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

TomS said:
That's an interesting question, isn't it? Right now, even though ships are often designed for two helicopters, it's typical to embark only one and use the other hangar for storage or other things. Occasionally, you do see a UAV in one side and a Seahawk in the other but not often (and I think Fire Scout is retiring soon without immediate replacement).

If you end up with a LAMPS successor that requires both manned and unmanned air vehicles, the whole system gets much more expensive and harder to sustain. Once upon a time, people talked about a typical UAS deployment being three drones in the footprint of one manned helo, but as the drones get bigger and more capable, it becomes clear that they will not be that compact or inexpensive.
Click to expand...
I mean, the Fire Scout B was the smaller package there for sure, but it wasn't capable of carrying one of the bigger lightweight torpedoes. It could carry ~600lbs, but some marks of LWT are 800lbs.

And I still strongly suspect that the next airdropped torpedoes are going to be on the order of 1500lbs, basically Mk37s with probably OTTO fuel engines instead of batteries (or ultracapacitors in place of batteries).



TomS said:
But what's the upside of optional manning on a helicopter like this?

I guess you could automate the excruciating but stunningly boring task of VERTREP. But very few other missions seem like there would be a huge benefit, and the Mk1 eyeball remains a valuable sensor for maritime surface search.
Click to expand...
Already been done by the Marines, with that Kaman K-MAX helo. So I'd fully expect that to be the primary optional manning mission.

I don't expect SAR or ASW to be optionally manned, just because humans on scene need less datalink bandwidth to see things. ASW possibly could be unmanned if you have the stable datalink. SAR absolutely requires a Rescue Swimmer and IIRC the Navy sticks a Corpsman onboard for initial treatment, so might as well give a pilot and copilot as well.
 
www.northropgrumman.com

Future Vertical Lift | Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is supporting the U.S. Army as they modernize their aviation fleet ensuring that all future and enduring platforms are lethal and survivable in the Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) environment.
www.northropgrumman.com www.northropgrumman.com

Some interesting bits regarding the architecture that will be resident on the FLRAA vehicle.
 
Vertical Flight Society said:
VFS Seminar: Military Rotorcraft Developments
The Vertical Flight Society's San Francisco Bay Area Chapter held a hybrid technical seminar on May 23, 2024. The event was held at the NASA Ames Research Center, Building 3, as well as Teams webmeeting, which was recorded on video. The title of the lecture was "The Future of Vertical Flight: US and International Military Rotorcraft Developments." It was given by Mike Hirschberg, Director of Strategy, Vertical Flight Society.
Click to expand...
View: https://youtu.be/SkSv994e3oM?si=xjPpxBDvf2oyQuRw
 
A great rundown by one of the biggest proponents of rotorcraft. His sentiments regarding the FARA decision are widely felt to be common.
 
yasotay said:
A great rundown by one of the biggest proponents of rotorcraft. His sentiments regarding the FARA decision are widely felt to be common.
Click to expand...
genuinely nice guy too.
made me understand why lobbyists are good investments - they're nice people who are passionate and knowledgeable about the subject
 
2x ITEP engines delivered to Sikorsky for UH-60M integration effort:

For+Army+Approval+ITEP+WPB+Team+Photo-7.jpg


https://news.lockheedmartin.com/202...Sikorsky-for-Black-Hawk-R-Integration-Efforts
 
Last edited:
Critical quote from the article, "While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place."
I have heard this too many times. Remember T800? Barring extraordinary results it will fade into obscurity.
The second engine is from the Bell FARA prototype.

They are throwing Sikorsky table scraps.
 
yasotay said:
Critical quote from the article, "While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place."
I have heard this too many times. Remember T800? Barring extraordinary results it will fade into obscurity.
The second engine is from the Bell FARA prototype.

They are throwing Sikorsky table scraps.
Click to expand...
You mean the engine powering the AW129 baby attack helicopter?
 
yasotay said:
True. However, from a business perspective, ~ 200 engines, versus ~ 6000 engines.
Actually I really hope I am wrong. It would be nice to see a return on ivestment.
Click to expand...
I dunno, it's doing okay:
Click to expand...
 
breakingdefense.com

Bell to remove Spirit AeroSystems as FLRAA fuselage maker due to proposed Boeing acquisition - Breaking Defense

FARNBOROUGH 2024 — Bell intends to step away from Spirit AeroSystems as the fuselage provider for the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft after Boeing’s acquisition of Spirit is finalized, Breaking Defense has learned. The shakeup would force Bell to either find a new producer for the...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Amen to this. Just bring it in-house or build to print... whatever it takes to keep Boeing off the program.
 
TomcatViP said:
You are right, obviously. My irony was aimed at the fact that if they had made some progress deemed to be shared, we would have been given another video to see today.
Click to expand...
True enough.

Wonder why there isn't a newer video than of the receipt of the engines? They're supposed to be a near bolt in replacement for the existing Blackhawk engines... Maybe they need also a new transmission/gearbox to survive the torque?
 
First, they already had one of the engines (FARA). Although it is still technically accurate that the engine was "delivered." The other working engine was the one from Bell for their FARA.
Second, you can't charge the government for several months of integration if you just pull the engine out of the box and snap it in.
 
HaveVoid said:
What do we think- any chance we’ll get a Designation and Name for this thing soon? AUSA is coming up in October…
Click to expand...
Maybe?

I'm expecting it to be something in the V series, like the Osprey. V-25 appears to be the next number in series, but the .gov has not been good about following the MDS system lately. V-28 would not surprise me.
 
e-Graphite said:
What were the V-23 and V-24 aircraft?
Since it's Army, would the utility version be UV-XX, whatever the number ends up being?
Click to expand...
V-23 was the Dominion Skytrader, a STOL cargo lugger. XV-24 is an E-VTOL drone.

May get UV, HV, or CV. MV has a possibility as well.
 
Scott Kenny said:
V-23 was the Dominion Skytrader, a STOL cargo lugger. XV-24 is an E-VTOL drone.

May get UV, HV, or CV. MV has a possibility as well.
Click to expand...
Since some/many SOCOM capabilities are built into the basic airframe or are reasonably installed as kits, perhaps they'll all be MV-25 instead of a UV-25 and MV-25 split? Guess we'll have to wait a while to find out. Anyone running a pool on the eventual tribe/chief name? Or since it's a tiltrotor and not a helicopter, will leadership chicken out and go in a different direction?
 
My bet is UV-85 Omaha. MV-85 for the special people. My rationale is that it is a "U" Utility "V" Vertical TOL by the DoD nomenclature guide, and there are still plenty of numbers between 64 and 100. As to the name there are still a few native American tribes that have not had their names used by the U.S. Army. Now that the FLRAA is officially a program of record the name will likely be announced soon as the government is goofy at using any of the vendors descriptors. Obviously my guess above is exactly that.
I am sure that there will be plenty of news released at AUSA on the program. Right now I just want them to get a new fuselage vendor.
I'm going with Leonardo in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Bell and Leonardo have already agreed to team for NGCR, Leonardo has plenty of experience with composites. Finally, politically, this neuters the Boeing vote in the state of Pennsylvania as the state will likely gain more jobs. Perhaps some coming from Kansas.
 
It would be sad to see some change happening just for some cosmetics around a name that sounds bad this days. The V-280 fuselage was produced in an astonishing short amount of time and with no known quality problem. Redesigning from scratch all jigs and tools as recreating the manufacturing sequence would invariably lead to some inefficiencies at best.

I am all about mitigating. But then you don´t have to kill the horse for an imaginary torn nail in the horseshoe!
 
TomcatViP said:
It would be sad to see some change happening just for some cosmetics around a name that sounds bad this days.
Click to expand...
You mean dropping Spirit? I think there's a major conflict of interest if Boeing takes up part of the V-280 production. Legal issues, not Spirit quality control issues.

First time I read that sentence I thought you were talking about the tribal name for the V280.

yasotay said:
My bet is UV-85 Omaha. MV-85 for the special people. My rationale is that it is a "U" Utility "V" Vertical TOL by the DoD nomenclature guide, and there are still plenty of numbers between 64 and 100. As to the name there are still a few native American tribes that have not had their names used by the U.S. Army. Now that the FLRAA is officially a program of record the name will likely be announced soon as the government is goofy at using any of the vendors descriptors. Obviously my guess above is exactly that.
Click to expand...
I'm kinda hoping for "Crow" for the tribal name. Fits both the Bird Names used for other V-series and the Army tribal name rules.
 
Scott Kenny said:
You mean dropping Spirit? I think there's a major conflict of interest if Boeing takes up part of the V-280 production. Legal issues, not Spirit quality control issues.

First time I read that sentence I thought you were talking about the tribal name for the V280.


I'm kinda hoping for "Crow" for the tribal name. Fits both the Bird Names used for other V-series and the Army tribal name rules.
Click to expand...

I’m excited to see someone else throw the name “Crow” out there - I’ve also had the thought that it slots in well as a bird name alongside the V-Series and the Army’s own Gray Hawk UAV while also ticking the tribal box as well.

I’d also considered “Thunderbird”, a major mythological figure amongst a great many Native American tribes and also bird-related. Granted, the Air Force flight demonstration team might have something to say about that…

Is there any Army precedent for the re-use of a name? Iroquois II in honor of the Huey?
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom