Army Seeks Designs for Next-Gen Helicopters


The U.S. Army has produced a video to attract bidders and urge them to push the technology envelope in developing next-generation helicopter and tilt-rotor fleets for all the services under the Defense Department’s long-term Future Vertical Lift plan.

“I need aviation visionaries,” Bill Lewis, director of the Army’s Aviation Development Directorate, said in his commentary for the 7-minute video, produced by graphic designers at the Redstone Arsenal in Alabama. “The only limiting factor is your imagination.”

In response to the video, Hurst, Texas-based Bell Helicopter, part of Providence, R.I.-based Textron Inc., has come up with its own video featuring jut-jawed actors who quickly kick doors and “take care of business” with the help of the V-280 Valor, Bells’ tilt-rotor design for a joint, multi-role aircraft.

The Bell production promoting the Valor begins with two kids ditching their schoolbags to watch the video. “Sweet. Future Vertical Lift,” one kid says. “I can’t wait to fly that bad boy.”

In both the Army video and the Bell production, the theme appeared to be the transformative power of technology to shape future wars into mouse-click games in which the good guys never die, much less bleed.

Bell Helicopter, AVX Aircraft Co. and a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. have submitted designs to the Army for what is being called the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator for an attack and utility aerial platform that was expected to be the forerunner for a wide range of future rotorcraft.

The Army plans to make initial decisions on the demonstrator in September, with a flying prototype to be ready in 2017.

Sikorsky, a subsidiary of United Technologies Corp., has teamed with Boeing to develop a concept aircraft that would have counter-rotating main rotors and a pusher propeller to give it a cruise speed of more than 260 miles per hour.

“By leveraging our proven design, we can offer the Army reduced risk, a 100-knot (116mph) improvement in speed, a 60 percent improvement in combat radius, and 50 percent better high-hot hover performance,” than other medium-lift helicopters, Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky Military Systems, said in a statement.

Sikorsky, maker of the Black Hawk utility helicopter, and Boeing, which builds Apache attack choppers, last partnered to build the RAH-66 Commanche light attack helicopter, which was cancelled by the Army in 2004.

Founded in 2005, AVX Aircraft, based in Benbrook, Texas, bills itself as a “rapidly growing aerospace company” that has come up with a radical design featuring coaxial rotors and dual-ducted fans mounted on the sides. AVX claims that the design will give the aircraft greater aerodynamic efficiency and better speed, range and fuel economy than conventional helicopters.

The Bell V-280 Valor “will provide the Army’s most sought-after capability with a cruise speed of 280 knots (322mph),” Keith Flail, director of Bell Helicopter’s Future Vertical Lift program, said in a company press release.

The V-280 Valor builds upon Bell’s long experience with the MV-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft for the Marines, which overcame a rash of development accidents and political opposition to perform ably in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One of the main differences between the Osprey and the Valor design is in the operation of the tilt rotors. In the Osprey, the engines and the rotors tilt, but in the Valor the engines are stationary.

The proposals from Bell, AVX and Boeing-Sikorsky for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demostrator were the first major steps in the Pentagon’s overall plan announced in 2011 to have the Army take the lead in coming up with prototypes to replace the more than 4,000 aging helicopters in all the services.

In laying out the road map for the House Armed Services Committee, Maj. Gen. William Crosby, the Army’s program executive officer for aviation, last year acknowledged the budget constraints well before Congress imposed additional cost-cutting under the process called sequester.

“The next-generation aircraft will have to be a whole lot less expensive to operate than the current fleet,” Crosby testified, and be ready to come onto line in the 2020s.

However, “even with all of the great work we are doing upgrading and supporting the current fleet, now is the time to invest in the S&T (science and technology) required to develop the future fleet,” Crosby said.

“We are still flying third-generation vertical lift platforms designed during the Vietnam War-era, nearly 50 years ago,” he said. “Our current fleet will not last forever and there are bounds to our ability to upgrade current designs to meet future needs.”

The Army said that automatic budget cuts should not be a factor in the initial agreements with the manufacturers for design proposals.

“Budget constraints and turmoil continue to be a challenge but are not currently projected to alter the agreement awards,” Mervin Brokke, a civilian spokesman for the Army’s Aviation and Missile Research, Development and Engineering Center, said in an e-mailed statement.

Brokke would not comment on how much Bell, Boeing-Sikorsky and AVX were getting up front for their work on the demonstrator, although AVX has stated on its website that it received $4 million.

“Upon successful completion of negotiations and making of appropriate notifications, the Army will publicly announce the recipients selected for funding,” Brokke said.

Military analysts noted that the Army has dropped its long-time resistance to tilt-rotor technology in pushing the Future Vertical Lift program.

“The Army backed out of the Osprey program very early in its history,” said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute and a Pentagon consultant. In the 1980s, “the Army figured that the Osprey was not quite wide enough for a Humvee. They decided to stick with conventional rotorcraft,” he said, “and that’s proven to be a big mistake.”

46 Comments on "Army Seeks Designs for Next-Gen Helicopters"

  1. Not really BIG this is not a RFP just a design study.

  2. I really wish they would have put just a little more money into those CGI effects. It felt like I was back in 2000 for a few minutes.

    That aside, this is exciting stuff. Can't wait to see what materializes from all of it.

  3. I support this, but also hope that they are modernizing and replacing the current fleet. Too many of them are in rough shape after a decade in the desert.

  4. Could be worse. It could be

    "We intend to leapfrog the SLEP paradigm with DISRUPTIVE VTOL platforms"

    Like chum in shark-infested waters…

  5. Maybe extend and expand the existing osprey since it has all the rest of the capabilities the Army is looking for.

  6. A LOT of EYE CANDY!

  7. I know this is probably a silly, or obvious, question, but what needed capabilities would such aircraft address that current aircraft do not possess?

  8. Why do we need attack helicopters? We have the IRS.

  9. Ah. You might want to consider COST an additional limiting factor if we actually want an aircraft that can be put into production.

  10. Nice video but it seems to imply that our troops would be allowed to fire back in an area where a civilians stray dog might be harmed. That won't happen for another 3.5 years.

  11. There's a quote:

    “The Army backed out of the Osprey program very early in its history,” said Loren Thompson… They decided to stick with conventional rotorcraft,” he said, “and that’s proven to be a big mistake.”

    So if The Army called Bell and said they were interested in 500 Ospreys Bell would tell 'em "Sorry, you're too late"? Yeah, right…

  12. I am sure he meant to say the only limit is our being broke.

  13. I like the way the tiny unmanned helicopter calls in the huge manned helicopter to fly in and engage the enemy. They got it exactly backwards.

  14. John Mayeski | July 8, 2013 at 6:01 pm | Reply

    The video was pretty interesting, but I had to chuckle at the use of bare bone M4s in 2050. And how the heck did that hovering medical pod thing get into the chopper…anti-gravity…lol? I would have preffered some windows on that twin rotor/jet concept. Sensors can fail, and then your screwed.

  15. John Mayeski | July 8, 2013 at 6:04 pm | Reply
  16. And which war is this for? The one against tribesmen with AK47s, 60yr old RPG designs and bags of fertilizer?

  17. Hint from previous flying dead-ends : More rotors = more to go wrong and huge increases in maintenance costs.

    Heavy lift helicopter solution that looks EXACTLY like existing helicopter designs with improved 2010s engine tech would be far cheaper, better, more versatile and fit right in with existing requirements.

    Why go for jet-packs, magic flying pods and levitating gizmos… the alternatives alreay work and we know how to use them.

    Hint usa. You might even get foreign sales from modern heavy lift helicopters! You know… to pay your debts and fund your future?!?!?

    Leave the Jetsons and Hollywood Wow-factor overspends alone until you have a secure future!

  18. USS ENTERPRISE | July 8, 2013 at 7:01 pm | Reply

    Can we have the Comanche back? Or is that, forever shelved?

  19. This video has been around for months.

    Given that the Army can't get it together to determine if K-Max will fit their bill (seriously – it resupply of Army ground troops so different from resupply of Marines?), plus current state of affairs w/r/t acquisition, I seriously hope this doesn't go the same way as FCS, amongst many other programs.

  20. stephen russell | July 8, 2013 at 9:09 pm | Reply

    why not use NOTAR in mix & save weight alone.
    Merge TV show Airwolf copter with AH64 Apache,Awesome.

  21. Funny. The gang at AED are better known for slowing the process down, than for expediting innovative approaches. Probably for the best that they are looking at a long lead time taking them to 2050.

  22. My invention is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft that intends to make conventional airplanes and helicopters obsolete. All other concepts have failed. The invention remains undisclosed because I cannot pursue it on my own. No agency, including Army, wants to talk to me because little guys are not eligible for corporate welfare. Nobody cares.

  23. What I find humorous is the concept the Army has that just anyone can design a good VTOL aircraft. Just pull a good idea out of your ass and submit it. It's not like an aircraft is a complex system of systems with each one relying on the other to achieve flight. Hell no, we'll just offer up a slick new video and someone is bound to come up with the next new VTOL aircraft design. It's just like putting 10,000 monkeys in a room pounding on typewriters for 10,000 years. One of them is bound to come up with a work of Shakespeare any minute now. I'm sure they'll get just what they deserve out of this program, just like they always do with your money.

  24. "We need… more! MORE! M O R E !"
    Yeah… we need x-ray lasers that shoot out of the eyes of the tigers. BIG F* WHITE TIGERS! Yeah and they're suspended under the wings of a 12 rotor 223 tonne VTOL nuclear-powered submarine WITH a dish… A BIG dish…. On the roof. No wait! For picking up NASCAR in remote locations…. you know! For kids!"

    "You are sooo right, general! I'm loving it already!"

    "Where's ma pencil? Oh, this crayon will do!"

    Somewhere over in the Pentagon, a roomful of 'interlektuals' snort koke and put their back into some imagineering… outside, a hungry war widow begs for loose change, while holding her thin infant, and wonders why gasoline is $37 a gallon!

  25. Dumb video with dumb writing and dumb actors

  26. All we were missing from this video was the GI Joe & Cobra guys. We need to develop more blind Ninja's And armed snowmobiles !

  27. Oh, screw this. I want Gundams….

  28. Naw, just gimme those cool fanwing gunships from Avatar.

    Oddly, that sort of tech/design isn't really all that unrealistic if you look closely at the mechanics of it.
    (I/m probably one of those very few geeks who didn't watch it for the story of a crippled human banging some blue space cat-chick, but rather for the tech of the "sky people" :-)

  29. All of this seemed to be the future of warfare that outlets like Popular Mechanics were promising for today's armies when I was growing up.

    A heavy dose of reality would help these designers, especially when the cost of all this fancy automation is taken into account.

  30. Trinulationtime | July 9, 2013 at 2:21 pm | Reply

    V-22 don´t fullfilled many of initial requeriments. Osprey was made as sustitute of various helicopters. It is not good enought to remplance any of them. it have good features but as a whole system don´t have a place to be.
    If Physics Laws allowed it, a new concept is needed. And we all are thinking in helicopter-airplane hybrids. it´s a death alley. I dont have the solution, of course. The key element (unauthorized opinion) it is a really new, exotic and different main rotor.

  31. “The only limiting factor is your imagination."

    And a shrinking defense budget.

  32. The Army spend billions for the Commanche and ARH and has nothing to show for it. This will be no different. Lets get back to basics, replace the M4 with a reliable rifle that a soldier can depend on. And take the corrupt contracting officers out of the picture (you know the O5 and 06's who deep six anything that is not a colt then retire and work for colt).

  33. So, 100 knots equals 116 mph, but 280 knots equals 322 mph?

  34. duPont already tried a thrust vectoring VTOL and it flew a day late and a dollar short…

  35. Our biggest problem is not the aging of our aircraft fleet or their top speed, it is the ease at which you can shoot them down. Shouldn't we put more focus on protection against our most common adversary weapons (7.32×39, 7.62x54R and RPG)?
    This CAN be done using ESAPI plates (from our body armor) to cover the aircraft like fish scales and supplemented with transparent armor windshields and RPG nets that we use on our MRAP's.

  36. Another focal point for aircraft development should be having the ability to land an all terrain armored vehicle so that once on the ground our forces aren't limited to foot mobility in pursuing bad guys. A vehicle like a JLTV or MATV type with 4-6 troops would be good, although something with treads would be better. An armored aircraft that could conduct vertical forcible entry and then off load a vehicle or two that can close with and destroy the enemy would be an awesome capability. This would be much better than the Vietnam era technology of highly vulnerable aircraft being able to off load a squad or platoon of dismounted infantry soldiers.

  37. A.J. CARIAGA | July 9, 2013 at 9:48 pm | Reply


  38. Thomas L. Nielsen | July 10, 2013 at 3:49 am | Reply

    "Read my message. I have the solution…."

    So you keep saying. Considering the track record of "garage shop VTOL projects", I am still waiting to be convinced.

    Regards & all,

    Thomas L. Nielsen

  39. I have a great future design and I would like to talk to the head of this operation in person call me at 7656313674

  40. Phillip Leech | July 10, 2013 at 3:04 pm | Reply

    Do we have the Osprey already? And shouldn't they fix that first, before they go spending money on another one just like it?

  41. Seems to me anything that pushes the technology envelope could first be tested in an unmanned version. Make sure it is worth the trouble before committing the country to a big development project with the inevitable cost overruns. Both versions if successful could have their jobs to do in the modern battlefield.

  42. The army needs to pick its battles when it comes to what it is going to build new and what it isn't, and this starts with the Osprey and the Sikorsky X2. Both are more proven than these hypothetical platforms, and between the two of them they would fill all the roles of the Apache and Blackhawk, but in a way that was divided up differently.

    I think a slightly modified version of the Osprey could serve as a very capable Utility/Attack aircraft. There is already provision for a .50 gatling machine gun – this should be redesigned so that it feeds its ammo through the floor instead of from an external box, so that its ammo can be replenished in flight. Hardpoints would need to be created on top of the large side sponsons (with proper rotor clearance) and under the belly of the aircraft (with proper ground clearance). This would allow modular fitting of gun and rocket pods and missiles. Specifically, I could see a bushmaster 30mm cannon mounted in a fixed forward position, with ammo feeding inside the aircraft through a door designed for such purpose – this would allow for higher ammo capacity. 1 or 2 of these plus pods of APKWS rockets would be a good start. Finally, the osprey could easily incorporate the ramp launched AGM 176 Griffin missile out of its rear door. Such an aircraft would function in a similar role as the Hind gunship when fitted with armament, filling the higher altitude overwatch role of the apache with greater speed and climb ability. The modularity of it all would allow ospreys to reconfigure to more conventional cargo mode depending on need – similar to the Marine KC-130/Harvest Hawk.

    If this option were pursued, the X2 could then be developed to fill the capability gaps that the Osprey would have. Where the osprey would do heavier assault and cargo operations, the X2 would do the lower capacity utility, command, and medevac jobs, as well as fill the lower altitude attack role shared by the Kiowa and Apache, with a minigun or 20mm cannon and hardpoints for rockets and missiles.

  43. Has anyone looked at the Carter Copter???? Seems this would be the logical and most economic way to go. Check itout at :

  44. Here is the design they need to bring back.

  45. Why do they keep dwelling on propeller based vessels?

    Jet turbine, possibly atomic based. Replaceable panels, modular sections, built mostly of composites, that can be regenerated to mint condition in the field.

  46. I beloved up to you will receive carried out proper here. The caricature is tasteful, your authored material stylish. however, you command get got an nervousness over that you want be turning in the following. sick for sure come further earlier once more since exactly the same nearly very often inside of case you defend this increase.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.