Sikorsky X2 family

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
Returning to Joint Heavy Lift, here are images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology High Speed Lifter - one of its two JHL concepts. Also the X2 Technology Demonstrator now taking shape at Schweizer Aircraft, and a company brochure image showing a range of potential X2 Technology applications, including the JHL Crane design. The attack variant could be a Joint Multi Role candidate.

X2 Technology is essentially a revisit of Sikorsky's Advancing Blade Concept, but with the latest rotor blade, flight control, propulsion and airframe technologies.
 

Attachments

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
Indeed the brochure picture shows the X2 Crane in the bottom right corner. As one might expect the designs have changed a bit as they go through the process of refining the aircraft concepts, but none of them has changed dramatically. The most dramatic change ti date is that the High Speed Lifer has lost the shroud around the fans. I will see if I can post a picture of the OSTR and QTR. Have several promo pics of the later.
 

Firefly 2

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
CammNut said:
Returning to Joint Heavy Lift, here are images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology High Speed Lifter - one of its two JHL concepts. Also the X2 Technology Demonstrator now taking shape at Schweizer Aircraft, and a company brochure image showing a range of potential X2 Technology applications, including the JHL Crane design. The attack variant could be a Joint Multi Role candidate.

X2 Technology is essentially a revisit of Sikorsky's Advancing Blade Concept, but with the latest rotor blade, flight control, propulsion and airframe technologies.
It seems to me that the exposed prop on the attack variant would make it very vulnerable to medium and heavy calibre MG's, and even unguided rockets( RPG's and such)
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
The interesting thing about the X2 technology is that the propulsor at the back is only that. It is not necessary for the directional control of the aircraft. Of course making aircraft anti-tank weapon resistant is problematic.
 

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
Here are more images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology high-speed attack rotorcraft concept - these are extracted from a Powerpoint presentation, so they are a bit rough...

And here are the associated data:

Rotor diameter - 44.3ft
Pusher prop diameter - 11.9ft
Engines - two CT7-8-type, 3,400shp TO power each
Gross weight - 19,928lb
Weapons payload - 2,859lb
Max speed - 275kt
Cruise speed - 250kt
Primary mission range/time - 110nm/1.7h
Max range/endurance (aux fuel) - 740nm/5.3h
Weapons - 8 Hellfires, 19 APKWS rockets, 20mm gun
 

Attachments

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,602
Reaction score
110
CammNut said:
Here are more images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology high-speed attack rotorcraft concept - these are extracted from a Powerpoint presentation, so they are a bit rough...

And here are the associated data:

Rotor diameter - 44.3ft
Pusher prop diameter - 11.9ft
Engines - two CT7-8-type, 3,400shp TO power each
Gross weight - 19,928lb
Weapons payload - 2,859lb
Max speed - 275kt
Cruise speed - 250kt
Primary mission range/time - 110nm/1.7h
Max range/endurance (aux fuel) - 740nm/5.3h
Weapons - 8 Hellfires, 19 APKWS rockets, 20mm gun

Puzzling that it is only good for about 3000lbs of weapons. The Cheyenne was good for four times that with half the power.
 

TinWing

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 3, 2006
Messages
888
Reaction score
5
CammNut said:
Here are more images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology high-speed attack rotorcraft concept - these are extracted from a Powerpoint presentation, so they are a bit rough...

And here are the associated data:

Rotor diameter - 44.3ft
Pusher prop diameter - 11.9ft
Engines - two CT7-8-type, 3,400shp TO power each
Gross weight - 19,928lb
Weapons payload - 2,859lb
Max speed - 275kt
Cruise speed - 250kt
Primary mission range/time - 110nm/1.7h
Max range/endurance (aux fuel) - 740nm/5.3h
Weapons - 8 Hellfires, 19 APKWS rockets, 20mm gun
The patent number for this concept is D052,6269.
 

elmayerle

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,246
Reaction score
1
Orionblamblam said:
yasotay said:
Great pics of the X2 Attack. My only concern is how do you keep people from walking into the unprotected thrust prop?
Why would you want to? Thin the herd.
To steal a line from a best-selling sf novel, "Think of it as Evolution in action!"
 

Firefly 2

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here are more images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology high-speed attack rotorcraft concept - these are extracted from a Powerpoint presentation, so they are a bit rough...

And here are the associated data:

Rotor diameter - 44.3ft
Pusher prop diameter - 11.9ft
Engines - two CT7-8-type, 3,400shp TO power each
Gross weight - 19,928lb
Weapons payload - 2,859lb
Max speed - 275kt
Cruise speed - 250kt
Primary mission range/time - 110nm/1.7h
Max range/endurance (aux fuel) - 740nm/5.3h
Weapons - 8 Hellfires, 19 APKWS rockets, 20mm gun

Puzzling that it is only good for about 3000lbs of weapons. The Cheyenne was good for four times that with half the power.
Probably to reduce structural weight and increase speed? Just a thought, really.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,602
Reaction score
110
Firefly said:
sferrin said:
CammNut said:
Here are more images of Sikorsky's X2 Technology high-speed attack rotorcraft concept - these are extracted from a Powerpoint presentation, so they are a bit rough...

And here are the associated data:

Rotor diameter - 44.3ft
Pusher prop diameter - 11.9ft
Engines - two CT7-8-type, 3,400shp TO power each
Gross weight - 19,928lb
Weapons payload - 2,859lb
Max speed - 275kt
Cruise speed - 250kt
Primary mission range/time - 110nm/1.7h
Max range/endurance (aux fuel) - 740nm/5.3h
Weapons - 8 Hellfires, 19 APKWS rockets, 20mm gun

Puzzling that it is only good for about 3000lbs of weapons. The Cheyenne was good for four times that with half the power.
Probably to reduce structural weight and increase speed? Just a thought, really.

Yeah but it's not like the Cheyenne was a slouch when it came to speed.
 

Firefly 2

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Jun 30, 2009
Messages
461
Reaction score
0
Idd, but I think it was lighter on avionics lol.
It really was just a thought. I'm just a beginning secret historian.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
Orionblamblam said:
yasotay said:
Great pics of the X2 Attack. My only concern is how do you keep people from walking into the unprotected thrust prop?
Why would you want to? Thin the herd.
Actually when you are operating at night, in fields and other non-airfield locations, troopers tend not to always look where they are going. Remember some of these folks supporting the logistics of the air operations might be short on sleep and thus not using the best judgment. It is for the same reason you don’t want personnel to walk directly in front of the intake on a jet aircraft. You would think they know better and are trained better, but when in a hurry trying to get the mission done, people sometimes cut corners. If you look at most pictures of troop assaults, you will see that in most pictures the troops fan out in a forty-five degree arc from the troop doors to stay well clear of the rear of the helicopter. On aircraft with rear ramps it is a requirement for the rotor system to be high enough that personnel and vehicles can safely transit under them.

Many years ago when the US Army relied on UH-1 and AH-1, it was not surprising to loose several troopers a year to the tail rotor of aircraft. It was most predominate when the Army began training to operate at night with the same tempo as during the day.

Here is a Karem OSTR pic:
 

Attachments

Orionblamblam

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2006
Messages
7,257
Reaction score
110
Website
www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com
yasotay said:
Orionblamblam said:
yasotay said:
Great pics of the X2 Attack. My only concern is how do you keep people from walking into the unprotected thrust prop?
Why would you want to? Thin the herd.
Actually when you are operating at night, in fields and other non-airfield locations, troopers tend not to always look where they are going.
A Simple Solution: don't start the pusher prop turning until the chopper has left the ground.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
Orionblamblam said:
Why would you want to? Thin the herd.
Indeed it is, although I have to wonder what sort of weight that might add? Still should not be tremendous and likely could be done directly off of the transmission or the secondary, depending on the powertrain set up. It is going to have to have some sort of torque reduction anyway as it would seem strange that you would have a variable pitch prop without the means to regulate RPM.

Mod edit: removed the super-mega-quote box :) I only hope that I matched the content correctly.
 

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
I picked up some product cards on Sikorsky's X2 Technology designs at this week's Quad-A army aviation show in Atlanta.

The High Speed Lifter is one of two X2 designs studied under US Army Joint Heavy Lift concept definition studies completed earlier this year. This has the X2-hallmark close-coupled contra-rotating coaxial rotors. Of interest is the fairing between the two rotors - designed to overcome one of the disadvantages of the advancing blade concept, hub drag.

Note the "double" inlets, each feeding two engines. The model at the show had four square exhausts in an row exhausting into the "trench" between the tails.
 

Attachments

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
The X2 Crane is the second of the two JHL concepts studied. This differs from Sikorsky's other X2 designs in being a conventional coaxial-rotor helicopter, not close-coupled and not high-speed, with three-blade rotors and what appear to be servo flaps on the blades. Sideways on it has a Black Hawk look to it.
 

Attachments

CammNut

CLEARANCE: Secret
Joined
Feb 1, 2007
Messages
296
Reaction score
2
The X2 Vertical Unmanned Aerial System is Sikorsky's contender for the US Marine Corps' VUAS requirement for a VTOL UAV. Bell plans to offer the Eagle Eye tilt-rotor UAV for this competition - when (and if) it gets going. Not sure what is going on at the tail - it looks like there is a secondary inlet for cool ambient air to mix with the hot engine exhaust. Looks cool, though.
 

Attachments

hesham

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
23,598
Reaction score
578
Hi,

early concept for Sikorsky X2.
http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/2003/2003%20-%200006.html
 

Attachments

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
elider said:
Another pic from Air Force Magazine. This was taken at the Global Chief's Conference.
Well they better hope the USMC likes it. By the time the U.S. Army decides they need a new attack aircraft there won't be a need for the cockpit. CammNut's pictures of the UAV are closer to a product the Army would go for... in twenty years.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
It surprised a lot of people to learn that Sikorsky has a long history of work on tilt-rotor, tilt-wing and compound rotorcraft. Witness their recent work on the JHL program. Sikorsky's X-2 work is a prime example of this companies willingness to "go it alone." I was at a forum several years ago when Mr. Jeff Pino, the CEO of Sikorsky, UT, informed the audience that he did not want any government help with the X-2 effort, they would do the work on their own IRAD and do it on their schedule. I would not be surprised to see Sikorsky at least wipe the cobwebs off of their alternative work... cautiously.
 

Jemiba

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2006
Messages
7,971
Reaction score
79
Just found in the vertiflite winter '07 issue : The X 2 is taking shape.
 

Attachments

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
elider said:
Another pic from Air Force Magazine. This was taken at the Global Chief's Conference.
Well they better hope the USMC likes it. By the time the U.S. Army decides they need a new attack aircraft there won't be a need for the cockpit. CammNut's pictures of the UAV are closer to a product the Army would go for... in twenty years.

Here's a different view of the attack concept. I can't see USMC having any interest since Tilt-Rotor is so far ahead and this offers no significant advantages I can see, even if it works. Keep in mind that X2 technology got eliminated in the JHL competition, and Sikorsky is thinking of proposing---a Tilt-Rotor
 

Attachments

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
elider said:
Another pic from Air Force Magazine. This was taken at the Global Chief's Conference.
Well they better hope the USMC likes it. By the time the U.S. Army decides they need a new attack aircraft there won't be a need for the cockpit. CammNut's pictures of the UAV are closer to a product the Army would go for... in twenty years.

Here's a different view of the attack concept. I can't see USMC having any interest since Tilt-Rotor is so far ahead and this offers no significant advantages I can see, even if it works. Keep in mind that X2 technology got eliminated in the JHL competition, and Sikorsky is thinking of proposing---a Tilt-Rotor
Politics and money override logic every time.
 

Attachments

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
elider said:
Another pic from Air Force Magazine. This was taken at the Global Chief's Conference.
Well they better hope the USMC likes it. By the time the U.S. Army decides they need a new attack aircraft there won't be a need for the cockpit. CammNut's pictures of the UAV are closer to a product the Army would go for... in twenty years.

Here's a different view of the attack concept. I can't see USMC having any interest since Tilt-Rotor is so far ahead and this offers no significant advantages I can see, even if it works. Keep in mind that X2 technology got eliminated in the JHL competition, and Sikorsky is thinking of proposing---a Tilt-Rotor
Politics and money override logic every time.

Not sure I understand this response. The original Advancing Blade Demonstrator of 25 years ago gave poor performance and did not meet its promises. The X2 revision of the technology has never flown and doesn't really show where it would have any benefit relative to Tilt-Rotor to justify the high risk of picking it. The decision of the JHL program was the right one (they also eliminated an advanced Tandem Rotor helo, ala CH-47, helo concept)
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
My point is that while their may be a clear case for a specific technology (in the case of JHL, after 12 years of analysis the Tilt-Rotor was decided to best meet all of the requirements), it very quickly takes last place when money and politics (inter-service and national) arrive in the effort. Whoever has the best politician is likely to win.

While I am a great believer in Tilt-Rotor technology, I think that there are potential missions sets that they do not fit as efficiently, like VERT-REP and external cargo operations.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
My point is that while their may be a clear case for a specific technology (in the case of JHL, after 12 years of analysis the Tilt-Rotor was decided to best meet all of the requirements), it very quickly takes last place when money and politics (inter-service and national) arrive in the effort. Whoever has the best politician is likely to win.

While I am a great believer in Tilt-Rotor technology, I think that there are potential missions sets that they do not fit as efficiently, like VERT-REP and external cargo operations.

I agree with you. Unfortunately, this is all too often true, and this may play into who finally gets selected for JHL (if anyone does, USAF is already trying to find ways to undercut it)). One thing, though, that politicians fear the most is appearing to have made a mistake or being embarrassed. At this point in time, there is no other technology that has close to demonstrating what Tilt-Rotor has, so any other choice appears riskier or potentially embarrassing. The only way around that would be to lower the requirements and to simply ignore part of the mission. That I wouldn't put past the political/bureaucratic class, we've seen it already.

Tilt-Rotor is not the most efficient solution for missions that require extensive hovering. They can do external cargo. The V-22 can carry 15,000 lbs externally. In fact, it carries external loads at speeds greater than any helo. IN fact, it has demonstrated carrying external loads faster than most helos can travel clean. However, Tilt-Rotors do give away efficiency at very slow speeds. The reason is the downwash effect over the wings that helos, including X2, generally don't have. During a crane operation, the greater the percentage of the mission is transit, the more the equation shifts towards Tilt-Rotor, the less, the more it shifts away. Regarding X2 efficiency at the lowest speeds, we'll have to wait and see.

Although a Tilt-Rotor wouldn't be as efficient in the pure VERTREP role, that is one of the missions under discussion for the USN's 48 planned V-22s. Here this role would be one of a number of mission, the aircraft would not be dedicated to it as USN's CH-46s are. It would offer more lift to the Navy than what they'll get from the CH-60, and the USN is considering doing more VOD (Vertical On Deck) if they get V-22s. Here, instead of just doing a crane operation from a supply ship alongside, supplies would come from further away and delivered direct, taking advantage of the V-22's speed, range and lift. Here again, the percentage of time spent in the hover is less, and would allow for fewer assets to be involved in thesame amount of resupply. It would be an operation more similar to COD operations on CVs, including resupply from shore locations where a ship might pass within a V-22's range.

X2 might also be capable of filling this role, but again the question is how to get there from here. X2 is in its infancy and would take an enormous amount of resources to get it to where Tilt-Rotor already is today. An additional consideration is that if brought up to that level (if it can be), what advantages do you gain that justify all that money? Where would Tilt-Rotor technology be if that money was spent there instead. That, I believe is the big hurdle for X2. It's so far behind, and if the money is spent, what do we get relative to what we already have?

Then again, we are talking politics as you so ably note.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
Well it is good to see another TR aficionado here. However while you and I and the USMC are convinced, the lingering effects of the uninformed press mudslinging will take years to overcome, especially with the politico's. I am frustrated by Bell's apparent cold feet with the BA-609 program. That lethargy has many in the government wondering with a raised eyebrow if there is an inside story that supports some of the sensationalist assertions.

I am also enthusiastic at the X-2 technology as it represents another advance for the US Rotorcraft industry. A sector of American aerospace that has been dormant (other than Tilt Rotor) since the late 1980's. I do not count RAH-66 as more than an interesting packaging of the conventional.

Sadly I do not hold out hope for the JHL program, at least as a US Army program. It is far too expensive for an ultra-conservative organization, that will look at the funding requirements and start thinking about how many tank battalions that could represent. The USAF does not want anything to do with propellers of any sort for a major aircraft, they are so "twentieth century" and it is impossible to make them stealthy. EVERYTHING must be stealthy with them.
 

LowObservable

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,163
Reaction score
18
While there has been "mudslinging" about the V-22, the hard fact is that it has managed to gather a lot of mud without the help of the media. In fact, my recollection is that the media in general were pretty pro-TR way back in the days when Cheney had it in his gunsights (along with his hunting buddies) and the Congressional Texafia envisioned the sky full of V-22s.
As I remarked elsewhere, it's all about weight. I'm sure that I have 1983-84 brochures somewhere where JVX was about the same size as it is today, but would fly happily on T64s until a new-gen engine was developed. The OEW was a lot different.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
LowObservable said:
While there has been "mudslinging" about the V-22, the hard fact is that it has managed to gather a lot of mud without the help of the media. In fact, my recollection is that the media in general were pretty pro-TR way back in the days when Cheney had it in his gunsights (along with his hunting buddies) and the Congressional Texafia envisioned the sky full of V-22s.
As I remarked elsewhere, it's all about weight. I'm sure that I have 1983-84 brochures somewhere where JVX was about the same size as it is today, but would fly happily on T64s until a new-gen engine was developed. The OEW was a lot different.
A lot was different with the JVX. The prop-rotors and the gross weight of the aircraft with the initial JVX. Rotors were optimized for Army mission, not cut to allow the aircraft to fit on the deck of an LHA. Weight was less as well because the wing did not have to fold for below deck operations.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
LowObservable said:
While there has been "mudslinging" about the V-22, the hard fact is that it has managed to gather a lot of mud without the help of the media. In fact, my recollection is that the media in general were pretty pro-TR way back in the days when Cheney had it in his gunsights (along with his hunting buddies) and the Congressional Texafia envisioned the sky full of V-22s.
As I remarked elsewhere, it's all about weight. I'm sure that I have 1983-84 brochures somewhere where JVX was about the same size as it is today, but would fly happily on T64s until a new-gen engine was developed. The OEW was a lot different.
A lot was different with the JVX. The prop-rotors and the gross weight of the aircraft with the initial JVX. Rotors were optimized for Army mission, not cut to allow the aircraft to fit on the deck of an LHA. Weight was less as well because the wing did not have to fold for below deck operations.
I'm sorry, but , I must differ in some aspects. The original program was HXM, and it was solely a Marine program. DoD saw the potential of the technology and restructured it as a joint program, but the Marines were always the main drivers. Their requirements formed the baseline and shaped the fuselage box and foot print, as well as the folding wing and proprotor diameter ( I believe optimum size for the V-22 would actually be about nine feet larger, but this wouldn't meet the clearance requirements for the operating spots abeam the island). Air Force range requirements drove the fuel system provisions, and it would have had a different equipment fit, but would basically be very similar to the USMC version


Army wanted a special version for their Special Equipment and Missions Aircraft (SEMA), and would have been the e most radical change. Designed to cruise at 30,000 feet, it would have had different proprotors, sacrificing some hovering efficiency for high altitude performance. It would also have a pressurized cockpit, but I can't remember if the Army was willing to pay for a different wing. They also saw a MEDEVAC role for the aircraft, but those probably would have been "plain vanilla" V-22s, since they wouldn't need all the expensive SEMA features. USAF, though, object to the SEMA bird feeling it intruded too mush on their turf, and that part of JVX was cancelled. Since the regular V-22 would do everything non-SEMA the Army envisioned, they pulled out of the program figuring why kick in R&D money for a program that would develop an aircraft that could met their needs without their money? If they chose to, they could buy V-22s off the shelf.

The reason the media was so V-22 was that every study by everyone said Tilt-Rotor was the way to go (even Sikorsky's studies reported that Tilt-Rotor was 'equally competitive'. In response, Cheney's folks went out and hired their own experts and had them study the decision. Their conclusion was that the cancellation was wrong and the program should be restarted. The response was what you'd expect, the study was rejected. This was great fodder for the newspapers.

Regarding the engine, what leaked out was that the Program experts had weighed the cost/benefit of the various options and selected the advanced GE engine proposal, which was also planned to power the P-7. As a courtesy and as part of normal practice, the decision was pre-briefed to the highest level before the public announcemet. the engine program manager was then fired, and it was announced that the T64 would power the V-22. The T64 is a fine engine, but it weighs more and burns more fuel, which is why it has to be more powerful than the other two engine proposals, to lift the extra fuel. Ironically, although the GE engine was aced out of the V-22, it has now resurfaced as the powerplant for arch-rival Sikorsky's CH-53K.

X2's biggest hurdle is timing. Back in the early '80s when both Tilt-Rotor and ABC were in their infancy, either technology offed the promise of great advance, whichever one worked out. Now, though, even if X2 ever flies and meets all of its promises, does it offer that much advantage over where Tilt-Rotor already is to justify the cost and risk of developing it?
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
F-14D,

I am somewhat surprised, I would like to see some sources. As I have had opportunity to talk with several of the engineers who designed the V-22 and heard it from them, that the program started as JVX under Army leadership . Also I have worked with folks in Army Aviation who are still frustrated that the Army let the program go. As well I have read multiple accounts of the JVX program at the start, like the fact that Bell and Boeing were dictated to by the government to work jointly on the JVX. I could see that the HXM was a standing requirement that became part of the JVX, or helped to generate it, but I have never seen anything that indicates that V-22 was not originally a US Army led program that the USMC took over when the Army opted to focus on the LHX (RAH-66) program.

However my memory could be faulty, so from the Wikipedia:

The Department of Defense began the V-22 program in 1981, first under Army leadership, then the Navy/Marine Corps later took the lead in developing what was then known as the Joint-service Vertical take-off/landing Experimental (JVX) aircraft.[3][4]

3. "The Long Road: AFOTEC's Two-Plus Decades of V-22 Involvement", US Air Force, August 1, 2007
4. "Department of the Army, Historical Summary", Chapter 9, Center Of Military History, United States Army, 1988, ISSN 0092-7880.

On an interesting note about the size of the fuselage, Bell actually asked the USMC about resizing and reshaping the cross section, because the HMMV vehicles was being introduced in the Army. They asked the Program Manager and he told them that the USMC would never operate those expensive Jeep replacements. So the fuselage remained sized for the venerable M151 Jeep, which of course left the inventory of the USMC well before the V-22 made it to the flight line. While it would have been a challenge to do so, the engineer indicated to me it was possible. I have seen several iterations of an Army V-22+ with a larger fuselage and prop-rotors. Unfortunately the Army is too focused on current capabilities and besides they just acquired the C-27J for logistics efforts.

As to the X-2 technology. While I personally agree with you as to the utility of the TR across the board for many military requirements, the Army still has a healthy "anti-TR" bias. The genesis of the anti-TR feelings in the Army started with RAND commissioned studies that indicated that TR was more effective in all but two areas they analyzed. Those two were reconnaissance and anti-tank. In essence the two primary missions for the aircraft (the utility variant of the LHX having already been dropped). Interestingly even RAND recommended that the Army continue to investigate TR. Another little know fact is that the then Secretary of the Army dictated that the LHX would be a conventional helicopter, so that put paid any chance for any of the more exotic concepts. It all came down to money. Anyway areas that even the TR engineers will tell you the capability is not as good as more standard rotorcraft is in slow and hover work. Between the increased fuel consumption and the higher velocity down wash there are some areas that cause the TR to be the panacea of all rotorcraft issues. So for missions that require lots of hover work, like ASW, logistics over shore, most Army logistics movements, etc., a more conventional rotorcraft might well compare favorably with TR technology for completing the mission.

The real decision of course will be which one cost less to develop, procure and operate. I cannot speak for other US forces, but I am comfortable that "cost is to capability as three to one" to paraphrase an old military maxim.

If I am mistaken about the JVX history I would love to read more regarding the HXM.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
F-14D,

I am somewhat surprised, I would like to see some sources. As I have had opportunity to talk with several of the engineers who designed the V-22 and heard it from them, that the program started as JVX under Army leadership . Also I have worked with folks in Army Aviation who are still frustrated that the Army let the program go. As well I have read multiple accounts of the JVX program at the start, like the fact that Bell and Boeing were dictated to by the government to work jointly on the JVX. I could see that the HXM was a standing requirement that became part of the JVX, or helped to generate it, but I have never seen anything that indicates that V-22 was not originally a US Army led program that the USMC took over when the Army opted to focus on the LHX (RAH-66) program.



If I am mistaken about the JVX history I would love to read more regarding the HXM.

You are, of course, correct. I chose poorly in my words. by "drivers", I meant that the USMC mission was the driver for the baseline JVX, and other roles would be building off that. I can go into detail about HXM and how it became JVX and the Army's original role as leader of JVX and before (Army actually saved Tilt-Rotor from oblivion), and why they turned it over to the Marines, but since this forum is X2, I'd have to ask the moderator if such info would be appropriate here or better elsewhere.
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
Indeed I would very much like to learn what information you have on the origins of JVX. Perhaps we should 'dust off' an old V-22 thread to post the information.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
Indeed I would very much like to learn what information you have on the origins of JVX. Perhaps we should 'dust off' an old V-22 thread to post the information.
Tell me where, and when time permits I'll pass on what I know
 

yasotay

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
1,949
Reaction score
43
I propose here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1309.msg28164.html#new
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,731
Reaction score
4
yasotay said:
I propose here: http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,1309.msg28164.html#new
OK, but it'll be a few days before I can get to it
 

Mark Nankivil

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
1,511
Reaction score
92
A couple of recent links from Sikorsky:

http://www.sikorsky.com/sik/innovation/x2_technology.asp

http://www.sikorsky.com/sik/Attachments/MISSION%20DOWNLOADS/X2_Technology_MissionBrief.pdf

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Top