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

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

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
824
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
725
Reaction score
342
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
824
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors
I doubt there will be a one-for-one exchange. There have been rumblings within the Army that whatever they buy, it would be obsolete by the time they finished a one-for-one replacement. I expect the buy to be ~500ish and the Army will try for even better capability in ten years. Perhaps sans aircrew. Whatever it is, it may not be a tilt rotor, but I am quite sure it will not be a conventional helicopter either. Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
260
Reaction score
213
Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
What is the operating concept for this? Ultra long range "amphib" assault? Wonder if the naval element needs to exist at all if VTOL can "island hop" air assault without ships at all.

From my limited vantage point, it seems like army helicopter's greatest advantage is crossing hostile and difficult terrain safely, with speed and range not really that useful outside of spec ops missions. The other thing I expect is that availability and cost is a bigger issue, providing only a fraction of the force and logistic chain with air mobility. With that kind of perspective the whole development FVL and beyond is not comprehensible to me, what is these requirements for? I don't see how a small force very mobile infantry can be useful enough to justify this.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
824
Of note the USAF and the USMC are already asking for better than 300 knots cruise speed for their follow on VTOL capability (not to be confused with EVTOL effort).
What is the operating concept for this? Ultra long range "amphib" assault? Wonder if the naval element needs to exist at all if VTOL can "island hop" air assault without ships at all.

From my limited vantage point, it seems like army helicopter's greatest advantage is crossing hostile and difficult terrain safely, with speed and range not really that useful outside of spec ops missions. The other thing I expect is that availability and cost is a bigger issue, providing only a fraction of the force and logistic chain with air mobility. With that kind of perspective the whole development FVL and beyond is not comprehensible to me, what is these requirements for? I don't see how a small force very mobile infantry can be useful enough to justify this.
Good argument. If the Army remained an industrial age force with 700,00 troops and six of fifteen heavy divisions, along with two divisions worth of support brigades (six Aviation Brigades in Europe alone at one point), forward deployed to focal areas, I doubt I could make a compelling argument regarding the necessity for longer range and speed. Of course that is not the case as the Army will likely not see 500,000 soldiers and the number of divisions and supporting brigades continues to decline, with maneuver brigades replacing divisions as forward deployed. Combat Aviation Brigades only deploy for deployment training exercises, with smaller Task Forces supporting ground operations regularly. The US government has decided to swing their focus to the Pacific Rim. This environment is so drastically different that the equipment the Army designed (very well) for ground combat in Europe, and now the Middle East are not well suited to this new environment. The distances are so much greater that most of the current helicopters are marginally useful. Because of the average speed that current helicopters fly at operating over these distances means significantly more flight hour and thus more maintenance hours and therefore more cost. The acquisition cost of an aircraft is usually less than 50% of its total lifetime cost. It is not the acquisition cost of the F-35 alone that is causing angst. There are a number of places where the "water gap" between a divisions ground maneuver brigades will be far greater than the range of our current helicopter fleet. Even in the technologically utopian future there will be need to mass more than very small mobile infantry forces on occasion. Until C3PO, who can talk and empathize with the population comes about, humans interacting with humans will be important. Navy's can sail away in the night (ask the US Marines), Air Forces can fly away. Boots on the ground means commitment to allies. It is still the diplomatic "all in" of governments. However, since you mention "a small force very mobile infantry" we have to remember that the program must also support the requirements for Special Operation. Clearly a force that already operates over very dispersed areas. In the Information Age, decision cycles have shrunk from days to hours. Getting and staying inside the decision cycle of the opponent will require greater rapidity and agility, thus speed over larger distances makes sense to those who have to consider national strategy and its' implementation for the future.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
161
Getting and staying inside the decision cycle of the opponent will require greater rapidity and agility, thus speed over larger distances makes sense to those who have to consider national strategy and its' implementation for the future.

Good points. The other thing to keep in mind is the US won't have the budget to have as many aircraft that they can deploy as many of them in as many places as now so whatever we do have is going to have to have more speed and range to make up for that.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
161
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.
Me either. And I don't see Sikorsky beating the V-280.
But it's hard to imagine that the Army replaces its entire Blackhawk fleet with tilt rotors

Not on a one for one basis, but they wouldn't be able to do that even with conventional helicopters.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
161
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.

The key for this is that Sikorsky is going to have to do a <u>lot</u> better with Raider-X than they've done with the X2 aircraft they've built so far in order for Army to pick their higher risk and probably more expensive proposal.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,547
Reaction score
824
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.
My money would be on Bell's V-280 and Sikorsky's FARA.
Whatever way it goes, I cannot see one of the primes winning both efforts.

The key for this is that Sikorsky is going to have to do a <u>lot</u> better with Raider-X than they've done with the X2 aircraft they've built so far in order for Army to pick their higher risk and probably more expensive proposal.
I think Sikorsky is better off with Raider - X as they do have a flying rotorcraft (S-97) that is demonstrating much of the required flight profile. Bell while designing and constructing a relatively "safe" concept, does not have a flying demonstrator, regardless how much they say they are drawing from 525. Conversely, Bell has a flying H-60 replacement and Sikorsky has... a sometimes (not in several months) flying demonstrator. There is a maxim of truth in the U.S. Army - perception is reality.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,397
Reaction score
2,199
IMOHO there is still today great odds that the US Army could buy both design to replace their Blackhawk: an expeditionary contingent with V280 and a front line one with SB-1.
Then what would happen with RaiderX and Defiant Invictus might depends solely on what available budget is left.

(Edited)
 
Last edited:

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,825
Reaction score
2,072
IMOHO there is still today great odds that the US Army could buy both design to replace their Blackhawk: an expeditionary contingent with V280 and a front line one with SB-1.
Then what would happen with RaiderX and Defiant might depends solely on what available budget is left.
SB-1 IS Defiant.
 

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
10,752
Reaction score
1,833
 

Similar threads

Top