Future Vertical Lift

[thump]

My point is that the boxes do have impact but it's probably not so much drag but other dominant factors such as GW, CG, control limits changing, airflow distortion, etc.

If you ask me what's the one thing that the airframes of the future need an excess amount of besides power it's cooling. As the various boxes get more capable that translates into hotter boxes that will need ways to transfer the heat. And things that work at FL370 for a big wing don't work as well for rotorcraft that spend most of their time closer to the surface.

Shack on thermal. ECS becomes an essential avionics system in certain environments. And when it takes 8% or whatever off your max range, you have a pickle…

As the mission changes from “high hot heavy hovering in dusty places” to “long range transits overwater” you bet that every bit of drag and power counts.

Real talk: software is eating HSM. Single best thing Navy could do with FVL is separate mission and safety of flight code (a la P-8) so that we can get upgrades less than 3 years behind schedule.

 

[Pags]

Shack on thermal. ECS becomes an essential avionics system in certain environments. And when it takes 8% or whatever off your max range, you have a pickle…

As the mission changes from “high hot heavy hovering in dusty places” to “long range transits overwater” you bet that every bit of drag and power counts.

Real talk: software is eating HSM. Single best thing Navy could do with FVL is separate mission and safety of flight code (a la P-8) so that we can get upgrades less than 3 years behind schedule.

Yeah, good points on SW. Having good SW practices that can allow portions of code to be changed without messing up the rest is very important to limiting the scope of necessary testing and subsequent discovery. Also having separate (physical or otherwise) mission computers from FCCs can allow the two systems to be updated independently. But the fleet also needs to be ok with something other than monolithic SW updates which tends to make it harder to train to; not necessarily due to complexity of the subject matter but due to there always being changes. Or put another way do you want a giant iOS change that changes the entire user experience or a constant stream of small changes.

 

[IKE]

Shack on thermal. ECS becomes an essential avionics system in certain environments. And when it takes 8% or whatever off your max range, you have a pickle…

As the mission changes from “high hot heavy hovering in dusty places” to “long range transits overwater” you bet that every bit of drag and power counts.

Real talk: software is eating HSM. Single best thing Navy could do with FVL is separate mission and safety of flight code (a la P-8) so that we can get upgrades less than 3 years behind schedule.

Sage words. You should find your way back to NAVAIR to write requirements.

 

[Jim123]

Just as we all become our parents, I realize I sound like the old guy talking here but back in the early 2000s when almost every 60B was getting a FLIR either on the nose or under the left stub wing and gradually gaining weight like a sedentary middle aged person, we took out a nice, light Block 0 on a NATO short cruise in the fall. It didn't have a FLIR or any of the other Block 1 or 1- hardware. The cold air and light(er) aircraft was a lot of fun for stick-and-rudder flying. That more than made up for not having the latest toys to play with. We could make 160+ in that aircraft, which is pretty good for a B or an R. On windy days (there are a lot of those in that part of the world) I think we could have just about hovered behind the ship on one engine.

 

[taxi1]

I can't believe none of you rotorheads have posted about the award of this contract. I was kind of a fan of the other design.

 

[Griz882]

I can't believe none of you rotorheads have posted about the award of this contract. I was kind of a fan of the other design.

View attachment 36998

Unless the Sikorsky/Boeing guys file a complaint. I see the army wants it fielded by 2030…I wonder if the Navy will pick it up to replace the -60 models. I do imagine the new scout/attack bird will not be a Bell product.

 

[wink]

If I am correct the Valor is nearly the size of a CH-47, but carries what, 12 troops? Oh and it will cost you many times the -60. And I think the Raider was a bit faster, was it not?

 

[Randy Daytona]

If I am correct the Valor is nearly the size of a CH-47, but carries what, 12 troops? Oh and it will cost you many times the -60. And I think the Raider was a bit faster, was it not?

My understanding is the MV-22 is roughly 50,000 lbs, about the same as a Chinook. The V-280 is about 30,000 lbs, same as a S-92 or roughly 25 more than a Blackhawk.

The V-280 is roughly 50 knots faster and double the range of the SB-1. An Advancing Blade Concept helicopter, while faster and longer ranged than conventional helicopters, is still at a significant disadvantage to tilt rotors.

I can't believe none of you rotorheads have posted about the award of this contract. I was kind of a fan of the other design.

View attachment 36998

Has been discussed here:

FLRAA and FARA update

Great update on the state of play in two major programs.

www.airwarriors.com

 

[Brett327]

Unless the Sikorsky/Boeing guys file a complaint. I see the army wants it fielded by 2030…I wonder if the Navy will pick it up to replace the -60 models. I do imagine the new scout/attack bird will not be a Bell product.

Gonna be tough to fit that form factor into a CRUDES hangar, and CVN deck space for RW is getting smaller, not bigger.

 

[taxi1]

Gonna be tough to fit that form factor into a CRUDES hangar, and CVN deck space for RW is getting smaller, not bigger.

That's why I'm kind of wondering if the Navy would be more interested in the stacked blades of the Defiant.

 

[IKE]

That's why I'm kind of wondering if the Navy would be more interested in the stacked blades of the Defiant.

The CRUDES constraints are real. I'm not anywhere near the decision nexus, but I've heard that coaxials bring a notes reduction in usable weight due to the complex transmission, and the coax + pusher prop config is difficult to fold.

The Hawk is a 25k-lb class. The Defiant is 30k lb, so wouldn't fit in (size) or on (weight) CRUDES. A smaller coax probably wouldn't give us the mission systems or endurance we want.

My guess (not prediction) is we get another single main rotor helicopter in 20 years.

 

[Randy Daytona]

The CRUDES constraints are real. I'm not anywhere near the decision nexus, but I've heard that coaxials bring a notes reduction in usable weight due to the complex transmission, and the coax + pusher prop config is difficult to fold.

The Hawk is a 25k-lb class. The Defiant is 30k lb, so wouldn't fit in (size) or on (weight) CRUDES. A smaller coax probably wouldn't give us the mission systems or endurance we want.

My guess (not prediction) is we get another single main rotor helicopter in 20 years.

I believe you mentioned in the S-97 thread that the coaxial rotor was too tall and that it would have problems folding - both are problematic.

With the upcoming budgetary constraints, the Navy has bigger needs for ships, subs, missiles and jets - I don’t see any new helicopter designs coming the Navy’s way for a while. (maybe CH-53K ?). That said, if the Navy was to look at a replacement for the H-60, my first thought would be to revisit and update the tandem rotor Boeing 360 technology demonstrator which was 30,000 lbs and 200 knot top speed.

 

[red_stang65]

“Why doesn’t the Navy just build bigger ships?”
—someone from the Army FVL program, probably

 

[Griz882]

So probably some Americanized version of the AW-101.

 

[nittany03]

My guess (not prediction) is we get another single main rotor helicopter in 20 years.

So basically the time-honored Navy tradition of "fly it until it falls apart, then duct tape it together, then spin up the replacement program."