JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

[VTOLicious]

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

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

 

[Spyclip]

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

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

 

[VTOLicious]

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

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

Ok, so no second source.

Thank you for confirming that RaiderX does not have an SPU a la 360.

 

[F-14D]

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

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

You know, if Sikorsky waits much longer to reveal they in fact need an SPU, even if it was always was in the plans, this could be perceived as a deficiency. In other words, the perception could be that ,regardless of the reality, the design wasn't going to meet their promises so they had to add a SPU,. Of course, if they can't get T901 power at T901 weight, both competitors will have a tough time meeting the requirements SPU or no.

But then didn't the program manager say that even with T901 power an aircraft that meets all the FARA specs at present can't be built?

 

[Spyclip]

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

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

Ok, so no second source.

Thank you for confirming that RaiderX does not have an SPU a la 360.

You didn't have to ask me. Trimble went on record in the article you found saying it does (probably to Sikorsky's chagrin). Why do you need a second source? Do you not trust a reporter who has been a pillar of the defense news industry for over 20 years?

 

[VTOLicious]

This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “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..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.

 

[Spyclip]

This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “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..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.

If you choose to believe Sikorsky's claims versus what is reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media, that is your prerogative. But you should look closely at their history and statements with FLRAA and anything to do with X2 for that matter.

To many in the industry, they have long since lost the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, the whole SPU situation will be public in due time.

 

[VTOLicious]

This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “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..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.

If you choose to believe Sikorsky's claims versus what is reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media, that is your prerogative. But you should look closely at their history and statements with FLRAA and anything to do with X2 for that matter.

To many in the industry, they have long since lost the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, the whole SPU situation will be public in due time.

"reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media"

All I'm asking for is a source other than the AW-article.

 

[yasotay]

https://www.defensenews.com/native/lockheed-martin/2022/02/23/switching-cost
-for-the-armys-future-long-range-assault-aircraft-program-its-more-than-just
-money/

Lockheed Martin/Boeing piece on FLRAA. No surprises the tack they are taking.

 

[yasotay]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/03/tough_budget_environment_raises_stakes_for_armys_decision_on_future_long-range_assault_aircraft_819778.html

More Lockheed Martin / Boeing

 

[skyblue]

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2022/03/03/tough_budget_environment_raises_stakes_for_armys_decision_on_future_long-range_assault_aircraft_819778.html

More Lockheed Martin / Boeing

Russia’s Invasion Will Boost 2023 Defense Budget, Top Democrat Says

Rep. Adam Smith: Putin’s war “fundamentally altered what our national security posture” needs to be.

www.defenseone.com

I wonder if FLRAA will still have funding difficulties. Just as the Army was diminishing in importance relative to the Pacific oriented Navy and Airforce, suddenly an Army somewhat adrift has found VERY good reason to enhance the defenses needed for a land war in Europe. What whiplash, from the middle east to a pivot toward the pacific and now refocused back to Europe. Not that the threats in the Pacific have diminished at all...

 

[shin_getter]

I wonder if FLRAA will still have funding difficulties. Just as the Army was diminishing in importance relative to the Pacific oriented Navy and Airforce, suddenly an Army somewhat adrift has found VERY good reason to enhance the defenses needed for a land war in Europe. What whiplash, from the middle east to a pivot toward the pacific and now refocused back to Europe. Not that the threats in the Pacific have diminished at all...

It really depends on how the war gets resolved. If the European land threat actually just implode the whole case for investment gets weakened.

 

[yasotay]

FARA first flight targets hinge on timely engine deliveries

Delays to the GE Aviation T901 engine could knock the planned first flight dates for the two contenders for the US Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft contest.

www.flightglobal.com

Per our earlier discussion. Not overly suprising.

 

[yasotay]

I see an article on the FLIGHT GLOBAL website, behind the paywall, that says Sikorsky has ruled out the development of a civil X2 technology rotorcraft.
If nothing else I am suprised at the timing, with the impending FVL decision.

 

[H_K]

If nothing else I am suprised at the timing, with the impending FVL decision.

Here’s a few quotes from the article. Translation: “X2 is a technological dead end, and even tilt rotors are too expensive for commercial applications”.

Sikorsky rules out civil helicopter using X2 technology

Anyone hoping for a high-speed civil helicopter featuring Sikorsky's X2 co-axial compound technology looks set to be disappointed after the manufacturer explicitly ruled out such a development.

www.flightglobal.com

Sikorsky:

There had been an expectation that should Sikorsky win either of the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) or Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) contests then it would leverage the volumes involved to spin out a commercial derivative.

However, Sikorsky has explicitly ruled out a civil programme incorporating the X2 configuration. “We initially thought we would have to apply that to everything,” said Jason Lambert, vice-president of global military and commercial systems, speaking at the recent Heli-Expo conference.

“But the benefit of what that brings in terms of agility is not so important in the commercial space. Speed is nice but from an overall [fuel] efficiency perspective we don’t think it’s the right thing for commercial.”

Lambert says the future for the commercial portfolio is likely to see the application of hybrid-electric propulsion and increased levels of autonomy: “We are modelling it now.”

An aircraft of a similar size to the 13-passenger S-76 helicopter using a tiltwing, rather than tiltrotor architecture is being consider, he says: “It’s conceptual, but we are evaluating it.”

Bell:
Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.

Thacker stresses, however, that until the V-280 is picked by the US military “it is too soon to really contemplate what that [civil helicopter] would be”.

Meanwhile, Bell’s FARA offer is the 360 Invictus – a more conventional helicopter that can still cruise at 180kt. Thacker suggests that technologies matured through that programme might offer a simpler route to the civil market.

Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

 

[H_K]

P.S. That leaves Airbus’ RACER as the only technology that may work commercially (not surprising really).

And even RACER seems to have weight problems (~50% weight penalty to go from 150kts to 220kts).

 

[TomcatViP]

I am pretty sure that the raw power, much above any threshold for a civilian application and GB weight and size is what limits both design to be directly applied to the civilian world.
Then, resize the rotors (cut down power requirements) and add an hybrid setup and there you go. There is no more, nor less of FVL tech that is suitable to a civilian usage than what a Battleship can be to a cargoship: they are diametrically opposed. Any straightforward application from one to the other is just... Inappropriate.

This does not mean that tilt rotors will not see the light of the day in passengers transportation or cargo. Idem for the abc-rotor.

 

[H_K]

I am pretty sure that the raw power, much above any threshold for a civilian application and GB weight and size is what limits both design to be directly applied to the civilian world.

I would have thought that the Raider X’s drivetrain (6.3 ton take-off weight, ~3,000hp) would be directly applicable to the civilian market to replace the S-76 and compete against the AW169, H160 etc.

(With hybrid / APU module in case of engine failure)

But no… so I don’t think it’s an issue of too much raw power.

 

[_Del_]

Well, speed is desirable in the commercial market, but they usually don't want to pay for it.
Same reason we didn't see this happen:

(drawing courtesy of OBB)

No reason to keep the weight and complexity (and most importantly cost) of the drive train if there's no demand for the speed (or more technically, if one can otherwise deliver 75% of the speed for 50% of the cost).

 

[yasotay]

Speed does not buy its was into the equation if you are not routinely operating at 100 miles or more. So the only place rotorcraft with much greater speed are potentially viable would be deep sea oil I think. Possibly specialised medical.

 

[Spyclip]

Sikorsky has explicitly touted commercial X2 applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that the vibration on this platform just isn't solvable for this role?

View: https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d9qzn

 

[_Del_]

Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:

Evolution

Technology Magazine From SKF

evolution.skf.com

 

[VTOLicious]

Speaking of civil tilt-rotors: Is AW609 finally certified? Bell dropped out years ago.

 

[MihoshiK]

Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:

Evolution

Technology Magazine From SKF

evolution.skf.com

As mentioned in that article:

"But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not."

Markets change.

 

[yasotay]

It is standard business practice to tell customers what they want to hear. No comercial ever touted a car as a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare. No beer ever advertised as tasting horrible.

The comments from Sikorsky caused Bell to have to make a similar statement when the pundits sensed a broader story.

Of note AW 609 continues to creep toward US certification, with European certification to happen soon (I may be recalling this inaccurately). So there is a potential for a commercial TR soon(er).

The worlds largest rotorcraft consumer wants to go further and faster. The two most likely technologies to meet the desired endstate, from established OEM, were selected.

 

[_Del_]

Speaking of civil tilt-rotors: Is AW609 finally certified? Bell dropped out years ago.

Oh

 

[H_K]

Speaking of civil tilt-rotors: Is AW609 finally certified? Bell dropped out years ago.

Leonardo are “hopeful” for FAA certification in late 2022 or early 2023, with service entry following soon after in 2023 with Bristow.

Leonardo secures new customer for AW609 tiltrotor and targets 2023 service entry

Leonardo Helicopters has bolstered the backlog of its AW609 civil tiltrotor with a four-aircraft commitment from an undisclosed European operator.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[Spyclip]

Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:

Evolution

Technology Magazine From SKF

evolution.skf.com

I must have missed the part where Bell stated that there were now no plans for a commercial tiltrotor ever.

Err wait, that's not what was said at all (Bell even still builds the blades for the AW609).

Sikorsky, on the other hand, was clear as a Bell on their newly abandoned X2 commercial plans and even mentioned a tiltwing alternative. If that isn't earth-shaking in light of the Steve Weiner "all-eggs-in-the-ABC-basket" Sikorsky philosophy of last 20 years, I don't know what is.

 

[Ainen]

The FARA options were never enough of a leap to justify the cost, nor are they survivable so will agree w csis. Likewise, ALE in current configurations is not worth anything but conceptualization either.

Btw, I think by now we can safely say that rotary-wing platforms are actually doing quite well in a theater literally oversaturated with all sorts of SAMs, from MANPADS all the way down to ABM-capable S-300Vs. CAS, SAR, large-scale assaults, specops insertions. And by both sides at that.

Even non-stealthy UCAVs (without Bluefly brains) slip through to get their prey from time to time.

 

[TomcatViP]

I would say that's It's a bit too early to say such.

B/w, It would have been better if Airbus had delivered all the reconditioned Caracal to the Ukrainians as they agreed in 2018. Late is still better than never. Those airfraime can still be pushed across the border until now.

 

[Ainen]

I would say that's It's a bit too early to say such.

it's hard indeed, but rotary wings are arguably the best visible (and measurable) part of the conflict right now.
Telling much is difficult, but they're definitely most active over the battlefields.

 

[yasotay]

Big data dump on FVL. First interesting to note that even with the plus up, FARA had money taken away.

Army aviation benefits from overall defense increase / Inside
Defense
DATE: March 18, 2022
BYLINE: Evan Ochsner

Army aviation programs, including legacy programs and Future Vertical Lift priorities, appear to be among the winners from the defense spending increase above what President Biden requested in the fiscal year 2022 omnibus spending law.
The FY-22 Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by Biden earlier this week, includes increases for procurement and research and development for legacy Army aviation programs like the Black Hawk and Chinook, as well as increases for Future Vertical Lift.
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said last week that the higher total defense funding had buoyed the Army's efforts to continue to fund its Future Vertical Lift programs while modernizing and maintaining its current fleet.
In total, lawmakers increased defense spending by about $30 billion over what Biden had requested.
"We can't just turn off those enduring programs while we work to the future," Wormuth said at the McAleese Defense Programs conference. "We have to have a bridge that gets us to the future. So, we've got to be able to do both things: continue to invest in our enduring programs while we develop the new systems."
The FY-22 spending law increases multiyear procurement of the Black Hawk, which the Army seeks to begin replacing in 2030 with the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, by about a third, bumping the budget to $842 million from about $630 million. The increase is for nine HH-60M model Black Hawks for the National Guard, according to the law's language.
The legislation also includes a bump to about $15 million from about $5 million for Black Hawk blade improvement.
For the Chinook, the budget bill includes an increase to $286 million from the initial $145 million request for F Block II procurement and $29 million above the budget request for current year advanced procurement. The Block II Chinook is an upgraded version that Boeing says has increased lift capabilities.
For Chinook product improvement, the law includes an increase to $68 million from $52 million for engine enhancements and lightweight ballistic protection system.
The program increases for legacy programs appear not to have come at the expense of the Army's Future Vertical Lift priorities, as Congress increased FVL research and development funding above Biden's request. That includes an additional $77 million in advanced development funds for FLRAA, and an increase to $133 million from $91 million for applied research on FVL technology. FVL advanced technology development funds were increased to $262 million from $180 million in the request.
Not every aviation program got a lift, however. The law decreased Apache procurement funding and kept level future development funding. The Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance program also saw slight decreases.
The Pentagon's portion of the overall FY-22 defense budget, including military construction, will be $743.2 billion.
The final tally for the Pentagon includes about a $20 billion modernization boost, with around $12 billion going toward procurement and approximately $7 billion for research, development, test and evaluation.

In other FVL news -

The power of FVL – how will the Bell V280 impact CSAR and military medevac operations?

The recent panel discussion with experts from Bell focused on impact of future vertical lift (FVL) on Army operations – Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft and Future long range assault aircraft

www.airmedandrescue.com

The Army Expects Big Things From Its Next-Generation Helicopters

The priorities for the U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift program include improvements in speed and range as well as new sensors and targeting technologies. The new generation of rotorcraft should serve for decades once it enters service. The Army is now testing, assessing, and deliberating on...

nationalinterest.org

Sikorsky rules out civil helicopter using X2 technology

Anyone hoping for a high-speed civil helicopter featuring Sikorsky's X2 co-axial compound technology looks set to be disappointed after the manufacturer explicitly ruled out such a development.

www.flightglobal.com

Scaling Back the Future Vertical Lift Program Could Be Catastrophic

The U.S. Army’s Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program aims to build a new generation of military helicopters. According to the Army, these helicopters will have twice the speed and range of today’s UH-60 Black Hawk and OH-58 Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters. Along with the clear operational need...

nationalinterest.org

 

[Spyclip]

Sometimes the jokes write themselves

Sikorsky clarifies views on X2’s civil future

Sikorsky has clarified its position on the use of its high-speed X2 compound-coaxial architecture on a future civil rotorcraft and says it would consider such a development if market demand materialises.

www.flightglobal.com

 

[yasotay]

Army increases FARA funding request, seeks information on proposals
Inside Defense
DATE: March 29, 2022
BYLINE: Evan Oschner

The Army is again seeking to raise funding for its top Future Vertical Lift modernization priority, asking Congress in its fiscal year 2023 budget request to increase Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft funding by about 50%, according to an Army official and Pentagon budget documents. Under the Army's FY-23 request, the FARA program would receive $978.5 million, Kirsten Taylor, director of investments in the Army comptroller's office, told reporters on Tuesday. That's up from $650.2 million the Army
requested for FY-22, according to budget documents.
The increase represents at least the third consecutive year that the Army has ramped up funding for the development of the aircraft, the first of which it plans to field in FY-30. The Army asked for $377 million for FARA for FY-20 and $480.7 million for FY-21.
The Army, in a sources-sought notice posted Monday, asked the two remaining vendors in the FARA competition to provide specifications about their aircraft proposals, their companies and their manufacturing abilities.
"The FARA program intends to utilize results of this inquiry as an element of market research to pursue a Limited Source Justification and Approval . . . to limit further competition on the follow-on contract for the continued development and production in support of the FARA program of record," the notice states.
After initially awarding other transaction agreements to five potential vendors to prototype the FARA, the Army in 2020 selected two vendors, Bell and Sikorsky, to build prototypes for the competitive test phase.
The Army's notice asks the companies to provide estimates of maximum combat airspeed, combat radius, payload and maximum takeoff gross weight, as well as information about integration capabilities with an open architecture the service is developing alongside its future vertical lift platforms.
But the Army is interested in more than aircraft specifications, as it also seeks information about revenue, employment and manufacturing abilities, asking the companies to provide documentation that demonstrates "past performance manufacturing a new build manned rotorcraft system" at a minimum production rate of 24 units per year.
The companies must also provide a "detailed program schedule" that includes milestones for maturity of all critical technologies and the completion of critical design review.
Production targets included by the Army in the notice ask for the delivery of a flight-ready test aircraft by the first quarter of FY-28 and eight total test aircraft by the third quarter of FY-29, followed by the delivery of 44 low-rate initial production aircraft over a 36-month period. The Army in the notice asks the companies to ramp up to 24 deliveries per year by production year four.
Bell and Sikorsky are both "over 50% complete with prototype builds in preparation for FY23 flights and subsequent source selection to a single vendor for the baseline capability for FARA, Increment 1, Engineering and Manufacturing Development," the announcement states.
Increment 1 covers "next-generation flight performance, air vehicle design, and establishing the initial FARA ecosystem consisting of FARA teamed with Air Launched Effects and Long Range Precision Munitions," according to the announcement.
The program is currently an acquisition category 1B, pre-major defense acquisition program, the notice states.
The resultant EMD base contract will "include scope for critical weapon system design, six test article builds, associated long lead for six test articles and developmental testing," the announcement states.

 

[TomcatViP]

The Defiant, the Sikorsky-Boeing team’s offering for the Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, flew the 700 nautical miles from its home at Sikorsky’s flight test center in West Palm Beach, Fla., to Nashville, Tenn., just in time for the Army Aviation Association of America annual conference taking place there next week.

Defiant completed the flight in seven hours on March 21, including two stops for refueling, according to Sikorsky President Paul Lemmo, who noted that the fuel burn was less than expected.

FLRAA leaves Florida: Sikorsky-Boeing's prototype assault helo makes longest trip yet - Breaking Defense

After a 700 nautical mile trip to show off its FLRAA offering in Nashville, pilot feedback on the SB>1 Defiant was "absolutely boring — the way test pilots like it to be," a Team Defiant member said.

breakingdefense.com

 

[yasotay]

The distant objective: Focusing FLRAA where it matters - Breaking Defense

Army must choose an air assault platform best designed to deliver combat power at the time and place of our choosing.

breakingdefense.com

LTG(R) Kevin Mangum - was a senior VP at Sikorsky until recently.

 

[TomcatViP]

Thanks for clarifying that.

But let's be honest, those days are difficult times for them, with the war in Ukraine and the way the concept of a ground offensive is being redefined or, at least, altered.

 

[yasotay]

Thanks for clarifying that.

But let's be honest, those days are difficult times for them, with the war in Ukraine and the way the concept of a ground offensive is being redefined or, at least, altered.

One has to be careful in drawing conclusions without a clear understanding of what has occurred. Each conflict has to be seen as a discreet environment. No doubt armor and aircraft will be questioned (rightfully so), just as they were after the 1973 Arab/Israeli war. Twitter and YouTube experts for the most part do not have access to all of the data. A surprising level of poor operational technique does not make the analysis any easier.

 

[TomcatViP]

I completely agree with that but Russian inability to fly across manpad country while keeping losses at a less than dramatic rate proves one thing:
- NoE without a powerful countermeasures such as an high tech dircim or a laser is suicidal in term of tactical objectives
- Laser being a power sensitive item and high electric power being an engine related variable, the more efficient the cruise flight, the more survivable the platform

Hence drawing high power from your engine just to fly a bit closer to the tree top might be the new way to be survivable with extra layer of thick steel plates at the age of oceans ruled by aircraft carriers.

 

[Ainen]

I completely agree with that but Russian inability to fly across manpad country while keeping losses at a less than dramatic rate proves one thing:
- NoE without a powerful countermeasures such as an high tech dircim or a laser is suicidal in term of tactical objectives
- Laser being a power sensitive item and high electric power being an engine related variable, the more efficient the cruise flight, the more survivable the platform

So you have a way of knowing what exact degree of Russian losses were to manpads?