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

Good point! All those King Airs and Citations aren’t running around with composite fuselages.

Will be very interested to see how it all plays out.
 
Not to mention Cessna (not sure about Beechcraft) appears to be facing a union strike.
I too am betting on Leonardo.
 
yasotay said:
breakingdefense.com

Tiltrotor: The need for speed & range in response to global threats - Breaking Defense

With range and speed, the tiltrotor enables operations in dispersed locations, safe from most long-range fires and threats that make current assets vulnerable.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Bell Flight sponsored piece, but it does give you some insight into the rational they have been given by the DoD.
Click to expand...
I like the solution for the coming capability gap between the US Army and NATO: buy some of our tilt rotors and we all win.
 
e-Graphite said:
I like the solution for the coming capability gap between the US Army and NATO: buy some of our tilt rotors and we all win.
Click to expand...
I mean, it's not wrong. How much of a transformation was having your troops delivered to the battlefield via helicopters in Vietnam?

But it's also stating that NATO needs to buy tilt rotors, full stop. Yes, Bell would love it if they bought Valors, but that's not required for the transformation. Buy any tilt-rotor is required.
 
I think that the UK, and Italy are the most likely NATO countries to buy into FLRAA. They both still seem to have "overseas" and nautical concerns. France, while certainly also having long distance concerns, will most likely pursue RACER technology. RACER may actually be a better choice for those countries in Europe that do not have longer distance concerns. I suppose the Nordic countries might have viable reason for a small number of FLRAA, but more so for SAR, I think.
I would not be surprised to find Australia as the first to buy into FLRAA, for obvious reason. Indonesia might also be interested but I doubt they would be willing to go in immediately. Japan maybe. Israel, well everyone thought they would get MV-22, so who knows.
All I think will wait to see what comes of the Increment 2 version, before making an order.
 
Racer didn´t even made half a dozen of flight and we know nothing about the opened flight envelope or anything that concerns reliability. I think it´s pretty premature to even call it a solution, least, the better.
One good step for the future of NATO would be to not consider anything that flies out of Airbus or Leonardo shops as a machine of war. Racer wasn´t even though to have any utility in the military context.
 
TomcatViP said:
Racer didn´t even made half a dozen of flight and we know nothing about the opened flight envelope or anything that concerns reliability. I think it´s pretty premature to even call it a solution, least, the better.
One good step for the future of NATO would be to not consider anything that flies out of Airbus or Leonardo shops as a machine of war. Racer wasn´t even though to have any utility in the military context.
Click to expand...
Racer is a compound helicopter with a somewhat novel antitorque solution instead of a tail rotor. It's fast but I don't know about how much range it has.
 
Scott Kenny said:
It's fast but I don't know about how much range it has.
Click to expand...
Airbus claims a 25-35% range improvement for Racer over a conventional helicopter, depending on speed (180-220 knots). Scale that up to Valor’s 31,000lb take off weight, which is heavier than an S92 (27,700 lb TO weight, 750nm range), and you’re looking at potentially 1,000nm+ range for a troop transport using Racer technology, as a rough ballpark.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Racer is a compound helicopter with a somewhat novel antitorque solution instead of a tail rotor. It's fast but I don't know about how much range it has.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and that's exactly where the bullets will fly... In the novel anti-torque rotors... Let´s hope the platoon's kids enjoyed their carousels rides.

45dba16d07b1-racer_lgbcover-1461306473.jpg

iu
 
Last edited:
No, no... Tilt rotors have direct cross shafting (mechanical). You see the difference here?
Bullet impact is also a function of the rotors area and blade number. Here we have an aggravated surface area, augmented blade number, that favorably increase the chance of a bullet hit.
The largely decoupled torque rotor is also a burden that a military version would have to carry for not much. Airbus widely separated the torque engine nacelles to favorably impact the power needed (lever arm), and aerodynamic purity of the rotors, since their priority was power efficiency with a system that is intrinsically not efficient to fly slow or fast (3 rotors instead of 2 or 3). They also choose oddly to have two anti-torque nacelles instead of only one, something that was possible but required higher power being redirected to the anti-torque, something that would have rationally lowered the max speed.

Then there is the manpad aspect and the rise in IR emission from the nacelles. How would that be managed without negatively influencing the overall performances (you add weight and Drag away from the main rotor axis and build unwanted redundancies by multiplying the IR treatment hardware that needs to be installed)?

So, it´s not being anti this or that. It´s about being rational and using logics.
 
Last edited:
@TomcatViP Anything that causes sudden asymmetric drag in a tilt rotor or Racer-lookalike at speed will cause a crash, be it losing one of two side-by-side rotors or one of two 'anti-torque rotors'. The anti-torque effect being the result of differential thrust of the outrigger propellers, which enables a Racer-lookalike to attain higher speeds than a conventional helicopter, providing thrust from both propellers, off-loading the rotor, canceling rotor torque. Win-win.

A slow-flying Racer-lookalike could autorotate down if one of the outriggers is taken out, a tilt rotor with one rotor shot-to-bits will go down as surely as any helicopter with main rotor damage.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think you guys should study a bit what makes an helicopter vulnerable to ground fire and then come back to this discussion with a refreshed mind.

Hint:

Tilt rotors actual landing:
iu



Tilt rotor NOT in landing configuration:
iu
 
Last edited:
We didn’t have to wait long for word on what will become of FLRAA fuselage production - it’s being brought “in-house” at Bell.

breakingdefense.com

Bell to manufacture FLRAA fuselage after dumping Spirit AeroSystems ahead of Boeing acquisition - Breaking Defense

Sources first indicated this summer that Bell would drop Spirit AeroSystems as a supplier due to Boeing’s upcoming acquisition of the embattled aerostructures company.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Hopefully AUSA this week will bring more program news, including a T/M/S designation … and a name!
 
I fear it won´t be that simple.

Question1: how IR suppression devices do work? (hint, not with a magic wand)
Question 2: What geometrical factor do increase a visual signature?
Question 3: What is the main element that do contribute to hot gas dilution (helo)?
 
yasotay said:
The most likely decision clearly. "If you don't own something, you don't control it."
Click to expand...
I thought Bell would want to insource it, but the general consensus here was that they would have to partner with someone. It's just a fuselage. Bell can handle it.
 
TomcatViP said:
No, no... Tilt rotors have direct cross shafting (mechanical). You see the difference here?
Bullet impact is also a function of the rotors area and blade number. Here we have an aggravated surface area, augmented blade number, that favorably increase the chance of a bullet hit.
The largely decoupled torque rotor is also a burden that a military version would have to carry for not much. Airbus widely separated the torque engine nacelles to favorably impact the power needed (lever arm), and aerodynamic purity of the rotors, since their priority was power efficiency with a system that is intrinsically not efficient to fly slow or fast (3 rotors instead of 2 or 3). They also choose oddly to have two anti-torque nacelles instead of only one, something that was possible but required higher power being redirected to the anti-torque, something that would have rationally lowered the max speed.
Click to expand...
Nope. Unload the rotor to ~20% of the lift and dump all that horsepower into the pusher props. Let's say Racer makes a total of 4000hp, and ignoring the amount used for antitorque means that the rotor in high-speed mode will only soak up about 800hp, while the props are pushing 1600hp each, give or take.


TomcatViP said:
Then there is the manpad aspect and the rise in IR emission from the nacelles. How would that be managed without negatively influencing the overall performances (you add weight and Drag away from the main rotor axis and build unwanted redundancies by multiplying the IR treatment hardware that needs to be installed)?
Click to expand...
What increase in IR from the Racer's nacelles? There's no engines in there, just gearboxes.



yasotay said:
The most likely decision clearly. "If you don't own something, you don't control it."
Click to expand...
Yeah, though there was still a chance that Bell didn't have space at any given facility to make the fuselage so they'd farm it out. I was guessing Leonardo USA.
 

‘Never done before’: tiltrotor technology and the future battlespace | Shephard

In conversation... Bell's Frank Lazzara talks to Shephard's Gerrard Cowan about the potential of tiltrotor designs to revolutionize U.S. Army maneuver operations, and how the technology could transform other mission sets across DoD and international armed services.
www.shephardmedia.com

Nothing overly new here, but it certainly gives you a feel for where Bell would like to go with the program.
 
yasotay said:

‘Never done before’: tiltrotor technology and the future battlespace | Shephard

In conversation... Bell's Frank Lazzara talks to Shephard's Gerrard Cowan about the potential of tiltrotor designs to revolutionize U.S. Army maneuver operations, and how the technology could transform other mission sets across DoD and international armed services.
www.shephardmedia.com

Nothing overly new here, but it certainly gives you a feel for where Bell would like to go with the program.
Click to expand...
First battle is just getting FLRAA through the various design reviews without getting derailed by the customer and then built/flying.
 
yasotay said:
A well written article that articulates some of the critical aspects of the program.
Click to expand...
Most convincing part of the pro-FLRAA argument:
The vulnerability of forward deployed assets has long been an issue. Western planners have traditionally assumed that their battlefield rotorcraft (Find, Lift, and Attack) would be located relatively close to the front lines. This was to enable their relatively slow transit speeds and endurance, when compared to a tactical jet aircraft, to be somewhat mitigated, as well as conferring an element of mobility and unpredictability over their location.

In future campaigns, even if 90% of the drone threat is eliminated, it only takes one to discover a flight site in the field, or a single careless radio transmission to be detected and geo-located. The 'God of War', artillery, has certainly been 'back' in Ukraine and as detection and targeting into 'the deep battle' improves, enhancements to long range fires (tube artillery, rockets and UAVs/Loitering munitions) have followed, and enabled the traditional sanctuary areas afforded to helicopters to be held at risk.

FLRAA offers the Army, and other purchasers, the opportunity to keep their assets well back from the front line and the concomitant risk of detection and destruction. The sheer speed, range and endurance of the V-280 design will permit FLRAA to deliver the same effect on the battlefield from a base of relative safety, well behind the lines.
Click to expand...
However, I'm not sure I buy the idea of transformational tactics such as risky unescorted "hit & run" raids behind enemy lines... sounds like the much vaunted and epic failures of AH-64 Apache raids in Iraq, this time using light infantry instead of gunships. I'm pretty sure interdiction is better left to long-range artillery and the air force.
In fact, the aircraft's speed around the battlespace will actually enable more to be done in the same operating period and increase the tactical area it can influence significantly over the UH-60. Potentially, FLRAA assault units could now reach into the enemy's rear areas - allowing for destabilising 'hit and run' raids and the targeting of those key logistical bottlenecks - all in addition to flying faster and 'smarter' than legacy platforms thanks to MOSA optimised battlefield SA. Speed and 'smarts' offer appreciable gains in terms of survivability and mission success.
Click to expand...
 
H_K said:
Most convincing part of the pro-FLRAA argument:

However, I'm not sure I buy the idea of transformational tactics such as risky unescorted "hit & run" raids behind enemy lines... sounds like the much vaunted and epic failures of AH-64 Apache raids in Iraq, this time using light infantry instead of gunships. I'm pretty sure interdiction is better left to long-range artillery and the air force.
Click to expand...
With SOCOM requirements being considered during the FLRAA design phase, we'll see armed variants at some point with missile racks and ALE launchers. No Apache needed unless you really want that 30 mm cannon.
 
H_K said:
Most convincing part of the pro-FLRAA argument:

However, I'm not sure I buy the idea of transformational tactics such as risky unescorted "hit & run" raids behind enemy lines... sounds like the much vaunted and epic failures of AH-64 Apache raids in Iraq, this time using light infantry instead of gunships. I'm pretty sure interdiction is better left to long-range artillery and the air force.
Click to expand...
The Apache 'deep attack' is almost as hard to put to rest as the Cavalry charge.
Crossing the enemy front lines in the future will be more akin to 'strike packages' I think. Lots of UAS systems with lethal and electronic countermeasures, manned and unmanned SEAD, and the means to make sure that enemy flying things cannot interfere.
'Deep' will be relative. Operational depth will only occur against an enemy who's command and control has become incoherent.
 
Grey Havoc said:
In other words, 'Shallow Strike' may be back in fashion, at least for the moment.
Click to expand...
That is my thought as well. One has to remember that once you put people on the ground you have to supply them until ground elements link up. Short dwell missions like raids might risk deeper operations, but again it will be a larger effort than just trying to sneak a battalion of Apaches across the front lines.
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
That is my thought as well. One has to remember that once you put people on the ground you have to supply them until ground elements link up. Short dwell missions like raids might risk deeper operations, but again it will be a larger effort than just trying to sneak a battalion of Apaches across the front lines.
Click to expand...
A potential niche for a revived Ground X-Vehicle perhaps?

EDIT: Alongside RoboApaches maybe?
 
Last edited:
Scott Kenny said:
I still expect a narrow-fuselage V280-based attack tiltrotor, kinda like a manned V247.
Click to expand...
But to what end? No need for lower drag. Reduced vulnerability to ground fire during direct attack is unlikely to be the reason as the wing/nacelles stay the same and I really doubt we'll see one with a 30 mm cannon taking on tanks. A modern, dedicated attack tiltrotor is more likely to be a modified fuselage with a large internal capacity of ALE and weapons to be ejected through the sides/bottom of the fuselage with that extra weight paid for by removing external load capabilities, troop provisions/protection, etc. I suspect we'll see some basic weapons hard points on the wings of all FLRAA, but I would expect more out of a dedicated attack ship.
 
Don't forget that vertical flight is all about Mass Vs Power. A reduced cross section fuselage is also lighter and offers generally less drag, something that ease keeping/increasing performances with a significant military payload when the range induces a need for a greater magazine. Think also agility transitioning in and out vertical mode. You certainly don't want to be stuck with a sluggish airframe while being shot at.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom