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

[yasotay]

This report is consistent with most reports done for the government since the LHX program. In fact Sikorsky complained at bias in the LHX effort at least one RAND study indicated that TR was better than standard helicopter in eight out of ten mission profiles. Lucky for Sikorsky at the time, the the two missions that the helicopter was rated by the aviators who participated in the study as better were reconnaissance and security. RAND noted that the Army should continue to explore the TR for its capabilities in the eight mission profiles that it was rated higher.

 

[zevets]

RE: operating costs of tiltrotor vs lift offset coaxial per ADD/AATD ca 2016 from Design and Assessment of a Size Constrained Advanced Tilt Rotor, Lift Offset Coaxial Compound and Winged Compound


View attachment 694184

Can you post a screenshot of the conclusion / executive summary?

The vtol.org page shows the first page of the whitepaper that gives a summary, but there's really nothing much in the "conclusion" other than a description of the generated concept baselines. The paper content itself gets into the details of estimated performance, weights, and costs.

View attachment 694203

The hangar size constraint seems like a tough one - and it explains the Navy's significant lack of interest in FVL. If you are doing a DDG redesign, do you build in margin for the future? As it is, the V-22 was notoriously constrained in rotor size due to the need to fit on a LHA that it only overlapped in service for about 2 years.

I also wonder where the sweet-spot would be for a coaxial - e.g. would a 200 knot design arrive at the sweet spot of power/disk loading?

 

[TomcatViP]

Please, notice that the configuration design studied in the lift offset rotor category has a surrealistic agencement where the complete rotor system is only roof mounted with a gearbox that fits inside this small volume. We know today that this was not possible in this category, as demonstrated by the massive size of the gearbox fitted to all Defiant iterations.

 

[yasotay]

I suspect that the U.S. Navy is not going to drastically change the size of the hangar space on its frigates and destroyers. That is very expensive. While they are working with the USMC to do "non-standard" missions with the MV-22 (sonar buoy emplacement) they are more interested in long endurance hover capability for the surface/sub-surface mission from the smaller ships. I suspect at best they will opt for a MH-60(X) with technology infusion vice a completely new platform. Given the ongoing demonstrations of unmanned Blackhawk I would not be surprised to see this as a significant tech insertion into the Navy H-60 platforms.

 

[TomcatViP]

Wouldn't that be something a V-247 will perfectly do?

 

[yasotay]

Wouldn't that be something a V-247 will perfectly do?

Possibly. I think the real determinant will be the methodology the U.S. Navy elects to use in the future for the missions currently done by H-60. If the mission changes to one of dashing out to deliver sensors or weapons on detected threats, then a platform like V-247 might be a good choice. If the mission remains to operate at medium distances sensing for targets where (hover) endurance is important, then an old-fashioned helicopter, more optimized for hover work, would probably be a better solution.

 

[TomS]

Wouldn't that be something a V-247 will perfectly do?

So many missions for embarked helos require a cabin (personnel transfers, CASEVAC, SAR, logistics, etc.) A V-247 would be a good replacement for the (kinda subpar) Fire Scout, but I can't see it fully replacing the MH-60R.

 

[TomcatViP]

That was not my meaning. We are discussing the fast mine laying mission and sensor's data relay to other platform or ships.

IMOHO, a manned helo with a dedicated cabin crew is not an option for a military vessel but a get-go for any deployment.

If you remove the dedicated maritime and subsea warfare systems from an MH-60R, you probably improve mission availability rates. With new engines, this could even reduce the need to have two airframe embarked, freeing space for something like a V-247.

 

[sferrin]

Wouldn't that be something a V-247 will perfectly do?

Isn't that dead?

 

[yasotay]

In conclusion it does not matter how good your platform is, it's how many people do you employ, how close to the bottom-line are you willing to go, and how powerful your Congressional delegation is.

1. Bell eyes facility expansion even as new Army helicopter contract draws scrutiny / The Dallas Morning News (TX)

DATE: February 27, 2023

BYLINE: Joseph Morton

Fort Worth-based Bell is laying the foundation for new facilities in Grand Prairie after its new tilt-rotor V-280 Valor won a competition for the U.S. Army’s next long-range assault aircraft.
Those preparations come despite an ongoing review of the selection process by a key congressional watchdog agency and calls by some on Capitol Hill to further scrutinize the rationale behind Bell’s selection.
At stake is the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, or FLRAA, program that the Army initiated in 2019 as a successor to its iconic UH-60 Black Hawk. The Army announced in December it was awarding the initial contract to Bell for its V-280 Valor.
Bell registered plans with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation earlier this month to build a new $20 million, 37,775-square-foot building in Grand Prairie. The project name is “FLRAA DSTL” — the second part stands for Drive Systems Test Lab.
The filing indicates a start date of June 1 and a completion date of March 30, 2024.
Bell officials declined to provide further details on the prospective facility as the company awaits review of the selection process by the Government Accountability Office.
Sikorsky, which is owned by Lockheed Martin, triggered that review when it filed a challenge in late December. The GAO has 100 days to review the challenge, which means it should issue its decision by April 7.
That decision is not binding, but it’s rare for an agency not to follow one of GAO’s bid protest recommendations.
Scott Donnelly, CEO of Bell’s parent company Textron, expressed confidence last month during a quarterly earnings call, saying an enormous amount of work went into the project and the Army made the right choice.
“It’s been an unbelievably robust process,” Donnelly said. “It’s hard for me to understand what flaw would have been in the process.”
Asked directly by one analyst what viable argument might be made against Bell’s selection, Donnelly responded concisely: “I don’t think there would be one.”
The short-term value of the contract is up to $1.3 billion, but the Army has indicated the total value could reach well into the tens of billions over the life of the program.
On the earnings call, Donnelly declined to give too many specifics about what the company expects to make off the program in future years, but said it would be a “terrific boon” for business.
“We’ll expect to see it continue to grow and turn into better margins as you get into production programs and foreign military sales and all the things that we would expect will come along with a successful FLRAA program,” Donnelly said.
The Black Hawk has been the backbone of Army aviation for decades, but the service wanted a new aircraft that would fly twice as fast and twice as far, particularly as it looks to stay relevant in the increasingly important Pacific theater.
Bell has touted the capabilities of its V-280 Valor prototype that features a tilt-rotor design combining the vertical takeoff and hovering ability of a helicopter with the speed and range of an airplane.
That approach beat out a competing Sikorsky and Boeing team that offered the Army a compound rotor aircraft called the Defiant X.
The Army says it followed a “deliberate and disciplined process in evaluating proposals to ensure rigorous review and equitable treatment of both competitors.”
But after speaking with Army officials, the losing team disagreed and filed its protest.
According to Forbes, that challenge includes claims the Army made up its mind from the beginning to go with the tilt-rotor design, that it used criteria not included in the initial solicitation of bids and that the Army’s best-value determination isn’t consistent with a much higher bid submitted by Bell.
The dispute also has drawn the attention of Capitol Hill, where Connecticut’s congressional delegation members say the Army has repeatedly rejected their requests for more information about how it reached the decision to go with Bell.
Sikorsky is headquartered in Connecticut’s 3rd congressional district, which is represented by Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
DeLauro issued a statement earlier this month expressing outrage at the lack of information.
“Lawmakers, hard-working families in Connecticut, and Sikorsky’s manufacturing workers deserve to be informed on how this decision was made and why,” DeLauro said. “This is impacting labor and jobs right here in Stratford, Connecticut.”
The committee’s chairwoman is Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, who has Bell’s headquarters in her backyard.
The congressional dynamics gave the Army plenty of reason to be careful about its process for awarding the contract, said Gregory Sanders, deputy director and fellow at the Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“It’ll come down to some extent to just how the Army can explain the factors they chose, why they chose them and whether they stayed true to the original criteria,” Sanders said of the Sikorsky protest. “And if the Army can do that, then they’ll probably be in a pretty good position.”

 

[yasotay]

The Army Needs to Explain What’s Going on With the Black Hawk Replacement

For the past 40 years, the U.S. armed forces and our allies and partners have flown Black Hawks for countless missions -- from carrying the troops that brought Osama Bin Laden to justice to evacuating injured service members on the battlefield.

www.military.com

Not a surprise to see the senator from the great state of Connecticut decrying the Army decision. He really ought to have had someone with some knowledge write the essay for him.
"Another company, Bell Textron, a company with a long and troubled history of making assault helicopters..." Other than the ~7000 UH-1H and all its variations produced for over 60 years.
The silence from the Congressional delegation from Texas is deafening.

 

[Spyclip]

The Army Needs to Explain What’s Going on With the Black Hawk Replacement

For the past 40 years, the U.S. armed forces and our allies and partners have flown Black Hawks for countless missions -- from carrying the troops that brought Osama Bin Laden to justice to evacuating injured service members on the battlefield.

www.military.com

Not a surprise to see the senator from the great state of Connecticut decrying the Army decision. He really ought to have had someone with some knowledge write the essay for him.
"Another company, Bell Textron, a company with a long and troubled history of making assault helicopters..." Other than the ~7000 UH-1H and all its variations produced for over 60 years.
The silence from the Congressional delegation from Texas is deafening.

Sikorsky employs 8,000 in Connecticut, but LM employs over 23,000 in Texas.

 

[sferrin]

The Army Needs to Explain What’s Going on With the Black Hawk Replacement

For the past 40 years, the U.S. armed forces and our allies and partners have flown Black Hawks for countless missions -- from carrying the troops that brought Osama Bin Laden to justice to evacuating injured service members on the battlefield.

www.military.com

Not a surprise to see the senator from the great state of Connecticut decrying the Army decision. He really ought to have had someone with some knowledge write the essay for him.
"Another company, Bell Textron, a company with a long and troubled history of making assault helicopters..." Other than the ~7000 UH-1H and all its variations produced for over 60 years.
The silence from the Congressional delegation from Texas is deafening.

Sikorsky employs 8,000 in Connecticut, but LM employs over 23,000 in Texas.

Ft. Worth, Missiles & Space, etc.. Nothing related to helicopters will affect that. Did not realize LM was part of the V-280 program. Still, does that 23k include Ft Worth, Grand Prairie, etc. or is that just helicopter related?

 

[yasotay]

LMCO win regardless of the outcome. They are part of the Bell team, they get the Army to flip the decision, or the FLRAA goes to federal court and dies. Have to update UH-60.

 

[Hydroman]

I think LMCO knows and may realize that their coaxial-pushers are not attractive to the USA, USN, USMC. The Bell V-280 and Invictus are very attractive to all three services based upon their configurations and sizes. Imagine the re-design work (if possible) to get the S-79 and S-97 for stowage and ship compatibility as an example, this is going to get very interesting.

 

[yasotay]

U.S. Army Requests $1.5 Billion For FLRAA, FARA / Aviation Week

DATE: March 14, 2023

BYLINE: Brian Everstine

The U.S. Army wants $1.5 billion for its Future Vertical Lift programs, targeting first competitive flight for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) in 2024 and continuing analysis for how many Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) will be fielded.
The Army announced in December that it had selected Bell’s V-280 Valor for the FLRAA program, but the choice has been under protest by Sikorsky and is pending a U.S. Government Accountability Office ruling.
The service’s FLRAA request includes $1.044 billion to begin building the six engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) prototypes. Maj. Gen. Mark Bennett, the Army’s budget director, said during a March 13 briefing that an analysis is underway to determine the fleet size, which would begin fielding in 2030.
Bell initially received a $1.2 billion contract for a virtual prototype of the V-280, then the follow-on EMD contract worth $7.1 billion. The entire program, including foreign military sales, could be worth up to $70 billion. The schedule includes the delivery of six prototypes in 2025.
The request includes $458 million for FARA for the competitive prototype flight testing. A fly-off was expected in 2023, but that has been delayed due to issues with the GE Aviation T901 engine and other program delays. The previous budget request pushed back EMD for FARA to the third quarter of fiscal 2025, which in turn put off the end of development to 2032. Despite the delays, the Army remains committed to the program for now.
“It’s fully funded in the [Future Years Defense Plan] ... It’s got more development, more testing that goes through that and then it would obviously go into ... the next phase of the program,” Army Undersecretary Gabe Camarillo says. “So it’s fully funded, both FLRAA and FARA, in this particular [future years defense program.]

 

[yasotay]

US Army’s new helicopter engine hit with another delay

The U.S. Army's ITEP engine is delayed again, raising questions for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program's schedule.

www.defensenews.com

The saga of the U.S. Army attempts to acquire a Scout helicopter continues to bumble along with repetitive regularity.

 

[yasotay]

What LMCO/Sikorsky is not telling you, is that most of the layoffs are coming from the Navy side of rotorcraft as there are no more MH/SH-60 being built for the U.S. Navy. Likely this would have happened regardless of the U.S. Army FLRAA decision.

Sikorsky lays off 'limited number of positions' in Stratford

Sikorsky lays off 'limited number of positions' in Stratford

A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin said in a statement that the company made the “difficult decision to reduce a limited number of positions.”

www.fox61.com

A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin said in a statement that the company made the “difficult decision to reduce a limited number of positions.”
Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky Aircraft has begun laying off some employees from its plant in Stratford and these cutbacks are attributed to the company’s loss of a multi-million-dollar U.S. Army contract, FOX61 News confirmed.
A spokesperson for Lockheed Martin – who is the parent company for the Sikorsky – told FOX61 News in a statement that the company made the “difficult decision to reduce a limited number of positions.”
The spokesperson did not specify how many employees had lost their jobs in Stratford but said the cutbacks were part of an already announced elimination of 800 jobs in the Rotary and Mission Systems division at Lockheed Martin.
All Sikorsky locations, including Stratford, have positions that are under review during this process, the spokesperson said.
“We intend to retain as many as possible who can fill our open business-critical positions in our Rotary and Mission Systems business segment and across Lockheed Martin and will continue to hire for roles that are required to support our customers’ urgent national security missions,” the spokesperson said in a statement to FOX61 News.
New Haven Biz was the first to report the layoffs.
Sikorsky, who had built the UH-60 Black Hawk for the U.S. Army since the 1970s, was blindsided in late 2022 when the Army decide to reject the company’s bid to build long-range assault aircraft. Instead, the reportedly $1.3 billion contract was given to Texas-based Bell, a Textron company.
The company has formally challenged the decision and filed a complaint with the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to review the Army’s decision on the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft contract.
In a statement when it announced its decision, the Army said the decision-making process was “deliberate and disciplined.”
According to New Haven Biz, Sikorsky makes up a good portion of Lockheed Martin’s Rotary and Mission Systems workforce, with both salaried and union workers at locations across Connecticut.
It reported – citing a union official – that no unionized Sikorsky workers lost their jobs due to the layoffs. However, they said the union had agreed to the retirement of 250 members this year, followed by 150 members and 100 members over the next three years.

 

[yasotay]

Unsurprising, both FLRAA and FARA programs are slipping their timeliness. FLRAA due to protest and FARA due to lack of engine.

 

[Spyclip]

Protest denied. Cue the lawsuits, I presume.

GAO Statement on Protest of Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, B-421359, B-421359.2

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 6, 2023) —The following is a statement from Kenneth E. Patton, Managing Associate General Counsel for Procurement Law at GAO...

www.gao.gov

 

[Colonial-Marine]

Being a CT native I feel for Sikorsky but I think the tilt-rotor option had several things in its favor and their inevitable protest was ultimately doomed. I hope that perhaps they can interest some of our international allies in some form of the Defiant but time will tell.

The Raider-X still has a good chance I think depending on how much the Army values that higher speed and ability to carry a team of specialists. I imagine the special operations sort might make a good argument for it.

 

[Tuna]

Being a CT native I feel for Sikorsky but I think the tilt-rotor option had several things in its favor and their inevitable protest was ultimately doomed. I hope that perhaps they can interest some of our international allies in some form of the Defiant but time will tell.

I don't think anyone anywhere will want it. It's neither a well-proven traditional helicopter, nor does it have the significant advantages that a tilt-rotor has. And very soon, the V280 will be significantly more proven (as if it wasn't that already...) than it will ever be. Given this, no-one will want to be the first customer, when the alternatives to it are either a H-60 or V-280.

 

[yasotay]

"GAO concluded that the Army reasonably evaluated Sikorsky’s proposal as technically unacceptable because Sikorsky failed to provide the level of architectural detail required by the RFP. "
Ouch!
Throwing a bone to Sikorsky, GAO appears to have closed the books to the public, siting "Today’s decision was issued under a protective order because the decision may contain proprietary and source selection sensitive information." Which means we may never find out why the Army found; "...Sikorsky’s proposal as technically unacceptable..." Unless of course the Congressional delegation from the great state of Connecticut insist on a committee meeting.
Hopefully this means the Army can get on with it now.

 

[Moose]

Good news to see the protest denied. I also nominally consider Sikorsky my "home team" and I think everything we've seen publicly has made it clear Bell is the move here. Now, of course, they gotta execute.

Being a CT native I feel for Sikorsky but I think the tilt-rotor option had several things in its favor and their inevitable protest was ultimately doomed. I hope that perhaps they can interest some of our international allies in some form of the Defiant but time will tell.

I don't think anyone anywhere will want it. It's neither a well-proven traditional helicopter, nor does it have the significant advantages that a tilt-rotor has. And very soon, the V280 will be significantly more proven (as if it wasn't that already...) than it will ever be. Given this, no-one will want to be the first customer, when the alternatives to it are either a H-60 or V-280.

I think the thing Sikorsky should do, if they remain committed to the concept, is return to their idea for X2 development before Lockheed and before UTC's Dunce Era leadership hijacked the project: build an S-76 sized two-turbine X2 and use it to develop a commercially-viable product. Leonardo's -609 can't seem to escape development hell, Airbus' high-speed effort is moseying along, and Bell has A LOT on it's plate now. Sikorsky has a window to produce an appealing commerical X2 and grab market share.

 

[yasotay]

While certainly disappointing for Sikorsky, they still have a good shot at the FARA program and it appears (at least from the outside) that Italy is very interested in working with Sikorsky on a Euro-X2. Assuming LMCO does not completely gut Sikorsky, they have started for sure, I don't think Sikorsky will be down for the count.
Then there is the Congressional delegation that has already hinted that "There are still other means to contest the decision."

 

[Spyclip]

Good news to see the protest denied. I also nominally consider Sikorsky my "home team" and I think everything we've seen publicly has made it clear Bell is the move here. Now, of course, they gotta execute.

Being a CT native I feel for Sikorsky but I think the tilt-rotor option had several things in its favor and their inevitable protest was ultimately doomed. I hope that perhaps they can interest some of our international allies in some form of the Defiant but time will tell.

I don't think anyone anywhere will want it. It's neither a well-proven traditional helicopter, nor does it have the significant advantages that a tilt-rotor has. And very soon, the V280 will be significantly more proven (as if it wasn't that already...) than it will ever be. Given this, no-one will want to be the first customer, when the alternatives to it are either a H-60 or V-280.

I think the thing Sikorsky should do, if they remain committed to the concept, is return to their idea for X2 development before Lockheed and before UTC's Dunce Era leadership hijacked the project: build an S-76 sized two-turbine X2 and use it to develop a commercially-viable product. Leonardo's -609 can't seem to escape development hell, Airbus' high-speed effort is moseying along, and Bell has A LOT on it's plate now. Sikorsky has a window to produce an appealing commerical X2 and grab market share.

The problem with any commercialized X2 is that the juice isn't worth the squeeze - even if all the inherent physics problems were magically remedied.

The X2 rotor is designed around high power and therefore high SFC to achieve high speeds, which also imparts an absolutely terrible ride (even for a military platform) but still only marginally better range than a slower conventional helicopter. The resultant power surplus at low speeds would provide for excellent hovering capability (high/hot) which is not really useful when carrying pax. The same can be said about the theoretical low speed handling qualities of a rigid rotor - something that would never be used in a commercial environment.

Factor on top of that the immense maintenance challenges, unit cost, and empty weight fraction and you're looking at a platform that almost certainly isn't going to be profitable.

 

[H_K]

@Spyclip To some extent these challenges apply to all high-speed designs no? Will the commercial market prefer tilt-rotors (AW609) or Airbus’s Racer solution, or will they all be too expensive for the extra speed advantage?

 

[Spyclip]

@Spyclip To some extent these challenges apply to all high-speed designs no? Will the commercial market prefer tilt-rotors (AW609) or Airbus’s Racer solution, or will they all be too expensive for the extra speed advantage?

I would agree, especially on the aspect of the unit cost. The only one with a hope of viability despite that is the 609 as its wing allows a step function improvement in range and efficiency versus any edgewise rotor.

 

[yasotay]

Speed, in general, only buys its way into the rotorcraft equation if you are routinely expecting to operate at distances over 100NM/~160KM. There are arguments for medical as well. Assuming 609 and Airbus Racer make it through the byzantine regulatory agencies, and can be scaled to an acceptable revenue level, I could see them competing for regional markets. Otherwise other than potentially supporting deep sea oil operations, they will not be the new S-92. That is a long way off I suspect. As @Spyclip has pointed out high weight fraction and vibration levels on any rotorcraft are negative values toward viability.

 

[VTOLicious]

609 features a pressurised cabin designed for cruising at 25000 ft. Hence, it doesn't compare well to the high speed rotorcraft mentioned above.

 

[mkellytx]

Speed, in general, only buys its way into the rotorcraft equation if you are routinely expecting to operate at distances over 100NM/~160KM. There are arguments for medical as well. Assuming 609 and Airbus Racer make it through the byzantine regulatory agencies, and can be scaled to an acceptable revenue level, I could see them competing for regional markets. Otherwise other than potentially supporting deep sea oil operations, they will not be the new S-92. That is a long way off I suspect. As @Spyclip has pointed out high weight fraction and vibration levels on any rotorcraft are negative values toward viability.

Deep sea oil will only go that way if the 609 is the only option. They care more about cost than speed, I’ve worked with the off shore aviation types for an IOC and was told a flat out hell no for the 609. The only possible way would be if nothing has the range, but even then they’ll refuel at an intermediate platform before buying something as expensive to operate as a 609.

 

[yasotay]

Speed, in general, only buys its way into the rotorcraft equation if you are routinely expecting to operate at distances over 100NM/~160KM. There are arguments for medical as well. Assuming 609 and Airbus Racer make it through the byzantine regulatory agencies, and can be scaled to an acceptable revenue level, I could see them competing for regional markets. Otherwise other than potentially supporting deep sea oil operations, they will not be the new S-92. That is a long way off I suspect. As @Spyclip has pointed out high weight fraction and vibration levels on any rotorcraft are negative values toward viability.

Deep see oil will only go that way if the 609 is the only option. They care more about cost than speed, I’ve worked with the off shore aviation types for an IOC and was told a flat out hell no for the 609. The only possible way would be if nothing has the range, but even then they’ll refuel at an intermediate platform before buying something as expensive to operate as a 609.

A fair point. It will be interesting to see how flight to maintenance hours works out.

 

[mkellytx]

A fair point. It will be interesting to see how flight to maintenance hours works out.

Higher, which the military operators will be willing to pay for the greater speed, but commercial operators won’t even consider since the fuel burn is so much higher in the first place. Hence the hell no

 

[VTOLicious]

Apparently Airbus aims to demonstrate real world operations with RACER. It will be interesting to see if it can deliver the predicted performance, efficiency, etc. to become attractive for commercial operators. And as said earlier, I wouldn't compare it to 609, which features a pressurised cabin and is designed to cruise at 25000 ft.

 

[TomcatViP]

If they do finalize assembly one day.

 

[yasotay]

Enough said. Engineering Design and Development for the Sikorsky/Boeing SB>1 was found to be unacceptable. The redacted portion of the document lays out in detail just how unacceptable the proposal was.

 

[Moose]

T&E rating on the Bell proposal is interesting given their demonstration phase test program was dramatically more robust than Sikorsky's. Wonder what about their proposed program earned them a low rating.

 

[zevets]

T&E rating on the Bell proposal is interesting given their demonstration phase test program was dramatically more robust than Sikorsky's. Wonder what about their proposed program earned them a low rating.

From the attached pdf:

Based on our review of the
record, we agree with the agency that it “reasonably concluded that Sikorsky’s general
pledge to comply with SysArch requirements did not outweigh Sikorsky’s multiple,
specific representations that it would not actually comply with certain requirements.”

 

[yasotay]

From reading the redacted report it seems that either Sikorsky did not understand the requirements, or could not provide adequate levels of detail to meet the requirements. It appears, if I am reading it correctly, the government advised Sikorsky several times regarding their inadequacies.
I have to wonder if the acquistion of Sikorsky by LMCO and the turbulence of reorganizing into a new corporate structure with new internal processes could have been a contributing factor.

 

[red admiral]

I think its much more about the adoption of open systems architecture which was viewed as an essential requirement by government for through life, cost effective support. Sikorsky didn't seem to want to offer this - its a different business model that potentially has less down stream income.