What a fine post, Evalu8ter thanks for "thinking out loud", as it were.
A few comments.
Originally Posted by
Evalu8ter
FARA remains in an awkward space.
I expect that if it wins there will also be an export market for it. I get the idea that Invictus is more affordable than Raider-X. (But I may be guessing incorrectly). Conceptually, though, it runs the risk of the wrong answer to: "Why do we need an OH-58D replacement when we chose to go Apache plus drones and the future will see more drones, not fewer?" (Also, the Army has a bad habit of not being able to shift paradigms ...but I digress).
Encroaching significantly into the AH-64E's space.
I am not sure that it does that. Invictus may meet the "more deployable quickly " metric better than AH-64E. More of them will probably fit into an airlift aircraft like a C-17. I'd need to see the Army Future Concept documents (kind of like what Force XXI looked like in the 90's) but I am not privy to those deliberations.
Assuming that the budget remains there, which will the Army chose?
If Raider-X doesn't score a bunch more own goals, I expect that Raider X will get the nod for some of the reasons you mention, but the most important metric is the political one that you pointed out. That's reality.
the vibration and aero interaction were significant issues in the end.
Whomever has the IVHUMS project for Raider-X has their work cut out for them.
external seating patent recently released looks a little desperate
Almost a farce. If Raider-X gets over some of the hurdles you mention, their speed advantage will probably ice the deal.
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?
They probably can. Textron also owns Beech up in Wichita, and some other aerospace companies.