3 octobre 2019 | International, Aérospatial

Bell dévoile le 360 Invictus, un nouvel hélicoptère d’attaque et de reconnaissance pour l’US Army

PAR LAURENT LAGNEAU

Outre le renouvellement de ses véhicules blindés, confié à la « Next Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team », l'US Army a également lancé le plan Future Vertical Lift, lequel doit lui permettre de remplacer une grande partie de ses voilures tournantes ères à l'horizon 2028/30.

En avril, dans le cadre du Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft [FARA], un sous-programme de ce plan, l'US Army a pré-sélectionné cinq industriels qui devront chacun présenter un prototype. Ont donc été retenus Karem Aircraft [associé à Raytheon et Northrop Grumman], Boeing, AVX Aircraft [avec L3], Sikorsky [groupe Lockheed-Martin] et Bell [filiale de Textron].

Selon les spécifications de l'US Army, ce futur hélicoptère d'attaque doit loger dans la soute d'un avion de transport C-17, voler à la vitesse de 200 noeuds, présenter une architecture modulaire, mettre en oeuvre des drones et se passer, le cas échéant, d'équipage pour certaines missions, en particulier dans les environnements fortements contestés. Et son coût devra être « abordable ».

Depuis, et alors que Boeing et Karem Aircraft sont encore discrets sur les intentions, AVX Aircraft a présenté le concept Compound Coaxial Helicopter [CCH], qui repose sur un hélicoptère doté de commandes de vol électriques, d'un rotor contrarotatif et de deux turbines. Quant à Sikorsky, il mise sur son S-97 Raider, également muni d'un rotor contrarotatif, complété par une hélice propulsive.

De son côté, le 2 octobre, soit après avoir annoncé un partenariat avec Collins Aerospace pour le système de mission et l'avionique, Bell a levé le voile sur le « 360 Invictus » [tiré du mot latin signifiant « invicible » ou du poème du même nom signé William Ernest Henley?].

Reprenant des technologies développées pour le Bell 525 Relentless, notamment au niveau du rotor, cet appareil serait en mesure de voler à une vitesse supérieure à 185 noeuds [cela dépendra de sa configuration]. Côté armement, il sera équipé d'un canon de 20 mm et pourra emporter des missiles air-sol. Son rayon d'action devrait être de l'ordre de 135 nautiques, avec la possibilité de rester 90 minutes sur zone.

« La lutte multi-domaines sera complexe et notre équipe fournit une solution hautement performante et à faible risque pour répondre en toute confiance aux exigences opérationnelles avec une flotte durable », a fait valoir Vince Tobin, le directeur des affaires militaires chez Bell.

En effet, disposant de commandes de vol électriques, le Bell 360 Invictus fera appel à des technologies déjà éprouvées ainsi qu'à quelques innovations issues de programmes civils et militaires. Procéder de la sorte permet ainsi à l'industriel d'être très compétitif en terme de coûts, l'US Army ayant fixé à 30 millions de dollars le prix unitaire de ses futurs hélicoptères d'attaque et de reconnaissance.

Les autres constructeurs qui ne l'ont pas encore fait devraient prochainement abattre leurs cartes, la prochaine phase du programme FARA devant commencer en 2020, après la sélection de deux concepts.

http://www.opex360.com/2019/10/03/bell-devoile-le-360-invictus-un-nouvel-helicoptere-dattaque-et-de-reconnaissance-pour-lus-army/

Sur le même sujet

  • US Air Force wants to retire all A-10s by 2029

    9 mars 2023 | International, Aérospatial

    US Air Force wants to retire all A-10s by 2029

    “The A-10 is a great airplane … in an uncontested environment,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. CQ Brown said.

  • To keep up with our competitors, America must boost shipbuilding

    30 juillet 2020 | International, Naval

    To keep up with our competitors, America must boost shipbuilding

    By: Sen. David Perdue Right now, the world is more dangerous than any time in my lifetime. The United States faces five major threats: China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and terrorism. We face those threats across five domains: air, land, sea, cyberspace and space. The U.S. Navy is one of the most effective tools we as a country have to maintain peace and stability around the world. Today, however, the Navy is in danger of being surpassed in capability by our near-peer competitors. On top of that, our competitors are becoming even more brazen in their attempts to challenge our Navy every day. To address this, the 2018 National Defense Authorization Act called for a 355-ship Navy to be built as soon as possible. This effort is extremely expensive: $31 billion per year for 30 years. This can't be funded by new debt. We must reallocate resources to fund this priority. It is unclear at this time whether we will be able to achieve this goal, however, because Washington politicians have failed to provide consistent funding to our shipbuilding enterprise over the years. The last two Democratic presidents reduced military spending by 25 percent. Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did it. Also, since 1975, Congress has only funded the government on time on four occasions due to our broken budget process. As a result, Congress forces the military in most years to operate under continuing resolutions, which further restricts the Navy's efforts to rebuild. These shortsighted decisions by Washington have had draconian effects on our military readiness. They have decimated our industrial supplier base and severely damaged critical supply chains. According to a 2018 report from the Pentagon, the entire Department of Defense lost over 20,000 U.S.-based industrial suppliers from 2000 to 2018. This means that, today, many shipbuilding components have just one U.S.-based supplier, and others are entirely outsourced to other countries. This is one of the reasons why it is doubtful that we can reach 355 ships unless major changes are made immediately. If we don't strengthen our industrial supplier base, there is simply no way to scale up ship production and maintenance capabilities to meet the requirements of a 355-ship fleet. The Department of Defense has not yet released this year's 30-year shipbuilding plan as required by law, and time is running out to reach the Navy's most recent projection of a 355-ship fleet by 2034. However, even if the Department of Defense has a solid, achievable plan to only reach 355 ships, I am skeptical that it will be enough. I am skeptical because America's biggest long-term challenge, China, is already running laps around us on shipbuilding. The Chinese Navy has 350 ships today, compared to our 300. By 2034, China is projected to have more than 425 ships. Even if we reached 355 ships, we would still have a 70-ship disadvantage, at the least. On top of that, because of the range restrictions in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, which just ended in 2019, China has surpassed, or “out-sticked,” us in some missile capabilities as well. There are several steps we can take to respond to these developments. For starters, we need to place greater emphasis on funding our shipbuilding enterprise. Also, we need to rebuild our industrial supply chains through consistent, robust funding and by eliminating continuing resolutions. This year's NDAA takes critical steps to ensure we can keep up with our near-peer competitors and keep our country safe. It authorizes an increase of more than $1 billion for the construction of new submarines, destroyers and amphibious dock ships. It invests hundreds of millions of dollars to support our industrial supplier base. However, more work remains to be done in the coming years. We need to dramatically build up our Navy beyond 355 ships to ensure that the American-led free world can continue. President Teddy Roosevelt once said that “a good Navy is not a provocation to war. It is the surest guarantee of peace.” If we don't continue ramping up our shipbuilding enterprise right now, the world that we will be passing on to our children and grandchildren will only continue to grow more dangerous. Sen. David Perdue, R-Ga., is the chairman of the Seapower Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee. https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/07/29/to-keep-up-with-our-competitors-america-must-boost-shipbuilding/

  • Can The Army Convince Congress It’s Learned From FCS?

    17 mars 2020 | International, Terrestre

    Can The Army Convince Congress It’s Learned From FCS?

    The reboot of the Bradley replacement reminded many on the Hill of past procurement disasters like the Future Combat System. Can the Army exorcise the specter of FCS? By SYDNEY J. FREEDBERG JR. CAPITOL HILL: “This is the Army's third attempt at replacing the Bradley,” the grim-faced chairman of defense appropriations, Rep. Pete Visclosky, warned Army officials last week. “We've been told, time and again, that this time it is different.... but the first large acquisition program that has come out of the Army Futures Command has fallen flat. You do need to convince this committee today that our continued support of modernization will eventually be a good investment.” At three hearings in the last two weeks, members of the House bombarded Army leaders with questions about the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle, the semi-robotic replacement for the Reagan-era M2 Bradley. The Army cancelled its original competition after every vendor either dropped out or failed to meet requirements, then rebooted OMFV on a new, less rushed schedule that began with humbly seeking industry's input on what was actually possible. “We learned early on this program [that] there was confusion over the requirements,” the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. James McConville, told appropriators. With the new approach of listening assiduously to industry, he said, “we think we can save time up front and get the vehicle we need...and have requirements that we know industry can meet.” That was met with some skepticism. “That sounds great, general, but I wonder why we didn't start this process, you know, a long time ago,” replied the panel's ranking Republican, Rep. Ken Calvert. “What happened?” “I think what happened, Congressman, is we have learned,” said McConville, not quite answering the question. “We are learning with industry. We're learning with our acquisition folks who are used to doing it the old way, where we spent [10-14 years] developing requirements [and] a system, and then investing a lot of money in it, and finding out at the end we didn't get what we wanted. So, we are stopping early and we are redefining the way we do the process to encourage innovation.” So what's the new schedule? That's the question Rep. Paul Mitchell asked, without getting a clear answer, in two different House Armed Services Committee hearings, on March 3rd and March 5th. https://breakingdefense.com/2020/03/can-the-army-convince-congress-its-learned-from-fcs

Toutes les nouvelles