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

USAF Inc. has a long history of precluding US Army efforts. The C-27 fiasco is so similar to the Caribou story of Vietnam as to be frightening. Not only did the USAF Inc., take the fully programmed aircraft, they took the US Army funds that went with it, then promptly decided they did not need the aircraft and reprogrammed the money. The heavy lift efforts of the US Army is another demonstration of the USAF Inc. methodology. They did nothing until the program was a program of record, then no one less than the Chief of the Air Force got with the Army to clear up roles and missions. The USAF Inc. took over the program, spent a couple of years studying it (two decades of Army effort were of course insufficient), then promptly cancelled all work. Interestingly the Army has solved their problem with USAF Inc., on this, by hiring contract aviation companies to do the mission the way the US Army would like to get air movement done.

There will be some very interesting dynamics coming out of military roles and missions as the efficiencies of VTOL slink out of the primordial state they have been in. What will likely be disconcerting to the USAF Inc., is that there is growing political interest in improving VTOL platform capabilities. Almost six hundred rotorcraft lost compared to less than one hundred fixed wing in the wars. With the expectation that most future conflicts will be less than total war, requiring more low altitude operations, there is more congressional support than there has been in the past. Part of why the USAF Inc. does not mess with the USMC is that the Marines are the darlings of Congress. How else do you get a one-for-one replacement of CH-46 with MV-22, CH-53K, UH/AH-1, F-35 all through the financial wickets in fiscally constrained political atmosphere?

Then there is the US Army aviation science and technology budget which has traditionally been funded at lower levels than the funds the USAF Inc., gets just for engine technology. Perhaps someday a hypersonic fighter/bomber at 50,000 feet can solve a Hezbollah like enemy operating in and amongst civil populations in mega-cities, or deal with mass causalities from a fanatic weapon of mass destruction. Until that is demonstrated I think the focus and priorities of the Air Service, to kill any effort that hints an appearance to impinge on their mission, is ill served for the defense of our country.

Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.

On topic, I think that as long as a tilt-rotor stays at V-22 size or lower, the USAF Inc., will not be overly concerned with the US Army having them as it does not really get into their cargo/troop mission or funding stream. At least on the troop lift / utility side. Attack tilt-rotor may present an issue for them.

Edit: To be fair, I do not wish to disparage the men and women of the Air Force who fly and fight every day alongside the other services. They are good men and women doing the same as any other. My angst and frustration is with the USAF Inc., professional staffs that reside in the nations capitol, far from the fight with myopic views of how Douhetian theories will solve all military problems.
 
yasotay said:
USAF Inc. has a long history of precluding US Army efforts. The C-27 fiasco is so similar to the Caribou story of Vietnam as to be frightening. Not only did the USAF Inc., take the fully programmed aircraft, they took the US Army funds that went with it, then promptly decided they did not need the aircraft and reprogrammed the money. The heavy lift efforts of the US Army is another demonstration of the USAF Inc. methodology. They did nothing until the program was a program of record, then no one less than the Chief of the Air Force got with the Army to clear up roles and missions. The USAF Inc. took over the program, spent a couple of years studying it (two decades of Army effort were of course insufficient), then promptly cancelled all work. Interestingly the Army has solved their problem with USAF Inc., on this, by hiring contract aviation companies to do the mission the way the US Army would like to get air movement done.

There will be some very interesting dynamics coming out of military roles and missions as the efficiencies of VTOL slink out of the primordial state they have been in. What will likely be disconcerting to the USAF Inc., is that there is growing political interest in improving VTOL platform capabilities. Almost six hundred rotorcraft lost compared to less than one hundred fixed wing in the wars. With the expectation that most future conflicts will be less than total war, requiring more low altitude operations, there is more congressional support than there has been in the past. Part of why the USAF Inc. does not mess with the USMC is that the Marines are the darlings of Congress. How else do you get a one-for-one replacement of CH-46 with MV-22, CH-53K, UH/AH-1, F-35 all through the financial wickets in fiscally constrained political atmosphere?

Then there is the US Army aviation science and technology budget which has traditionally been funded at lower levels than the funds the USAF Inc., gets just for engine technology. Perhaps someday a hypersonic fighter/bomber at 50,000 feet can solve a Hezbollah like enemy operating in and amongst civil populations in mega-cities, or deal with mass causalities from a fanatic weapon of mass destruction. Until that is demonstrated I think the focus and priorities of the Air Service, to kill any effort that hints an appearance to impinge on their mission, is ill served for the defense of our country.

Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.

On topic, I think that as long as a tilt-rotor stays at V-22 size or lower, the USAF Inc., will not be overly concerned with the US Army having them as it does not really get into their cargo/troop mission or funding stream. At least on the troop lift / utility side. Attack tilt-rotor may present an issue for them.

Edit: To be fair, I do not wish to disparage the men and women of the Air Force who fly and fight every day alongside the other services. They are good men and women doing the same as any other. My angst and frustration is with the USAF Inc., professional staffs that reside in the nations capitol, far from the fight with myopic views of how Douhetian theories will solve all military problems.
Click to expand...

Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk.

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that. They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E: Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft. UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert. Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export). As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system. The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs. So, they're good buddies on this one. Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there.

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS. The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing.

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause.
 
Triton said:
Thank you F-14D for alerting me to the Maritime Helicopter (MH-XX) program by Navy Air Systems Command.
Click to expand...

You're welcome.

Although still somewhat ill-defined, they've already had their first industry day.
 
F-14D said:
Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk.

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that. They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E: Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft. UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert. Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export). As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system. The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs. So, they're good buddies on this one. Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there.

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS. The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing.

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause.
Click to expand...
I really think that there will be little fight over a transport tilt rotor as the USAF Inc., does not want to have to deal with the movement of such small elements around the battlefield … it is not cost effective from their perspective. I would agree that an attack variant might give them more pause, however given the capabilities the JMR is looking for, ANY of the attack rotorcraft proposed are back in the AH-56 ball park. I think we are getting to the point where other technologies, not just aerodynamics are closing in on mission parameters set down in WW2. Precision rockets, longer ranged dual purpose guided missiles, far more accurate guns are making the argument more difficult every day. US Army attack helicopters are now routinely training to operate off of USN ships to support Joint operations (not just special ops either).
Then there is the point that that the US Army won the argument to have their Gray Eagle (Army Predator) capable of carrying up to four missiles. That is most certainly an armed fixed wing aircraft with US Army on the side of it.
 
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
Regarding Vietnam, aside from Caribou and Buffalo (which USAF got killed), don't forget Armed Mohawk.

Although Congress does love the Marines, I think thre's more to it than that. They got the CH-53K for the same reason they got the CH-53E: Army can't get its act together on a heavy lift helicopter, so Marines were given permission to "modify" their existing aircraft. UH-1/AH-1 were wearing out, and the Y & Z were thought to be easier and cheaper (Orignally most Ys were to be mostly conversions, but the rate they were wearing out plus with Afghanistan and Iraq, they couldn't afford to have that many out of service for the time it took to convert. Most Zs are conversions, but new production was added for pat of the total for the same reason as the Y and to make it a viable potential candidate for export). As for the F-35, the B is essentially the A with the lift system. The Marines actually get a more capable plane than they asked for, and USAF gets a larger production run to help hold down its costs. So, they're good buddies on this one. Regarding the V-22, they originally were to get 552 (it was to do more than just replace the Phrog), so they've taken a big hit there.

Regarding V-22 sized, remember that USAF didn't like the idea of Army SEMA V-22s flying around in "their" airspace, and AH-56 was a lot smaller aircraft [and a helicopter(!)] that dared to be proposed for CAS. The 1965 directive banning Army having armed fixed wings is still in force, and Tilt-Rotor looks like (is) a fixed wing.

I hope this time we'll do better, but C-27J gives me pause.
Click to expand...
I really think that there will be little fight over a transport tilt rotor as the USAF Inc., does not want to have to deal with the movement of such small elements around the battlefield … it is not cost effective from their perspective. I would agree that an attack variant might give them more pause, however given the capabilities the JMR is looking for, ANY of the attack rotorcraft proposed are back in the AH-56 ball park. I think we are getting to the point where other technologies, not just aerodynamics are closing in on mission parameters set down in WW2. Precision rockets, longer ranged dual purpose guided missiles, far more accurate guns are making the argument more difficult every day. US Army attack helicopters are now routinely training to operate off of USN ships to support Joint operations (not just special ops either).
Then there is the point that that the US Army won the argument to have their Gray Eagle (Army Predator) capable of carrying up to four missiles. That is most certainly an armed fixed wing aircraft with US Army on the side of it.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying. The thing about predator is that it's really small and doesn't fly around in "their" airspace. Plus, given that CIA was already using armed Predators, it'd look really silly for USAF to object. Plus, Predator is tightly integrated with the ground forces and under their control. They frankly don't want that role, so they leave it alone as long as it stays in its place.

Regarding a transport Tilt-Rotor transport, given what we just went through with C-27J, I am not so sanguine unless FVL is artificially constrained in size and range.
 
yasotay said:
Obviously a hot button issue for me and I hope this is not to much of a rambling rant.
Click to expand...


Nope, yours and F-14D's long and thorough explanations are precisely what i was hoping for!
 
The article sounds like a puff piece originally written by AVX's marketing department.
Click to expand...

OAHAglj.gif



jsport said:
yasotay said:
AVX Aircraft Corporation: Taking Down the Defense Establishment

Read more: http://www.defencetalk.com/avx-aircraft-corporation-taking-down-the-defense-establishment-48567/#ixzz2aHbmv6Xk
Click to expand...
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..
Click to expand...

yes never ::)
 
Triton said:
The article sounds like a puff piece originally written by AVX's marketing department.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. The article makes two claims: in addition to a lot of straight forward description. One is that the AVX helicopter looks 'more complete' and ready than the other proposals. Which I would agree with, its is the most simple of the proposals. The other that some start ups can be quite successful, providng the example of Elon Musk and SpaceX.
 
jsport said:
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..
Click to expand...

Yes its always about money. AVX offer a lower bid and have the paperwork to indicate they can deliver it then they can win.

Another aspect to consider is JMR is just a demonstrator project. Small companies like AVX, Piasceki, etc can deliver to this scope without any problems. If AVX progresses in JMR then their strategy may not be to offer a production bid themselves but to be brought out by a major. Lockheed or Northrop are major air vehicle builders without a pony in the JMR race and could step up and acquire AVX as a helicopter design division. BAES, Raytheon and many others could have the capital and systems integration expertise to make AVX competitve with Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky for a 4,000 unit production run.

There is a lot more to this than the rather simple explanations given in the last few posts.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
jsport said:
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..
Click to expand...

Yes its always about money. AVX offer a lower bid and have the paperwork to indicate they can deliver it then they can win.

Another aspect to consider is JMR is just a demonstrator project. Small companies like AVX, Piasceki, etc can deliver to this scope without any problems. If AVX progresses in JMR then their strategy may not be to offer a production bid themselves but to be brought out by a major. Lockheed or Northrop are major air vehicle builders without a pony in the JMR race and could step up and acquire AVX as a helicopter design division. BAES, Raytheon and many others could have the capital and systems integration expertise to make AVX competitve with Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky for a 4,000 unit production run.

There is a lot more to this than the rather simple explanations given in the last few posts.
Click to expand...
...have arguements to your points sir.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
jsport said:
unfortunately for them and ultimately the US, it is never about the technology or capability..
Click to expand...

Yes its always about money. AVX offer a lower bid and have the paperwork to indicate they can deliver it then they can win.

Another aspect to consider is JMR is just a demonstrator project. Small companies like AVX, Piasceki, etc can deliver to this scope without any problems. If AVX progresses in JMR then their strategy may not be to offer a production bid themselves but to be brought out by a major. Lockheed or Northrop are major air vehicle builders without a pony in the JMR race and could step up and acquire AVX as a helicopter design division. BAES, Raytheon and many others could have the capital and systems integration expertise to make AVX competitve with Boeing, Bell, Sikorsky for a 4,000 unit production run.

There is a lot more to this than the rather simple explanations given in the last few posts.
Click to expand...

AVX has no trained workforce or facilities. The cost to create all of that would need to be added in. (And that ain't peanuts.)
 
Which the company would have to do, as a viable economic model when they finally detail their offer. It would be something that would be needed to be set up by the company, however the benefit would not be limited to the particular program, but would go on into the future as well. The Government would not have to subsidize their growth(initial growth) through this program, but would factor in the increased risk (for the program) because the company would have to deal with it in some sort of way. I always thought that a VC effort should be maintained by all the services under one umbrella program, in order to promote budding design houses/companies so that they can get on their feet. Perhaps the government can Fund them in return for a short term stake or something, that can be offloaded at a later date.
 
sferrin said:
AVX has no trained workforce or facilities. The cost to create all of that would need to be added in. (And that ain't peanuts.)
Click to expand...

You don’t need a ‘workforce’ to build a handful of demonstrators. Go ask Burt Rutan if you don’t agree. As for the handful of people who will build Bell and Sikorsky’s demonstrators if they get build contracts their salaries will be billed to the US Army as well. And public information provided by AVX to date indicates that the transmission, aero structure, flight controls, etc for their JMR demonstrator will all be outsourced to existing sub-contractors. They will just assemble and test the aircraft.
 
Sorry, I just don't understand how Defensetalk can claim that "Out of all JMR concepts presented by the competing parties, none look as complete, practical, futuristic, and ready as AVX’s aircraft." Sikorsky and Schweitzer have already built and tested the X2 Technology Demonstrator and Sikorsky has built a mockup of the S-97 Raider. The latest concept artwork from Sikorsky looks like the familiar Sikorsky S-70 (UH-60) with the X2 coaxial rotor system and pusher prop. X2 Technology is also derived from earlier Advancing Blade Concept (ABC) technology demonstrators. Sikorsky has also allied itself with Boeing for the JMR/FVL Medium program. Bell has built tilt rotor aircraft such as the V-22 Osprey and the 609 civil tilt rotor before selling their interest to AgustaWestland. The V-22 Osprey has a rear ramp, I believe that if the United States Army wants a rear ramp, Bell could provide the service with one. BAE Systems and AVX Aircraft did submit a proposal to the US Navy for the medium-range maritime unmanned air system (MRMUAS) that looks similar to the AVX JMR/FVL Medium proposal, but AVX has yet to build anything.
 
Triton said:
Sorry, I just don't understand how Defensetalk can claim that "Out of all JMR concepts presented by the competing parties, none look as complete, practical, futuristic, and ready as AVX’s aircraft."
Click to expand...

That pegged my BS meter as well.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
sferrin said:
AVX has no trained workforce or facilities. The cost to create all of that would need to be added in. (And that ain't peanuts.)
Click to expand...

You don’t need a ‘workforce’ to build a handful of demonstrators. Go ask Burt Rutan if you don’t agree.
Click to expand...

I hope you don't think Burt Rutan is sitting in his garage by himself building those aircraft. ::) According to Wiki Scaled has over 200 employees. Hmmm, I'll bet that's about 170 more than AVX.
 
Maybe AVX can pull it off, but you have to give credit to Sikorsky. They have created a whole family of X2-based solutions from light utility to heavy lift. They seem the most keen to get the Army's business.
 
Triton said:
Maybe AVX can pull it off, but you have to give credit to Sikorsky. They have created a whole family of X2-based solutions from light utility to heavy lift. They seem the most keen to get the Army's business.
Click to expand...

With respect, they have created a whole family of X2 based drawings. Of the "big three" (counting EADS who has dropped out) in this group who actually have flown something using their technology, they have the least amount of flght time by far.

Assuming this program survives, it could prove very interesting. Gee, I wonder if US Aerospace is still around...
 
sferrin said:
Abraham Gubler said:
sferrin said:
AVX has no trained workforce or facilities. The cost to create all of that would need to be added in. (And that ain't peanuts.)
Click to expand...

You don’t need a ‘workforce’ to build a handful of demonstrators. Go ask Burt Rutan if you don’t agree.
Click to expand...



I hope you don't think Burt Rutan is sitting in his garage by himself building those aircraft. ::) According to Wiki Scaled has over 200 employees. Hmmm, I'll bet that's about 170 more than AVX.
Click to expand...

Actually Burt Rutan is sitting by himself in Idaho where he's been since he retired, building his speeches for the lecture circuit. Not sure if he's in his garage. :)
 
sferrin said:
I hope you don't think Burt Rutan is sitting in his garage by himself building those aircraft. According to Wiki Scaled has over 200 employees. Hmmm, I'll bet that's about 170 more than AVX.
Click to expand...

I asked you to ask Burt Rutan’s opinion not look Scaled Composites up on Wikipedia. Scaled TODAY is producing aircraft (or spacecraft) no longer just the prototyping start up like it was back in the 1970s when it was called the “Burt Rutan Company” before it was sold to Raytheon and later sold to Northrop. And BTW Rutan did start of building aircraft in his garage by himself.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
sferrin said:
I hope you don't think Burt Rutan is sitting in his garage by himself building those aircraft. According to Wiki Scaled has over 200 employees. Hmmm, I'll bet that's about 170 more than AVX.
Click to expand...

I asked you to ask Burt Rutan’s opinion not look Scaled Composites up on Wikipedia. Scaled TODAY is producing aircraft (or spacecraft) no longer just the prototyping start up like it was back in the 1970s when it was called the “Burt Rutan Company” before it was sold to Raytheon and later sold to Northrop. And BTW Rutan did start of building aircraft in his garage by himself.
Click to expand...

I'm curious which ones, from his garage days, were of this magnitude. AVX doesn't have a chance.
 
sferrin said:
I'm curious which ones, from his garage days, were of this magnitude.
Click to expand...

Still having trouble with that whole ‘understanding’ thing I see. The only person trying to make out that AVX is in a garage is you. There actual location can be seen in the first attached image.

When I referred to Burt Ruton to explain I was thinking he would probably give you a history of his company from the garage through to his retirement. And how a small company building a prototype here and there can be a success and provide value. The actual point of history for where AVX would be benchmarked to Scaled is probably somewhere between their initial garage days and their current situation.

One can also look at their industry plan for building the JMR demonstrator. The location of the various partners can be seen in the second attached picture. They include major aerospace component builders like Triumph Aerospace and a who’s who of engine, transmission and flight control OEMs.

sferrin said:
AVX doesn't have a chance.
Click to expand...

Strange that the US Army awarded them a cost sharing agreement for JMR-TD Phase I as a Category I competitor the same status as Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.

I guess they failed to contact you for your opinion.
 

Attachments

  • southwest.png
    southwest.png
    855.9 KB · Views: 259
  • AHS_AVX_Future_Vertical_Lift_Model.jpg
    AHS_AVX_Future_Vertical_Lift_Model.jpg
    57.6 KB · Views: 247
Triton said:
Sorry, I just don't understand how Defensetalk can claim that "Out of all JMR concepts presented by the competing parties, none look as complete, practical, futuristic, and ready as AVX’s aircraft."
Click to expand...

Because the AVX proposal for JMR-TD uses the most conservative rotor system of all the bidders. They are offering a conventional coax rotor with horizontal propulsion. Bell are offing a tilt prop, fixed engine and Sikorsky/Boeing a rigid rotor coax. Helicopters are all about their rotor system. By using this conventional rotor AVX are Streets Ahead™ of their competitors.
 
F-14D said:
Triton said:
Maybe AVX can pull it off, but you have to give credit to Sikorsky. They have created a whole family of X2-based solutions from light utility to heavy lift. They seem the most keen to get the Army's business.
Click to expand...

With respect, they have created a whole family of X2 based drawings. Of the "big three" (counting EADS who has dropped out) in this group who actually have flown something using their technology, they have the least amount of flght time by far.

Assuming this program survives, it could prove very interesting. Gee, I wonder if US Aerospace is still around...
Click to expand...
Yeah I had the same thought. Sure Sikorsky has flown a VERY light demonstrator, but aerodynamics are very fickle. There is no guarantee that the rotor systems and dynamics will scale well (although I do believe that it will do fine with the S-97 size rotorcraft). Then there is the real world transmission and dynamic components that have to meet military ratings and I am not so sure that all of the vibration issues that the S-59 had have been fully worked out. If you watch the video of the record run from Sikorsky when they are going through 250 knots to 253 the vibration load in the cockpit are substantial and the aircraft has a vibration dampening systems. Heavier weight aircraft will only make all of these challenges greater I think. So just because the demonstrator flew well for < 50 hours of flight does not mean a real medium weight combat rotorcraft is apparent. Then there is the issue of how much gas it is going to take to sustain a ~200 knot cruise speed. Gas is not going to get cheaper in twenty years, so a gas hog is not going to be well received. Hope I am wrong about this because it is a great design I think and Sikorsky does know how to build superb assault helicopters.
On AVX I think if they get the nod from the government to build a demonstrator (not a real combat rotorcraft) that there will be offers from substantial aerospace companies to buy into, or outright own, the effort to turn the technology into a military rotorcraft. I could be wrong of course and will defer to those here who have far more experience with military rotorcraft development.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Triton said:
Sorry, I just don't understand how Defensetalk can claim that "Out of all JMR concepts presented by the competing parties, none look as complete, practical, futuristic, and ready as AVX’s aircraft."
Click to expand...

Because the AVX proposal for JMR-TD uses the most conservative rotor system of all the bidders. They are offering a conventional coax rotor with horizontal propulsion. Bell are offing a tilt prop, fixed engine and Sikorsky/Boeing a rigid rotor coax. Helicopters are all about their rotor system. By using this conventional rotor AVX are Streets Ahead™ of their competitors.
Click to expand...

Not wishing to start an argument here, but then why do you think Piasecki got dropped? After all they have been flying their SpeedHawk around for a while. May not have met all its goals yet on its shoestring budget, but it did fly and demonstrate their concept, and their rotor is even more conventional.
 
F-14D said:
Not wishing to start an argument here, but then why do you think Piasecki got dropped? After all they have been flying their SpeedHawk around for a while. May not have met all its goals yet on its shoestring budget, but it did fly and demonstrate their concept, and their rotor is even more conventional.
Click to expand...

Maybe they couldn't demonstrate how their solution could reach the ~240 knot speed requirement?
 
As much as everyone would like to believe that there is room for a disruptive newcomer in the JMR race, the AVX tender is not going to be credible until they fly at the very least a small-scale proof of concept. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had they built and flown their OH-58 replacement, it would be a different story.


As Yasotay remarked, problems can still crop up at the different scales, but one cannot help but feel that in the V-22, -609, and X-2 (throw in there the -59 and S-97 too. On the latter metal is being cut - or more precisely cloth is being laid!) Sikorsky and Bell have at least some hard datapoints to start from. If I were betting money and my career on it, AVX just wouldn't give me the warm and fuzzy feeling.


Not saying AVX does not have a workable - hell, even the best- solution. But risk is going to play a big part in the selection in a competition where you probably only get one shot at getting it right. Bell and Sikorsky have a huge lead in risk reduction by virtue of having flying articles of relevance.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Strange that the US Army awarded them a cost sharing agreement for JMR-TD Phase I as a Category I competitor the same status as Sikorsky/Boeing and Bell.
Click to expand...

The Army being interested in seeing what they have does not equate to a realistic chance. I'd think you'd know that.

Abraham Gubler said:
I guess they failed to contact you for your opinion.
Click to expand...

Would have saved a bunch of money. [/quote]
 
Abraham Gubler said:
I guess they failed to contact you for your opinion.
Click to expand...

Would have saved a bunch of money. [/quote]
[/quote]

a rear door craft w/ the ability to carry vehicles would of course save lives, but of course that is not your concern..
 
jsport said:
a rear door craft w/ the ability to carry vehicles would of course save lives, but of course that is not your concern..
Click to expand...


It's not part of the requirement. You know what that means don't you? (Judging from your post you probably don't but I'll let you ponder it.) And thanks for the insult. Yeah, I just want everybody to die, DIE, DIE. ::) [/quote]
 
On the subject of Sikorsky X2 technology, is vibration an issue for crew and passenger fatigue? Or is the vibration an issue for wear and damage to the X2 coaxial rotor and components? Or both? Is the X2 Technology rotor system more difficult to maintain or require more maintenance to flight hours than a conventional helicopter rotor system? What about the size of the X2 mast system and the dismantling and/or folding of X2 for transport by C-17 or C-5? Are there other issues with the rigid rotor system over a conventional helicopter rotor system?

Does the AVX concept have a lower turning radius and lower acoustic noise signature compared to a conventional helicopter? Does the conventional rotor system entail less technical risk? Or are there other advantages to a conventional rotor system? Easier to maintain? Less maintenance to flight hours? Can the AVX concept fit aboard United States Navy destroyers and cruisers?

As for the Bell V-280 Valor, Bell did change the tilt rotor system so that the engines did not rotate. This would allow entry and egress through wide side doors and allow door gunners to have wide fields of fire.
 
AeroFranz said:
As much as everyone would like to believe that there is room for a disruptive newcomer in the JMR race, the AVX tender is not going to be credible until they fly at the very least a small-scale proof of concept. As they say, the proof is in the pudding. Had they built and flown their OH-58 replacement, it would be a different story.
Click to expand...

I guess it’s pretty obvious by this paragraph you don’t actually know how the JMR program is structured and what kind of race is being run. But that’s OK many of the people posting here are in that same boat. JMR’s full name is JMR-TD with the last two letters standing for Technology Demonstrator. Sikorsky/Boeing, Bell and AVX have each been awarded status to negotiate with the US Army to get access to a slice of $250 million to co-fund the building of a demonstrator. AVX are planning on building a 70% scale FVL-M using T700 engines.
 
sferrin said:
The Army being interested in seeing what they have does not equate to a realistic chance. I'd think you'd know that.
Click to expand...

Yep that’s right the US Army is happy to give anyone $50-100 million just to look at their posters and powerpoints. Of course since the JMR-TD isn’t programmed to end until 2019-20 this is seven years of indulging curiosity here. But please don’t let me inject anymore facts in the way of your opinion. It’s not as if any new companies have had any success in penetrating the US market for weapons since WWII. I mean who has ever heard of:

McDonnell
Armalite
Austal

Inovation never pays off because it’s just not “realistic”, duah.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom