Military use of the AW609

[StingrayOZ]

Military use of Tiltwing aircraft

edit: Renamed thread from AW609 to reflect broader discussion.

Just thought of a discussion on this very interesting aircraft would be worthwhile.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW609"]AgustaWestland AW609 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It appears to be a mini V-22 Osprey (in that its a tilt wing), but it is very different. Primary designed for civilian use. But may be able to fill certain niches in forces that do not currently operate the V-22 or on ships or locations that would have difficulty operating the V-22.

It is about 1/3rd of the mass of the V-22, with about half the load carrying capacity.
But it would appear to be much cheaper to buy and operate than the V-22 while still delivering plane speed (~500kmph), long range (~1300km), high service ceiling (7,600m) and VTOL.

Also rumored that it could operate in tandem with V-22, to "act as escorts", which I presume means arming them. (?)

SAR, CAS, AEW (perhaps in a configuration similar/smaller to the Saab 340/E-99), ASW , COD, medical, etc.

Thus giving carriers, LHD and possibly smaller ships organic fixed wing sensor/utility platforms.

 

[pkcasimir]

Just thought of a discussion on this very interesting aircraft would be worthwhile.

AgustaWestland AW609 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It appears to be a mini V-22 Osprey (in that its a tilt wing), but it is very different. Primary designed for civilian use. But may be able to fill certain niches in forces that do not currently operate the V-22 or on ships or locations that would have difficulty operating the V-22.

It is about 1/3rd of the mass of the V-22, with about half the load carrying capacity.

But it would appear to be much cheaper to buy and operate than the V-22 while still delivering plane speed (~500kmph), long range (~1300km), high service ceiling (7,600m) and VTOL.

Also rumored that it could operate in tandem with V-22, to "act as escorts", which I presume means arming them. (?)

SAR, CAS, AEW (perhaps in a configuration similar/smaller to the Saab 340/E-99), ASW , COD, medical, etc.

Thus giving carriers, LHD and possibly smaller ships organic fixed wing sensor/utility platforms.

TheAW609 started out as a joint development between AGW and Bell. When AGW bought out Bell and acquired the exclusive rights to the AW609, they signed an agreement prohibiting them from arming it. Bell manufactures the Osprey.

Although AGW maintains that there is a military market for this aircraft, which is way above production cost estimates and way behind schedule with FAA civilian certification not due now until 2017 and that's optimistic, there has been absolutely no interest shown by any military over it. Given the platforms out there, it's hard to envision the AW609, with its very small payload, having any real military interest.

 

[StingrayOZ]

TheAW609 started out as a joint development between AGW and Bell. When AGW bought out Bell and acquired the exclusive rights to the AW609, they signed an agreement prohibiting them from arming it. Bell manufactures the Osprey.

Although AGW maintains that there is a military market for this aircraft, which is way above production cost estimates and way behind schedule with FAA civilian certification not due now until 2017 and that's optimistic, there has been absolutely no interest shown by any military over it. Given the platforms out there, it's hard to envision the AW609, with its very small payload, having any real military interest.

I think arming it was somewhat unrealistic.I wasn't aware of the specifics of that agreement. Which rules out I guess arming it for ASW work.

But as a Aew, SAR, sensor platform its a bit more realistic. While its development has been troubled, its be arguably smoother than the V-22's. While its limited payload makes it a poor lifter of troops and equipment, as a sensor platform it has a few key pluses. Its has a pressurised cabin for example. While expensive and most likely to go over its targeted price, its still likely to be less than a 1/3rd of a V-22.

In particular I thought it might find a niche with UK, Spanish, Italian, French, Australian, dutch, operators that might finds its range and speed useful over its limited payload particularly in marine environments operating off large ships.

Given it hasn't been designed for operation off a ship (no folding wings etc) or designed for operation in a marine environment.

Would it be considered after 2017, when it goes into production and becomes a relatively low risk OTS purchase for the basic airframe?

 

[pkcasimir]

There are all kinds of sensor platforms out there. Assuming you use "off the shelf" stuff, who is going to pay to integrate it into the AW609? I don't think AGW could do that without a customer willing to put up the cost. And, frankly, I don't see that happening.

While the Osprey has had development troubles, the AW609 also has had a number of them. The Osprey right now is a combat proven, highly reliable system that the US Marines swear by, even if a tad expensive. It's among the safest rotary wing aircraft in the US military. Given the quantum leap in capabilities of the Osprey over the AW609, I just can't see any military choosing the AW609 over it. The Osprey is now finding foreign buyers and that should drive the price down.

Assuming AGW can its act together on the AW609 and meet the 2017 date, I don't see any real military interest in it. There would have to be someone who is willing to make a big commitment upfront and I don't see any Western military ready or willing to do that.

The AW609 may turn out to be a nifty aircraft doing what it was intended to do, service the oil industry. Personally, I just don't see a military role for it.

 

[StingrayOZ]

There are all kinds of sensor platforms out there. Assuming you use "off the shelf" stuff, who is going to pay to integrate it into the AW609?

Well the same nations that would consider a V-22 for these roles, the UK has I believe looked at using the V-22 in the AEW role. I would imagine the Italians would also be interested. Don't know if they are currently looking or have the budget to do it.

Assuming AGW can its act together on the AW609 and meet the 2017 date, I don't see any real military interest in it. There would have to be someone who is willing to make a big commitment upfront and I don't see any Western military ready or willing to do that.

Well the V-22 has made huge strides in operating costs, reliability and safety. You certainly get a much more military useful aircraft, gaining the ability to move a large number of troops and equipment. Also if found to be useful as a refueler for F-35's. Nations that had previously ruled it ~5 years ago out may reconsider it.

 

[My2Cents]

Well the same nations that would consider a V-22 for these roles, the UK has I believe looked at using the V-22 in the AEW role. I would imagine the Italians would also be interested. Don't know if they are currently looking or have the budget to do it.

The problem is that with 1st delivery not earlier than 2109. This creates 2 big problems:

1. Operating history -- the V22 has it, the AW609 won’t. The people doing the selection will probably tell proposers to come back when they have at least 10,000 hours under their belts, probably at least another 5-8 years assuming a fairly high production rate. Think about how long the acceptance trials were for the V-22 before it became operational, after the FAA approved it.
2. Someone (like the UK) might not be able to wait that long and opt for the V-22. Once the V-22 has had a set of electronics integrated for the job, all future modifications to that role become much easier. So even if the instrumentation isn’t identical the integration is much cheaper, and with a faster, surer, delivery.
   
   This can produce a lot of cost leverage for what are small production runs.

 

[winnyfield]

Recent US rotor craft news, two designs for a future H-60 Hawk replacement

One Small Step Toward the Helicopters of the Future - Corporate Intelligence - WSJ

Aug 12, 2014

The Bell unit of Textron Co.TXT -0.57% in partnership with Lockheed Martin Corp., and the team of Boeing Co.BA +2.57% and Sikorsky Aircraft Co. said Tuesday that they’d been picked to each build a helicopter that flies much faster and further than existing models. The Joint Multi-Role, or JMR, program is part of a broader effort to eventually replace hundreds of workhorse Black Hawk and Apaches models.

... The long-term plan wouldn’t lead to new helicopters becoming operational before the mid-2030s

Bell/Lockheed: V-280 Valor
Boeing/Sikorsky: SB-1 Defiant

 

[RobWilliams]

For UK purposes the Merlin does the job out to 2030, something around there. Then for the RN that's a pretty critical procurement to get right as it'll do ASW, ferrying troops/cargo and AEW.

 

[StingrayOZ]

For UK purposes the Merlin does the job out to 2030, something around there. Then for the RN that's a pretty critical procurement to get right as it'll do ASW, ferrying troops/cargo and AEW.

Is it important that they are all done by the same airframe?

I would have thought for AEW (and ASW?) a pressurised and quiter cabin would be more useful. In those roles small openings, lift capacity are less of an issue.

Recent US rotor craft news, two designs for a future H-60 Hawk replacement

The V-280 is very much in a similar vein as the 609 but with a design that would be more suitable for the multiple of roles it needs to fill.

 

[Blackshoe]

Is it important that they are all done by the same airframe?

It's a heck of a lot cheaper. Allows you to set up common training pipelines, maintenance support for airframes/engines, etc I can't imagine that won't be an attractive factor for the RN.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It's a heck of a lot cheaper. Allows you to set up common training pipelines, maintenance support for airframes/engines, etc I can't imagine that won't be an attractive factor for the RN.

I would imagine. The V-280 looks significantly different from the 609 I would imagine commonality would be very low.

I find it interesting on the V-280 that they have placed the engines so they don't rotate with the wings, possibly to address deck heating?

CGI attack versions look like something straight out of Avatar.
Also I see the US has a requirement for a C-130 sized version.

I have renamed the thread to take in this wider discussion.

 

[pkcasimir]

I would imagine. The V-280 looks significantly different from the 609 I would imagine commonality would be very low.

I find it interesting on the V-280 that they have placed the engines so they don't rotate with the wings, possibly to address deck heating?

CGI attack versions look like something straight out of Avatar.
Also I see the US has a requirement for a C-130 sized version.

I have renamed the thread to take in this wider discussion.

The V-280 is a totally clean sheet design.

Rather than tilting pods, the V-280's engines remain fixed horizontal with the rotor and drive system encased in a tilting pod thus eliminating any concerns about ingress and egress of troops from the side doors and increases the field of fire for the door gunners when on approach to a hostile landing zone. It really has nothing to do with deck heating.

I would take the FVL program's desire for a C-130 size tiltrotor aircraft for some time in the future with a great deal of skepticism. The US Congress hasn't authorized any funds for such a program and you can be sure that should the US Army attempt to proceed with it they will get into one hell of a fight with the USAF. That's life in the DOD.

 

[StingrayOZ]

The V-280 is a totally clean sheet design.

Rather than tilting pods, the V-280's engines remain fixed horizontal with the rotor and drive system encased in a tilting pod thus eliminating any concerns about ingress and egress of troops from the side doors and increases the field of fire for the door gunners when on approach to a hostile landing zone. It really has nothing to do with deck heating.

I see, on a smaller aircraft this would be a much bigger problem, particularly for the roles the V280 would fill (not shooting your own engine off). Quite a neat improvement.

I would take the FVL program's desire for a C-130 size tiltrotor aircraft for some time in the future with a great deal of skepticism. The US Congress hasn't authorized any funds for such a program and you can be sure that should the US Army attempt to proceed with it they will get into one hell of a fight with the USAF. That's life in the DOD.

Certainly up there with dreaming big. I would imagine the project the next size down could get interesting/ more realistic, bigger than a V-22, but smaller than a C130 sized project. Sounds like the thing the Navy, USMC and the army could all agree on. Given the issues with the Spartan it will be interesting to see where that goes.

The V280 could be quite an important aircraft going into the future. Replacing Apache, Blackhawk, etc, and I would imagine naval/usmc versions as well.

 

[pkcasimir]

The V280 could be quite an important aircraft going into the future. Replacing Apache, Blackhawk, etc, and I would imagine naval/usmc versions as well.

Personally, I would put my money on the Bell/Sikorsky SB>Defiant.to beat out the V-280. The Defiant is based on the existing X2 design/technology into which Bell/Sikorsky have put in a lot of money, time, demonstration and testing. It's not a clean sheet design like the V-280 and will be moving a lot faster into production and demonstrating that it can meet the performance standards the US Army has demanded. The US Army just can't help remembering the troubled Osprey program and the decades it took to get it to its present state. It's still very expensive to operate.
And these are technology demonstrators. The current Blackhawk has a top speed of about 140 kts and cruises at about 120 knots. The US Army is asking for a 50% increase. (The V-280 gets its name from Bell's statement that it will reach 280 kts.) That's a huge leap.

The US Army still is deciding, or more probably trying to find the funds, to continue the work on the other two designs that entered and .lost. The Karem TR36TD, for instance, promises a top speed of 360 kts, well beyond the competition. But one can see how the US Army selection committee decided to be safe and not get involved in an even bigger technology leap than it already was calling for. The AVX design just blew me away. But then, it's only on paper.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Personally, I would put my money on the Bell/Sikorsky SB>Defiant.to beat out the V-280. The Defiant is based on the existing X2 design/technology into which Bell/Sikorsky have put in a lot of money, time, demonstration and testing. It's not a clean sheet design like the V-280 and will be moving a lot faster into production and demonstrating that it can meet the performance standards the US Army has demanded. The US Army just can't help remembering the troubled Osprey program and the decades it took to get it to its present state. It's still very expensive to operate.
And these are technology demonstrators. The current Blackhawk has a top speed of about 140 kts and cruises at about 120 knots. The US Army is asking for a 50% increase. (The V-280 gets its name from Bell's statement that it will reach 280 kts.) That's a huge leap.

The US Army still is deciding, or more probably trying to find the funds, to continue the work on the other two designs that entered and .lost. The Karem TR36TD, for instance, promises a top speed of 360 kts, well beyond the competition. But one can see how the US Army selection committee decided to be safe and not get involved in an even bigger technology leap than it already was calling for. The AVX design just blew me away. But then, it's only on paper.

Speed offers a huge advantage, so I can see higher speed being very attractive. But so many programs have been stagnant or have difficulties because of unrealistic targets (US amphibious vehicle replacement for example).

The AVX design is also quite neat, I would imagine rear door access would help with deployment. I would imagine coaxial rotor would be cheaper to operate than tilt wing designs. Would also make it easier regarding auto rotation targets. But I would be interested to see how the range is affected, I would have thought the tilt wing would have been less drag so would have a greater range benefit.

 

[pkcasimir]

But I would be interested to see how the range is affected, I would have thought the tilt wing would have been less drag so would have a greater range benefit.[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right about the decreased range of the AVX proposal. There are no firm numbers but I would expect it to be at least 30-35% less than the V-280 and that's being conservative.

 

[StevoJH]

I know that there are probably reasons why no one ever replicated it, but when projects like this are suggested, I always think of the Fairy Rotordyne.

It just seems like a really impressive project for the 1950's, and makes me wonder what would be possible if it was revived with modern composites, engines and electronics.

 

[pkcasimir]

I know that there are probably reasons why no one ever replicated it, but when projects like this are suggested, I always think of the Fairy Rotordyne.

It just seems like a really impressive project for the 1950's, and makes me wonder what would be possible if it was revived with modern composites, engines and electronics.

To be blunt about it, the problem with the Rotordyne is that it was a British project. US helicopter companies were going in a different direction and were not interested in pursuing a rival technology controlled by a British Government that they knew would give them all kinds of problems should they attempt to acquire the technology. They could see how the British Government screwed over its own domestic aircraft industry. In any event, I don't know if the noise problems could ever have been successfully conquered. Once you start adding on all of that extra "stuff" to suppress the noise, you wind up with a mess.
The European and American helicopter industries, today, just have no interest in the technology and just don't want to go there. You are basically starting from scratch and it would take an enormous investment of company money. I don't see any military interest and as a commercial venture, I don't see city to city helicopter transportation profitable. There's always the bottom line.

 

[StingrayOZ]

It just seems like a really impressive project for the 1950's, and makes me wonder what would be possible if it was revived with modern composites, engines and electronics.

Like the eurocopter X3?

There is still some potential in it. But I don't see it getting a look in for the americans as they are much further along with other developments. But I wouldn't be suprised if some UAV's adopted these airframes in the future.

I still think something that is fast and has greater range has much greater impact as a connector, greater reach and greater speed are useful together.

 

[StevoJH]

Like the eurocopter X3?

There is still some potential in it. But I don't see it getting a look in for the americans as they are much further along with other developments. But I wouldn't be suprised if some UAV's adopted these airframes in the future.

I still think something that is fast and has greater range has much greater impact as a connector, greater reach and greater speed are useful together.

Scaled up and if it can maintain the same speeds or higher? Definitely.

255 knots while slower then the cruising speed of the Dash 8's used by Qantas Link, is still quite rapid, especially since a scaled up X3 would not need a long runway to operate. Fuel economy would of course also have an impact in whether it could be economically viable however.

For a European example, London would be a good candidate for this airport, whether operating from London city airport, or a large heliport.

Of course, if they were reliable enough, they could also make a decent troop transport offering similar speeds to the Osprey.