A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.
Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.
In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Well so far, ITEP seems to be on track. They actually have selected a contractor and have a real engine (T901). It appears it'll be ready on time, which is why Army still mandates its use for FARA by both bidders. The bigger problem for that program is that the program manager and a number of engineers say that aircraft, as presently specified, can't be built and defies the laws of physics. It's not that the engine won't be ready or won't deliver as promised, but that even if it does a vehicle with the specified engine, the specified weight, with the specified rotor size delivering the specified speed carrying the specified load over the specified range is beyond current technology.
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.
Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.
In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Well so far, ITEP seems to be on track. They actually have selected a contractor and have a real engine (T901). It appears it'll be ready on time, which is why Army still mandates its use for FARA by both bidders. The bigger problem for that program is that the program manager and a number of engineers say that aircraft, as presently specified, can't be built and defies the laws of physics. It's not that the engine won't be ready or won't deliver as promised, but that even if it does a vehicle with the specified engine, the specified weight, with the specified rotor size delivering the specified speed carrying the specified load over the specified range is beyond current technology.
You are probably correct. The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
On the topic of NOE with UAV (sized adequately for the mission), recall that DARPA and Sikorsky just flew the first fully autonomous helicopter at altitude from point A to B. There is no doubt that in time UAV with appropriate sensing could be made to do NOE, but many of those require some form of emission(s) to locate obstacles. Sensing minute emissions is a capability almost all of the "first tier" militaries. While finding armored formations may not be difficult any more, finding nefarious people hiding in villages and forest is still a bit more challenging, so I agree with @shin_getter and @TomcatViP
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
Now give them to the Marines and see how long they still work. (I imagine they'll be done the first time they saw off the tail to fit it down the elevator. )
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.
Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.
In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Well so far, ITEP seems to be on track. They actually have selected a contractor and have a real engine (T901). It appears it'll be ready on time, which is why Army still mandates its use for FARA by both bidders. The bigger problem for that program is that the program manager and a number of engineers say that aircraft, as presently specified, can't be built and defies the laws of physics. It's not that the engine won't be ready or won't deliver as promised, but that even if it does a vehicle with the specified engine, the specified weight, with the specified rotor size delivering the specified speed carrying the specified load over the specified range is beyond current technology.
I would think that the built-in capability to act as a drop-in replacement for T700s in the enduring fleet means that there is a need for this engine beyond FARA. I'd be surprised if the T901 were canceled at this point.
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.
Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.
In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Well so far, ITEP seems to be on track. They actually have selected a contractor and have a real engine (T901). It appears it'll be ready on time, which is why Army still mandates its use for FARA by both bidders. The bigger problem for that program is that the program manager and a number of engineers say that aircraft, as presently specified, can't be built and defies the laws of physics. It's not that the engine won't be ready or won't deliver as promised, but that even if it does a vehicle with the specified engine, the specified weight, with the specified rotor size delivering the specified speed carrying the specified load over the specified range is beyond current technology.
I would think that the built-in capability to act as a drop-in replacement for T700s in the enduring fleet means that there is a need for this engine beyond FARA. I'd be surprised if the T901 were canceled at this point.
T901 will survive as it is to replace all of the T700 series in the Army. That was the logic that sold it. I suspect that over time it will bifurcate into "C's" and "D's", etc., between all of the aircraft with necessities particular to the specific platform. @VTOLicious - you are correct, I will be interested in seeing what "secret sauce" Sikorsky has used to have sufficient power for a platform that is roughly the same weight as Bell. I assumed it would be a necessity for both.
Army leaders from the United States and United Kingdom signed a Future Vertical Lift Cooperative Program Feasibility Assessment project arrangement on behalf of their respective countries’ services on Feb. 14, 2022, pledging to work together to ensure interoperability between the two nations’ future rotorcraft aviation forces.
Under the arrangement signed by Maj. Gen. Walter “Wally” Rugen, the U.S. Army Future Command’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team director, and Major-General James Bowder, Director Futures, the two nations will share information about their future rotorcraft requirements and programs. They will also explore and analyze new concepts for the employment of coalition air power in the lower-tier air domain, the air space where Army aviation typically operates. Through this joint analysis, the U.S. and U.K. will be able to assess the benefits, risks and overall feasibility of rotorcraft cooperation between the two allies. This arrangement is in addition to an already existing partnership the U.K. has with the U.S. Army and Navy that aims to reduce the divergence between the two countries’ open-system architectures, a key component to keeping pace with emerging technology and rapid adaptability and capability evolution.
Program objectives include:
· Identifying opportunities to reduce future rotorcraft program cost, schedule and performance risk.
· Enabling and improving rotorcraft interoperability and integration between the armed forces.
· Assessing the feasibility of and identifying and assessing risks associated with pursuing future cooperation in the Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, production, sustainment, and follow-on development of future rotorcraft.
· Providing the two nations with information to use in their respective national decision-making processes.
· Promoting future rotorcraft cooperative RDT&E.
· Developing plans for cooperation in future phases of the U.S. Department of Defense FVL program.
US and UK armies agree to share FVL program info 02 Under the arrangement signed by Maj. Gen. Walter “Wally” Rugen, the U.S. Army Future Command’s Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team director, and Major-General James Bowder, Director Futures, the two nations will share information about their future rotorcraft requirements and programs. They will also explore and analyze new concepts for the employment of coalition air power in the lower-tier air domain, the air space where Army aviation typically operates (Picture source: US Army)
Army leaders from the United States and United Kingdom signed a Future Vertical Lift Cooperative Program Feasibility Assessment project arrangement on behalf of their respective countries’ services on Feb. 14, 2022, pledging to work together to ensure interoperability between the two nations’...
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
The FARA has enough challenges with performance, to the point that while neither has "two" engines, both have "supplemental power units", likely to allow them to get to the mandated cruise speed of 180 knots.
I recall an article late last year where Sikorsky admitted to also implementing a variant SPU system, but I think it was behind a paywall and I am now having a hard time locating it.
FVL always was a pure Army thing. Other services are watching it to see if they can leverage some of the technology and vehicles, especially FLRAA, although USAF seems to be ruminating a program of their own to preempt Army's FVL CS5. In the case of FARA, none of the other services even have a mission like that.
Founded in 1943 as the American Helicopter Society (AHS), the Vertical Flight Society is the world's oldest and largest technical society dedicated to advancing vertical flight technology.
He means UK Army Air Corps, no 'Brillcream Boys' aka Royal Air Force there...
All 3 services in the UK operate helos, weirdly the AAC gets to operate Scouts, Attack Helo's and Light Utility, but the Support Helicopter fleet (currently Chinook, Puma and Bell 212) is operated by the RAF. It's a farcical situation but seems impossible to be resolved. The ideal would of course mean the entire SH fleet moves to AAC control (mind you it would make sense if the RPAS programmes exc Reaper moved there as well...).
FVL always was a pure Army thing. Other services are watching it to see if they can leverage some of the technology and vehicles, especially FLRAA, although USAF seems to be ruminating a program of their own to preempt Army's FVL CS5. In the case of FARA, none of the other services even have a mission like that.
Well USN is now working FVL CS2 for their H-60 replacement. I suspect it will be ... a new H-60Z! Think the USMC is waiting to see which direction the US Army goes before going on its own. If the Army goes TR, I think USMC will lead the charge on a Block II version.
Inflation is killing any real growth in the budget, which is likely (maybe) to get smaller. So I don't know if USMC can fund a new platform and the 53K.
"I think we want to see interoperability as we digitize our forces, especially in our aviation formations. That's the focus," Brig. Gen. Robert Barrie, head of the US Army’s Program Executive Office-Aviation, told Breaking Defense.
FVL always was a pure Army thing. Other services are watching it to see if they can leverage some of the technology and vehicles, especially FLRAA, although USAF seems to be ruminating a program of their own to preempt Army's FVL CS5. In the case of FARA, none of the other services even have a mission like that.
Well USN is now working FVL CS2 for their H-60 replacement. I suspect it will be ... a new H-60Z! Think the USMC is waiting to see which direction the US Army goes before going on its own. If the Army goes TR, I think USMC will lead the charge on a Block II version.
Inflation is killing any real growth in the budget, which is likely (maybe) to get smaller. So I don't know if USMC can fund a new platform and the 53K.
"I think we want to see interoperability as we digitize our forces, especially in our aviation formations. That's the focus," Brig. Gen. Robert Barrie, head of the US Army’s Program Executive Office-Aviation, told Breaking Defense.
USN has indicated they don't need FLRAA's speed, so they'd have to weigh the cost of a derivative of it vs. the cost of developing what they want on their own. Keep in mind that USN, like USAF, has developed few helicopters of its own since Korea, H-3 being an exception, but has relied on modified versions of something the Marines (yes, I know they're part of USN) or Army has developed or a derivative of an existing civil craft. If Army goes TR, expect Marines to jump on that as a basis for AURA.
Oh wait. "Where would the money come from? Excellent question! Are there any other questions? No? Well, let me circle back on that. Thanks for listening".
There it is. Thanks for digging that up, I was getting a little frustrated.
That admission from the Army regarding Raider-X was from August 2021. Contrast those facts with the typical Sikorsky hubris aimed directly at Bell from 2 years earlier in August 2019:
Sikorsky says their Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft design will fly faster, with bigger weapons, than archrival Bell’s. Bell says theirs will be cheaper and more reliable.
breakingdefense.com
We weren’t trying to get every last bit of drag out to hit a speed requirement. We didn’t need to,” Malia said. “We are not doing anything cute or tricky by trying to add additional engines. We are using the power that’s available from the T901, and we’ve got a really solid design built around it.
There is a reason that Sikorsky is not showing pictures of their FARA submission under construction - claimed to be a the same level of completion as Bell. I presume one, or more, of the following:
They are actually behind schedule, again.
It would plainly show that they do, in fact, have an SPU system of some type installed and therefore would have to eat their own words.
They have made some significant configuration change (tandem?).
Fair point, but I just don't see SOAR seeing the volume of Invictus being satisfactory. I will freely admit that I don't know enough to make anything but a guess at this.
A similar thing happened with the osprey. When the J VX solicitation came out the contractors we're told the engines would be GFE, and they were given the power, size and weight specifications around which to plan their aircraft. There were 3 contestants. GE, Pratt , and Allison. GE and Pratt bid advanced technology engines, while Allison bid a derivative of an existing engine.
Although it was never formally announced, The Story Goes that the GE engine was the choice of the selection team. The story also is the head of the selection team made their recommendation, he was replaced and the higher ups made the award to Allison. The Allison engine had more power, but it was heavier and burned more fuel than the advanced technology engines. As a result, bell-boeing reported that with that engine they would not be able to achieve the range, wait and certain hover requirements for jvx. Some of the requirements were then lowered, because it was the government's decision that made the aircraft unable to meet some of the requirements. I wonder if we'll see something similar with FLRAA.
In an ironic note, a derivative of that GE engine now powers the CH-53K.
Well so far, ITEP seems to be on track. They actually have selected a contractor and have a real engine (T901). It appears it'll be ready on time, which is why Army still mandates its use for FARA by both bidders.
I am recently hearing that ITEP is most definitely not on track, to the point that the FARA program may get pushed because of it since they are standing firm on not allowing an alternate stand-in engine for flight testing of the CP airframes.
Army in 2019 attempted to accelerate T901 by about a year so it would be usable for the FARA flyoff. Thanks to Covid hitting in 2020 and problems with certain equipment, they've lost 3-6 months of that. As of last October that plan was to reach a provisional flight release milestone in late 2022. This would be in a UH-60M. As of last October, Army still felt they'd be able to have usable engines that, even if they weren't up to full production standard, would be able to support the FARA flyoff. If not, it seems they'd use the T706 from the UH-60M for the flyoff to get enough information to make a selection and use T901s in production aircraft.
No offense @F-14D aimed at you, but I have heard this music before. While I understand COVID has had an impact, it is the "problems with certain equipment" that raises my eyebrow. I have yet to see any flying proof that the T901 operates as advertised. Test stands are one thing, actually putting the engine in the field as getting the results are another.
To be sure the Army has enough challenge with getting FARA in the air without engine problems, namely acceptance from the OSD UAS fan boys who write the checks, but a rotorcraft with suboptimal rotor diameter and engines that may meet specifications bodes ill.
Correct. The schedule slipping now is the accelerated schedule. And the plan remains to use the 2600 shp engine that's been flying with the 160th SOAR. I think most people expected this even before COVID. There's definitely been a backup plan from the get go once whoever got the wild hair to attempt to get the T901 ready for the FARA prototypes.
Correct. The schedule slipping now is the accelerated schedule. And the plan remains to use the 2600 shp engine that's been flying with the 160th SOAR. I think most people expected this even before COVID. There's definitely been a backup plan from the get go once whoever got the wild hair to attempt to get the T901 ready for the FARA prototypes.
The SOAR 2600 shp? T607? Is that a "plug and play" engine like to 901 is suppose to be for for 701? No engineer here, but if it is not, I would assume there would be some changes required to the FARA prototypes to accept a new engine.
The SOAR 2600 shp? T607? Is that a "plug and play" engine like to 901 is suppose to be for for 701? No engineer here, but if it is not, I would assume there would be some changes required to the FARA prototypes to accept a new engine.
YT706, which is currently mounted in the Raider, also. The engines (YT706T901) have roughly the same diameter (25-26") and length (48.2-48.8"). Might not be exactly plug and play, but shouldn't require major work to integrate.
There's also an existing upgrade path for YT706 aiming for 3,000 shp started for the ill-fated VH-71 program, which is potentially added insurance against the T901 development (if someone throws money at it).
So far, the problems don't seem to with the design just with the actual resources to finish developing the thing under the accelerated schedule. There doesn't seem to be that much concern (yet) with developing the engine under the original schedule, just trying to do it sooner in time to be used in the FARA flyoffs. Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.
You know, the same thing happened with the F-14. It was known that the aircraft would be ready for flight testing before the definitive engine (from either GE or Pratt) would be available. So it was decided for the first 13-69 airframes initial development/testing/training would be done with the "interim" engine, the TF30. And the rest is sad history...
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.
The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
)
