Future Vertical Lift

[Gatordev]

I don’t see any new helicopter designs coming the Navy’s way for a while.

Navy FVL has been in discussion and the early planning stages c. 2017. It was a thing before that, but that's when NAVAIR actually started bringing in the stakeholders (Fleet) to start the working groups. Those working groups were/are moving towards what the design should be.

As @IKE mentioned, weight and hangar height are a big limiting factor, so it's tough to imagine something that doesn't look similar to a -60. Another means to potentially look into the future is to look at what FMS is buying. Yes, there is the limitation on the U.S. manufacturing side of "this is all we got," but pretty much every non-European partner Navy is buying the Romeo (along with some European countries) because it offers the best bang for the buck. The Koreans bought some -139s and it didn't go well for them, which is why they're now buying Romeos.

Given all that, if you could build a tilt-rotor that had the foot print of a -60, it could be a winner, but I'm guessing the design will be a bit more conventional, whatever it may be called.

 

[RobLyman]

When the SH-60B came out, the Navy had SH-2F capable ships and SH-60B capable ships. Heck I even rode in the back of a Seasprite into Somalia in the 90s. I imagine a solution might look something like that. The 60R sticks around as a legacy aircraft as new ships are built to hold the next FVL aircraft that may or may not be based on what the Army chooses.

 

[Gatordev]

When the SH-60B came out, the Navy had SH-2F capable ships and SH-60B capable ships. Heck I even rode in the back of a Seasprite into Somalia in the 90s. I imagine a solution might look something like that. The 60R sticks around as a legacy aircraft as new ships are built to hold the next FVL aircraft that may or may not be based on what the Army chooses.

But what would we build? FVL is supposedly 10-15 years out. Carry the contractor and add the NAVAIR and that's 20 years. I don't think we've proven we could design and build a ship fast enough after the design had been decided.

I get what you're saying, and yes, I'm being a bit sarcastic, but those H-2-only ships had replacements already coming in the form of the Spruance/Ticos and eventually the purchase of the FFGs that got built for the MK III after the first couple of hulls where built.

Since we've essentially put all our eggs in the DDG basket nowadays, it seems like that's what will be the medium-term limitation. Add to that the limited carrier space and we're back to a S-92 or smaller type airframe that needs to fit in a sloped DDG hangar.

 

[ChuckMK23]

we're back to a S-92 or smaller type airframe that needs to fit in a sloped DDG hangar.

 

[phrogdriver]

I didn’t make this, but it’s pretty good. It actually explains the underlying issues and is funny at the same time.

 

[Flash]

View attachment 37033

Not so sure the CH-148 is a great example of what we should be getting.

 

[taxi1]

I didn’t make this, but it’s pretty good. It actually explains the underlying issues and is funny at the same time.

Reminds me of sitting in my little corner on drill weekend last century, junior LT, listening to two CDRs talking about board results...

"Why'd you get promoted and not me?"
"Because I'm better than you."

 

[number9]

Reminds me of sitting in my little corner on drill weekend last century, junior LT, listening to two CDRs talking about board results...

"Why'd you get promoted and not me?"
"Because I'm better than you."

Obligatory Seinfeld reference:

 

[Gatordev]

I think another question that I haven't heard asked or answered is does the Navy need tilt-rotor speed for FVL? Obviously the question before that is "how will this be used," but for now, let's assume FVL would be used in a similar fashion as modern day.

A TR can go faster, which can help with SSC (or whatever that new acronym is now) coverage. It could also get to a target area faster for SCAR. But how much faster does it need to get there (a rhetorical question I don't know the answer to)? Speed to a datum would be helpful, but do you sacrifice endurance/on-station time in doing so, especially with two torps hanging off a pylon.

A TR can cruise at a higher altitude, but that's not always a good thing for current maritime helo ops. I'll leave it at that in this forum, but it would be part of the TTPs.

Phrogdriver might be able to answer this, but I've wondered what does the Army's TR like to cruise at to maximize loiter time while covering a fair distance. Again, it's a different mission than what the Navy would need it for for a lot of the time (transport vs sensor platform).

 

[phrogdriver]

I think another question that I haven't heard asked or answered is does the Navy need tilt-rotor speed for FVL? Obviously the question before that is "how will this be used," but for now, let's assume FVL would be used in a similar fashion as modern day.

A TR can go faster, which can help with SSC (or whatever that new acronym is now) coverage. It could also get to a target area faster for SCAR. But how much faster does it need to get there (a rhetorical question I don't know the answer to)? Speed to a datum would be helpful, but do you sacrifice endurance/on-station time in doing so, especially with two torps hanging off a pylon.

A TR can cruise at a higher altitude, but that's not always a good thing for current maritime helo ops. I'll leave it at that in this forum, but it would be part of the TTPs.

Phrogdriver might be able to answer this, but I've wondered what does the Army's TR like to cruise at to maximize loiter time while covering a fair distance. Again, it's a different mission than what the Navy would need it for for a lot of the time (transport vs sensor platform).

I think you’re overlooking the efficiency of a wing for endurance as well. Unless you’re in a hover, the TR is always operating more efficiently than a helicopter, both at high and low altitude.

That’s the advantage of TR—airplane and helo in the same package. Low altitude doesn’t always mean helo. It may be a 280+ dash or a 130 knot max endurance search pattern. Of course, if you want a better radar horizon, punch up to 25K.

So yes, faster to the datum, further to the datum, then drop sonobuoys, use MAD, use LIDAR. Dipping will become less important over time. This is a mini P-8.

For SAR, this can put the C back in CSAR. I know the V-22 haters say it’s impossible, but V-280 has a side door and lower disc loading, so it can do the job. Even if a helo could do the range, every minute in the water decreases the chances of survival for a downed pilot.

 

[Griz882]

It appears Bell is already considering Navy needs. Their concept is…”a modular platform where the naval version of the Valor will be able to perform wide range of missions: anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, airborne mine warfare, utility and logistic missions, personnel recovery, counter fast attack craft and fast inshore attack craft. But according to Bell Helicopter, the Valor naval variant will come in two different versions : one operating from the DDG vessels and one utility variant for the CVN.”

According to Bell, “The DDG variant will be shortened by a few inches in order to allow the helicopter to fit in destroyer's hangar. This version will have an external payload capability of 8,000 lbs and will accomodate up to eight fully-equiped troops. The DDG compatible V-280 will have an operational radius of up to 2100 nm thanks to inflight refuelling capability.”

I’m not sure why the DDG version needs to carry troops (should be more ASW focused) but the operational radius (and troops) does make it a potentially solid CSAR platform.

 

[phrogdriver]

It appears Bell is already considering Navy needs. Their concept is…”a modular platform where the naval version of the Valor will be able to perform wide range of missions: anti-submarine warfare, surface warfare, airborne mine warfare, utility and logistic missions, personnel recovery, counter fast attack craft and fast inshore attack craft. But according to Bell Helicopter, the Valor naval variant will come in two different versions : one operating from the DDG vessels and one utility variant for the CVN.”

According to Bell, “The DDG variant will be shortened by a few inches in order to allow the helicopter to fit in destroyer's hangar. This version will have an external payload capability of 8,000 lbs and will accomodate up to eight fully-equiped troops. The DDG compatible V-280 will have an operational radius of up to 2100 nm thanks to inflight refuelling capability.”

I’m not sure why the DDG version needs to carry troops (should be more ASW focused) but the operational radius (and troops) does make it a potentially solid CSAR platform.

Where did you see that?

 

[Griz882]

Where did you see that?

It is on a handout I picked up at Sea-Air-Space (at least a year or two old). As noted it is conceptual and I have no idea if Bell will take it further…but they worked up a nice picture to go along with the idea.


Add to that, some consultant type writing in Forbes today is recommending that the USCG get the V-280 to replace their C-27 Spartan mini-hercs.

Swap Troubled Coast Guard C-27J Patrol Aircraft For Bell V-280 Valor

The U.S. Army’s decision to replace their massive UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter fleet with the Bell V-280 Valor tiltrotor offers the U.S. Coast Guard an interesting opportunity.

www.forbes.com

 

[phrogdriver]

It is on a handout I picked up at Sea-Air-Space (at least a year or two old). As noted it is conceptual and I have no idea if Bell will take it further…but they worked up a nice picture to go along with the idea.

View attachment 37074
Add to that, some consultant type writing in Forbes today is recommending that the USCG get the V-280 to replace their C-27 Spartan mini-hercs.

Swap Troubled Coast Guard C-27J Patrol Aircraft For Bell V-280 Valor

The U.S. Army’s decision to replace their massive UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter fleet with the Bell V-280 Valor tiltrotor offers the U.S. Coast Guard an interesting opportunity.

www.forbes.com

Not a Bell thing but a Navy thing. The Maritime Strike program is focused on a manned solution to replace Ss and an unmanned for Rs. Whatever FVL ends up being, DDGs will most likely host UAS. Manned aircraft might stop by but won’t live there.

 

[Gatordev]

I think you’re overlooking the efficiency of a wing for endurance as well. Unless you’re in a hover, the TR is always operating more efficiently than a helicopter, both at high and low altitude.

No doubt. I'm not smart on the aero of TR, so was curious how much it helps.

So yes, faster to the datum, further to the datum, then drop sonobuoys, use MAD, use LIDAR.

When I was in HI, we did a lot of testing of optical searches, as did the guys in Japan. Obviously that tech was no where near as mature as one would hope it's at now, but it was impressive in the search phase. I do wonder how well it does in the attack phase, though.

I loved having MAD, but down low, it wasn't the search tool that the SWOs thought it was. It was really just an attack confirmation tool. Given how powerful the dipper is, it would be a shame to lose it, but if optical tracking really does work in all environments, it could certainly make up for the loss, I suppose.