Bell V-247 armed Tiltrotor drone for the Marines

It's kind of hidden in the stills, but the video seems to show an AIM-9 (AIM-9X?) on a hardpoint under the fuselage. Looks like the side internal weapon bays are gone now, but there might be one internal bay on centerline.

Also, the IFR probe is a new addition.
 
AIM-9X: yes

aim-9-all.jpg


Probe:
I think the central mid-nose position would invite a fair share of delicate situation while refueling. I understand that it is extensible but the position won't offer the possibility to extend the full length of the fuselage as if it was mounted externally under the fuselage (podded).

Winglets:
That's surprise me to see them mounted directly behind the prop-wash. EDIT: that was only the canted angle of the outer wings panels. My bad.
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
Amazing to see it fitting in essentially the same space as an -8C Fire Scout.
Click to expand...

The righthand aircraft is a UH-1Y. A fair bit bigger than a Fire Scout -8C

Edit: The target for MUX is to fit in the same footprint as a folded UH-1Y, which this seems to do, more or less. The folded dimensions for a UH-1Y are roughly 4m x 17.8m. For comparison, an MQ-8C with blades folded is 2.4m ×10.6m.
Click to expand...

I believe one of the stated goals for this program is to have an air vehicle that would fit into the hanger space on smaller combatants. This means they it has to be small enough for crew to conduct maintenance on the vehicle inside the hanger.
 
Looks like it would fit a DDG-51 hangar -- the SH-60B is a bit shorter but wider than a UH-1Y when folded, and the V-247 seems about the same.
 
TomS said:
Moose said:
Amazing to see it fitting in essentially the same space as an -8C Fire Scout.
Click to expand...

The righthand aircraft is a UH-1Y. A fair bit bigger than a Fire Scout -8C

Edit: The target for MUX is to fit in the same footprint as a folded UH-1Y, which this seems to do, more or less. The folded dimensions for a UH-1Y are roughly 4m x 17.8m. For comparison, an MQ-8C with blades folded is 2.4m ×10.6m.
Click to expand...
You're right of course, teach me to not pour over these without my specs on. I hate getting old.
 
They should really think about an "air warfare" package for the Independence class LCS with their 100 foot wide flight deck.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Un3iz1yELw
 
I fear that an unmodified WWII era CVE would be a more survivable platform.
 
Grey Havoc said:
I fear that an unmodified WWII era CVE would be a more survivable platform.
Click to expand...

A WWII battleship outfitted with Aegis would be more survivable still but we don't have any of those either. ;) A Zumwalt on the other hand also has a large flight deck. . .
 
WWII carrier battles showed that hitting first mattered since all carriers were no match for bombs/torpedos. For that matter, the Yamato showed that having 70,000 tons of steel can't save you either. Like tanks and APG rockets, explosives get through.

I would be surprised if WWII escort carriers (built off modified cargo ship hulls) matched the level of water tight compartmenting of the LCS designs and they certainly weren't going to be speeding around at 40Kts during evasive maneuvers.

Anything that can kill an LCS can probably kill a frigate. In the end though, what really counts is active defense. These days, a tank without active defense is as much a target as a threat even with all the armor plating it carries. Sensors and range superiority determines who hits first and a 1000lb bomb (dropped from a V-247) won't care if you have another inch of steel on your hull.
 
170kt loitering speed
240 cruise
280 dash
12hr isr mission
torpedo, sonobuoy amraam (!),sdb, up to 16 hellfire
center engine, shaft and gearboxes with diedral wing
 
Jack of all trades, master of none (?)
 
V-247 freshly painted with "U.S. Army" on the side. Attracted some interest. Note the six common launch tubes on the bottom of the aircraft. Have a better picture of them that I will post.
 

Attachments

  • V-249_2.jpg
    V-249_2.jpg
    2.7 MB · Views: 330
  • V-249_1.jpg
    V-249_1.jpg
    1 MB · Views: 322
yasotay said:
V-247 freshly painted with "U.S. Army" on the side. Attracted some interest. Note the six common launch tubes on the bottom of the aircraft. Have a better picture of them that I will post.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the Army is putting the demo program which V-247 seemed to be aiming for on hold to focus funding on FVL.
 
Moose said:
yasotay said:
V-247 freshly painted with "U.S. Army" on the side. Attracted some interest. Note the six common launch tubes on the bottom of the aircraft. Have a better picture of them that I will post.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, the Army is putting the demo program which V-247 seemed to be aiming for on hold to focus funding on FVL.
Click to expand...
You mean NGUAS-TD? I heard something along those lines too.
Cool pics, BTW. I was wondering, what are the lower fuselage fairings for? that's not where the landing gear retracts from the looks of it.
 
Actually the fairings on the fuselage are "pods" for armaments, such as rocket pods and SDB and the like. Have a better picture of the common launch tube locations on the bottom of the aircraft that I will post here once I find the darn thing.
 

Attachments

  • V-247 CML.jpg
    V-247 CML.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 194
Bell page:
www.bellflight.com

Bell V-247

Runway independent and long range capable. Defined by endurance and autonomy, the Bell V-247 is the smart way to extend your reach. It’s multi-mission prepared and ready for reconnaissance or action.
www.bellflight.com www.bellflight.com
 
You know, have they shown any images of what they'd consider a control station for this type of drone? It seems to me, you'd want a lot more situational awareness for the pilot, maybe an actual virtual cockpit, but I can't recall them ever talking about the ground side station.
 
Bgray said:
You know, have they shown any images of what they'd consider a control station for this type of drone? It seems to me, you'd want a lot more situational awareness for the pilot, maybe an actual virtual cockpit, but I can't recall them ever talking about the ground side station.
Click to expand...

They have talked about it using a VR display to see the video from a distributed camera system on the aircraft, so that the operator can look anywhere outside the airframe.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Check out the massive ‘do-it-all’ drone that Marines could choose as their wingman

The drone would be able to coordinate fires across the battlefield.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
 
TomS said:
Bgray said:
You know, have they shown any images of what they'd consider a control station for this type of drone? It seems to me, you'd want a lot more situational awareness for the pilot, maybe an actual virtual cockpit, but I can't recall them ever talking about the ground side station.
Click to expand...

They have talked about it using a VR display to see the video from a distributed camera system on the aircraft, so that the operator can look anywhere outside the airframe.

www.marinecorpstimes.com

Check out the massive ‘do-it-all’ drone that Marines could choose as their wingman

The drone would be able to coordinate fires across the battlefield.
www.marinecorpstimes.com www.marinecorpstimes.com
Click to expand...
One word: Bandwidth
 
TomS said:
yasotay said:
One word: Bandwidth
Click to expand...

Oh, I know...

Probably not too bad in naval environments with direct LOS to the ship. Ugly via SATCOM.
Click to expand...
That's one thing I wonder about. All of these systems probably work great... against hte Taliban. Against people who don't have hundreds of millions of dollars to toss at their bright sorts. Who don't have access to ASAT systems.

What happens when and if we do fight said people? I mean, you can hardly claim that a satellite which is relaying information to a combat systn't is somehow not a legitimate target.

Though I do have the amusing image of a war ending because the US and China/Russia/Agressorland are staring at a battlefield littered with drones knocked out by ECM, before they somewhat sheepishly go home.
 
With the Commandant's announcement that the USMC is going to have to get smaller I suspect that MUX with the risk baggage, taken in conjunction with the Secretary of Defenses "Night Courts", is an early victim of the USMC reinvigorating its naval roots.
 
Wow, a lrg logisitics tiltrotor ? The LAMV w. many in serial pulse jets (however loud) would be more reliable and survivable, also need be optionally manned.

Lightning Carrier needs to to be independent of carriers, Carriers and their craft need to stay out to sea.
Land based unmanned ISR/AWACS/tankers should be the support LCs generally receive. Who is developing those? Noone.
LCs need to retain the LHA/LHD role though as otherwise they are too expensive and invite single role inferior carrier redundancy claims. Non multi-role has no place anymore.
 
Last edited:
Hood said:
MUX isn't dead but looks like its going to split into different land and sea-based platforms.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helico...corps-concedes-mux-too-complex/137236.article
Click to expand...
Apparently, the Marines had a competition about AWACS and ISR payloads for the MUX program according to AW&ST. If Lightning Carriers have catapult and arresting cable then MQ-25 tanker might allow the USMC to avoid the risks of dependance on land based MUX for ISR/AWACS/tanker freeing CSGs from being too close ESGs.
 
Without angled deck that would be an impressive change in doctrine. Until then it was all about stacking Ospreys below deck while having a sizable force of F-35 on the top.
They would have to abandon that and just be a mini-carrier element (that's a very relative assersion).
Won't it be easier to roll a refueling pod into a regular Osprey?
 
TomcatViP said:
Without angled deck that would be an impressive change in doctrine. Until then it was all about stacking Ospreys below deck while having a sizable force of F-35 on the top.
They would have to abandon that and just be a mini-carrier element (that's a very relative assersion).
Won't it be easier to roll a refueling pod into a regular Osprey?
Click to expand...
ESG still needs a dedicated AWACS and endurance ISR platform so no CSG dependance.
 
I think that the requirements for the platform will change some as the USMC and USN try to find more common ground. Especially since the Commandant just announced he would change the USMC without asking for any more money from Congress.
 
Good Day All -

A cut sheet on the V-247 Vigilant from the Tailhook Convention.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 

Attachments

  • Bell V-247 Cut Sheet.pdf
    1.2 MB · Views: 23
  • Bell V-247 Cut Sheet Front.jpg
    Bell V-247 Cut Sheet Front.jpg
    733.7 KB · Views: 58
  • Bell V-247 Cut Sheet Back.jpg
    Bell V-247 Cut Sheet Back.jpg
    624 KB · Views: 54

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom