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

[VTOLicious]

Apparently from what I have been told, the protest was over 150 pages and written extremely aggressively attacking Bell.

Omg those monsters! How is Bell doing after this extremely aggressive attack?

 

[yasotay]

Interesting. That does not appear to be coincident to the public release information regarding the protest. Attacking Bell seems somewhat superfluous given the decision was made by the government. I am not surprised the decision might have been as late as September, but suspect it was reached earlier but only promulgated after much review.
If this is true then the the protest might very well be nothing more than an intelligence gathering effort by LMCO as they will learn much of how Bell won the decision and give LMCO better opportunity with the upcoming FARA competition. Conversely Bell will gain much information on the LMCO/Boeing bid.

 

[zevets]

Connecticut Congressional delegation requests briefing on U.S. Army's decision to reject Sikorsky bid

The U.S. Army chose Textron-owned Bell’s aircraft over the DEFIANT X, developed by Boeing and Sikorsky. The contract is worth a reported $1.3 billion.

www.fox61.com

It is our understanding that Sikorsky’s bid for FLRAA was significantly superior in terms of cost, but that due to a subjective unsatisfactory evaluation on a single criteria, Sikorsky’s bid was rejected and never fully evaluated.

If the subjective criteria is "does your aircraft f****** work at all" after years of glacial flight testing, then that's a pretty damn relevant evaluation.

So I guess their claim is their cost-basis for a ship that has 8 immensely difficult to manufacture blades (that ostensibly delayed the program by over a year), another 8 on a massive complicated clutched and swashplated pusher prop, and one of the most egregiously sized transmissions and rotorheads ever installed in a VTOL machine was somehow even remotely plausible after literally every single other analysis by Sikorsky fell flat on its face?

Not to mention that no compound coaxial aircraft has ever been put into production, so all their synthetics were probably just simply erroneously based on UH-60, while the competitive analysis Sikorsky likely used baselined V-280 against V-22 despite all the specific design changes it made for cost. It would be no wonder that the Army would question the credibility of a low bid.

a huge part of the sikorsky design is a massive reliance on active vibration control. if i were betting, they could never reach design speed because of vibration issues and active vibration control (obviously) failing to work as well as the computer models predict.

the real threat to FLRAA is the recognition that the V-280 is that the program requirements are overkill for 90% of the mission set. FARA is going to get cancelled (and should imo), or at least delayed until ITEP is available

if the government wants to save money, an ITEP'd blackhawk with a composite airframe (and maybe a little bit of active vibration control) or if you want something bigger, a shootout between the Bell 525/S-92, would actually yield a product that folks want.

 

[yasotay]

@zevets - by law all of those options were review as part of the FLRAA Analysis of Alternatives. Even highly modified H-60 variants were considered. None of them met the Army requirements for the approved threat scenario(s).

 

[Spyclip]

Apparently from what I have been told, the protest was over 150 pages and written extremely aggressively attacking Bell.

Omg those monsters! How is Bell doing after this extremely aggressive attack?

Its noteworthy in that protests are almost universally written in ways that promote your offering and attacking the "process" versus directly addressing the competition. This sounded very atypical.

 

[Colonial-Marine]

the real threat to FLRAA is the recognition that the V-280 is that the program requirements are overkill for 90% of the mission set. FARA is going to get cancelled (and should imo), or at least delayed until ITEP is available

if the government wants to save money, an ITEP'd blackhawk with a composite airframe (and maybe a little bit of active vibration control) or if you want something bigger, a shootout between the Bell 525/S-92, would actually yield a product that folks want.

Cancel yet another reconnaissance helicopter? Why this time?

I'd have to assume the upgraded versions of the Black Hawk will continue to fly for decades to come in Army service even if they do get all of the Valors they want to buy. There are a lot of tasks where the slower speed isn't a problem.

 

[yasotay]

the real threat to FLRAA is the recognition that the V-280 is that the program requirements are overkill for 90% of the mission set. FARA is going to get cancelled (and should imo), or at least delayed until ITEP is available

if the government wants to save money, an ITEP'd blackhawk with a composite airframe (and maybe a little bit of active vibration control) or if you want something bigger, a shootout between the Bell 525/S-92, would actually yield a product that folks want.

Cancel yet another reconnaissance helicopter? Why this time?

I'd have to assume the upgraded versions of the Black Hawk will continue to fly for decades to come in Army service even if they do get all of the Valors they want to buy. There are a lot of tasks where the slower speed isn't a problem.

The national directive to the DoD to focus on the Pacific Rim is one of the critical requirements that drive the FLRAA effort. None of the current systems adequately address this. H-60 will likely remain the core platform for the Army until the middle of the next decade, assuming the budget allows for "normal" production rates.

As to the failure to acquire an aero scout is that the necessity is not couched in those terms. It is called a reconnaissance platform. This makes it harder to articulate the human aspect of scouting. Reconnaissance can be done from orbit, scouting cannot.

 

[Hydroman]

Apparently from what I have been told, the protest was over 150 pages and written extremely aggressively attacking Bell.

Omg those monsters! How is Bell doing after this extremely aggressive attack?

Its noteworthy in that protests are almost universally written in ways that promote your offering and attacking the "process" versus directly addressing the competition. This sounded very atypical.

Very good point regarding attacking the process and the decision makers. I know this is not the proper thread, but Lockheed told Boeing not to protest the B-21 (LRS) decision but Boeing being the prime did it anyway and basically told the USAF that they do not know how to make a decision and considering the current state of Boeing, utterly stupid. The Army seems to want a tiltrotor aircraft and Bell knew where to make the improvements based upon V-22 experience, especially not rotating the entire engine/props but a transitioning just the gearbox/prop assembly.

 

[TomcatViP]

In all Honesty, I do really think that Defiant configuration had its chances. However, the end result, as offered by Sikorsky, was just too botched.

Instead of wining, LM should turn toward the foreign market and partners with other primes to make it viable on an other program. Then, in a decade, with a couple of contract from a foreign buyer under the belt, there will be some incentives to re-enter DoD budget.

See how Europeans might see the relative lack of speed and range as less of a burden. It's probable that they won't have much choices in this range of available power for long. Perhaps even gladly trading some digits regarding tilt rotor speed and range for better high and hot weather hover performances.

 

[yasotay]

Well, we will know something this weekend. GAO has to render an update 30 days after the protest.

Until then:
U.S. Army, Textron Confident in FLRAA Schedule Despite Protest / Aviation Week

DATE: January 25, 2023

BYLINE: Brian Everstine



The U.S. Army and Bell parent company Textron on Jan. 25 expressed confidence in the aggressive schedule of the Future Long Range Attack Aircraft (FLRAA) program, as the government is considering Sikorsky’s protest of the award.
Doug Bush, the Army’s assistant secretary for acquisition, technology and logistics, says the service’s FLRAA schedule already accounted for the protest that is underway now. The Army in early December announced Bell’s tiltrotor V-280 had won the FLRAA contest to replace the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk fleet, with a timeline of about 19 months to develop a digital prototype ahead of a potential Milestone B decision. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has until April 7 to decide on Sikorsky’s protest.
“The Army’s confident the GAO will do its job and we will go from there,” Bush says.
Textron Chairman and CEO Scott Donnelly, in a Jan. 25 earnings call, said the FLRAA award solidified Bell’s long-term outlook and will provide an increasing revenue stream for growth. The company has accounted for the protest in its estimates, assuming it will be resolved by early April. The early engineering and manufacturing development program will have lower margin ahead of more funding in production.
“Clearly, it will ramp as we go into ’24, ’25 and … I think this program will be a terrific boom for the business,” Donnelly says. “It’s going to start out, obviously, with a lot of the EMD [engineering and
manufacturing development], which as we said is great volume and good revenue, but not a whole lot of margin. And then obviously 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.”
Lockheed Martin subsidiary Sikorsky said when it filed the protest that data and discussions led it to believe that the proposals were not consistently evaluated, and that its Defiant X is the aircraft the Army requires.
Lockheed Chairman and CEO Jim Taiclet, in a Jan. 24 earnings call, said the company was disappointed with the decision and continues to believe Defiant meets the selection criteria for the competition. He says Lockheed sees potential increases in its Missiles and Fire Control sector over the next five years to help with the loss.
“It’s around $6 billion, and that would more than offset lost revenue associated with FLRAA should that decision hold,” he says. “And so, net-net, we see that there should be some upside over the next five years.”

 

[zevets]

@zevets - by law all of those options were review as part of the FLRAA Analysis of Alternatives. Even highly modified H-60 variants were considered. None of them met the Army requirements for the approved threat scenario(s).

I would be interested in reading that document for the details, and I don't doubt that's the conclusion they made. Can you point any publicly available copies/summaries my way? I can't find a good summary via google.

It is my personal speculation (and knowledge of some stale industry gossip) that the scenarios were/are nonsense, and were designed to show the need for a new fancy helicopter, rather than any actual operational and strategic need. This is demonstrated by the fact that several of the key design criteria were picked well in advance of the AoA - rather than the reverse.

I also believe that these scenarios are not strategically sound:

In the high end china fight, I don't think long range insertion of SF is going to be a substantial difference maker, and the resources are better spent on subs, ships and missiles. I rank this scenario as highest consequence with a depressingly high likelihood.

In the high end russia fight, events in Ukraine have shown that our current capabilities would be more than sufficient.

At medium level threat scenarios, where the high speed/altitude capability is really going to shine, and would be a real difference maker. I also believe that with the proliferation of UAS, you will also see a corresponding proliferation of counter UAS capabilities, and that these will also make helicopter operations deeply risky, and this threat environment is going to nastier than everyone expects faster than we all expect. However, the medium threat scenario seems low likelihood to me - as I can't forsee where this occurs inside the 2030-taiwan window. As such - punt and don't fund, wait for ITEP etc. Lots of places for folks to disagree on this one.

In the low end counterinsurgency fight (high likelihood imo), the V-280 is an expensive nice to have, and I believe resources would be better prioritized to other challenges.

 

[yasotay]

Much to unpack in your post above.

To your first question I would recommend that you look on this forum https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ompound-helicopter-uh-60-mod.1828/#post-21192 and on the internet for the Piasecki X-49. This is fairly representative of the maximum update to the H-60. There are others on the Forum who might be able to better direct you to some of the information you are after.

While most of the helicopters we currently have a very good machines and will remain so for some time; Apache and Blackhawk are expected to continue till at least 2050 and the Chinook ... well who knows. The new rotorcraft were directed by the US Congress because you can't keep rotorcraft design expertise if you do not design new rotorcraft. Ironically ALL of the rotorcraft designs that were proposed for FVL began development in the 1950's and 60's.

Much of the information about the AoA is classified (both for the scenario's used and the industry proprietary information regarding the designs) so I suspect that will be hard to get at. However, because of the ongoing protest by the Sikorsky Boeing team, some of the information about the competition should become accessible through the Freedom of Information Act, although I will let others comment on what that might mean.

As a former UH-60 combat pilot I can tell you it is a most brilliant aircraft FOR WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED FOR. That being combat in Northern Europe. It was not designed for places with very immature infrastructures and massive distances between land masses. That said, as we have all seen in the current European conflict ubiquitous information and long range fires mean that tactical air platforms must operate from locations much further to the rear of the front lines that our current platforms were designed for. This means that it takes longer for the aircraft to get to the fight, with less time on station. Of course you could risk your logistics forward, but that still adds time, both for logistics to move forward on congested roads and for the aircraft to refuel once they move forward. I can tell you from experiance, any ground combatant in combat wants air support five seconds ago not five minutes from now. Likewise anyone with a wound does not want to wait 30 minutes for evacuation. As to the medium threat environment, there are very robust aircraft survivability equipment efforts going on around the world. Those systems do work. A lot of MANPADS do get shot at helicopters, you only hear/read about the times they do work. Many agree that the environment is getting more dangerous and that UAS will take on more task, but since no one can guarantee that a medical UAS with patients can't be hacked and told to roll over and dive into the ground or an attack UAS can't be hacked to shoot friendly forces, some missions are likely to retain a human component for a few decades. Finally in the case of low end counterinsurgency, as well as the comments above about timeliness for troops in contact, or MEDEVAC, the extended range and speed gives commanders far better flexibility on operations. Because of the range and speed missions can be launched going in the opposite direction of the intended target (one always assumes the aircraft/airfield is under observation) and fly a route that allows the attack from different directions.

This discussion is much better around a table with beer. I have had it many times and can vouch for the viability of beer as a medium. There are many who agree with your premise. At the risk of sounding belligerent, which is not my intent, these arguments might have us still operating Sherman tanks and Sabre jets.

 

[zevets]

Much to unpack in your post above.

To your first question I would recommend that you look on this forum https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ompound-helicopter-uh-60-mod.1828/#post-21192 and on the internet for the Piasecki X-49. This is fairly representative of the maximum update to the H-60. There are others on the Forum who might be able to better direct you to some of the information you are after.

.....

This discussion is much better around a table with beer. I have had it many times and can vouch for the viability of beer as a medium. There are many who agree with your premise. At the risk of sounding belligerent, which is not my intent, these arguments might have us still operating Sherman tanks and Sabre jets.

Fully agree on joy of discussing over a beer, and no hostility was received. But to make the WWII analogy: we risk fighting a war with battleships instead of aircraft carriers.

In defense of FVL, I also think the threat environment has fundamentally changed from when FVL was defined. The wisdom of pursuing the program in light of this change is an area where reasonable folks can and should disagree. After all, who expected a shoot down of a chinese spy balloon?

On the Speedhawk: a wonderful design that I'm quite fond of! I've read it before, but I don't know why today is the day I post so much, but I visit this forum for threads like that one.

On the future of the rotorcraft design: quite a few of my friends are aerodynamicists at the major helicopter companies, and many of my takes are just their warmed over opinions. This also gives one perspectives of the future: none of them even considered working for Sikorsky, Bell is where quite a few bet their future, and most shockingly: eVTOL might actually work, and is widely viewed being worth the career gamble.

 

[yasotay]

I fully agree that the AH-64 series, and all of its analogues in the world, are likely the last manned helicopters designed for the attack mission. I agree that some of the roles we now expect manned platforms to do will be superseded in the "near" future by unmanned platforms. I worked with DARPA on the UCAR (Unmanned Combat Armed Rotorcraft) program many years ago and it was very likely it could have done the job well in major combat operations. However it did not function as well in lesser operations where one might have to conduct PID (Positive IDentification) of possible human belligerents. Also the cost of the automation made the platform almost as expensive as manned platforms. Today we have technology that might solve some of these challenges.

I do think that the utility helicopter still will remain viable even though major combat operations by air assault are likely not be seen frequently, if at all.

The X-49 did demonstrate the principles of a wing off-load and a thruster. However the weight of the equipment was expected to max out the airframe max gross weight. Vibration issues at higher speeds also would have needed to be rectified. By the time you fixed many of these you basically had a new platform with the associated expenses.

The eVTOL industry is by far the most innovative for VTOL and I have watched with excitement as they push the envelope. 90% will fizzle financially or by engineering inadequacy, but the amount of aero engineering investigation into VTOL is astounding.

 

[TomcatViP]

I don't see the Evtol industry as being, as a whole, such a source of innovation. Most of their offer is based on pre-existing designs or concepts maximized to fit an often peculiar narrative.

Their relevance in the tactical transport debate is null. And it should probably stay so for a while.

 

[zevets]

I disagree - eVTOL will have big consequences for hybrid designs, where there are no currently available certified parts (or even plans to how to certify parts!) for building the electric portion of the propulsion system.

In the vanilla 'hovering truck' design, the electrically driven tail rotor allows some simplification the transmission/gearbox, enables RPM control of the tail rotor, with the biggest benefit being the fuel efficiency gains of turning off the tail rotor in full speed forward flight.

Then, if you look at FVL/FARA type missions, and you only want a bit of speed, you could go for a ducted electric tail fan as a hybrid of X-49 and early Bell FARA designs. Electric pushers could also be simpler, as you would have no clutch ala the Sikorsky designs, easier to fold etc.

 

[VTOLicious]

In terms of technology and innovation I would use a more general term, namely Distributed Electric Propulsion (DEP).

The "eVTOL industry" may not be the only one making use of it, but they are definitely pushing the development, certification and industrialization of DEP the most (and of related technologies as well).

Btw... Air Force Aims to Get More eVTOL Platforms into Testing, Exercises in 2023

 

[yasotay]

@TomcatViP - there are few absolutely new VTOL concepts that I am aware of. If nothing else the eVTOL community is expanding the experiance with VTOL technologies that have been moribund for decades. New stability augmentation computers and materials that reduce the weight of the platform let us experiment with these VTOL older concepts. Certainly many will remain impractical even with the new technology.
For me I will be happy with development of second and third order effects of the effort like software that deconflicts congested airspace for platforms that may not follow specified flight plans.

 

[sferrin]

@TomcatViP - there are few absolutely new VTOL concepts that I am aware of. If nothing else the eVTOL community is expanding the experiance with VTOL technologies that have been moribund for decades. New stability augmentation computers and materials that reduce the weight of the platform let us experiment with these VTOL older concepts. Certainly many will remain impractical even with the new technology.
For me I will be happy with development of second and third order effects of the effort like software that deconflicts congested airspace for platforms that may not follow specified flight plans.

There was a time I was working on this:



One of the guys was going on and on about "ground-breaking", "greatest thing" blah, blah, blah. "Yeah? Check this out"



"Half a century ago."

 

[yasotay]

Connecticut lawmakers demand more information on Army helicopter award

The Army this week declined to discuss its FLRAA decision with lawmakers, citing the protest period.

www.defensenews.com

Back on topic, the politicians from Connecticut are doing their best to muck it up. I note that Pennsylvania and Florida delegations have remained silent. This can likely become a horrid affair as the Congressional delegation from Texas counterargues and supports Bell in the Federal Court system. Rolling battles for years, followed by program termination. LMCO wins.

 

[Spyclip]

Connecticut lawmakers demand more information on Army helicopter award

The Army this week declined to discuss its FLRAA decision with lawmakers, citing the protest period.

www.defensenews.com

Back on topic, the politicians from Connecticut are doing their best to muck it up. I note that Pennsylvania and Florida delegations have remained silent. This can likely become a horrid affair as the Congressional delegation from Texas counterargues and supports Bell in the Federal Court system. Rolling battles for years, followed by program termination. LMCO wins.

I have to imagine that the Army is simply waiting for the GAO to conclude and then drop the hammer (semi-publicly I hope) of objective data showing the Defiant is an unworkable POS.

They specifically delayed the downselect announcement in preparation knowing this was going to be the situation so I would be surprised if this wasn't already precisely gameplanned.

 

[yasotay]

Connecticut lawmakers demand more information on Army helicopter award

The Army this week declined to discuss its FLRAA decision with lawmakers, citing the protest period.

www.defensenews.com

Back on topic, the politicians from Connecticut are doing their best to muck it up. I note that Pennsylvania and Florida delegations have remained silent. This can likely become a horrid affair as the Congressional delegation from Texas counterargues and supports Bell in the Federal Court system. Rolling battles for years, followed by program termination. LMCO wins.

I have to imagine that the Army is simply waiting for the GAO to conclude and then drop the hammer (semi-publicly I hope) of objective data showing the Defiant is an unworkable POS.

They specifically delayed the downselect announcement in preparation knowing this was going to be the situation so I would be surprised if this wasn't already precisely gameplanned.

I doubt the Army will "drop the hammer" with the FARA competition looming. That said I believe the GAO investigation must be made public record so the Army information provided to the GAO to defend the decision should be accessible.

 

[FighterJock]

The GAO should rule in favour of Bell after the investigation and let Bell automatically win the FARA competition because of the way that Lockheed behaved.

 

[yasotay]

I am posting this so folk can get a glimpse at the Byzantine innards of the US process.

New ‘supplemental’ protest filed by Sikorsky in FLRAA bid case.

Inside Defense

DATE: February 9, 2023

BYLINE: Dan Schere

Sikorsky filed a new “supplemental” protest earlier this week for the Future Long Range-Assault Aircraft award.
The Army awarded the contract to Bell, owned by Textron, in early December to produce the V-280 Valor aircraft. Service officials said on Dec. 5 that the initial award would be for $232 million, but ultimately it could be worth up to $1.3 billion.
Bell’s V-280 and a joint proposal from Sikorsky and Boeing were the two finalists in the competition for the contract, after the Army narrowed the field in early 2021.
The FLRAA will eventually replace the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter starting around 2030, but the Army has said it plans to continue flying Black Hawks even after the new helicopters enter service.
During a Dec. 5 media briefing, Army officials gave few specifics on the reasons for their selection of Bell’s bid, saying that it represented a “best-value approach.”
On Dec. 28, Sikorsky and Boeing filed a bid protest with the Government Accountability Office, with Sikorsky saying at the time that “the data and discussions lead us to believe the proposals were not consistently evaluated to deliver the best value in the interest of the Army, our Soldiers and American taxpayers." GAO must issue a decision by April 7.
GAO records show that a second protest was filed by Sikorsky on Feb. 6 in the case. The additional protest was filed after Sikorsky officials reviewed the Army’s agency report and “determined that additional protest grounds existed,” according to a statement from Lockheed Martin to Inside Defense on Thursday.
“We are confident the GAO will identify the evaluation inconsistencies and recommend the Army conduct a new unbiased evaluation that delivers the best value for the Army, Soldiers and taxpayers,” the company said in the statement.
Edward Goldstein, a managing associate general counsel in the GAO who handles bid protests, told Inside Defense on Wednesday that the latest protest from Sikorsky is considered a supplemental protest, and that there are new allegations “based on information learned from the agency’s response to the initial protest.”
Although the supplemental protest shows a deadline of May 17 on GAO’s website, Goldstein said it is the practice of GAO to resolve all protest issues, including supplemental protest allegations, by the initial protest deadline, which would be April 7.
Connecticut lawmakers continue to push for a briefing from Army
In the months since the Army announced its selection of Bell for the FLRAA contract, congressional lawmakers from Connecticut, where Sikorsky is based, have been pushing for answers from the service. The state’s two senators and five representatives wrote to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth on Jan. 12 asking for a briefing, Defense News reported last week. The Army’s top acquisition official, Doug Bush, responded last week declining to conduct a briefing “at this time.”
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), ranking member on the House Appropriations Committee, told Inside Defense in an interview Tuesday that she has sent multiple letters to Army officials as far back as November, before the contract award was announced, seeking information.
DeLauro said she and Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) had a meeting with Bush in December after the decision was made, in which they asked questions about the criteria used in the selection process, the cost-benefit analysis of the selection and other aspects of the process. Bush declined to go into detail in that meeting, she said.
“It was like taking the fifth . . . I can’t answer the question. I can’t answer the question,” she said.
DeLauro said there are outstanding questions the Connecticut delegation has about the criteria for the competition, the footprint of each helicopter proposal, the cost efficiencies and the overall effect on the defense industrial base.
DeLauro and other Connecticut lawmakers have also said that they’ve heard there is a significant difference in cost between the two bids. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) told Connecticut Public Radio last week that based on the estimates they’ve heard, Sikorsky and Boeing’s DEFIANT X is more affordable and that the proposal was rejected due to a “so-called technical issue” having to do with equipment.
DeLauro said on Tuesday that the Army’s refusal to brief lawmakers “suggests real skepticism on the basis of this decision.”
“From my point of view, what are they trying to hide?” she said.
DeLauro cited a clause from the Federal Acquisition Regulation, relating to disclosure, protection and marking of bid proposal information, which states that “the withholding of any information pursuant to a proper request from the Congress, any committee or subcommittee thereof, a Federal agency, the Comptroller General, or an inspector general of a Federal agency” is not authorized.
“Any release containing contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information must clearly identify the information as contractor bid or proposal information or source selection information related to the conduct of a Federal agency procurement and notify the recipient that the disclosure of the information is restricted,” the FAR states.
When asked about the statute, the Army’s acquisition office released a statement to Inside Defense Wednesday saying that “as soon as it can, the Army will provide Congress with all necessary information regarding the FLRAA competition and source selection. However, as the competition is still ongoing, the Army is limited in what information it can provide at this time.”
The Army went on to say that once the protest review concludes, the service “will provide the committees of jurisdiction all requested information on the outcome of the competition.”
“This approach is consistent with longstanding DOD and congressional practice in such situations,” the statement read.
DeLauro, when asked Tuesday whether the appropriations committee would consider withholding funding for the program, said she is optimistic she and her colleagues’ push for a briefing from the Army will be successful.
“I believe we have to continue to go back and demonstrate that they, by statute, have got to provide us with this hearing and that there very well may be precedent for it. We’re not going to stop pushing until we get the briefing that we requested,” she said.

 

[Spyclip]

the proposal was rejected due to a “so-called technical issue” having to do with equipment.

Yeah, its called "the helicopter doesn't work at all", Dick.

The fact these congresspeople are pitching such a tantrum for an Army debriefing before the GAO response speaks volumes.

 

[VTOLicious]

the proposal was rejected due to a “so-called technical issue” having to do with equipment.

Yeah, its called "the helicopter doesn't work at all", Dick.

The fact these congresspeople are pitching such a tantrum for an Army debriefing before the GAO response speaks volumes.

To be honest, I'm getting a lil annoyed by your continuous disrespectful comments towards the Sikorsky-Boeing Team. You should at least show some respect for the engineers who worked on that project for many years!

Defiant is a technology demonstrator and is a success in that regard. It demonstrated the capabilities and performance possible with a "helicopter type of aircraft" utilising technology available today. And it did achieve some impressive milestones indeed... However, to the regret of S&B, part of this success (for the Army) may be the lesson that this technology is not mature enough for the FVL medium size / weight class

 

[Spyclip]

the proposal was rejected due to a “so-called technical issue” having to do with equipment.

Yeah, its called "the helicopter doesn't work at all", Dick.

The fact these congresspeople are pitching such a tantrum for an Army debriefing before the GAO response speaks volumes.

To be honest, I'm getting a lil annoyed by your continuous disrespectful comments towards the Sikorsky-Boeing Team. You should at least show some respect for the engineers who worked on that project for many years!

Defiant is a technology demonstrator and is a success in that regard. It demonstrated the capabilities and performance possible with a "helicopter type of aircraft" utilising technology available today. And it did achieve some impressive milestones indeed... However, to the regret of S&B, part of this success (for the Army) may be the lesson that this technology is not mature enough for the FVL medium size / weight class

What makes you think I was not one of those engineers?

I thought that had become abundantly clear by this point.

 

[sferrin]

the proposal was rejected due to a “so-called technical issue” having to do with equipment.

Yeah, its called "the helicopter doesn't work at all", Dick.

The fact these congresspeople are pitching such a tantrum for an Army debriefing before the GAO response speaks volumes.

To be honest, I'm getting a lil annoyed by your continuous disrespectful comments towards the Sikorsky-Boeing Team. You should at least show some respect for the engineers who worked on that project for many years!

Defiant is a technology demonstrator and is a success in that regard. It demonstrated the capabilities and performance possible with a "helicopter type of aircraft" utilising technology available today. And it did achieve some impressive milestones indeed... However, to the regret of S&B, part of this success (for the Army) may be the lesson that this technology is not mature enough for the FVL medium size / weight class

What makes you think I was not one of those engineers?

I thought that had become abundantly clear by this point.

Prove it.

 

[yasotay]

Spyclip - Your insights have been of interest, but I have to agree that there is no reason to denigrate the folks working on the SB>1 program here. We work hard to remain respectful of folks here.

 

[Spyclip]

IMO, acknowledgement of the resultant product failures driven by poor management decisions, egos, and stubbornness is not denigration of the engineers compelled to create the designated end product. The individual behind most of this "compulsion" and champion of putting all Sikorsky eggs in the X2 concept basket for the better part of the last 2 decades retired at the beginning of 2022.

You may be surprised about the number of engineers who have departed Sikorsky and Boeing through the duration of this program and its predecessors who concur with these sentiments about Defiant/X2, and are similarly frustrated by the delta between the truth and what is publicly portrayed by Sikorsky.

If you look hard enough, you'll come across not-so-thinly-veiled forum posts that are stating as much from other very historically key X2 folks. It's not difficult to ascertain who authored that one.

 

[zevets]

You may be surprised about the number of engineers who have departed Sikorsky and Boeing through the duration of this program and its predecessors who concur with these sentiments about Defiant/X2, and are similarly frustrated by the delta between the truth and what is publicly portrayed by Sikorsky.

If you look hard enough, you'll come across not-so-thinly-veiled forum posts that are stating as much from other very historically key X2 folks. It's not difficult to ascertain who authored that one.

How public is public? I always heard that AHS (now vtol society) technical sessions always seemed quite unsatisfactory on the technical advances. Also, from what I heard about flight tests on X-2, it is quite a bit different than that post - in particular active vibration control underperforming and vibration loads at the subsystem scale exceeding predictions etc. I would love to know more, and maybe some proper dirty laundry facts gets aired during the protest.

That said: Sikorsky leadership aren't fools for pursuing the path they did. Sikorsky pretty obviously ran out of internal money on X-2, and around the same time UTC fire their CEO (too much technology investment!) and was promptly turned into dividend machine by a private equity goon, so the parent company wasn't going to cough up investment money either.

So, to continue testing, the only way to get money to continue flight testing was if they convinced the Army that the current design was all they would ever need, which they did (!), causing FVL to come into existence.

But in order to do that - they had to propose a design the Army wanted, which was a scout replacement. And if as that highly informed poster proposed, and they built a twin engine scout helicopter with a MGTOW greater than Apache, it wouldn't be a scout helicopter, but an Apache replacement. And that would have never flown, because congress would have never signed the check, because 1) that's not what the Army needs, and 2) be an existential threat to all the jobs on the Apache production line.

 

[TomcatViP]

For what I understand, the twin engines setup would have been there for Speed, not to lug an heavier airframe. Turbines are fairly light and the increase in weight would have come mainly from the GB that should have been pretty robust already to handle the pusher.

 

[yasotay]

Folks, part of the problem is that the Army tried to defy physics with the written requirements. The then outgoing program manager said as much at a public meeting at the Aviation Center. I will try to find the AW&ST article that commented on it. The Army, unlike the other US Services, sees requirement development and administration as a secondary task.

 

[RavenOne]

In all Honesty, I do really think that Defiant configuration had its chances. However, the end result, as offered by Sikorsky, was just too botched.

Instead of wining, LM should turn toward the foreign market and partners with other primes to make it viable on an other program. Then, in a decade, with a couple of contract from a foreign buyer under the belt, there will be some incentives to re-enter DoD budget.

See how Europeans might see the relative lack of speed and range as less of a burden. It's probable that they won't have much choices in this range of available power for long. Perhaps even gladly trading some digits regarding tilt rotor speed and range for better high and hot weather hover performances.

CAse in point to one of my posts on Europeans signing up for FVl, and Italy wants to party sorry pair up with Sikorsky...

Italy Air Force chief wants in on US next-gen helicopter tech — pronto

Gen. Luca Goretti said Italy urgently needs to get in on the ground floor of development of the technology to avoid playing catch-up later.

www.defensenews.com

So in short he's after X2 / Defiant / Raider tech

cheers

 

[Spyclip]

Folks, part of the problem is that the Army tried to defy physics with the written requirements. The then outgoing program manager said as much at a public meeting at the Aviation Center. I will try to find the AW&ST article that commented on it. The Army, unlike the other US Services, sees requirement development and administration as a secondary task.

There’s no version of the world that exists in physics, except maybe on a different planet, where the speed at range, endurance at range and payload all exist in a 14,000-lb. helicopter—not at what we’re asking for. Let’s just be real about that. There’s no version of the world where you can go 180 kt at 14,000 lb. on a 3,000-shp engine and a 40-ft. rotor disc. So we’ve got to figure out what that is and what it means and how we play that out.

Col. Greg Fortier, FARA project manager in the PEO-A office. 22 July 2021.

 

[sferrin]

75% scale AH-56. (Only half joking.)

 

[Spyclip]

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

 

[TomcatViP]

Great catch. So, how does smaller, faster, nimbler get to be cheaper?
GL to LM to have that unoticed by the GAO!

 

[VTOLicious]

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?

 

[Spyclip]

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.