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

[Stargazer]

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production. For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."

 

[Triton]

I guess being invited to negotiate a cost sharing technology investment agreement (TIA) does not mean that the vendor has been chosen to build a technology demonstrator.

 

[yasotay]

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production. For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."

If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint. In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people. I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept.

 

[F-14D]

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production. For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."

If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint. In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people. I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept.

My question for a company this size is how they will be able to handle the ungodly amount of paperwork, inspections, bureaucratic cya'ing ,etc. that is involved with a contract with the Federal Government. In the grand scheme of federal procurement, actually buiilding the thing is almost incidental.

 

[yasotay]

That is the difficult part. One can only hope that if they team with a larger company the buildings full of professional paper pushers will be up to the task of overcoming the legions of fedreal bureacrat with their batteries of regulations.

 

[sferrin]

How many helicopters have they (AVX) produced?

Well let's see, I know that Troy was involved in at least 8 major designs that went into production. For most of those he was a senior engineer.

I wouldn't dispute that record, but in the end, do the deciders take that kind of information into consideration? Do they have that knowledge at all? I have a feeling that what they judge is basically the various projects put on their desks, comparing strong and weak points, making calculations of cost and productivity, period. Whoever designed what and for whom must be of very little significance to them. What will matter in the end is: "Can this project work? Can the company that proposes it deliver? What is their record with military contracts in the past? How can we get them to do the work for less? etc."

If AVX has been asked to participate I expect the government is going to want to know how the company proposes to make the project work, beyond powerpoint. In fact, I suspect if they have got this far the government has been given some assurances as to how this will happen. As Aeroengineer1 pointed out these guys are some of the most senior rotorcraft engineers available, they do know a lot of people. I would imagine that they have lined up the appropriate expertise to allow them to develop their concept.

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment. The major players already have this up and going. AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

 

[Stargazer]

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment. The major players already have this up and going. AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

Not to mention the fact that even if it had won and the DoD didn't trust them to build up all that production effort in reasonable time, they might have asked the losing companies to bid for the manufacture of the AVX design and gone for the cheapest (this has happened quite a few times before...).

 

[Aeroengineer1]

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment. The major players already have this up and going. AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

These days this is not nearly the issue that you make it out to be. The biggest issue is that they would need to come up with a facility to integrate all the components. This is a process that requires much less training as well as time to implement. All the heavy lifting would come from companies like Ducommun, Spirit Aero, Aurora, Parker, and smaller companies. All these components would be delivered as assemblies with things like wiring and obviously mechanical fastenting of the subsystems.

The bigger issue is cost to generate material properties databases. This is a costly undertaking usually in the half million for a single composite material.

I would not be as worried about the contracts department. Oftentimes, R&D contracts are much more complicated than production. If they are able to handle the R&D, I imagine that they are well equipped to handle the production side of things. They most likely will, if they have not already, need to get an ISO certification.

 

[sferrin]

Yes, but you still need to come up with a workforce, facilities, and equipment. The major players already have this up and going. AVX would have to start from scratch and that costs money.

These days this is not nearly the issue that you make it out to be. The biggest issue is that they would need to come up with a facility to integrate all the components. This is a process that requires much less training as well as time to implement. All the heavy lifting would come from companies like Ducommun, Spirit Aero, Aurora, Parker, and smaller companies. All these components would be delivered as assemblies with things like wiring and obviously mechanical fastenting of the subsystems.

Yeah, I know how it works. That doesn't mean assembly, testing, etc. is trivial and that a trained workforce is going to roll up from the local SOS. Creating that infrastructure, and getting it to run smoothly from scratch costs time and money.

 

[yasotay]

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/

From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."

Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.

 

[sferrin]

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/

From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."

Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.

I've never understood why "crowd sourcing" was anything more than a buzzword. Seems to me it would be the least efficient way to get something done. Like taking "design by committee" to the nth degree.

 

[lantinian]

Well, the AVX proposal is accepted for consideration

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2013/06/avx-joins-bell-sikorskyboeing.html

The US Army has picked AVX Aircraft Company's design for its high-speed Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) program.

AVX, which was formed by Bell Helicopter veterans in 2005, says it is in negotiations with the service for a JMR-TD contract, which is expected to be awarded in mid-September. The company joins Bell and a joint Sikorsky/Boeing team in being selected for the program, which is expected to lead into the army's nascent Future Vertical Lift effort to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 and potentially the Boeing AH-64 Apache in the 2030s.

"The AVX proposal offers the capabilities the Army wants for the future fleet of utility and attack aircraft at a very attractive price," the company says. Like the Sikorsky/Boeing design, AVX's proposed design is a coaxial-rotor compound machine.

AVX says it has teamed with "a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design", which the company claims will mean a lower price tag than the competing designs.

Meanwhile, Piasecki, another smaller firm competing for the army's business, did the not make the grade. "Unfortunately Piasecki was NOT selected for the JMR-TD," the company says. Additionally, EADS North America dropped out of the program--it is not known if their design was found to be acceptable by the army or not.

Тhe second image is particularly interesting as we didn't have a high res version till now.

It shows that the AVX proposal may have the most versatile proposal yet feature the highest commonality.

There are some interesting details:
- solders can jump out under the cover of the canards and the fuselage much more efficiently
- the wide fuselage provides some payload possibilities unavailable to any of the other contenders

It seam more and more to me that all 3 contenders so far have produced proposals best suited to different parts of the FVL replacement program. Sikorsky's gets the best light design, Bell the best Medium one and AVX seams particularly optimized for the heavy lift.

With 3 good proposals so far, I wander if the US Army might not opt to let all 3 build prototypes instead of downs selecting to 2?

 

[yasotay]

http://www.shephardmedia.com/news/rotorhub/three-companies-shortlisted-jmr-td/

From the attached article: "AVX has teamed with a number of experienced aerospace companies for development of the AVX JMR design, an arrangement the company argues will allow it to 'keep the cost of development and eventual production of the aircraft lower than those of other offerings while maintaining a high level of performance by the aircraft'."

Abe Karem (the designer of the Predator UAV) did not have a facility. When he got his concept through DARPA a larger company bought the rights to produce. Almost all of the major vendors have excess production capabilities at the moment (with exceptions of course). Conversely just because they have been asked to move forward, does not even mean they will be building anything. If I understand some of the words in what has come out, the government is now looking to talk with the three concept developers about how to fund a project. What fun it would be to see a project like this done by a consortium of smaller companies with crowd sourcing. That would turn convention on its ear.

I've never understood why "crowd sourcing" was anything more than a buzzword. Seems to me it would be the least efficient way to get something done. Like taking "design by committee" to the nth degree.

.

You are probably right. My real point was that it would be interesting to see a different model for aircraft development and fielding, other than the metastasized process-bound method that currently plagues us.

 

[Stargazer]

This here topic is used to discuss the JMR program only.

Side discussion on how the design/engineering/production processes have changed, however interesting, has now been moved to The Bar:
www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,19678.0

Thanks for your understanding!

 

[Moose]

With 3 good proposals so far, I wander if the US Army might not opt to let all 3 build prototypes instead of downs selecting to 2?

I can't imagine the Army can make the budget case to build 3 prototypes. Unless the Valor has unforseen difficulty before then, I'd expect them to pick one compound and the tilt-rotor to advance to flight testing. That approach covers the most ground and leaves the door open to pursue both general configurations further down the road.

 

[sferrin]

Selected helicopter manufacturers are moving on to the next stage of the Army’s joint multi-role technical demonstrator program. But EADS North America has dropped out in order to concentrate on the uncertain armed aerial scout competition.

The joint multi-role demonstrator program is a precursor to what the Army is calling future vertical lift, a series of next-generation vertical takeoff and landing aircraft that will replace the service’s aging helicopters.

Bell Helicopter, a Boeing-Sikorsky team and a small Fort Worth, Tex.-based company called AVX Aircraft have all been chosen to negotiate cost-sharing agreements with the Army to fund demonstrator aircraft.

The Army is expected to award contracts for the technical demonstrator program in September, and companies would conduct flights in 2017.

With EADS out of the running, the Boeing-Sikorsky team has the upper hand, said Richard Aboulafia, vice president of analysis for the Teal Group.

"Unless anyone else can bring a really innovative technology to bear, the advantage is going to Boeing-Sikorsky just for industrial base reasons and because they hold so much of the current mission," he said. Historically, “the Army has never had any interest at all in tiltrotor technology” like Bell’s V-22 Osprey.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=1178

 

[jsport]

The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

 

[yasotay]

The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

 

[sferrin]

The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is? The article? Why?

 

[yasotay]

The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is? The article? Why?

Nothing more than the potential for legal action claiming bias in a government program leading to competitive selection. Other than that...

 

[Triton]

Would an EADS (American Eurocopter) proposal have been stronger if the company still had the alliance with Northrop Grumman?

 

[yasotay]

My opinion only here, but yes I think so as they would have had more clout with senior government officials and NG would have ameliorated the argument regarding the US industrial base.

 

[sferrin]

The Teal Group appears to go public w/ outlandish and incorrect statements concerning Army interest in tiltrotor technology. Another questionable contractor.

Regardless of its accuracy it is no doubt going to cause some indegestion within the Army.

What is? The article? Why?

Nothing more than the potential for legal action claiming bias in a government program leading to competitive selection. Other than that...

I don't see how. The Army doesn't control what independent news sources say.

 

[HeavyG]

Keep in mind that the Teal Group is a consultancy group dealing with primarily tracking aerospace industry trends.

 

[jsport]

You are correct HeavyG..

 

[hesham]

Hi,


here is the Bell JMR.


http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/hai-convention-news/2013-03-05/pentagon-moves-closer-deciding-future-helicopter-technology

 

[sferrin]

Bell V-280 Valor
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/Bell-V-280-Valor-selected-for-Army-JMR-TD-Program

First time I've seen this particular picture.

 

[Grey Havoc]

On a tangent: The Vertical Lift Industrial Base: Outlook 2004-2014

This report was produced for the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology,
& Logistics) by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Policy) from October
2003-June 2004. Stephen Thompson of the Industrial Policy staff led this effort.
Michael Caccuitto and Dawn Vehmeier of the Industrial Policy staff, Mike Walsh of the
Defense Systems staff, and Jim Woolsey of IDA also had major roles in the production
of this report. Support was provided under contract by First Equity Development, Inc.
Among others, special thanks are due to Matthew Mejia of First Equity for his important
contributions.

The team would especially like to acknowledge the contributions of Sikorsky, Bell, and
Boeing who provided us with data; company site visits; and valuable insights as
members of one of this report’s Red Teams. Inquiries regarding the report should be
directed to Stephen Thompson at (703) 602-4331.

 

[yasotay]

http://defensetech.org/2013/07/08/army-seeks-designs-for-next-gen-helicopters/
Interesting twist at the end.

 

[F-14D]

http://defensetech.org/2013/07/08/army-seeks-designs-for-next-gen-helicopters/
Interesting twist at the end.

It's an interesting twist, but not entirely accurate. Army always new how wide the bird would be, their requirements were folded into JVX (which became the V-22). Their original objection with the program was that they were paying a disproportionate share of the R&D given their planned buy. This was adjusted, and lead of the program was also passed to the Marines. This is a little ironic, since it was the Army that saved the Tilt-Rotor program when NASA, at that time feeling their job was solely research and not development, was going to ground the XV-15s. Army came up with funding to keep one flying and develop more information (Bell leased the other one from the gov't and did their own research and promotion). The transfer to the Marines was fortuitous, as it turns out.

Army had a requirement for a Special Equipment Missions Aircraft (SEMA). they were looking at up to 200 JVXs/V-22s to perform that, with another initial 24 "vanilla" units for MEDEVAC, with further numbers possible. SEMA required the ability at times to cruise @ 30,000 feet. This would have meant a pressurized section and changes to the proprotors. USAF started yelling about "roles and missions" and lobbied against an Army aircraft that could do that. The Army SEMA mission went away. Since there was no longer any unique Army requirements for the a/c, they figured why spend money on V-22 R&D. They could always just buy some regular V-22s when the need arose. This would free up a pot of R&D money that could then be used for LHX.

I do agree, though, that pulling out was a mistake.

 

[jsport]

Thank you for sharing some backgound F-14D.. The Army should have certainly kept the SEMA mission as the bin laden raid displayed.. Question why not 40k' altitude?
Think Paul Wolfawitz wanted the Army back in V-22..

 

[F-14D]

Thank you for sharing some backgound F-14D.. The Army should have certainly kept the SEMA mission as the bin laden raid displayed.. Question why not 40k' altitude?
Think Paul Wolfawitz wanted the Army back in V-22..

First, I must apologize for a typo in my post. This gave the impression that this was a special ops aircraft, such as what would be flown by the 160th SOAR. My bad. :-[

The correct title is Special Electronic Mission Aircraft. This is the kind of mission flown by U-21s of various flavors , RC-12s, RC-7Bs, etc. The V-22 would have replaced many of them. It offered speeds as fast if not faster than Army a/c used in this role, plus VTOL capability.

The reason for no 40K cruise is that it wasn't needed for the Army SEMA mission. 40,000 feet is also above the altitude at which most turboprops fly (and in conventional mode, the V-22 is a turboprop aircraft) , and a 40,000 ft. cruise requirement would require really extensive changes in the V-22 design, which would wipe out a number of the economies of commonality that JVX was trying to achieve.

 

[jsport]

Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

 

[F-14D]

Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL: You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing. Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K.

 

[yasotay]

Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL: You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing. Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K.

Ironically the Army still has a significant number of fixed wing "electronic reconnaissance" (my term) aircraft in inventory. With the exponential increase in cyber warfare they will be around for a very long time. The Army, with budget woes has an easy decision that a ~$15M C-12 platform (before electronics) was more cost effective than ~$70M for the V-22. The cost unfortunatley overwhelmed the tremendous mission flexibility that a VTOL platform provides. For instance ANY C-12 seen anywhere near an active operation area is considered to be a reconnaissance platform by the neferious types. They track them no doubt. The VTOL platform does not have to use the local airport or air base as the Army practies routinely moving their assembly areas around (or it could fly off of a container ship off the coast) which is a bit more challenging to keep tabs on.
I would not be surprised to see this mission rolled back into the JMR mission set ... if the right aircraft type is developed.

 

[F-14D]

Thank you F-14D for the quick response. won't think electronic would need VTOL.
understand 40k is more complicated in many respects, but just thinkin those are some big props for pullin some big thinner air..

VTOL: You got to take off and land somewhere, and since the Army is used to being primarily a VTOL force (helicopters), this would alow them to do this mission forward deployed alongside the rest of their assets.

It's not just the size of the proprotors, it's also the wing. Plus, proprotors designed for efficient VTOL and hover are not going to be working that well at 40K.

Ironically the Army still has a significant number of fixed wing "electronic reconnaissance" (my term) aircraft in inventory. With the exponential increase in cyber warfare they will be around for a very long time. The Army, with budget woes has an easy decision that a ~$15M C-12 platform (before electronics) was more cost effective than ~$70M for the V-22. The cost unfortunatley overwhelmed the tremendous mission flexibility that a VTOL platform provides. For instance ANY C-12 seen anywhere near an active operation area is considered to be a reconnaissance platform by the neferious types. They track them no doubt. The VTOL platform does not have to use the local airport or air base as the Army practies routinely moving their assembly areas around (or it could fly off of a container ship off the coast) which is a bit more challenging to keep tabs on.
I would not be surprised to see this mission rolled back into the JMR mission set ... if the right aircraft type is developed.

The original point of my post was commenting on the Loren Thompson piece which said the Army pulled out of V-22 because, “the Army figured that the Osprey was not quite wide enough for a Humvee". Since the Army was the lead service on JVX at the time the requirements were being formulated and finalized, it would seem a little odd that they wouldn't realize that the vehicle for which they had awarded a contract for 55,000 copies was a little too wide for the cargo box of a plane whose design at that point wasn't frozen. More logically, this wasn't that big a concern for them. They did not see JVX as a replacement for the CH-47 as the Marines did for the CH-46.

The original intent was that their SEMA aircraft would be collocated with the rest of the operating forces, not restricted to airbases somewhere in the rear. Those other assets This was more expensive, but looking only at purchase cost, VTOL always is. Don't forget also that the Cold War was going strong at that point, and they wanted something that they could use in the expected fluid battlefield they were planning for. When the SEMA mission for JVX went away, Army's requirements for number of aircraft dropped tremendously and they decided to use their R&D money for LHX, figuring they could always buy [what became] the MV-22 off the shelf later.

Personally, I'm not sure USAF would have ever let the Army have V-22s.

 

[AeroFranz]

which brings me to my question: will the Air Force be comfortable with the Army having high-speed machines? we're looking at speeds in excess of AAFSS, and we know how that went.

 

[F-14D]

which brings me to my question: will the Air Force be comfortable with the Army having high-speed machines? we're looking at speeds in excess of AAFSS, and we know how that went.

They went after AAFSS not just because of speed. USAF's position was that "helicopter escort" was an acceptable role for an armed Army helicopter to perform. Beyond that, it belonged to USAF. When Army started talking CAS, even though that's a role USAF has not historically been that interested in taking on, they started yelling. When Army then noted that by putting the prop into Beta they could dive bomb, USAF went absolutely ballistic, "...and we know how that went".

USAF objected to the SEMA version of JVX/V-22 because it was fast, pressurized, flew at "airplane" altitudes regularly and looked like (in fact was during most of its mission) a fixed wing.

I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.

 

[Triton]

I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.

Isn't JMR-Medium intended to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and variants in the United States inventory? What is the United States Navy going to use to replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk? The United States Air Force the MH-60/HH-60 Pave Hawk? The United States Coast Guard the HH-60 Jay Hawk? The United States Marine Corps the UH-1Y Venom? Wouldn't the United States Navy ally with the United States Army for this increased capability if it came to a "roles and missions" debate with the United States Air Force? I just don't see multiple medium-lift utility rotorcraft programs in this current budget climate. What other helicopter platforms are expected to match the performance of FVL/JMR-Medium?

 

[F-14D]

I am concerned that "roles and missions" may rear its ugly head again on JMR/FVL, especially if a Tilt-Rotor is selected. making me worry that the latter may end up being penalized not for cost/benefit, but for bureaucratic reasons.

Isn't JMR-Medium intended to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and variants in the United States inventory? What is the United States Navy going to use to replace the SH-60 Sea Hawk? The United States Air Force the MH-60/HH-60 Pave Hawk? The United States Coast Guard the HH-60 Jay Hawk? The United States Marine Corps the UH-1Y Venom? Wouldn't the United States Navy ally with the United States Army for this increased capability if it came to a "roles and missions" debate with the United States Air Force? I just don't see multiple medium-lift utility rotorcraft programs in this current budget climate. What other helicopter platforms are expected to match the performance of FVL/JMR-Medium?

Navy's program to replace H-60 series is MH-XX expected to enter service in 2028. At present not aligned with JMR, but that could change if Army can incorporate Navy requirements. H-1 Yankee and Zulu are just entering service, replacement not a priority yet, as it is with Army, but they'll eventually nee ed something to replace those. Not as much conflict between USAF and USN on aircraft as in the past because once A/FX went away, Navy doesn't compete with USAF "first string" players, although sometimes USAF will lobby against a weapons system just to keep their hand in.

USAF tends to leave the Marines alone since what they develop almost never competes with USAF desires, plus there's no DoD policy on USMC vs. USAF as there is with Army.

Coast Guard, as usual, is facing severe cuts (1/3 in monies for new systems). In fact, their current long-anticipated air and sea modernization program may have to be abandoned. They were hoping to get the C-27Js from that USAF-Army fiasco, and although Congress has authorized it, nothing seems to be happening. They'll just have to wait and see what the other services do because they have no R&D budget for developing a new aircraft.



USAF tends to leave helo development alone, because they aren't "real" airplanes, and besides USAF isn't interested in developing its own, but rather letting someone else pay for developing them and then they' adapt them to their needs. Normally, this means no conflict. BUT, should it perceive that an Army system is getting too "uppity" and not staying in its "place", they'll lobby against it.

JMR could provide a common framework for USN-Army, but as it is Army-led USAF will probably be watching closesly, and that's my fear.