Originally Posted by
JohnDixson
Having been “ fairly close “ to both the Army UTTAS and the Comanche Programs, it is important to note the effects of two absolutely different approaches taken by the Army in their management of the two:
1. In the case of UTTAS, the Army took great pains to produce a Material Needs document which then became a detailed specification, which was then an integral part of the Request for Proposal, and which remained unchanged throughout the selection and fly-off competition. This was hardly the case with Comanche, where the goal posts were changed frequently esp.with regard to systems.
2. There was a competitive fly-off, involving competitive evaluations both in engineering at their Engineering Flight Activity at Edwards AFB, a Service Evaluation at Ft. Rucker and an Operational Evaluation at Ft. Campbell, wherein the Army determined the degree to which the competitors met or did not meet their predetermined requirements.
One produced a vehicle that met their requirements, in a timely fashion, and for far, far less investment than the second. Some of us are still wondering why the example set by UTTAS wasn’t followed again for the RAH program.
Fly-offs are the good way to go. History shows us that they lead to programs that are more successful and cost less overall. Their big drawback as far as Washington is concerned is that although they pay off big time in the end, they have a funding "bulge" at the front end to have the flyoff. Plus, with a flyoff, those working in the lofty towers of DC don't get the chance to show the brilliance of their analysis through demonstrating how they don't need to be bothered with the real world.
That's why we don't have them much anymore. The last big ones I can think of were the AAH, F16/17 and A-9/10. The F-22/23 was not really a full flyoff as much as a performance validation of claims, and there will be no flyoff for FLRAA. What we've seen so far has been a demonstration of the capabilities of two technologies without an actual mandate to meet all the performance specified for FLRAA, although in my mind it's obvious which one has a better chance of pulling it off. The winner will be determined by a paper analysis, of which demonstrated capability so far will be one of the factors considered. FARA, though, so far seems to be headed for a good ol' fashioned flyoff. Let's hope so and may the better craft win.