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

[TomcatViP]

Speed also increases you chance of survival against lead.

 

[Triton]

Although requirements are still being refined, the notional concept for a new aircraft must reach speeds of 230 kn (260 mph; 430 km/h), carry up to 12 troops, operate in "high-hot" conditions at altitudes of 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and temperatures of 95 °F (35 °C), and have a combat radius of 424 km (263 mi) with an overall unrefueled range of 848 km (527 mi). Mission sets are to include cargo transport, utility, armed scout, attack, humanitarian assistance, medical evacuation, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, land/sea search and rescue, special warfare support, vertical replenishment, airborne mine countermeasures, and others. The FVL family of aircraft will be required to have either optionally piloted or autonomous flight capabilities.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift

 

[marauder2048]

Although requirements are still being refined, the notional concept for a new aircraft must reach speeds of 230 kn (260 mph; 430 km/h), carry up to 12 troops, operate in "high-hot" conditions at altitudes of 6,000 ft (1,800 m) and temperatures of 95 °F (35 °C), and have a combat radius of 424 km (263 mi) with an overall unrefueled range of 848 km (527 mi). Mission sets are to include cargo transport, utility, armed scout, attack, humanitarian assistance, medical evacuation, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, land/sea search and rescue, special warfare support, vertical replenishment, airborne mine countermeasures, and others. The FVL family of aircraft will be required to have either optionally piloted or autonomous flight capabilities.

Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Vertical_Lift

There's a desired 2 hours of loiter at that radius.
The RFI from last year gives a sense of how that loiter can be traded off against extra radius.

 

[kagemusha]

A study by NASA and U.S. Army on a Light Coaxial Compound Helicopter, the smallest of a future vertical lift family-of-systems.

https://rotorcraft.arc.nasa.gov/Publications/files/Plenary_Design_Johnson.pdf

 

[fightingirish]

Introducing AVX's attack tiltrotor concept for Future Vertical Lift #17SUMMIT @AviationWeek
...
To explain, AVX MV-22E/MV-22B Escort pitched for FVL attack mission
...
AVX would be prime integrator, bringing together Bell-Boeing components with low-drag attack airframe

Sources: https://twitter.com/JamesDrewNews/status/857382257178402817
http://aviationweek.com/awindefense/avx-pitches-attack-mv-22e-marine-escort-role

 

[AeroFranz]

Hmmm...if they want to reduce drag, then the first thing would be to get rid of the sharp upsweep due to the rear ramp. The picture seems to show a standard V-22 aft fuselage...

 

[TomS]

Seems very odd for AVX to propose a modification of a Bell-Boeing product without having some sort of teaming arrangement. Of course, they have form for that -- they talked about a modified Kiowa Warrior with their coaxial rotor and ducted fan technology as well.

 

[yasotay]

Hmmm...if they want to reduce drag, then the first thing would be to get rid of the sharp upsweep due to the rear ramp. The picture seems to show a standard V-22 aft fuselage...

Only if you don't plan on loading things in back of the aircraft. Is it cheaper to build an entire fuselage or just the cockpit forward component?

 

[Jeb]

Hmmm...if they want to reduce drag, then the first thing would be to get rid of the sharp upsweep due to the rear ramp. The picture seems to show a standard V-22 aft fuselage...

Honestly, it made me think of a new take on the Bronco. Gunshippy front end with some utility function at the back, or maybe a system like the Gunslinger setup that they're putting on MC-130s.

 

[AeroFranz]

Hmmm...if they want to reduce drag, then the first thing would be to get rid of the sharp upsweep due to the rear ramp. The picture seems to show a standard V-22 aft fuselage...

Only if you don't plan on loading things in back of the aircraft. Is it cheaper to build an entire fuselage or just the cockpit forward component?

It's not the front of the aircraft that's creating drag. And yes, it's be nice to keep as much commonality as possible.
The problem is, if you keep the wide cross-section of the V-22, the upsweep on the tail, where are you getting the drag savings to offset the external weapons?

It's like the UH-1 gunships not being able to keep up with the slicks in Vietnam. We know what the answer to that was. Same logic should apply here. No one complained you couldn't load troops on a Cobra.

 

[yasotay]

Hmmm...if they want to reduce drag, then the first thing would be to get rid of the sharp upsweep due to the rear ramp. The picture seems to show a standard V-22 aft fuselage...

Only if you don't plan on loading things in back of the aircraft. Is it cheaper to build an entire fuselage or just the cockpit forward component?

It's not the front of the aircraft that's creating drag. And yes, it's be nice to keep as much commonality as possible.
The problem is, if you keep the wide cross-section of the V-22, the upsweep on the tail, where are you getting the drag savings to offset the external weapons?

It's like the UH-1 gunships not being able to keep up with the slicks in Vietnam. We know what the answer to that was. Same logic should apply here. No one complained you couldn't load troops on a Cobra.

Well they could always put some of those panels on it like they do with 18 wheel trucks these days. B)

 

[TomcatViP]

The lineage with the Bronco is spot-on INO. Special forces loaded in the back could be the idea.
Sikorsky recently insisted that they still keep the focus on the S-97 Raider scout helo.

 

[Avimimus]

Despite the fact that Mi-24s typically operated as pure gunships (leaving troop carrying to the Mi-8s), the rear compartment was useful for self-deploying. Heck, even the Mi-28 has space for ferrying a third person and some equipment! So it might not be that bad an idea.

 

[Triton]

"U.S. Army Needs FVL Light Recon More Than Black Hawk Successor"
Apr 29, 2017 James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army-needs-fvl-light-recon-more-black-hawk-successor?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170501_AW-05_972&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_7_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001526993&utm_campaign=9787&utm_medium=email&elq2=9a9cf7ed76364a99ba8eefcd94fcd050

The U.S. Army sorely needs an armed scout rotorcraft to conduct missions previously performed by the Bell OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. The service has applied a short-term fix—pairing Textron RQ-7 Shadow UAVs with Boeing AH-64 Apache gunships for reconnaissance missions. While that might be working for now, Army officials say the service still needs a dedicated reconnaissance platform. In fact, the armed light reconnaissance platform is the Army’s “No. 1” requirement under ...

 

[sferrin]

"U.S. Army Needs FVL Light Recon More Than Black Hawk Successor"
Apr 29, 2017 James Drew | Aviation Week & Space Technology

Source:
http://aviationweek.com/defense/us-army-needs-fvl-light-recon-more-black-hawk-successor?NL=AW-05&Issue=AW-05_20170501_AW-05_972&sfvc4enews=42&cl=article_7_2&utm_rid=CPEN1000001526993&utm_campaign=9787&utm_medium=email&elq2=9a9cf7ed76364a99ba8eefcd94fcd050

The U.S. Army sorely needs an armed scout rotorcraft to conduct missions previously performed by the Bell OH-58 Kiowa Warrior. The service has applied a short-term fix—pairing Textron RQ-7 Shadow UAVs with Boeing AH-64 Apache gunships for reconnaissance missions. While that might be working for now, Army officials say the service still needs a dedicated reconnaissance platform. In fact, the armed light reconnaissance platform is the Army’s “No. 1” requirement under ...

Sikorsky just happens to have the S-97 Raider ready for development.

 

[Triton]

"Army Special Ops' Little Bird helo here to stay until future vertical lift"
By: Jen Judson, May 1, 2017

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/army-special-ops-little-bird-here-to-stay-until-future-vertical-lift

 

[Triton]

"US Army Says It Badly Needs A Scout Helicopter After Junking The Ones It Had"
Just as predicted, the hole left by the humble OH-58D Kiowa Warrior is gaping, and now the Army wants to fill it as soon as it can.
by Tyler Rogoway

May 2, 2017

Source:
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/9784/us-army-says-it-badly-needs-a-scout-helicopter-after-junking-the-ones-it-had

Pull quotes:

During this year's Army Aviation Association of America convention, Army aviation officials stressed that the biggest gap in capability they have is the one left by the Kiowa Warrior's quick retirement, and that they are seeking to fill that gap as a top priority. As it previously sat, the Army wouldn't be able to replace the Kiowa Warrior anytime soon, as the service remained focused on developing and procuring a scalable family of new helicopter systems dubbed Future Vertical Lift.

But the Army now seems to being interested in pushing forward with a CS1 design on its own, possibly outside the official multi-service JVL program. The Sikorsky S-97 Raider was originally viewed as yet another possible successor to the OH-58D—that is before sequestration hit. It is currently in flight testing and offers many additional capabilities that the OH-58D didn't—such as the ability to haul six troops into combat—and in some ways, it would even eclipse the utility of the AH-64 Apache for a portion of the Army's more kinetically oriented missions. Its speed gives it enhanced survivability, faster response times to emergency troops in contact calls, superior anti-access capabilities and enhanced sortie rates among other benefits. It is even rumored to have some low observable features, although it can't be considered a "stealth" aircraft.

Special Operations Command (SOCOM) could also potentially get involved with the S-97 program if "big Army" blazes the way. The type seems extremely well suited for the intense demands of the famed 160th Special Operations Air Regiment (SOAR), and could partially or fully replace the MH-6 and AH-6 Little Bird, as well as the MH-60 Direct Action Penetrator. The more participation in the program the more the unit cost could decline and it could also actually lower risk for the Future Vertical Lift program in the coming decade as a byproduct.

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky just happens to have the S-97 Raider ready for development.

What are the implications for the FVL program if the United States Army decides that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider is the solution for FVL CS1 (JMR Light) and procures the aircraft before the planned 2030 introduction date? Would this give the X2 Technology-based Sikorsky Boeing SB-1 Defiant an edge over the Bell V-280 Valor tiltrotor as the FVL CS2 (JMR Medium) solution for the United States Army? Or is the playing field still level regarding FVL CS2 (JMR Medium)?

 

[TomS]

If anything, it might help Bell by creating pressure to diversify the FLV industrial base rather than giving the whole business to Sikorsky.

 

[Triton]

If anything, it might help Bell by creating pressure to diversify the FLV industrial base rather than giving the whole business to Sikorsky.

Remember that the United States Navy is not obliged to buy the FVL CS2 (JMR Medium) proposal chosen by the United States Army. The United States Navy has only tried to leverage the systems developed for FVL CS2 (JMR Medium) for its own Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX) program. Bell Helicopter seems to have an advantage for MH-XX by promoting a naval variant of the V-280 Valor. We have yet to see a MH-XX proposal to replace the Sea Hawk-family from 2028 onwards from Sikorsky-Boeing. Due to the hanger dimensions aboard United States Navy ships, I doubt that it will be a navalized SB-1 Defiant. I don't believe we have heard from the United States Air Force about their plans for a Pave Hawk replacement.

 

[yasotay]

Army gets CS1, USMC gets CS3, Boeing does CH47Z and AH64X. All Congressional districts are happy. Or there is the version;

The Army, having established a Joint requirement for a new rotorcraft to replace the H60 and H1 series with the USMC and SOCOM, announces that it is leaving that program to develop a light scout helicopter. OSD looks on like stunned mullet as the lead rotrcraft service repeats history.

 

[TomcatViP]

The Oh58 does not have the agility and operational volume to operate safely anymore if the expectation around losses rate are put at the today level. Think that a scout helo is exposed most of its flying time (per def). A drone get the task done with more safety.
Then the Army might want a modern scout with more range, alt and faster transit time. The error is to think that the 58 could have satisfied those needs when it can't.
On the oh6 theme, the disc diameter (urban insertiom) is the main reason IMOHO).

 

[Triton]

Army gets CS1, USMC gets CS3, Boeing does CH47Z and AH64X. All Congressional districts are happy. Or there is the version;

The Army, having established a Joint requirement for a new rotorcraft to replace the H60 and H1 series with the USMC and SOCOM, announces that it is leaving that program to develop a light scout helicopter. OSD looks on like stunned mullet as the lead rotrcraft service repeats history.

Or does the Bell V-280 Valor win FVL CS2 (JMR-Medium) because it can fold smaller than the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant aboard United States Navy amphibious assault ships?

 

[yasotay]

Army gets CS1, USMC gets CS3, Boeing does CH47Z and AH64X. All Congressional districts are happy. Or there is the version;

The Army, having established a Joint requirement for a new rotorcraft to replace the H60 and H1 series with the USMC and SOCOM, announces that it is leaving that program to develop a light scout helicopter. OSD looks on like stunned mullet as the lead rotrcraft service repeats history.

Or does the Bell V-280 Valor win FVL CS2 (JMR-Medium) because it can fold smaller than the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant aboard United States Navy amphibious assault ships?

Doubtful as USN has no need cor TR on small decks. If the USMC desired vehicle does that they might consider it. USN wants efficient hover. They do that alot.

 

[Grey Havoc]

"Army Common Cockpit Effort About Architecture, Backbone Allowing Change"
by Pat Host

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Source:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/the-checklist/Army-Common-Cockpit-Effort-About-Architecture-Backbone-Allowing-Change_84722.html#.VSbYGpOGMdg

The Army views its common aviation cockpit concept as an architecture and backbone that allows a cockpit to evolve over time as opposed to simply components, according to a key official.

"We want to make sure the backbone not only allows the evolution of those vehicles over time but the evolution of the subcomponent," Dan Bailey, Army program director for Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) and Future Vertical Lift (FVL), told an audience at the Army Aviation Association of America (AAAA) conference.

Bailey said the Army's JMR TD team is looking at acquistion strategies that would allow such open architecture (OA) approach to future cockpits. Maybe one requirment, he said, is to put in a new architecture in a couple of years. Or maybe there's not an OA characteristic that lasts forever, Bailey said.

Though the common cockpit effort has been years in development, Bailey said that doesn't mean that time has been wasted. The Army, he said, is going through the same ongoing process that allowed Apple's successful iPhone to become what it is today.

"Over time, you learn, and that's the process we're going through," Bailey said. "We're learning and we're understanding."

The Army also views its common cockpit concept as focused on standard software interfaces. Army Program Executive Officer (PEO) for Aviation Brig. Gen. Robert Marion said here Tuesday such an approach makes defining interfaces and standards key.

"If you weren't the original design and development and producer of a cockpit, we can still leverage your capability on a platform in the future," Marion said.

Marion said digitization of the cockpit is an important part of common cockpit evolution. As the Army bought CH-47 Chinooks in the 1960s, UH-60 Black Hawks in the '70s and AH-64 Apaches in the '80s, he said, the service got to to digitization in each of those platforms at different points in time.

Marion said the UH-60V Black Hawk, as the Army's last group of non-digitized aircraft in this enterprise, is the service's opportunity to try to build standard interfaces. This, he said, will allow the Army to move forward with a cockpit design that it could leverage off multiple competitors in the future.

The FVL program is for the Army's next generation of helicopters while JMR TD is a science and technology (S&T) demonstration intended to mitigate risk for the FVL development program through the testing of advanced technologies and efficient configurations, according to the Army. The service, last August, selected Bell Helicopter Textron and a Sikorsky-Boeing [BA] team for the technology and flight demonstration phase of the envisioned JMR helicopter.

Sikorsky and Boeing are developing the SB>1 Defiant, a medium-lift helicopter and derivative of Sikorsky's X2 coaxial design. Honeywell said Tuesday it joined the Sikorsky-Boeing team to develop and build the SB>1 Defiant, providing its current and next-generation Health and Usage Monitoring Systems (HUMS) to the team's flying demonstrator. Honeywell will also provide its T-55 engine, auxiliary power unit generator, air turbine starter and start control valve, according to a company statement.

Bell is developing the V-280 tilt-rotor aircraft for FVL.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/army-still-working-on-multi-core-processor-for-uh-6-436895/

 

[bobbymike]

https://news.usni.org/2017/07/26/panel-open-architecture-key-pentagons-future-vertical-lift-programs

 

[bobbymike]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3uYLbzhYds

 

[yasotay]

Thanks for the link! Missed the panel live yesterday.

 

[jsport]

just find it unfathomable that we are still dwelling on the what should clearly be on GOTS Open architecture and interfaces not on future capability. The secret squirrel silver to gold software Sh--t needs to end.

the weight of future mission systems such as integrated deep mag DE and heavy ground robotic and vehicles payloads demands the abandonment of loss riddled, open prop designs. current primes (w/ the exception of NG w/ closed prop/duct fan based Senior Citizen designs) can only provide open prop band-aid solutions which should not be purchased in large numbers.

 

[yasotay]

Well jsport all you have to do now is get the exceedingly progressive members of the senior ranks of the Defense Secretariate and Services, along with the major stock holders and design groups in the OEM to see the wisdom of your position.

 

[jsport]

Well jsport all you have to do now is get the exceedingly progressive members of the senior ranks of the Defense Secretariate and Services, along with the major stock holders and design groups in the OEM to see the wisdom of your position.

roger copy

Army CoS recently alluded to urbanization accelerating so that 90% of worlds population will be urban around 2050. Can duct fans handle the airflow vagaries of urban canopy and canyons better than open rotor blades?

 

[sferrin]

Well jsport all you have to do now is get the exceedingly progressive members of the senior ranks of the Defense Secretariate and Services, along with the major stock holders and design groups in the OEM to see the wisdom of your position.

roger copy

Army CoS recently alluded to urbanization accelerating so that 90% of worlds population will be urban around 2050. Can duct fans handle the airflow vagaries of urban canopy and canyons better than open rotor blades?

Why would that matter in the least? You plannin' on flying around inside a city, at treetop level, where everybody and their dog can shoot at you like fish in a barrel? You think a ducted fan is gonna save you from that kind of stupidity?

 

[jsport]

Well jsport all you have to do now is get the exceedingly progressive members of the senior ranks of the Defense Secretariate and Services, along with the major stock holders and design groups in the OEM to see the wisdom of your position.

roger copy

Army CoS recently alluded to urbanization accelerating so that 90% of worlds population will be urban around 2050. Can duct fans handle the airflow vagaries of urban canopy and canyons better than open rotor blades?

Why would that matter in the least? You plannin' on flying around inside a city, at treetop level, where everybody and their dog can shoot at you like fish in a barrel? You think a ducted fan is gonna save you from that kind of stupidity?

rappelling troops from low altitude is going to be required and a duct fan is better protected than a rotor head.

 

[Airplane]

How do you figure ducted fan is more protected than a traditional tail rotor? Is the ducted fan armor plated? No, its not. It may stop a .22 squirrel rifle, but any good military rifle will cut through that metal/composite like cardboard.

Or do you mean it is more protected against hitting tress and telephone poles? That is more logical.

 

[jsport]

How do you figure ducted fan is more protected than a traditional tail rotor? Is the ducted fan armor plated? No, its not. It may stop a .22 squirrel rifle, but any good military rifle will cut through that metal/composite like cardboard.

Or do you mean it is more protected against hitting tress and telephone poles? That is more logical.

It is likely the propulsor is in the center of the fan and the fan housing prevents direct line of site unless the threat is directly underneath. Armored parts is good idea and is well known from rotor heads.

 

[AeroFranz]

Typical helicopters have discloadings between 2-10 pounds per square foot (V-22 is way up at 22 psf). That dictates the amount of power required to hover, and also the ground environment (a result of the exhaust velocity of the rotor).
A ducted fan can be made more efficient at producing static thrust, but you still need 70-80% of the disc area of a conventional rotorcraft if you want to keep the same power requirements in hover and benign ground environment.

This is simple disc actuator theory, which you can get in two or three steps from F = m.a

So if you want the same performance as a helicopter in hover, you need to cram a s%$!tload of ducted fan area, which is hard.
To put things in perspective, i think the X-22, which had four large ducted fans, still had a high discloading of 120 psf, IIRC.
You can make the ducts smaller (like the Doak VZ-4), but then the last thing you want to do is spend any time hovering, and you can forget operating from most unprepared surfaces.

 

[jsport]

Typical helicopters have discloadings between 2-10 pounds per square foot (V-22 is way up at 22 psf). That dictates the amount of power required to hover, and also the ground environment (a result of the exhaust velocity of the rotor).
A ducted fan can be made more efficient at producing static thrust, but you still need 70-80% of the disc area of a conventional rotorcraft if you want to keep the same power requirements in hover and benign ground environment.

This is simple disc actuator theory, which you can get in two or three steps from F = m.a

So if you want the same performance as a helicopter in hover, you need to cram a s%$!tload of ducted fan area, which is hard.
To put things in perspective, i think the X-22, which had four large ducted fans, still had a high discloading of 120 psf, IIRC.
You can make the ducts smaller (like the Doak VZ-4), but then the last thing you want to do is spend any time hovering, and you can forget operating from most unprepared surfaces.

Thank you Aerofranz. how about a combo duct fan/jet thrust?
The question for Yasotay was whether a pilot can responsively control a Duct fan within the ever changing airflow inside 'urban canopy'. imagine 'fly by light' is sufficient for responsive conttrol.

 

[AeroFranz]

Variable pitch ducted fans have lots of bandwidth (as in, can produce changes in thrust quickly), so yeah, if that were a design goal, you could build a ducted fan vehicle with lots of control authority in hover. Tilting the ducts (a la XV-22 is a bit slower, unless you have large hydraulics). Now, it's hard to make apples to apples comparisons with a conventional helicopter- an articulated rotor also has lots of control power.
The answer, as it almost always is, is that the mission drives the requirements and the level of weight/complexity/cost that you are willing to take on.

 

[yasotay]

I have always been a proponent of ducted fan, especially when considering urban operations. Bumping a building, or wires with an open rotor system tends to be a life ending events. While ducted (protected) rotors might not be much better, they are at least protected. Also would a ducted fan be less observable to certain forms of radar than an open rotor system?

 

[sferrin]

I have always been a proponent of ducted fan, especially when considering urban operations. Bumping a building, or wires with an open rotor system tends to be a life ending events. While ducted (protected) rotors might not be much better, they are at least protected. Also would a ducted fan be less observable to certain forms of radar than an open rotor system?

Always wished they'd done something with the X-22 concept. Wonder if a turbo-electric version vs driveshafts might be a better possibility.