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

The Bell Invictus is to have a 'booster' engine, a 586shp PW207D1 turboshaft which will be used as an APU and for starting and can be clutched into the main transmission.
Bell states the wing provides 50% of its lift at cruise. The four-blade main rotor is based on the Bell 525’s fully articulated rotor system, which has five-blades. Removing a blade means Bell can can use less expensive conventional materials such as fibreglass and not worry about weight. I wonder if that also allows for some resistance to hits from bullets, although fibreglass seems the opposite of that, not quite the same as the 23mm resistance the Apache claimed.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helico...ooster-engine-for-360-invictus/135806.article
 
So the engine for the Bell 429, will be the "Supplementary" Power Unit. That's a big APU!
 
jsport said:
jsport said:
IMHO any FARA candidate which does not carry troops like the Karem entry should be disqualified. Likewise, stacked rotors are too much drag for any efficient long range craft.
Click to expand...
www.military.com

Special Ops May Get Army Future Vertical Lift Helo to Replace MH-6 Little Bird

The Army is developing Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) and the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA).
www.military.com www.military.com
Click to expand...
Sigh. Army: We want a fast recon chopper.
SOCOM: And we'd like it to carry extra guys! And to be able to refuel in flight!
Army: ...
"What I think you are going to find in the future is that not everybody is going to get everything. We can't gold-plate everything. As a unit with a specific mission set has a requirement, we will identify those and make sure we have the capacity in the aircraft that is designed to plug that in as required,"

Uh-huh. What General Francis actually seems ot be saying here is that what SOCOM wants is probably not what it will get.
 
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I think at least three of the five contenders might still meet the SOCOM requirement, if the space assigned for weapon carriage can be modified to hold troops. SOCOM has been heavily modifying rotorcraft for years so this should not be too difficult.
 
yasotay said:
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few."
I think at least three of the five contenders might still meet the SOCOM requirement, if the space assigned for weapon carriage can be modified to hold troops. SOCOM has been heavily modifying rotorcraft for years so this should not be too difficult.
Click to expand...
I think that money is going to walk, and bullshit will talk. IOW, cost and the promise of a speedy and safe development cycle will be very important.
 
It does appear that there is significant senior level interest in moving forward. There are two industry funded/developed rotorcraft (S-97 and V-280) with investors and constituents wanting return on investment. It is relative "low hanging fruit" politically and technologically. Everyone wants to demonstrate resolve in defending the country in an election year.

Hopefully the Army will exploit the opportunity.
 
I suspect that those are the two most likely to go to the prototype stage.
 
Invictus certainly also has an export potential, a theme that is absent on the army program.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
Invictus certainly also have an export potential, a theme that is absent on the army program.
Click to expand...
As far as we know. Doubt any of the vendors would tell allied countries to "go away". If I recall I read somewhere that allied countries were very interested in FLRAA already.
 
fredymac said:
If Sikorsky runs into trouble with the Raider-X, I think Bell's Invictus might have a shot.

Click to expand...
AHEAD counter-munition technology from AAA guns will make quick work of this ALE concept.
 
Looking at it on my phone, but I'm seeing a Narrow body, non-lift winglets, and probably a pusher prop?
 
Re: "non-lift winglets"
Internal bay? Has a similar look of the Comanche open bay.

RAH-66%206.jpg
 
Interesting, the tail propeller looks rather large (allowing for stylistic advertising) but no obvious tail control surfaces from the front view.

I must admit the more I see of all these designs the more deja vu I get from the early 1980s projects.
 
An impressive 32 rotor-blades in that photo. Sikorsky at least should have both the Raider and Defiant flying now. Concerning that there is no open news about this, given the competition made money with the continued adventures of their demonstrator. I suppose they are holding their cards close given that any bad news might be of greater concern than letting everyone know they are moving forward.
 
fredymac said:
The height of the rotor assembly does make an impression.

View attachment 627524
Click to expand...
I see their architecture as being wrong. To me they somewhat lacked imagination.

When Sikorsky built the S-58 they showed they had the ability to reshuffle the (then new, that's right) norm when needed.

Here IMOHO the same company failed to come with a solution that wouldn't geopardize the function (the missions).

I believe that burying the GB downto floor level and side deporting the passenger cabin in two units with passageway behind and in front (where pilots would seat as in a normal design) could have led to a more practical airframe for the military. Maintenance? Unplug the side cabin (modules/clam shell ) and here you have the entire engine and gearbox at hand reach.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
fredymac said:
The height of the rotor assembly does make an impression.

View attachment 627524
Click to expand...
I see their architecture as being wrong. To me they somewhat lacked imagination.

When Sikorsky built the S-58 they showed they had the ability to reshuffle the (then new, that's right) norm when needed.

Here IMOHO the same company has failed to come with a solution that wouldn't geopardize the function (the missions).

I believe that burying the GB downto floor level and side deporting the passenger cabin in two units with passageway behind and in front (where pilots would seat as in a normal design) could have led to a more practical airframe for the military. Maintenance? Unplug the side cabin (modules/clam shell ) and here you have the entire engine and gearbox at hand reach.
Click to expand...
We already had a discussion on that matter in the dedicated SB>1 thread: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-sikorsky-sb-1-defiant-model-s-100.24769/post-251149 ...and... https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/boeing-sikorsky-sb-1-defiant-model-s-100.24769/post-295924
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom