Originally Posted by
JohnDixson
Yes, SD and wasn’t that beyond ironic, at least to those of us who vividly recall the oft repeated rule at SA in 1972-3 as we put together the design: “there will be zero exceptions”.*
But to my post: can you point me to the FARA Material Need Doc or whatever the Army called the specific requirements document? I’d like to read it.
John, for all of my Google-Fu, I cannot find such a document, if it's public.
The following Hirschberg commentary article reflects the trades and general approach accurately.
https://vtol.org/news/commentary-decision-time-for-fara
For the UTTAS and AAH programs in the 1970's, the Army was very specific in the requirements and capabilities they wanted, which also drove significant convergent evolution on the solutions, the YAH-63 two-bladed main rotor notwithstanding. For these FVL programs, the opposite tack is being taken. A modest number of proposed missions drive the comparative analysis of possible configurations and tradable capabilities inside a defined trade space. The Army then evaluates the results. It's more than a little like comparing apples and oranges and picking one.
The FARA analysis of alternatives that is due later this calendar year, might be the best insight we get into the Army's thinking on FARA.