CTR, at least they are now lumps of metal rather than 3D printed…..it will be a relief to the Army and to both FARA bidders that they can finally get their aircraft finished.
FARA remains in an awkward space. There is still talk about the Army not being able to afford it, and that both designs are 'too much helicopter' as a direct -58D replacement, as well as encroaching significantly into the AH-64E's space. Assuming that the budget remains there, which will the Army chose? I totally agree with Cody's assessment re FLRAA above. The 'smoking gun' was laid bare in the GAO protest response, and heads should have rolled at LM/Sikorsky for it. However, setting aside the huge lead that the V-280 built up in the JMR-TD program (and Army Aviation desperately needs a low-risk 'win' having failed to field a new platform since the Aviators took over the acquisition process - no the Lakota doesn't count..), the V-280's configuration also answers an awful lot of operational needs in the PTO, and it is wet-built from first principles so it can deploy in the littoral or lily pad off ships if needed. A tilt rotor with significant wing borne lift is always going to have a speed/range/altitude advantage over an X2 thrust compound design. I also suspect, given Sikorsky's admission that X2 Tech does not scale up to 'Large-medium / Heavy', that it barely scaled up to Defiant, and that the vibration and aero interaction were significant issues in the end. Where does this leave FARA? The Army's preference for pure 'Scout' has always been side by side seating, with room in the back for a couple of pax or cargo. Raider nails that brief, Invictus manifestly doesn't (and the external seating patent recently released looks a little desperate on a single engined non-SOCOM platform…it's not a MELB), unless the army want more 'Attack' than 'Recce', in which case the Invictus holds the advantage. Given that the lift-compound design will be barely faster than today's platforms, and Raider much quicker, it also closes the 'escort gap' to V-280 if needed. Ultimately, however, this will come down to politics. Provided Raider doesn't completely blow the assessment, I'm confident that it will win. Putting the medium term future of Army Avn into one company would make Bell too important to fail, and not spread tax-dollars through enough political hinterlands. Plus, can Bell realistically generate enough industrial capacity to manage and deliver both programs?