Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
As to how the FARA contenders meet the stated requirements, I will agree with you that we are not yet privy to all of the specifications of the contenders.As to engines, we will see. I recall that the Army has now gotten to the "F" model H-47 with all sorts of technology and engines and is still trying to regain the capabilities of the original aircraft requirement for lift. I will be very happy if the 901 lives up to the claims. O&S costs related to flight hours directly. So if an aircraft is able to do a mission in half the time it is not incurring as much O&S as the slower aircraft. I know this is not a 1 for 1 cost calculation. Also recall that the H-60 is a "utility" helicopter which is military parlance for "pick up truck". It mostly does unglamorous missions. So productivity is a function of the mission for these aircraft. The more missions that can be completed in a given day of flight operations has indirect impact on the value of the O&S cost. The U.S. Army was not able to complete more than half of the missions requested on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan due to aircraft availability (maintenance) and the dispersed nature of the forces in theater. In major combat operations it is likely that a significant number of units will be spread out over larger areas to reduce vulnerability of the force. Army writings call for the aircraft to operate from relative sanctuary. So they are operating further away than they have in the past. I think the Army will go with an existing engine for FLRAA while the FATE engine effort slowly progresses at reduced funding. The 901 took far longer than originally expected to develop due to reduced funding.Sorry for the stream of consciousness aspect of this post but it is Sunday morning and I have only had one cup of coffee.
As to how the FARA contenders meet the stated requirements, I will agree with you that we are not yet privy to all of the specifications of the contenders.
As to engines, we will see. I recall that the Army has now gotten to the "F" model H-47 with all sorts of technology and engines and is still trying to regain the capabilities of the original aircraft requirement for lift. I will be very happy if the 901 lives up to the claims. O&S costs related to flight hours directly. So if an aircraft is able to do a mission in half the time it is not incurring as much O&S as the slower aircraft. I know this is not a 1 for 1 cost calculation. Also recall that the H-60 is a "utility" helicopter which is military parlance for "pick up truck". It mostly does unglamorous missions. So productivity is a function of the mission for these aircraft. The more missions that can be completed in a given day of flight operations has indirect impact on the value of the O&S cost. The U.S. Army was not able to complete more than half of the missions requested on a daily basis in Iraq and Afghanistan due to aircraft availability (maintenance) and the dispersed nature of the forces in theater. In major combat operations it is likely that a significant number of units will be spread out over larger areas to reduce vulnerability of the force. Army writings call for the aircraft to operate from relative sanctuary. So they are operating further away than they have in the past. I think the Army will go with an existing engine for FLRAA while the FATE engine effort slowly progresses at reduced funding. The 901 took far longer than originally expected to develop due to reduced funding.
Sorry for the stream of consciousness aspect of this post but it is Sunday morning and I have only had one cup of coffee.
