Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 42 of 42

Thread: Joint Multi-Role Advanced Rotorcraft

  1. #31

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by prof68 View Post
    It is interesting, that coaxial rotors now mainstream - half of proposals use this scheme. Ten years ago only Kamov use it in serial birds, all others only play with experimental aircrafts.
    They are coaxial rotors, but those[*******#C4C8CC][SIZE=2][FONT=ARIAL,] [/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]high-speed hinge-less rigid rotors are quite different than those classic Kamovs. Kamov is developing a similar design Ka-92.

  2. #32
    Senior Member fiorellabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In partibus fidelium
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    i agree with the bet: when you see the words Joint and Advanced put together you know it would be a mess.
    For a good measure this time they have put also Multirole, so to be a million % certain.

  3. #33
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiorellabel View Post
    i agree with the bet: when you see the words Joint and Advanced put together you know it would be a mess.
    For a good measure this time they have put also Multirole, so to be a million % certain.
    As of right now "Joint" is Army and USSOCOM. The other services may and probably will pick up FVL aircraft down the road, but likely in a manner similar to how Sikorsky's S-70 platform spread to other services rather than attempting everyone to get in up front. I can't image Army and USSOCOM have the same problems defining a common aircraft that the Navy and Air Force do.

  4. #34
    Senior Member fiorellabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In partibus fidelium
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halidon View Post
    As of right now "Joint" is Army and USSOCOM. The other services may and probably will pick up FVL aircraft down the road, but likely in a manner similar to how Sikorsky's S-70 platform spread to other services rather than attempting everyone to get in up front. I can't image Army and USSOCOM have the same problems defining a common aircraft that the Navy and Air Force do.
    Halidon, please, it was intended to be ironic. Nothing that need such an articulated response.
    Helicopters (and similar) are one of the military things that more frequently are normally adopted by different branches of armed forces trough the whole world.
    So the use such a lenghty and pompous denomination is more a way to "sell" the program by the industry than anything that have a real significance.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fiorellabel View Post
    Halidon, please, it was intended to be ironic. Nothing that need such an articulated response.
    Helicopters (and similar) are one of the military things that more frequently are normally adopted by different branches of armed forces trough the whole world.
    So the use such a lenghty and pompous denomination is more a way to "sell" the program by the industry than anything that have a real significance.
    Sorry, too much of my time is spent around people who say things like that and mean it. My snark meter is busted.

  6. #36
    Senior Member fiorellabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In partibus fidelium
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Halidon View Post
    Sorry, too much of my time is spent around people who say things like that and mean it. My snark meter is busted.
    No offence taken,
    May I add that this denomination is particularly vague, LCS and JSF or PAK-FA almost gave you an idea of what we are talking about.
    Something like New Generation Hi Speed Helicopter not enough cool, eh?

  7. #37

  8. #38
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    AvWeek focus article on Sikorsky's JMR effort and the important of scale demonstration.

  9. #39
    **** you 20122. how goes does gaz type drunk? dricl. man Hellfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    A terra dos foguetes
    Posts
    29,869

    Default

    None of these strike me as being especially practical as a UH-60 replacement.

  10. #40
    the internet is serious business! Ought Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Profane in spirit if not in word
    Posts
    21,328

    Arrow

    The AVX offering looks interesting. Its cabin volume seems pretty large for a relatively small landing footprint. The basic design uses technologies that are mature and low-risk. Manufacturing and maintenance costs should also be less than a tilt-rotor. I look forward to seeing more about it. Thanks for posting.

    BTW, lest we forget another reason for the widespread 'joint' project name prefix is that in these times of tight budgets, 'joint' implies a cost savings in logistics due to less duplication of similar systems by different service branches. Those savings may be illusory, but the propaganda value of the prefix in the military budget wars is very, very real.

  11. #41
    Senior Member fiorellabel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    In partibus fidelium
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ought Six View Post
    The AVX offering looks interesting. Its cabin volume seems pretty large for a relatively small landing footprint. The basic design uses technologies that are mature and low-risk. Manufacturing and maintenance costs should also be less than a tilt-rotor. I look forward to seeing more about it. Thanks for posting.

    BTW, lest we forget another reason for the widespread 'joint' project name prefix is that in these times of tight budgets, 'joint' implies a cost savings in logistics due to less duplication of similar systems by different service branches. Those savings may be illusory, but the propaganda value of the prefix in the military budget wars is very, very real.
    Yes,I know and I agree.
    Problem is that when you say joint or advanced prefix in an US project, they usually means trouble: when they are together better run for cover.
    The AVX gives me some positive feeling also, precisely for the reason you cited and for the one I have stressed, if you have to explore a entirely new concept, better to use as soon is possible mature components in it.

  12. #42
    Senior Member Halidon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    2,156

    Default

    As I said up-thread, participants in this program are just the Army and USSOCOM. Other services/agencies like Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard, Marines, Border patrol, etc may adopt the platform down the road in a manner similar to the way they adopted the S-70 platform after the Army adopted the Blackhawk, but they're not directly involved at the moment. The "Joint" moniker was hung on it part in acknowledgement of that probable outcome and part to protect the funding from Legislators who have it out for spending.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •