S97 Raider and JMR/FVL program News + Videos

TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Again the same size. Payload is a little more for the Defiant and Valor, but it had to sit in the same foot print. The additional payload is more a product of the additional lift capabilities of the platform and a larger internal volume. Both though had to meet strict size requirements for potential naval and transport the same as the H60.
Defiant is obviously taller than Blackhawk. Valor is wider with wings in flight configuration if folding models are built it would actually fit in the same space as a UH1V with wings stowed Osprey style.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
Gloire_bb said:
(1)twin helicopters can be quite nimble. Thus there are no physical restrictions stoping tilt rotors from being nimble.
(2)compround rigid tilt rotors aren't just improved tilt-rotors, its more complex. Importantly, it's precisely low-speed handling of rotor blades which is being compromised for the sake of higher speed.
(3)Defiant is 'uge for its applications. It may not be obvious from its appearence, but payload volume is forward from the rotor mast. This thing dwarfs blackhawk.

So, frankly speaking, defiant, a piece of art technology-wise as it is, is a very complex pick.
And tbh, i see valor as better
Click to expand...

Yes, twin rotor helicopters can be quite nimble, as can a twin tilt rotor, but, you're always going to have two centers of lift, pivoting around your center of gravity.. that is adding a degree of complexity to the FCS that you would have to be an engineer to understand...

The Defiant has rigid contra rotating main rotors on a single very heavy rotor mast, that is likely very close to the center of gravity, this is "mass centralization"... that's why the Defiant is one of very few helicopters that can be safely "rolled", that friends is real live "proof" that the Defiant is one of the most agile vertical lift platforms in the world...

and the FCS is a hell of a lot simpler than that fast little tilt rotor, but don't take my word for it, ask one of your "aeronautical engineer" buddies, one that has actually engineered rotor craft.
 
Jura The idiot

Jura The idiot

General
if you want, WATCH: Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant completes ground run
inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Sikorsky and Boeing have provided the first video of the SB>1 Defiant helicopter, one of two designs competing in the Army’s Joint Multi-Role technology demonstrator program, showing a ground run at a company facility in Florida.

That program is designed to inform the requirements for the Future Vertical Lift family of systems, set to enter service in the 2030s.

The first flight of the aircraft has been long-awaited, and in late 2018, the two companies confirmed it would be delayed until 2019. According to a statement released with the video, the ground run moves it closer to taking to the skies.

The unconventional rotor system used on the aircraft is based on Sikorsky’s X2 technology, and according to the development team, offers advanced agility and maneuverability.

The Defiant’s competitor is Bell’s V-280 Valor tilt-rotor, which has been flying since late 2017.
Click to expand...
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Okay FVL got blitzed by Breaking defence.
So
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

FLRAA pronounced as Flora is not to be confused with the FARA Which aims to replace the Scout helicopter.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

On the subject of FARA clarification. DATA will not nessisarily scrap Apache infact the Army doesn't seem to be ready to consider an AH64 replacement just yet.
basically back in 2012 The Army pushed the Kiowa to the curb and then pushed apache into the gap. However Apache is a tank buster not a scout. They also used Shadow drones but those cause issues because they need a runway.

Also the story notes weapons for the FARA including a XM915 gun from GD ots and SAIC’s integrated missile launcher
And now part three.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And a new acronym FTUAS (fruit-as?)
The aim being to replace Shadow with a drone that doesn't need a runway and can be deployed from the back of a Chinook.

FARA also Known as FVL Capabilities set 1. A scout replacement for RAH 66,ARH70, and OH58 programs
FLRAA Also known as FVL Capability set 3, a Assault craft transport to replace UH60.
FTUAS Drone to replace Shadow as well as Grey Eagle.

Now apparently the Navy and presumably Marine corps side is pushing Capabilities set 2.

It sounds like the FVL demonstrators will now be used as prototypes although the Army wants one more dog in the ring Karem Aircraft is specifically called out. But as yet they seem to be a concept maker with no production.
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Okay, let's play.
"That most American of games, ketchup."

Is the US Army biting off more than it can chew? We ask its future vertical lift modernization boss
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Brig. Gen. Wally Rugen said:
We’ve learned from the Comanche program, that we have to put it in a competitive environment and we have to prototype early and often. And then we have to pick our requirements and stick to our requirements.
Click to expand...
The story is more of a what the Army feels about the programs and where it stands.

Air Force Brat said:
I really question the Valor as the Army, Marines vertical lift platform, I know the Marines LOVE the Osprey, but I still think a troop helicopter for rapid insertions, still needs the Defiant's terminal maneuverability.....
Click to expand...
Time for the specs.
I could read them all out but that's done.
Here
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In summery,
Breaking Defense said:
To ensure its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft can survive a war with Russia or China, the Army wants radically superior speed and range compared to current helicopters.
Click to expand...
No surprise so far. They want it to cost about $43 Million a unit.
Breaking Defense said:
But a joint Request For Information released yesterday shows that the tech-savvy Special Operations Command and the hard-charging Marine Corps want even more.
Click to expand...
And a Gunship to boot

The Army wants FARA aka FVL capabilities set 1, the Marines was FVL capabilities set 2 their gunship and the Army is lead on FVL capabilities set 3 FLRAA.
This is the known portions but the Marines and Socom then get to tailor FLRAA to their needs. That said they may reign themselves in if what they want is too extreme.

First up Cruise Speed.
The Army threshold ( read that as minimum to meet ) is 250Kt with an Objective ( what they want ) of 280Kt. This is At full power.
The Marines threshold is 275Kt with 290Kt Objective at 90% power. That's a monster jump in power.
Then Range
The Army range unrefueled range threshold is 200 nautical miles. With Objective of 300. The Marines threshold 365 Nautical miles with a 450 nautical miles objective.
The Marines though trade off 2 passagers for a crew of 4+8 well the Army and Socom get a full load of 4+12 passangers. Oh and the Marines want a gun on their transport as well as Air to air refuelling probe. And a larger cargo payload.
Socom and the Army want their versions to mount a probe as needed.

Socom's only hard is that they want it to fold for flight in a C17. Which lines up for the Marines/Navy who want it to fold for storage in ships.

Being honest the Marines requirements pretty much killed Defiant. These were tailored to make V280 The Threshold.
Even then Bell's Valor is going to be hard pressed to meet Thresholds of speed. The Army will be ordering in the Thousands the Marines about 350 of transport and Attacker. But these hard specs drive for Bell. Where the Army had wiggle room for Boeing, the Marines are tossing them over the clif at birth.
 
Air Force Brat

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Super Moderator
TerraN_EmpirE said:
Okay, let's play.
"That most American of games, ketchup."

Is the US Army biting off more than it can chew? We ask its future vertical lift modernization boss
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


The story is more of a what the Army feels about the programs and where it stands.


Time for the specs.
I could read them all out but that's done.
Here
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

And here.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

In summery,

No surprise so far. They want it to cost about $43 Million a unit.

And a Gunship to boot

The Army wants FARA aka FVL capabilities set 1, the Marines was FVL capabilities set 2 their gunship and the Army is lead on FVL capabilities set 3 FLRAA.
This is the known portions but the Marines and Socom then get to tailor FLRAA to their needs. That said they may reign themselves in if what they want is too extreme.

First up Cruise Speed.
The Army threshold ( read that as minimum to meet ) is 250Kt with an Objective ( what they want ) of 280Kt. This is At full power.
The Marines threshold is 275Kt with 290Kt Objective at 90% power. That's a monster jump in power.
Then Range
The Army range unrefueled range threshold is 200 nautical miles. With Objective of 300. The Marines threshold 365 Nautical miles with a 450 nautical miles objective.
The Marines though trade off 2 passagers for a crew of 4+8 well the Army and Socom get a full load of 4+12 passangers. Oh and the Marines want a gun on their transport as well as Air to air refuelling probe. And a larger cargo payload.
Socom and the Army want their versions to mount a probe as needed.

Socom's only hard is that they want it to fold for flight in a C17. Which lines up for the Marines/Navy who want it to fold for storage in ships.

Being honest the Marines requirements pretty much killed Defiant. These were tailored to make V280 The Threshold.
Even then Bell's Valor is going to be hard pressed to meet Thresholds of speed. The Army will be ordering in the Thousands the Marines about 350 of transport and Attacker. But these hard specs drive for Bell. Where the Army had wiggle room for Boeing, the Marines are tossing them over the clif at birth.
Click to expand...

We all know the Marines are perfectly happy with the Osprey, well not perfectly, and these requirements are subject to change, frankly 250 knots for a compound helicopter is flat haulin ass fast.... that's asking a lot, the Marines want something different, they're kinda dreamin here in my opinion, you can ask for the moon?? but you'll probably get a lot less than you want...

The Army is serious about a rotorcraft for their day to day work, the Marines seemingly want a smaller Osprey???
 
TerraN_EmpirE

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
Air Force Brat said:
We all know the Marines are perfectly happy with the Osprey, well not perfectly
Click to expand...
The Marines Osprey changed the rules for them but it's hard to leverage that speed as it Hauls Ass well everything else is left choking on the dust. Or is a fast Jet that speeds by.
It's left in escorted as the only thing that flys at the Goldie locks speed to keep up and loiter is the A10.
Harrier but that's a bit Hairing...
So they have wanted a aircraft that could Escourt V22.
Next is the facts of them being Navy based in the era of area denial. The LHA or LSD they are based on don't always have the time to get on station nor the option due to long range Antiship missiles.
So I can understand the why. It is logical for their needs. The Army requirements were written more based on the Army finding it's current fleet having issues in the Hot and High of the Hindu kush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top