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

[sferrin]

The Army being interested in seeing what they have does not equate to a realistic chance. I'd think you'd know that.

Yep that’s right the US Army is happy to give anyone $50-100 million just to look at their posters and powerpoints. Of course since the JMR-TD isn’t programmed to end until 2019-20 this is seven years of indulging curiosity here. But please don’t let me inject anymore facts in the way of your opinion. It’s not as if any new companies have had any success in penetrating the US market for weapons since WWII. I mean who has ever heard of:

McDonnell
Armalite
Austal

Inovation never pays off because it’s just not “realistic”, duah.

I guess we'll see who's eating crow won't we?

 

[Triton]

Yes, Abraham, we already know that AVX is building a technology demonstrator and we already know that Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell are also going to build technology demonstrators for JMR/FVL Medium. You don't need to pick the nit that the program is only in the TD (Technology Demonstrator) phase. We all know that.

But this isn't a pure research and development program like a NASA program. The United States Army and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) intend to have a rotorcraft at the end of this program that will replace the Sikorsky S-70 family (UH-60 and variants). This program may result in the production of 2,000 to 4,000 rotorcraft during its lifetime. So forgive us if we speculate on which of the companies can start delivering 2,000 to 4,000 rotocraft beginning in 2027-28 timeframe. At the present time, AVX only has paper concepts and no production infrastructure. Of course, this can all change if the United States Army chooses AVX for JMR/FVL Medium. AVX could also be bought by another established aerospace or defense film. But Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell are already established players in the military helicopter market. In the software industry, AVX's concept would be known as vaporware. Since its creation in 2005, has AVX Aircraft Company produced any aircraft or rotorcraft? Is it just surviving on venture capital and United States Army R&D contracts to keep the lights on and pay its employees while it develops concepts for civil and military rotorcraft? However you look at it, AVX Aircraft Company is the dark horse in this competition. A lot has to happen to AVX Aircraft Company before it can manufacture and deliver 2,000 to 4,000 rotorcraft to the United States Army and JSOC.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Yes, Abraham, we already know that AVX is building a technology demonstrator and we already know that Boeing/Sikorsky and Bell are also going to build technology demonstrators for JMR/FVL Medium. You don't need to pick the nit that the program is only in the TD (Technology Demonstrator) phase. We all know that.

Actually it was made pretty clear by AeroFranz above that he didn’t know that JMR was a demonstrator project. You know when he said he would take their bid more seriously if they had built a demonstrator for it. That is build a demonstrator to win a contract to build a demonstrator. So we don’t all know that.

However you look at it, AVX Aircraft Company is the dark horse in this competition.

Wow, no s#@t Sherlock. The point of debate has not been that AVX may be a dark horse but whether their bid is even remotely realistic. Which is the repeated statement that Sefferin has made and others have supported. I on the other hand have presented a range of supported logical arguments – which you have apparently decided is worth summarising and presenting back to me – as to why it is a realistic offer.

I’m not claiming AVX are in the commanding position or they are going to win – unlike the nonsense that Sefferin seems to have suggested in his last post – but that they are a serious contender in this program. Something one would kind of think was bluntly obvious by their winning of a JMR-TD Phase 1 Category 1 contract. Not something that would be given out to a Savetti or an Uncle Bob’s Appalachian Aircraft Fuel & Oil Company.

 

[F-14D]

"Be careful, this could turn into Key Forum"

 

[yasotay]

Yes, that would be ... regrettable.

 

[sferrin]

Yes, Abraham, we already know that AVX is building a technology demonstrator and we already know that Boeing/Sikorsky and Bell are also going to build technology demonstrators for JMR/FVL Medium. You don't need to pick the nit that the program is only in the TD (Technology Demonstrator) phase. We all know that.

Actually it was made pretty clear by AeroFranz above that he didn’t know that JMR was a demonstrator project. You know when he said he would take their bid more seriously if they had built a demonstrator for it. That is build a demonstrator to win a contract to build a demonstrator. So we don’t all know that.

However you look at it, AVX Aircraft Company is the dark horse in this competition.

Wow, no s#@t Sherlock. The point of debate has not been that AVX may be a dark horse but whether their bid is even remotely realistic. Which is the repeated statement that Sefferin has made and others have supported. I on the other hand have presented a range of supported logical arguments – which you have apparently decided is worth summarising and presenting back to me – as to why it is a realistic offer.

AVX has never built an aircraft. AVX has no track record. To the government, these days, "risk" is a four-letter word. They're up against Sikorsky, who's already flown their X-2, and building 2 S-97 demonstrators, offering their X-2 technology for their JMR entry. And Bell offering a tilt-rotor, of which they've already flown three other types (XV-15, V-22, and BA609). Add to that the current financial situation and there is NO WAY the US Army is going to squander the opportunity on something who's perceived advantages are dubious at best. It's just not going to happen. Your "logic" sounds less like a reasonable take on reality and more like somebody simply trying to convince themselves.

 

[Triton]

The Army being interested in seeing what they have does not equate to a realistic chance. I'd think you'd know that.

Yep that’s right the US Army is happy to give anyone $50-100 million just to look at their posters and powerpoints. Of course since the JMR-TD isn’t programmed to end until 2019-20 this is seven years of indulging curiosity here. But please don’t let me inject anymore facts in the way of your opinion. It’s not as if any new companies have had any success in penetrating the US market for weapons since WWII. I mean who has ever heard of:

McDonnell
Armalite
Austal

Inovation never pays off because it’s just not “realistic”, duah.

Innovation MAY pay off. An investment in AVX Aircraft Company in 2013 would be a highly speculative and a risky one. Probably more likely that you would lose your money rather than receive a high return on investment. How likely is the United States Army going to bet on AVX Aircraft Company in this time of risk aversion and tight budgets? If the United States Army and the Department of Defense had money to throw around, then maybe AVX Aircraft Company would have a better chance. What about the lobbyists employed by Sikorsky, Boeing, and Bell and the political aspect of a United States Army and JSOC production contract?

 

[Triton]

So is anyone going to address my technical questions concerning Sikorsky X2 technology versus a conventional coaxial rotor?

 

[yasotay]

On the subject of Sikorsky X2 technology, is vibration an issue for crew and passenger fatigue? Or is the vibration an issue for wear and damage to the X2 coaxial rotor and components? Or both? Is the X2 Technology rotor system more difficult to maintain or require more maintenance to flight hours than a conventional helicopter rotor system? What about the size of the X2 mast system and the dismantling and/or folding of X2 for transport by C-17 or C-5? Are there other issues with the rigid rotor system over a conventional helicopter rotor system?

Does the AVX concept have a lower turning radius and lower acoustic noise signature compared to a conventional helicopter? Does the conventional rotor system entail less technical risk? Or are there other advantages to a conventional rotor system? Easier to maintain? Less maintenance to flight hours? Can the AVX concept fit aboard United States Navy destroyers and cruisers?

As for the Bell V-280 Valor, Bell did change the tilt rotor system so that the engines did not rotate. This would allow entry and egress through wide side doors and allow door gunners to have wide fields of fire.

Okay, on to honest questions. Vibration is the bane of all rotorcraft. To the point the industry has spent considerable money on ways to dampen the vibrations from the dynamic components. The XH-59 was well known to have very high vibratory loads at high speed. It was one of the problems that put the co-axial compound on the shelf until technology could be introduced to deal with it. Vibration is not good for machine nor humans alike. Many older helicopter pilots who flew Bell H-1 for a number of years have back problems due to the 1to1 vibration from the teetering hinge rotor system. With more blades you get a higher frequency and that wears on components throughout the aircraft, which translates to more maintenance, which translates to higher operating cost over the life cycle of the aircraft. I cannot say that the X2 technology is better or worse across the flight regime, but it was apparent to this old helo-driver that the vibration loads in the tech demonstrator were getting pretty high at the top end of their speed run. As to the rotor height off the top of my head I don't know if the X2 rotor system will fit into a C-17 or C-5. That can be mitigated some with squatting landing gear and maybe some other engineering tricks, but if it can't... guess they will hope the Army really does want to self-deploy more.
As to the AVX design, I saw a diagram at one of the shows that seemed to show that the AVX was smaller than the H-60. As to acoustics, probably will sounds a lot like a Kamov with a hum or buzz from the ducted fans. If memory serves co-axial rotorcraft are slower to start a yaw but the momentum builds quickly. Russians and other countries do not seem to have concerns about lesser (if any) maneuverability than conventional helicopters with their Kamov rotorcraft. Of course with the ducted fans asymmetric thrust can probably overcome any initial slow yaw rates. Conventional rotors are less risk because that is where almost all of the investment has been for 60 years. It however has physical limitations if you are trying to go much faster than 170 knots without off-loading it with alternate lifting surfaces. I think the maintenance factors are relative to the technology. The X2 rotor systems may be less maintenance intensive, but if everyone goes with newer digital technology, that issue may be far less than in the past.
The Bell V-280 engines position will make it a lot easier for maintainers to work on the aircraft compared to what the USMC and USAF maintainers have to go through with the V-22.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AVX has never built an aircraft. AVX has no track record.

Neither had Rockwell and they did pretty well on that little B-1B. While to a surface reading AVX has no track record the US Army is more than aware that the staff in AVX are basically the staff from Bell. Letterheads don’t build aircraft, people do.

Add to that the current financial situation and there is NO WAY the US Army is going to squander the opportunity on something who's perceived advantages are dubious at best.

But they already have. Why did AVX get cat 1 status the very same as Sikorsky and Bell. Maybe because the US Army knows a crap load more about AVX and the JMR-TD project than you do.

It's just not going to happen. Your "logic" sounds less like a reasonable take on reality and more like somebody simply trying to convince themselves.

Well considering the whopping black holes in your argument about AVX not having no track record or the US Army not going to trust them I wonder who is the one trying so very hard to convince themselves they have no chance?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

How likely is the United States Army going to bet on AVX Aircraft Company in this time of risk aversion and tight budgets?

What part of they already are don’t you understand? AVX is right now a Cat I contender for JMR-TD. They are working with the Army to put together their offer to build a demonstrator that the Army will fund. A production order for FVLs won’t be until the 2020s so talking about risk aversion to start ups at the moment is a bit premature.

 

[Triton]

Thank you, yasotay, for answering my technical questions concerning rotorcraft technologies. I very much appreciate your response.

 

[F-14D]

Yasotay:

When you mentioned V280's engine position being easier than the V-22's were you referring to the tilting vs. non-tilting design, 'cause I've seen them worked on vertically and horizontally, or were you referring to the engines being closer to the ground, so being easier to get to? Thanks

Abraham:

Am not getting in the middle of the colorful exchange, but I can't resist this one little nit: Rockwell may not have had a track record on building aircraft, but North American Aviation, who had merged with Rockwell in 1967, built the B-1B and they had a wee bit of experience in the aircraft building game.

(sometimes I can't help myself... :-[ )

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Am not getting in the middle of the colorful exchange, but I can't resist this one little nit: Rockwell may not have had a track record on building aircraft, but North American Aviation, who had merged with Rockwell in 1967, built the B-1B and they had a wee bit of experience in the aircraft building game.

That was actually the point I was trying to make. Rockwell changed the letterhead at NAA but they still built the B-1 and the Space Shuttle. AVX is made up of pretty much an entire generation of Bell engineering leadership. They’ve walked out of Bell and set up their own shop with a new letterhead. To say they have no experience in building helicopters because they have a different letterhead is like saying Rockwell had none either.

 

[donnage99]

AVX isn't likely to win, but that doesn't equate to them being a joke. If so, with this tight budgetary environment, as several have mentioned, the army would not have awarded them any money. They offer a very conservative bid, not a technological breakthrough, so any further investment from the military means they do consider AVX a viable prospect.

 

[yasotay]

Yasotay:

When you mentioned V280's engine position being easier than the V-22's were you referring to the tilting vs. non-tilting design, 'cause I've seen them worked on vertically and horizontally, or were you referring to the engines being closer to the ground, so being easier to get to? Thanks

Indeed it is the fact that V-22 maintainers have to wear tie-downs when working on the engine in vertical mode and that I saw a USMC after action report that said the USMC needed to invest in maintenance stands that allowed the men and women to more easily reach components on the nacelles, that sparked the comment. Part of this is due to the size of the V-22. Hopefully the smaller size of the V-280 (thus the engines are closer to the ground) and the lateral displacement of the engines will not require new specialized equipment for support.

 

[F-14D]

Yasotay:

When you mentioned V280's engine position being easier than the V-22's were you referring to the tilting vs. non-tilting design, 'cause I've seen them worked on vertically and horizontally, or were you referring to the engines being closer to the ground, so being easier to get to? Thanks

Indeed it is the fact that V-22 maintainers have to wear tie-downs when working on the engine in vertical mode and that I saw a USMC after action report that said the USMC needed to invest in maintenance stands that allowed the men and women to more easily reach components on the nacelles, that sparked the comment. Part of this is due to the size of the V-22. Hopefully the smaller size of the V-280 (thus the engines are closer to the ground) and the lateral displacement of the engines will not require new specialized equipment for support.

I meant to include this pic with my previous post. You can work on the engines in horizontal mode, but they're still a bit far from the ground. Then again, so are those on a C130J, but they aren't expected to be worked on regularly at a forward area.

 

[sferrin]

AVX has never built an aircraft. AVX has no track record.

Neither had Rockwell and they did pretty well on that little B-1B.

Oh wow. Hello, Rockwell = North American which had a buttload of experience, facilities, and workforce to draw from. To compare AVX to North American Aviation is laughable.

While to a surface reading AVX has no track record the US Army is more than aware that the staff in AVX are basically the staff from Bell. Letterheads don’t build aircraft, people do.

No, it's not "the staff from Bell". It's some staff from Bell. Did they bring their assembly line along with them? Nope. At this point they have management and engineers. Everything else they'll have to dig up at some point.

But they already have. Why did AVX get cat 1 status the very same as Sikorsky and Bell. Maybe because the US Army knows a crap load more about AVX and the JMR-TD project than you do.

They have the same status. That does not equate to equal odds of winning. But hey don't let reality get in the way of your fantasy.

Well considering the whopping black holes in your argument about AVX not having no track record or the US Army not going to trust them I wonder who is the one trying so very hard to convince themselves they have no chance?

AVX doesn't have a track record. If so, please direct me to the aircraft AVX has produced. As for trying to convince myself, I have no dog in this fight. I just find it amusing that a few renderings get released (that only roughly resemble the actual design) and people act like it's the Second Coming of Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works. Hilarious. [/quote][/quote][/quote]

 

[Triton]

Wouldn't it be ironic if AVX Aircraft Company contracted with Bell Helicopter to build its technology demonstrator.

Saying that AVX Aircraft Company is a change of letterhead from Bell Helicopter is like saying Supersonic Aerospace International (SAI) is a change of letterhead from Gulfstream Aerospace Company.

 

[F-14D]

Wouldn't it be ironic if AVX Aircraft Company contracted with Bell Helicopter to build its technology demonstrator.

Saying that AVX Aircraft Company is a change of letterhead from Bell Helicopter is like saying Supersonic Aerospace International (SAI) is a change of letterhead from Gulfstream Aerospace Company.

Wouldn't that be sorta like Chevy asking Ford to build a prototype of a new truck they plan to produce that will be competing with the F-150?

If I was them and wanted to find someone to partner with, I'd call up MD helicopters.

 

[yasotay]

AVX doesn't have a track record. If so, please direct me to the aircraft AVX has produced. As for trying to convince myself, I have no dog in this fight. I just find it amusing that a few renderings get released (that only roughly resemble the actual design) and people act like it's the Second Coming of Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works. Hilarious.

I am not going to get in the middle of this fire fight, but I have to say if you think AVX won a seat at the table by just producing "a few renderings" you are incorrect. There has been several years at least of detailed engineering on going, with multiple design reviews with the government. Before the DoD is going to let the Army release hundreds of millions of dollars to industry, especially with the debacle that has been rotorcraft development in the last ten years, the Army is going to have to make a solid case on how they propose to disperse the funds. You may be right that the Army does wave off on AVX due to risk, but AVX would not have made it this far if the Army did not think there was some viability with their plan.

 

[Triton]

Wouldn't that be sorta like Chevy asking Ford to build a prototype of a new truck they plan to produce that will be competing with the F-150?

If I was them and wanted to find someone to partner with, I'd call up MD helicopters.

I guess that the technology demonstrator could be manufactured in Mesa, Arizona rather than a plant in the Fort Worth, Texas area close to the AVX Aircraft Company headquarters in Benbrook, Texas. That would be very interesting if AVX Aircraft Company allied themselves with MD Helicopters.

 

[Triton]

Is the JMR-TD Phase I contract that the United States Army signed with Sikorksy/Boeing, AVX Aircraft Company, and Bell Helicopter enough money to cover all the expenses of developing and building a technology demonstrator? Or will these companies also need to invest their own funds to build their technology demonstrators?

 

[sferrin]

I am not going to get in the middle of this fire fight, but I have to say if you think AVX won a seat at the table by just producing "a few renderings" you are incorrect.

I didn't say the Army only got a few renderings. I'm talking about the general public. The people gushing about how cool this design is, how it's going to be game-changing, etc. all based off a few renderings.

There has been several years at least of detailed engineering on going, with multiple design reviews with the government. Before the DoD is going to let the Army release hundreds of millions of dollars to industry, especially with the debacle that has been rotorcraft development in the last ten years, the Army is going to have to make a solid case on how they propose to disperse the funds. You may be right that the Army does wave off on AVX due to risk, but AVX would not have made it this far if the Army did not think there was some viability with their plan.

"Stalking horse" comes to mind.[/quote]

 

[Triton]

There has been several years at least of detailed engineering on going, with multiple design reviews with the government. Before the DoD is going to let the Army release hundreds of millions of dollars to industry, especially with the debacle that has been rotorcraft development in the last ten years, the Army is going to have to make a solid case on how they propose to disperse the funds. You may be right that the Army does wave off on AVX due to risk, but AVX would not have made it this far if the Army did not think there was some viability with their plan.

"Stalking horse" comes to mind.

Wow, that's a little extreme isn't it, sferrin.

 

[sferrin]

There has been several years at least of detailed engineering on going, with multiple design reviews with the government. Before the DoD is going to let the Army release hundreds of millions of dollars to industry, especially with the debacle that has been rotorcraft development in the last ten years, the Army is going to have to make a solid case on how they propose to disperse the funds. You may be right that the Army does wave off on AVX due to risk, but AVX would not have made it this far if the Army did not think there was some viability with their plan.

"Stalking horse" comes to mind.

Wow, that's a little extreme isn't it, sferrin.

Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Wouldn't it be ironic if AVX Aircraft Company contracted with Bell Helicopter to build its technology demonstrator.

AVX actually have a well documented plan to build their demonstrator for JMR-TD and it doesn't involve Bell. I find it a bit odd that people are willing to say so much about AVX while knowing so little about this project. It’s not too hard to get informed. There is an article or two at AVST, Flight, etc that will fill you in.

Saying that AVX Aircraft Company is a change of letterhead from Bell Helicopter is like saying Supersonic Aerospace International (SAI) is a change of letterhead from Gulfstream Aerospace Company.

Within the context of the program. If JMR-TD was a contract to build 4,000 aircraft then sure everything I've said would be an outrageous exaggeration. But since it is just a sub scale demonstrator then what AVX offer is not much different to what Bell would have offered 10 years ago. The same people and the same industrial know how.

 

[Triton]

Wouldn't it be ironic if AVX Aircraft Company contracted with Bell Helicopter to build its technology demonstrator.

AVX actually have a well documented plan to build their demonstrator for JMR-TD and it doesn't involve Bell. I find it a bit odd that people are willing to say so much about AVX while knowing so little about this project. It’s not too hard to get informed. There is an article or two at AVST, Flight, etc that will fill you in.

I know that AVX Aircraft Company intends to build a 70%-scale flying demonstrator, sized to use existing General Electric T700 engines.

According to The DEW Line on June 6, 2013:

AVX says it has teamed with "a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design", which the company claims will mean a lower price tag than the competing designs

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/avx-joins-bell-sikorskyboeing/

Have any other articles dropped names of who these "a number of experienced aerospace companies" are? Or are we meant to guess?

AVX Aircraft Company web site claims:

AVX has a horizontally integrated manufacturing strategy with world-class subcontractors and partners

Source:
http://www.avxaircraft.com/company.html

Which are who exactly?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Have any other articles dropped names of who these "a number of experienced aerospace companies" are? Or are we meant to guess?

You could do a little bit more research before you resort to guessing. But crap that hasn't stopped half of the internet to date! I would suggest a good starting point would be this very thread. And you could just go to the page before this one where yesterday I posted an image – which I downloaded from a news article - of the AVX poster that lists all their TD partners. I even wrote some of their names into the text of my post.

I'll make it super easy for you:

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,13812.msg195502.html#msg195502

 

[Aeroengineer1]

I find it sad the commentary that is being spewed forth by people that really know nothing about actually producing aerospace products and the business models that are associated with them. First off, stating that MD Heli could produce this craft just goes to show the ignorance of the line of thinking. MD is as small or smaller than AVX. MD only has two or three large buildings with a few support buildings on the North side of FFZ. They do have some off site production that they were trying to get going in Mexicali if I remember correctly about 6 years ago. They were still struggling to deal with workmanship issues with the composite material. Another issue that MD has is the lack of experience with composites. They are a sheet metal group. The composite blades for the MD series are being built for them by a company in the Tempe area. MD also lacks design experience. Heck even asking Boeing Mesa to build this thing would not work. They have larger facilities, but they are all dedicated towards assembling the pieces of the Apache. They do have a small area towards prototype work, but I do not think that it is large enough to build a few demonstrators. I have been at both facilities, and actually interviewed at one of them.

As I understand it, AVX will be using an off the shelf fuselage for the scale demonstrator that will then be modified. All the driveline, including blades, transmission and controls will be custom. The fuselage will be modified to accept these as well as the canard.

As for my reliability in this data, well I work for one of the companies that has helped them in their design studies. They are not a crackpot group. Troy is as sharp as any, and he has some very great supporting guys that work directly for him. I am directly familiar with many of the companies that are helping in their efforts. These companies are also well established companies with good engineering resources. Are they a long shot, yes, though not for lack of skill or track record (Go read Troy's bio, and you will see his track record). Despite this, I would say that they are a legitimate contender and could find ways to tool up for producing a production version of their craft. This is a well back group with an extra high talent level. They could staff multiple advanced development groups at any one of the major helicopter vendors.

Adam

 

[yasotay]

Gentlemen, it seems that there is no reason to expect countervailing views will suddenly coinside. Can we go with “we agree to disagree” and move along. Soon enough someone will have the opportunity to say “told you so.”

 

[F-14D]

I find it sad the commentary that is being spewed forth by people that really know nothing about actually producing aerospace products and the business models that are associated with them. First off, stating that MD Heli could produce this craft just goes to show the ignorance of the line of thinking. MD is as small or smaller than AVX. MD only has two or three large buildings with a few support buildings on the North side of FFZ. They do have some off site production that they were trying to get going in Mexicali if I remember correctly about 6 years ago. They were still struggling to deal with workmanship issues with the composite material. Another issue that MD has is the lack of experience with composites. They are a sheet metal group. The composite blades for the MD series are being built for them by a company in the Tempe area. MD also lacks design experience. Heck even asking Boeing Mesa to build this thing would not work. They have larger facilities, but they are all dedicated towards assembling the pieces of the Apache. They do have a small area towards prototype work, but I do not think that it is large enough to build a few demonstrators. I have been at both facilities, and actually interviewed at one of them.

As I understand it, AVX will be using an off the shelf fuselage for the scale demonstrator that will then be modified. All the driveline, including blades, transmission and controls will be custom. The fuselage will be modified to accept these as well as the canard.

As for my reliability in this data, well I work for one of the companies that has helped them in their design studies. They are not a crackpot group. Troy is as sharp as any, and he has some very great supporting guys that work directly for him. I am directly familiar with many of the companies that are helping in their efforts. These companies are also well established companies with good engineering resources. Are they a long shot, yes, though not for lack of skill or track record (Go read Troy's bio, and you will see his track record). Despite this, I would say that they are a legitimate contender and could find ways to tool up for producing a production version of their craft. This is a well back group with an extra high talent level. They could staff multiple advanced development groups at any one of the major helicopter vendors.

Adam

Since I'm the one that brought up MD helicopters, let me reply. The question was wouldn't it be ironic if AVX contracted with Bell to build the demonstrator. My post was just to say that Bell probably wouldn't be interested in helping a competing product. Same would apply to Sikorsky and Boeing. So, if they wanted a helicopter partner, they've got MD and Robinson. Since Robinson has shown no interest in any major Defense projects, that pretty much leaves MD, if they want a partner.

 

[Triton]

Thank you for the additional information, Aeroengineer1. Best wishes to Team AVX in building their technology demonstrator and best wishes to them for competing in the FVL Medium contract

As for the idea that Bell Helicopter was building AVX Aircraft Company's technology demonstrator, I was being facetious because the management and engineering staff of AVX Aircraft Company are former Bell Helicopter employees and that this new company has a part of Bell Helicopter's legacy. I guess I needed to set my comments off with a joke tag.

 

[Triton]

Gentlemen, it seems that there is no reason to expect countervailing views will suddenly coinside. Can we go with “we agree to disagree” and move along. Soon enough someone will have the opportunity to say “told you so.”

Fair enough.

 

[VTOLicious]

For the sake of completeness:

According to the U.S. Army’s Contracting Division, a Category I proposal is a “well conceived, scientifically or technically sound proposal pertinent to program goals and objectives with applicability to Army mission needs, and offered by a responsible contractor with the competent scientific and technical staff supporting resources needed to ensure satisfactory program results. Proposals (or portions thereof) in Category I are recommended for acceptance and funding is available.”

Rgds Michael

 

[yasotay]

Not surprising Lockheed is talking to all three of the companies that have announced participating in the JMR. Given that Boeing is teamed with Sikorsky to do the same work, I imagine that there is little chance that they are going to work with either of that team. That leaves Bell and AVX to team with the largest aerospace company in the world. In my opinion.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSL1N0G31J120130805?type=companyNews&irpc=43

Lockheed is in non-exclusive discussions with the three companies that are working on aircraft designs to ensure that they incorporated a sufficient processor "backbone" so the mission equipment could be integrated later, Spoor said.


Company News



Lockheed plans universal equipment package for Army helicopters

Mon, Aug 05 07:59 AM EDT

* Lockheed sees big opportunities in future

* Officials say system would save time and money

* Next-generation helicopter would replace 4,000 aircraft

By Andrea Shalal-Esa

WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) - Lockheed Martin Corp on Monday said it is developing a universal package of cockpit equipment, electronics and weapons for the U.S. Army's next-generation helicopter, an approach it says will save money and time, and make future upgrades easier.

Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier, is pooling resources across the company to develop a mission equipment package for the 4,000 next-generation helicopters that the Army expects to starting field around 2034 - and other helicopters operated by the U.S. military and countries around the world.

Traditionally, the U.S. military signs a contract with a helicopter manufacturer, which then signs agreements with various subcontractors for electronic equipment, cockpit systems and weapons. That equipment is then closely tied to the particular helicopter, which can make later upgrades expensive.

Mounting budget pressures have spurred the military to look at alternative approaches, including buying mission equipment separately and then supplying it to the helicopter maker. Officials are also pushing for more "open architecture" systems that allow easier upgrades in the future.

The Joint Multirole helicopter program is being closely watched by Lockheed, Boeing Co and other arms makers, which are eager for a foothold in one of the few new aircraft programs on the horizon at a time when U.S. military spending is shrinking.

Dan Spoor, vice president of aviation systems for Lockheed Martin's Mission Systems and Training business, told Reuters that building mission packages separately from the helicopters would help lower costs by tapping greater economies of scale and eliminating some costs now added by the aircraft makers.

"Every time a piece of hardware is acquired by an aircraft provider, there's cost to acquire it, there's cost to put it into the aircraft, that may have additional handling costs or fees that they put on it," he said.

Spoor said Lockheed hoped to leverage billions of dollars of investment already made in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and other weapons to keep down costs and reduce risk associated with new development program.

The equipment package would be "platform agnostic" and could be used on any of the helicopter designs that are being developed for the new program, he said.

Lockheed is in non-exclusive discussions with the three companies that are working on aircraft designs to ensure that they incorporated a sufficient processor "backbone" so the mission equipment could be integrated later, Spoor said.

Lockheed and other weapons makers have been working with the Army on 10 small study contracts associated with the equipment for the new project since 2012. The Army is expected to award additional contracts for more work this year and next, but larger funding streams are unlikely for several years.

Spoor said he expected the next-generation helicopter to survive the budget woes facing the Pentagon given the limited lifespan of the existing fleet, but said those pressures underscored the need for more affordable solutions.

The Army in June chose three companies to work on "technology demonstration" contract to flesh out designs for the new aircraft - Bell Helicopter, a unit of Textron Inc ; a team comprising Boeing and Sikorsky Aircraft, which is a unit of United Technologies Corp ; and privately held AVX Aircraft.

That work will lay the groundwork for the Pentagon's Future Vertical Lift program, a project that will ultimately replace more than 4,000 medium-lift helicopters used by various military services.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Not surprising Lockheed is talking to all three of the companies that have announced participating in the JMR. Given that Boeing is teamed with Sikorsky to do the same work, I imagine that there is little chance that they are going to work with either of that team. That leaves Bell and AVX to team with the largest aerospace company in the world. In my opinion.

The JMR structure is to have a separate competition for the FVL mission system. I would imagine that is what Lockheed are positioning themselves for.

 

[yasotay]

Not surprising Lockheed is talking to all three of the companies that have announced participating in the JMR. Given that Boeing is teamed with Sikorsky to do the same work, I imagine that there is little chance that they are going to work with either of that team. That leaves Bell and AVX to team with the largest aerospace company in the world. In my opinion.

The JMR structure is to have a separate competition for the FVL mission system. I would imagine that is what Lockheed are positioning themselves for.

Agreed. However I think that Lockheed is more likely to go with Bell or AVX as I recall that in one of the announcements, Boeing was focused on the mission equipment while Sikorsky was focused on the air vehicle for their JMR and FVL teaming efforts.

 

[VTOLicious]

Hey guys, I'm curious how the AVX-rotor system will look like at the end.

I´ve added some pics for your inspiration

Michael

 

[bobbymike]

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?List=7c996cd7%2Dcbb4%2D4018%2Dbaf8%2D8825eada7aa2&ID=1255

Lockheed and Bell team up