US Joint Heavy Lift

F-14D said:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
hesham said:
Hi,

Heavy Lift Replacment (HLR).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/hlr.htm

That's now an ongoing program, the CH-53K
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch53k-the-us-marines-hlr-helicopter-program-updated-01724/

about 15 ton short of the JHL program. At least 5 ton if they elect to go back to 24 ton.

The Marines know CH-53K won't meet JHL. See my post of May 07. At least they're pretty sure CH-53K will get built.

I'm pretty sure that it (53K) will go forward as the USMC has successfully used the "doom to western civilization" mantra very well. I do not disagree that they need the airframe. The Echo's are getting a bit old. I suspect that until that program has gotten into the metal bending phase, there will be no outward support from the USMC for the necessity to develop a JHL aircraft. However I think they will give tacit support to the JHL program as a more capable C-130 replacement that could actually operate from a Sea Base.
 
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
hesham said:
Hi,

Heavy Lift Replacment (HLR).
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/hlr.htm

That's now an ongoing program, the CH-53K
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/ch53k-the-us-marines-hlr-helicopter-program-updated-01724/

about 15 ton short of the JHL program. At least 5 ton if they elect to go back to 24 ton.

The Marines know CH-53K won't meet JHL. See my post of May 07. At least they're pretty sure CH-53K will get built.

I'm pretty sure that it (53K) will go forward as the USMC has successfully used the "doom to western civilization" mantra very well. I do not disagree that they need the airframe. The Echo's are getting a bit old. I suspect that until that program has gotten into the metal bending phase, there will be no outward support from the USMC for the necessity to develop a JHL aircraft. However I think they will give tacit support to the JHL program as a more capable C-130 replacement that could actually operate from a Sea Base.

Actually, the Marines are openly supportive of JHL (although they may cast a jaundiced eye on JCALS if AF gets its way) as long as it's marinized. CH-53K exists because USMC successfully made the case, "The -53Es are wearing out now. We don't know yet what the final JHL specs will be, and this program has been pushed back so much that even in the most optimistic estimate it's going to arrive years too late for us. We need something in the interim".

It's hard to argue with that logic, even before the JHL/JCALS mutation. One has only to look at the story of HLH/CH-53E to see they've got the weight of history behind them.
 
the -Ks will be late. they just uncovered some snags, things that were overlooked in the initial stages of design. Don't know the details, but they are talking about cg problems and changing the tilt of the mast. I don't think that falls under the minor modification case.
 
AeroFranz said:
the -Ks will be late. they just uncovered some snags, things that were overlooked in the initial stages of design. Don't know the details, but they are talking about cg problems and changing the tilt of the mast. I don't think that falls under the minor modification case.

Seems like there are always snags, nowadays, especially with new a/c (and the -K isn't just an up-engined E). Still it'll be available years before JHL/JCALS. It's not like the Marines have much choice.
 
Not sure it's the same problem, but at AHS in Montreal in April the Navy's H-53 programme manager said Sikorsky had been forced to redesign the 53K hub somewhat. It was planned to have a visco-elastic damper, but it got too heavy so they had to go back to a linear damper. The only other major design challenge he mentioned then was minimising torque split in the gearbox, but that had gone through risk-reduction testing successfully, he said.

He also made clear the 53K "is brand new, it's not a derivative, there's nothing from the E that crosses over".
 
I do not want to sound negative toward the USMC, because I know they need replacement aircraft and they have been a tad more progressive with Rotorcraft S&T than the Army, but they really need to be careful with the 'bait and switch'. Many knew that the only relationship between the Echo and the Kilo was a Sikorsky data-plate, but they sure sold it as an upgrade to an existing aircraft.

On the JHL front it will be interesting to see how the new USAF CoS reacts to the ongoing JFTL effort, as he was one of the few USAF flag officers too actually see some merit to the VTOL concept. I do not mean to say that he is pro-JHL, but he at least acknowledged that the Army had done its homework on the concept before they came to brief him. Having sat through a brief or two with the man I can tell you that if any USAF General Officer is going to give the Army the time of day with the concept, its the new Chief.
 
That's pretty much what the USN did with the F/A-18"E"
 
CammNut said:
Not sure it's the same problem, but at AHS in Montreal in April the Navy's H-53 programme manager said Sikorsky had been forced to redesign the 53K hub somewhat. It was planned to have a visco-elastic damper, but it got too heavy so they had to go back to a linear damper. The only other major design challenge he mentioned then was minimising torque split in the gearbox, but that had gone through risk-reduction testing successfully, he said.

CammNut, the problems i was told of seem of different nature. I don't have many details, but it has to do with cg excursion range with different payloads exceeding the forward and aft trim limits.
 
From todays AVWeek - http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/JHL070108.xml&headline=U.S.%20Army%20Extends%20JHL%20Concept%20Studies&channel=defense

U.S. Army Extends JHL Concept Studies

Jul 1, 2008
Graham Warwick


Work to refine concepts for a large cargo rotorcraft is moving ahead under the U.S. Army-led Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) technology effort.

JHL is the vertical take-off and landing candidate for the U.S. Air Force/Army Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL) requirement.The first of three contracts to extend previous concept definition and analysis (CDA) work for another two years has been awarded, with the others to follow over the next week or two, says the Army’s Aviation Applied Technology Directorate (AATD).

Contracts are being awarded to Bell-Boeing for the Quad Tilt Rotor, Karem Aircraft/Lockheed Martin for the Optimum Speed Tilt Rotor and Sikorsky for the coaxial-rotor X2 High Speed Lifter. The teams will update their designs to meet the new JHL model performance specification (MPS), which includes several new mission profiles that drive different aspects of the design.

The contractors “have a requirement to provide an immediate assessment of the impact of the new MPS within 30 days of contract award,” says Bruce Tenney, AATD associate director for technology. “The government is going to do a gut check on the MPS changes and decide if a near-term update is needed for completion of the CDA.”

Previous CDA studies assumed a payload of 20 tons and a C-130-size cargo box, but growth in the weight of Army Future Combat Systems vehicles has pushed the requirement closer to 30 tons and an A400M-size cargo box. The merger of JHL with the Air Force’s Advanced Joint Air Combat System requirement under JFTL has also placed a greater emphasis on speed.

Work under the CDA extensions will help decide whether JHL needs two or four engines and whether folding will be required for seabasing operations. AATD also plans to demonstrate flight control laws that could reduce airframe loads and lower empty weight. These will be tested in the Army/NASA Rascal flying laboratory, a modified UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter.

Separately, but with JHL funding, NASA has awarded Sikorsky a contract to study the viability, performance and risk areas associated with the Variable Diameter Tilt Rotor (VDTR) concept, Tenney says, to assess whether it could be a candidate for JHL. VDTR uses telescoping blades to vary proprotor diameter between helicopter and airplane mode.

Optimum Speed Tilt-Rotor Image: Karem Aircraft
 
The K is a derivative of the E with a new fuselage, rotor blades and transmission, engines, cockpit and flight control system. Any questions?
 
From Flight Global: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/08/225154/boeing-details-advanced-research-projects.html

Boeing details advanced research projects
By Andrew Doyle

The tactical airlifter work is taking place against a constantly evolving landscape, as Boeing has also received study contracts from the Aviation Applied Technology Directorate to look at joint heavylift solutions. The army and air force are looking to merge these sets of requirements together into what they call Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL). More details are expected to emerge later this year on whether they are seeking short take-off or vertical take-off capability.

Virtual Warfare

"Something we're doing in the virtual warfare centre right now is simulations, as well as experiments, to understand the different benefits of vertical [take-off] versus STOVL [short take-off/vertical landing] in the next-generation tactical mobility asset," says Koopersmith.

One potential solution to the JFTL requirement is the Joint Cargo Air Lifter System (JCALS), which would apply a common fuselage to conventional and tiltrotor variants.

"We'll have to decide as we mature this concept if we're willing to pay the penalty to carry the unique vertical loads on the STOVL variant, or the unique STOVL loads on the vertical variant, but we believe that with the size and weight that the army is wanting to have lifted, a nearly-common fuselage could give a lot of benefit," says Koopersmith. He estimates that the weight penalty would "probably be 10% or less".

The tiltrotor version would be similar to an upscaled Bell Boeing V-22, but with a wing design optimised more for strategic lift requirements, as well as tactical operations where vertical lift capability is not required. The JCALS designs would feature common avionics, pressurised airframes, landing gear and empennage. The payload capability is expected to be in the 11,300-18,000kg class. "We anticipate that requirement is going to be [to carry] an FCS," says Koopersmith, adding that Boeing expects IOC to be set for "late next decade or early in the 2020s", subject to agreement between the army and air force on budgets and requirements.
 
At least it shares some commonality! :)



LowObservable said:
The K is a derivative of the E with a new fuselage, rotor blades and transmission, engines, cockpit and flight control system. Any questions?
 
From Inside the Army: Also there is a very "Read inside the lines" article in latest Rotor and Wing magazine worthy of reading on the topic.

Common fuselage design ‘might have merit’
JROC TO REVIEW JOINT FUTURE THEATER LIFT CAPABILITIES IN EARLY 200
Date: August 15, 2008
Army and Air Force planners are preparing a capabilities document explaining their respective needs for a massive heavy lift platform, and they expect to have the paper ready for delivery to a senior Pentagon review board by the beginning of next year, according to an Army aviation official.

The notional aircraft would replace the Army’s Joint Heavy Lift and the Air Force’s Advanced Joint Air Combat System programs, after the Army and Air Force chiefs of staff agreed in January to merge requirements for their respective JHL and AJACS -- and renamed the effort Joint Future Theater Lift (JFTL).

“JHL and AJACS are both alive, basically, in that [initial capabilities] document for Joint Future Theater Lift,” Col. Randy Rotte, deputy director of the Army aviation directorate, told sister publication Inside the Army during a July 30 interview.

“The Army and the Air Force together are now working through what should be in that ICD, and you might expect there will be disagreements there -- we’ll work through whatever those disagreements are and we’ll come to a consensus on what we send forward,” he said.

Rotte expects the document will be ready to send to the Joint Requirements Oversight Council in January or February.
After JROC reviews the Army and Air Force’s ideas for JFTL’s capabilities, an analysis of alternatives to determine which aircraft type would best suit both services will follow. “That’s going to be the robust analysis based off of a full analytical agenda that looks at these differences,” he said.

Options for the Army’s preferred vertical-takeoff-and-landing aircraft (VTOL) and the Air Force’s preferred super short-takeoff-and-landing aircraft (SSTOL) will be examined as possible solutions during that process, said Rotte.

The Air Force envisioned a SSTOL aircraft for its Advanced Joint Air Combat System, while the Army had hoped for a VTOL tiltrotor aircraft for its Joint Heavy Lifter.

“The beauty of vertical is, you can get almost anywhere; the downside is, that’s a technologically challenging venture to carry something that heavy vertically, hence a big cost associated with that,” said Rotte.

“On the other hand, short-takeoff-and-landing is great in the sense of being able to get there technologically and cost-wise, but now you’ve restricted yourself to certain areas of the world,” he added.

Boeing recently announced a development effort for a “joint common airlift system” that could meet both Army and Air Force requirements by employing a common fuselage that could support a traditional fixed-wing jet or tiltrotor, Inside the Air Force reported last month.

The company is making a “technology investment” in the program so it can determine if building such an aircraft is possible, Boeing officials have said.

A common fuselage “is an out-of-the-box approach that might have merit,” Rotte told ITA.
However, “it depends -- in the analysis of alternatives -- what are the important aspects,” he said. “If cost is that big of a driver and you can get such commonality between the two . . . I’m assuming the AOA will at least consider that” common fuselage design, added Rotte. “Because you can’t afford to have two separate programs, you can’t afford AJACS and JHL.”

Rotte said he was not aware what funding was planned for JFTL in the emerging fiscal year 2010 to 2015 program objective memorandum -- the service’s six-year spending plan -- as it is still being finalized.

The JFTL program “will be more of a player” in the next POM, which will be developed in two years and cover FY-12 through FY-17, he said. At that time, “it will be well informed by JROC, [the] AOA -- and all those line up to inform that cycle,” said Rotte.

Still, officials are hoping to fund some development efforts early, he added.
Specifically, the Army is considering smaller risk-reduction efforts to examine relevant technologies. “Is it composites that will help us, is it tiltrotor-type endeavors?” Rotte said officials will ask.

Flight demonstrators, being a “significant investment,” probably would not be considered until after the analysis of alternatives better clarifies the program’s future, he said.

Costs for the system design and development phase -- which for JHL were thought to be around $2.5 billion -- also will depend upon the decisions reached after the AOA is completed, noted Rotte. “If vertical prevails, than [costs] will probably be along those lines,” he added. -- Daniel Wasserbly
 
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2765.0;attach=56045

ooh, look, daddy!!, a _Rotodyne_!!! (sorry, couldn't resist)


cheers,
Robin.
 
Hi,

http://www.geocities.com/air_mech_strike/
 

Attachments

  • ch53HLHexternaldimensionstn.jpg
    ch53HLHexternaldimensionstn.jpg
    49.2 KB · Views: 419
index.php


funny, a CGT-150 Heliplane from Cartercopter on the left side behind the Groen Gyrodyne.

Link: http://www.cartercopters.com/heliplane_overview.html
 
mboeller said:
funny, a CGT-150 Heliplane from Cartercopter on the left side behind the Groen Gyrodyne.

As they say, a rising tide lifts all boats. To a certain degree, small companies like these with similar plans are not directly competing. Look at space tourism... none of the space tourism companies want the others - the serious ones, at any rate - to fail. If Scaled Composites/Virgin Galactic succeeds at making space tourism practical, then the market will explode and there'll be room for many more entrants. Similar with high-speed rotor-based VTOLs.
 
sferrin said:
And it ain't dead yet.

DARPA has announced it will award a contract for Heliplane Phase 1B and 2 to Georgia Tech, Groen Brothers' subcontractor on Phase I and 1A. Phase 1A was a six-month extension to solve problems with tipjet noise (the very problem that afflicted the Rotodyne), but the work stopped because tiny little Groen ran out of money. Georgia Tech provided the technical horsepower to solve the tipjet noise problem, and is expected to keep Groen on the Heliplane team as a subcontractor. Which is good, because Groen has been total believers in the gyrodyne concept. Dave Groen even bought a bunch of Airfix Rotodyne models.
 
CammNut said:
sferrin said:
And it ain't dead yet.

DARPA has announced it will award a contract for Heliplane Phase 1B and 2 to Georgia Tech, Groen Brothers' subcontractor on Phase I and 1A. Phase 1A was a six-month extension to solve problems with tipjet noise (the very problem that afflicted the Rotodyne), but the work stopped because tiny little Groen ran out of money. Georgia Tech provided the technical horsepower to solve the tipjet noise problem, and is expected to keep Groen on the Heliplane team as a subcontractor. Which is good, because Groen has been total believers in the gyrodyne concept. Dave Groen even bought a bunch of Airfix Rotodyne models.

I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.
 
yasotay said:
I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.

That's more to do with the original airframe supplier being unavailable now. Groen was never going to make the airframe on this project.
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.

That's more to do with the original airframe supplier being unavailable now. Groen was never going to make the airframe on this project.

Correct. Thanks for catching that.
 
Here's a link to what I believe to be the first 4 rotor synchrocopter, 'Skycrane II'. The inventor intends for it to be a test model for a future heavy-lifting helicopter. I don't know what that fancy U-shaped appendage is meant for though?

http://www.ina-hatsumei.com/2006/04/4.html

I don't read Japanese and I'm depending on an on-line translator. Here are a few more links to pictures of it at an exhibition,

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9929278@N04/2771936563/
 
These projects are really interesting ! :eek: :eek:
The real application : airports with short air landings !
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.

That's more to do with the original airframe supplier being unavailable now. Groen was never going to make the airframe on this project.

I've had a hint the Heliplane airframe won't be that different to what Groen originally planned. In a bit of circularity, Groen planned to use the Adam A700 airframe, which was a derivative of the Adam A500, which was a productionised Scaled M309. So if Georgia Tech goes with Scaled...
 
Kim Margosein said:
I don't quite get the picture, mboeller. They Fed-Exed the Bridge to Nowhere? ;D

If I recall correctly, that artwork originally appeared in Popular Mechanics, around 2001 or 2002. The big twin-tailed airlifter was supposed to be reworked from an Antonov An-225, because their kit can supposedly be fitted to any pre-existing fixed wing aircraft for conversion. Yeah, right.
 
CammNut said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.

That's more to do with the original airframe supplier being unavailable now. Groen was never going to make the airframe on this project.

I've had a hint the Heliplane airframe won't be that different to what Groen originally planned. In a bit of circularity, Groen planned to use the Adam A700 airframe, which was a derivative of the Adam A500, which was a productionised Scaled M309. So if Georgia Tech goes with Scaled...

I'm curious to see how it all plays out. IMO I'd think they'd want to use the opportunity to make it more suitible to the application but, like everything, it'll probably come down to $$$$.
 
CammNut said:
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
I am also led to believe that Scaled Composites has been brought on board to support the air vehicle work due to Groen liquidity issues.

That's more to do with the original airframe supplier being unavailable now. Groen was never going to make the airframe on this project.

I've had a hint the Heliplane airframe won't be that different to what Groen originally planned. In a bit of circularity, Groen planned to use the Adam A700 airframe, which was a derivative of the Adam A500, which was a productionised Scaled M309. So if Georgia Tech goes with Scaled...

I thought GT had already elected to go with Scaled?? I wonder if there are A700 airframes available from the Adams production run? On a purely sentimental note, I was hoping to see another brilliantly peculiar airframe from Scaled for the project.
 
C-130XL reminds me of the enlarged, Tyne-engined Type 222 Hercules proposed for the RAF in the early '60s. Quoting boxkite's quote:

"The depth and length of the C-130E fuselage had to be increased to meet the requirements of a 10ft x 10ft x 40ft length freight-hold."

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,555.msg4160/
 
Here's another image of the C-17B, scanned from Boeing's product card. In addition to the centre gear, it seems the flaps have gained another slot, or section...
 

Attachments

  • C-17B.jpg
    C-17B.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 389
CammNut said:
Here's another image of the C-17B, scanned from Boeing's product card. In addition to the centre gear, it seems the flaps have gained another slot, or section...

Wonder what the center gear does to the cargo compartment. Still it is nothing more than a gimic to keep the C-17 line going. If anyone thinks the USAF would ever consider landing a C-17 in the dirt on a regular basis... well you are far more optimistic than I.
 
CammNut said:
In addition to the centre gear, it seems the flaps have gained another slot, or section...
That will probably necessitate an external blister. I doubt there is enough depth under the cargo floor to house the bogey. What is the need for an additional bogey anyway? I thought the C-17 was already designed with high sinkspeed and flotation in mind ? Is it required for higher STOL gross weights? ???

yasotay said:
If anyone thinks the USAF would ever consider landing a C-17 in the dirt on a regular basis... well you are far more optimistic than I.

Amen. Reminds me of the design specifications for the C-5. It was given this complicated, heavy landing gear design under the assumption of austere fields operations. Guess how many times the C-5 operated that way...
 
Amen. Reminds me of the design specifications for the C-5. It was given this complicated, heavy landing gear design under the assumption of austere fields operations. Guess how many times the C-5 operated that way...

[/quote]

An austere airfield to the Air Force... well I do know you will not get anything larger than a C-130 to land at an "austere airfield" without a full up crash rescue service.
 
I think it's more a case of "if we absolutely have to we'd like to be able to" and avoiding the mentality of "hey let's flush airframe hours down the toilet by landing on dirt runways just because we can".
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom