• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

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

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
290
To reach 180-205 kt in level flight is not an easy task with a conventional helicopter, but indeed feasible (G-LYNX).
However, to demonstrate that speed with an experimental aircraft is one thing. But to deliver an operational helicopter capable of 180 kt cruise speed is something very different. In the end fuel burn at given cruise speed may be an important factor.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
981
Reaction score
76
FARA first look #1 - @Sikorsky Raider-X proposal for @usarmy Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft - 20% larger than S-97 Raider, side-by-side cockpit, large internal weapons bay, single @geaviation T901, redesigned rear fuselage
 

Attachments

  • 005SikorskyRaider-X FARA.jpg
    005SikorskyRaider-X FARA.jpg
    213 KB · Views: 155

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
1,124
To reach 180-205 kt in level flight is not an easy task with a conventional helicopter, but indeed feasible (G-LYNX).
However, to demonstrate that speed with an experimental aircraft is one thing. But to deliver an operational helicopter capable of 180 kt cruise speed is something very different. In the end fuel burn at given cruise speed may be an important factor.

Range at speed is probably also the main driver for internal weapon carriage, for reduced drag.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,162
Reaction score
1,124
FARA first look #1 - @Sikorsky Raider-X proposal for @usarmy Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft - 20% larger than S-97 Raider, side-by-side cockpit, large internal weapons bay, single @geaviation T901, redesigned rear fuselage

The chine along the forward fuselage seems to be making a nod toward RCS management, but nothing with a big spinny thing on top is going to be too stealthy.

Also, they're not showing the gun required for FARA. Perhaps it stows somewhere, again for drag reduction?
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,145
Reaction score
152
To reach 180-205 kt in level flight is not an easy task with a conventional helicopter, but indeed feasible (G-LYNX).
However, to demonstrate that speed with an experimental aircraft is one thing. But to deliver an operational helicopter capable of 180 kt cruise speed is something very different. In the end fuel burn at given cruise speed may be an important factor.

The requirement is 185 Kt or better at mission gross weight which the Army would have shared with the interested parties. As you said, flying a prototype at those speeds is one thing, but the OEM's have to convince the Army that their designs are capable of cruising at those speeds in the configurations the Army mandates while also meeting other requirements.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
981
Reaction score
76
FARA first look #2 - @karem AR40 active-rotor winged compound - electric individual blade control, swiveling tail-rotor becomes propulsor, speed 210kt+, partners @northropgrumman for production and support, @raytheon for mission system
 

Attachments

  • 006Karem AR40 FARA.jpg
    006Karem AR40 FARA.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 158

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,369
Reaction score
512
I am going out on a limb that Boeing will likely be rather conventional in their offering. Have not seen any significant innovation out of them in a long time when it comes to rotorcraft.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,327
Reaction score
1,357
FARA first look #2 - @karem AR40 active-rotor winged compound - electric individual blade control, swiveling tail-rotor becomes propulsor, speed 210kt+, partners @northropgrumman for production and support, @raytheon for mission system

That looks like a whale.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
981
Reaction score
76
Bell 360 Invictus
 

Attachments

  • 009Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    009Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    455.5 KB · Views: 129
  • 007Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    007Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    397.4 KB · Views: 85
  • 008Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    008Bell 360 Invictus.jpg
    410.5 KB · Views: 79

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
981
Reaction score
76
AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA
 

Attachments

  • 012AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    012AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    475.4 KB · Views: 98
  • 013AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    013AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    461 KB · Views: 94
  • 014AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    014AVXAircraft And L3HarrisTech FARA.jpg
    451.9 KB · Views: 136

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
290
FARA first look #2 - @karem AR40 active-rotor winged compound - electric individual blade control, swiveling tail-rotor becomes propulsor, speed 210kt+, partners @northropgrumman for production and support, @raytheon for mission system
Karem, always good for a surprise!
 

AN/AWW-14(V)

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
May 18, 2019
Messages
324
Reaction score
555
Manufacturer Boeing is continuing to shroud its US Army Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) proposal in secrecy, on grounds that any other strategy would risk giving up commercially sensitive design specifications and associated technology to another competitor.

Despite all other industry participants having made their offers and designs public, Boeing has consistently taken a different approach and ahead of a downselect decision in March 2020, when the field will be cut to two for a final design and build stage, it remains unclear if the OEM will eventually unveil the aircraft in question.

Boeing's prototyping subsidiary Phantom Works is heavily involved in the campaign, on hand to support rapid prototyping and technology maturation for the FARA platform.

'We are typically involved when there's a clean sheet opportunity, a brand new requirement or a combination of requirements coming together that necessitate a new capability,' Mark Cherry, VP, general manager of Phantom Works said.

The organisation is also capable of developing digital designs at speed, in order to reduce production time frames, he made clear.

Like all other competitors, Boeing's design has already met a host of mandatory items including a minimum cruise airspeed of 180kt, maximum 40ft rotor disc criteria, max gross weight of 14,000lb (6,350kg), and is 'acutely focused' on other key items such as sustainment strartegies, data reliabilty, affordability and maintainability, according to Shane Openshaw, FARA programme manager at Boeing.

Aside from those general areas, it remains unclear exactly how Boeing is investing its FARA funding of $772 million, underwritten by an Other Transaction Authority contract and awarded by the US Army in April.

'At this point I can't [talk about how the money is being spent],' Openshaw said, though did clarify that some had been used to fund initial design review risk reduction activities.

During AUSA competitor Sikorsky released a rendering of its FARA proposal - Raider X - a variation of its in-development S-97 Raider and for which it has been given $938 million.

 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
I am going out on a limb that Boeing will likely be rather conventional in their offering. Have not seen any significant innovation out of them in a long time when it comes to rotorcraft.
but they are keeping quite about their bid so that's sort of strange. It's certainly not the type of program that you want to throw in fancy tech that you don't have any hardware to show for.
 

AeroFranz

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,252
Reaction score
155
FARA first look #2 - @karem AR40 active-rotor winged compound - electric individual blade control, swiveling tail-rotor becomes propulsor, speed 210kt+, partners @northropgrumman for production and support, @raytheon for mission system

That looks like a whale.

I tend to agree. Odd, Karem usually has an eye for aesthetics.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,813
Reaction score
256
I actually like the Karem submission the best, so far, as it looks the cleanest of all of the designs. I also like their tail rotor design solution. The Raider X looks more like a flying boat, the AVX like a flying shoe box, and while the Bell submission is interesting to look at, it reminds me of everything we've seen before, with the exception of the asymmetric single engine.
 

seruriermarshal

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
981
Reaction score
76
so who'll win the FARA ?

1 Sikorsky Raider-X
2 Bell 360 Invictus
3 Karem AR40
4 AVX Aircraft CCH
5 Boeing
6 No one
 

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
290
FARA first look #2 - @karem AR40 active-rotor winged compound - electric individual blade control, swiveling tail-rotor becomes propulsor, speed 210kt+, partners @northropgrumman for production and support, @raytheon for mission system
Another pic... I like the compactness of this concept.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20191016_122431.jpg
    IMG_20191016_122431.jpg
    788.3 KB · Views: 115
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,327
Reaction score
1,357
so who'll win the FARA ?

1 Sikorsky Raider-X
2 Bell 360 Invictus
3 Karem AR40
4 AVX Aircraft CCH
5 Boeing
6 No one

1 or 2, And whichever one gets picked will look WAY more vanilla than their concepts.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,369
Reaction score
512
Looking at the picture from VTOLicious, the rotor blades for the Karem FARA are very wide chord and a pretty complex design. Wonder if they plan to slow the rotor system at higher speeds?

Two pictures from Vertical Flight Society shows the interesting rotor blades, where the wing folds and the tail rotor/thruster.
 

Attachments

  • Karem_AR-40_model1.jpg
    Karem_AR-40_model1.jpg
    134.8 KB · Views: 103
  • Karem_AR-40_model2.jpg
    Karem_AR-40_model2.jpg
    193.2 KB · Views: 101
Last edited:

Hydroman

CLEARANCE: Restricted
Joined
Jan 28, 2008
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Army is apparently going for RAH-66 Comanche Part 2, hopefully this will fare better than Comanche, Army does not have good track record in procuring new helicopters.
 

Desertfox

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
220
Reaction score
78
so who'll win the FARA ?

1 Sikorsky Raider-X
2 Bell 360 Invictus
3 Karem AR40
4 AVX Aircraft CCH
5 Boeing
6 No one
My money is on Bell taking FARA and Sikorsky taking FVL. Bell seems to be the lowest risk design and they have plenty of experience in this realm.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,278
Reaction score
245
Yeah I was just thinking it looked like a medium bomber with a rotor in place of piston engines.

Without knowing more about Boeing's entry it's hard to put anyone but Bell and Sikorsky in 1 and 2, maybe with some debate about which gets which spot. The Karen and AVX concepts are interesting and I'd love to seem either or both fly, but I don't see anything with either of them that clearly puts them ahead of the big teams.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
2,146
Reaction score
757
One point will be to assess if or not we will have a widening gap b/w tilt rotor platforms and 199ers.
The immediate quest to replace the 58 might simply lead to a short term procurement of a couple hundred of airframe and provision for a next Gen platform.
 
Last edited:

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
690
Reaction score
290
Looking at those AR40 pics closely it appears the crew is spaced pretty far apart. The arrangement of windshield struts and wipers hint that as well... In comparison, Raider's fuselage is a lot narrower.
 

Attachments

  • 20191016_202541.jpg
    20191016_202541.jpg
    39.2 KB · Views: 80
  • 20191016_202608.jpg
    20191016_202608.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 70
  • 20191016_205154.jpg
    20191016_205154.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 57
Last edited:

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
982
Reaction score
29
speed will be important since the army reduced its speed from original requirement to open up the competitions to more bids, which means the army does really want speeds exceed 200 kt. not just 180 kt.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Top