Airbus Helicopters has been awarded a contract by the NATO Support and Procurement Agency (NSPA) to lead a concept study for the Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) project, according to a press release.
The study, set to last 13 months, will focus on the design, development, and delivery of a medium multi-role helicopter.
Airbus will collaborate with RTX’s Collins Aerospace, Raytheon businesses, and MBDA to analyse two integrated concepts of next-generation military rotorcraft.
“Taking part in this NATO study for the next generation of military rotorcraft offers a unique opportunity to leverage our experience working with the different European armed forces,” said Bruno Even, CEO of Airbus Helicopters.
He discussed the goal of developing a European solution that meets the needs of NATO armed forces while ensuring industrial sovereignty and maintaining key engineering competencies. “This project will be fully interoperable with other NATO means,” he added.
NSPA General Manager Stacy A. Cummings highlighted the significance of this initiative. “The launch of Concept Study #5 is a significant milestone for the NGRC concept stage activities,” she said. Cummings noted that the strategy of launching three parallel contracts awarded by competition aims to maximise industry expertise and provide a broad range of potential concepts for multinational customers.
The project involves participation from France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States, Ireland, and Italy, with each country contributing through partner companies in areas such as helicopter design, systems integration, connectivity, weapons, avionics, and sensors.
The study will emphasise modular and multi-mission rotorcraft with high performance, NATO interoperability, and resilient communication systems.
The NSPA, headquartered in Luxembourg with operational centres in France, Hungary, and Italy, is NATO’s primary organisation for multinational acquisition, support, and sustainment across all domains. The agency employs over 1,500 staff and manages more than 500 contractors worldwide.
This news piece is inaccurate. As Leonardo and Sikorsky along with Airbus have been chosen by NATO to develop Next Generation Rotorcraft Capability (NGRC) concepts. Not just Airbus alone, as the piece alludes to. The NGRC program seeks an optionally crewed aircraft capable of carrying 12 to 16 heavily-equipped troops, with a range of over 900 nautical miles (1,670 kilometers) in “combat configuration,” and a speed of at least 180 knots/330 kilometers per hour (and possibly over 220 knots/400 km/h). This is a significantly lower specification requirement than the US Army’s Future Vertical Lift – medium (FVL-M). If anything this… Read more »
Yes I now understand, I think, thanks for all the info.
Yes. i was coming writing that. I would expect that UKDJ would not just post PR:
Very interesting post 🍺
While reading your post and the insightful explanation, I was thinking about a wing to compensate. Wonder what the pros/cons are and why they didn’t introduce such a concept in some form in Defiant. In some ways I rather like its concept. Wonder how it compares to the Airbus Racer concept where wings do indeed contribute somewhat which suggests a winged Defiant is possible, just the balance of pro/cons I guess.
.
Hi Spy, I think I can answer the question. Though I don’t work for Boeing or Sikorsky, so a lot will be based on assumptions and experience. The Defiant was built on the knowledge gained from the Advance Blade Concept aircraft S-69, X2 and Raider. The S-69, X2 and Raider test aircraft use a coaxial rotor head design, but the S-69 also incorporated a pair of small turbojets mounted either side of the fuselage. This was later changed that incorporated a small wing with the turbojets mounted to it. The Rotor-blades were rigidly fitted to the rotor head. So they… Read more »
whoe5 gets it I hope they can build them fast.
Come on Andy…Fast?🙂
So, remind me, what was wrong with the Fairy Rotodyne?
Noise was the biggest issue, and to be honest the concept was probably ahead of the available tech. But as I have said before someone should re look at it, the basic engineering is far simpler and efficient than a tilt rotor. We have far more advanced materials, FBW, lighter and more powerful Turboprops and way more understanding of diverting gas flows and noise control.
Simple is frowned when there are billions to develop lots of associated technologies for other projects.
How many signatures can we get on a letter to Leonardo telling them to restart development?
George, please, please set this up, it would be for the good of the world.
There is another option. The Rotordyne initially designed and built by Fairey. Who were then merged with Westlands by the Government in 1960. Who themselves are now part of Leonardo. Pretty sure Fairey would have patented the Rotordyne concept, so its ownership would have transferred to Westlands etc. But what is the life of a patent and was it renewed. If it has lapsed, then anyone can use the concept without license. Do they still have IP rights after all this time? So instead of getting Leonardo to relook at the concept, who currently are more focused on tilt-rotors. Is… Read more »
I may have replied to your previous post on the matter (I did someone’s) but I know I read earlier in the year some company was indeed rehashing the concept but I just can’t remember anything else about it, it was probably on New Atlas. Wasn’t the noise problem that it used rotor tip jets?
Hi Spy, yes we did have an earlier conversation. The tip jets can be likened to giant Bunsen burners, though internally similar to a ram jet. Pressurised air is either taken from an engine bleed, or dedicated high pressure air pumps. This along with fuel is fed up through the rotor head, along tubes in the blades then to the tip jets where its burnt. The noise generated was slightly less noisy than a turbojet, but still loud – I recall possibly 117dBs (but will need to check). Fairey/Westlands just before the Government pulled the plug, had tested a new… Read more »
Not much at all. And they had ideas in hand for reducing noise. We should re-look at it. Seriously.
I think you are right, noise is not quite the problem as compared to civilian use anyway esp when limited to only one part of the flight regime, but such a concept with modern control advances would surely offer short take off and landing possibilities too over its rivals.