Article in Defense News:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/202...t-competition/
Finally new stuff to talk about.
Recently read an article on the Bradley replacement where they had to cancel the original program because only one vendor responded. They then dumbed down the requirements and went out for new responses. Apparently it is unfair to have requirements that only the best can meet. This explains the FLRAA changes.
As to the issue discussed most: \ the speed requirement is as follows:
The Army has set its threshold speed requirement for the aircraft at 230 knots, with an objective requirement of 280 knots, according to the RFP. The contract would set up an incentive to reach the objective speed requirement as well.
So the min acceptable speed was reduced from 250 kts to 230 kts to keep SB in the competition to avoid the Bradley replacement problem. Much to SB's despair the objective speed was defined as 280 kts which the V-280 easily meets and the ABC concept can never meet. Additionally, the 280 kt objective matches nicely with the Marine new medium lift minimum speed requirement.
I think everyone knows how this plays out. No vendor team will get both the FLRAA and FARA. Even if Bell's Invictus equals the Sikorsky Raider in every way, Sikorsky will be given the program. FARA will only go to Bell if the ABC's concept deficiencies are overwhelming so Bell gets the FLRAA without years of protest from the losers.
Once the two programs are awarded, the emphasis on Pacific operations will keep FLRAA safe while the FARA can be terminated for cause when Sikorsky stumbles (face it what program have they recently executed flawlessly?) with minimum impact to the US's warfighting capabilities.