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

HaveVoid said:
I’m excited to see someone else throw the name “Crow” out there - I’ve also had the thought that it slots in well as a bird name alongside the V-Series and the Army’s own Gray Hawk UAV while also ticking the tribal box as well.
Click to expand...
If you were the first to suggest it, I'm 100% agreeing with the logic. It's both a bird name like the V-series and a Tribal name like the Army tries to use.


HaveVoid said:
Is there any Army precedent for the re-use of a name? Iroquois II in honor of the Huey?
Click to expand...
There is, sorta. The A-36 Apache in WW2 and then the AH-64 Apache. But that's the only example I know of, and I don't think the Apache name for the A-36 was official.

Plus, there's a lot of tribe names left to use before the Army has to re-use any.
 
TomcatViP said:
@Scott Kenny : absolutely not my intend. I am only referring to Spirit as a company name.
Click to expand...
Thing is, the production FLRAA fuselage (for both Valor and Defiant) is a complete redesign anyway to meet all the requirements of a production vehicle. Valor and Defiant were slightly sub scale demonstrators, not prototypes. Might as well do your clean sheet engineering with a partner you'd like to have instead of a competitor.
 
Right, but these demonstrators are to gain experience. If you swap your contractor b/w demo-eval and EMD, you´d better be sure you had absorbed all the experience somehow.
But then again, a well built prototype is done according to well written documentation. So, at the end, it depends only on how Bell think they have done their homework.
But why the hassle? Because of a bad press?!
 
TomcatViP said:
Right, but these demonstrators are to gain experience. If you swap your contractor b/w demo-eval and EMD, you´d better be sure you had absorbed all the experience somehow.
But then again, a well built prototype is done according to well written documentation. So, at the end, it depends only on how Bell think they have done their homework.
But why the hassle? Because of a bad press?!
Click to expand...
Perhaps the experience with Spirit has actually not been positive. Just because you successfully accomplished a goal once doesn't mean you'd choose to do it again the same way.
 
We haven´t heard any of this and the flying part of the demonstration went surprisingly early in the program and unimpaired by technical problems. I would rather naively think that it is in part related to the quality of the execution. ;)
 
No, that dem & eval went unimpaired by technical troubles and according to plan (no delay etc...). ;)
 
Mulling the fuselage sourcing over in my head and I keep coming back to this representing a very interesting opportunity for Leonardo. They want to increase their US business, they want to be in on Army programs, they want to expand their tilt-rotor work with Bell, and they likely want to show NATO more than just concept images for NGRC. Maybe aerostructure work wasn't what they had in mind, but it's very much something they should be able to do.

Setting up a fuselage line in Philly won't be trivial, nor a money printer, but it's a play for future work so they should be able to sell it to their investors.
 
Moose said:
Mulling the fuselage sourcing over in my head and I keep coming back to this representing a very interesting opportunity for Leonardo. They want to increase their US business, they want to be in on Army programs, they want to expand their tilt-rotor work with Bell, and they likely want to show NATO more than just concept images for NGRC. Maybe aerostructure work wasn't what they had in mind, but it's very much something they should be able to do.

Setting up a fuselage line in Philly won't be trivial, nor a money printer, but it's a play for future work so they should be able to sell it to their investors.
Click to expand...
I doubt there is time to bring in a major (or even minor) overseas supplier and get all the ITAR and other data export paperwork squared away. Those processes can take half a year or more.
 
e-Graphite said:
I doubt there is time to bring in a major (or even minor) overseas supplier and get all the ITAR and other data export paperwork squared away. Those processes can take half a year or more.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be an overseas supplier, Leonardo Helicopters US in Philly is an American subsidiary of Leonardo and already does DoD business with the MH139. There's going to be disruption changing suppliers anyway, unless Bell sticks with Spirit/Boeing in a limited fashion while they stand up another source.
 
TomcatViP said:
But why the hassle? Because of a bad press?!
Click to expand...
Everything I've read has said it's because Spirit was bought by Boeing. So I believe it's a legal restriction, like a conflict of interest or something, not just because Spirit/Boeing has bad press on the name.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Everything I've read has said it's because Spirit was bought by Boeing. So I believe it's a legal restriction, like a conflict of interest or something, not just because Spirit/Boeing has bad press on the name.
Click to expand...
Its not a legal restriction, mostly Bell doesn't want Boeing forced on them as a team member as happened with V-22.
 
IMOHO, it would be a bad development. This vector can promise a transformational gain for the US only when introduced en-masse. We are not dealing with a hundred of airframe for a specialized service such as is the case with the MH-139.
Anything that jeopardizes production rate should be understood as a violation of the FVL bidding rules.
 
Last edited:
It is all about Boeing. There is almost a visceral dislike for Boeing these days. Bell had opportunity early in the JMR era to team with Boeing. They declined. The Bell CEO was in Philadelphia last week meeting with Leonardo. Given their background with them and the politics of production in Pennsylvania, I would not be surprised to see a deal struck. Not sure there are any ITAR restrictions with the building of the fuselage shell, but I could be wrong there. Interesting days ahead.
 
Any bets out there on who takes on the fuselage for the Bell FLRAA, with the decision to boot Boeing/Spirit?

My front-runner is Leonardo USA. My dark horse bet is Northrup/Scaled Composites.

Not a lot of time for prolonged decision making I think.
 
yasotay said:
Any bets out there on who takes on the fuselage for the Bell FLRAA, with the decision to boot Boeing/Spirit?

My front-runner is Leonardo USA. My dark horse bet is Northrup/Scaled Composites.

Not a lot of time for prolonged decision making I think.
Click to expand...
Bell is trying to get abatements and grants for a new plant in Alliance (Ft. Worth), TX (and a few other places). They are promising "a multi-decade" run of production as part of the justification in Texas.
It might not be impossible that that they decide to take what they learn at the MTC and apply it directly themselves at a new plant. The only way to promise "multi-decade" production is if it includes at least some product or assembly for FLRAA. Don't see why it would exclude the possibility of fuselages as part of the plan. I'd give it at least an outside chance.
Much has been made of the fact the news leaked about trying to reacquire the production from Spirit after Boeing re-acquired them. But it also lines up fairly well with their applications for more manufacturing locations. Might have little to do with Boeing, and like Boeing itself decided, more to do with bringing more manufacturing directly under their (Bell-Textron's) own umbrella and close to home in Texas.
 
_Del_ said:
Bell is trying to get abatements and grants for a new plant in Alliance (Ft. Worth), TX (and a few other places). They are promising "a multi-decade" run of production as part of the justification in Texas.
It might not be impossible that that they decide to take what they learn at the MTC and apply it directly themselves at a new plant. The only way to promise "multi-decade" production is if it includes at least some product or assembly for FLRAA. Don't see why it would exclude the possibility of fuselages as part of the plan. I'd give it at least an outside chance.
Much has been made of the fact the news leaked about trying to reacquire the production from Spirit after Boeing re-acquired them. But it also lines up fairly well with their applications for more manufacturing locations. Might have little to do with Boeing, and like Boeing itself decided, more to do with bringing more manufacturing directly under their (Bell-Textron's) own umbrella and close to home in Texas.
Click to expand...
Wichita Kansas is about 3 hours from Dallas, IIRC.
 
Not unless you're doing 115, it's 340 miles or thereabouts. Closer than I thought actually.
 
yasotay said:
Any bets out there on who takes on the fuselage for the Bell FLRAA, with the decision to boot Boeing/Spirit?

My front-runner is Leonardo USA. My dark horse bet is Northrup/Scaled Composites.

Not a lot of time for prolonged decision making I think.
Click to expand...
I would insource the design and produce as much as possible in-house and do build to print for the parts that are better suited for that. The fuselage is an unpressurized box. Bell can manage the design for sure and build if they want to. Having a partner on primary structure with contracts between that structure and the OEM sucks. Insource it and cut out the middle man.
 
I would agree in priinciple that Bell Flight ought to develop its own means of building the aircraft in total. However given the timeline to begin flying prototypes in just a few years, it may be too short a time period to build a facility, gain the expertise needed to build the large composite frames and validate the safe use of those frames.
Also Bell's costing likely was based on the use of a thrid party to do the work. The cost to establish a facility woud have to be passed on to the customer. Something the customerr is not inclined to be happy with.
 
apparition13 said:
Not unless you're doing 115, it's 340 miles or thereabouts. Closer than I thought actually.
Click to expand...
Have you seen how fast they drive in Texas? :D You'd swear it was the autobahn!

But seriously, okay, closer to 4.5 hours than 3 if you're close to the posted speed limits.



yasotay said:
I would agree in priinciple that Bell Flight ought to develop its own means of building the aircraft in total. However given the timeline to begin flying prototypes in just a few years, it may be too short a time period to build a facility, gain the expertise needed to build the large composite frames and validate the safe use of those frames.
Also Bell's costing likely was based on the use of a thrid party to do the work. The cost to establish a facility woud have to be passed on to the customer. Something the customerr is not inclined to be happy with.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think it'll end up being Leonardo in Philly.
 
yasotay said:
https://www.designnews.com/industry/bell-v-280-tiltrotor-aircraft-continues-progress-toward-production

Bit more granularity on the plans for the program.
Click to expand...
Kinda surprised we don't have a MDS code for the Valor yet. I mean, the V-22 was tagged and named Osprey long before the first flight, and we're less than 2 years from the production Valor first flight without knowing what it's going to be called.

I'm expecting something in the V-series, maybe U prefix like most of the rest of the Army helos. Next number in the V-series appears to be V-25, so maybe UV-25?

Name is a bit more delicate, I'm sure there's a whole process for which tribe is next in line and are they cool with being a namesake. I still think Crow would be the perfect name for it, both tribal and a bird name.
 
With the current political environment, I’m not convinced FLRAA will get a tribe or tribal leader name at all. I hope I’m wrong. I think Geronimo or Crazy Horse would be fitting.
 
I agree that the designation will likely be "UV."
As mentioned already a tribal name is traditionally given to Army aircraft. They vetting process is likely done in the deepest level of the Pentagon and includes chanting and the throwing of bones.
 
yasotay said:
Truth.
Click to expand...
Was there in March - doing 90mph on a TX highway when a cop passed me - thought I was tagged good and solid. Instead, he waved hello and left me in the dust.... I love TX! :)

From St. Louis thru OK, TX and AR and we get home after 3607 miles with an average speed of 64mph. Thank you TX bringing up that average speed!

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
I agree that the designation will likely be "UV."
As mentioned already a tribal name is traditionally given to Army aircraft. They vetting process is likely done in the deepest level of the Pentagon and includes chanting and the throwing of bones.
Click to expand...
When you smell incense in the hallway, you know they are near a decision :)
 
yasotay said:
I would agree in priinciple that Bell Flight ought to develop its own means of building the aircraft in total. However given the timeline to begin flying prototypes in just a few years, it may be too short a time period to build a facility, gain the expertise needed to build the large composite frames and validate the safe use of those frames.
Click to expand...
They would never be ready in time to build the prototypes on schedule, but LRIP isn't due to start until 2028. If it is all on time.
 
_Del_ said:
They would never be ready in time to build the prototypes on schedule, but LRIP isn't due to start until 2028. If it is all on time.
Click to expand...
I think Leonardo USA has the experience and skills to do the fuselage work.

Bell would really be stretching to get it all built in time.

In this case, better to continue the plan to farm out the fuselage assembly to someone who knows what they're doing than to fight with learning it yourself.
 
Could they opt to keep it in house within the larger Textron family? Does Cessna/Beechcraft do any of their own fuselage work? They are located in Wichita like Spirit is, could ease moving any fuselage related tooling if that can be acquired from Boeing.
 
HaveVoid said:
Could they opt to keep it in house within the larger Textron family? Does Cessna/Beechcraft do any of their own fuselage work? They are located in Wichita like Spirit is, could ease moving any fuselage related tooling if that can be acquired from Boeing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but not a lot of composite fuselage work. Beechcraft basically hasn't done a composite airframe since the Starship.

While Leonardo has a lot of experience in large composite structures.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom