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

[Spyclip]

As Monty Python would say, "And now for something completely different!"

https://aviationweek.com/shownews/f...-third-x2-twin-rotor-military-helicopter?s=03

Building overseas....trying to get some international funding since they may have sucked USG dry on the entire X2 paradigm at this point.

None of the European foreign governments are privy to the real results of the Raider and Defiant flight testing, so Sikorsky looks to be trying to get the ball rolling before the US Army makes a downselect on FLRAA and all the dirty laundry gets aired throughout the inevitable protest by whoever loses.


Also recently noticed that Lockheed/Sikorsky hosted the Italian Minister of Defense with the Lockheed CEO showing off another S-97 test flight. Wouldn't Defiant be a much more relevant aircraft to show or demo? Has it even flown since returning to Florida from AAAA months ago?

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/paul...n-president-activity-6953043421502578688-pu3g

 

[yasotay]

I would hesitate to read to much into this decision. It is likely more about coming up with an H-60 replacement within NATO (Europe). NATO may note need (or want to pay for) the extended range required for the US FLRAA program.

As to Defiant continuing to fly, I would suspect that they are waiting for down select to decide if it makes financial sense to continue to open the envelope.

 

[yasotay]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...lls-v-280-valor-awaits-us-army-flraa-decision
I only include this as the article indicates that the US Army has announced its FLRAA down select decision is now in October. Originally it was June. If you don't think there is more to the decision than just who did best, well surprise! Half of the rational I would suspect is to allow the government lawyers time to get their collective story straight before the inevitable protest.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...martin-offering-defiant-raider-nato-countries
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/...plan-to-develop-new-x2-helicopter-for-europe/
‘There is huge interest in something between Raider X and Defiant X and this is why we are looking at the market,' a Sikorsky spokesperson during an 18 July company press briefing at the Farnborough International Airshow.

The "Goldilopter"...

https://verticalmag.com/news/x-2-technology-may-see-european-platform-developed/
Here SIK/LMCO states that the "new X2" would be built in Europe.

 

[yasotay]

https://verticalmag.com/news/bells-v-280-valor-mockup-on-display-at-farnborough/
Bell CEO is speaking very confidently.

 

[Sferrin]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...lls-v-280-valor-awaits-us-army-flraa-decision
I only include this as the article indicates that the US Army has announced its FLRAA down select decision is now in October. Originally it was June. If you don't think there is more to the decision than just who did best, well surprise! Half of the rational I would suspect is to allow the government lawyers time to get their collective story straight before the inevitable protest.

You're right about that. I'd hazard a guess that one team will win FARA and the other FLRAA.

 

[yasotay]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...lls-v-280-valor-awaits-us-army-flraa-decision
I only include this as the article indicates that the US Army has announced its FLRAA down select decision is now in October. Originally it was June. If you don't think there is more to the decision than just who did best, well surprise! Half of the rational I would suspect is to allow the government lawyers time to get their collective story straight before the inevitable protest.

You're right about that. I'd hazard a guess that one team will win FARA and the other FLRAA.

Have thought that myself since the two competing teams were down selected..

 

[TomcatViP]

Just a nice picture. But it needs some ballistic armoring.

 

[Spyclip]

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...lls-v-280-valor-awaits-us-army-flraa-decision
I only include this as the article indicates that the US Army has announced its FLRAA down select decision is now in October. Originally it was June. If you don't think there is more to the decision than just who did best, well surprise! Half of the rational I would suspect is to allow the government lawyers time to get their collective story straight before the inevitable protest.

You're right about that. I'd hazard a guess that one team will win FARA and the other FLRAA.

Have thought that myself since the two competing teams were down selected..

Sounds like the "investment community" is assuming differently if you believe Bank of America Merrill Lynch analysts!

https://seekingalpha.com/article/45...t-on-q1-2022-results-earnings-call-transcript

In the investment community, it seems like there's this assumption. I'm just going to lay this out here and say that Textron is going to win Future Vertical Lift. And I'm curious from your point of view, why you don't think that is the case? And I mean, if you could walk through for all of us on the call, the pluses and minuses of a layout like defiant got over valor? I mean you've got counter-rotating helicopters, what do you get with that that you don't get for the tilt rotor and vice versa?

 

[jsport]

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

 

[yasotay]

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

A very carefully and well crafted editorial. Without knowing Congressman Davis's background in Army Aviation, it is hard to tell if he is truly taking a centrist unbiased position (doubtful) or carefully taking a tact that makes it hard to pin a preference on him.
The point here is that given the impact of the decision it should be no surprise that it is going to be a wild ride over the next few months. I suspect that the Army has already made a decision at the initial level.

 

[HaveVoid]

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

A very carefully and well crafted editorial. Without knowing Congressman Davis's background in Army Aviation, it is hard to tell if he is truly taking a centrist unbiased position (doubtful) or carefully taking a tact that makes it hard to pin a preference on him.
The point here is that given the impact of the decision it should be no surprise that it is going to be a wild ride over the next few months. I suspect that the Army has already made a decision at the initial level.

As someone who has enjoyed this thread for years, and watched this program going back a long time, I don't know that I find his editorial to be particularly devoid of an obvious agenda in all honesty.

He trots out an argument that has been the center of most of the pro-Sikorsky-Boeing pieces over the course of the past year or so (...this means massing combat power — infantry, artillery, supplies — on the objective..., ...it is a multi-aircraft mission that requires certain flight dynamics to maximize the number of aircraft in a landing zone...). This has been a repeated (and as far as I have seen) unsubstantiated claim that the Defiant will be able to do this in a way that the Valor will not, given that the V-280's longest dimension (across the span) is not appreciably longer than the UH-60 that it would replace (or the Defiant against which it is competing).

We then have a comment implying excessive "switching costs", using a Tilt-rotor example which can only be read as another attempt to pin a higher-cost narrative on the V-280, but it overlooks the significant challenges that will be posed by the significant height of the SB-1. Will that aircraft fit in existing hangars? Will you be able to do Engine or Blade or gearbox removals using existing Army ground support equipment? I believe that Bell demonstrated this on the V-280 after retiring their demonstrator. This also seems to overlook the chasm between the technological maturity of the two configurations. Tilt-rotors have amassed in excess of half a million flight hours just with V-22 alone based on public releases from the past few years, meanwhile the V-280 demonstrator has flown more hours than all of Sikorsky & Sikorsky Boeing's X-2 technology aircraft have combined (per discussion on PPRUNE). There were development challenges and costs associated with Tilt-rotor when it was new. What unidentified risk sits out there for SB-1's configuration?

As a non-Pilot, I am not qualified to touch the "nap-of-the-Earth" flying aspect and whether the SB-1's configuration is superior to a tiltrotor there. And his comments on the Defense Industrial base could honestly cut both ways, seeing as Sikorsky and Boeing have had more public delivery issues than Bell has in recent years (CH-53K delays/cost woes, AH-64E acceptance being halted due to parts issues, MH-139 certification issues).

Politics are a sad inevitability when it comes to aircraft procurement, but I find the kind of nebulous pseudo-independent commentary from "experts" trotted out by each side to be unfortunate. Let the Army evaluate the proposals and select the aircraft which best supports their future warfighting needs - without scaremongering of "This plant will close if we are not chosen" or attempts to push other criteria that should guide the decision.

 

[yasotay]

@HaveVoid - I agree with your assessment.

As someone who has done low level and nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flying extensively it is rarely done at higher speeds. So I doubt that a tilt rotor aircraft would attempt to fly there with the rotors in horizontal flight mode. Most likely they would be vertical or at a slight forward angle (75 degrees?). Bell has demonstrated significantly improved low speed agility with V-280 over that of V-22. Of course being a smaller and lighter platform, with the same engines, it ought to have this. Because the U.S. Army has no experience with tilt rotor it becomes something of a revelation to them that the platform can fly very well with the proprotors in an intermediate position that allows it to fly very low contour at higher speeds without threat of the prop rotors hitting any part of the firmament before the bottom of the aircraft. Like most military organizations it is difficult to accept significant change.

A humorous note for all here, the SB>1 was nicknamed the "Wowcopter" at this years Army Aviation Assoc. summit. This came about because a significant number of people who stood next to it, craned their necks to look at the tall rotor mast and proclaimed "Wow!" Ironically the Bell Flight Team seemed most happy that Sikorsky brought the aircraft to the summit.

 

[Moose]

@HaveVoid - I agree with your assessment.

As someone who has done low level and nap-of-the-earth (NOE) flying extensively it is rarely done at higher speeds. So I doubt that a tilt rotor aircraft would attempt to fly there with the rotors in horizontal flight mode. Most likely they would be vertical or at a slight forward angle (75 degrees?). Bell has demonstrated significantly improved low speed agility with V-280 over that of V-22. Of course being a smaller and lighter platform, with the same engines, it ought to have this. Because the U.S. Army has no experience with tilt rotor it becomes something of a revelation to them that the platform can fly very well with the proprotors in an intermediate position that allows it to fly very low contour at higher speeds without threat of the prop rotors hitting any part of the firmament before the bottom of the aircraft. Like most military organizations it is difficult to accept significant change.

A humorous note for all here, the SB>1 was nicknamed the "Wowcopter" at this years Army Aviation Assoc. summit. This came about because a significant number of people who stood next to it, craned their necks to look at the tall rotor mast and proclaimed "Wow!" Ironically the Bell Flight Team seemed most happy that Sikorsky brought the aircraft to the summit.

They should hear what naval-minded people say when they see it.

 

[Hydroman]

I think there is going to be one of the coaxial rotor/pushers selected by the Army just don't know which one, I think they want to get one into service and see how it would really perform. I would assume the USN and USMC could benefit from either contenders offerings, my list (I may be way off on this):
FLRAA - Sikorsky Defiant (could also be useful to USN and USMC)
FARA - Bell Invictus (could be a USMC Cobra successor)
V-280 - An additional, simpler tiltrotor for USMC and USN, they seem to like the V-22
S-97 - You got me on this one, I just don't see this as an attack chopper (side/side seating, large mass/tall coaxial rotor)?
I am not a helicopter guy, definitely open to opinions.

 

[HaveVoid]

Assuming the Compound Coaxial technology proves viable and ready for "primetime", I could actually see a compelling case for the S-97 as the winner for the FARA tender. The fact that it has the wider fuselage and could allow for the transport of a (small) number of troops might lend itself to replacing the 160th SOAR's fleet of MH-6 little birds.

It also seems likely that, with a dedicated pusher, the S-97 may be faster than Bell's offering for that same program. a V-280 Valor/S-97 Raider X pairing would seem to offer the Army the greatest amount of Speed & Range.

I'd imagine some if this also boils down to what attributes are most desirable for the Army:

Is maximum performance for speed/range most important (advantage V-280, S-97)?

Is technological maturity and low risk configuration the most important (Advantage V-280, 360)?
[As a side note here, I am amazed how little discussion the S-97 Raider's Hard Landing/Mishap/Crash garnered. I never saw a final report on that occurrence, and cannot find anything on the FAA/NTSB site. Other Websites do seem to have some of the details. https://www.accidents.app/summaries/accident/20170802X24925]

Is cost the most important (unsure on who is advantaged for FLRAA on cost, Bell seems to think the 360 as a traditional helicopter will be cheaper than the Raider-X for FARA).

 

[yasotay]

Cost is a critical factor in all Army aircraft decisions. This explains why one of the vendors tried to pin the competition with requiring a complete redevelopment of Army airfields and hangars to operate and maintain their aircraft.

 

[yasotay]

Senate proposes FLRAA development funding bump
(Inside Defense, July 22, Evan Ochsner)
The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to provide more money for the Army to continue developing the aircraft it says will replace the Black Hawk.
The committee, in a report accompanying its version of the fiscal year 2023 defense authorization bill, proposed adding $23 million in research and development funding to the $1.2 billion the Army requested in advanced development funds for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft.
“The committee recognizes this critical transition period to a program of record,” the report states.
The committee intends for the funds “to maintain program momentum by funding long-lead materials and rapid system prototyping.”

This part of the FVL program is now a "poster child" for Army modernization. The next three months are likely to be tumultuous behind the doors and halls of the Pentagon and Congress.

 

[TomcatViP]

FVL training aspect with emphasis on high fidelity simulation:

https://www.ausa.org/articles/future-flyer-fvl-aircraft-require-innovative-training-techniques

 

[TomcatViP]

Did we missed that?

"The U.S. and Dutch militaries signed an agreement Wednesday in the Netherlands to work together on future vertical lift programs, according to a statement from the U.S. Army."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...lands-agree-to-share-helicopter-developments/

 

[yasotay]

Well I saw that, but forgot to post it.

Thanks for posting it.

 

[RavenOne]

Did we missed that?

"The U.S. and Dutch militaries signed an agreement Wednesday in the Netherlands to work together on future vertical lift programs, according to a statement from the U.S. Army."

https://www.defensenews.com/land/20...lands-agree-to-share-helicopter-developments/

i was told about the intended Dutch participation at Bell V-280 Chalet the day before. I was reunited with V-280 mock up (after 6 years from its last appearance at Heli Expo 2016 in Louisville and Farnborough itself that year) at Farnborough Airshow on the Tuesday of the event (my pics Below).

Bearing in mind various allied nations have visited Bell advanced Vertical Lift office in Arlington over the year from our RAF and MoD.

cheers

 

[yasotay]

@RavenOne - blue jeans and corner-kickers! You fit right in with the Texas crowd.
As always thanks for the pictures and information.

 

[Spyclip]

[As a side note here, I am amazed how little discussion the S-97 Raider's Hard Landing/Mishap/Crash garnered. I never saw a final report on that occurrence, and cannot find anything on the FAA/NTSB site.

The original link to the Helicopter Specialist report on the NTSB site is now broken, and it had all the juicy details. But a good overview was published by verticalmag here: https://verticalmag.com/news/ntsb-releases-more-details-s-97-raider-accident/

Long story short, all rigid rotors provide only moments though the mast for aircraft control, so on the ground its a total dog to taxi and has flight control software implemented to majorly boost input gains. This is why they almost always hover taxied.

On the incident flight, they were slowly ground taxiing on the apron facing the runway due to their chase plane having scrubbed (would normally have just lifted and air taxied) and Bill noticed a slight roll while on the ground so he lifted off to stabilize. Suddenly, per the witness and pilot reports and the NTSB specialist report (I will see if I still have a copy saved), there were 5 seconds of rapidly increasing (up to 60 degree) reversing roll oscillations, during which a main wheel contacted the ground again resetting gains. The immense forces caused the blades to intermesh creating a "cloud of gray dust" and vaporizing the outboard 1/3 span of each. Bill Fell slammed the collective down and they stroked the gear and did enough airframe damage for N971SK to be a writeoff. Its now trucked around to all the show-and-tell events without the YT706 installed.

*edit*
Was able to comb through the revised NTSB site and find the documents. Be sure to check out the Pilot Statements, Witness Statements, and Helicopter Specialist Report

https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=95726

 

[Spyclip]

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

A very carefully and well crafted editorial. Without knowing Congressman Davis's background in Army Aviation, it is hard to tell if he is truly taking a centrist unbiased position (doubtful) or carefully taking a tact that makes it hard to pin a preference on him.
The point here is that given the impact of the decision it should be no surprise that it is going to be a wild ride over the next few months. I suspect that the Army has already made a decision at the initial level.

As someone who has enjoyed this thread for years, and watched this program going back a long time, I don't know that I find his editorial to be particularly devoid of an obvious agenda in all honesty.

Politics are a sad inevitability when it comes to aircraft procurement, but I find the kind of nebulous pseudo-independent commentary from "experts" trotted out by each side to be unfortunate. Let the Army evaluate the proposals and select the aircraft which best supports their future warfighting needs - without scaremongering of "This plant will close if we are not chosen" or attempts to push other criteria that should guide the decision.

Fully agree it drips with agenda.

It seems clear that Mr. Davis wrote this piece as an attempted silent arm of the Sikorsky propaganda machine (the dead giveaway to me was the pointed use of the phrase "the FLRAA helicopter" in the opening paragraph).

His biography line provided by the Hill makes it seem he is merely a retired US Congressman and Army aviator:

Geoff Davis, a Republican, represented Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District from 2005 to 2012. He is a former Army Aviator and was a member of the House Armed Services and Ways and Means committees.

However, a basic search reveals he is the managing partner of Republic Consulting LLC. Their "What We Do" page clearly outlines their business model

Strategic Planning | Counsel: Success in Washington begins with setting a sound, strategic approach to an issue. For each client, we analyze the issues, assess objectives, and establish a roadmap for accomplishing those objectives. We translate desired outcomes into distinct, achievable actions which are then calibrated as needed throughout the duration of a project.

Lobbying | Advocacy: Successful advocacy is more than simply providing access. Our approach to lobbying is grounded in the deep working relationships we have with decision makers in Congress and the Executive Branch. We know their interests and needs, and we continually work to align them with our clients’ priorities. When we engage policy makers on a client’s behalf, it is never just a meeting, but an ongoing conversation.

Coalition Building: Our bipartisan consultants at Republic have built successful national coalitions on issues ranging from insurance, health care, and intellectual property rights.

Political Analysis: For those seeking to better understand Washington’s myriad of legislative process and regulatory procedure, we provide in-depth analysis, monitoring, and intelligence so that firms can better advise their own clients and make informed decisions about how Washington action or inaction may affect business decisions.

Representative Issue Areas:

• Defense
• Federal Budget & Appropriations
• Financial Services & Fintech
• Health Care Issues
• Immigration
• Labor, Antitrust, & Workforce
• Tax Policy
• Telecommunications
• Privacy
• Technology policy
• Trade

To believe his article (like the myriad others presented as such over the past 18 months) is just an unsolicited opinion piece of a former Aviator and SME would be the height of naivete.

 

[TomS]

I think there is going to be one of the coaxial rotor/pushers selected by the Army just don't know which one, I think they want to get one into service and see how it would really perform. I would assume the USN and USMC could benefit from either contenders offerings, my list (I may be way off on this):
FLRAA - Sikorsky Defiant (could also be useful to USN and USMC)
FARA - Bell Invictus (could be a USMC Cobra successor)
V-280 - An additional, simpler tiltrotor for USMC and USN, they seem to like the V-22
S-97 - You got me on this one, I just don't see this as an attack chopper (side/side seating, large mass/tall coaxial rotor)?
I am not a helicopter guy, definitely open to opinions.

Long overdue reply here, but my guesses for who eventually wins what role would be almost polar opposites.

FLRAA seems more likely to be Bell V-280, at least based on the flight testing we've seen.

Defiant also has serious problems for the Navy, like being too tall to fit surface combatants hangars. I think it's more likely that the Navy's FVL (Maritime Strike) requirement (MH-60R and MQ-8 replacement) is filled with some combination of conventional helicopters (MH-60Z?) and a UAS (possibly some sort of novel configuration VTOL drone). The V-280 has at least shown a folding version that can fit a DDG hangar. But speed isn't the driving requirement here and efficient hover is important.

For FARA, the Raider seems better positioned and might well win on industrial policy grounds. Side-by-side hasn't been a show-stopper for the recce role thus far and having room for a cabin might swing SOCOM's support to the Raider.

As for the Marines, they want an Osprey escort and I don't think Invictus is fast enough. You might see a navalized V-280 for both AH-1 and UH-1 replacement but where the budget comes from, I don't know. Maybe if the Navy went that way as well for FLV (MS), there would be enough development money to go around, but I just can't see why the Navy would want a tiltrotor.

 

[TomcatViP]

Don't forget that the Navy is restarting the Bell V-247. So, I would not expect any dedicated escort version of the 280.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...bell-shows-redesigned-v-247-future-navy-fleet

 

[TomS]

Don't forget that the Navy is restarting the Bell V-247. So, I would not expect any dedicated escort version of the 280.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-sp...bell-shows-redesigned-v-247-future-navy-fleet

For clarity, Bell has redesigned the V-247 as a possible submission to FVL(MS). It's a company initiative, not a USN program right now.

It's an interesting aircraft, but you cannot fulfill all of the Navy's requirements for embarked combatant aviation with a UAS like V-247. Somewhere in the FVL(MS) mix needs to be an aircraft with a cabin (and probably a flight crew) that can deliver a VBSS team, insert and recover a SAR swimmer, carry a Medevac patient and attendant, crossdeck personnel, etc.

That is where I would not be surprised to see an evolved H-60 selected. Possibly one with a similar relationship to the current MH-60 as the CH-53K has to the E model, which is to say, not much except a similarity of configuration and a data plate.

 

[yasotay]

The only DoD element more adverse to change than the US Army is the US Navy. I have to agree that an H-60Z would make the USN and SIK/LMCO very happy. No new training regime, less software risk. etc. It keeps SIK/LMCO production going.

 

[TomcatViP]

@TomS : since Bell had officially abandoned the V-247 program prior to its announcement that they are working on a new, nimbler evolution of the aircraft for the USN, I made the choice that there was some Navy inputs into that.

 

[TomS]

@TomS : since Bell had officially abandoned the V-247 program prior to its announcement that they are working on a new, nimbler evolution of the aircraft for the USN, I made the choice that there was some Navy inputs into that.

I think it's more that Bell originally tailored the design to the USMC requirement for MUX. When that was cancelled, the V-247 went quiet (but not dead). Then when FLV (MS) was defined, Bell adjusted the existing V-247 design to suit it better. None of that was at the direction of the services, though I'm sure there are conversations.

 

[Hydroman]

TomS and all, what's amazing is that all the services have some very good choices here regarding the mix of Sikorsky and Bell offerings and in my opinion, I would like to see a mix of the coaxial/pushers, tiltrotors and a conventional helo, its been a while since there has been this much variety. All services, choose wisely based upon your mission and operational requirements.

 

[Moose]

On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.

Of course, another wrench in the works is the generational growth in ASW helicopters. Larger/more capable sensor suites, larger/more capable weapons, and so on have given birth to large, 3-turbine ASW helicopters in other navies. The USN might decide they need that kind of performance in a future ASW aircraft, though I'd put my money on staying in the FLRAA size class and adding more drones.

 

[TomcatViP]

The question is also what room is left for something mid-range b/w a classical design and a high speed helo if the services keep most of their H-60 and CH-47 (re-engine) aside of procuring new tilt rotors.

Wouldn't that fill better the needs for all the adverted points raised by LM?

 

[yasotay]

@TomcatViP - Whatever the USN wants their FVL (MS) must fit in existing hangars on the hulls. The USN is not likely at all to afford a rebuild of its ships to fit something new. This is why I am predisposed to an H-60 variant. There is room for change that can produce improved performance for H-60 platform, composite tail boom, electric (swiveling?) tail rotor, advanced rotor blades, etc.

@Moose - I too noted that the USN has quietly added special missions to the list of options that the CMV-22 provides them. With the extra fuel of CMV-22 and eventually a refuel drone, significant increases in range for special missions will be very possible. Of course even with fold capability keeping some of those onboard for more powerful ASW takes space away for strike. Tilt rotors can hover, but until new engineering (well old engineering reinvigorated) makes it a more efficient hover platform I just don't see it making a likely key performance parameter. While they can squeeze onto the fantail of a destroyer or frigate, they are to big to fit the hangar and live there.

@Hydroman - Indeed I am still betting that we will see both, but for political and industry base reasons, not overly about operational viability.

 

[TomcatViP]

I am entirely with an improved Blackhawk with extra speed to fit the need behind Defiant philosophy. But still, a long range, high speed and modern tilt rotor is something too much valuable to bypass.

Now that the technology has been de-risked, it is certain that others will have a try and some even succeed.

 

[yasotay]

I am entirely with an improved Blackhawk with extra speed to fit the need behind Defiant philosophy. But still, a long range, high speed and modern tilt rotor is something too much valuable to bypass.

Now that the technology has been de-risked, it is certain that others will have a try and some even succeed.

Leonardo is well on it's way. Many of the eVTOL platforms appear to support a claim for the efficiency of the aircraft type.

 

[TomS]

On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.

Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.

 

[HaveVoid]

On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.

Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.

I think one factor here is that V-22 production is likely nearing its end. The Navy is only just now starting to think about what they want to recapitalize their MH-60 fleet some years down the road. the CMV-22 simply won't be an option then, and I highly doubt that there is the desire or financial capital to invest in a Sierra replacement whilst the fleet is still so young. By default, I think their choices will have to fall on non-Osprey derivatives - whether SB-1 or V-280 derived, or otherwise. Besides, who knows if they can't re-engine the MH-60s with the T901 engine developed by the Army and get increased performance & endurance through the efficiencies of that engine. That could prove the most low-risk solution - allowing them to pursue a more exotic solution as an MQ-8C replacement.

https://thehill.com/opinion/nationa...Toverlay=2002c2d9-c344-4bbb-8610-e5794efcfa7d

A very carefully and well crafted editorial. Without knowing Congressman Davis's background in Army Aviation, it is hard to tell if he is truly taking a centrist unbiased position (doubtful) or carefully taking a tact that makes it hard to pin a preference on him.
The point here is that given the impact of the decision it should be no surprise that it is going to be a wild ride over the next few months. I suspect that the Army has already made a decision at the initial level.

As someone who has enjoyed this thread for years, and watched this program going back a long time, I don't know that I find his editorial to be particularly devoid of an obvious agenda in all honesty.

Politics are a sad inevitability when it comes to aircraft procurement, but I find the kind of nebulous pseudo-independent commentary from "experts" trotted out by each side to be unfortunate. Let the Army evaluate the proposals and select the aircraft which best supports their future warfighting needs - without scaremongering of "This plant will close if we are not chosen" or attempts to push other criteria that should guide the decision.

Fully agree it drips with agenda.

It seems clear that Mr. Davis wrote this piece as an attempted silent arm of the Sikorsky propaganda machine (the dead giveaway to me was the pointed use of the phrase "the FLRAA helicopter" in the opening paragraph).

His biography line provided by the Hill makes it seem he is merely a retired US Congressman and Army aviator:

Geoff Davis, a Republican, represented Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District from 2005 to 2012. He is a former Army Aviator and was a member of the House Armed Services and Ways and Means committees.

However, a basic search reveals he is the managing partner of Republic Consulting LLC. Their "What We Do" page clearly outlines their business model

Strategic Planning | Counsel: Success in Washington begins with setting a sound, strategic approach to an issue. For each client, we analyze the issues, assess objectives, and establish a roadmap for accomplishing those objectives. We translate desired outcomes into distinct, achievable actions which are then calibrated as needed throughout the duration of a project.

Lobbying | Advocacy: Successful advocacy is more than simply providing access. Our approach to lobbying is grounded in the deep working relationships we have with decision makers in Congress and the Executive Branch. We know their interests and needs, and we continually work to align them with our clients’ priorities. When we engage policy makers on a client’s behalf, it is never just a meeting, but an ongoing conversation.

Coalition Building: Our bipartisan consultants at Republic have built successful national coalitions on issues ranging from insurance, health care, and intellectual property rights.

Political Analysis: For those seeking to better understand Washington’s myriad of legislative process and regulatory procedure, we provide in-depth analysis, monitoring, and intelligence so that firms can better advise their own clients and make informed decisions about how Washington action or inaction may affect business decisions.

Representative Issue Areas:

• Defense
• Federal Budget & Appropriations
• Financial Services & Fintech
• Health Care Issues
• Immigration
• Labor, Antitrust, & Workforce
• Tax Policy
• Telecommunications
• Privacy
• Technology policy
• Trade

To believe his article (like the myriad others presented as such over the past 18 months) is just an unsolicited opinion piece of a former Aviator and SME would be the height of naivete.

I am glad someone else read the tea leaves the same way, and that I was not entirely off-base. I feel like one side has consistently played some questionable media & press games throughout this competition - scaremongering with claims that "they are the industrial base" and failure to award them the contract will cost jobs and hurt the Defense Industrial Base, plus what have seemed to be some cheap-shots at Tiltrotor technology.

It seems awfully... curious that the footage of the 2017 USS Green Bay MV-22 accident suddenly emerged after 5 years when the source selection for FLRAA was getting to an advanced stage. Equally curious that it emerged as part of a conveniently well put together montage featuring footage and images from a number of previous V-22 mishaps. Perhaps it was just a strange coincidence.

Hopefully we don't see more of this questionable media now that the contract award seems to be delayed by a few months. Let the professionals evaluate the aircraft and determine which is best for the missions at hand...

 

[yasotay]

On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.

Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.

I do see CMV-22 getting mentioned as a SAR/CSAR and NSW platform in some of the USN narrative. I will try to find and post a link.

 

[RavenOne]

On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.

Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.

I do see CMV-22 getting mentioned as a SAR/CSAR and NSW platform in some of the USN narrative. I will try to find and post a link.

Which was the original requirement / fielding when JVX materialised as V-22 ...with the navy receiving the HV-22 CSAR version.

cheers