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

I wonder if we will eventually see something like the S-66 / AH-56 replace the Apache around 2030-ish.
 
Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator based on Sikorsky's X2 technology:

Sikorsky and Boeing plan to submit a joint proposal to a develop and build a new prototype helicopter based on Sikorsky's X-2 high speed rotorcraft design for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator (TD) phase 1 programme.

"By leveraging our proven design, we can offer the Army reduced risk, a 100-knot (185 km/h) improvement in speed, a 60% improvement in combat radius, and 50% better high-hot hover performance," says Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky's military aircraft division.

Mehta says the joint proposal will use the X-2's counter-rotating coaxial main rotors, pusher propeller, and advanced fly-by-wire system. The aircraft will efficiently cruise at 230 knots (426 km/h), and have improved hover efficiency, Mehta says.
Click to expand...

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-and-boeing-to-pitch-x-2-based-design-for-us-army-jmr-td-effort-382897/

[Image Removed: Larger image of Sikorsky artist's impression later in this topic.]
 
The coaxial-rotor, pusher-propeller X2 configuration was picked to meet the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate's (AATD) requirement for a cruise speed of up to 230kt - at least 50% faster than a conventional helicopter. Sikorsky's company-funded X2 Technology demonstrator exceeded 260kt is September 2010 and two industry-funded S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter prototypes now being built are designed to cruise at 235kt clean and 220kt with weapons. The first Raider will fly in 2014.

Boeing and Sikorsky say the X2 configuration was also chosen for its coaxial-rotor hover efficiency. Before teaming in January, the two companies independently studied advanced conventional and compound helicopters and tiltrotors. After teaming, they jointly conducted another "analysis of alternatives" using their separate studies as the baseline. This resulted in selection of the X2 configuration.

AATD plans to award cost-sharing contracts for two competitive air-vehicle demonstrators to fly in 2017. JMR is a precursor to the planned FLV Medium utility program to field a replacement for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks beginning in 2035. An X2-configuration FVL Medium would cruise at 230kt, a 100kt improvement over the UH-60M, have higher hover efficiency, 60% longer combat radius and 50% better hot-and-high performance, says the team.
Click to expand...


Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A43e82fd7-8611-43a1-8517-9daf08468732
 
A smart move really. Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk. Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on. Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.
 
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
 
jsport said:
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Click to expand...

Elaborate.
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Click to expand...

Elaborate.
Click to expand...
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.
 
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Click to expand...

Elaborate.
Click to expand...
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

And this? "should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects"
 
yasotay said:
A smart move really. Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk. Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on. Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.
Click to expand...

Does Boeing see Sikorsky's X2 as a less risky technology than Bell's tilt-rotor JMR proposals?
 
sferrin said:
jsport said:
sferrin said:
jsport said:
Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Click to expand...

Elaborate.
Click to expand...
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.
Click to expand...

And this? "should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects"
Click to expand...
These things are going to cost more but will still not shed the huge vulnerability that Rand so keenly described some years ago. Increasingly less space for development shortfalls that cost alot. Survivability suites, including DEW and 'armaments to overall payload' ratios for each member of the increasingly costly, family of craft, for instance, should demand detailed oversight.
 
Triton said:
yasotay said:
A smart move really. Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk. Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on. Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.
Click to expand...

Does Boeing see Sikorsky's X2 as a less risky technology than Bell's tilt-rotor JMR proposals?
Click to expand...
I suspect that it is actually a case of an easier industrial teaming approach. Whereas the BB Tilt-Rotor is a straight 50/50 across the board that leaves both parties with an equal vote/veto (a situation both partners have likely been frustrated with) I see in the press release Sikorsky is focusing on the air vehicle and Boeing is focused on mission equipment. Really savy for Boeing if you ask me. If the X2 does not work out as a medium weight rotorcraft, Boeing can take its MEP work to another vendor with a successful rotorcraft.
 
Thank you for your response, yasotay.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing JMR concept.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:43e82fd7-8611-43a1-8517-9daf08468732
 

Attachments

  • Sikorsky-Boeing_JMR-blog.jpg
    Sikorsky-Boeing_JMR-blog.jpg
    50.3 KB · Views: 462
HELI-EXPO: Bell will pitch third-gen tilt-rotor for JMR/FVL By: Dave Majumdar Las Vegas 11 hours ago Source: Flight

Bell Helicopter will pitch a third-generation tilt-rotor design for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role/Future Vertical Lift (JMR/FVL) programme, a top company official says.
"We felt we needed to lead on tilt-rotors going forward on the JMR/Future Vertical Lift," says John Garrison, president and chief executive officer of Bell Helicopter, speaking at the Heli-Expo 2013 trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada. "We think that puts us in the best position to exploit the capabilities of the tilt-rotor in the JMR/FVL arena."
Garrison says that his company's proposed third-generation tilt-rotor design will be unveiled in April at the Army Aviation Association of America conference in Dallas, Texas. He adds that the company is attracting high-powered design talent for the effort.
While a risk-sharing partner might prove to be beneficial, Bell does not need outside financial help to develop its new tilt-rotor design, Garrison says. Nonetheless, the Bell is currently looking at potential partners. Garrison cautions, however, any partner would have to contribute both technically and financially.
Bell is one of four companies that have been selected by the US Army to pursue high speed rotorcraft designs for its JMR/FVL programme, which the service hopes will enter service in the 2030s. Proposals are due in to the army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD) by 6 March.
Boeing, which is partnered with Bell on the current generation Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey, has teamed with rival Sikorsky to propose a compound helicopter design for the JMR/FVL programme based on the later company's X-2 prototype.
But Garrison says that the army believes that tilt-rotors are the most "operationally effective" high-speed rotorcraft concept. He added that he expects that the JMR/FVL programme will ultimately come down to a battle between a tilt-rotor design and a pusher-propeller design like the X-2.
Garrison notes that the Boeing teaming up with Sikorsky has no bearing on their collaboration on the V-22 programme.
 
Can Tiltrotors meet all mission requirements in increasingly dense urban environments and be the center of family of new generation rotorcraft? There is place for but...
 
jsport said:
Can Tiltrotors meet all mission requirements in increasingly dense urban environments and be the center of family of new generation rotorcraft? There is place for but...
Click to expand...
A good question.
One of the admirable traits of a tilt rotor is that it does not require an anti-torque device at the end of a long tail boom. Other than the (ill) famed “Blackhawk Down” incidents in Somalia, there have been a number of helicopters downed due to debris going into the tail rotor in urban environments. They call it hard landing so that it does not peck the interest of the press. Power lines (which have much more liberal placement issues outside of the western 1st world) do very bad things to tail rotors as well. Likewise brushing your tail boom onto a building does not do well for whirling things at the back of the rotorcraft. In fairness it does not do well for any whirling parts, but most rotorcraft you can judge where your rotors are in relationship to obstructions better than you can your tail boom. Many an accident occurs when the tail rotor gets planted in a tree. Now someone will bring up downwash/outwash and that is a fair concern for tilt rotors. I would caution that the V-22 has the higher velocity due to the size of the prop rotors; prop rotors that have to fit onto a very specific location on a landing ship. I would be very surprised if the purveyors of tilt rotor technology are not diligently working on ways to solve this. Most likely with larger prop rotors.
Another area I believe the tilt rotor has an advantage is with winds. Before anyone mentions the MV-22 accident in Morocco, taking off with a tail wind in almost any aircraft is a big no-no (Aviator 101 stuff). I also suspect that big “whale fluke” of an H tail did not help matters at all. If you notice in the AW-609 the purveyors of tilt rotor have moved to a T tail with smaller surface area. I could be wrong on this and will let the aero-engineers amongst us discuss. My logic is that I think, like any tandem rotor rotorcraft it has less challenge with cross winds than conventional helicopters. Anyone who has flown helicopters in the urban environment can tell you that the ten knot head wind above the buildings can become a twenty knot turbulent mess coming at you from the side down in the urban canyons. Rectangular and trapezoidal shapes stuck into a wind flow can do VERY ugly things. Again this can challenge anti-torque systems, especially if the helicopter is operating at or need its maximum gross weight and engine power available. Conventional helicopters can use fifteen to thirty percent of the available power to overcome the torque. This power penalty is not paid in tandem or counter-rotating (Kamov, Sikorsky X2) systems.
Finally tilt rotors are all likely to be wider than a conventional or single point rotor aircraft. However I suspect they are not as long, needing to get the anti-torque system at the right moment point. So while the landing space might not be wide enough in one direction it works just fine if you turn the tilt rotor ninety degrees. This of course will depend on the point design of the tilt rotor.

So I think that the tilt rotor has promise, but it may not be the best solution overall.
It is a good question that the services will have to work on in the coming years.
 
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?
 
As a general rule, for a given power input you get more thrust out of a large diameter actuator (this could be a fan, ducted fan, propeller, rotor...).
So if you have power to spare it's usually better to put it in the rotor- unless you are using it for something else, like control.
But maybe the designers of that particular concept were doing something different. Do you have a link to the image?
 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18534.msg178448.html#msg178448

DARPA VTOL thread includes pic.
 
My guess is there is a rotor and separate lift fans to provide anti-torque in hover. There doesn't seem to be a tail rotor in that concept.
There are at least two options: One, the rotor and fans are driven by separate [edit: i meant common!]powerplants, and two, they are driven by separate engines. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In either case it would be advantageous to let the rotor autorotate at high speed and use the fans for propulsion.
Still, the DARPA BAA calls for speeds greater than 300-400kts, so a compound of this type may not be ideal for this speed range.
My .02 :)
 
jsport said:
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?
Click to expand...

Also, the duct isn't just draggy, it adds more weight/cost as well.
 
AeroFranz said:
My guess is there is a rotor and separate lift fans to provide anti-torque in hover. There doesn't seem to be a tail rotor in that concept.
There are at least two options: One, the rotor and fans are driven by separate powerplants, and two, they are driven by separate engines. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In either case it would be advantageous to let the rotor autorotate at high speed and use the fans for propulsion.
Still, the DARPA BAA calls for speeds greater than 300-400kts, so a compound of this type may not be ideal for this speed range.
My .02 :)
Click to expand...
Good points, Thank you ..still learnin
 
Sundog said:
jsport said:
Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.

Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?
Click to expand...

Also, the duct isn't just draggy, it adds more weight/cost as well.
Click to expand...
roger copy :)
 
EADS (ie Eurocopter) Bids for Army's JMR (Ares blog)

EADS North America confirms it has submitted a bid to build one of two advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstrators planned under the the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) program - putting its foot on the first rung of a ladder that could lead to replacing all of the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks and AH-64 Apaches beginning in the mid-2030s.

EADS is not saying what configuration it has proposed for JMR, but the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate has called for a cruise speed of 230kt - 50% faster that a conventional helicopter - so it is likely to be based on Eurocopter's X3 hybrid helicopter technology demonstrator, which has reached 232kt in flight test
Click to expand...
 
Eurocopter patent drawing from the above article. A hint at the configuration of EADS's JMR proposal?
 

Attachments

  • Eurocopter X3 patent.jpg
    Eurocopter X3 patent.jpg
    23 KB · Views: 502
So which 4 companies are taking part again?

Boeing + Sikorsky
Bell
EADS
?
 
Triton said:
Eurocopter patent drawing from the above article. A hint at the configuration of EADS's JMR proposal?
Click to expand...

For AVX, which if I remember correctly is a coax with dual push fans, it wouldn't be hard to emulate the eurocopter patent design but with a coax rotor. Which solves one aspect of the cargo/human approach issues, but also starts leading towards X-50 Dragonfly multiple lift surfaces to further offload the coax rotor. Bad idea of the day is CRW with coax rotors (with an X2 style mast cover) stopped to produce an X when viewed overhead...
 
The article posted by fightingirish mentions that the United States Army, through the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD), intends to develop a new 3,000shp turboshaft engine named the Advanced Concept Engine (ACE) late this decade that may power the FVL Medium and be used to re-engine the UH-60M and AH-64E.
 
Special Operations Forces (SOF) Future Vertical Lift (FVL) from DTIC:
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2012SOFIC/ThursdaySOFFutureVerticalLift.pdf
 
Artist's impression of AVX Aircraft concept for JMR/FVL Medium.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6424afd0-6286-4079-a4fe-b136a56e6175&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 

Attachments

  • AVX JMR-1.jpg
    AVX JMR-1.jpg
    369.2 KB · Views: 493
  • AVX-JMR-2.jpg
    AVX-JMR-2.jpg
    128.6 KB · Views: 478
Artist's impression of Piasecki JMR/FVL Medium concept.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3A6424afd0-6286-4079-a4fe-b136a56e6175&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest
 

Attachments

  • Piasecki JMR-1.jpg
    Piasecki JMR-1.jpg
    411.1 KB · Views: 443
  • Piasecki JMR-2.jpg
    Piasecki JMR-2.jpg
    329.9 KB · Views: 435
Even AVX went with a common airframe for lift and attack. Seems to be a trend.
 
yasotay said:
Even AVX went with a common airframe for lift and attack. Seems to be a trend.
Click to expand...

Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?
 
Jemiba said:
Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?
Click to expand...

With the contemporary electronic warfare self-protection suites attack helicopters are flying high to see and hit more and still be survivable. So some of the low profile for survivability design drivers for traditional attack helicopters are no longer as strong as keeping program cost down. With a F-35 style EODAS capability the field of view issue would certainly be solved.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom