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

[Colonial-Marine]

https://breakingdefense.com/2024/04...d-about-job-cuts-at-sikorsky-helicopter-unit/

The Connecticut delegation is of course primarily concerned about the jobs aspect of things, but I do wish there was some more questioning about the Army's logic with this decision. How much input did Army helicopter crewmen get in the big picture? How can we be reassured they aren't making the same mistake made 20 years ago when the RAH-66 was cancelled citing the exact same reasoning?

Personally, I am still in favor of having such a manned dedicated reconnaissance helicopter used as FAC for drones. If the "nothing but drones" crowd always has their way it won't be long now before we start seeing cuts to the fleet of AH-64s. And despite the talk I have yet to hear anything about a new program for a relatively large, unmanned rotorcraft like UCAR was supposed to be.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

At this point there really is no choice.

Camr across these 3 AH-6Js at Drake Field in Fayetteville, AR back on March 9th. 35 years old and still going strong. Always wonder what parts are still on there from the production line....

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[yasotay]

MH-6M still the staple of 160th SOAR for urban ops. Not likely to be replaced soon.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

MH-6M still the staple of 160th SOAR for urban ops. Not likely to be replaced soon.

Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark

 

[Scott Kenny]

Question is, what will the Marines do to replace the Cobra?

Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.

 

[yasotay]

Baugher has these list as AH-6J - is that still true or have they morphed into MH-6Ms or?!

Thanks! Mark

SOAR has two versions of the aircraft, based on a standard airframe. They define the gunship as AH-6M and the lift birds as MH-6M. I speculate that they can be made interchangeable, however, I am not sure if the "AH" version has specific targeting equipment that would make changing the MH "plank bird" into an AH "gun bird problematic and vice versa.

 

[yasotay]

Different program, but they want something that can do 350-375 knots and fly just as far as an Osprey (~900nmi/1600km). Which is looking a lot like a V280 or a tandem cockpit gunship using the same wings/engines/proprotors.

Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Not sure the FLRAA wing is designed to go ~350 knots. Drag, G loading, and pressures are significantly greater than ~250 knots. Out of my element with this hypothesis, so will defer to one of the "aero-types, " who is knowledgeable.
I would think that the USMC would be hesitant to do a new aircraft just now whereas the FLRAA, as is, can keep up with MV-22.

Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.

 

[yasotay]

Didn't they test the V280 up past 325knots?

As for the tandem cockpit version, I was assuming literally the V280 wing with a narrower fuselage. Basically to make space for weapons bays or stub wings that could clear the rotor disc.

If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.

 

[VTOLicious]

If they did it was likely in a dive. I do recall they got to 305 knots for a short period. Vendors are reluctant to test one off air vehicles competing for the prize of the century (in Army Aviation at least) to the limit. Broken aircraft tend to find their way to the bottom of the list, especially if there is only one of them. IF they put a new fuselage on the wing and internalized the weapons, I suppose less drag would allow the aircraft to cruise at a higher speed.

V-247 Factsheet...

 

[Grey Havoc]

US Army to field long-range combat aircraft to first unit in FY31

The program's schedule is behind by a year following Lockheed Martin's protest over the Army's decision to choose Bell's offering.

www.defensenews.com

 

[bobbymike]

Army officials question plan for future attack reconnaissance

The service did away with the pursuit of a new manned armed scout helicopter and is grappling with how to fill the gap using a network of smart drones.

www.defensenews.com

 

[yasotay]

US Army still sees need for long-range airborne troop carrier in future conflict

Although battlefield observations from the Ukraine War led the army to cancel its next-generation armed scout helicopter, the service's senior aviation leaders say they still see a need for Bell's V-280 Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft in future conflicts.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[yasotay]

Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.

 

[Scott Kenny]

Clearing out my office after 20 years. Amazing how much one finds. Sadly almost all of it is not available for posting. I am sure that some of this has been posted before, but I will post some things here on the chance it is not repetitive. First some AVX FVL work.

Finally retiring? What'cha gonna do when you grow up?

 

[yasotay]

Finally retiring? What'cha gonna do when you grow up?

Nope, moving to another office. I don't plan on growing up, having to much fun still. Besides grown ups are depressing.

 

[_Del_]

Nope, moving to another office. I don't plan on growing up, having to much fun still. Besides grown ups are depressing.

I hope bigger and better things found you, or failing that, that you find them quickly!

 

[Arjen]

Nope, moving to another office. I don't plan on growing up, having to much fun still. Besides grown ups are depressing.

View: https://youtu.be/CWh4xHeFMIQ?si=6JARxStVvAX5YXDD

 

[yasotay]

View: https://youtu.be/CWh4xHeFMIQ?si=6JARxStVvAX5YXDD

Okay, but maybe not high heals.

 

[H_K]

First some AVX FVL work.

What was your assessment of the AVX designs?

E.g. Their gross weights always seemed quite light for their size… a little over optimistic perhaps?

 

[Forest Green]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1788216296397537715

View: https://x.com/defense_news/status/1788216296397537715

 

[yasotay]

What was your assessment of the AVX designs?

E.g. Their gross weights always seemed quite light for their size… a little over optimistic perhaps?

AVX was very aggressive with non-metalic structures and components. Many had a "this is great ... if you prove it" position regarding the weights. Honestly, I think the main gear box was most likely to be the highest risk for them, as the dynamics were adaptation from functional dynamic components found elsewhere. The rotor interaction with the ducted fans was a watch point but was mostly dealt with by down select.
Most would have liked to have seen AVX have an opportunity to fly, as the concept appeared to be very much in line with the expected requirements. Like other concepts however, once the DoD elected to make the Pacific the primary theater AVX got behind in meeting specifications.

 

[TomcatViP]

The large chord wing under the coaxial rotor downwash was not boding well for the performances. Add the twin fan rotors with the short moment arm and you´ve got some weird design choice as seen from outside the project.

See how Airbus choose a different approach with their Racer:
- long moment arm
- short chord wings (biplane, wing staggered)
- Anhedral

At least for the point discussed here, that makes more sense.

But notice that with the single main rotor configuration, the high wing due to the rotor downwash is subject to rapid cyclic variation every time the cyclic is activated. With a thick wing with rounded leading edge and camber, inherent from a short chord, the local AoA and lift vector is affected and the roll stability perturbed. With tip rotors and the box wing, the effects are tempered but not toward the wing root.

 

[Forest Green]

H-6 Little Bird's Future Upended Due To Army Axing Armed Scout Helicopter

The Night Stalkers' famed AH/MH-6 Little Bird helicopters are looking at a "resurrection," but for how long and what comes after is uncertain.

www.twz.com

 

[TomcatViP]

The modifications lately noted on the Valor model at the last expo are reflecting SOCOM requests:

Army wraps up FLRAA PDR, incorporating special ops design changes - Breaking Defense

According to a SOCOM official, the Army included feedback from the command that led to design changes like hardware for a refueling probe and features that will enable special operators to make unique modifications.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Scott Kenny]

H-6 Little Bird's Future Upended Due To Army Axing Armed Scout Helicopter

The Night Stalkers' famed AH/MH-6 Little Bird helicopters are looking at a "resurrection," but for how long and what comes after is uncertain.

www.twz.com

I mean, the MD530F is still in production, so it's not like they can't just buy some new Little Birds.

 

[RavenOne]

I mean, the MD530F is still in production, so it's not like they can't just buy some new Little Birds.

True but their previous owners and neighbours next door Boeing will probably want to hang onto A/MH-6 /or whatever is intended to be next BUT as i posted last week during the SOF WEek exhibition in Tampa, with the Little Bird replacement being canned...it does kinda make sense to keep tried and tested Little Bird.

There could be another example with the Airbus Helicopters Inc A/MH-125 Ares

AH-125 & MH-125 Ares

The first American-made military versions of the H125 offer unparalleled capability, reliability and flexibility for U.S. partners and allies around the world.

us.airbus.com

cheers

 

[yasotay]

Airbus certainly has a viable off the shelf option. There are a significant number of special requirements that would have to be integrated onto the platform (like folding to fit 2 aircraft into a C-130, 15 minutes from folded to flying, high end secure communications, etc.). There are other requirements that are currently in place with Boeing that might be hard to replicate in a new contract.

 

[yasotay]

US Navy’s plan to replace fleet of MH60s moves forward | Shephard

The US Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike) has been an effort to recapitalise Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters which have an out-of-service date in the late-2030s.

www.shephardmedia.com

$50 says it is a UH-60X.

 

[TomS]

US Navy’s plan to replace fleet of MH60s moves forward | Shephard

The US Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike) has been an effort to recapitalise Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters which have an out-of-service date in the late-2030s.

www.shephardmedia.com

$50 says it is a UH-60X.

Bet the only thing it has common with the MH-60R is the nameplate, though. T-901 engines, improved rotors, and a new cabin pushed all the way out to the maximum volume they can stuff into a Burke hangar. Call it the King Hawk.

 

[Scott Kenny]

US Navy’s plan to replace fleet of MH60s moves forward | Shephard

The US Navy’s Future Vertical Lift (Maritime Strike) has been an effort to recapitalise Sikorsky MH-60R/S naval helicopters which have an out-of-service date in the late-2030s.

www.shephardmedia.com

$50 says it is a UH-60X.

No bet.

Bet the only thing it has common with the MH-60R is the nameplate, though. T-901 engines, improved rotors, and a new cabin pushed all the way out to the maximum volume they can stuff into a Burke hangar. Call it the King Hawk.

Also no bet.

T901s, 5 bladed or 6 bladed rotor to handle the power, and the tapered section at the end of the cabin where it narrows down to the tail boom pushed like 5ft aft to end at the tail wheel.

 

[TomcatViP]

The Navy version would have an unmanned component. That should be something that gather all the sexiness in innovation. The rest would probably be a larger cabin (wider is my own bet).

Alternatively, a de-cabined UH-60, made similar to the CH-54, could be a good addition to the mobility concept. Probably an extra 4000lb in underslung load. (hence 9000 + 4000 = 13 to 15000lb). Add some hybridization to boost short duration power for T.O and hover in the drop zone and the UH-60 might transform itself into a hulking mini-beast, not too far from today CH-47D.


Someone would probably draw that much better than me!

 

[Devin]

It already exists minus the T901s. And the Marines already have a version in service.

 

[TomS]

It already exists minus the T901s. And the Marines already have a version in service.

No, the S-92 is much bigger, Sea King scale. It's around 7.5 feet longer even with folded tail (as the CH-148), more than 6 feet wider (thanks to the sponsons), and 2 feet taller. It won't fit inside an Arleigh Burke hangar, which is sized to just barely fit a Seahawk.

 

[Scott Kenny]

(...) Arleigh Burke hangar, which is sized to just barely fit a Seahawk.

Which is the real problem.

Any Romeo-Sierra replacement needs to fit in that footprint.

So I think we're going to end up with a Seahawk of Theseus: replaced the engines twice, redesigned the transmission once, redesigned the fuselage twice...

 

[TomS]

The Navy version would have an unmanned component

That's an interesting question, isn't it? Right now, even though ships are often designed for two helicopters, it's typical to embark only one and use the other hangar for storage or other things. Occasionally, you do see a UAV in one side and a Seahawk in the other but not often (and I think Fire Scout is retiring soon without immediate replacement).

If you end up with a LAMPS successor that requires both manned and unmanned air vehicles, the whole system gets much more expensive and harder to sustain. Once upon a time, people talked about a typical UAS deployment being three drones in the footprint of one manned helo, but as the drones get bigger and more capable, it becomes clear that they will not be that compact or inexpensive.

 

[yasotay]

I suspect whatever it is, it will optionally manned. Of note Sikorsky has demonstrated an uncrewed Blackhawk several times.

 

[TomS]

I suspect whatever it is, it will optionally manned. Of note Sikorsky has demonstrated an uncrewed Blackhawk several times.

But what's the upside of optional manning on a helicopter like this?

I guess you could automate the excruciating but stunningly boring task of VERTREP. But very few other missions seem like there would be a huge benefit, and the Mk1 eyeball remains a valuable sensor for maritime surface search.

 

[VTOLicious]

But what's the upside of optional manning on a helicopter like this?

I guess you could automate the excruciating but stunningly boring task of VERTREP. But very few other missions seem like there would be a huge benefit, and the Mk1 eyeball remains a valuable sensor for maritime surface search.

The truth is that such "autonomous" features are only beneficial during wartime. In peacetime pilots would rather sit in the aircraft, because they would need to monitor the flight from a control station anyways... and having a hard time not falling asleep
Also, a big problem for remote pilots is to maintain or get situational awareness when manual intervention becomes necessary.

 

[yasotay]

The truth is that such "autonomous" features are only beneficial during wartime. In peacetime pilots would rather sit in the aircraft, because they would need to monitor the flight from a control station anyways... and having a hard time not falling asleep
Also, a big problem for remote pilots is to maintain or get situational awareness when manual intervention becomes necessary.

I am in agreement with you. Humans do not require bandwidth. That said, the rational is likely that with a functioning network, the different mission specialist currently found in the back of the aircraft could do their mission from the ship.

The trick is to retain a functioning network.