Next-Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC)

Without drastic improvements to engine performance and material rigidity, going faster and farther is going to be heavier. Both FVL programs are heavier than the aircraft they are designed to replace (which were both heavier than the aircraft they replaced [UH-60>UH-1, OH-58D>OH058A/C]). So Airbus is not being nonsensical with the claim. The real decision for NATO is the frequency that they expect operate rotorcraft over extended distances. I define "extended distances" as >100NM. This appears to be the break point where speed begins to buy its way into the requirement.
 
A significant step frwd:
“Moving into the concepts phase is really going to define the requirements based against the threats that we’re going to be facing globally,“ Col. Alex Willman, capability sponsor of combat aviation within the U.K.’s futures directorate, said at the Eurosatory defense trade show here, just an hour after the countries inked the deal.
“What’s exciting for me is this is one of the first clean-sheet-design aircraft,” he said, adding: “NGRC to me is about transformation capability, delivering an aircraft or an airframe or a system that is an open system architecture based on digital backbones and is aimed for us as soldiers and airmen to be able to modify that aircraft to keep up with the pace of the threat.”
Click to expand...

www.defensenews.com

Six NATO countries sign agreement to collaborate on next-gen helo

Six NATO nations signed an agreement to collectively develop concepts for a future helicopter in Brussels on June 16.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
flateric said:
sure

View attachment 679745
Click to expand...
We can only hope that the same mistakes will not be made. Success = UH-1, Mi-8/17/171, UH-60, and Puma. Why? They are boxes in which you can add things. Really not sure why this became a problem for NH-90. I guess there was too much specialization per customer.

The challenge will of course be that the 220 knots will make a larger and heavier platform. Hopefully the European nations have done the analysis that indicates that this is a requirement.

"The new aircraft must have an unrefueled range of more than 1,650 kilometers, with a target of eight hours endurance and a load capacity between 10,000 and 17,000 kilograms (22,000 and 37,400 pounds, respectively)."

Unless there is a lot of new technology, that is going to be a much larger platform I think.
 
Last edited:
Reading the article, sounds like both Airbus and Leonardo are skeptical of the need for speed.
 
Leonardo is skeptical of speed that is not one of their programs. I believe that the Italian Air Force was enthused with the coaxial compound as they expected it to win the US FLRAA contract. They already have access to tilt rotor technology. Getting in on the other US led high tech rotorcraft would give them the leg up on two of three advanced rotorcraft technologies being worked in the west.
Two of three high speed technologies.
 
H_K said:
Reading the article, sounds like both Airbus and Leonardo are skeptical of the need for speed.
Click to expand...
I think they are mostly waiting for budget direction from governments. Do they want to have a lot fewer platforms in exchange for those remaining being faster? and will the faster ones be affordable for wider exports?
 
Nah it'll all almost definitely split into three separate programmes

  • Leonardo Italy will want to build a tiltrotor
  • Airbus France will want to build a thrust compound helicopter
  • Some countries will just buy off the shelf helicopters because the above options are both late and really expensive
 
Any thoughts on Leonardo joining in on the US Army FLRAA program? Or do they stay on the path of their own program? How much will the 609 program play into their efforts?
 
Lockheed Martin been chosen to lead the Open System Architecture study for NGRC

verticalmag.com

Lockheed Martin chosen to lead OSA study for NATO NGRC

Sikorsky parent company Lockheed Martin has been awarded a contract to identify, analyze and compare open system architecture concepts for NATO's Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability program.
verticalmag.com verticalmag.com

cheers
 
NGRC inching forward.
www.flightglobal.com

Bidders line up for NGRC concept study tender

Prospective bidders for a NATO contract seeking concept design studies for a next-generation rotorcraft are preparing to deliver their responses to the alliance's latest tender, a process that could see new industrial teams forming.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
Some highlights from this piece:
Bidders will likely be allowed to pitch multiple solutions in this phase, so we may see teams offering a modern but conventional helo and tilt-rotor/compound/whatever side-by-side.

Lockheed/Sikorsky is still touting X2. After the two strikes in the US and their recent HEX announcement it seemed possible they were backing away from it.

Airbus is talking like they want to team with Leonardo on a "We are the European team building European aircraft for Europe" type bid. But Leonardo hasn't yet signed on. For their part, the Italians seem to have a few team options, all with ups and downs.
 
RavenOne said:
Lockheed Martin been chosen to lead the Open System Architecture study for NGRC
Click to expand...
Anyone else find it ironic that LM has been tapped for the Open Systems Architecture study when this was their biggest weakness in Sikorsky’s FLRAA bid and ultimately caused their loss to Bell’s V-280?

Or is this a different team from Sikorsky’s Defiant team?

Moose said:
Bidders will likely be allowed to pitch multiple solutions in this phase, so we may see teams offering a modern but conventional helo and tilt-rotor/compound/whatever side-by-side.
Click to expand...
Perhaps an opportunity for Airbus to pitch 2 variants of the same common platform - a simpler conventional variant and a fast “Racer” variant? They recently implied that this was technically feasible.
 
At this point I am inclined to think that conventional helicopters, perhaps with some novel elements like a swiveling tail rotor, are likely to be the front runners. Most likely they will be less risky and costly. Also, I am not sure that most of the NGRC signatories have a compelling requirement for significantly longer ranged rotorcraft, that make increased speed something of a requisite. Those who do have a requirement for "special" mission requirements I would think would be more inclined to purchase a small number of fast long-range platforms for their special forces. I will certainly defer to those of you across the pond if my rational is faulty.
 
H_K said:
Anyone else find it ironic that LM has been tapped for the Open Systems Architecture study when this was their biggest weakness in Sikorsky’s FLRAA bid and ultimately caused their loss to Bell’s V-280?

Or is this a different team from Sikorsky’s Defiant team?


Perhaps an opportunity for Airbus to pitch 2 variants of the same common platform - a simpler conventional variant and a fast “Racer” variant? They recently implied that this was technically feasible.
Click to expand...
I suspect Leonardo will pitch NGTR and an improved AW101. I agree with your assessment regarding Airbus.
 
Indeed. Not overly surprised but the rapidity of the announcement indicates that the two tilt rotor companies have been planning this endeavor for some time.
 
I'm still not convinced about the tiltirotor fad, the usual suspects have been marketing them as the future for 40 years now but without much to show for it - the AW609 has gone nowhere fast since 2003, 20 years and still not in production and a handful of (still pending) sales. The V-22 has hardly been a stellar export success luring every AF in the world to Bell's door either.
 
Hood said:
I'm still not convinced about the tiltirotor fad, the usual suspects have been marketing them as the future for 40 years now but without much to show for it - the AW609 has gone nowhere fast since 2003, 20 years and still not in production and a handful of (still pending) sales. The V-22 has hardly been a stellar export success luring every AF in the world to Bell's door either.
Click to expand...
@Hood - I certainly can see your perspective on this, however the AW609 has had years of hurdles thrown in front of it by bureaucratic government agencies who are not predisposed to change. These are the same bureaucracies that has stiff armed the Bell 525 and much of the eVTOL efforts as well. About the time that the new changes to the policies are overcome, more are added, or revisions are made.
The V-22 is indeed a specialized platform with a significant amount of technology that is unnecessary for most potential users. This of course drives the cost up as well. It is, after all, the very first operational platform of its type and as I mentioned above there are few who likely need the extended range it presents. There may be other VTOL technologies that can provide the long-distance, high-speed capabilities similar to that of tilt rotors, but to my knowledge none has been advanced to the stage that it shows fiscal and technical viability.
 

Attachments

  • 99997_ngctrdemocleonardohelicopters_977250.jpg
    99997_ngctrdemocleonardohelicopters_977250.jpg
    74 KB · Views: 63
  • 99938_ngctrrendercleonardohelicopters_47945.jpg
    99938_ngctrrendercleonardohelicopters_47945.jpg
    28 KB · Views: 60
Airbus confirms it is pitching Racer technology for military users, including for NGRC. Somewhat surprisingly, they acknowledge that the civilian market is lagging behind the military in driving demand for fast rotorcraft.

www.flightglobal.com

Airbus Helicopters looks to build future Europeran military rotorcraft on Racer ‘foundation’

Bruno Even, Airbus Helicopters chief executive, maintains that European industry must collaborate on an indigenous future rotorcraft for its domestic customers, despite counterpart Leonardo's decision to partner with Bell for a key NATO-led initiative.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com
The compound architecture demonstrated on the Racer “is the foundation of what we have proposed for NGRC”. If the focus is on speed, we could go for this [Racer] concept, but we will stay open – our role is to propose a solution for our customers. We will bid on what is required at an operational level.”

Although the Racer technology forms the basis of its NGRC proposal, any eventual programme is unlikely to be identical to the demonstrator.
“We are open during the flight-test campaign to the feedback from military customers to adjust the concept,” he adds.

At the outset of the Racer project, Airbus saw potential interest from both civil and military customers. However, Even believes the latter is more likely to adopt the high-speed technology first. “I think if it has to start somewhere it will start with the military – that’s my reading of the market today.”
Click to expand...
 
Now what might a Racer NGRC look like? Well I found this old patent application that offers some clues, with what looks like an S-92 sized aircraft.

US10988235B2 - Hybrid type rotorcraft having a horizontal stabilizer and two fins arranged on the horizontal stabilizer - Google Patents

A hybrid type rotorcraft having a main rotor, at least two propulsion elements each mounted on respective half-wings arranged symmetrically on either side of an anteroposterior midplane XOZ, a horizontal stabilizer arranged in a rear zone of the rotorcraft on either side of the anteroposterior...
patents.google.com

Translating that into a rough sketch, with a Racer-like joined wing and comparing to NH90, I get a ~1m longer aircraft with a cabin for 20-24pax, guesstimating 13+ tons.

Racer NGRC vs NH90 100px=1m.png

US10988235B2 - Hybrid type rotorcraft having a horizontal stabilizer and two fins arranged on the horizontal stabilizer - Google Patents

A hybrid type rotorcraft having a main rotor, at least two propulsion elements each mounted on respective half-wings arranged symmetrically on either side of an anteroposterior midplane XOZ, a horizontal stabilizer arranged in a rear zone of the rotorcraft on either side of the anteroposterior...
patents.google.com
 

Attachments

  • Airbus patent.jpg
    Airbus patent.jpg
    682.8 KB · Views: 27
Six bidders herewith face /stand off

www.flightglobal.com

Six bidders face off for NATO next-generation rotorcraft concept contracts

Half-a-dozen companies - including traditional airframers, start-ups, and even an international consultancy - are vying for a trio of contracts to produce designs for a next-generation rotorcraft that could eventually replace thousands of helicopters currently operated by NATO members.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

And the interesting bit in the article 'However, there are three outsiders in the mix as well, with bids received from Lithuanian company Jetcopter, Canada-based Bornea Dynamics, and, somewhat surprisingly, Deloitte – the international accountancy and consultancy firm.'

cheers
 
Just would suggest that any military craft can not have spinning things near STABO rigs or fast ropes:)
 
jsport said:
Just would suggest that any military craft can not have spinning things near STABO rigs or fast ropes:)
Click to expand...
I was thinking just the same. Of course if you have people fast-roping, or even just debussing, then you aren't in a part of the envelope where you need the horizontal rotors spinning.
 
DWG said:
I was thinking just the same. Of course if you have people fast-roping, or even just debussing, then you aren't in a part of the envelope where you need the horizontal rotors spinning.
Click to expand...
yes, but even any sharp obstruction in the area could be un-nerving. maybe duct systems would be received better.
 
That 900nmi range requirement seems to really be pushing for tilt-rotors, IMO. So does the 400nmi radius with 30min reserves.

Not for speed, for using the wing to offload the rotor and use less power/fuel.
 
Initial requirements are seldom the same as final requirements once the finance ministry weighs in.
 
yasotay said:
Initial requirements are seldom the same as final requirements once the finance ministry weighs in.
Click to expand...
The greatest threat to HMArmed Forces is always HMTreasury.

Will be interesting hearing the howls of Treasury as they get told just how little a reduction in range to 800 or even 300nmi reduces the costs...
 
jsport said:
Just would suggest that any military craft can not have spinning things near STABO rigs or fast ropes:)
Click to expand...
First thing they did with the prototype was to put the spinny bits aft of the wings. That's a lot more distance from the cabin door.

DWG said:
I was thinking just the same. Of course if you have people fast-roping, or even just debussing, then you aren't in a part of the envelope where you need the horizontal rotors spinning.
Click to expand...
Yes you do, apart from forward momentum the horizontal rotors provide opposite torque to the main rotor as well. There's no tail rotor.
 
Deloitte? Have they got some bankrupt stock they need to shift?
 
It might make a satisfactory unmanned resupply vehicle, but a squad assault platform, no. I note that none of the dismounting soldiers have backpacks or any of the other equipment they usually carry on a combat mission.

I thought the same thing when looking at the website; to small.
 
MihoshiK said:
Yes you do, apart from forward momentum the horizontal rotors provide opposite torque to the main rotor as well. There's no tail rotor.
Click to expand...
Good point. I can see why you would do that for overall systems reasons, I'm not necessarily sure it's a good idea in the troop deploying phase of things.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom