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

"Four Companies Get US Army's Nod to Begin Critical Helicopter Designs"
Oct. 2, 2013 - 05:44PM |
By PAUL MCLEARY

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131002/DEFREG02/310020022/Four-Companies-Get-US-Army-s-Nod-Begin-Critical-Helicopter-Designs

In a veritable rush of new contract announcements since the new fiscal year began, the US Army awarded four technology investment agreements today to Sikorsky, AVX Aircraft Co., Bell Helicopter Textron Inc., and newcomer Karem Aircraft Inc., to begin work on designs to build the service’s next vertical-lift aircraft.

The Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator program is the critical first step in designing a family of future helicopters that would replace the Army’s current fleets of Apache attack helicopters and Black Hawk medium-lift platforms sometime in the 2030s.

The Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center at Redstone Arsenal, Ala., announced the awards on Oct. 2, but an Army spokesman was not able to provide the dollar amount of the awards.

The relatively slow-moving program kicked off in 2009 when then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced his intention to combine of DoD’s vertical-lift capabilities in one multipurpose platform, called the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program.

“This is a critical risk reducing effort for FVL,” Maj. Gen. William Crosby, the program executive officer for aviation, said in a statement. “The operational benefits and changes will depend on the capabilities we can deliver to the war fighter with FVL. Improved speed, range, reliability, and survivability are critical goals that we will target.”

The industry teams have nine months to refine their initial proposals and gear up toward potentially building and flight-testing a demonstrator aircraft in fiscal 2017.

An industry source said that “this is really about the Army identifying the art of the possible” with potential designs, adding that the agreements are “cooperative research and development agreements” that call for the Army and industry to finance the development together.

At the end of the nine months, the source said, it is expected that two teams will be selected to actually build prototypes for flight tests and compete for the final downselect.

The program is not expected to become operational until the 2030s.

The contract has long been seen as the most critical and expansive effort that the Army has undertaken to modernize its rotary-wing fleets in decades, and industry has responded in kind.

Bell, teaming up with Lockheed Martin, plans to offer the V-280 Valor, a similar capability to the tilt rotor V-22 Osprey. The collaboration of Boeing and Sikorsky continues to work on Sikorsky’s X-2 demonstrator, a platform that features coaxial main rotors along with another propeller at the back.

The two dark horses in the race are Texas-based AVX which, like Sikorsky, is offering a coaxial rotor design, and Karem, which is working on an “optimum speed tiltrotor” technology, according to the company.
 
"Karem Unveils Variable-Speed Tiltrotor For U.S. Army JMR Demo"
By Graham Warwick graham.warwick@aviationweek.com
Source: AWIN First

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_10_02_2013_p0-623233.xml&p=1

Karem Aircraft will design a tiltrotor to meet U.S. Army future utility-rotorcraft requirements under one of four contracts awarded for Phase one of the Joint Multi Role technology demonstration.

JMR is a precursor to the Army’s planned Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Medium program to replace first the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter and later the Boeing AH-64 Apache attack helicopter, beginning in the mid-2030s.

The Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Command has signed technology investment agreements (TIAs) with AVX Aircraft, Bell Helicopter, Karem and a Sikorsky/Boeing team.

A surprise entrant in the JMR program, Karem is designing the TR36TD demonstrator, an optimum-speed tiltrotor (OSTR) with twin 36-ft.-dia., variable-speed rotors powered by existing turboshaft engines.

Bell is designing a “third-generation tiltrotor, the V-280 Valor, while AVX is working on a coaxial-rotor, ducted-fan compound helicopter and Sikorsky a coaxial rigid-rotor, pusher-propeller design.

A JMR TD requirement is a cruise speed of at least 230 kt. — 50% faster that a conventional helicopter. Karem says a production version of the TR36D would have a level flight speed of 360 kt. Bell’s V-280 has a 280-kt. cruise, while the AVX and Sikorsky/Boeing designs are aiming for 230 kt.

The TIAs give all four teams nine months to complete preliminary design of their rotorcraft, after which the Army will review the competing designs and authorize the construction of two competing demonstrators to fly in 2017.

Karem says its variable-speed OSTR configuration offers advantages in weight, drive train and aerodynamic and propulsive efficiency. In addition to high speed, the TR36TD would have “robust” hover performance at altitude, higher climb rate and sustained maneuverability, and longer range than other vertical-takeoff-and-landing configurations, the company says.

The company also says the OSTR offers reduced complexity, inherent safety advantages, simplified maintenance and low total ownership cost.
Inventor Abe Karem designed the precursor to the Predator unmanned aircraft and the (now Boeing) A180 Hummingbird long-endurance unmanned helicopter with its optimum-speed rotor. He formed Karem Aircraft in 2004 to develop the OSTR concept.

From 2005-2010 Karem studied a version of the OSTR weighing more than 200,000 lb. under the Army-led Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) effort. The TR75 had two 75-ft.-dia., variable-speed rotors. Lockheed Martin teamed with Karem on JHL, which was eventually shelved for lack of funding.

The company is continuing private-venture development of two commercial OSTR aircraft, the 90-passenger AeroCommuter and 180-passenger AeroTrain.
 

Attachments

  • Karem_TR36D_JMR.jpg
    Karem_TR36D_JMR.jpg
    23.1 KB · Views: 98
two tilt rotors and two compounds, imagine that.
 
"The blades are controlled individually and electronically - there is no swashplate or pitch links"

how do they affect cyclic then? individual blade control via feathering axis actuators?

[edit: i think i just answered my question: Karem's patent for "Swashplateless rotorcraft with fault tolerant linear electric actuator"]
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2010068225A1?cl=en&dq=ininventor:%22Abe+Karem%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=8KhNUtfeCIq9qAG37ICoCw&ved=0CGcQ6AEwBzgK

Slightly off-topic -
I also found another patent from Abe: Compact aircraft wing folding systems and methods, US 8387913 B2,
https://www.google.com/patents/US8387913?dq=karem&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vKZNUuvBJcWZqgGplYDQBw&ved=0CGEQ6AEwBg#backward-citations

which is essentially the wing fold used on an S-3 Viking. How can you patent something like that?
 
Karem and the other three teams in the JMR technology demonstration program - AVX Aircraft, Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky/Boeing - have nine months to complete preliminary design of their demonstrators, after which the Army will pick two to be built and flown in 2017. AVX has a 230kt coaxial-rotor, ducted-fan; Bell a 280kt tiltrotor; and Sikorsky/Boeing at 230kt coaxial rigid-rotor, pusher-propeller design. A production version of the TR36TD could reach 360kt, says Karem.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ad4e2fb2c-d49d-4046-a3d0-436b58aed813

So in nine months we will find out if AVX, Bell/Lockheed Martin, Sikorsky/Boeing, or Karem have been downselected to build demonstrators.
 
The light and very stiff rotor blades are rigidly attached to the hub, which in turn is rigidly attached to the mast - there are no hinges and gimbals as in other tiltrotor designs.

But the rigid blades put very high loads into the hingeless hub, which is large, and from the hub into the nacelle, which is attached to the wing by a large component called the spinnion, which allows the nacelle to pivot while carrying loads from the nacelle and outer wing into the inner wing and fuselage.

...hmm, and I thought the Sikorsky rigid rotor system is ambitious! :eek: Not to forget the experience gained with the S-69 (XH-59).
 
VTOLicious said:
The light and very stiff rotor blades are rigidly attached to the hub, which in turn is rigidly attached to the mast - there are no hinges and gimbals as in other tiltrotor designs.

But the rigid blades put very high loads into the hingeless hub, which is large, and from the hub into the nacelle, which is attached to the wing by a large component called the spinnion, which allows the nacelle to pivot while carrying loads from the nacelle and outer wing into the inner wing and fuselage.

...hmm, and I thought the Sikorsky rigid rotor system is ambitious! :eek: Not to forget the experience gained with the S-69 (XH-59).

The DARPA Heliplane rotor was like this too. No hinges on the blades and an extremely rigid interface between the hub and mast. (It still had a swashplate though.)
 
So for once I beat Triton to the punch! ;D
Found the attached picture at the AVX website. It gives you an idea of the size of the aircraft in comparison to other members of the competition. If nothing else I would give it an "A" for being able to operate into and out of complex urban terrain.
 

Attachments

  • avx_MRMUAS_738_554.jpg
    avx_MRMUAS_738_554.jpg
    68.2 KB · Views: 690
Yasotay, any idea why the AVX picture is labeled "MRMUAS"? that was a 2011 RFI for a naval medium range UAV. Just curious...
 
Aerofranz- I saw that as well. Unfortunaltely I don't have any rational for the nomenclature.
 
AVX apparently offered the same basic configuration for MRMUAS -- it's possible that this image was used as part of that proposal (maybe just to illustrate the general concept), even though it actually shows a manned aircraft.
 
You're right. ;)

http://www.suasnews.com/2012/02/11920/medium-range-maritime-unmanned-aerial-system-mrmuas-to-be-cancelled/

Military officials announced Monday plans to kill off the Medium-Range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System program, saving about $1.5 billion over the next five years. The cuts are part of a plan by the Navy and Marine Corps to save $13 Billion by 2018. Also facing the chop 5000 troops, 3000 sailors and 2500 civilian contractors.
Bad news for the AVX/BAE cooperation announced last December.
The two companies submitted their proposal in October 2011 in response to a Navy request for concepts for an unmanned, vertical-takeoff-and-landing surveillance aircraft that could operate from ships and cover long distances and stay in the air for long periods.[]
The Medium Range Maritime Unmanned Aerial System (MRMUAS) was to be a Multi-Intelligence (MultiINT), reconfigurable platform capable of operating from all air-capable ships.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
I asked you to ask Burt Rutan’s opinion not look Scaled Composites up on Wikipedia. Scaled TODAY is producing aircraft (or spacecraft) no longer just the prototyping start up like it was back in the 1970s when it was called the “Burt Rutan Company” before it was sold to Raytheon and later sold to Northrop. And BTW Rutan did start of building aircraft in his garage by himself.
I don't think there ever was an entity called "The Burt Rutan Co." It was much less formal than that, just a guy creating prototypes and selling plans for them.
The "company" part of it came with the creation of Scaled Composites, whose main function was rapid development and prototyping, often as a subcontractor to established industry company but not always.
Also, though Scaled is now of Northrop Grumman (after being informally pretty much associated with them for years), it never was "sold to Raytheon." At the time Raytheon did not make aircraft, just weapons and electronics. Scaled did get into some sort of binding contract with Beechcraft, but that was not exclusive and whether one can affirm that Scaled was "part of" Beechcraft at that time seems a stretch to me. But not Raytheon anyway, as they purchased Beechcraft long after the Scaled/Beechcraft associated fell apart.
Off-topic mode off...
 
Artist's impression of Karem TR36TD FVL concept.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=%2Farticle-xml%2FAW_10_14_2013_p44-624999.xml
 

Attachments

  • tiltrotor_TR36TD_KaremAircraftConcept.jpg
    tiltrotor_TR36TD_KaremAircraftConcept.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 434
That is a great article on some of the major design challenges going into a newer generation of rotorcraft. There are a like number going on with the coaxial compound as well.
 
AMRDEC Selects AVX Aircraft for Next Stage of JMR


By Andrew Drwiega, International Bureau Chief

AVX Aircraft is one of the four companies to be awarded a Technology Investment Agreement by the U.S. Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) in respect of taking forward its Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter design to the next stage.

The coaxial design is one of two being considered by the U.S. Army, the other being that of the new Boeing /Sikorsky joint partnership over Sikorsky’s X2 technology. Bell Helicopter's third-generation V-280 tiltrotor design is also under consideration.

Rear ramp of the AVX design. Graphics courtesy of AVX Aircraft

AVX Aircraft has been working on a Compound Coaxial Helicopter (CCH) since 2009 as part of the JMR Configuration Trades and Analysis (CTA) program. The AMRDEC award means that AVX can continue with its design process, although the company has not said how or where a Technology Demonstrator aircraft would be built. Many of AVX Aircraft’s employees have experience gained in the rotorcraft industry, particularly with Bell Helicopter

AVX states that its JMR version could carry 14 soldiers and would side doors in addition to a rear ramp for troop and cargo movement
 

Attachments

  • image005.jpg
    image005.jpg
    20.7 KB · Views: 307
yasotay said:
That is a great article on some of the major design challenges going into a newer generation of rotorcraft. There are a like number going on with the coaxial compound as well.

If someone hasn't alredy posted this link, this is a nice page that is being continuously updated on the JMR program.

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/jmr-fvl-the-us-militarys-future-helicopters-014035/

And if someone already has, excuse my waste of electrons.
 
Bell switches engine supplier for next tiltrotor, chooses GE
By: Jon Hemmerdinger Washington DC

GE Aviation will manufacture the engines for Bell Helicopter’s third-generation tilt-rotor aircraft, the V-280 Valor, according to a media release from Bell.
Bell, a division of Textron, does not say which specific GE engine will power the V-280, and GE did not immediately respond to a request for more information.
But the release says government funding from the US Army’s future affordable turbine engine (FATE) programme will allow Bell to provide a “robust, durable engine.”
GE has told Flightglobal that technologies developed through FATE, such as advanced cooling systems, could be inserted directly into its 7,500shp-class (5,520kW) GE38 engine.
That engine will power Sikorsky’s CH-53K heavy lift helicopter, which is under development for the US Marine Corps.
The Rolls-Royce AE1107C Liberty engine powers the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey and competes in the same thrust-range as the GE38.
GE tells Flightglobal it has completed 3,100h of engine tests on the GE38 and expects the engine to receive full military certification sometime next year.
The CH-53K is expected to fly at the end of 2014.
Bell’s medium-lift V-280 Valor is seen as a replacement to the Army’s fleet of Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks.
The V-280 will have a deployable range of up to 2,100nm (3,890km) and will be twice as fast as UH-60s, says Bell.
UH-60s have a maximum cruise speed of 151kt (280km/h), according to Sikorsky.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/bell-switches-engine-supplier-for-next-tiltrotor-chooses-ge-391803/
 
Man, those are BIG engines. isn't that like ~three times the installed power on a T700?
I think this is a pretty good indicator of the price of speed in a fast rotorcraft...
 
Yeah, AVX is talking about needing engines in the 4,600 shp range, which is nearly 3 times the output of the T700. The GE38 is even bigger.
 
TomS said:
Yeah, AVX is talking about needing engines in the 4,600 shp range, which is nearly 3 times the output of the T700. The GE38 is even bigger.

GE38 has an intersting backstory.

In mid '80s, competition was ongoing for what would be the V-22's engines. There were three bidders: P&W3005 & GE27 were both products taking advantage of work in the Army's Modern Technology Engine program, and the Allison 501-M80C, a free turbine derivative of the T56-A-27. Competition ended in December, 1985 and on Dec. 20, DoD was briefed on the results by the Chief of NAVAIR. Reportedly the GE27 was selected. It would also have a 2nd application as the powerplant for the (later canceled) P-7A. After the briefing, the Chief of NAVAIR was replaced and at 4 PM on Christmas Eve, DoD quietly announced that the Allison engine would be ordered. The Allison engine eventually got taken over by Rolls-Royce and it's on the V-22 today as the AE1107C .

The GE27 was kept on the back burner at GE for years, the design being updated as technology advanced. Eventually a derivative of it was selected for the CH-53K, that derivative being the GE38. Ironically, the GE38 has been proposed as a replacement engine for the V-22, offering promised lighter weight, greater efficiency and more reliability. That option has not been taken up. Although the GE38 is probably too big for the first versions of FVL, it would be intersting if a derivative of it, which might be considered as the grandchild of the engine reportedly first selected for the V-22, ended up back on a Tilt-Rotor.

Such are the ways of defense procurement.
 
AeroFranz said:
Man, those are BIG engines. isn't that like ~three times the installed power on a T700?
I think this is a pretty good indicator of the price of speed in a fast rotorcraft...

I think it is more than just speed. I think the challenges that helicopters have been having in combat with power at altitude likley is also driving a need for more power. While the JMR/FVL is suppose to be a replacement for the H-60 catagory, I don't think they have decided on how many personnel the aircraft is suppose to carry. If it is a Joint program then I doubt the USMC would have any interst if it did not seat at least 13 (a Marine Squad). Then there are all the robots and exo-skeleton technologies that may be around by the time this aircraft would go into service. So I think this aircraft is going to have to pick up much more weight than was planned for the H-60.
It is not trivial to scale power into an aircraft so I think that this is a hedge by Bell against the traditional weight growth that comes with aircraft development.
 
yasotay said:
AeroFranz said:
Man, those are BIG engines. isn't that like ~three times the installed power on a T700?
I think this is a pretty good indicator of the price of speed in a fast rotorcraft...

I think it is more than just speed. I think the challenges that helicopters have been having in combat with power at altitude likley is also driving a need for more power. While the JMR/FVL is suppose to be a replacement for the H-60 catagory, I don't think they have decided on how many personnel the aircraft is suppose to carry. If it is a Joint program then I doubt the USMC would have any interst if it did not seat at least 13 (a Marine Squad). Then there are all the robots and exo-skeleton technologies that may be around by the time this aircraft would go into service. So I think this aircraft is going to have to pick up much more weight than was planned for the H-60.
It is not trivial to scale power into an aircraft so I think that this is a hedge by Bell against the traditional weight growth that comes with aircraft development.

In the case of Bell, they have stated that the driver for power required is the hot and high as well as HOGE requirements. With the power required to meet those, their 280 knot cruise is a fortuitous byproduct.
 
The Sikorsky/Boeing Joint Multi Role - Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) will be named Defiant.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:57550ed4-a1ed-44d1-bc69-0d89d5fb7691

Boeing and Sikorsky Name New Rotorcraft
Posted by Bill Sweetman 4:52 PM on Oct 21, 2013

Sikorsky and Boeing have chosen the name Defiant for the Joint Multi Role - Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) that the two companies will build for the U.S. Army's Future Vertical Lift program. The announcement was made at the Association of the US Army annual convention in Washington. The Defiant is expected to fly in 2017. The joint Defiant team will remain separate from the Sikorsky-led team of partners and subcontractors which is already building the smaller S-97 Raider demonstrator, based on the same X2 concept with coaxial four-blade rigid rotors and a pusher propeller. The Raider is expected to fly next year, and while it will provide data to the Defiant program, the companies are stressing the fact that the Defiant project will not take over Raider, and that the Defiant team will draw on both Boeing and Sikorsky resources. In fact, the companies say, the Defiant team has already introduced innovations into its interpretation of the X2 concept, based on technology from other Boeing and Sikorsky programs - however, no specific examples are being cited, because of competitive issues.
 
Personally I would have went with "Enterprise" but I guess the USN already snagged that.
 
Model of Sikorsky/Boeing SB>1 Defiant on display at the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference 2013.

Source:
http://defense-update.com/20131022_sikorsky-boeing-team-introduces-the-sb1-defiant.html
 

Attachments

  • 20131022-102259.jpg
    20131022-102259.jpg
    104 KB · Views: 267
I really hope they aren't sticking with the > sign in the designation. That's just silly.
SB-1 at least makes sense -- Sikorsky-Boeing design number 1.
 
Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing SB>1 Defiant

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/28556/ausa-2013-army-to-downselect-to-two-jmr-td-bidders-in-2014
 

Attachments

  • 1513042-main.jpg
    1513042-main.jpg
    64.9 KB · Views: 231
Sikorsky and Boeing Unveil 'Defiant' JMR

Oct. 21, 2013 - 02:48PM | By AARON MEHTA

bilde

Boeing and Sikorsky unveiled their bid for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role helicopter program on Monday, calling it the 'Defiant.' (Aaron Mehta/Staff)

WASHINGTON — At Monday’s Association of the United States Army (AUSA) conference here, Sikorsky and Boeing unveiled the official name for their Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter technology demonstrator: Defiant.

The companies arrived at the name as a mission statement, according to Boeing’s Leanne Caret, general manager of vertical lift.

“You’ll see from the name ‘Defiant’ we’re looking for the future, to do it different from the way we’ve done it in the past… recognizing we need to defy conventional business norms,” Caret said.

Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems, touted the collaboration between the two companies.

“We’re extremely proud of the fact that we’ve already uncovered key technologies and improvements to existing technologies that neither company could have captured on its own, so the collaboration is bearing fruit already,” Mehta said. “We’re in it for the long term. That hasn’t changed.”

The JMR helicopter program will replace Apaches and Black Hawks by the mid-2030s.

On Oct. 2, the Army announced it was investing $217 million in the first phase of its ambitious JMR program, calling this first development stage the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) initiative.

Four teams, including the newly-minted Team Defiant, each won $6.5 million awards to begin work on the initial technology demonstration. Other competitors include Bell Helicopter/Textron and newcomers AVX Aircraft Co. and Karem Aircraft.

In late fiscal 2014, the Army will select two competitors who will then build platforms that will be readied for flight tests.

Paul McLeary contributed to this report.
 
I put these here as they are part of the JMR discussion.

Bell unveils V-280 Valor mock-up

By: Jon Hemmerdinger Washington DC 7 hours ago

Source:
pro.png


Bell Helicopter revealed the first full-scale mock-up of its V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft today to attendees of the Association of the United States Army’s annual meeting in Washington DC.

The model allows Army procurement officers to see firsthand Bell’s answer to the Army’s request for an aircraft under the Joint Multi-Role (JMR)/Future Vertical Lift (FVL) programme.

The V-280 will have a composite fuselage made by Spirit AeroSystems, a large-cell carbon-core wing, fly-by-wire controls and a V-shaped tail.

Keith Flail, Bell’s programme director for FVL military programs, tells Flightglobal that the V-280 is the product of Bell’s 55 years of experience in designing and building tiltrotor aircraft.

It also incorporates lessons the company learned from its V-22 Osprey tiltrotor, which Bell produced in partnership with Boeing.

The V-22 is used by the US Marine Corps and US Air Force, and has completed nearly 200,000 flight hours, says Flail.

He notes that unlike the V-22, the V-280s engines do not rotate. Rather, only the rotor system tilts.

Bell, which is building the V-280 with Lockheed Martin, was among four teams awarded technology investment agreement deals by the Army in early October.

Bell and competitors AVX Aircraft, Karem Aircraft and a Boeing-Sikorsky team will develop technology demonstrators from 2017.



The future of army aviation?

By Craig Hoyle on 19 October, 2013 in Defense With an 'S'

Bell has released this image of a full-scale mock-up of its V-280 Valor tiltrotor, which will be on display at the AUSA show in Washington DC next week. We can expect the company to say a bit more about its offering there, although it has already confirmed that GE Aviation is to supply the proposed transport’s engines.

Bell and its partner Lockheed Martin reckon something like the Valor could be in with a shout of succeeding the US Army’s versatile Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. They’ll be flying a demonstrator in 2017 as part of the service’s Joint Multi-Role process, along with rivals AVX, Boeing/Sikorsky and Karem; an activity which is sure to not disappoint on the cool scale.

My DC-based colleague Jon Hemmerdinger will be at AUSA, and you’ll be able to keep up with the top news over on our defence channel.

New Tech Brings Sales Challenges To Bell

By Amy Butler abutler@aviationweek.com

Source: AWIN First

October 22, 2013

V-280-Bell.jpg


Bell Helicopter is taking its campaign to sell the V280 Valor tiltrotor concept straight to potential U.S. Army operators with a “productivity-per-hour” appeal rather than the standard “cost-per-flying-hour” argument.

“Our starting point is to go to the end user,” said Bell CEO John Garrison during a roundtable breakfast with reporters Oct. 22. The Valor offers “a very different value proposition. It is a very different mindset.”

This approach also is likely to be pursued by Karem Aircraft, also offering a tiltrotor in the Army Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstration (JMR-TD) program. Through the JMR-TD, the Army eventually will downselect to two contenders that will proceed into the Future Vertical Lift – Medium competition to replace up to 4,000 Sikorsky UH-60s and Boeing AH-64s in the fleet today.

At issue is a tension between the traditional Army method for acquiring aviation systems, which measures value by cost to produce the units and cost per flying hour for operations.

The tiltrotor proposition, however, is to convince the Army to widen its view of the cost of the system to reflect the advantages of its speed and range. The Army currently uses eight main bases in Afghanistan for aviation assets; the range and speed offered by the Valor could allow the service to shrink that footprint to two forward operating bases for support of the entire country, Garrison says. This would reduce the number of soldiers needed for such support functions as security, lowering the practical operating cost of the aircraft.

The V280 also would be self-deployable with its 2,100-nm range using enhanced fuel carriage onboard, reducing the amount of airlift needed to support a deployment, Garrison adds.

This campaign could face similar challenges as those faced by the Global Hawk in winning a Navy competition for a future P-3 replacement, and in EADS’ lost bid to capture the U.S. Air Force aerial refueler competition. In both cases, the value for the aircraft was placed by the contractor on effectiveness, not on unit or a traditional accounting of operating cost. In the case of Valor, Garrison acknowledges that the value is not only calculable in the cost of the system itself, but in estimating the cost avoidance of other systems, such as the reduced need for support, on the overall Army budget.

Bell, Karem Aircraft, Sikorsky/Boeing and AVX have each won JMR-TD contracts. The Army plans to downselect to two for flight demonstrations in 2017.
 
My bet is Bell and Sikorsky. If they got really crazy maybe Karem and Sikorsky.
 
sferrin said:
My bet is Bell and Sikorsky. If they got really crazy maybe Karem and Sikorsky.

Well, your first choice is what I'd guess most are expecting. But you know, regarding the technology, Tilt-Rotor has got 10s of thousands of hours operating at its design speed and environment, which is a point in Bell's, and to a lesser extent Karem's favor. Although the ducted fan propulsors are somewhat risky, Kamov has demonstrated the capabilities of coaxial rotors over most of the spectrum for years except at the 230 knot range, which helps AVX. But Sikorsky's ABC concept has really only been successfully demonstrated for about 22 hrs (the XH-59 didn't do all that well), and only about 20 minutes or so at its design speed.

So in some ways Sikorsky has the most to prove, and could arguable be the riskier approach. The S-97 might help to alleviate some concerns, but it's not scheduled to fly until 6 months after the JMR downselect (why is it going to take a year from start of final assembly to 1st flight? I remember X2 took longer than expected to get into the air).

This could prove to be quite an exercise.
 
Who, or what, inside or outside the United States Army determines the name of helicopters? Any ideas on which Native American tribe or Native American leader will be chosen for the name of the FVL Medium? If I understand correctly, the United States Army naming convention is to name helicopters for Native American tribes or leaders who have been enemy combatants rather than allies.
 
Triton said:
Who, or what, inside or outside the United States Army determines the name of helicopters? Any ideas on which Native American tribe or Native American leader will be chosen for the name of the FVL Medium? If I understand correctly, the United States Army naming convention is to name helicopters for Native American tribes or leaders who have been enemy combatants rather than allies.

The Army names them after Indian tribes. Since FVL medium is years and years away, I doubt if anyone's even thought of that. Interestingly enough, the USN has six ships presently in service named after North American Indians or tribes, both "friendly" and "hostile". They have been a number of ships over the years so named and Chief Tecumseh (who always fought the US) was honored with having four named after him, including an SSBN.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom