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

Sundog said:
Having said that, what are you doing posting here? Aren't you supposed to be working on a book about the YA-7F Strike Fighter program, for Steve Ginter? I mean, if not you, who? (Yes, I want a book on the aircraft and the program and you seem ideally suited for the task.) :)
Click to expand...


Whaaat?? Just because I didn't finish a project from 10 years ago I can't post here any more?

Actually, as the esteemed Mr. Ginter would no doubt tell you, he and I have never been in contact except indirectly when my money is going to pay for his books.

I was working on something to post here, but got swept away in other things. I've been thinking about trying to convert part of something I wrote over 30 years ago (pass the Geritol, please) for a magazine that been defunct for 13 years now about the A-7F program into PDF if possible. It'll tell you almost all you'd want to know about the A-7F design. Problem is it's in formats that haven't been used for some time. So, I'm going to (eventually) try and scan from a hard copy into PDF. I don't think we'll have a copyright issue because the Editor let authors retain the copyright and we aren't charging anything for this. I'm also trying to get back in contact with a person I worked with who was on the team that evaluated the CAS-X (one of USAF's many attempts to get rid of the A-10 and buy more F-16s) concept proposals back in the day. One of the things he told me that was when his USAF team did the evaluations, the F-16 did not win (I believe it came in third). At which point senior USAF would come in and say, "We don't think you did the evaluation quite right", or "We don't believe you completely understand the mission". When the results came back much the same, it was decided that maybe CAS-X was not that good an idea anyway, let's just buy more F-16s. .

Congress got involved and said the A-7F seemed like such an economical and effective idea that they would fund the conversion of two A-7Ds (USAF didn't even want to think about the portion of the full proposed that envisioned using some of the A-7Es USN was retiring so as not to reduce AF operational aircraft at the beginning) to test the aerodynamic claims. USAF said that's really not necessary, let's just buy more F-16s. Congress was insistent and my article ended just before the two aircraft were constructed and tested. So the two aircraft were tested. The report back essentially said that we tested them, the airframe will do what Vought claims and let's just buy more F-16s.

I'm also trying to dig up some recordings of the interviews I did which included data that didn't make it into the article. Such as yes, the A-7F was essentially an updated A-7X reflecting advances in technology and if Navy airframes were used the refueling system would be changed and the brakes would be bigger.

I totally understand that this has nothing to do with the actual topic at hand (there's an A-7 Corsair II topic), but since you asked...

(Still think we should have a dedicate FARA topic)
 
yasotay said:
Design refinement.
Click to expand...
Indeed... When you click on (4) a short video clip shows how weapons are deployed.
...Not sure if that mechanism is the best I can imagine.
 

Attachments

  • 20200309_182200.jpg
    20200309_182200.jpg
    20.3 KB · Views: 94
  • 20200309_182250.png
    20200309_182250.png
    357.9 KB · Views: 80
  • 20200309_183107.jpg
    20200309_183107.jpg
    340.3 KB · Views: 77
Last edited:
It's interesting that this hinged coaxial rotor design makes use of a wing. It suggests that unlike the rigid rotors used by Sikorsky, retreating blade stall is handled by offloading lift to the wing.
 
Doubt this is a surprise to anyone. JMR/FLRAA is one of the few efforts of Army Futures Command that is still working as advertised.
 
yasotay said:
www.verticalmag.com

Bell's Valor, Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant advance in U.S. Army Future Assault Aircraft program

The Army announced the FLRAA competitive demonstration and risk reduction contracts March 16, after a protracted industry-led demonstration program that launched both aircraft.
www.verticalmag.com www.verticalmag.com

Good synopsis from Vertical Magazine
Click to expand...


It will be interesting to see how much the proposal designs depart from the prototypes. In Bell's case, a smaller tail is likely given all the concept artwork. For Sikorsky, I wonder if they will re-examine the possibility of mounting the engines lower to get the overall height more like the Raider. I have a feeling that will be deemed too risky.
 
fredymac said:
yasotay said:
www.verticalmag.com

Bell's Valor, Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant advance in U.S. Army Future Assault Aircraft program

The Army announced the FLRAA competitive demonstration and risk reduction contracts March 16, after a protracted industry-led demonstration program that launched both aircraft.
www.verticalmag.com www.verticalmag.com

Good synopsis from Vertical Magazine
Click to expand...


It will be interesting to see how much the proposal designs depart from the prototypes. In Bell's case, a smaller tail is likely given all the concept artwork. For Sikorsky, I wonder if they will re-examine the possibility of mounting the engines lower to get the overall height more like the Raider. I have a feeling that will be deemed too risky.
Click to expand...

It will be interesting to see how much the governments requirements have changed since 2013(?). The JMR demonstrators were sized of the conceptual requirements of the day. That said I do not expect significant change to what we have seen because it introduces risk. The anathema of the bureaucracy and share holder alike.
 
Grey Havoc said:
yasotay said:
That said I do not expect significant change to what we have seen because it introduces risk. The anathema of the bureaucracy and share holder alike.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, desperate times call for desperate measures.
Click to expand...


But what makes a bureaucracy desperate regardless of the times? Usually it is (only) loss of turf or budget. I suspect the SB1 will evolve much like Raider X vs Raider even if Sikorsky were to present an option to revise the layout for reduced height.
 
I predict either Bell or Sikorsky has FARA. Sikorsky if industrial base and speed matters (because I don't know how Bell loses FLRAA). Bell if the Raider's extra speed carries no weight. Ranked:

1. Sikorsky
2. Bell
3. Boeing
4. Karem
5. AVX
 
@sferrin - concur with your assessment. I think Sikorsky has a good chance because their design supports SOF requirements (AH-6 and MH-6) without a new fuselage.
 
yasotay said:
@sferrin - concur with your assessment. I think Sikorsky has a good chance because their design supports SOF requirements (AH-6 and MH-6) without a new fuselage.
Click to expand...

So does AVX. The thing is, since a troop compartment is not a requirement for FARA or the Army scout mission (no other Army scout had one, the OH-58's was filled with equipment), how much credit will Army give for having one? Will it be enough to offset the possible higher cost for having it there? Sikorsky also has to convince a lot of people that given the history of XH-59, X2 demonstrator, S-97 and SB>1 so far, they've really got this X2 technology figured out and on the right track.
 
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
@sferrin - concur with your assessment. I think Sikorsky has a good chance because their design supports SOF requirements (AH-6 and MH-6) without a new fuselage.
Click to expand...

So does AVX. The thing is, since a troop compartment is not a requirement for FARA or the Army scout mission (no other Army scout had one, the OH-58's was filled with equipment), how much credit will Army give for having one? Will it be enough to offset the possible higher cost for having it there? Sikorsky also has to convince a lot of people that given the history of XH-59, X2 demonstrator, S-97 and SB>1 so far, they've really got this X2 technology figured out and on the right track.
Click to expand...

The Special Operations Command is a partner in FARA and FLRAA program. You are correct that the Big Army has no requirement for troop carrying (Scout pilots HATED being used as a taxi service back in the OH-58A/C days), but if your design happens to have a weapons bay that could also hold six seats, well...
 

Sikorsky, Bell Win U.S. Army FLRAA Awards | Aviation Week Network

The U.S. Army has awarded Sikorsky $97 million and Bell $84 million for Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competitive demonstration and risk reduction (CD&RR), the service’s project manager said.
aviationweek.com aviationweek.com

"There is a $7 million difference in the project agreements. That is because although the scope of each proposal was similar, the companies have different technical and costing approaches and phasing of work, Col. David Phillips, FLRAA project manager, told reporters March 17"

Sikorsky - Boeing are seeming to do everything they can to loose this effort.
 
Math seems wrong...

I think the sword cuts both ways.
If Bell has a hiccup and runs over their figure, and Sikorsky's program stays at or lower than their estimate, I think it only shows their program pitch was closer to reality.
 
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
@sferrin - concur with your assessment. I think Sikorsky has a good chance because their design supports SOF requirements (AH-6 and MH-6) without a new fuselage.
Click to expand...

So does AVX. The thing is, since a troop compartment is not a requirement for FARA or the Army scout mission (no other Army scout had one, the OH-58's was filled with equipment), how much credit will Army give for having one? Will it be enough to offset the possible higher cost for having it there? Sikorsky also has to convince a lot of people that given the history of XH-59, X2 demonstrator, S-97 and SB>1 so far, they've really got this X2 technology figured out and on the right track.
Click to expand...

The Special Operations Command is a partner in FARA and FLRAA program. You are correct that the Big Army has no requirement for troop carrying (Scout pilots HATED being used as a taxi service back in the OH-58A/C days), but if your design happens to have a weapons bay that could also hold six seats, well...
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: It all depends on how the final RFP reads. If it includes a requirement for a cabin, then your two finalists are going to be Sikorsky and AVX. If it doesn't include a requirement for a cabin, then a bid can't be rejected for not having one, and everybody's still in the game at this point. Regarding cabin size, AVX has an advantage. It appears that on an X2, most of the fuselage space underneath the rotor center is taken up by the mast and transmission. While a weapons bay would be feasible in the lower part of the fuselage , you're not going to have the space usable for a troop compartment. So Raider X's available space would be the area forward of that but behind the cockpit. OTOH, AVX, using a conventional rotor mount would have more fuselage space available, and it appears that its troop carrying capability is going to be larger (in both cases sans internal weapons I would surmise).

Now contract-wise, it depends if they go for a Lowest Cost Technically Acceptable or Best Value. The advantage to the former is that it is much simpler to award an harder to protest. You put out your minimum acceptable requirements, publish what if any extra credit you'll give for exceeding the minimum and then award to whoever is technically capable and costs the least. The disadvantage is that you can't look at anything else in making the award. Let's say Karem met all the requirements plus offered supersonic speed and 50% greater range with no penalty anywhere else, but costed 10% more than the lowest bidder. If there was extra credit only for up to say, 210 knots, then any speed beyond that couldn't be taken into consideration in making the award except as a tie breaker.

A Best Value would allow you to take that into consideration, but you'd have to be much more precisely descriptive on how and why you came to award to anyone except the lowest bidder. You might get a more optimum result, but It is much more complicated and protestable.

A classic example was the first KC-X competition. Boeing protested on the grounds not that their KC-767 was more capable overall, but that the things Aribus got extra credit for to offset their costs were things that USAF had said wouldn't be worth extra credit and things when the A330 tanker didn't meet requirements were waived. Boeing claimed that if USAF had specified in the solicitation what they eventually came to make the award upon, they would have bid a more expensive but more capable KC-777. GAO came back and ruled that while they weren't saying that the KC-330 was not a more capable choice overall than a KC-767, by the rules USAF itself made up, they couldn't award the way they did.

Boeing used this philosophy to win T-X. They saw that the credit given for exceeding requirements wasn't all that much, so rather than bid the best design they could, they bid a plane that would meet all requirements but would concentrate on lowest cost.

My point to all this blather is that with awards looked at so intently now, and this being Army's fifth attempt to replace the OH-58, just having the capability to have a cabin may not be worth that much except as a tie breaker.
 
_Del_ said:
Math seems wrong...

I think the sword cuts both ways.
If Bell has a hiccup and runs over their figure, and Sikorsky's program stays at or lower than their estimate, I think it only shows their program pitch was closer to reality.
Click to expand...


I think it's more that Bell is using a more known technology with a lot of flight time behind it, while Sikorsky is going with a more technology-risky, much less proven technology. It should be expected that development costs would be more, and Army is recognizing this in the amount provided for the Government's share.
 
Last edited:
Also consider that Bell tilt rotors mechanisms are not exactly the same as those of the Osprey. It would then still be prudent to consider their approach as comporting a degree of risk.
 
Last edited:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
@sferrin - concur with your assessment. I think Sikorsky has a good chance because their design supports SOF requirements (AH-6 and MH-6) without a new fuselage.
Click to expand...

So does AVX. The thing is, since a troop compartment is not a requirement for FARA or the Army scout mission (no other Army scout had one, the OH-58's was filled with equipment), how much credit will Army give for having one? Will it be enough to offset the possible higher cost for having it there? Sikorsky also has to convince a lot of people that given the history of XH-59, X2 demonstrator, S-97 and SB>1 so far, they've really got this X2 technology figured out and on the right track.
Click to expand...

The Special Operations Command is a partner in FARA and FLRAA program. You are correct that the Big Army has no requirement for troop carrying (Scout pilots HATED being used as a taxi service back in the OH-58A/C days), but if your design happens to have a weapons bay that could also hold six seats, well...
Click to expand...

Here's the thing: It all depends on how the final RFP reads. If it includes a requirement for a cabin, then your two finalists are going to be Sikorsky and AVX. If it doesn't include a requirement for a cabin, then a bid can't be rejected for not having one, and everybody's still in the game at this point. Regarding cabin size, AVX has an advantage. It appears that on an X2, most of the fuselage space underneath the rotor center is taken up by the mast and transmission. While a weapons bay would be feasible in the lower part of the fuselage , you're not going to have the space usable for a troop compartment. So Raider X's available space would be the area forward of that but behind the cockpit. OTOH, AVX, using a conventional rotor mount would have more fuselage space available, and it appears that its troop carrying capability is going to be larger (in both cases sans internal weapons I would surmise).

Now contract-wise, it depends if they go for a Lowest Cost Technically Acceptable or Best Value. The advantage to the former is that it is much simpler to award an harder to protest. You put out your minimum acceptable requirements, publish what if any extra credit you'll give for exceeding the minimum and then award to whoever is technically capable and costs the least. The disadvantage is that you can't look at anything else in making the award. Let's say Karem met all the requirements plus offered supersonic speed and 50% greater range with no penalty anywhere else, but costed 10% more than the lowest bidder. If there was extra credit only for up to say, 210 knots, then any speed beyond that couldn't be taken into consideration in making the award except as a tie breaker.

A Best Value would allow you to take that into consideration, but you'd have to be much more precisely descriptive on how and why you came to award to anyone except the lowest bidder. You might get a more optimum result, but It is much more complicated and protestable.

A classic example was the first KC-X competition. Boeing protested on the grounds not that their KC-767 was more capable overall, but that the things Aribus got extra credit for to offset their costs were things that USAF had said wouldn't be worth extra credit and things when the A330 tanker didn't meet requirements were waived. Boeing claimed that if USAF had specified in the solicitation what they eventually came to make the award upon, they would have bid a more expensive but more capable KC-777. GAO came back and ruled that while they weren't saying that the KC-330 was not a more capable choice overall than a KC-767, by the rules USAF itself made up, they couldn't award the way they did.

Boeing used this philosophy to win T-X. They saw that the credit given for exceeding requirements wasn't all that much, so rather than bid the best design they could, they bid a plane that would meet all requirements but would concentrate on lowest cost.

My point to all this blather is that with awards looked at so intently now, and this being Army's fifth attempt to replace the OH-58, just having the capability to have a cabin may not be worth that much except as a tie breaker.
Click to expand...
yeah
Let's say Karem met all the requirements plus offered supersonic speed and 50% greater range with no penalty anywhere else, but costed 10% more than the lowest bidder.
 
TomcatViP said:
Also consider that Bell tilt rotors mechanisms are not exactly the same as those of the Osprey. It would then still be prudent to consider their approach as comporting a degree of risk. Hence the multiplication of flights to de-risk the technogy on the long run.

I think that the budget allocated to Bell might give incentive to that instead of pushing them in a race for even more technology.
Click to expand...

True, but they've been flying Tilt-Rotors successfully for decades, and the V-280's been flying pretty much without problems for over two years and has demonstrated everything required for the JMR-TD phase and exceeded the requirements in a number of areas. Plus, AFAIK, there haven't been any significant problems attributable to the V-280's Tilt-Rotor design. Sikorsky hasn't come close to that. So, whatever one might opine about the two companies' designs, X2 clearly represents the greater risk.
 
A great synopsis @F-14D. I agree that the availability of cabin space to meet SOF requirements would not be a primary decision point.
 
F-14D said:
True, but they've been flying Tilt-Rotors successfully for decades, and the V-280's been flying pretty much without problems for over two years and has demonstrated everything required for the JMR-TD phase and exceeded the requirements in a number of areas. Plus, AFAIK, there haven't been any significant problems attributable to the V-280's Tilt-Rotor design. Sikorsky hasn't come close to that. So, whatever one might opine about the two companies' designs, X2 clearly represents the greater risk.
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely.

But someone could argue that the number of flight yet are not that high. Consider that the Osprey met most of its problems while in service. The variety of T.O and landing conditions crossed with the variability of timed and zoned pilot proficiency still makes that an uncertainty (simply because it's a new technology). Obviously FBW will narrow the range of problems that could surface but it will also conversely make it more difficult to predict, trace and make post-failure analysis. Think at all the Gremlin's that were never fully flushed out of previous FBW designs like the A320.

Bell does not have the comfortable position of imposing an heavily walled flight domain like they can do in civil aerospace thanks to the very nature of the mission design. Like LM/GM did with the F-16, they should take the opportunity to fly test prototype everywhere around the world meeting with a variety of potential service user while inside the safe domain of having a company test pilot seated aside the "trainee". That valuable experience will inevitably empower trust for any future user as well as for the company at a time when capital investment promise to be heavy (see the production rate and number that would have to be put in-line to cover for service expectations).

That you would know, I am pro-Bell here. But if Bell wins, it will be targeted by an even nastier press and PR campaign that LM's F-35 has ever been. Those guys have the experience and still the resources etc... It won't be difficult for them to resurface early Osprey failures like they weren't ashamed to do with the F-104.

So my hope is to see Bell fly their Valor way more extensively.... And comes to Le Bourget!
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Yes, absolutely.

But someone could argue that the number of fight yet are not that height. Consider that the Osprey meets most of its problem while in service. The variety of T.O and landing conditions crossed with the variability of timed and zoned pilot proficiency still makes that an uncertainty (simply because it's a new technology). Obviously FBW will narrow the range of problems that could surface but it will also conversely make it more difficult to predict, trace and make post-failure analysis. Think at the all the Gremlin's that were never fully flushed out of previous FBW designs like the A320.

Bell does not have the comfortable position of imposing an heavily walled flight domain like in civil aerospace thanks to the very nature of the mission design. Like LM/GM did with the F-16, they should take the opportunity to fly test prototype everywhere around the world meeting with a variety of potential service user while inside the safe domain of having a company test pilot seated aside the "trainee". That valuable experience will inevitably empower trust for any future user as well as for the company at a time when capital investment promise to be heavy (see the production rate and number that would have to be put in-line to cover for service expectations).

That you would know, I am pro-Bell here. But if Bell wins, it will be targeted by an even nastier press and PR campaign that LM's F-35 has ever been. Those guys have the experience and still the resources etc... It won't be difficult for them to resurface early Osprey failures like they weren't ashamed to do with the F-104.

So my hope is to see Bell fly it way more extensively.... And comes to Le Bourget!
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what you mean in your first sentence. If you are meaning that the number of flight hours of the V-280 aren't that high, you are quite correct. It's a limited use technology demonstrator (the "TD" in JMR-TD"). But keep in mind that in those flight hours it has demonstrated everything required for JMR-TD and exceeded requirements in a number of areas. As of now, it's been much more successful than all the X2 aircraft, let alone just the SB>1, so it is definitely the lower risk technology today. It's not without risk, but still much less risky than X2 at this point.

The point that Osprey met most of its problems in service is debatable. Most of the problems were with the pre-2001 versions of the aircraft which were prototyped and tested with inadequate funding due to politics and infighting at the DoD level as other programs tried to grab its funds. Its record in service has been quite good. It's generally considered USMC's safest rotorcraft and some argue safest aircraft period. Also keep in mind that although there are hundreds of thousands of hours on the aircraft, its predecessor, CH-46, had been around since before the Vietnam War and had had far more total flight hours. What that means is that one Class A mishap in the Osprey affects the accident rate statistics much more in comparison to the Sea Knight, even though the Sea Knight had more total accidents. I can't really compare statistics on losses due to shootdowns because despite all its operations in the Middle East and Afghanistan, no Osprey has ever been shot down. Osprey's biggest problem has been that the demand for them has been so high that when they come off the line, rather than go through the normal post-production standardization process that brings them to a common fleet standard, they've been immediately sent into service with various levels of mods done at various times in the field. We've ended up with a fleet consisting of semi-custom birds. This is finally being addressed, albeit belatedly. Again, as far as I know, none of the problems have been due to the tilt-Rotor technology

Regarding FBW technology, the V-22 uses a triply redundant FBW flight control system, as does the AW609, so there are years and years of seeing how Tilt-Rotor works with FBW. There have been Gremlins, sure, especially in the testing phase, but that's the nature of the FBW beast. Witness F-22, JAS-39, Bell 525. Witness one of the scariest statements that have been heard from more than one flight crew on the Cockpit Voice Recorders before an accident/ incident: "What's it doing now"? Don't forget that S-97 crash was the result of a FBW "Gremlin".

Now as to testing it everywhere around the world, that's highly desirable but there are a few things to keep in mind here. First, it's a technology demonstrator, although Bell has said that it's essentially a prototype. They've only got so many hours available on the airframe and the blades (the latter factor is what eventually grounded the wildly successful XV-15). Related to that, it's the only one they've got, so at this point they have to be somewhat careful with what they do with it. Also you've got to keep in mind that the craft was partly funded by the Army, so the Army gets to say what they do with it. Bell proposed a while ago to take the Valor on a company funded wide-scale tour, at their expense, but was told no for various reasons, some of which I believe were political and bureaucratic. BTW, very early in the program,they did have Army personnel fly the aircraft. Hearkening back to the XV-15, you only saw it go on wide-scale demonstrations and to Paris after NASA said they were finished with the aircraft and Bell was allowed to lease them back and do all those envelope expansions, tours and demonstrations totally at their own expense and under their control.
 
yasotay said:
breakingdefense.com

FVL Q&A: 7 Leaders On The Future Of Army Aviation - Breaking Defense

New Future Vertical Lift aircraft are just part of the solution. So are new tactics and technology upgrades for existing helicopters.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

From the senior officers in charge of the US Army Aviation
Click to expand...
In the Presidents’ Budget [request for] 2021, there’s $152 million dedicated to getting Spike N-LOS missiles into up to three Combat Aviation Brigades in the swiftest possible manner. We’re currently projecting that it would be an FY22 initial capability. We’re currently projecting that it would be an FY’22 initial [operational] capability. But that’s just our initial increment of the Long-Range Precision Munition. We will follow that on with more detailed requirements to fix some of the challenges that we see already with Spike [and] improve upon that capability.

A USArmy modular missille development should have occured proving continuing lack of leadership all the way up to Congress.
 
No, not surprising. I think there was real potential for an upset selection in this even if it ultimately didn't happen, but with cost and schedule concerns looming it makes sense to go with the two most mature designs from two of most established manufacturers.
 
Last edited:
I agree that any of the contenders could have produced a superb rotorcraft. Loved the pragmatism of the AVX design, and would have really liked to see the Karem all electric high speed rotorcraft jump start new ways to do aircraft controls. With Boeing, I am willing to bet we have not seen the last of their proposed dynamics systems. At the end of the day given the skittishness of the Congress (rightfully so) toward Army Aviation programs, going with the two most mature rotorcraft houses was the right move.
 
It's obvious at this point, that one is getting the Blackhawk replacement and the other is getting FARA. I'm betting on the V-280 as the Blackhawk Replacement and the Sikorsky design for the FARA. Partly due to Bell's outstanding performance on the V-280 program, and, as many of you have already noted, the ability of the Sikorsky FARA design to lose the weapons "doors" and carry SOF in the cabin as an adjunct to FARA.
 
yasotay said:
I agree that any of the contenders could have produced a superb rotorcraft. Loved the pragmatism of the AVX design, and would have really liked to see the Karem all electric high speed rotorcraft jump start new ways to do aircraft controls. With Boeing, I am willing to bet we have not seen the last of their proposed dynamics systems. At the end of the day given the skittishness of the Congress (rightfully so) toward Army Aviation programs, going with the two most mature rotorcraft houses was the right move.
Click to expand...

I'd still like to see an Apache with a pusher prop. :(
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom