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

TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mean, the Fire Scout B was the smaller package there for sure, but it wasn't capable of carrying one of the bigger lightweight torpedoes. It could carry ~600lbs, but some marks of LWT are 800lbs.

And I still strongly suspect that the next airdropped torpedoes are going to be on the order of 1500lbs, basically Mk37s with probably OTTO fuel engines instead of batteries (or ultracapacitors in place of batteries).



TomS said:
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.
Click to expand...
Already been done by the Marines, with that Kaman K-MAX helo. So I'd fully expect that to be the primary optional manning mission.

I don't expect SAR or ASW to be optionally manned, just because humans on scene need less datalink bandwidth to see things. ASW possibly could be unmanned if you have the stable datalink. SAR absolutely requires a Rescue Swimmer and IIRC the Navy sticks a Corpsman onboard for initial treatment, so might as well give a pilot and copilot as well.
 
www.northropgrumman.com

Future Vertical Lift | Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is supporting the U.S. Army as they modernize their aviation fleet ensuring that all future and enduring platforms are lethal and survivable in the Multi-Domain Operations (MDO) environment.
www.northropgrumman.com www.northropgrumman.com

Some interesting bits regarding the architecture that will be resident on the FLRAA vehicle.
 
Vertical Flight Society said:
VFS Seminar: Military Rotorcraft Developments
The Vertical Flight Society's San Francisco Bay Area Chapter held a hybrid technical seminar on May 23, 2024. The event was held at the NASA Ames Research Center, Building 3, as well as Teams webmeeting, which was recorded on video. The title of the lecture was "The Future of Vertical Flight: US and International Military Rotorcraft Developments." It was given by Mike Hirschberg, Director of Strategy, Vertical Flight Society.
Click to expand...
View: https://youtu.be/SkSv994e3oM?si=xjPpxBDvf2oyQuRw
 
A great rundown by one of the biggest proponents of rotorcraft. His sentiments regarding the FARA decision are widely felt to be common.
 
yasotay said:
A great rundown by one of the biggest proponents of rotorcraft. His sentiments regarding the FARA decision are widely felt to be common.
Click to expand...
genuinely nice guy too.
made me understand why lobbyists are good investments - they're nice people who are passionate and knowledgeable about the subject
 
2x ITEP engines delivered to Sikorsky for UH-60M integration effort:

For+Army+Approval+ITEP+WPB+Team+Photo-7.jpg


https://news.lockheedmartin.com/202...Sikorsky-for-Black-Hawk-R-Integration-Efforts
 
Last edited:
Critical quote from the article, "While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place."
I have heard this too many times. Remember T800? Barring extraordinary results it will fade into obscurity.
The second engine is from the Bell FARA prototype.

They are throwing Sikorsky table scraps.
 
TomcatViP said:
But it never flew, did it?
Click to expand...
Neither the Bell or Sikorsky FARA prototypes flew. Sikorsky did start theirs and turn the rotors a bit. Bell Invictus never left the hangar except for pictures.
 
yasotay said:
Critical quote from the article, "While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place."
I have heard this too many times. Remember T800? Barring extraordinary results it will fade into obscurity.
The second engine is from the Bell FARA prototype.

They are throwing Sikorsky table scraps.
Click to expand...
You mean the engine powering the AW129 baby attack helicopter?
 
Scott Kenny said:
You mean the engine powering the AW129 baby attack helicopter?
Click to expand...
True. However, from a business perspective, ~ 200 engines, versus ~ 6000 engines.
Actually I really hope I am wrong. It would be nice to see a return on ivestment.
 
yasotay said:
True. However, from a business perspective, ~ 200 engines, versus ~ 6000 engines.
Actually I really hope I am wrong. It would be nice to see a return on ivestment.
Click to expand...
I dunno, it's doing okay:
Click to expand...
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom