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

[F-14D]

We have heard from Sikorsky that X2 Technology is not scalable to the JMR-Heavy and JMR-Ultra class.

We have?

Yes we have. Those pics are of older configs. This has been discussed at various places in the forum, including here:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2768.msg203284.html#msg203284

It also came up in the context of my queries as to why the depictions of advanced X2s of recent times all show the cabin as being fully forward of the rotor mast.

 

[sferrin]

Ah well.

 

[yasotay]

I have always been led to believe that things scale down better than up, at least with rotorcraft. Also if I recall correctly Sikorsky left the X2 for the Ultra-Heavy Lift mission and went back to looking at variable diameter tilt rotor tech that they had explored earlier. I could be wrong with this.
Since the FVL-Medium is said to be a replacement for the H-60 series and there are thousands of those, it is likely an economic decision to go with Medium first. Of course this is the Pentagon we are talking about, so next week we will be back to looking at Ultra-Heavy, with a new naming convention as well.

 

[donnage99]

Yasotay, you're right. Sikorsky left the x2 and proposed a tiltrotor design instead. x2 tech can reach the speed specs, but not the range specs for ultra heavy lift.

 

[yasotay]

ANALYSIS: Looming FVL demonstrator awards plot uncertain path for US rotorcraft industry

By: Stephen TrimbleWashington DC

Source: Flightglobal.com

Two companies will be chosen on 1 August to build separate demonstrators under the US Army-led Future Vertical Life (FVL) initiative.

Describing exactly what that means, however, comes thick with technological, industrial and programmatic caveats.

First, FVL is not a funded acquisition programme, which leaves the future beyond the five-year demonstration of two high-speed rotorcraft open to doubt. It could become the heart of the US military rotorcraft fleet after 2030, or it could become another chapter in the long history of failed attempts to combine the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft with the vertical lift and hover capabilities of a helicopter.

Second, the consequences of winning or losing the two demonstration contracts are not clear. US defence officials emphasise any future competition for an FVL contract will be open no matter which teams are selected to build and fly the two demonstrators in Fiscal 2017. That policy keeps the door open to the losing bidders of 1 August decision, as well as companies that either abstained from this round, such as Airbus Helicopters, or were not among the four selected to bid, such as Piasecki Aircraft.

Two companies will be chosen on 1 August to build separate demonstrators under the US Army-led Future Vertical Life initiative.

Describing exactly what that means, however, comes thick with technological, industrial and programmatic caveats.

First, FVL is not a funded acquisition programme, which leaves the future beyond the five-year demonstration of two high-speed rotorcraft open to doubt. It could become the heart of the US military rotorcraft fleet after 2030, or it could become another chapter in the long history of failed attempts to combine the speed and range of a fixed-wing aircraft with the vertical lift and hover capabilities of a helicopter.

Second, the consequences of winning or losing the two demonstration contracts are not clear. US defence officials emphasise any future competition for an FVL contract will be open, no matter which teams are selected to build and fly the two demonstrators in fiscal year 2017. That policy keeps the door open to the losing bidders of 1 August decision, as well as companies that either abstained from this round, such as Airbus Helicopters, or were not among the four selected to bid, such as Piasecki Aircraft.

Bell has teamed up with Lockheed Martin to develop the V-280 Valor for the programme
Bell

Third, the army and industry appear to be hedging their bets. While FVL proposes switching to all-new platforms, the enabling technologies – engines, transmission and mission software – are each designed – just in case – to flow back as upgrades to the existing fleet of Boeing AH-64 Apaches, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks and Boeing CH-47 Chinooks.

So far, FVL’s main accomplishment has been to reinvigorate the clean-sheet design skills of a rotorcraft industrial base that has been slow to innovate, compared with fixed-wing aircraft peers. To date, the programme’s funding and promise has prompted key players in the industry to establish a modern digital design database, allowing Pentagon officials to experiment with different configurations much more rapidly than before.

“We can go to the industry today and say we want to alter a particular aspect of your solution and they can give us solution feedback fairly quickly,” says Dan Bailey, the army’s programme director for FVL. “What we’ve done to date is already leaps ahead of where we were five years ago.”

Despite the many uncertainties, rotorcraft makers have fully committed to FVL as the first initiative that seeks as a long-term goal to design a clean-sheen, vertical-lift aircraft for the US military since the cancellation of the Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66 Comanche in 2004 and the fielding of the Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey two years later.

The army’s aviation and missile research development center is now evaluating proposals from four teams – AVX, Bell Helicopter/Lockheed Martin, Karem Aircraft and Sikorsky-Boeing – for two contracts under the joint multirole technology demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme.

The two winning teams will match the army’s investment in the demonstration, which is budgeted for about $240 million. For that sum, the two teams design and build a full-scale, flying demonstrator, with first flight scheduled in the fourth quarter of FY2017. The army plans to retire both demonstrators after the JMR-TD programme ends in FY2019, and each aircraft will be designed to accumulate less than 200h of flight time.

The flight demonstration will be followed by a second phase focused on developing mission systems software, a frequent cause of cost overruns, delays and operational constraints in military aircraft acquisition. It follows an ongoing effort by the US Navy called the future airborne capability environment, which seeks to create a definitive standard for military aircraft. New applications could be rolled out in the same way that Apple provides for the iPhone, replacing the current version with bespoke software systems with each platform that can only be accessed by the original manufacturer.

To save costs, Phase 2 of the JMR-TD does not include integrating the new software architecture in either of the demonstrator aircraft, so it will be limited to ground tests.

“We want to ensure the architecture is longstanding. Subsystems will change, but the architecture will be enduring,” Bailey says.

The goals of the flying demonstration and the software phase are two-fold: to inform the army as it decides how to replace the UH-60 fleet in the mid-2020s and to reduce the risk of several new technologies before entering a full-scale development.

Which course the army proposes – a clean-sheet FVL or upgrading the UH-60s with bigger engines – is still open to debate.

Army officials insist on one hand that the inventory of platforms today is not sufficient to meet the needs of the future. A capability-based analysis completed by the army in 2009 looked at future vertical lift missions and found 35 shortfalls with existing platforms, although the details are classified.

“You’re not going to be able to do what the army wants in the future without a significant step change,” says Robert Hastings, Bell vice-president of communications and chief of staff. “Or they’ll be trying to do very different missions in the future with aircraft that were designed long ago.”

The army has outlined four classes of FVL aircraft to address those capability gaps, ranging from an armed scout known as the FVL-Light to a UH-60 and AH-64 replacement called the FVL-Medium in the short term. In several decades, the Army would replace the CH-47 with the FVL-Heavy. A more ambitious project seeks to define an aircraft larger than a C-130, but with vertical take-off and landing capability.

The challenge for the bidders in the ongoing JMR-TD competition is to design an aircraft for the FVL-Medium requirement that can be scaled up or down. The FVL-Medium must be sized to carry 14 troops, accelerate to 230kt (425km/h) and fly at least 2,100nm (3,890km) without refuelling.

Last October, the army narrowed to four the bidding teams for JMR-TD, selecting two groups using a tiltrotor configuration and two using coaxial compound helicopters.

Of the latter, Sikorsky and Boeing have teamed up to offer the SB-1 Defiant, a follow-on to Sikorsky’s self-funded X-2 high-speed demonstrator and the ongoing S-97 Raider development project. The SB-1 would feature the same coaxial and rigid rotor system to provide vertical lift and a pusher propeller to provide thrust. Boeing would integrate the Honeywell T55 engine that now powers the CH-47.

AVX, a company founded by former Bell chief engineer Troy Gaffey, is pairing a similar coaxial rotor system with dual ducted fans. The fans provide propulsion and differential thrust for yaw control, a classic problem for coaxial rotor systems, Gaffey says. The airframe will consist of composite skins bonded to metal frames.

Gaffey is also proposing to use an innovative business model by teaming with a group of 15 or 16 small companies scattered across the USA to produce the aircraft. “We are trying to become a virtual aircraft OEM,” says Gaffey. “It could very well bring a different level of competitiveness going forward.”

“One thing we learned about composites is if you mechanically fasten them the way aluminium is built, you end up with a very expensive carbonfibre structure,” he says.

In some ways, Bell Helicopter has already fielded an aircraft in the FVL-Medium class with the V-22 Osprey. However, it represents an older generation of design skills and technology and the efficiency of its rotor system is constrained by the US Marine Corps’ requirement to operate on amphibious carriers.

So Bell has teamed with Lockheed to develop the V-280 Valor, which it describes as a third-generation tiltrotor, with the experimental XV-15 representing the first generation. The “280” part of its designation represents the aircraft’s potential velocity in knots, slightly higher than the V-22’s listed maximum speed of 272-275kt. The V-280 also uses a simplified rotor system, in which only the rotor blades tilt instead of the entire nacelle.

Finally, Karem Aircraft has proposed an optimum-speed tiltrotor. Founder Abe Karem gained prominence by designing the Amber unmanned air system, which was renamed the Predator after it was acquired by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems in the early 1990s. Karem then moved on to develop optimum-speed rotor technology, which he first applied on the A-160 Hummingbird unmanned helicopter, which set a rotorcraft endurance record by flying nonstop for more than 18h.

For the past decade, Karem has been adapting the geared rotor system for the commercial and military markets, with a 75-seat tiltrotor aircraft called the TR-75 Aerotrain.

Karem adapted the TR-75 into a design called the TR-36 to meet the FVL-Medium requirements. The “36” in the designation refers to the size of the aircraft’s rotor diameter in feet.

 

[Triton]

"Why the World’s Armies Don’t Want U.S. Tech Anymore"
by Bill Sweetman

07/14/2014

Source:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/14/why-the-world-s-armies-don-t-want-u-s-tech-anymore.html

Boeing briefed reporters on the Army-led Joint Multi Role rotorcraft project—intended as a high-tech replacement for most of the thousands of helicopters in the Pentagon’s fleets—in Mesa, Arizona, late last month.

“We’ve shot ourselves in the foot twice,” I said, “and we are all out of feet.” My comment was not exactly diplomatic, but the JMR vision of a one-size-fits-all, fast and efficient rotorcraft technology platform that would leave the rest of the world in the dust gave me double flashbacks: to the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor and the LHX/Comanche, which had similar goals and fell far short of them. (Although the V-22 was not cancelled outright, as the Army killed Comanche in 2004, the objective was something that cost little more than a helicopter, without the Osprey’s fighter-like price tag.)

The consequences were massive. As an aviation-mad child in England, almost every helicopter I saw was U.S.-designed except for a few ramshackle British designs—a few user-hostile Bristol Sycamores; the even more frightening Belvedere, which comprised two Sycamores connected by a tube; and diminutive Skeeters and Scouts. When the RAF wanted reliable, soldier-proof helicopters, they bought Westland-built Sikorskys.

Not much had changed at my first working Farnborough air show in 1974 (the 2014 show is on this week), which due to a rain-soaked summer was combined with a remake of All Quiet On The Western Front. The RAF was grumpily tolerating French-made helicopters—the Puma and the fan-tailed Gazelle (nicknamed the Whistling Chicken Leg)—but the presence of an American SR-71 Blackbird upstaged Concorde and underlined U.S. dominance in aerospace in general. Few would have disagreed with the Boeing vice president who had told me around that time that Airbus, which then had a handful of orders for its first commercial jet, the A300—was “a typical government airplane—they’ll build a dozen or so and then go out of business.”

Today, Boeing and Airbus are peers by any account. Airbus Helicopter and AgustaWestland dominate the world of commercial helicopters, with a stream of new models; U.S. helicopter exports are mostly military, led by two designs that date to the 1970s and the early-1960s Chinook.

Although U.S. military exports remain high, propelled by a few big-ticket sales, the trends across defense, except (so far) in fighter aircraft, are similar. Israel leads the unmanned air vehicle business, despite billions in Pentagon funding for U.S. industry. Europe’s ramjet-powered Meteor air-to-air missile, claimed to be uniquely lethal at long range, has no U.S. equivalent (unless something exists in the classified world) and already provides Sweden with a contingency operational capability; the AIM-120D version of the Advanced Medium-Range AAM, evolutionary rather than revolutionary, is not operational yet. The only all-new U.S.-led surface-to-air missile, the Medium Extended Air Defense System, was just rejected by Poland, leaving the updated-veteran Patriot versus MBDA’s SAMP/T, a land-based version of the system operational on British and French warships. Non-U.S. contenders such as Rafael and Diehl increasingly own the shorter-range segment.

“We’ve shot ourselves in the foot twice -- and we are all out of feet.”

Not only does the U.S. not export warships, but designs for the centerpiece of the future American Navy—the Littoral Combat Ship—rely on European engines and waterjets (aside from General Electric gas turbines on Independence), radars and guns. The biggest naval export program is the Aegis fire control system. The same goes for military vehicles: the Marines’ next amphibious vehicle may be Italian-designed.

The U.S. led with active electronically scanned array radars—which replace the conventional radar’s pivoting antenna with solid-state electronics—but now looks late to the next phase, based on gallium nitride technology, that promises greater efficiency and range. Only recently did the Pentagon, fixated on stealth, realize that it had lost sight of electronic jamming and was faced with a nasty surprise in the shape of proliferated digital radio-frequency memory technology.

None of the reasons for this trend reflect well on U.S. government or industry. Most defense contractors prefer to pay their shareholders dividends rather than invest in research and development. Non-U.S. companies, much more reliant on exports, cannot afford to do that.

But U.S. R&D is directed toward what Washington says it wants, and those requirements may not meet international needs. In the case of the Comanche, it turned out that even the Army did not want a radar-stealthy helicopter. The V-22 may go to Israel, and possibly Japan. Most of the world wants more efficient and reliable helicopters, which Airbus and AgustaWestland will supply as the U.S. industry spends the next decade-and-a-half chasing JMR.

The problem has been exacerbated as programs become fewer and larger. Inevitably, that leaves bigger gaps in time and mission space that the competition can exploit. Airlift planning beyond the C-130 cargo plane is confused and minimally funded; nobody should be surprised when Airbus and Embraer carve up that market by 2020 with the new A400M and KC-390.

The biggest challenge is cultural. It took Boeing more than two decades to accept that the Airbus challenge was due to anything other than government subsidies. Today, on the defense side, it’s worrying that many people in the U.S. still seem unaware of Meteor’s existence; and judging by recent statements, Poland’s rejection of MEADS came as a shock. Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[marauder2048]

Is Sweetman's article really relevant to JMR? What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

 

[Triton]

"Bell Helicopter submits V-280 design for JMR-TD"
Marina Malenic, Washington, DC - IHS Jane's Defence Weekly
10 July 2014

Source:
http://www.janes.com/article/40720/bell-helicopter-submits-v-280-design-for-jmr-td

Key Points

Bell Helicopter designed its V-280 Valor emphasising light, innovative materials, and simplified design elements in order to reduce cost
The company is confident that tiltrotor aircraft can provide superior performance, but said it wanted to enhance the design's appeal by driving down the price

Bell Helicopter has submitted its offering to the US Army for the Joint Multirole Rotorcraft-Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) programme, a company official said during a 10 July teleconference with reporters.

"Bell has submitted its initial design and risk review," said Chris Gehler, Bell's director of operations for military programmes. "That was submitted on June 12."

The Pentagon is expected to choose two industry teams out of the four competing for technology demonstration contracts under the JMR project at the end of July. JMR is then expected to feed into a Future Vertical Lift (FVL) effort to develop a family of helicopters for the Pentagon beginning sometime in the next decade.

A Bell Helicopter-Lockheed Martin team and Karem are each developing tiltrotor designs, while AVX and Boeing-Sikorsky are separately working on coaxial-rotor designs. Each team is expected to provide at least half of the development funding leading to a flying prototype, which they would demonstrate for the government in 2017.

According to Gehler, Bell's team has emphasised cost in its "clean-sheet design" of the Valor. Known for its V-22 Osprey tiltrotor aircraft, which it builds with Boeing, Bell aimed to provide the speed and agility of a titlrotor design at a relatively low price for JMR, Gehler said.

"We conducted a lot of activity to reduce cost on this aircraft," he said. "You get great performance with a tiltrotor, but cost is sometimes an issue so we decided to take that into consideration from the moment we began designing."

He noted that costs were mainly reduced by dropping weight and increasing reliability. "Every aspect of this aircraft has been looked at from a cost perspective," said Gehler.

For example, the company decided to simplify or outright forego design features such as the automatic wing fold on the V-22 that it saw as unnecessary for JMR.

Other methods the company used for weight reduction included extensive use of "newer, stronger, and lighter" materials such as advanced composites for many components, and Gehler said that the ultimate Valor design for FVL would feature an all-composite fuselage. The concept demonstrator for JMR will stop short of that, but will have many composite-based components, including the v-tails and wings, he added.

The engine will be another difference between the planned JMR demonstrator and the design as envisioned in the future. The JMR demonstrator will use legacy General Electric T55 engines, while the ultimate design would incorporate new technology from the army's Future Affordable Turbine Engine programme.

 

[Triton]

Is Sweetman's article really relevant to JMR? What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

I believe that Bill's article brings up some interesting points concerning the JMR program, the United States defense industry, and the requirements of the United States military. I would be interested to know what yasotay and F-14D think of the issues brought up in Bill's article. It appears that Sikorsky will continue to self-fund the development of X2 Technology whatever the decision concerning the JMR-TD flight demonstrator might be. The latest product roadmaps that we have seen from Sikorsky seem to indicate that the company intends to introduce X2 Technology as much it can into its civil and military aviation product lines. But what happens to Sikorsky if the SB-1 Defiant isn't chosen for downselect? Does the company lose confidence in X2 Technology?

I have the same question if Bell is not chosen for the JMR-TD down select. The company sold its remaining interest in the civilian tiltrotor project that it began with Boeing to AgustaWestland. If the V-280 Valor is chosen in the JMR-TD down select, will Bell introduce tiltrotor technology in its civilian product lines?

What about AVX Aircraft? If the company is not chosen for the JMR-TD down select will the company whither and die? Or will it try to introduce its design into the civilian rotorcraft market?

It seems that for the most part the domestic military aviation market is driving the entire domestic rotorcraft industry in the United States. As the principle driver of the domestic rotorcraft industry, I am very concerned that the Army is so non-committal concerning the outcome of the JMR-TD program. What happens if after the end of this program the Army chooses an improved UH-60 Super Black Hawk like the Marines left JHL and developed the CH-53K King Stallion? Does Sikorsky become an acquisition target for a larger defense contractor? Does the domestic rotorcraft industry totally abandon the civilian rotorcraft business to foreign competitors?

 

[AeroFranz]

What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

I don't know...one who's trying to be humorous? or write an article that doesn't read like the copy/paste of company press releases?

 

[marauder2048]

What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

I don't know...one who's trying to be humorous? or write an article that doesn't read like the copy/paste of company press releases?

I'll file that opening under the "appeal to authority masquerading as humor" fallacy

 

[Sundog]

Is Sweetman's article really relevant to JMR? What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

Directly, no indirectly, yes. It's relevant to the symptomatic behavior of the Pentagon's requirement overkill, which inevitably leads to over priced products that we can't afford to buy in large numbers and can't be that competitive overseas, or get's outright cancelled as it ends up in an ongoing development loop; The F-35 being the exception. He's wondering if JMR is heading down the same path. You should have read the editorial instead of getting hung up on one quote.

 

[marauder2048]

Is Sweetman's article really relevant to JMR? What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

Directly, no indirectly, yes. It's relevant to the symptomatic behavior of the Pentagon's requirement overkill, which inevitably leads to over priced products that we can't afford to buy in large numbers and can't be that competitive overseas, or get's outright cancelled as it ends up in an ongoing development loop; The F-35 being the exception. He's wondering if JMR is heading down the same path. You should have read the editorial instead of getting hung up on one quote.

I read it as it's posted on AvWeek much in the style of their recent slew of pay-to-play Opinion pieces; if the author can't be bothered to distinguish between JMR-TD and FVL (which may never happen) and their disparate implications I'd suggest discerning readers such as Triton look elsewhere for insights.

Fortunately, in the spirit of "Backsight Forethought", AviationToday has had a series of very detailed pieces over the preceding months on many of the matters that Triton may find relevant. Here is but one article and no pay wall need stand in your way:

http://www.aviationtoday.com/rw/topstories/Finding-a-Better-Way_82233.html

To virtually no one’s surprise, the upcoming end to a decade of war has resulted in a serious drop in the U.S. President’s fiscal year 2015 military budget, with little hope for increases over the next half-decade or so. The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) budget request for FY15 is $495.6 billion, compared to the FY14 budget of $615.10 billion. From that, the Army is asking for $120.5 billion, down from $125 billion in the FY14 budget and from a peak of $144 billion in 2010.
Of the 2014 budget, roughly 1.6 percent was for helicopters, with an expected continued drop of 9.7 percent compound annual growth rate (CAGR) through 2018, according to a recent Frost & Sullivan forecast. Michael Blades, senior industry analyst, said that most of the reduction in spending would be from platform procurement funding. Whereas the procurement funding was up around $10.7 billion two years ago, it is now expected to be cut roughly in half, to $4.9 billion, by 2018. However, he noted, by that time programs such as the Sikorsky CH-53K, MH-60L and Bell-Boeing CV-22 will either be completed or ramping down.

But while money for procurement will drop, money for research, development, testing and evaluation (RDT&E) will remain fairly level. Even that will not be a major panacea for funding for developing new systems technology, since a lot of future military R&D money will be aimed at the Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter, which will provide the technology demonstration for the Future Vertical Lift program – and that will not even start until around 2017 or later.

So the name of the game until then is using upgraded commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) technology in order to do more with less – and let the civil industry pay for it.
“There is a business case for the expanded use of COTS,” said Tom Captain, vice chairman of Deloitte LLP. “In the absence of U.S. budget capacity, with the inability of the U.S. government to spend the kind of money needed for R&D, the civil industry is going to be spending more of their own money for product development R&D. There will be more use of commercial existing platforms retrofitted to defense applications.”

Steve Mundt, strategy and development at EADS North America, made a point during an industry panel at the Quad-A Missions Solutions Summit in May about Joint Multi-Role/Future Vertical Lift. He said that the technology changes between 2015 and 2035, the earliest potential date for the fielding of the FVL (medium), will be extensive. He wondered how industry and the army could work to manage that process better.
Industry is already taking up a lot of the slack by investing in R&D for programs that can transition between civil and military. AgustaWestland noted that it already invests over 10 percent on R&D, which is “several times the defense industry average.”

L-3 Wescam MX-15 EO/IR imaging turrets on the UH-72A. Photo courtesy L-3 Wescam A departure from traditional procurement processes and government funding R&D “is likely to lead to new, and more effective, solutions and partnerships with industry,” said AgustaWestland North America CEO Robert LaBelle. The military goal is for industry to come up with even more technology that can be used to improve its helicopter fleet while reducing the size of that fleet. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel has already stated that the overall Army fleet would be reduced by 25 percent, but modernized under the President’s budget plan to compensate for that loss.
A major reduction in the fleet will be under Army Aviation’s Restructuring Initiative. Under that plan, the fleet of OH-58D Kiowa Warriors will be retired, saving the Army more than $10 billion in modernization costs. The armed reconnaissance role of the OH-58D will be taken over by the AH-64 Apache. The Army will also retire the TH-67 trainers at Fort Rucker. Instead, the Army is asking for funding for an additional 100 UH-72s, with the first 55 from the FY15 budget, at a cost of $5.5 million per aircraft. Another 45 will be requested from the FY16 budget. These will be used for training.

AgustaWestland is offering its AW119Kx to the Navy to replace that services primary helicopter trainers. The company said that with no modifications from its current configuration, the AW119Kx’s combination of “low operating costs, strong performance characteristics, advanced capabilities, superior avionics upgrades, and reduced maintenance requirements would allow training squadrons to conduct the same levels of training with fewer aircraft.”
Both of those platforms would provide the respective services a primary trainer with digital glass cockpits, allowing students to advance in their training without having to transition from an analogue “steam gauge” initial trainer.

Rendering of the HPW3000 Engine. Courtesy ATEC So except for possibly new trainers and the recent selection of the Sikorsky- S-92 as the next VXX presidential helicopter – all COTS programs – the big losers will be platform. The now-defunct Armed Aerial Scout program is the primary example of this. The winners will be systems and subsystems that can save the military money at a low cost… many of which are already under contract and in the pipeline.
One of those is the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) with Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney’s HPW3000 pitted against General Electric’s GE3000 for a 3,000-shp engine to power the UH-60s and AH-64s.

These engines are being developed to meet the Army’s increased altitude requirement. But perhaps more importantly, they will reduce specific fuel consumption, production and maintenance costs, and increase engine life by 20 percent.
Originally, the plan was to take both competitors into the production phase of the program. Now, however, budget cuts will probably only allow the Army to take both companies through the technology development phase of the program, or milestone B.
Tom Hart, vice president of sales, defense and space for Honeywell, said that “ideally you want both competitors to be fully funded through the (production) phase, but if they have to make a selection after the milestone B phase, that’s what we have to prepare for.”

Honeywell SVS. Photo courtesy of Honeywell Hart also noted that the ITEP program is jointly funded by the military and the manufacturers, with the Army, Honeywell and Pratt & Whitney each picking up a third of the cost. “And it’s the same with GE and the Army,” he said.
Another example is development of a Degraded Visual Environment (DVE) system – or synthetic vision – that allows pilots to land safely in brownout (sand) or whiteout (snow). “That is an area where we see some funding coming through with the Special Forces, and we know that the Army continues to develop a program, although it is not out yet,” Hart said.
However, this is another area where the military and civil technology crosses paths.

Honeywell already has synthetic vision systems on the commercial side that can be applied toward DVE “although you have to add in additional features around radar so you can see right through the dust. We can overlay that across the synthetic vision backbone,” he said.
The Army has already awarded contracts to Rockwell Collins to develop what it calls the Degraded Visual Environment Pilotage System (DVEPS) for the Army’s Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR) aircraft, primarily the MH-47G and MH-60M. Rockwell Collins said that the system is compatible with the existing Common Avionics Architecture System on those two aircraft, with the goal being to develop and qualify a DVE solution through a three-phase program to be fielded by 2018.
Also a winner in the modernization of current platforms that tie into the civil market is inertial navigation, currently used in numerous civil aircraft. Hart said that a Honeywell program currently produces the Embedded Global Positioning System Inertial Navigation System (EGI). “This is a commercially based system, modified as required for military application. It is used across the military platform board – every Chinook, Black Hawk, Apache and Kiowa has the Honeywell INS that’s founded on a commercial capability.”
He added that Honeywell “is continuing to invest” in INS development, “and we believe the next generation navigation system, which is going to have a lot lower weight, is going to have applications in the military environment. So we believe even with tighter budgets that there is going to be funding to buy that equipment because it’s an upgrade to the existing system.”

Linked to that is the increasing need for improved cockpit management, which will also be a big winner for the civil/military crossover with companies such as Garmin, Honeywell, Rockwell Collins and others providing both military and civil versions of avionics from nav/com to mapping. While increasingly advanced digital cockpits provide the pilots with massive amounts of information and capability, the human brain is still thousands of years old, so being able to deal with all that information and capability becomes the problem. Improved systems such as the INS (or EGI) already cut down on the pilot’s workload, and systems that will allow a civil helicopter to fly out to, and land on, an oil rig platform hands off are already being developed. These systems will easily transition into the military market.
Fortunately, with major growth in the civil helicopter industry – particularly with the oil and gas industry and VIP/executive transport leading that growth – there will be a lot of advancements in technology that can meet military needs. “Bell is putting out the 525 just to hit those markets, and those larger helicopters, the super medium twins, do carry a lot of the requirements that the military can use,” Hart said. “They will have inertial systems, they will have dual engines, they’ll have HUMS capability embedded on those aircraft – and that is where we see applicability of products we have on military aircraft fitting into the larger commercial helicopters like the Sikorsky S-92.”
With most rotorcraft technology now being less about the airframe and more about the subsystems, “many of the improved cockpit displays that have found their way to military platforms were created for civil aircraft,” according to Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group. He also noted that having had plenty of military work tended to make the OEMs complacent. “Bell is only returning to new civil product development now that its defense work is under heavy pressure, resulting in the launch of the 505 and 525. Similarly, Sikorsky’s most ambitious new civil product in recent decades, the S-92, was created in the middle of the terrible post-Cold War defense spending downturn.”
Chuck Evans, director of marketing and sales support for Bell Helicopter Textron, pretty much backed that up, stating that along with introducing the next generation 525 and 505, “we’re also taking steps to modernize and upgrade our current products on the market.”

This includes upgrading the 407GX and its military counterpart, the 407GT, with a new glass cockpit. The 412EPI also got a glass cockpit and higher performance engine. Although the military budget has dropped, the continuing need for modernization and upgrades ensures there is still going to be plenty of money to go around, Aboulafia said. “Since DoD continues to fund improvements here, the civil side gets all it needs.”

And a lot of new upgraded systems will be needed. Although somewhat long of tooth, the H-60, AH-64 and CH-47 models are all working their way through the alphabet, with each new version requiring new systems, many of which are applicable to both civil and military platforms. Even the relatively new UH-72A is now being produced in eight different versions, from VIP transport to training, with each version requiring its own MEP. Deloitte’s Tom Captain noted that when the venerable B-52 reaches its expected retirement date in the 2040 timeframe, it will be 90 years old and have gone through three separate phases, from strategic bombing to dropping GPS laser guided munitions. “I suspect that we will see the H-60 and the Apache being re-purposed over time. They are perfectly good, and armed with new types of precision strike weapons and new sensors, and even convert to unmanned aircraft, we’ll see a lot more life to the programs.”

Even Bell can’t be considered a loser from the loss of the OH-58, although for the first time since the OH-13 flew in Korea, it will not have any of its products flying for the U.S. Army – with the exception of a few stray UH-1s left in a few support units. Bell has a strong civil line with systems that are applicable to military use. And those OH-58 Kiowa Warriors being grounded by the U.S. Army are not going to be mothballed out in Arizona. They still have a lot of life left in them, and most will be snatched up by foreign militaries, which will need long term service support from Bell.

“We will work with the Army on the OH-58D to see if there is FMS opportunities,” remarked Bell Helicopter President and CEO John Garrison during Quad-A. Two panels convened on the second day of Quad-A. Maj. Gen. Lynn Collyar, the Commanding General of the Aviation and Missile Command (AMCOM), hosted the first panel, which included most of the Program Mangers including the recently appointed PEO Aviation, Brig. Gen. Robert Marion. After that session, an industry panel took the stage. Moderated by Maj. Gen. Jeff Schloesser (Ret.), the panel included: Marc Paganini, President and CEO of Airbus Helicopters Inc.; Philip Dunford, COO of Boeing Military Aircraft; John Chadwick, President of Chadwick & Co.; Leonard Genna, President of L-3 Communications; Tom Harrison, CEO of Robertson Fuel Systems; and HAI President Matthew Zuccaro.
But just to end on a depressing note – there is still sequestration. If it returns in 2016, “it will get really rough to make up the cuts the Budget Control Act requests and the spending caps that are there,” Blades said.

This could mean the 100 additional UH-72As will be cut back to the 55 already programed for 2015, the CH-53K program could be postponed for another year and the UH-1Y/AH-1Z would be delayed and cost more, he said. —Andrew Drwiega, International Bureau Chief, contributed to this report.

 

[yasotay]

I have pondered how to write to this for a bit. I could have easily blown the thread up on this but will stay short.
It roles of the tips of your fingers to say "civil rotorcraft" are fine for military use. They are not. They are not designed to get shot up. That is the reality of military rotorcraft. In thirteen years somewhere north of 500 helicopter have been shot down in combat. The number hit is likely four times that (being conservative). Unlike fixed wing that have to deal with a dozen projectiles on a bad day, military rotorcraft can and do deal with up to thousands on a bad day. Ask someone who went into the Sha-e-Kot Valley or flew with 11 Regt. Ask the CV-22 pilots who flew ~400 miles after having their aircraft shot up by small and medium caliber AAA. How many civil aircraft are designed to take 23mm hits and continue operating. They don't plan to operate in that environment, and should not have to pay for that expense.
Certainly you can use civil rotorcraft for military operations, they are all the time, but then you 'can' do surgery with kitchen knives too. Yes you can make civil rotorcraft more military by adding armor and hardened systems. But you add the dread of all flying things; weight. Suddenly your nimble 6k weight helicopter is weighing in at 7.5k and wallows through the sky. Your rotor system that was carefully designed to last a real long time at 6k going out to the oil rig and back is bench pressing in a lot more in dirty environments while being slung around and occasionally taking a bullet. Let's ask the Canadians how their maritime helicopter program with Sikorsky has gone.
Finally I was there when the AH64 and UH60 were new. Earlier pundits made the same "goldplated overkill' comments regarding those exceedingly expensive more than was needed bloated pentagon programs. I have to wonder why Sweetman has not argued for transitioning the B787 to the bomber roll. Some new electronics, racks in the cargo holds and billions saved.

 

[sferrin]

I read it as it's posted on AvWeek much in the style of their recent slew of pay-to-play Opinion pieces; if the author can't be bothered to distinguish between JMR-TD and FVL (which may never happen) and their disparate implications I'd suggest discerning readers such as Triton look elsewhere for insights.

AvWeek has really taken a dive unfortunately. I was reading an article by some know-nothing who's trotted out (again) the old notion of "the US Army should take back the USAF" only to find out further into the article he's shilling for a book on the topic he wrote. Really? This is what Aviation Week calls quality material?

 

[Sundog]

I have pondered how to write to this for a bit. I could have easily blown the thread up on this but will stay short.
It roles of the tips of your fingers to say "civil rotorcraft" are fine for military use. They are not. They are not designed to get shot up. That is the reality of military rotorcraft. In thirteen years somewhere north of 500 helicopter have been shot down in combat. The number hit is likely four times that (being conservative). Unlike fixed wing that have to deal with a dozen projectiles on a bad day, military rotorcraft can and do deal with up to thousands on a bad day. Ask someone who went into the Sha-e-Kot Valley or flew with 11 Regt. Ask the CV-22 pilots who flew ~400 miles after having their aircraft shot up by small and medium caliber AAA. How many civil aircraft are designed to take 23mm hits and continue operating. They don't plan to operate in that environment, and should not have to pay for that expense.
Certainly you can use civil rotorcraft for military operations, they are all the time, but then you 'can' do surgery with kitchen knives too. Yes you can make civil rotorcraft more military by adding armor and hardened systems. But you add the dread of all flying things; weight. Suddenly your nimble 6k weight helicopter is weighing in at 7.5k and wallows through the sky. Your rotor system that was carefully designed to last a real long time at 6k going out to the oil rig and back is bench pressing in a lot more in dirty environments while being slung around and occasionally taking a bullet. Let's ask the Canadians how their maritime helicopter program with Sikorsky has gone.
Finally I was there when the AH64 and UH60 were new. Earlier pundits made the same "goldplated overkill' comments regarding those exceedingly expensive more than was needed bloated pentagon programs. I have to wonder why Sweetman has not argued for transitioning the B787 to the bomber roll. Some new electronics, racks in the cargo holds and billions saved.

Just for clarification, I'm not saying anywhere that the U.S. Military should use civilian helos for ops. What I'm saying is, over the past three decades their helo development hasn't been very well managed, IMHO. The AH64 and UH60 developments went a hell of a lot better. I think Sikorsky gets that, based on how they're developing the S-97. That's why I think it will be a success.

 

[yasotay]

Sundog - Agree 100%. The greatest challenge in the US is indeed the management of the military rotorcraft efforts. I fully believe that both the industry and the government organizations have atrophied over the last thirty years of re-rebuild the same aircraft. Also, the disiplines needed to go through the efforts have been completely crushed under ever increasing bureaucratic rules and regulations.

Having met many of the men who designed the extant US rotorcraft, the youngest are in their sixties. One can hope that the JMR and FVL efforts will bring more men and women into the work force so that the US rotorcraft industry will have people who are up to the task of designing new military rotorcraft. Sadly I have no clue as to how to solve the problem of the bureaucracy, as it continues to grow unabated, perpetuating itself through studies to figure out how to study the many challenges involved with study of methodologies to establish requirements analysis for rotorcraft. Think what would happen to all of the 'beltway bandits' if the government really decided to reduce the number of personnel involved in the decision making and procurement of military aircraft.

Ponder this; What types of aircraft where the US Army Air Corps and US Navy flying eighty years ago? In 2035 what types of combat rotorcraft will the US Department of Defense be flying?

 

[mboeller]

Hi;

layman's question regarding the V-280 Valor and especially the TR36TD from Karem. Aren't those Tilt Rotor concepts too big/wide for some missions?

I don't know how large the V-280 is, but the TR36TD has two 36 feet rotors and ~10 feet space between the rotors, so the proposal from Karem is ~80-85 feet wide. Isn't that rather wide for some missions?

 

[yasotay]

Hi;

layman's question regarding the V-280 Valor and especially the TR36TD from Karem. Aren't those Tilt Rotor concepts too big/wide for some missions?

I don't know how large the V-280 is, but the TR36TD has two 36 feet rotors and ~10 feet space between the rotors, so the proposal from Karem is ~80-85 feet wide. Isn't that rather wide for some missions?

Hardly the layman's question. It is likely a very real question for the FVL effort, as these are to be tactical combat rotorcraft. It is apparently an important enough question that Bell had a rug of a UH-60 overall size made to place their V-280 mockup on. Likewise the grey matting when they put the mock-up under a tent. They will point out no doubt that their design is shorter in length and something like three feet wider per side (six feet total). If the Karem design is ~80-85 ft wide then I would think it might have an impact to those making decisions.
Then again JMR is a technology assessment more akin to an X-plane. So I would imagine that technology maturation may be as big a decision point as tactical viability.

 

[Triton]

Well, this is disappointing... looks like we have to wait a little longer to find out who was chosen for down select.

"Army Narrows Playing Field for Joint-Multi Role Helicopter, But Few Public Details Announced"
By Valerie Insinna

Source:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1572

The Army has made a decision on which two joint multi-role competitors will move forward to flight tests in 2017, but it’s not ready to make an announcement just yet.

“Further coordination” with the four competitors involved in the program — Bell Helicopter, AVX Aircraft, Karem Aircraft and a Sikorsky-Boeing team — is needed before naming which companies will receive funding for demonstrations, the Army’s news release stated.

Once that coordination is complete, the Army will announce its path forward later this month or September during a panel discussion featuring members of government and industry.

Under the technical investment agreements between the Army and the companies, both groups must concur on the path forward, said Dan Bailey, the service’s joint multi-role program manager.

“What that means is that if we on the government side and/or the contractors' side were to determine that there need to be changes made in any part of the agreement, there’s a discussion that has to occur between both parties,” he told National Defense.

The joint multi-role demonstration program is a technology development effort that the Army intends to feed into a future vertical lift program of record. The FVL competition is planned to result in a new generation of rotorcraft that will replace current fleets. Four variants — light, medium, heavy and ultra — could be fielded, with the medium-lift version scheduled for introduction in the mid-2030s.

The four JMR competitors can be divided across the lines of company size and aircraft design. Relative unknowns Karem and AVX are facing industry heavyweights Bell Helicopter and Boeing-Sikorsky. All companies have publicly presented initial designs, with Bell and Karem proposing tiltrotor aircraft while Boeing-Sikorsky and AVX offering compound helicopters with coaxial rotors.

The Army has always known that it could not afford to fund all four JMR competitors for flight tests, Bailey said. The companies in the past year have briefed the service on their best technical and programmatic solutions, and the Army has settled on what it believes is the best investment.

Competitors “can certainly offer different arrangements and agreements, but it’s going to have to be within the context of what our decision in terms, of best investment for the Army is,” he said.

“If somebody comes up with something new and different that wasn’t presented to us already, that would probably change the paradigm, but we would not back up from this point and reshape the decision,” he added.

Bailey would not specify whether all competitors would continue to have a role in the program.

“I certainly hope that the ones that do not go to flight test are able to continue to pursue and push their technology,” he said. “But honestly that’s part of the discussions that have to take place.”

If selected to move on, competitors will finalize designs and participate in a critical design review in 2015.

The Army’s hope is that the FVL program will yield speedier rotorcraft that can operate in extreme environmental conditions. Aircraft will likely be required to carry 12 fully equipped troops at cruise speeds of 230 knots while being able to reach altitudes of 6,000 feet in 95-degree Fahrenheit weather.

Last month, executives from the competing companies briefed reporters on their designs and stressed the importance of the joint multi-role and future vertical lift programs to the industrial base. The military has not funded development of new rotorcraft since the V-22 Osprey in the 1980s.

All of the competitors are investing more money into their designs than the Army requires, they said.

 

[yasotay]

It is not surprising really that the Army is going though all of the legal requirements before making a public announcment.

 

[sferrin]

It is not surprising really that the Army is going though all of the legal requirements before making a public announcment.

No sense having to spend further time and money sorting out all the sour grapes of the losers. Best just be done with it.

 

[Triton]

"US Army's JMR Helo Selection Slips"
Initial Flying Demonstrator Planned for 2017
Aug. 1, 2014 - 05:44PM |
By PAUL McLEARY

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140801/DEFREG02/308010024

WASHINGTON — The initial down-select for the technology demonstrator phase of the US Army’s ambitious Joint Multi-Role (JMR) helicopter program has missed its original July deadline, and Army officials are now saying they’ll inform industry teams about who is moving forward sometime this month.

The Army said on Friday that it will gather the four industry teams working on the JMR program in “late August or early September” to discuss the way forward on the program. But an official added that the down-select to two competitors from the current four will have already been made by time the big sit down with industry takes place.

Program manager Dan Bailey said the meeting will “showcase the teams and technologies selected for the air vehicle demonstration” while further discussing how this technology demonstration phase fits into the larger Future Vertical Lift program.

Still, Army officials, including Bailey, have long sounded confident that the down-select would happen in July.

Overall, the change likely will not prove to be overly significant, as long as it is limited. The service wants to begin flying demonstrators in 2017 and is looking at the mid-2030s for operational use of the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program, of which the JMR is the initial technology development phase.

But Army officials could not offer a reason for the slight slippage in the schedule.

The service has pre-sequestration plans to spend about $350 million on the JMR program through fiscal 2019.

Speaking July 1 at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Bailey said he didn’t see the return of sequestration in fiscal 2016 as a huge impediment to the program due to the fact that Pentagon officials have said it is such a critical part of the Army’s plans for the future.

“I have full confidence we are not at risk,” he said while sitting alongside representatives from the companies competing for the work. “I don’t have many contingencies because I do not feel at risk that the JMR-TD will lose its resources.”

The technologies that the FVL is being designed to replace: Cold War-era Black Hawk and Apache attack helicopters that are not getting any younger. “When you think about the future in urban areas we’re going to be operating in, vertical lift is going to be absolutely essential,” Bailey said.

In a sign of movement on the program, however, on July 11 the team of Boeing and Sikorsky was selected by the Army to help develop the Joint Common Architecture (JCA) standard for the JMR program.

The JCA is considered the “‘digital backbone’ through which mission systems will be integrated into the FVL system’s design,” Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Defense Systems & Services, said in a statement.

The Sikorsky-Boeing team has also submitted its Defiant aircraft — based on Sikorsky’s X2 rotorcraft design that features counter-rotating coaxial main rotors and a pusher propeller — to the Army in consideration for the program.

In 2013, the Army awarded development contracts worth $6.5 million each to Bell, AVX, Karem and Boeing-Sikorsky to work on the technology demonstration program.

While the coming selection will likely eliminate two of the four teams, Bailey has for months insisted that the door will remain open to competition and the Army may very well choose technologies from a variety of companies to come up with a design that it thinks will be effective for the missions it envisions.

“We will certainly ... have opportunities for every one of the four vendors that we would like to continue at some level,” he said.

Still, given the 2017 demonstration date and the budget limitations that the Pentagon is operating under, “we’re at a critical point in the schedule. I would love to take all four [contractors] forward, but financially we do not have the resources to allow us to do that.”

When it comes to dividing up the funding among the winners — and then potentially any other technology that the service wants to include on the aircraft — “all we have to do is tell them what we want to continue with,” he said.

“We continue to fund, and they continue to march. If it’s something less than the full scope, then we’ll have to do some negotiations with them to reshape the investment agreement.”

 

[yasotay]

"Helo selection slips" sells more than "Army waits for lawyers and paperwork to be done"
:

 

[Triton]

"Helo selection slips" sells more than "Army waits for lawyers and paperwork to be done"
:

The Army dealing with protests from proposals that didn't make it to down-select lest the contractors contact the GAO?

 

[Triton]

Is Sweetman's article really relevant to JMR? What kind of journalist opens a serious critique by quoting himself?

Directly, no indirectly, yes. It's relevant to the symptomatic behavior of the Pentagon's requirement overkill, which inevitably leads to over priced products that we can't afford to buy in large numbers and can't be that competitive overseas, or get's outright cancelled as it ends up in an ongoing development loop; The F-35 being the exception. He's wondering if JMR is heading down the same path. You should have read the editorial instead of getting hung up on one quote.

The Army has not had very good luck lately with development projects going to the production stage. The concern is will FVL-Medium suffer the same fate as the Sikorsky/Boeing RAH-66, Bell ARH-70 and the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS). In the meantime, we have KAI getting into the helicopter business and Japan developing UH-X in addition to competition from Airbus Helicopters and AgustaWestland.

I guess the Bell 525 Relentless, the Bell 505 Jet Ranger X, and the Sikorsky X2 are examples of helicopter manufacturers spending their own money to develop new product for the marketplace. But it is interesting that the Army passed on the offerings of Bell and MD Helicopters and chose a militarized version of the militarized version of the Eurocopter EC145 for LUH.

As for being a discerning reader, I am an outsider looking in who has no contacts in industry or the military and relies on the aviation press to be informed. Most of my work experience has been in the software and the electronic test and measurement industries. I've seen a lot of profit taking, acquisition of competitors and mergers, workforce reductions in the United States, and off-shoring to lowest cost regions for manufacturing and engineering development work. I am very concerned that the same fate will happen to the domestic aerospace industry. Because of this, I sometimes post articles on the Secret Projects forums to get the opinions of members. Often times I am not agreeing with. or endorsing, the content of the article. I am throwing the article into the ring and asking for opinions.

 

[bobbymike]

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/sikorskyboeing-bell-win-us-army-jmr-rotorcraft-demonstrators

 

[Triton]

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/sikorskyboeing-bell-win-us-army-jmr-rotorcraft-demonstrators

I thought that this was interesting:

The two other competitors for JMR TD Phase 1, small companies AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft, are expected to receive Army contracts for some level of continued technology development. AVX was proposing a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan compound and Karem a variable-speed tiltrotor.

Cost-sharing is a major component of JMR and executives at both Bell and Boeing have said industry is investing many times more than the government in the technology demonstration because of the importance of the follow-on FVL-M program.

How much of the JMR TD budget the Army has left to spend with AVX and Karem will depend on the cost-sharing agreed to by Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell. Both AVX and Karem say they are in discussions with the Army.

 

[F-14D]

http://aviationweek.com/awin-only/sikorskyboeing-bell-win-us-army-jmr-rotorcraft-demonstrators

I thought that this was interesting:

The two other competitors for JMR TD Phase 1, small companies AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft, are expected to receive Army contracts for some level of continued technology development. AVX was proposing a 230-kt. coaxial-rotor/ducted-fan compound and Karem a variable-speed tiltrotor.

Cost-sharing is a major component of JMR and executives at both Bell and Boeing have said industry is investing many times more than the government in the technology demonstration because of the importance of the follow-on FVL-M program.

How much of the JMR TD budget the Army has left to spend with AVX and Karem will depend on the cost-sharing agreed to by Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell. Both AVX and Karem say they are in discussions with the Army.

This implies that the Big Two were picked not only for their technology, but because they've got enough cash to pick up more of the tab from the gov't than the other two.

 

[Triton]

This implies that the Big Two were picked not only for their technology, but because they've got enough cash to pick up more of the tab from the gov't than the other two.

Yes it does. That's very disappointing. It means that start-ups like AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft without deep pockets didn't have a chance with JMR-TD.

 

[sferrin]

This implies that the Big Two were picked not only for their technology, but because they've got enough cash to pick up more of the tab from the gov't than the other two.

Yes it does. That's very disappointing. It means that start-ups like AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft without deep pockets didn't have a chance with JMR-TD.

If they'd had a compelling design and a convincing arguement (that they could actually deliver) they'd have had a chance. They didn't so they lost. Not surprised in the least at the outcome. (I'd rather they picked Karem over Bell but given who's got the actual tilt-rotor experience the choice was a no-brainer.)

"With the rigid coaxial rotors, pusher propeller and advanced fly-by-wire controls of Sikorsky’s X2 configuration, the Defiant demonstrator will be powered by a pair of Honeywell T55 turboshafts from the Boeing CH-47 Chinook."

That's a lot of power.

 

[Triton]

"Sikorsky, Boeing Selected to Build Technology Demonstrator for Future Vertical Lift
SB>1 Defiant expected to fly in 2017"

August 12, 2014

Source:
http://www.sikorsky.com/About+Sikorsky/News/Press+Details?pressvcmid=d096a228596c7410VgnVCM1000004f62529fRCRD

Washington - Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp. (NYSE: UTX), and Boeing (NYSE: BA) have been selected to build a helicopter for the U.S. Army’s Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator Phase 1 program (JMR TD), paving the way for the next generation of vertical lift aircraft.

The U.S. Army Aviation Technology Directorate (AATD) selected the Sikorsky-Boeing team to continue the development of the SB>1 Defiant, a medium-lift helicopter configured to Sikorsky’s X2™ coaxial design, through flight testing. First flight for the program is expected in 2017.

“Defiant will use Sikorsky’s proven X2 technology to overcome aircraft design challenges, which will be critical requirements on future vertical lift aircraft,” said Mick Maurer, Sikorsky president. “The Sikorsky-Boeing team’s integrated approach has created a unique blend of expertise, innovative spirit and customer commitment that are unmatched in the industry. The complementary capabilities of each team member have delivered a design that will provide the best future vertical lift solution to the U.S. Army, and the flexibility of our design makes it suited for naval applications as well. This is a major leap forward.”

The Defiant aircraft will feature counter-rotating rigid main rotor blades for vertical and forward flight, a pusher propeller for high-speed acceleration and deceleration, and an advanced fly-by-wire flight control system.

“Our team brings leadership and new ways of thinking to aircraft development,” said Shelley Lavender, president of Boeing Military Aircraft. “As the original equipment manufacturers for both the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, we bring tremendous technological breadth and depth to the customer. I believe our technical capabilities and experience in development and flight testing of complex rotorcraft systems were a key factor in the customer’s decision.”

To date, Sikorsky and Boeing collectively have delivered more than 3,000 helicopters to the Army in support of its challenging missions.

The JMR TD program supports the Department of Defense’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program to deliver the next generation of vertical lift aircraft with greater performance, reliability and affordability. The Defiant aircraft packages evolutionary technologies in a new, innovative and affordable design that flies faster, farther and with more payload.

The JMR TD Program offers Sikorsky and Boeing the opportunity to partner with the U.S. Government in demonstrating the maturity of advanced and enabling future vertical lift technologies. Sikorsky and Boeing formed their JMR team in January 2013, and each company has invested significantly in the program.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., based in Stratford, Connecticut, is a world leader in aircraft design, manufacture and service. United Technologies Corp., based in Hartford, Connecticut, provides high-technology products and support services to the aerospace and building systems industries.

A unit of The Boeing Company, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is one of the world's largest defense, space and security businesses specializing in innovative and capabilities-driven customer solutions, and the world’s largest and most versatile manufacturer of military aircraft. Headquartered in St. Louis, Boeing Defense, Space & Security is a $33 billion business with 56,000 employees worldwide.

 

[Triton]

If they'd had a compelling design and a convincing arguement (that they could actually deliver) they'd have had a chance. They didn't so they lost. Not surprised in the least at the outcome. (I'd rather they picked Karem over Bell but given who's got the actual tilt-rotor experience the choice was a no-brainer.)

Sounds like you are saying that Karem Aircraft had a compelling design and you are making my point. The U.S. Army Aviation Technology Directorate (AATD) isn't interested in enabling a start-up helicopter manufacturer. The teams with the greater resources prevailed.

 

[sferrin]

Sounds like you are saying that Karem Aircraft had a compelling design and you are making my point. The U.S. Army Aviation Technology Directorate (AATD) isn't interested in enabling a start-up helicopter manufacturer. The teams with the greater resources prevailed.

There's more to winning than a compelling design. As I said, and most importantly, you have to be able to DELIVER it.

 

[Triton]

"Boeing-Sikorsky, Bell Helicopter Move Forward in Joint Multi-Role Helicopter Program"
By Valerie Insinna

8/12/2014

Source:
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1578

The Army has selected Bell Helicopter and a Boeing-Sikorsky team to produce and fly rotorcraft in 2017 for its joint multi-role technical demonstrator program, giving these companies a leg up in developing the service’s next-generation fleet.

The JMR program is the Army’s science and technology effort for the future vertical lift program of record — the intended procurement vehicle to field speedy, long-range successors to the Army’s helicopter fleets. The medium variant of FVL, scheduled for initial operating capability in the mid 2030s, would replace Boeing’s AH-64 Apache attack helicopter and Sikorsky’s UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopter.

Rotorcraft heavyweights Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky came in on top of two smaller companies, AVX Aircraft Co. and Karem Aircraft, which were also vying for a chance to build demonstrators. Both companies — as well as other helicopter manufacturers such as Airbus and AgustaWestland — could come back to the table when the FVL program begins.

Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor, named after its 280-knot top speed, can fly at double the speed and has twice the range of any of the Army’s current helicopters.

“The aircraft can provide the military with unmatched range, speed and payload capabilities, and is designed with operational agility in mind to provide our soldiers transformational reach and revolutionary capability on the battlefield,” Keith Flail, program director for the Bell V-280 Valor, said in a statement. “We remain focused on providing exceptional capabilities and flexibility in an advanced aircraft with reduced weight, complexity and cost.”

Boeing-Sikorsky’s helicopter, called the SB>1 Defiant, features a coaxial, counter-rotating rigid main rotor blades on top, and a pusher propeller in the rear that allows the aircraft to accelerate and decelerate. The aircraft is based on Sikorsky’s X-2 demonstrator.

“As the original equipment manufacturers for both the Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, we bring tremendous technological breadth and depth to the customer,” said Shelly Lavender, president of Boeing Military Aircraft. "I believe our technical capabilities and experience in development and flight testing of complex rotorcraft systems were a key factor in the customer’s decision.”

Dan Bailey, the Army’s JMR program manager, has said the service could only afford to take two competitors to flight demonstrations, but said the other companies could still have a future role.

It was not immediately clear whether AVX or Karem would have further involvement in developing JMR technologies. AVX Aircraft proposed a coaxial design while Karem offered a tiltrotor, but neither manufacturer has ever produced an operational helicopter.

AVX spokesman Mike Cox said, “We’re still in negotiations with the Army … about doing some level of work.”

Karem Aircraft’s program manager did not immediately return a request for comment.

It’s no surprise that the Army chose Boeing-Sikorsky and Bell to move forward, said Richard Aboulafia, an aerospace analyst with the Teal Group. All three companies invested a lot of money into their designs and have extensive experience selling rotorcraft to the Army.

“It’s certainly safer to go with the incumbents just because they’re the ones that are going to be in business,” he said. “That doesn’t mean the other guys don’t have innovative ideas and designs, but in terms of safety and the industrial base, it was pretty clear that the two incumbents had a strong advantage.”

However, Aboulafia is skeptical that the JMR and FVL efforts will result in procurement of new helicopters. Both programs may produce useful new technologies, but it may take the Army decades to incorporate any revolutionary changes in rotorcraft design, he said.

“Both of these two contenders have the greatest experience in building and designing. Now, there’s two big issues," he said. "Are we ready to decide who is offering the future optimal rotorcraft configuration, or is it going to take another couple decades? Are we ready to say in the JMR timeframe what is the ideal shape of the future rotorcraft?"

The other issue is that even if the Army does choose a design, it’s “highly uncertain, indeed unlikely” that it will pay a premium for the extended speed and range sought after in the FVL program, he said.

 

[yasotay]

I would argue that the two teams who did not win full development did have compelling elements or they would not have elected to keep them on any longer. I am surprised that the smaller companies are still with us. I am not surprised at the decision to spend most of the funds with the larger companies because the Army cannot accept the total risk with the program that the smaller companies present. They have confidence in the big three with their large staffs to be able to execute within the small timeline (first flight 2017).
Well the fun part will be how many times the requirements for the program will change in the next couple of years.

 

[F-14D]

I would argue that the two teams who did not win full development did have compelling elements or they would not have elected to keep them on any longer. I am surprised that the smaller companies are still with us. I am not surprised at the decision to spend most of the funds with the larger companies because the Army cannot accept the total risk with the program that the smaller companies present. They have confidence in the big three with their large staffs to be able to execute within the small timeline (first flight 2017).
Well the fun part will be how many times the requirements for the program will change in the next couple of years.

I wonder if it's lack of confidence that the smaller companies are able to deliver in time as much as it is lack of confidence that the smaller companies can with stand the financial burden that is going to be dumped on them by Army. Aside from the ungodly amount of paperwork and bureaucratic sandbox maintenance that will be hard for them to bear, Army wants the contractors to bear a large part of the development costs. Army might fear that the smaller companies simply won't have the funding sources or deep pockets to afford that and will collapse under the burden.

Regarding private funding sources, es, it's true that the winner of FVL (and being a JMR winner gives a big, but not guaranteed edge) stands to make oodles of money. However, under the present planned timeframe for FVL, we're talking 16 (utility) to -26 (attack) years before we start seeing the vehicles of whatever type design enter service and the profits (maybe) start coming in. That's a hard sell to investors to begin with. Now if you're a small company that might be really hard to swing and Army may not want to take the chance regardless of the excellence of design. Now if it had been AVX/Northrop or Karem/Northrop, who knows?

Sad note: I actually wanted to use two different partners for AVX and Karem, but nowadays, there's only Northrop left.

 

[Triton]

I guess AVX Aircraft/Airbus Helicopters, Inc. or Karem Aircraft/Airbus Helicopters, Inc. may have been possible. BAE Systems also paired with AVX Aircraft for the medium-range maritime unmanned air system (MRMUAS).

 

[sferrin]

I would argue that the two teams who did not win full development did have compelling elements or they would not have elected to keep them on any longer. I am surprised that the smaller companies are still with us. I am not surprised at the decision to spend most of the funds with the larger companies because the Army cannot accept the total risk with the program that the smaller companies present. They have confidence in the big three with their large staffs to be able to execute within the small timeline (first flight 2017).
Well the fun part will be how many times the requirements for the program will change in the next couple of years.

I wonder if it's lack of confidence that the smaller companies are able to deliver in time as much as it is lack of confidence that the smaller companies can with stand the financial burden that is going to be dumped on them by Army. Aside from the ungodly amount of paperwork and bureaucratic sandbox maintenance that will be hard for them to bear, Army wants the contractors to bear a large part of the development costs. Army might fear that the smaller companies simply won't have the funding sources or deep pockets to afford that and will collapse under the burden.

Could be. It certainly helped kill the DARPA Heliplane. First the airframe manufacturer (Adam went out of business) then the company doing the rotor system ran into financial difficulties. After that it was to become a college research project and quietly disappeared.

 

[F-14D]

I guess AVX Aircraft/Airbus Helicopters, Inc. or Karem Aircraft/Airbus Helicopters, Inc. may have been possible. BAE Systems also paired with AVX Aircraft for the medium-range maritime unmanned air system (MRMUAS).

For technology transfer as well as other issues, I don't think the Army would entertain a teaming (as opposed to subcontracting) arrangement with a foreign company for JMR. Otherwise, you might have seen those two trying to get aboard.