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

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

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,857
Reaction score
949
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 aretoo large for the DDG.
A shame they're not using the Zumwalt hull for the Tico replacement.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,615
Reaction score
735
The Bell Invictus is to have a 'booster' engine, a 586shp PW207D1 turboshaft which will be used as an APU and for starting and can be clutched into the main transmission.
Bell states the wing provides 50% of its lift at cruise. The four-blade main rotor is based on the Bell 525’s fully articulated rotor system, which has five-blades. Removing a blade means Bell can can use less expensive conventional materials such as fibreglass and not worry about weight. I wonder if that also allows for some resistance to hits from bullets, although fibreglass seems the opposite of that, not quite the same as the 23mm resistance the Apache claimed.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helico...ooster-engine-for-360-invictus/135806.article
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
So the engine for the Bell 429, will be the "Supplementary" Power Unit. That's a big APU!
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
107

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
146
Reaction score
59
IMHO any FARA candidate which does not carry troops like the Karem entry should be disqualified. Likewise, stacked rotors are too much drag for any efficient long range craft.
Sigh. Army: We want a fast recon chopper.
SOCOM: And we'd like it to carry extra guys! And to be able to refuel in flight!
Army: ...
"What I think you are going to find in the future is that not everybody is going to get everything. We can't gold-plate everything. As a unit with a specific mission set has a requirement, we will identify those and make sure we have the capacity in the aircraft that is designed to plug that in as required,"

Uh-huh. What General Francis actually seems ot be saying here is that what SOCOM wants is probably not what it will get.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I think at least three of the five contenders might still meet the SOCOM requirement, if the space assigned for weapon carriage can be modified to hold troops. SOCOM has been heavily modifying rotorcraft for years so this should not be too difficult.
 

MihoshiK

CLEARANCE: Confidential
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
146
Reaction score
59
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I think at least three of the five contenders might still meet the SOCOM requirement, if the space assigned for weapon carriage can be modified to hold troops. SOCOM has been heavily modifying rotorcraft for years so this should not be too difficult.
I think that money is going to walk, and bullshit will talk. IOW, cost and the promise of a speedy and safe development cycle will be very important.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289

Many of us have seen this coming. Won't count the Sikorsky/Boeing team out but...
 

VTOLicious

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
646
Reaction score
236

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
It does appear that there is significant senior level interest in moving forward. There are two industry funded/developed rotorcraft (S-97 and V-280) with investors and constituents wanting return on investment. It is relative "low hanging fruit" politically and technologically. Everyone wants to demonstrate resolve in defending the country in an election year.

Hopefully the Army will exploit the opportunity.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
I suspect that those are the two most likely to go to the prototype stage.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
1,420
Reaction score
297
Invictus certainly also has an export potential, a theme that is absent on the army program.
 
Last edited:

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
Invictus certainly also have an export potential, a theme that is absent on the army program.
As far as we know. Doubt any of the vendors would tell allied countries to "go away". If I recall I read somewhere that allied countries were very interested in FLRAA already.
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,662
Reaction score
107
If Sikorsky runs into trouble with the Raider-X, I think Bell's Invictus might have a shot.

AHEAD counter-munition technology from AAA guns will make quick work of this ALE concept.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,186
Reaction score
154
Looking at it on my phone, but I'm seeing a Narrow body, non-lift winglets, and probably a pusher prop?
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
429
Reaction score
72
Re: "non-lift winglets"
Internal bay? Has a similar look of the Comanche open bay.

 

Grey Havoc

The path not taken.
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
10,845
Reaction score
1,221
Though the Bell LHX would have been even better.
 

Hood

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2006
Messages
1,615
Reaction score
735
Interesting, the tail propeller looks rather large (allowing for stylistic advertising) but no obvious tail control surfaces from the front view.

I must admit the more I see of all these designs the more deja vu I get from the early 1980s projects.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,177
Reaction score
289
An impressive 32 rotor-blades in that photo. Sikorsky at least should have both the Raider and Defiant flying now. Concerning that there is no open news about this, given the competition made money with the continued adventures of their demonstrator. I suppose they are holding their cards close given that any bad news might be of greater concern than letting everyone know they are moving forward.
 
Top