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

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
70
Not sure what the fuss is about, the Airbus RACER has pusher props.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,616
Reaction score
112
_Del_ said:
Sundog said:
jsport said:
Those outboard props nake it non starter for military in -extremis ops.
I don't see why those would be any worse than the tail pusher in the Sikorsky designs, as I'm sure they would be disengaged on the ground.
Their configuration needs at least one prop turning for anti-torque. Even if you shut it down on the ground, it would require time to spin down. And it would require time to get both rotors and propulsors back up to speed.

Sikorski's fan is on a clutch, and they can disengage it in flight in descent. Just as importantly, it also isn't sitting right outside the cabin.
This.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
Rule #1 in combat: If it can go wrong, it will. Aircrews trying to talk on three radios, land in the dark with 20/200 vision, while dodging ground fire. Kids who have been awake, running on adrenaline for 24-36 hours, trying not to get shot looking for a ride out of hell. What could go wrong. I do not see the Airbus Racer being popular with military pilots who do the air transport missions. Attack helicopters - maybe.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
70
sferrin said:
I wasn't saying it was a good idea, I was just pointing out some previous posts implied the RACER had tractor props when in fact they are pushers.

From the concept artwork it seems the propellers are located roughly just ahead of the turboshaft exhausts, so behind the cabin, presumably to help cut down on cabin noise. The diameter is small, but of course on the ground in a military scenario they would be an obstacle.
For FARA, which is mainly for scouting and attack (with a minmum 6 person transport role) the tradeoff might be worthwhile.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
755
Reaction score
16
Rhinocrates said:
Well they do say, if you can keep your head when everyone around you is losing theirs, then perhaps you should land your helicopter somewhere less crowded.
Great one. ;D
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
177
Reaction score
35

Attachments

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27299/heres-whats-in-the-armys-requirements-for-a-future-high-speed-assault-helicopter

The Future Long Range Air Assault requirement has been further defined.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,130
Reaction score
67
yasotay said:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27299/heres-whats-in-the-armys-requirements-for-a-future-high-speed-assault-helicopter

The Future Long Range Air Assault requirement has been further defined.
The Marines seem to be asking for a unicorn and a pony with their add-on requirements here.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
34
Army looking to select “Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft” in March 2020 with flyoff downselect in 2023. FARA is intended to replace OH-58. Replacement of half of AH-64 fleet would follow. NOTE: not clear in article if that would be more FARA or something else.

FLRAA is targeted for UH-60 replacement. No timeline mentioned for FLRAA.


Army could select new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft by 2020
https://www.army.mil/article/219359/army_could_select_new_future_attack_reconnaissance_aircraft_by_2020
 

RavenOne

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
177
Reaction score
35
fredymac said:
Army looking to select “Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft” in March 2020 with flyoff downselect in 2023. FARA is intended to replace OH-58. Replacement of half of AH-64 fleet would follow. NOTE: not clear in article if that would be more FARA or something else.

FLRAA is targeted for UH-60 replacement. No timeline mentioned for FLRAA.


Army could select new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft by 2020
https://www.army.mil/article/219359/army_could_select_new_future_attack_reconnaissance_aircraft_by_2020
Only one slight problem the 58D was retired couple of years back, some got sold to likes of Croatia, Greece Tunisia etc.

Cheers
 

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
428
Reaction score
6

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,616
Reaction score
112
VTOLicious said:
...if I may add another important difference: AVX has delivered no flying hardware so far ;)
And probably never will.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
34
Bell CEO comments on Army procurement plans and status of V-280.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAXzXXog_N0
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,130
Reaction score
67
Triton said:
sferrin said:
VTOLicious said:
...if I may add another important difference: AVX has delivered no flying hardware so far ;)
And probably never will.
How does AVX Aircraft keep the lights on?
They have some JMR-related contracts and some work on TERN with Northrop Grumman. Plus some VC money I'm sure.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
353
Reaction score
2
I was thinking on the same lines earlier today when reading this. I know they have a solid group of experienced individuals, but no real product. My guess is they do a lot of SBIR R&D on behalf of the DOD. I worked for a company that did their fair share of SBIR work, but we also sold product. SBIR just helped keep us busy (and funded) in R&D.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
983
Reaction score
13
An interesting piece of the puzzle has been revealed: Bell's FARA Scout proposal is to use a conventional helicopter "derived" from the 525 Relentless.
On a conference call with stock analysts, Scott Donnelly said Bell’s entry in the competition is based on “taking that technology that we validated in the 525 program and scaling that down to a size and weight that's consistent with the FARA requirement.” Donnelly noted that the 525 had already achieved speeds in excess of 200 knots during test flights and that its rotor technology and fly-by-wire flight controls would allow Bell to field a conventional-looking helicopter that would meet the Army’s key speed goal for FARA of 205 knots while providing “a much more cost-effective” solution for the mission. Donnelly said the 525 technology “has enabled us to field a more conventional helicopter that has very high speed, very efficient, very smooth operating capability.”
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
Not surprising, given the timelines the Army wants in conjunction with cost figure and equipment they want to put onboard. Not to mention the people who own the checkbook are somewhat risk adverse. After the investment in V-280, not sure the folks Donnelly has to answer to are keen on more risk either.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
16
An interesting piece of the puzzle has been revealed: Bell's FARA Scout proposal is to use a conventional helicopter "derived" from the 525 Relentless.
On a conference call with stock analysts, Scott Donnelly said Bell’s entry in the competition is based on “taking that technology that we validated in the 525 program and scaling that down to a size and weight that's consistent with the FARA requirement.” Donnelly noted that the 525 had already achieved speeds in excess of 200 knots during test flights and that its rotor technology and fly-by-wire flight controls would allow Bell to field a conventional-looking helicopter that would meet the Army’s key speed goal for FARA of 205 knots while providing “a much more cost-effective” solution for the mission. Donnelly said the 525 technology “has enabled us to field a more conventional helicopter that has very high speed, very efficient, very smooth operating capability.”
How are they getting a conventional rotor to 200+ kts? maybe it's not so "conventional"?
I'm not surprised they're not using a tilt-rotor for this. My guess is that it's hard to meet the max dimensional envelope requirements with side-by-side rotors.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
983
Reaction score
13
An interesting piece of the puzzle has been revealed: Bell's FARA Scout proposal is to use a conventional helicopter "derived" from the 525 Relentless.
On a conference call with stock analysts, Scott Donnelly said Bell’s entry in the competition is based on “taking that technology that we validated in the 525 program and scaling that down to a size and weight that's consistent with the FARA requirement.” Donnelly noted that the 525 had already achieved speeds in excess of 200 knots during test flights and that its rotor technology and fly-by-wire flight controls would allow Bell to field a conventional-looking helicopter that would meet the Army’s key speed goal for FARA of 205 knots while providing “a much more cost-effective” solution for the mission. Donnelly said the 525 technology “has enabled us to field a more conventional helicopter that has very high speed, very efficient, very smooth operating capability.”
How are they getting a conventional rotor to 200+ kts? maybe it's not so "conventional"?
I'm not surprised they're not using a tilt-rotor for this. My guess is that it's hard to meet the max dimensional envelope requirements with side-by-side rotors.
Yeah I've seen a fair number of "envelope" and "cost" educated guesses going around.

Bell claims the 525 will pip 200 if wrung all the way out. Place the same drivetrain in a smaller/lighter package, maybe with stub wings to help with lift issues, and there you go.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,153
Reaction score
16
my (admittedly) cursory research shows that the record-breaking conventional Lynx achieved 216 kts. I think Bell will have to do some extensive surgery to get a 525-derived vehicle to 205kts. Maybe add auxiliary propulsion.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
It can do 200+ knots... downhill. Nobody said straight and level. UH-60 is suppose to be able to do 150knots. Not lately.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
AVX Aircraft Co. partnered with L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Bell Helicopter, Boeing, Karem Aircraft and Lockheed Martin-owned Sikorsky have won awards to design a new Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) for the U.S. Army over the next year, the service announced April 23.

 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
983
Reaction score
13
I look forward to artwork from the bidders.

3 teams left out, figure it was Airbus, MD, and Leonardo but maybe there was a surprise in there we weren't expecting.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Senior Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
755
Reaction score
16
Amazing that Airbus is not qualified when Karem and AVX, which are relatively emerging small companies, are. I would remind all that Airbus swallows a large part of public European funds for various R&D projects, including the H-160.

“The ones that were selected were clearly meeting the mandatory requirements and were in the acceptable risk level of the execution plan and the desired requirements,"
Wonder if European should not be better throwing their money directly in Texas... This result is unacceptable :mad:

This loss is on the bill of Mr Faury, the least successful CEO ever rated in the aircraft industry.


(Quote from link above)
 
Last edited:

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,192
Reaction score
70
I am not surprised by that outcome to be honest.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,204
Reaction score
4
AVX, L3 unveil coxial helicopter design for FARA: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/avx-l3-unveil-coxial-helicopter-design-for-fara-457495/

"Though the compound, co-axial design has similarities to Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider demonstrator, AVX Aircraft chief operating officer Kendall Goodman says there are important differences..."

...if I may add another important difference: AVX has delivered no flying hardware so far ;)
What ever happened to the mast mounted now longer range Longbow FCR and or other EO/IR sights?
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,396
Reaction score
34
V-280 start of fast rope testing and a brief look at the distributed aperture video.

 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
983
Reaction score
13
Interesting that the tail has grown longer since their earlier concepts. I thought the compact airframe that fit within the footprint of their rotor was a unique and possibly advantageous selling point.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,950
Reaction score
45
The parameters they had to design to likely dictated the change.
As to the view, I have to agree. More reliance on sensors perhaps?
 
Top