Reply With QuoteI believe the lates design proposal is a tandem rotor design, looking a lot like a Chinook. With greater range and lift.Originally Posted by Steak-Sauce
Sounds like another multi-billion dollar cockup in the making.
Why does everything has to be "joint"?
Different services have different demands and the attempt to integrate them all will ultimately result in the same mess the F-35 became (in before C.Puffs telling me the F-35 is going perfectly)
"Joint" aircraft make sense with a proven technology, like back in the day when Sikorsky offered the S-70 family to both Army and Navy.
But they're trying the same quantum leap as with the F-35 and the LCS, this time with helicopters.
I believe the lates design proposal is a tandem rotor design, looking a lot like a Chinook. With greater range and lift.
Indeed. Here's a study by Boeing, which looks a lot like the one featured on the ILA 2010:
Max. 300km range with max. payload of 13t (apparently that's enough for France and Germany, overload of 15t shall be possible though).
The biggest problems I see with the tiltrotordesigns and the eurocopter design is that they have no place to put an external weapons load, unless they figure out something that allows a Hellfire to be fired through a spinning propeller.
Adopting these designs means to adopt a new way of thinking, both regarding the arrangement of weapons and troop disembarkment for future transport helos. Aviation Week once had a couple of concept drawnings regarding a military variant of the X3, which may be also working on tiltrotor-designs:
I made a slight error earlier, the Attack JMR is considered a derivative of the Medium. The 4th JMR Category is the Ultra, an aircraft the size of a C-130.
Well I wasn't intending to compare the two, I was just pointing out that we could throw up aircraft which aren't relevant to each other all day. HTH (and Mi26) don't meet the JMR-Heavy speed requirements, CH-53K doesn't meet HTH payload requirements, and so on.
Non-joint programs do not have a recent history any better joint programs, see EFV, FCS, Commanche, KC-X, etc etc. As for quantum leap, yes they want a leap ahead compared to the existing aircraft. The whole point is that they want to take that leap, otherwise they'd just keep buying the existing aircraft as they have for decades.Sounds like another multi-billion dollar cockup in the making.
Why does everything has to be "joint"?
Different services have different demands and the attempt to integrate them all will ultimately result in the same mess the F-35 became (in before C.Puffs telling me the F-35 is going perfectly
"Joint" aircraft make sense with a proven technology, like back in the day when Sikorsky offered the S-70 family to both Army and Navy.
But they're trying the same quantum leap as with the F-35 and the LCS, this time with helicopters.
LOL @ the door gun. Rotor and prop wash at the same time....
Bahahahahahaha
Cause the while the time away, burning cash by doing this:
I really cant see any of these proposals going into production the next 2 decades. Unless 5 years from now we go into a decade long economic boom. Too many things on the military wish list and very few people got the balls to do the cutting necessary to fund this beast.
Aviationweek's Ares blog has an article up about the Joint Multi-Role advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstration (JMR TD) draft solicitation, which can be found here. Even better, they've posted renders of several expected JMR competitors' entries:
Bell Helicopter is pitching a Tiltrotor with a Blackhawk-size cabin.
Boeing appears to be considering both a rigid coaxial design similar to Sikorsky's X2 and a single-rotor with ducted propulsor similar to Piasecki's SpeedHawk.
The Start-up Texans at AVX have their concept for a coaxial design using ducted propulsors.
And Sikorsky is naturally pitching an X2 aircraft with a Blackhawk-size airframe.
No Eurocopter render, though they're testing their X3 they haven't committed to making a run at JMR yet.
The question is, which of these models are useful for the operational service? Bell's offer with the Tilt Rotor will be one of the most complicated to operate and maintain. If the wings are not foldable, they can't be used from naval vessels and that would be the same case for the Piasecki's Speed Hawk or the Eurocopter X3.
The Sikorsky X2 and especially the AVX offer might be the best versions from the operational point of view. The latter offers the advantages of side doors and a rear ramp, small rotor diameter for naval versions and less risky pusher rotor locations.
I'd disagree, somehow. At least the USMC does operate the Ospreys for some time now and gained experience with operations and maintenance. Given that the wings of the V-22 are also foldable to fit into large hangars of navy ships, I can't imagine Bell would not include this feature on the smaller cousin.
Problem is that tiltrotors are NOT helicopters.
They're aircraft with VTOL capability. They lack the slow speed maneuvrability of helicopters.
bear in mind, folks, that this is not necessarily a program were there will be only one winning technology for all JMR aircraft. The Light and Medium aircraft will likely use the same configuration, but Heavy and Ultra could be quite different .
Posting Permissions
