” says Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems. “X2 proved the basic physics and design, Raider is the next weight class up and JMR the next after that. With each increase in size, questions come with the technology. We want to leave no doubt, so will build our JMR demonstrator to full size.”

AVX plans to fly its coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan design at 75% scale, while Bell's V-280 tiltrotor demonstrator would be “92%-plus” scale, says CEO John Garrison. Abe Karem, designer of the Predator unmanned aircraft, is tight-lipped about his TR36TD variable-speed tiltrotor, but says he is “not known for building things subscale.”

Winning one of the JMR air-vehicle demonstrator contracts would vindicate Sikorsky's decision to make speed one of three pillars of its research and development strategy—the others being autonomy and intelligence—and focus on the coaxial rigid-rotor configuration first tested in the 1970s with the XH-59 Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) experimental helicopter and re-invented as the X2 by integrating the latest available technology.

Conventional helicopters are not fast because, with the rotor flying edgewise, as forward speed rises, the airflow velocity increases over the advancing blade until the tip goes supersonic and decreases over the retreating blade until it stalls. ABC overcame this by generating lift on the advancing sides of contra-rotating coaxial rotors, which were slowed to delay shockwave formation at the tips, and off-loading the retreating sides to delay blade stall. The rotors were stiff so they could be close together to reduce drag.

The XH-59 ultimately achieved 263 kt., but required two pilots, four engines and was thirsty, noisy and shaky. Three decades later, the X2 Technology demonstrator exceeded 250 kt. in level flight, and 260 kt. in a shallow dive, with one pilot, one engine and vibration levels similar to a Black Hawk at 150 kt. Fly-by-wire flight control, integrated propulsion, active vibration control and composite materials were among the technology advances that overcame the shortcomings of the XH-59.

The X2 was Sikorsky's response to criticism that neither the U.S. military nor industry was investing in new rotorcraft technology, and instead still building and buying 1970s designs. “The industry was being slammed hard for not being innovative,” says Mark Miller, vice president of research and engineering. “[Former Sikorsky President] Steve Finger ordered an extensive study of technologies that had been tried in the past. As technology advances, things that were not possible back then become worth taking a look at. The X2 coaxial rigid rotor came out of that.”

After designing and flying the X2 demonstrator in 43 months for $50 million in company funds, Sikorsky launched the S-97 Raider program, investing $200 million of its own and suppliers' money in two prototypes to reduce risk in pursuit of the Army's Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) requirement. The Raider also takes the X2 configuration a step closer in scale to JMR/FVL. “The S-97 will provide another data point on the same slope as the X2, but at a different gross weight, and show it can be done quickly and affordably, to an advanced manufacturing readiness level,” says Chris Van Buiten, vice president of technology and innovation and head of R&D arm Sikorsky Innovations.

Launched in October 2010, the Raider program has entered the final-assembly phase. The first all-composite fuselage was delivered by Aurora Flight Sciences in September and has cleared its 115% proof-load test. The landing gear has passed drop and retract tests and is being attached to the airframe. The windshield has successfully completed a birdstrike test at 229 kt., says Van Buiten.

The Raider is scheduled to fly at the end of 2014 and, after a year of envelope-expansion flight tests, Sikorsky hopes to begin demonstrations to the Army at the end of 2015 and be ready for an AAS competition—if the program is delayed, but not terminated, because of budget cuts—in 2016.

In addition to a doubling of mission speed and endurance and 150% increase in high/hot hover performance over the Army's Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior, Sikorsky wants to demonstrate specific attributes of the X2 configuration. These include level-attitude acceleration and deceleration using the variable-pitch pusher propeller, 3g maneuver capability and the ability to “hang on the prop” to direct weapons against ground targets.

Along with proving the coaxial rigid-rotor dynamic system scales up, Sikorsky plans to use its JMR demonstrator to show the advantages of those same attributes in the utility role, and particularly the benefits of maneuverability and level-attitude acceleration/deceleration to inserting or extracting troops rapidly and survivably, says Doug Shidler, JMR program director.

Sikorsky's strategy to focus its internal R&D on the three pillars and seek contract R&D to fill any gaps is paying off, says Miller. “JMR is a contract and an investment, and we have been able to attract a partner in Boeing, which is a 'Good Housekeeping' stamp of approval [for the X2 technology],” he notes. “There was nothing new going on, no investment in R&D, and [then-Sikorsky President] Jeff Pino said we can change that,” says Van Buiten. “We moved out with small investments in the three pillars and now we are seeing substantive progress—the X2 has flown, the S-97 is coming and we have won a JMR contract.”

JMR will also be a test of Sikorsky's ability, now with Boeing, to scale up its capacity to design and build an aircraft quickly and affordably. Having invested $250 million of its own and supplier money in the X2 demonstrator and Raider prototypes—without having yet attracted a customer—it faces the prospect of spending more money on the JMR demonstration.

This program requires significant industry investment. It is starting off as a cost-share, with the government leveraging the industry's investment,” explains Mehta. The Sikorsky/Boeing team is not saying what its contribution would be, but the Army has $217 million to spend on two flight demonstrators, and Bell's Garrison says: “The investment by industry is significantly higher than by the government in this program.”

Already 95 Boeing and Sikorsky engineers are working on the Defiant, and the government will get much more that it is paying for with its $6 million preliminary design contract, Shidler notes.

“We've completed an internal conceptual design review and identified strong progress on key technologies to enable the aircraft,” says Mehta. “[JMR] requirements are pretty significant and stretch the boundaries in the dynamics and fuselage, which are strengths of both companies,” he says, citing a transmission design breakthrough “we would not have gotten on our own.”

Lessons learned working together on the canceled RAH-66 Comanche are proving valuable, with Boeing and Sikorsky taking a different approach to sharing the work. “Comanche was component-based, and there was one Boeing and one Sikorsky person on each job,” says Shidler. “[On JMR] we do not take the aircraft and divide it up,” says Mehta. “Technologies are divided into categories and there is a lead for each, but the teams are populated with folks from both companies.”

The companies have teamed in perpetuity on JMR/FVL, which is to replace Boeing's AH-64 Apache as well as the Black Hawk, and a fundamental requirement is to “work together on technology while at the same time retaining our technical competencies. If we take the aircraft and divide it up so that Sikorsky has 100 percent of the dynamics, what happens to Boeing? Or Boeing has 100 percent of the fuselage; what happens to Sikorsky? We both want to advance our competency, attract talent and have our best people working on this program,” Mehta explains.

Cost will be an important factor for FVL, as it already is for AAS. Responding to Army concerns about the cost of the high-speed Raider, Sikorsky took the unprecedented step of publicly committing to a $15 million unit flyaway cost, the upper limit of the Army's procurement budget for AAS. This has been validated, Miller says, with a detailed cost breakdown based on actual parts for the S-97 prototypes or similar parts for other Sikorsky helicopters. “We know what it will cost. We're happy with the numbers,” he says. “This is an assembly of parts that are well known and in production,” adds Van Buiten. “It is an integration of familiar-looking stuff in a different way.”
 
Artist's impression of Karem TR36 Medevac

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/military/procurement-acquisitions/Proceed-with-Caution-JMR-Tech-Demo-Phase-1_80541.html#.Un7l-OI4mKI
 

Attachments

  • TR36_Medevac.jpeg
    TR36_Medevac.jpeg
    34.6 KB · Views: 392
jsport said:
How about the LSI not being the prime.

"Sweetman credits Sweden's unrivaled success to the FMV, a civilian agency than then King Augustus Adolphus set up in the wake of the loss of the battleship Vasa that sank upon launching in 1628. FMV is something like a civilian interface between the military and defence contractors. The military orders through FMV but doesn't control it. Defence contractors have to sell to the FMV. It's their customer and FMV has a well-honed eye for value and performance."

it does not have to be innovative and risky Davids vs lack luster staid Goliaths if the best of both can be lead w/ intention and competence. PMs whose life is about jumping ship ain't the way...
 
F-14D said:
I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show...

Fits pretty good, doesn´t it? :)
...not much more "wasted" space as in the UH-60. I guess the section behind the cabin is primarily foreseen as a fuel tank and maybe as a weapon bay for the attack version.

Regards, Michael
 

Attachments

  • Defiant vs Blackhawk_a.jpg
    Defiant vs Blackhawk_a.jpg
    204.7 KB · Views: 118
VTOLicious said:
F-14D said:
I'm sure they are working on a navalized X2, although possibly with a different fuselage. The issues I see are first, the large amount of "wasted" space aft of the cabin which seems to be inherent in the X2 design (note the location of engine/ rotors on fuselage relative to all other designs and H-60) which may work against compactness, and second whether Navy is willing to have that prop spinning on a destroyer's flight deck. Since the ships will be in motion, it doesn't look like X2 will have the luxury of starting/stopping the prop in midair as their animations for the Raider show...

Fits pretty good, doesn´t it? :)
...not much more "wasted" space as in the UH-60. I guess the section behind the cabin is primarily foreseen as a fuel tank and maybe as a weapon bay for the attack version.

Regards, Michael

Thanks for the pic, assuming they're same scale. In a conventional helo, you have to extend the boom pretty far out to provide clearance for the antitorque rotor, both for leverage and to clear the main rotor. Neither of those situations apply to an X2. What I see in the conventional helos, even the H-60 is a fairly rapid taper to remain aerodynamic but house the necessarily extended shaft. I'm commenting on the change in depictions of X2s. previously, they showed the engines and mast directly overhead the cabin, making for a more compact vehicle. What we're seeing now is the main mast and usually engines is always aft of the cabin. The comparison in my mind is not with conventional helicopters with their necessary shaft housing, but with previous X2s. It seems that now they're longer than they had to be because of the mast always being aft of the cabin. Compare with AVX, for example. If inherent to X2, I'm wondering if that's what Sikorsky is referring to affecting scalability as you approach larger sizes.

As far as the attack version, I suspect like the other competitors, the internal weapons are going to occupy the space used by the cabin in the utility version. Makes for simplicity n design and cg management issues.

Regarding my concern about the spinning prop on a destroyer deck, My fears there have been allayed. As pointed out here on the forum and from other sources, the concept can maneuver with the prop shut down as necessary in order to get onboard/offboard. The vehicle isn't as fast at the top end as a conventional helo when the prop's shut down, but who cares? Except for takeoff and landing, the prop's going to be operating.
 
A slide from a Sikorsky briefing comparing the size of the S-97 Raider to existing helicopter platforms. Hopefully this will be of help with sizing the SB-1 Defiant to the UH-60 Black Hawk.

index.php
 
Let's not forget that JMR is the precursor for FVL an will "only" provide technology demonstration (2017!).

Maybe Sikorsky's/Boeing's intent for JMR is to provide a machine that is very similar in size and weight to the UH-60, BUT capable of flying 230kts and superior overall performance...still a big challenge ;) Developing a operational aircraft for FVL is far, far away.

In regards of fuselage-tail taper:
 

Attachments

  • Defiant_1.jpg
    Defiant_1.jpg
    41.1 KB · Views: 117
Mike makes a great point. JMR is ONLY a rotorcraft technology demonstration effort to inform a FVL program. When the FVL program is put on the streets for proposals it will be a completely new effort that all companies will be able to make proposals against.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom