Future Vertical Lift family

The Army is seeking information for the Future Vertical Lift family, which will include a high speed light scout/utility air vehicle, and a medium lift attack/transport. They released RFIs for the CS1 and CS3 systems (FVL Capability Set 1, and Capability Set 3). Set 1 is the smallest and lightest of the aircraft, which will be used for recon, light attack, light lift. The requirements fit an S-97 Raider type platform, as it requires speed over 200 knots, and a minimum unrefueled radius of 229 nm.

CS3 will be the harder platform, as it will replace the UH-60 family, and AH-64. CS3 is intended to be a medium lift air vehicle. It includes a cruise speed of 230-310 knots, again indicating a platform along the lines of the V-280 Valor/SB-1 Defiant. Other capabilities would include a 229-450 nm unrefueled range, 6,000 pound/95 degree Hover Out of Ground Effect, 3,500-4,000 lb internal, or 6,000-8,000 lb external payload, aerial refueling, and shipboard capabilities.

In a surprise move, the U.S. Army is seeking information on a high-speed light scout/utility air vehicle as well as a medium-lift attack/transport rotorcraft under the Defense Department’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) “family of systems” initiative.
The Army on Feb. 22 released requests for information (RFI) for FVL Capability Set 1 (CS1) as well as the anticipated Capability Set 3 (CS3), also referred to as the FVL Medium and billed as replacing first the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk from the mid-2030s and then the Boeing AH-64 Apache.

Under the precursor to FVL Medium, the Joint Multi Role (JMR) technology demonstration, Bell Helicopter and Boeing/Sikorsky are building transport-configured high-speed rotorcraft flight demonstrators that are scheduled to fly in late 2017.

aviationweek.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

that is a surprise move.

what is the apache some 30 years old or more now?

And this is an rfi. so it will be a few years till an rfp comes out.

a reply to: grey580

CS3 will cover the current V-280 and Defiant. Both are scheduled to fly next year. It will go faster than you think.

Was wondering when they would start looking ahead of helo replacements.

a reply to: Zaphod58

This is smelling more and more like a CF about to happen.

The army has this stupid idea of making one big program to cover everything instead of procuring one and then specifying the parts that must be reused for the next. gah.

Its been this way since the early 90s when they tried to do the giant replacement program for the M-1, bradley, etc. FCS was just the very light, expeditionary version.

My family has been army since christ was a corporal, but, damnit, the brass there piss me off.

a reply to: anzha

Welcome to the world of Air Force procurement.

a reply to: Zaphod58

knowing the government.

if they don't get it done by the summer.

rfp won't come out till next year.

too many people going on cruises tend to slow things down. lol
That happened to us.

a reply to: grey580

The competition for the two is already a done deal. Both were already competing for the medium class FVL program, which has become CS3. It's an RFI right now, but once they're flying, and they see what's what with them, it will become an RFP soon enough.

I still wonder what happened to the 22 years of development and 7 billion that was supposed to be the Comanche..

Yes it never actually worked, yes UAV's became cheaper, yes the enemies changed - but surely something came out of it that was usable?

Although probably showing my naivety in military procurement; I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of SOFTA'esqe , fan in wing craft already operating.

The Army has always had a problem with being able to purchase and receive air assets they actually need because the Air Force is very territorial about such things... If I remember correctly the Army wanted the A-10 for army close air support... You would have thought the world was coming to an end when the air force came down guns blazing with all kinds of reasons about why the Army was not worthy.. The A-10 and the Army could be a perfect mix IMO but alas it ain't gonna happen.

I remember the ridged rotor system on the Cheyenne which was developed in the sixties and cancelled in the early 70s.
youtu.be...

youtu.be...


The Russian's seem to field a bird at 1/4 the cost that will out climb, carry more, and out run anything the known Army inventory has as far as an attack helicopter.
youtu.be...

originally posted by: 727Sky
The Army has always had a problem with being able to purchase and receive air assets they actually need because the Air Force is very territorial about such things... If I remember correctly the Army wanted the A-10 for army close air support... You would have thought the world was coming to an end when the air force came down guns blazing with all kinds of reasons about why the Army was not worthy.. The A-10 and the Army could be a perfect mix IMO but alas it ain't gonna happen.

I remember the ridged rotor system on the Cheyenne which was developed in the sixties and cancelled in the early 70s.
youtu.be...

youtu.be...

The Russian's seem to field a bird at 1/4 the cost that will out climb, carry more, and out run anything the known Army inventory has as far as an attack helicopter.
youtu.be...

What made the rigid rotor on the Cheyenne so remarkable? I flew an OH-6 in Vietnam and it had a rigid rotor system as well. I never thought it was anything exceptional in performance but was very responsive. It was only unique with it being hingeless rotor.

I have read accounts of mechanics flying the proof of concept helicopter with very little training. IIRC, the aircraft was the CL-419 (?) a small two seater. The only thing that I see is a "X" style stabilizer bar on top of the rotor. I am assuming that this is something like the Bell stabilizer bar on the UH-1 family.

While visiting my son at Ft Campbell, Ky. we saw the Ah-56 at the Pratt Museum. It is a very large helo about the size of the H-3 Sea Knight. I was impressed to say the least but I saw nothing that made it different except the stab. bar. The tail rotor and propellor intermesh which looks like a weak point in combat. If damaged, you would lose forward drive and directional authority with one hit.

At Ft Rucker, Al. in the early 1970s I saw the remnants of the Cheyenne Program there. Two P-51D chase planes were hangared close to one of my classroom. I tried to get a ride but I was told it would get me dropped from flight school.

a reply to: buddah6

What made the rigid rotor on the Cheyenne so remarkable? I flew an OH-6 in Vietnam and it had a rigid rotor system as well.

Actually the OH-6 had a fully articulated system unless you flew some special aircraft I am unaware of. Fully articulated means, In other words, the blades could flap and lead and lag. The rigid system can barely flap due to blade bending and can not lead or lag at all; thus rigid.

No ground resonance is possible like in a Huges 300 or 500. The UH-1 had a semi-rigid system because it could flap but not lead or lag.. No ground resonance where the bird can shake,vibrate itself to death either. The OH-6 was an awesome bird that could get shot down, roll down a hill and the pilots would walk away in many cases... Unlike the OH-58 (semi-rigid) which might have the transmission deck left after such a shoot down and roll over...

After the second week in Cambodia there were no more OH-6s left in the first Cav. they had all been shot down .. We were sending hunter killer teams out with one low snake and two high.... if my memory serves me correctly. The Loach pilots earned their keep every frigging day they flew in the 1st Cav. One of the guys who went over with me was shot down 5 times in 9 months.. I don't know what ever happened to him after the last shoot down and E&E for two days before he was picked up at a fire support base ?

Will be interesting to see whats in the pipeline for an Ah64 replacement.

These will be wicked vehicles...
but this is the real future of vertical lift technology...

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
These will be wicked vehicles...
but this is the real future of vertical lift technology...

This is an interesting article that fleshes out some of the maths of the helicarrier:
www.wired.com...

Basically to allow stationary hover in a craft of that size at sea level you would need a rotor area of 6.5 x 105 m2 which would make the carrier a disaster waiting to happen.

Assuming you engineer such a thing, the power requirements would mean you carry so many batteries/fuel cells you cant carry any other aircraft.

Given the issues it seems any large atmospheric craft would probably have a LTA component to make it feasible.

Back on topic:

One of the things you always seem to see on liveleak FPS Iraq/Afghan videos is the benefit of close air support.
Why has no one developed a cheap, VLO, high survivability, squad deploy-able drone for close air support.

They do those Pike missiles at 770 grams each so something that could carry 4 and is aimed from an operator HUD/laser designator seems entirely do-able with off the shelf tech and would reduce requirements for manned rotor craft.

a reply to: Jukiodone

Sure that is true unless of course you have anti grav tech that reduces the actual weight by 80%...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Whilst there's an atmosphere - I wont hold my breath.

a reply to: Jukiodone

No worries I'm not surprised you doubt me...
Just remember long from now I said 80% of the wieght nullified...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

To quote the great Captain O'Hagan
"I'll believe ya when me sh*t turns purple and smells like rainbow sherbet."