Defiant first flight slips

a reply to: anzha

They said the first rotor blade took 2 years, the latest rotor blade, 11 days.

a reply to: anzha

Tilt-rotor is almost guaranteed to have higher speed and range to the compound.

a reply to: Barnalby

You have a PM, sir.

The Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1 Defiant team would likely be flying today if the US Army had not preferred automated composite rotor blade manufacturing, according to a key officer speaking at the Vertical Flight Society's Helicopter Military Operations Technology (HELMOT) conference in Virginia.

Brigadier General Walter Rugen, US Army Future Vertical Lift (FVL) cross-functional team director, told the HELMOT audience on 24 October that the army's Aviation and Missile Research Development and Engineering Center (AMRDEC) asked the Defiant team to do technological things that had perhaps slowed development. Gen Rugen told Jane's after his presentation that one of the requests - automating composite rotor blade manufacturing - is a way to make production more rapid and more affordable, ..

Ned Chase, AMRDEC Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator (JMR-TD) deputy programme manager, told Jane's that the automated rotor blade manufacturing request likely added nine months to the Defiant's timeline...

Janes
Not really news, but it is confirmation from the customer.

That's why noone is panicking from the Defiant end...

a reply to: RadioRobert

I have to wonder why they would not want to lay up a set of propellers by hand first, get the bird flying and then swap out the propellers for the new ones once the process was ready. I mean, it strikes me as relatively trivial in cost difference and would have had the Defiant in the air far, far faster...and gotten the whole test program done far faster as well.

ELI5?

a reply to: anzha

Probably would have been cheaper to hand lay, honestly. Once they get the kinks worked out is where they might see some time and monetary savings. So it's an investment into risk-mitigation and cost-reduction later. Seed money. My guess is there is a lack of urgency that kept them from doing both at the same time to fly earlier.

The Army's requisition programs are as bad as the Navy. I don't think they're in a hurry to make decisions, so they probably don't care as long as they get the data eventually. Phase one of JMR is just supposed to validate the technologies. So a real "Defiant" ( and Valor for that matter) will have significant differences from the demonstrators being built. They aren't prototypes in a true sense, which lays alongside the lack of urgency.


They aren't even setting requirements for the medium-size FVL's until after the demonstration programs finish (hello, award protest). This flight program is all about laying out what comes next.

a reply to: RadioRobert

My guess is there is a lack of urgency that kept them from doing both at the same time to fly earlier.

Yeah. That is about all I can think of.

The Army's requisition programs are as bad as the Navy.

hahaha.

I think they're worse. They've scrapped and restarted their acquisitions several times now. Light scout helicopter? We're on iteration number what now? Bradley replacement? Artillery snuck an upgrade in which put a Bradley chassis under the Paladin turret. But...Now they're talking about that 1k km cannon. A Grosse Berta all over again and calling it 'moveable' rather than mobile. Freakin thing will be a strike magnet and dead after its first rounds.

My family has been army since ...well...a very long time and this just hurts.

*silently weeps*

a reply to: anzha
Werent they saying "Lasers" and Railguns on something as well?

Well, in this case, I think it's sort of smart. They're saying "show me" to industry before writing the requirements. They can ride the -60 -hawks and Chinooks for the foreseeable future witbout an urgent need (except the Kiowa replacements). This should help the actual program where they throw the big bucks around safer and less prone to delays. The majority of the money is coming from the industry at this point while they sheppard it through to a level of maturity.

It's the next part that they'll probably make a hash of. I have a couple second-hand NLOS stories if you want to weep haha

a reply to: Blackfinger

On a VTOL? Lasers were being tested as a pod on an Apache, but other than that...no.

For railguns on tilt rotors, you're thinking of _War in 2020_ by ralph peters...lasers on autgyros, too.

Broke it on the ground. Well, not really broken, but had some issues. No major redesign or repair required. Already fixed. Took a couple weeks. Just want 15+ hours of completely issue-less ground run time. Look for a late -February, early -March first flight.

a reply to: RadioRobert



It's outside and, I presume, preparing for its first flight.

www.defensenews.com...

Why does it feel Chinook-ish?

I've said it before and I'll say it again. It looks horrible. I know I know looks aren't everything but it all looks a little complicated or like someone has taken a helicopter body and dumped a prop and two rotors on it. I understand the the prop is for more forward speed but it looks like it was designed and someone's thought 'we need more forward speed... I know let's just stick a prop on the back'. Would working on tilt rotor aircraft been more worth while I just don't see this getting much attention for sales but hey what do I know

originally posted by: ThePeaceMaker
I've said it before and I'll say it again. It looks horrible. I know I know looks aren't everything but it all looks a little complicated or like someone has taken a helicopter body and dumped a prop and two rotors on it. I understand the the prop is for more forward speed but it looks like it was designed and someone's thought 'we need more forward speed... I know let's just stick a prop on the back'. Would working on tilt rotor aircraft been more worth while I just don't see this getting much attention for sales but hey what do I know

Well, tilt rotors are not exactly simple. And they need at least two rotors too.

Personally I think the most simple configuration would be a helicopter with wings and two props at wing ends. The props would also provide the counter torque, removing the need for a tail rotor. Airbus presented such a concept last year.

a reply to: moebius

Ever try to exit a helo in the dark with a large prop next to your ear? Do you want to? Me neither.

a reply to: anzha




Not quite kicking ass yet, but she's at least burning gas.

a reply to: RadioRobert

www.janes.com...

FARA moving out? I'm pretty sure the Defiant related system will end up winning that one unless they do something really bad.

For Recon are they looking for a little bird again?

a reply to: Blackfinger

yup.

FARA is the scout.

FLRRA (or whatever) is the blackhawk replacement.

I'd bet on the raider/defiant for the scout and the tilt rotor for the BH.

Definitely a Raider size or smaller I would say..Maybe a drone configuration with lift fans.No need for multiple Hellfires on a recon bird.