FLRAA - Future Long Range Assault Aircraft

[Ol Paint]

I was going to necropost to this thread, but opted for a new topic.

https://www.twz.com/air/armys-future-tiltrotor-gets-heavier-so-it-can-rapidly-convert-into-special-ops-variant

Quote

The U.S. Army has incorporated special operations-specific requirements into the design of its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) tiltrotor, which has led to an unspecified increase in gross weight. The changes are intended to make it cheaper and easier to convert baseline FLRAAs into special operations versions for the Army’s elite 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment (SOAR)...

--SNIP--

...“So we did an engineering analysis, which is now turned into the detailed design on that,” Keogh added. The Army’s FLRAA program manager and the service’s Program Executive Office for Aviation (PEO-Aviation) “took our engineering analysis with the initial cuts at the detailed design. They looked at it, they looked at the weight trades – it did add a little bit of weight to the baseline of that aircraft – but they said, ‘Hey, this buys us future growth capability for mission equipment, as well,’ and they inserted those into the baseline aircraft.”

If I'm reading this right, the Army is going to increase the weight of the FLRAA that's intended to replace approximately 1,300 H-60s to suit the needs of the 160th SOAR, which currently operates about 72 H-60 variants.  I'm all for adding margin for future growth, but I'd really like to know what the tradeoffs were.

At least the program is still in the EMD phase, so maybe it'll work out without having significant impact, but time will tell.

Doug

[Ivanhoe]

If the Army is serious about switching focus to a South Pacific island-hopping scenario, as they claim, I don't think the Army can afford enough FLRAAs to have them function as Blackhawk replacements. The speed/distance/payload demands of the Pacific theater are just tough to accomplish.

Adding SOCOM's mission equipment package to the Valor design is just going to push the FLRAA closer to MV-22 dimensions, and we don't need that.

I'd prefer to actually downsize the design to roughly 10 dismounts. Treat it not as an aerial APC, but rather as an aerial IFV. They are being smart to design in all the high-dollar SOCOM luxury features, rather than the hideous bolt-on approach of the HH-60s, but stuffing 10 pounds of taters into an 8 pound sack rarely works out well. Use Shithooks for bulk transport and bus service.

XV-15; 27 lb/sq ft disc loading

FLRAA; 32 lb/sq ft

MV-22; 36 lb/sq ft

For the given rotor design of the Valor, I'd like to see MTOW get down from 31,000 lb to 29,000  or even 28,000 lb. I.e. a scaled-up XV-15 rather than a scaled-down V-22. Especially if you are going to have 160th stick jockeys doing crazy things in it.

 

[futon]

For the Pacific, just garrison the various locations. Don't plan on losing sea control. Give FLRAA money to the Navy for F-35Cs, Block 3 F-18s, 2 subs a year construction pace.

Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and a possibly even South Korea can help garrison some places throughout the theatre.

 

 

[seahawk]

There are other UH-60 versions that have some form of specialised equipment. HH, MH versions and in the long-run I think baseline will also get more goodies. 

[TrustMe]

7 hours ago, futon said:

For the Pacific, but garrison the various locations. Don't plan on losing sea control. Give FLRAA money to the Navy for F-35Cs, Block 3 F-18s, 2 subs a year construction pace.

Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and a possibly even South Korea can help garrison some places throughout the theatre.

 

 

 

The Japanese tried that during WW2 but there island fortress's got bypassed and ended up just logistical nightmares.

[futon]

19 minutes ago, TrustMe said:

 

The Japanese tried that during WW2 but there island fortress's got bypassed and ended up just logistical nightmares.

Japan lost control of the sea so the US was able to be selective as to where to penetrate and where to skip. 

Keep control of the sea and have no weak land areas that could be easy to capture to be used as access-denial against sea control. 

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, futon said:

Japan lost control of the sea so the US was able to be selective as to where to penetrate and where to skip. 

Keep control of the sea and have no weak land areas that could be easy to capture to be used as access-denial against sea control. 

Thanks for the insights.