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

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

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
723
Reaction score
338
Handy chart showing the relationship between discloading and downwash velocity.
The V-22 sits around 22 lb/ft2 and is not *very* pleasant to stand beneath.
Tilt-wings are anywhere between 30-50 lbs/ft2, so it only gets worse.

It is interesting to note that the downwash hits the ground and then spreads radially horizontally, but the vertical distribution of the velocity is different in the case of higher vs lower discloading. With low discloadings, the flow has the highest speed some distance away from the ground, so it tends to overturn people. With high discloadings, the flow has higher speed, but it's concentrated at lower heights above the ground, hence with less overturning moment. Walking in that high speed flow has been described as akin to "wading in a shallow stream".
View attachment 642365
A practical example ;) ...
View: https://twitter.com/bundeswehrInfo/status/1344190233684758528?s=09
 

H_K

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
168
Reaction score
318
Defiant-X: Sikorsky, Boeing Unveil FLRAA Design « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

« SB>1’s been flying for a bit less than two years – first flight was March, 2019 – and has flown 31 times, for a total of 26 flight hours. It’s reached 242 mph (211 knots) in level flight »

So only 3 flight hours and 0 knots gained since the last update in October (23 flight hours)... excruciatingly slow progress it seems.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
Defiant-X: Sikorsky, Boeing Unveil FLRAA Design « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

« SB>1’s been flying for a bit less than two years – first flight was March, 2019 – and has flown 31 times, for a total of 26 flight hours. It’s reached 242 mph (211 knots) in level flight »

So only 3 flight hours and 0 knots gained since the last update in October (23 flight hours)... excruciatingly slow progress it seems.
It does seem slow, however unlike the V-280 that has four previous tiltrotors to call on, to include almost a decade of operational experience in combat (MV/CV-22), the SB>1 has XH-59 and S-97, neither of which is near the size and no operational experience to draw on. It is much more of a "new" design than is the V-280.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
2,136
FVL MS (Maritime Strike), the Navy folder:
In its request for information (RFI), the USN noted the different mission areas that any FVL MS platform would be required to fulfil: intelligence, surveillance, targeting, and reconnaissance (ISTAR); anti-surface vessel warfare (ASuW); mine countermeasures (MCM); air warfare (AW); search and rescue (SAR); airborne early warning and control (AEW&C); special operations forces (SOF) support; shipborne operations; logistical support; and airborne medical evacuation (medevac). The service also listed ‘signature control’ without defining its meaning, although it is likely related to a low acoustic footprint.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
As mentioned elsewhere, the driving factor for this rotorcraft will be sizing to fit into the existing hangars on the FFG and DDG. It cannot be larger than the existing MH-60. While they call it "Martime Strike" the laundry list of other requirements will make it a box with some form of rotors. I expect that hover efficiency will be one of the driving factors that will challenge the speed and possibly range desires.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
2,136
Well, it might not be a coincidence that the RFI was launched only days after the new SB-1 was revealed by Sikorsky. I know some will doubt of the possibility to fold back that long tail (!) but given that there might be a clutch in the prop shaft line, if that one was put in the right place, it would be easily done*.
Obviously also at the advantage of Bell, a team of V-247 and Valor will up the effect.

Perhaps also that the adoption of front wheel gear on the SB-1X would ease a redesign around a collapsible front (and main?) wheels to lower the maximum height.
But It remains to be seen what kind MUM teaming LM will come around.

*two clutch would be even better to counter the torsional efforts (and more).
 
Last edited:

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
I think the challenge for the Sikorsky co-axial compound will be the height of the rotor mast as well as the folding of rotor blades. Not sure that Bell is going to be much better with folding up a tilt rotor to fit. Going to be interesting to watch for sure.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
384
I think the challenge for the Sikorsky co-axial compound will be the height of the rotor mast as well as the folding of rotor blades. Not sure that Bell is going to be much better with folding up a tilt rotor to fit. Going to be interesting to watch for sure.
Bell at least can point to V-22 as an example of a folding tilt-rotor which can fit into a fairly compact space, and possibly they've learned enough to make the packaging work a little better in a new generation design. Sikorsky-LM can't really cite any similar precedent, they either have to bring clean-sheet solutions to their mast height, rigid rotor, and tail length challenges or bid a lower-performance design which has an easier time folding into a DDG. That's not to say the USN will automatically embrace a folding tilt-rotor or otherwise favor Bell's bid out of the gate, of course.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
226
You have to wonder at what point you start designing the new boats with larger hangars...
I'm not trying to minimize the challenges associated with doing that, but i wonder historically what the trend looks like. Have previous destroyers had smaller hangars and they've progressively been getting bigger?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,791
Reaction score
2,006
You have to wonder at what point you start designing the new boats with larger hangars...
I'm not trying to minimize the challenges associated with doing that, but i wonder historically what the trend looks like. Have previous destroyers had smaller hangars and they've progressively been getting bigger?


It's interesting how infrastructure drives things. IIRC the F-22's size was limited by NATO HAS size.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
I am out of my element here but I think the previous occupant of the FFG and DDG hangar space was the Kaman Sea Sprite. There may have been two in the space(s) don't recall. I also believe that the USN took on H-60 in the same way as the F-4 Phantom became a multi-service aircraft; to paraphrase Henry Ford - "You can have any helicopter you want, as long as it is an H-60." Obviously space is a precious commodity on any ship as it drives expense. I can't imagine the black shoe Navy wanting to give more space up for a larger air platform, especially since it would require extensive modification for the entire fleet. The H-60 could be made to fit existing spaces, it was in production and the USN could get a great price per aircraft, because they would then jam it full of expensive electronic gear.

That said the bit about wanting a FVL - Maritime Strike might make it different as the USN looks for improved ways to fight.

More info:
 
Last edited:

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,722
Reaction score
1,794

February 05, 2021​

Army seeking info on LRPM solutions for Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft

The Army is seeking information on Long Range Precision Munition solutions that can be demonstrated at a planned shoot-off in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2022, in an effort to inform LRPM capabilities development and the selection of vendors to integrate and test on Army aviation platforms
 

TomS

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
4,603
Reaction score
1,743
I am out of my element here but I think the previous occupant of the FFG and DDG hangar space was the Kaman Sea Sprite. There may have been two in the space(s) don't recall. I also believe that the USN took on H-60 in the same way as the F-4 Phantom became a multi-service aircraft; to paraphrase Henry Ford - "You can have any helicopter you want, as long as it is an H-60." Obviously space is a precious commodity on any ship as it drives expense. I can't imagine the black shoe Navy wanting to give more space up for a larger air platform, especially since it would require extensive modification for the entire fleet. The H-60 could be made to fit existing spaces, it was in production and the USN could get a great price per aircraft, because they would then jam it full of expensive electronic gear.

That said the bit about wanting a FVL - Maritime Strike might make it different as the USN looks for improved ways to fight.

More info:

The SH-60 required a fair bit more space than the SH-2. Some ships, like the FFGs, were built with the extra margins, but others, like early Spruances, required modifications. (The Spruances were built to take 2 SH-2 or one SH-3. When SH-60 came in, some ships were only able to handle one helo, while later ones had an expanded hangar that could hold two). And others still, like the Knoxes, didn't have room and soldiered on with Sea Sprite until the end. The Knox had been designed around a couple of even smaller DASH drones and fitting Sea Sprite at all was challenging.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
I am out of my element here but I think the previous occupant of the FFG and DDG hangar space was the Kaman Sea Sprite. There may have been two in the space(s) don't recall. I also believe that the USN took on H-60 in the same way as the F-4 Phantom became a multi-service aircraft; to paraphrase Henry Ford - "You can have any helicopter you want, as long as it is an H-60." Obviously space is a precious commodity on any ship as it drives expense. I can't imagine the black shoe Navy wanting to give more space up for a larger air platform, especially since it would require extensive modification for the entire fleet. The H-60 could be made to fit existing spaces, it was in production and the USN could get a great price per aircraft, because they would then jam it full of expensive electronic gear.

That said the bit about wanting a FVL - Maritime Strike might make it different as the USN looks for improved ways to fight.

More info:

The SH-60 required a fair bit more space than the SH-2. Some ships, like the FFGs, were built with the extra margins, but others, like early Spruances, required modifications. (The Spruances were built to take 2 SH-2 or one SH-3. When SH-60 came in, some ships were only able to handle one helo, while later ones had an expanded hangar that could hold two). And others still, like the Knoxes, didn't have room and soldiered on with Sea Sprite until the end. The Knox had been designed around a couple of even smaller DASH drones and fitting Sea Sprite at all was challenging.
So space for helo's will always be a premium on DDG and FFG. I remain skeptical that the "black shoes" are going to redesign their ships, to surrender even more space for the fly guys. Empty space is still expensive I imagine.
 

jsport

what do you know about surfing Major? you're from-
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
2,425
Reaction score
461
Defiant-X: Sikorsky, Boeing Unveil FLRAA Design « Breaking Defense - Defense industry news, analysis and commentary

Smart move with the landing gear. I am intrigued with the exhaust redesign. Most likely they are drawing from the RAH-66 Comanche effort for that.
Again, what appears not to being emphasized is the modularity required, which is killing the 60s as weight goes up and range goes down..Defensive DEW, anti-Manpad missiles, evolving EW suites, shot locators, LIDARs, LADARs, LZ threat detection tech etc...Is there Multi-mode AESA antennas and where, What is the difference between SOCOM and conventional. Should there be?

PS: DoD really needs to know if V-280 can land and t/o in extremis.. The 280 may still be worth pursuing for its range advantage but the mission perimeters may require drastic operational parameter changes.
 

bring_it_on

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
2,315
Reaction score
418
IMO, they need to really produce both of these designs in one shape or form.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
@jsport - I suspect that many of the systems you mention, especially the aircraft survivability equipment SWaP, is at the forefront of the challenge of weight and thus cost. Conformal AESA radar I highly suspect is in the mix. As to V-280 applicability, to my knowledge it has met all of the required performance parameters expected by the government, and in fact exceeded some of them smartly, while the competitor we have just learned is back at the wind tunnel with ~31 hours of flight time. Given the focus on the Pacific Rim, efficient range may be the winning factor for the FVL FLRAA.

@bring_it_on - Given the S-97 seems to be working at an acceptable level I think there is a fair chance that "Raider X" will be a viable option for the Scout aircraft. The biggest challenge to that may be DoD and Congress more than flight characteristics. No one outside the Army thinks a manned reconnaissance rotorcraft is viable on the battlefield any more.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,394
Reaction score
384
I am out of my element here but I think the previous occupant of the FFG and DDG hangar space was the Kaman Sea Sprite. There may have been two in the space(s) don't recall. I also believe that the USN took on H-60 in the same way as the F-4 Phantom became a multi-service aircraft; to paraphrase Henry Ford - "You can have any helicopter you want, as long as it is an H-60." Obviously space is a precious commodity on any ship as it drives expense. I can't imagine the black shoe Navy wanting to give more space up for a larger air platform, especially since it would require extensive modification for the entire fleet. The H-60 could be made to fit existing spaces, it was in production and the USN could get a great price per aircraft, because they would then jam it full of expensive electronic gear.

That said the bit about wanting a FVL - Maritime Strike might make it different as the USN looks for improved ways to fight.

More info:

The SH-60 required a fair bit more space than the SH-2. Some ships, like the FFGs, were built with the extra margins, but others, like early Spruances, required modifications. (The Spruances were built to take 2 SH-2 or one SH-3. When SH-60 came in, some ships were only able to handle one helo, while later ones had an expanded hangar that could hold two). And others still, like the Knoxes, didn't have room and soldiered on with Sea Sprite until the end. The Knox had been designed around a couple of even smaller DASH drones and fitting Sea Sprite at all was challenging.
So space for helo's will always be a premium on DDG and FFG. I remain skeptical that the "black shoes" are going to redesign their ships, to surrender even more space for the fly guys. Empty space is still expensive I imagine.
Redesigning/refitting existing ships has happened and could happen again if the USN feels the benefits are worth the cost. That said, no SH-60 replacement is likely to replace the Seahawk across the fleet overnight and it's certainly possible the legacy aircraft would hang around until hulls unable to support the replacement leave the fleet. Future combatants are likely to have larger/more flexible aviation spaces regardless of the direction FVL-MS takes. DDG-1000 only has one door but has a large and flexible hangar inside, the LCS classes both have large hangars for their size, and Fincantieri renders for FFG-62 show a very wide door.
x3pyd1nobqa61.jpg
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
226
hahahaha...@00:10, you see an engineer/actor doing some sci-fi augmented reality work in a lab environment. Meanwhile the actual LM/Sikorsky/Boeing people are working from home at their dining table with kids screaming in the background trying to listen to a Teams meeting.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,791
Reaction score
2,006
hahahaha...@00:10, you see an engineer/actor doing some sci-fi augmented reality work in a lab environment. Meanwhile the actual LM/Sikorsky/Boeing people are working from home at their dining table with kids screaming in the background trying to listen to a Teams meeting.

Just wrapped one up. ;)
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,722
Reaction score
1,794
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
255
Reaction score
211
FVL MS (Maritime Strike), the Navy folder:
In its request for information (RFI), the USN noted the different mission areas that any FVL MS platform would be required to fulfil: intelligence, surveillance, targeting, and reconnaissance (ISTAR); anti-surface vessel warfare (ASuW); mine countermeasures (MCM); air warfare (AW); search and rescue (SAR); airborne early warning and control (AEW&C); special operations forces (SOF) support; shipborne operations; logistical support; and airborne medical evacuation (medevac). The service also listed ‘signature control’ without defining its meaning, although it is likely related to a low acoustic footprint.
The Navy should really look into a (hybrid E)VTOL option. There is no need of high and hot hover performance, imo only the bare minimum vertical performance for getting on and off ships is needed.

How practical is it to use fulton recovery for SAR if the downwash velocity is too much for conventional methods?
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,357
Reaction score
2,136

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
I would like for the general to be right ...but I'm not putting my money on it. IF they both happen it will be a strategic industrial base decision I think more than a belief in the necessity for both aircraft.
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
226
View: https://twitter.com/BellFlight/status/1373026814189264897

Here's my nitpicking because i don't like when people are being disingenuous:

- It's not true that giving the customer more is a recipe for success. If you exceed requirements it means you could have barely met them instead and made the system cheaper. You're not going faster because you think the mission demands it - the Army does not think so- you're faster because you picked a configuration that makes no sense unless you're flying 250+ kts.

- I would argue the rigid coax had lower TRL than Bell's Tiltrotor, which even as perfected as they're making it, is only a tweak on an operational technology with millions of flight hours. So who's "innovating" more?

In the end i know this is just marketing, but i don't like listening to bull crap. There are other, more tangible ways in which the V280 is promising to be great. Use those instead.

end of rant.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
View: https://twitter.com/BellFlight/status/1373026814189264897

Here's my nitpicking because i don't like when people are being disingenuous:

- It's not true that giving the customer more is a recipe for success. If you exceed requirements it means you could have barely met them instead and made the system cheaper. You're not going faster because you think the mission demands it - the Army does not think so- you're faster because you picked a configuration that makes no sense unless you're flying 250+ kts.

- I would argue the rigid coax had lower TRL than Bell's Tiltrotor, which even as perfected as they're making it, is only a tweak on an operational technology with millions of flight hours. So who's "innovating" more?

In the end i know this is just marketing, but i don't like listening to bull crap. There are other, more tangible ways in which the V280 is promising to be great. Use those instead.

end of rant.
The Army has a truism: Perception is reality. The Bell Team has met all of the parameters and then done other things while the competition has yet to met many of the initial parameters. It would have been a more effective commercial if the guy had just looked at the camera and shrugged. Saying "Army has to make a decision next year, our s**t works. How 'bout you other guy?" It won't be engineers making the decisions next year.

I don't mean this to be argumentative. I agree with you that the SB>1 was at a lower TRL level. Had the Sikorsky-Boeing team had a normal 20 year development cycle, I suspect they would be neck to neck with Bell. But as the government has said repeatedly "Schedule is king."

I agree that this is normal marketing drivel, but when has this sort of thing not happened for the biggest competitive programs?
 

AeroFranz

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
2,311
Reaction score
226
>>I agree that this is normal marketing drivel, but when has this sort of thing not happened for the biggest competitive programs?

It has. I must learn to be more zen! :D
 

seruriermarshal

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
May 4, 2008
Messages
1,029
Reaction score
188
View: https://twitter.com/BellFlight/status/1373026814189264897

Here's my nitpicking because i don't like when people are being disingenuous:

- It's not true that giving the customer more is a recipe for success. If you exceed requirements it means you could have barely met them instead and made the system cheaper. You're not going faster because you think the mission demands it - the Army does not think so- you're faster because you picked a configuration that makes no sense unless you're flying 250+ kts.

- I would argue the rigid coax had lower TRL than Bell's Tiltrotor, which even as perfected as they're making it, is only a tweak on an operational technology with millions of flight hours. So who's "innovating" more?

In the end i know this is just marketing, but i don't like listening to bull crap. There are other, more tangible ways in which the V280 is promising to be great. Use those instead.

end of rant.
The Army has a truism: Perception is reality. The Bell Team has met all of the parameters and then done other things while the competition has yet to met many of the initial parameters. It would have been a more effective commercial if the guy had just looked at the camera and shrugged. Saying "Army has to make a decision next year, our s**t works. How 'bout you other guy?" It won't be engineers making the decisions next year.

I don't mean this to be argumentative. I agree with you that the SB>1 was at a lower TRL level. Had the Sikorsky-Boeing team had a normal 20 year development cycle, I suspect they would be neck to neck with Bell. But as the government has said repeatedly "Schedule is king."

I agree that this is normal marketing drivel, but when has this sort of thing not happened for the biggest competitive programs?
so Bell will win
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
801
From what I have seen so far, I would have to say that Bell is the likely technical choice for the FLRAA part of the FVL program. Still there is more than technical success involved in winning a military contract. Textron versus Lockheed/Boeing.
Texas versus Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Florida, California, and others.
 

Similar threads

Top