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

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

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
379
Reaction score
13
[QUOTE="jsport, post: 370136, member: 7855"

"Kiowa can be used for insertion of up to six troops for critical point security missions. "
[/QUOTE]

I'm not trying to be rude, and I appreciate that you have a source, but this is bul-- oney..

The D's barely carried themselves. They'd have to toss all the fancy avionics out of the back to start. You know why they weren't flying armed at the end? They had choice between armament or fuel. Like most flying things they kept gaining weight beyond original design specs.
Maybe if they tossed everything that isn't bolted down (and a few things that are) and flew with a near empty tank they'd get six guys somewhere close by if they don't mind standing on the skids for what would need be a short ride.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
Writing requirements isn't an easy process, moreso if you need to keep costs under control. I'm sure there are those in the big Army machine who want the scouts to be able to carry a couple scouts, but it didn't make the final cut. There's a number of people who don't think the speed is necessary, there's debate over the appropriate weapons and sensor loads, there's even still debate over which FVL needs to go to production first. None of that is a result of incompetence, it's just the reality of a complex situation without easy answers.
Writing requirements is indeed no fun. The troop requirement is from the SOF community who want something with longer legs than the MH-6 series. I never once saw an Army OH-58 A/C with more than four people total (two crew, two passengers) in the aircraft and that was a VERY heavy aircraft that flew like a brick and you had to know which way the wind was blowing for take off and landing. OH-58D could pick up two people in emergency, but could only flew for a few minutes due to power limits. It was done several times in combat to pick up downed crews and move them out of the fire fight, but it was not used to move scouts and such. The Bell 407 can pick up six people I believe, but remember that is a civil aircraft without all the extra weight that would go onto a military helicopter for armor, radios, sensors, survivability systems and two crew who likely weigh ~250(+) lbs. Todays soldiers with all their equipment weight somewhere around 280-300 lbs. Thus you are asking the aircraft to pick up 1680 to 1800 lbs. That is a lot to ask of a small aircraft. SOF troops don't necessarily take that much weight on special missions of short duration, but they still take up a lot of available weight.
 
Last edited:

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
[QUOTE="jsport, post: 370136, member: 7855"

"Kiowa can be used for insertion of up to six troops for critical point security missions. "
I'm not trying to be rude, and I appreciate that you have a source, but this is bul-- oney..

The D's barely carried themselves. They'd have to toss all the fancy avionics out of the back to start. You know why they weren't flying armed at the end? They had choice between armament or fuel. Like most flying things they kept gaining weight beyond original design specs.
Maybe if they tossed everything that isn't bolted down (and a few things that are) and flew with a near empty tank they'd get six guys somewhere close by if they don't mind standing on the skids for what would need be a short ride.
[/QUOTE]
The MPLH has been specd on multiple sources for over a decade so have no reason to beleive you.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Writing requirements isn't an easy process, moreso if you need to keep costs under control. I'm sure there are those in the big Army machine who want the scouts to be able to carry a couple scouts, but it didn't make the final cut. There's a number of people who don't think the speed is necessary, there's debate over the appropriate weapons and sensor loads, there's even still debate over which FVL needs to go to production first. None of that is a result of incompetence, it's just the reality of a complex situation without easy answers.
An ability to self deploy (speed and range) is apparent. (should not even have to be addressed). Operational options to the cdr is basis for any capability. Not carrying scouts limits cdr options. (again not even worth adressing). If the govn can not compel cost effectiveness than it remains imcompetent.
 

DWG

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Feb 11, 2007
Messages
537
Reaction score
215
The D's barely carried themselves. They'd have to toss all the fancy avionics out of the back to start.
I remember looking into the back of an OH-58D at Farnborough one year, and wincing. There was basically a pyramid of electronics boxes occupying the entire rear cabin. You might have been able to sit a couple of guys hunched over atop it, but it would have been very iffy if they were carrying a full military load and god forbid what their boots might do to the electronics.

Apparently it got worse:
OH-58D.jpg
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Never disputed, and am familiar w/ what the passenger compartment usually looks like. However, how much can be removed in say 3 hrs. This picture seems to show room for one when I thought there was no room. Appears the still is consideration of rescueing a downed pilot as in the MPLH concept.

It is a 90s US Army concept to not fight tanks with tanks but to use light forces w/ Javeilns (like skirmishers) to stifle armored force's intiative. Raytheon just introduced a 4.5km range Javelin. Inserting Javelins tms (2pax) in front on antiscipated armor penetrations only makes sense to complement anti-armor helios and UAS especailly when there is a need to surpress Armored SAM/AAA vehicles in an unconventional way.

Folks forget the Havoc helicopter has a troop compartment.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
Folks forget the Havoc helicopter has a troop compartment.
1. Where? (Pilot and WSO seats don't count.)
2. It's a lot larger than this recon helicopter.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
Taking all of the equipment out of the back of an OH-58D would have made it non-mission capable as a scout. Likely would not have been able to fly. Even the Apache is capable of loading people. In fact they train on it for downed aircrew recovery. Its called a "spur ride". The rider hook themselves to the handholds just behind the cockpit by means of a D ring on their flight vest and hold on. There is a recorded instance where four British soldiers clambered onto the Apache wing stores and were flown into a Afghani village to look for a missing soldier. This was of course in extremis situation. OH-58D crews have been picked up by their wingmen when shot down and moved a couple of kilometers out of a fight, but this put terrible strain on the engines and dynamic components as the aircraft was ~ 500 lbs. over gross.
As to the Mi-28 "troop compartment" there is a space behind the wing stores, that opens on the port side with enough room for two. If you chuck out all of the flight crews personnel kit.
Not to be argumentative sferrin, but the current US recon helicopter is an Apache. I do however agree, as does the Army, it seems that the Apache is not a great scout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DWG

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Sparse, Eastern style.

On this, agreement w/ the Apache contractor/builder . The Apache was not designed as a scout and does not serve the role well.

some pusher prop version of the S-67 (w/ troop space) should never have been abandoned.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
Damn. :eek: Hope they didn't eat breakfast, they might not fit.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
Not to be argumentative sferrin, but the current US recon helicopter is an Apache. I do however agree, as does the Army, it seems that the Apache is not a great scout.
Aren't they using it because they've got nothing else? (Apparently they got rid of all their OH-58s with no replacements.)
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Karem's craft is a bit large for a scout and optionally manned is always good for scouting. Karem might be better for attack.

Still the counter rotating is drag. Karems concept is better but on the below Sikorsky helicopter.
 

Attachments

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
559
Reaction score
112
Raider S-97, designed to AAS requirements: Troop capacity 6

Raider X, designed to FARA requirements:
Troop capacity 0

Snip form AW&ST:
"...Behind the cockpit is a large internal weapons bay. Internal carriage of missiles and unmanned aircraft—which the Army calls air-launched effects (ALE)—is a FARA requirement, but Malia says the cabin-like volume of Raider X’s bay provides growth space for future, larger systems. “The minimum threshold works now, but what if in 2030 there are new ALE that can be decisive but can’t be carried?” he asks..."
 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
Aren't they using it because they've got nothing else? (Apparently they got rid of all their OH-58s with no replacements.)
You are correct. When the Aviation budget was cut in half, a very hard decision (not liked even by those who made it) to sunset the Kiowa. This is why FARA is aviation requirement #1.

@VTOLicious - Army wants an armed Scout. SOF wants an MH-6 replacement. Put chairs in the space of the missiles on the production line and everyone gets what they want.

In other news: https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/11/22/army-aviators-ask-for-more-comfort-less-workload-from-future-vertical-lift-teams/
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
A shame they didn't put them into storage. (Assuming they had enough life left in them to make it worth it.)
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
A shame they didn't put them into storage. (Assuming they had enough life left in them to make it worth it.)
That was part of the decision process. They were some of the oldest airframes in the Army without any form of update since being turned into "D" models. They were worn out and becoming harder to maintain. Army acquisition ineptitude failed three times to develop a replacement.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
any ALE which can not VTOL, and w/o rotorblades (open rotors crash in windy urban canyons /clutter) and make repeated shots at hidden urban tanks and survive to accomplish BDA should be disqualified. :)
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,459
Reaction score
412
Sparse, Eastern style.

On this, agreement w/ the Apache contractor/builder . The Apache was not designed as a scout and does not serve the role well.

some pusher prop version of the S-67 (w/ troop space) should never have been abandoned.
Very snug indeed! I always thought this compartment was a way to use the avionics bay for the possible use in rescuing shot-down comrades rather than for troop transportation.
I suppose in theory you could use it to infiltrate special ops personnel if they are travelling light.
 

ADVANCEDBOY

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
289
Reaction score
8
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t been released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t be released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.

Can you guess where aesthetics fall on the list of Army requirements?
 

ADVANCEDBOY

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 3, 2011
Messages
289
Reaction score
8
Design is integration of shape into function. Seamlessly. A solid design is a company`s ability to make the best choices of integrating form into function. Especially aircraft. They have to be solid from all angles. Alpha tier aircraft companies never release beta designs into production,so, obviously it matters. By looking at shape and standards of choosing the best design option, I can infer what level of choices they have made in all technical aspects. The standards they had for choosing the highest level designers will be also reflected in their standards of executing technical characteristics and performance of their aircraft. Not only we must intimidate our enemies with our aircraft, we must make them envy us and secretly copy our best designs.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
Design is integration of shape into function. Seamlessly. A solid design is a company`s ability to make the best choices of integrating form into function. Especially aircraft. They have to be solid from all angles. Alpha tier aircraft companies never release beta designs into production,so, obviously it matters. By looking at shape and standards of choosing the best design option, I can infer what level of choices they have made in all technical aspects. The standards they had for choosing the highest level designers will be also reflected in their standards of executing technical characteristics and performance of their aircraft. Not only we must intimidate our enemies with our aircraft, we must make them envy us and secretly copy our best designs.
Do you work in the marketing dept?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t be released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.

Can you guess where aesthetics fall on the list of Army requirements?
Interesting oservations. How aout an optionally maneed RQ-97?
IMHO Boeing is waiting for the Army to abandon FARA and replace Apache w/ the newer Apache and forgo a scout role all together.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t be released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.

Can you guess where aesthetics fall on the list of Army requirements?
Interesting oservations. How aout an optionally maneed RQ-97?
IMHO Boeing is waiting for the Army to abandon FARA and replace Apache w/ the newer Apache and forgo a scout role all together.
And you can't even complain about its aesthetics:

AH-64E-Block-2-Compound.jpg
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
128
Reaction score
32
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t be released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.

Can you guess where aesthetics fall on the list of Army requirements?
My guess is somewhere between the requirements for shit and syphilis.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
I forsee a certain symmetry in all this. Sikorsky who builds the Army's utility helicopter, will build the Army's scout. Bell who built the Army's scout will build the Army's utility rotorcraft. Boeing will just keep doing Boeing. All of the Congressional caucuses and deligations associated with rotorcraft are happy. The fourth estate sees status quo. Amen.
 
Last edited:

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,512
Reaction score
574
I forsee a certain symmetry in all this. Sikorsky who builds the Army's utility helicopter, will build the Army's scout. Bell who built the Army's scout will build the Army's utility rotorcraft. Boeing will just keep doing Boeing. All of the Congressional caucuses and deligations associated with rotorcraft are happy. The fourth estate sees status quo. Amen.
Yeah, I'm not liking Sikorsky's odds against the V-280.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
These are the two SUCCESSFUL flying rotorcraft. SB>1 regardless of what it may do in the near future, is perceived as risky. The fourth estate is risk adverse. Added to the political symmetry mentioned above, this is the path of least resistance.
 

Sundog

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,676
Reaction score
111
These are the two SUCCESSFUL flying rotorcraft. SB>1 regardless of what it may do in the near future, is perceived as risky. The fourth estate is risk adverse. Added to the political symmetry mentioned above, this is the path of least resistance.
Not to mention the military promotions depending on getting the choice right. I really like the SB-1 more for the Army's mission (More hovering, versus transit) and the V-280 for special mission and Marine/Navy missions. But, given how well the V-280 has performed, it's been virtually bulletproof, and all of the development issues with the SB-1, I have to say that I would choose the V-280 if I had to make the decision right now.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,155
Reaction score
138
Frankly, the next guy that will have to park an SB-1 in a yard at Abbottabad would probably have a close look at this big tail plane and verticals far behind his cockpit.
 
Last edited:

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
216
Not to mention the military promotions depending on getting the choice right. I really like the SB-1 more for the Army's mission (More hovering, versus transit) and the V-280 for special mission and Marine/Navy missions. But, given how well the V-280 has performed, it's been virtually bulletproof, and all of the development issues with the SB-1, I have to say that I would choose the V-280 if I had to make the decision right now.
I don't see the V-280 for Navy missions at all. They're heavy on hover (VERTREP, ASW dipping sonar, SAR/plane guard, etc.) Plus you'd have to figure out how to fold the V-280 into an escort hangar (SB-1 might have fit problems as well, more likely in height).
 

djfawcett

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Dec 16, 2012
Messages
53
Reaction score
14
My 5 cents about the current FARA proposals.
1.Sikorsky Raider X seems to be a completely different design from the current Raider prototype. It only seems the same from a distance. As it should be 20 % bigger , it will need a different fuselage. The current renderings show a completely different shape. I would say it is a further development of the existing Raider. The front view still needs further refinement and it is hard to tell if there is a color scheme going on the side plane or that is a curvature where two planes are broken. I hope it is not just a color pattern. I think it is about 35% better looking than the current Raider which seems disproportionate. They have finally nailed the proportions and visual mass from the side plane ,and it is about 80 % better looking than the initial mockup which was childish ,I would dare to say. I would rate Raider X 9.3 points.
2. Bell Invictus. It is not bad but somewhat a sloppy design. There are no decent lines in air intake, or a thoughtful idea behind exhaust. From side plane it fails, as the middle section doesn`t have a slope of visual mass, it looks as if it is pregnant in the middle. It is nowhere near Comanche level of design , which is a yardstick in helicopter design. I would rate Invictus 7.5 points.
3. AVX. A decent design. They have nailed the proportions and visual mass from all aspects, including the toughest one- side plane. Love the ducted fans, albeit they could have some added nuances to show some integration with the fuselage. The only issue I have is the front canopy/windshield. It is unrefined and unfinished. It should have some more decent curvature and lines. Look at that divine curvature implemented in F-35 canopy. Similar things could be done to AVX. I would rate AVX 8.5 points.
4. Karem proposal. Although it has got some decent design elements, such as the exhaust nozzle, I am not happy with its looks. It looks like a flying fish from 1940ies. Visual mass and its slope is a mess. The canopy looks already aging, and there are no interesting innovative details . It looks like a fish that doesn`t go to the gym:) needs more work on it. I would rate Karem AR-40 6.2 points.
5. I can not rate Boeing`s proposal as it hasn`t been released yet. If it is just a refurbished Apache with a prop I will be completely disappointed. No high marks would ever be given. But let`s see.
You're joking, right?
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,123
Reaction score
101
Not to mention the military promotions depending on getting the choice right. I really like the SB-1 more for the Army's mission (More hovering, versus transit) and the V-280 for special mission and Marine/Navy missions. But, given how well the V-280 has performed, it's been virtually bulletproof, and all of the development issues with the SB-1, I have to say that I would choose the V-280 if I had to make the decision right now.
I don't see the V-280 for Navy missions at all. They're heavy on hover (VERTREP, ASW dipping sonar, SAR/plane guard, etc.) Plus you'd have to figure out how to fold the V-280 into an escort hangar (SB-1 might have fit problems as well, more likely in height).
From what I've seen so far, Sikorsky is going to be challenged to fit their mast into a DDG with a midsize cabin underneath. Bell already has a folding system to fall back on, and the Navy's getting a lot of time around tilt-rotors with Osprey on the gators and CVNs. It still seems like Bell has a tougher road, but it's not out of the question that they'd win a Navy buy.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Glade to hear there is challenge to Sikorsky draggy mast.

In order to provide an Army Cdr the most options to overwhelm an adversary's decision/cognitive loop
(1) a VTOL w/ multi-shot ALE uas would scout for a
(2) RQ-97 uas (possibly a two troop carrier) which itself would be scouting for a
(3) FARA which carries troops would be scouting for a
(4) AAS likely a new Apache carrying ramjet missiles for deep targets.
 

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,350
Reaction score
216
From what I've seen so far, Sikorsky is going to be challenged to fit their mast into a DDG with a midsize cabin underneath. Bell already has a folding system to fall back on, and the Navy's getting a lot of time around tilt-rotors with Osprey on the gators and CVNs. It still seems like Bell has a tougher road, but it's not out of the question that they'd win a Navy buy.
True. I wouldn't bet against either with my own money. For that matter, I also wouldn't bet against an H-60 derivative with advanced turbines engines and an upgraded dynamic system possibly derived from the new S-92B.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
60
Exactly how Air Launched Effects (ALE) will not be successful. A non VTOL, low speed, low dynamic maneuver, non stealth UAS launching non VTOL, low speed, low dynamic maneuver, expensive too large a warhead 'one shot wonders', armed UAS unable to discover and destroy multiple targets in urban cluttered enviroments.

 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,076
Reaction score
173
From what I've seen so far, Sikorsky is going to be challenged to fit their mast into a DDG with a midsize cabin underneath. Bell already has a folding system to fall back on, and the Navy's getting a lot of time around tilt-rotors with Osprey on the gators and CVNs. It still seems like Bell has a tougher road, but it's not out of the question that they'd win a Navy buy.
True. I wouldn't bet against either with my own money. For that matter, I also wouldn't bet against an H-60 derivative with advanced turbines engines and an upgraded dynamic system possibly derived from the new S-92B.
I am in agreement here. I most likely see the USN going for an improved H-60, as that is what the DDG are designed too. Both JMR concepts aret too large for the DDG.
As stated earlier the USN has taken lead for the Capability Set 2 program. I expect to see endurance as the primary requirement for that rotorcraft. Followed closely by a requirement to fit into existing destroyers and frigates.
 
Last edited:
Top