Originally Posted by
SansAnhedral
In retrospect, it appears it was dangling the big carrot (4000 aircraft UH-60/AH-64 replacement) to get the OEMs to invest and demonstrate their technology. It also made more sense at the time because it predated the colossal blunder of mothballing the OH-58s.
But now it appears to be a gigantic middle finger to Bell, who to date have done exactly what was asked with their demo - on time and on budget - only to get the Army waffling on whether or not they really are going to go through with CS3 first...or even at all!
I can imagine a scenario where the Army ends up saying "Well we really need that Kiowa replacement because we totally f'ed up by retiring them" and the subsequent procurement of the scouts (especially if they really believe the suspect cost estimates Sikorsky has published on the Raider) eats their budget to such a degree that replacing the mediums will seem like a pipe dream.
It seems unfathomable that the Army would expect OEMs like Bell to absorb the cost of building and flying ANOTHER demonstrator, particularly on this condensed proposed timescale. I don't see how they can afford that - their pockets aren't nearly as deep as LockMart/Boeing.
FARA isnt remotely feasible as a real competition unless the Army is really just looking for a way to buy the S97
I agree that that the Army's waffling could prove disastrous. Although Army is getting new/rebuilt medium lift 'copters, they are still basically the same technology and performance as what has been around for 20-30 years, and you have to start moving away from that sometime. The nice thing about CS3 is its widespread applicability.
Aside from Army's replacing UH-60/AH-64, USMC has shown significant interest in it as a replacement for UH-1Y and AH-1Z. USN also might be interested. Although the high speed capabilities aren't as important, to USN, the range and endurance would be and commonality with USN would be a plus. . The UK and Japan have shown interest, and one would think Israel and maybe Australia would be watching closely. The scout mission, though, is pretty unique to the Army. A vehicle for that wouldn't have the appeal elsewhere that the medium lift variant would. As stated, it wold be awful hard to get companies to invest their money on another vehicle when if it's perceived that Army might abandon its latest direction. We have already seen examples of major contractors declining to bid on new programs. Given the already ridiculous and unnecessarily long time Army is stretching FVL out, the ultimate result of doing this could very well be that nobody gets anything.