Home » Air » Doubts Swirl around Army’s Next Generation Helicopter Fleet

Doubts Swirl around Army’s Next Generation Helicopter Fleet

by Richard Sisk on October 25, 2013

JMRDespite its long-term budget woes, the Army has come up with $217 million in seed money for a four-way contest on the future of Army rotorcraft that potentially could be worth billions to the defense industry contractors who come out ahead in the competition.

The contest involves two established industry giants – Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky/Boeing – and the startups AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft, and features tilt-rotor concepts against radical new designs of conventional helicopters.

Under the $217 million cost-sharing agreement with the four firms, the Army set the initial stage for the development of a Joint Multi-Role (JMR) aircraft that would serve as the forerunner for a family of rotorcraft which would eventually replace the UH-60 Black Hawk, the AH-64 Apache, the CH-47 Chinook and the OH-58 Kiowa.

Whether the plan makes sense in the current climate of declining defense budgets and a sequestration process that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion through 2021 is open to question.

“The near-term outlook for new program starts in rotorcraft is pretty bleak,” said Loren Thompson, executive director of the Lexington Institute. With little sign that Congress will act to lift the defense cuts, new programs for “helicopters as well as ground vehicles are moving slowly and grinding to a halt” in the Army, said Thompson, a defense industry and Pentagon consultant.

On Wednesday, Heidi Shyu, the Army’s assistant secretary for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, called the impact of the defense cuts “devastating” for the Army.

“The prospect of sequestration-level reductions through FY 2021 threatens to lower Army investment in soldier equipment to historic lows as a result of steep and sudden reductions required under the current law caps,” Shyu told the Tactical and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee.

“In short, the Army faces an unprecedented challenge in delivering capability to soldiers now and well into the future,” Shyu said.

Shyu’s remarks contrasted with the upbeat sales pitch for the JMR technology demonstrator offered this week by Bell Helicopter and Sikorsky/Boeing at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual convention and exposition.

Bell had a full-size version of its JMR-TD on the convention floor – the tilt-rotor Bell V-280 Valor, designed to have a cruise speed of 280 knots (280 mph) and carry a crew of four and 11 troops. One of the main differences between the Valor and the Bell V-20 Opsrey would be that the rotors on the Valor tilt while the engines remain stationary on the wings.

The advantage Bell has in the competition is that “tilt-rotor technology has been proven in combat” by the Osprey in Iraq and Afghanistan, said Dana Schenck, marketing communications manager for Bell.

Each of the four firms in the JMR competition has received $6.5 million from the Army and “Bell is making a significant investment,” Schenck said, but she declined to say how much.

Sikorsky/Boeing also had a full-size model on the convention floor but it was not of the JMR-TD. Instead, Sikorsky showed off its proposed high-speed SB-97 Raider aerial scout and attack helicopter.

The Raider had the same main features as Sikorsky’s proposed JMR-TD, named the “Defiant” – a pusher propeller and counter-rotating, coaxial main rotors. “It’s really going to change the way we employ rotorcraft on the battlefield,” said Steve Engebretson, director of Advanced Military Programs for Sikorsky.

One advantage of the Defiant is that it can fly backwards, said Frans Jurgens, communications manager for Sikorsky. In concept, the Defiant could back away from a hot landing zone while maintaining fire on the enemy by reversing the pusher propeller, Jurgens said.

In what could be seen as a dig at the tilt-rotor concept, the promotional material for the Defiant said the aircraft relied on “design innovation, not complex technology.”

The two other entrants in the Future Vertical Lift competition – AVX Aircraft and Karem Aircraft – had their own variations on the conventional rotorcraft and tilt-rotor designs.

AVX has proposed an aircraft with coaxial main rotors and ducted air fans on either side of the fuselage for additional speed and lift.

Karem Aircraft, a late entrant whose proposal was only approved for cost-sharing by the Army on Oct. 2, has offered the fastest tilt-rotor design, with a claimed speed of 360 knots (414 mph). Karem Aircraft was founded by Abe Karen, the former chief designer for the Israeli Air Force who has often been called the “father” of the Predator drone.

The Army expects to whittle down the competition to two contestants by next June. The two winners would then build proototypes for a flyoff to begin in 2017.

Share |

{ 113 comments… read them below or add one }

CharleyA October 25, 2013 at 12:41 pm

The Army should not make an extraordinarily expensive mistake by following the Marines down the tilt rotor rathole, evolved or not. MV-22s have an incremental cost of about 65M each. Compare to UH-60s at about 1/10th the cost. Interestingly, Boeing, an experienced rotorcraft builder, has opted out of the nextgen tilt rotor, instead partnering with Sikorsky on a compound / coaxial design. Hmmm….

Reply

Clint Notestine October 25, 2013 at 1:25 pm

probably more a reflection on the Armys stance on the V-22 than boeings confidence in tilt roters.

Reply

JCross October 26, 2013 at 2:30 am

Compound Helicopters are much cheaper than tilt rotors. As long as they can keep reasonably close in performance, they will win the contest simply by cost and simplicity. Do note that outside of continuing work on the V-22, Boeing appears to have stopped all work on tilt rotors. They have more data than we do, and I do not think jumping on the compound bandwagon was on accident.

Reply

LoSul October 28, 2013 at 9:29 am

On what production rigid rotor + pusher prop compound helicopter are you basing your claim that they are much cheaper?

Reply

JCross October 30, 2013 at 3:39 am

Compounds are simply coaxials with stub wings and a extra pusher. Although no coaxial of specs close to the V-22, coaxials are fully cost competitive with standard helos where they are in direct competition. And stub wings are fully standard on many military models. Unless that pusher prop somehow doubles the price of the aircraft, compounds are going to be cheaper.

Reply

JC hates FWA October 28, 2013 at 12:43 am

And the Army is classic in their judgement. Good luck on finding your Sherpa replacement. What? C-27? You folks (Army) have always picked the wrong partner when it comes to aviation/ground support partners.

If your kind would have had some balls back in Key West. We would have been miles past the V-22 and A-10 (which you are a bitch for).

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:55 pm
Chuang Shyue Chou January 26, 2014 at 8:42 pm

I do agree on this. The unit cost of the V-22 is prohibitively expensive. Numbers do matter.

Risking a 65 million aircraft in a hot LZ simply doesn't make sense.

Reply

Lance October 25, 2013 at 12:54 pm

Be better to make a new conventional helicopter since Army air ops are much closer to the front then USAF and Navy rotor aircraft fly. The extra range and speed isn't needed.

Reply

tmb2 October 25, 2013 at 2:22 pm

The range and speed are necessary for our attack helicopters. We use them for deep attacks as well as close air support.

Reply

FormerDirtDart October 25, 2013 at 2:54 pm

Not to mention extended range also equals longer time on station/endurance, in terms of attack a/c, and the ability to conduct multiple sorties between visits to the FAARP for utility a/c.

Reply

Curt October 26, 2013 at 1:14 am

Extended range does not always equal greater endurance. For instance, if you have twice the cruising speed, you can have a 50% greater range and actually have less endurance/time on station, especially when operating near the front.

Reply

Army guy October 25, 2013 at 10:05 pm

Army doesn't do "deep attack" anymore and also doesn't perform CAS. We do perform CCA though

Reply

oblatt1 October 28, 2013 at 8:50 am

Deep attack is a joke that died in the Iraqi desert

Reply

saberhagen5 November 1, 2013 at 5:03 am

Really? Iraq 1991 or 2003? You didnt know Apache punched a hole in the Iraqi air defense system in Desert Storm, did you?

Reply

blight_ November 1, 2013 at 9:44 am

He's probably thinking of Package Q or the ill-advised attack by the 101st's Apaches at Karbala. Yikes.

In the bigger picture, Saddam lost twice. But deep attack is not invulnerable.

tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:58 pm
wtpworrier October 25, 2013 at 12:59 pm

As long as it's not that piece of crap V-22. That thing is a flying death trap…in my opinion.

Reply

JC hates FWA October 28, 2013 at 12:52 am

Rough development? Yes. Wrecks since deployment? 5?How does that stack against a 60? Again Army, pussy whipped by Key West. How's that Sherpa flying? AirForce got tilt rotary wing. Grow a set and put aside your pride.

Reply

Dfens October 28, 2013 at 3:41 pm

Thankfully none of the 40 can speak, or Boeing would have to hire better schills to cover internet sites like this one.

Reply

Dfens October 28, 2013 at 3:41 pm

None of the 40 dead, that is.

Reply

Tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:46 pm

Opinions do not match facts. The V-22 has a better record than the UH-60 by a mile. The CH-47 as well.

Reply

45K20E4 October 25, 2013 at 1:57 pm

For the Army's mission type, I think a tilt rotor gives up too much time in transitioning flight versus that ability of a conventional rotorcraft to get up and out of a hot LZ in a hurry, or go from forward flight to hover in short order. Tilt rotors have transition time that I have never cared for in a scenario where you are taking fire…especially if they plan to build an Apache replacement on this platform.

Reply

blight_ October 25, 2013 at 4:46 pm

Transition time isn't that long. Navy claims a floor of 16 seconds (but sadly, no ceiling time).

Reply

joystick October 30, 2013 at 7:43 am

The v-22 can transition from helicopter to airplane and be at 180 kts in less than 10 sec. and 1/2 mile. no helicopter can do that. benn ther and done that in both type.

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:50 pm

You watch to many war movies.

Reply

respawnd October 25, 2013 at 2:26 pm

International roll out of the V-22 has begun, so I guess the world disagrees with wtpworrier. A new design is required if it is to be multi-role that can replace a versatile Black Hawk, a super agile Apache, and scale to the cargo capacity of a Chinook. Let's not forget the past, the Army sucks at requirements. Marines and Air Force at least know how to conservatively specify what they want with technical precision. The Army just asks for a rock. I feel sorry for the startups, they don't stand a chance with a customer like that.

Reply

majr0d October 25, 2013 at 3:31 pm

"Marines and Air Force at least know how to conservatively specify what they want with technical precision."

Uh, have you heard of the F35 or the EFV?

All the services have plenty of warts when it comes to acquisition.

Reply

oblatt1 October 26, 2013 at 1:59 am

"International roll out of the V-22 has begun: ROFLOL – yea sure it began 15 years ago just nobody bought it.

Reply

Dfens October 27, 2013 at 2:08 pm

Obviously they're not talking about Japan.

Reply

majr0d October 25, 2013 at 3:35 pm

"Whether the plan makes sense in the current climate of declining defense budgets and a sequestration process that would cut defense spending by about $1 trillion through 2021 is open to question."

The Abrams, Bradley, Blackhawk and Apache all came out of the cash strapped drawdown focused 70's.

Reply

tmb2 October 25, 2013 at 4:05 pm

Have there been any significant shifts in buying power since then? Adjusted for inflation, are we looking to spend more now than we did in the late 70s/early 80s?

Reply

hibeam October 25, 2013 at 6:54 pm

$217 Million? For that amount the administration could only buy 1/3 of a non working web site from Canada. Kudos to the Army.

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:52 pm

How about the cost of buying C-27's & sending them straight to the boneyard?

Reply

Steve B. October 25, 2013 at 7:10 pm

Why re-invent the wheel ?. Is there anything basically wrong with the Blackhawk, Apache and Chinook designs that updates wouldn't take care of ?. What's the threat that needs the latest and greatest ? Granted they need new airframes to replace 20-30 year old frames who will run out their service life, but the basic designs seemingly fit the bill now. New engines, new electronics and it would be a heck of a lot cheaper.

Reply

David October 25, 2013 at 9:45 pm

Range, speed, payload, survivability, the list goes on and on.

Reply

Steve B. October 28, 2013 at 1:25 pm

Well, yes of course that's what the Army WANTS, but can they afford major improvements in even 2 or 3 of these area's. No.

So rather then design pie-in-the-sky systems, that cost bundles, maybe continue with incremental improvements to existing airframes. Works for the B52, yes ?.

Reply

oblatt1 October 26, 2013 at 2:01 am

they are not delivering the contractor returns needed anymore. A new design much more expensive and delivering less is needed.

Reply

Riceball October 28, 2013 at 1:27 pm

Why re-invent the wheel? Simple, because after a certain you can upgrade an airframe just so far that to make any further/significant changes you have to make such radical changes to the basic design that you essentially have a brand new aircraft and you'd be much better off designing it from scratch to accommodate all of the changes that you want.

Reply

Rage October 29, 2013 at 4:37 am

The basic problem is no conventional helicopter will ever have very good hot-high performance, and speed is dead limited without some kind of pusher/tractor propeller capability. You can't upgrade that out of the existing designs, they've already gotten radically more powerful engines and better rotor blades. Nothing else significant can be done.

One could however take the CH-53K approach, of completely redesigning more or less the same aircraft to be a little bigger, yet lighter with new materials. That would do something, but its a lot of money in its own right and all parts commonaility is lost.

A side issue is the US does not wish to loose all ability to design military rotorcraft, which is precisely what will happen if no new project is launched now that CH-53K development is winding down. This issue is precisely why the timescale for this program is so drawn out. Money is an issue, but spending some now ensures its even possible to spend more later. That is the reality of a defense industrial base.

Reply

Randy October 29, 2013 at 10:35 pm

Why re-invent the wheel? Well, if they weren't giving out all of these current technologies and weapons systems to our "enemies", and various other foreign countries for free, and then paying to train them to use them while they are at it, that might be a valid question. But "SINCE" we have to have better technology than those who may oppose us, we had probably beef up the defenses since everyone has what we have now, courtesy of "us" the tax payer.

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 7:57 pm

Updates? You have reached the aerodynamic limits of performance the helicopter. they can not break 300 MPH, 20,000 ft or hover in thin air. No amount of updates changes that.

Reply

stephen russell October 25, 2013 at 9:34 pm

I would add NOTAR to chopper chosen unless planned for & adapt controls from Oblivion Bubbleship for real time use, see movie Oblivion.
That might save some fuinding alone.

Reply

Rage October 29, 2013 at 4:38 am

NOTAR has never really gotten anywhere with military service because it uses slightly more power then a conventional tail rotor, and military rotorcraft always end up wanting more power. For civilian use the noise and safety advantage carries further.

Reply

Harold October 29, 2013 at 10:00 pm

Notar is another piece of crap. Fly one and you will see what I mean.

Reply

mark October 26, 2013 at 3:00 am

Can we go back to the days where the company footed the bill in order to develop something to sell to the military, and not the other way around? Was it like that in the golden days of R&D or am I mistaken?

Reply

Dfens October 26, 2013 at 10:41 am

There are two things wrong with the current system of procurement. One is the fact that contractors covered the design and development costs of their own aircraft, and the other is that the US government used to use their own labs to do the basic research behind a lot of new concept designs, causing the contractor's risk in pursuing these new concepts to be much lower. Today research is all outsourced to contractors who milk the contracts and provide little in the way of advancements — especially those that might threaten the continued survival of air vehicles they are already selling to the DoD — and half baked notions like the V-22 are funded all the way to production regardless of their technical merit because thousands of highly paid people might lose their jobs if their failure is exposed.

Reply

Matt October 30, 2013 at 4:31 pm

Sikorsky has been working on the S97 Raider for a number of years now. They built a prototype to test the coaxial rotor system and fly by wire system and have completed its testing. Now they are in the process of assembling two full size prototypes for demonstration and testing. They have done so almost entirely on their own and with the help of sponsors. Relatively little government funding has gone in to this project because Sikorsky feel very strongly that this technology is the real future of rotorcraft and they don't want the government to be able to pull the plug. I've seen the first prototype and a full size model of the S97, this thing is sweet and isn't based on merely theory. As an Army aviator, I sincerely hope that Sikorsky is able to get a government contract for it after they start demonstrations next year.

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:04 pm

Mark, Remember the once great British Aircraft makers? Such spending would make most firms disappear like Supermarine, Fairey, Avro, Hawker, De Haviland, Short, Black burn, English Electric….

Reply

Arthur Savard October 26, 2013 at 10:15 am

I think not …………………

….. "speed of 280 knots (280 mph)" …..

….. " 5 Knots = 5.8 MPH" …..

….. "1 nautical mile / hour = 1.15077945 miles / hour”…..

….. or to put it another way …..

….. "1 mile / hour = 0.868976242 nautical miles / hour" …..

….. so you can do the math and convert 280 knots to mph yourself!

Reply

Cody Hlavka October 28, 2013 at 4:40 pm

Or about 324.52 mph

Reply

joystick October 30, 2013 at 8:10 am

280 kts is 322 mph

Reply

Herb October 26, 2013 at 12:00 pm

There are no "international" V-22s. It first flew in 1989 and no other military or airline wants them. Hagel told Israel a few months ago that they must accept some as gifts from the USA. There are stories that Bell bribed some sheiks in the UAE to buy some for joy rides. But no serious military wants them. They are twice the cost, half the readiness, with one-quarter the payload of similar size helos. Range is the same, and the only advantage is 30% more speed. Want proof? Search for a photo of a foreign flagged or airline painted V-22, and no else is building tiltrotors.

Reply

majr0d October 26, 2013 at 3:45 pm

Range is not the same.

You don't KNOW what Hagel said. You are speculating.

Many of your points were made when the helicopter first came on the scene. There are PLENTY of examples of successful weapons systems that were not sold to another country in the first several years of their fielding.

The Osprey has warts. You don't need to make any up.

Reply

Steve B. October 26, 2013 at 5:17 pm

Herb, go do some research.

V-22 cruise speed is 446 km/h. Blackhawk is 295 km/h. CH46 is about 250km/h, Merlin AW101 is 278, so typically about 50% or more speed. Ditto range, V-22 is 1600km, UH-60 is 600 km, CH46 is 1000km, Merlin is 833 km, so about twice. Then payload, V-22 is 9,000kg internal, UH-60 is 1200kg, CH46 is 2270, Merlin is 3000 kg. So 300% or so ?. So tilt-rotor made sense for the Marines and Navy and as a special op's aircraft for the USAF (and for anybody). Possibly not worth the money for general use in the Army and they sure can't afford it, but would be a good choice for the 160th Aviation Regiment.

Reply

CharleyA October 26, 2013 at 7:37 pm

But approach to hover / landing in V-22 is much slower than in a helo – at least a -60 – thus more vulnerable in that phase of flight. An on topic comparison between the tilt rotor vs. compound helo: although a tilt rotor will probably beat a compound helicopter flat out, the compound helo is significantly faster than a conventional helicopter, and a coaxial compound helo can point its nose very quickly, as well as back up (the prop has a beta setting.)

Reply

majr0d October 26, 2013 at 10:54 pm

Your stats are accurate though you leave out some things like sling load where the aircraft are much more similar or the ability to arm helicopters which is easier on helicopters.

Reply

Docsenko October 27, 2013 at 1:11 am

Arming the Osprey is being looked at. So this is where you been hanging out.

Reply

majr0d October 27, 2013 at 1:34 am

Actually have my own blog now and I write for SOFREP. This is a pretty good place for info and debate though without all the political BS.

I'm aware of the efforts to arm the Osprey (turret underneath). It's tough to do on the Osprey, low clearance, huge rotor disks (when in forward positions). Unless they put in bomb bays like the F22 or F35, it's going to be hard to arm the Osprey. FWIW this is what's depicted in the V280 concept video.

chuck October 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm

Who is going to arm a ch-46 or ch-47, you cant compare an mv-22 to an uh-60

Reply

CharleyA October 28, 2013 at 12:56 pm

Both the MV-22 and the UH-60's primary mission are to ferry troops into battle – very similar missions done with vastly different technology – and expense in the case on the MV-22, Both can be configured for different mission, but the -60 series can employ a greater range of weapons.

majr0d October 28, 2013 at 1:07 pm

Chuck, Google ACH47 & MH60 DAP..

Herb October 27, 2013 at 11:04 am

In OPEVAL testing, it was shown that V-22 official specs are grossly inflated. And the V-22 is the size of an H-53, so don't compare it with helos half its size. And the Army has studied this

Tiltrotor limitations are known in U.S. Army Aviation. The V-22 program began with the U.S. Army, which dropped the idea after learning that flat helicopter rotors and twisted aircraft propellers are quite different. A tiltrotor uses a compromise "proprotor" that provides half the efficiency in either mode. Just before the CV-22s arrived in Afghanistan, the Army dominated Special Operations Command voiced its displeasure with the CV-22's performance. An article in the March 28, 2010 issue of "Aviation Week", quoted Army Special Operations Colonel Clay Hutmacher, of the 160th Special Operations Squadron, explaining why no more CV-22s were desired:

“Above 4,000 ft., there’s a significant [hovering] limitation on the V-22,” he said. Tiltrotor engineers concede that while the V-22 hovers well in many situations, the special twist and size of its “proprotors” leave it unable to carry as much useful load pound-for-pound as most helicopters hovering in similar conditions.

“I’m not disparaging the V-22,” Hutmacher said. Hovering ability, however, is critical to the 160th, because “at the end of the day, our mission is going to terminate in a hover.”

Reply

Steve B. October 28, 2013 at 1:37 pm

The V-22 is comparable to the aircraft I described as that is the target market for the aircraft, 20 some odd troops. The UH-60 only handles a dozen, but it's primary mission for the Army is troop transport. The 22 replaces the 46, so that's the comparison. The Merlin is the Euro aircraft in that troop capability range. The 53 is not, it handles a far larger troop load and is much larger, 99 ft long vs. 57 for the 22, though weights are similar as is footprint on a carrier. The wing span for the 22 is a factor, but possibly not for the Army.

In reality I think a tiltrotor is a bad choice for the Army, but not the reasons you state, which are erroneous in many aspects. The simply fact is the Army needs a lot of helicopters and cannot afford tiltrotor as currently designed and priced. I think they will be in this system in 50 years though.

Reply

6113 October 29, 2013 at 10:54 am

V-22 cabin size is roughly the same as a -46. It is nowhere near the size of any H-53.

Reply

Harold October 29, 2013 at 10:11 pm

Actually the V-22's cabin is smaller than the 46, yet the aircraft is twice its size "empty weight". It is a heavy class size lifter with poor medium lift performance. The V-22 with an empty weight of 35,000lbs is bigger than the 53E!

Peter Erik Bensen October 29, 2013 at 1:32 pm

Why do you think they unloaded the MV-22 to the Marine Corp? Grunt work maintenance, dangerous conditions, and hand-me-downs are not strangers for the Marines.

Reply

majr0d October 29, 2013 at 4:12 pm

Examples? The "hand me down" line is a myth.

The poor state of much Marine equipment is due to a failure by the Corps and Navy to replace equipment e.g. the SAW became unreliable because the Corps refused to buy new ones when the Army did and instead went with the M27.

If you look you'll find the Corps procured BRAND NEW equipment maybe leveraging an Army contract, often not (hence the different markings) or drew BRAND NEW Army equipment because the Marines/Navy didn't resource themselves adequately (e.g. the times in WWII when Marines were issued BRAND NEW Army uniforms) .

It's absurd to blame the Army for equipment that has USMC markings on it unless you believe there's some little old lady going through dumpsters and stamping an EGA on it. It's ridiculous to blame the Army for issuing Marines BRAND NEW gear because the Corps/Navy didn't plan adequately. The Marines aren't getting hand me downs, they aren't taking care of what they have and blaming the Army.

There's truth to, "no good deed goes unpunished"

tmb2 October 29, 2013 at 11:56 pm

"They" didn't unload the V-22 on the Corps. It was their program.

tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:13 pm

Yet you miss the limits of helicopters…….

Reply

Hamish December 2, 2013 at 12:54 pm

AgustaWestland have also produced the AW609 Tilt Rotor with at least 3 flying though looking mainly towards coast guards I would think

Reply

Chuang Shyue Chou January 21, 2014 at 9:12 pm

I am not surprised. Given the unit cost of each V-22, I think most nations would opt for helicopters. The UH-60, if one were to buy from the USA, would more than suffice. Likewise the CH-47.

Reply

Muttling October 26, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Incorrect Herb. UAE, Japan, and France have expressed a desire to purchase V-22s in addition to the deal with Israel. Of those, Japan makes the most sense for covering their outer islands which are on the edge of helicopter range.

Reply

Herb October 27, 2013 at 11:07 am

Bell has been telling of nation's "expressing interest" in the V-22 for two decades. Then Bell dumped its civilian tiltrotor project two years ago and now offers a new medium size helo.

Reply

PolicyWonk October 28, 2013 at 12:27 pm

To add to your comment, the Japanese have also been building "helicopter carrying destroyers" that have a shocking, Shocking, SHOCKING resemblance to (horrors!) our LHA/LHD's. They just completed (within the past few months) joint operations exercises with the US, where V-22's landed and took off from these "destroyers".

The reports I've seen revealed no problems whatsoever. Hence – the Japanese are truly interested in V-22's – despite the howling w/r/t V-22's being based on Okinawa.

Reply

respawnd October 26, 2013 at 8:44 pm

I think AVX is on the right track with a scaled-up Micro Machine design. My kids love flying those things. You can teach anyone to fly those. The Chinese have built millions of these so all the risk is taken out. What could be more perfect? http://bit.ly/1cjNlAN

Reply

hibeam October 26, 2013 at 9:43 pm

Huge waste of money. Learn to use your new tools. Establish air superiority then use fleets of drones to harass the enemy into dust. Cheaper. Easier. And no one comes home in pieces or boxes. In air drone refueling is the next logical step.

Reply

William_C1 October 27, 2013 at 2:23 am

What does this have to do with our helicopter fleet?

Reply

hibeam October 29, 2013 at 11:58 am

Drone helicopters. I thought that was obvious.

Reply

bigred22 October 28, 2013 at 3:06 pm

Northrop Grumman has already done in air refueling on a drone.

Reply

Sidewinder October 27, 2013 at 10:22 am

Comments posted by a Special Operations pilot at an on-line forum provide insight:

They were flipped over in 'airplane' mode, crashing into the trees (or onto A-78, the range) and no one was killed? Sounds kind of sketchy to me, aircraft zipping along and crashing at aerial gunnery speeds don't result in wounded crewmen who leave the hospital in a few days or a week. Sounds to me like they were doing gunnery from a hover mode (which you aren't supposed to do unless over an LZ, which doesn't exist at A78, at least not for CV-22s), one bird got some dirty air from the other and a 'roll over' did occur, but in a hover operation that they shouldn't have been doing. Hence the need to fire Matt Glover (the squadron CC), they were dicking around and not following correct range procedure and smashed an aircraft in the process. I almost saw a CV-22 do the exact same thing at Baker LZ (big patch of grass and sand on the airfield at Hurbie) trying to do two-ship operations, chalk two got into the dirty air of chalk one and almost lost control of the aircraft. Thought I was going to see a Class A right in front of me. I also saw the CV-22 twice set Baker LZ on fire with their exhaust heat, that bird has some real design 'issues' (would say problems, but apparently some folks don't like that word, so I'll stick with 'issues')

Sucks to hear that 'G-Lover' is getting thrown under the bus for this. But hell, considering that they let the Group Commander, a bird colonel, almost crash a CV-22 8 months ago when he put one into the trees just south of Big T LZ and managed, by the Grace of God, to get it back airborne with only some damage to the nacelles and wing flaps (and remained in place as the Group Commander, go figure), tells you all you need to know about how things work in the Air Force these days. Apparently, this is how it goes these days:

Happen to be a lieutenant colonel in charge of a squadron that has a crash he had no way of preventing or foreseeing – get fired and have your name and picture splashed all over the internet with no hope of any future promotion or position of authority. Happen to be a full-bird colonel (C-130 pilot, no less) who attempts to tactically fly and land an aircraft he was totally unqualified in, almost crashed, flies the damaged tilt-rotor back to base, hops off and allows the crew to continue flying for two more hours – get downgraded in your primary aircraft (the Herc) for a week, then get requalified and stay on as the Group Commander with a possible shot at Brig. General.

Difficult to say why the 8th left OEF. The CV-22s are hard to fit into most SOF current operations because they really are unique airframes and require concrete or asphalt landing pads for any kind of sustained operations. You can't use them for MEDEVAC or CSAR, the downwash is too massive. The dirt and dust of Afghanistan (and pretty much any other dry/desert area) eat their engines up at a phenomenal rate. I heard one rumor that they were replacing those Rolls-Royce engines every 70 to 100 hours, sometimes even less. Those engines cost a mint, so you can imagine how that affects the cost of a downrange deployment (or even home station training). Add in the hydraulic problems (5000 psi system vs. the 1500 to 3000 psi used in all other rotorcraft and C-130s) and software issues and it's just too complicated of a bird for combat operations.

Having said all that, I think the concept of the V-22 is legit. We do need something that breaks us out of this 140 KIAS limit we seem to be stuck in with helicopters. I'm all for pushing forward with new designs (Sikorsky has come up with some really cool new versions of the helicopter recently, for example). The problem is, the Marine Corps convinced themselves that they needed to rush it through test and development to replace the incredibly old CH-46s and the USAF went along with them. So now, you have an operational aircraft that is still having test phase kinds of teething issues and people are dying trying to make it work in the operational side.

In my eyes, they need to transfer all the birds to the USMC, send them up to Pax River and finish testing and modifying them. The CV-22 is not ready for prime time, simple as that. Maybe in 5 or 10 years after more test and development, but right now, it's a widowmaker.

Reply

Peter Erik Bensen October 29, 2013 at 1:46 pm

The CV-22 will NEVER be ready for prime time. When you challenge the law of physics and metallurgy, there's usually no workaround, IMO. Your comment, Sidewinder, is clearly the MOST insightful one posted here. Again, IMO the MV-22 is a specialty aircraft, not directly comparable to conventional helos.

Reply

Tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:20 pm

Want to count up chopper losses? It is not even close. The number of class A wrecks is not in the same ball park.

Reply

Herb October 27, 2013 at 11:13 am

Here's the new Bell 16=passenger helo it offers for sale, after its civilian tiltrotor failed in both costs and FAA certification
http://www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/helicopters/bel….

Reply

Captain Obvious October 27, 2013 at 12:36 pm

K-19 Windowmaker

Reply

scott October 28, 2013 at 9:54 am

it is a fucking osprey for god sake I thought that we already had them

Reply

Jack October 28, 2013 at 2:34 pm

NO!!!! The Army dosen't like the Osprey, they just want something that looks and acts like the Osprey. The Army NEVER takes USMC hand-me-downs, but they don't mind the USMC taking Army hand-me-downs.

Reply

majr0d October 28, 2013 at 5:00 pm

Examples? The "hand me down" line is a myth.

The poor state of much Marine equipment is due to a failure by the Corps and Navy to replace equipment e.g. the SAW became unreliable because the Corps refused to buy new ones when the Army did and instead went with the M27.

If you look you'll find the Corps procured BRAND NEW equipment maybe leveraging an Army contract, often not (hence the different markings) or drew BRAND NEW Army equipment because the Marines/Navy didn't resource themselves adequately (e.g. the times in WWII when Marines were issued BRAND NEW Army uniforms) .

It's absurd to blame the Army for equipment that has USMC markings on it unless you believe there's some little old lady going through dumpsters and stamping an EGA on it. It's ridiculous to blame the Army for issuing Marines BRAND NEW gear because the Corps/Navy didn't plan adequately. The Marines aren't getting hand me downs, they aren't taking care of what they have and blaming the Army.

There's truth to, "no good deed goes unpunished"

BTW, there are fundamental differences between the V280 and the Osprey like size, payload and tiltrotor system.

Reply

scott November 1, 2013 at 9:53 am

thank you at least somebody gets what i mean by this

Reply

John Fourquet October 28, 2013 at 10:41 am

Considering all of the money the Army has spend on failed helicopter programs, why doen't the Army give up on for naw and spend the money to develop a lethal and reliable rifle?

Get back to the basic now with the limited resource available.

Reply

Riceball October 28, 2013 at 1:43 pm

The Army hasn't had all that many failed helo programs, just 2 or 3 in recent history.

As for the M16/M4, it may not be the best rifle out there but it's hardly the worst out there and it's plenty reliable and deadly. What we really need more than a new rifle is a new round. maybe one of the 6mm rounds.

Reply

Dfens October 28, 2013 at 3:46 pm

Yeah, look at that fine rifle McNamara designed. So damn good they are still using it today. Packs more punch than a .50 BMG. The Army says so. Look at what a glowing success the Crusader was. Billions spent, not a single weapon to show for it. Now there's your tax dollars hard at work.

Reply

blight_ October 28, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Indeed, Crusader should have died with the many other Cold War programs that got sacked when the Soviets fell. Can you imagine if they'd continued Assault Breaker through the '90s?!

Reply

Dfens October 29, 2013 at 8:40 am

You were happy to pay billions of dollars for the development of Crusader, but then when it came time to actually build it, you were thankful not to get anything — to get absolutely zero return — for the billions you spent on development. Now that's first class propaganda at work there. A handful of people got wealthy off of your defense department welfare, and you not only are happy about it, you're thankful. Billions of tax dollars spent. No one is accountable. No one even got so much as a demotion or black mark on their employment record. Hell, it was promotions all around, and you're happy about that? F'ing amazing.

majr0d October 28, 2013 at 4:15 pm

Failed helicopter programs? Like the Apache, Blackhawk, Kiowa, Chinook, Little Bird/Cayuse, Huey, Cobra?

I challenge you to find ANY service that has a better record with helicopter development.

BTW, there are PLENTY of dead people compliments of the M16 family.

Reply

blight_ October 28, 2013 at 7:05 pm

There aren't that many in the fail department. There's the Cheyenne and the Comanche (both gunships perhaps more costly than the military was willing to pay).
Throw in ARH-70, VH-71 is a Marine program(?).

There are some interesting prototypes, but they were just testbeds (like the C-475 and XH-51, first I've heard of it)…

Reply

majr0d October 28, 2013 at 9:01 pm

Don't see the Cheyenne as a fail necessarily It was created to address the shortcomings of USAF CAS during Vietnam, a traditional issue with the Air Force.

The existence of the program caused the Air Force to procure A7 and create the AX which eventually became the A10. The Cheyenne had some tech issues. It was also expensive. The tech issues may have been overcome and we ended spending as much for the Apache without the revolutionary capabilities of the Cheyenne. More importantly, with out the objections the Air Force had for the Cheyenne because it had stubby wing and was a compound type aircraft..

One cannot ignore Air Force obstructionism and meddling over the demise of the Cheyenne.

Reply

Dfens October 29, 2013 at 8:51 am

Perhaps if Lockheed had made the wings flap up and down the Cheyenne would have been less "controversial'. Always sad to see a good aircraft die in prototype.

Peter Erik Bensen October 29, 2013 at 1:56 pm

The problem is that people expect main battle rifle (Garrand, M-14) performance in an assault rifle/submachine gun (M-16 family) package shooting an ultra lightweight cartridge. Not happening with the 18th century rifle barrels we use.

Reply

Matt October 30, 2013 at 4:42 pm

The Comanche didn't fail. It performed the mission that it was designed for flawlessly. It was politics and funding that failed. The Comanche was basically production ready and congress had already approved the programs funding for another 5 years. But the top level brass decided to mothball the program and use the funds appropriated for it to upgrade the entire Apache fleet with new electronics, surveillance, and targeting equipment.

Reply

Tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:23 pm

Your worried about a rifle when the IED is the weapon choice for bad guys? You don't shoot bombs……

Reply

hibeam October 28, 2013 at 10:54 am

Unmanned vehicles is the future. Bite the bullet and go there. I'm sure the Army also had a very hard time putting their horses out to pasture.

Reply

Chuang Shyue Chou October 31, 2013 at 12:45 am

For the sake of the US Army, I think it should adopt an improved derivative of the UH-60. Another V-22 programme would is disastrous.

Reply

chaos0xomega October 31, 2013 at 8:54 am

So, how long are we going to figure it'll take the Air Force to somehow kill this program in Congress (like the last time the Army tried to develop a new helo)?

Reply

chaos0xomega October 31, 2013 at 8:54 am

Or really… any time the Army has tried its hand at acquiring new aviation assets.

Reply

Tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:26 pm

Not cool…….

Reply

Chuang Shyue Chou January 21, 2014 at 9:15 pm

I wonder how much the V-280 is projected to cost. If it were going to exceed that of the V-22 in terms of unit costs, good luck.

Reply

blight_ October 29, 2013 at 9:27 am

Isn't Crusader's problem that Rumsfeld needed money for COINy things? I suppose we /could/ have bought Crusader to justify the sunk costs, but when you let procurement programs go on that long, it's a lose-lose.

Reply

majr0d October 29, 2013 at 10:48 pm

Everywhere I look I find the Osprey weight at 33k and about 100lbs lighter than the CH53E. Where are you looking?

Reply

Dfens October 30, 2013 at 8:12 am

The reality is, the Crusader was God's gift to the military right up to the time it was to go into production and then it was cancelled. Whatever they said were the reasons, the real reason the program existed in the first place was simply as a means to funnel money to yet another defense contractor. And how can a program like that which made a lot of people rich just disappear and no one be held accountable? It's theft, pure and simple. It happens right in front of you, and everyone just shrugs it off. The defense contractors involved made a profit on every hour they managed to drag that program out, and then they didn't have to spend a dime on building any. People should be incensed by programs like that. Instead, they are thankful they were saved from another bad program. It's mind boggling.

Reply

Tiger November 4, 2013 at 8:10 pm

Why do people have a habit of junking up a transport with guns & crap? That is not the birds role. Adding feel good toys just cuts performance.

Reply

majr0d November 4, 2013 at 9:02 pm

Granted. Sometimes the guys on the ground need help that isn't available in the initial assault.

Sometimes you get systems like the AC130 :)

Reply

tiger November 4, 2013 at 11:02 pm

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: