US Army FARA Competition Announced!

[SASless]

The US Army announced the competition for the FARA Program at the AAAA Convention in Nashville.

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/aaaa/2019/04/23/us-army-picks-5-teams-to-design-new-us-army-attack-recon-helicopter/?fbclid=IwAR3lfrtrxYDs1lbxqyFdc18kxB8fYYx7m5j_B-hbXb2HlBtCD-1qNOsON8s


Bell Helicopters will be using Bell 525 Technology and Sikorsky will use their latest design based upon the ABC concept.

[pr00ne]

Is this a future AH-64 replacement or a new requirement?

[Willard Whyte]

It says OH-58/UH-60 about half way through. The requirement has been there for a while, the last attempt to fill the 'gap' was the ill-fated RAH-66 Comanche.

It's to complement the AH-64, this will be a light attack/recce platform. Looks like it might have the capability to carry out CSAR missions too. Sikorski are pitching it at USSOCOM as a launch 'customer'.

The AH-64 replacement is intended to be part of the Future Vertical Lift plan (née Joint Multi-Role Program), intended to cover vertical lift platforms over the next 50+ years.

[Evalu8ter]

The US Army has not successfully developed a new rotorcraft since the AH-64. Lakota was, effectively, COTS, and since the cancellation of the RAH-66 all the Army have done is upgrade legacy aircraft and retire the Kiowa. FARA suggests that the decision not to replace the Kiowa, but to re-purpose Apache, has been seen as something of a failure. FVL/JMR Cap Set 3 (UH-60 replacement) seems to be progressing well with V-280 exceeding 300Kts and the SB-1 finally flying so, perhaps, the tide is turning. With the FVL derived technologies moving the speed on to 250kts+, perhaps it is apropos to look at the same technology to confer additional protection/capability to a scout-class platform. FWIW, my opinion is that Tilt Rotor is possibly better for the Cap Set 3 with a thrust compound better for the scout (as it will likely be smaller and have better hover performance and low speed agility). Just my 10c…….

[SASless]

FARA suggests that the decision not to replace the Kiowa, but to re-purpose Apache, has been seen as something of a failure.

Talk about pointing out the bleeding obvious!

Anyone with a grain of commonsense was saying that as the Army was making that grand decision....which built upon destroying the Commanche Tooling when the geniuses terminated that Contract.

[Evalu8ter]

SASless - Indeed old friend…I was trying be polite, for once!!!!

[melmothtw]

The requirement has been there for a while, the last attempt to fill the 'gap' was the ill-fated RAH-66 Comanche.

There have been three attempts since then - the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho, the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), and most recently the upgraded OH-58F. On each occasion, it has been budget (or lack of) that has scuppered it, so will be interested to see if this one makes it past the finish line.

[SASless]

E8....not faulting you at all.....but very much unimpressed with the US Army Aviation Management!

You merely pointed out the truth of the matter.

[Lonewolf_50]

LHX, all over again.
Yeah: too bad comanche tooling was destroyed.
Rebuild Comanche as a single pilot aircraft and ... sorry, don't get me started.

[Willard Whyte]

There have been three attempts since then - the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho, the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), and most recently the upgraded OH-58F. On each occasion, it has been budget (or lack of) that has scuppered it, so will be interested to see if this one makes it past the finish line.
Whatever. xxx

[Mil-26Man]

Whatever indeed, how dare anyone introduce facts into this discussion!!

Back to the subject, some interesting reading here on one of the FARA contenders that suffered a serious mishap recently. Alert 5 » NTSB report on S-97 accident reveals extensive damage to aircraft - Military Aviation News (http://alert5.com/2019/05/01/ntsb-report-on-s-97-accident-reveals-extensive-damage-to-aircraft/)

[Willard Whyte]

I'm just more interested in the future than the past with regard to this subject.

[chopper2004]

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/sb1-defiant-moves-forward-for-future-vertical-lift-fvl.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fvl&Campaign+Term=RMS---Future-Vertical-Lift,RMS---Defiant&Campaign+Content+=100001183036889&linkId=100000011212635

”The U.S. Army announced that the Sikorsky-Boeing team has been selected to move forward in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft’s Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction Program (CD&RR) program.”

[ORAC]

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bell-valor-boeing-sikorsky-defiant-flraa-selection/

Bell’s Valor, Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant advance in U.S. Army Future Assault Aircraft program

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/smr/army-modernization/2020/03/25/lockheed-and-bell-will-compete-head-to-head-to-build-us-armys-future-attack-recon-aircraft/

Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft

WASHINGTON — Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin-owned company (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2020/02/20/lockheeds-raider-x-already-under-construction/), and Bell (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/02/bell-unshrouds-invictus-its-answer-for-the-us-armys-future-attack-recon-aircraft/)have been selected to build and fly Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) prototypes (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/aaaa/2019/04/23/us-army-picks-5-teams-to-design-new-us-army-attack-recon-helicopter/) for the U.S. Army in a head-to-head competition, according to a March 25 Army statement..........

[Asturias56]

ORAC - which of your posts is correct?

[ORAC]

Both.........

The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) programme overlaps with the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft programme, but is not the same.

The Valor and the Defiant have been down-selected for FLRAA; there are 5 companies still in the running for FARA, which will almost certainly be a helicopter rather than tilt-rotor. e.g.

”The CEO of Textron, Bell’s parent company, said during a recent earnings call, that its FARA design will be based on its 525 technology rather than its tiltrotor technology. Bell has built and flown a tiltrotor prototype — the V-280 Valor — for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program.”.

[Asturias56]

Thank you o Master - I get lost in the Acronyms......... :ok:

[chopper2004]

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/raider-x-enters-fara-prototype-phase.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fvl&Campaign+Term=RMS---Raider,RMS---Future-Vertical-Lift&Campaign+Content+=100001207220431&linkId=100000011479335 https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/photo/fara/RaiderXArmy-1920x1125.jpg.pc-adaptive.full.medium.jpeg

[T28B]

/notasmod
As I look at that illustration I note that there is a rack of forward firing ordnance stored right behind pilot and copilot stations.
(Swing the doors in to a "closed" position to see what I mean)
What could possibly go wrong? :E

[tdracer]

As I look at that illustration I note that there is a rack of forward firing ordnance stored right behind pilot and copilot stations.
(Swing the doors in to a "closed" position to see what I mean)
What could possibly go wrong? :E
My non-expert eye says the design is intended to be stealthy for radar. If so, storing rockets and other ordnance 'inside' would be pretty much mandatory (and of course that also help with drag and top speed).
If the design constants dictate storing self propelled ordnance inside the airframe, inadvertent launch of said ordnance while stored is likely catastrophic regardless.
Putting it directly behind the pilots just reduces the suffering if it happens :}

[Commando Cody]

Both.........

The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) programme overlaps with the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft programme, but is not the same.

The Valor and the Defiant have been down-selected for FLRAA; there are 5 companies still in the running for FARA, which will almost certainly be a helicopter rather than tilt-rotor. e.g.

”The CEO of Textron, Bell’s parent company, said during a recent earnings call, that its FARA design will be based on its 525 technology rather than its tiltrotor technology. Bell has built and flown a tiltrotor prototype — the V-280 Valor — for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program.”.


FARA's performance requirements are far more modest than those of FLRAA. As a result Tilt-Rotor's speed and range advantages won't gain it enough credit to offset higher upfront costs. Plus, an absolute go/no go requirement is that total diameter over the rotor must be no more than 40', something hard to do in a Tilt-Rotor

[Commando Cody]

My non-expert eye says the design is intended to be stealthy for radar. If so, storing rockets and other ordnance 'inside' would be pretty much mandatory (and of course that also help with drag and top speed).
If the design constants dictate storing self propelled ordnance inside the airframe, inadvertent launch of said ordnance while stored is likely catastrophic regardless.
Putting it directly behind the pilots just reduces the suffering if it happens :}

Unlike Comanche, stealth isn't that big a requirement for FARA, and not that much credit will be given for it (that pusher on Raider-X, for example, is a nice radar reflector). If you think about it, especially in urban warfare (the driver for the 40' rotor diameter requirement) how important is stealth to a craft you can just look out the window and see? The internal ordnance is for drag.

[Evalu8ter]

The final two FARA contenders tell us much about the Army's thinking. The Bell Invictus has the lowest technical risk, in effect being a lightly lift compounded conventional rotorcraft re-using the Bell 525 running gear and familiar features from its (whisper it…) RAH-66 inspiration - tandem seating, shrouded TR and retractable gear.

The Raider X, however, is much more high-risk as there's never been a mass-produced thrust compounded design. The X2 tech has been around for a while; the S-97 had a modestly successful flight test program, but the FLRAA contender (SB>1 Defiant) has struggled against its Tiltrotor competitor (V-280), in my opinion because the X2 tech doesn't seem to scale up well and Tilt-rotor is now a mature technology. My guess is that the Army (and The Hill) will not pick the same winner for both FLRAA and FARA for capacity, industrial base and pork barrel reasons. X2 looks better as a small aircraft, so will likely win FARA (accepting it's higher risk) whereas the V-280 looks miles ahead in terms of moderated risk for FLRAA.

If you want to see complex, look at the Karem FARA proposal…..

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/congress/budget/2023/06/14/lawmakers-demand-army-justify-pursuit-of-new-attack-recon-helicopter/

Lawmakers demand Army justify pursuit of new attack recon helicopter

WASHINGTON — Lawmakers would curb the U.S. Army secretary’s travel until the service shows a thorough analysis of alternatives to pursuing a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2023/04/24/us-army-preps-mission-tech-for-future-helicopter-despite-engine-delay/), according to a draft of the fiscal 2024 policy bill released this week by the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.

No more than 70% of the Office of the Secretary of the Army’s travel budget can be obligated or spent until Secretary Christine Wormuth submits that analysis for the FARA program to congressional defense committees, the mark of the bill laid out.

The Army completed a “very robust” analysis of alternatives in 2019 for its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/) program, subcommittee Chairman Rob Wittman, R-Va., told Defense News in a June 14 interview. “So our question was why not the same for FARA?”….

[Asturias56]

" how important is stealth to a craft you can just look out the window and see? "

or hear

I think a few people on here might remember an early military hovercraft presentation described by Flight as "RM hovercraft sneaks up on totally deaf "Warsaw pact" sentry"...............................

[ORAC]

Army cancels FARA helicopter program, makes other cuts in major aviation shakeup (https://breakingdefense.com/2024/02/army-cancels-fara-helicopter-program-makes-other-cuts-in-major-aviation-shakeup/)

WASHINGTON — The US Army is cancelling its next generation Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, service officials announced today, taking a potential multi-billion-dollar contract off the table and throwing the service’s long-term aviation plans into doubt.

In addition, the Army plans to end production on the UH-60 V Black Hawk (https://breakingdefense.com/2023/04/army-postpones-production-decision-for-uh-60v-black-hawk-cockpit-redesign/) in fiscal 2025, due to “significant cost growth,” keep General Electric’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP (https://breakingdefense.com/tag/itep/)) in the development phase instead of moving it into production, and phase the Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems out of the fleet, the service added.

All told, it reflects a massive shift in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning. There is also an ironic sense of history repeating: the decision to end FARA comes two decades to the month (https://www.cnn.com/2004/US/02/23/helicopter.cancel/) after the Army ended its plans to procure the RAH-66 Comanche and nearly 16 years after it terminated work on the ARH-70A Arapaho, both aircraft designed to replace the Kiowa — the same helicopter FARA was supposed to, finally, replace.

The reason for ending FARA, Army leaders told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement, is a reflection of what war looks like in the modern era.

“We absolutely are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting, because we could go to war tonight, this weekend,” head of Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.

“We are learning from the battlefield — especially Ukraine — that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief Gen. Randy George said in a press release. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”….

While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained.

So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.

[Evalu8ter]

Gutsy call with both aircraft so close to flight after (finally) getting the ITEP engines. There have been rumours that it might be scaled back in ambition, but cancellation does come as a surprise. That said, we accuse military leaders of not listening and learning, nor of making tough decisions. They may be right here, but have they, perhaps, taken too many lessons from Ukraine?

[T28B]

As neither mod nor admin:
What other aircraft was the ITEP engine slotted for? Curious.

[OnePerRev]

The T900 series is intended to have variants to replace the T700 family... so that is a long list of platforms, notably Blackhawk and Apache. If the fuel efficiency improvement is proven, and supposedly in engine cell testing it is... the same aircraft can do the same mission with less fuel, or longer range missions with full fuel, etc. That would be without even changing the installed power rating, so minimal change to dynamic components.

[rattman]

The T900 series is intended to have variants to replace the T700 family... so that is a long list of platforms, notably Blackhawk and Apache. If the fuel efficiency improvement is proven, and supposedly in engine cell testing it is... the same aircraft can do the same mission with less fuel, or longer range missions with full fuel, etc. That would be without even changing the installed power rating, so minimal change to dynamic components.

Yeah blackhawk, seahawk, Apache, Cobra, Venom, NH-90 all would have been able to use the a T900

[Lonewolf_50]

I had heard a rumor that Apache was going to get that upgrade, but "when" is an open question.

[unmanned_droid]

It's a real kick in the pants for the design and build teams, and personally, I would love to see them fly. However, I think it's probably the overall right thing to do with the world as it is today.

[rattman]

I had heard a rumor that Apache was going to get that upgrade, but "when" is an open question.

The plan was they would eventually replace all black/sea hawks and apache but considering the number of engines and helicopters out in the world its would take decades to complete

[Copter Appreciator00]

FARA Is Dead - The Army Will Trade New Scout Helicopters For Drones (forbes.com) (https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2024/02/08/fara-is-deadthe-army-will-trade-new-scout-helicopters-for-drones/?sh=226b4afe1d18)

Bummer - i was hoping to see the Bell 360 become a reality. So i guess the FLRAA program will continue, since the role of attack and scout will be put into drone tech, but troop-moving ships (V-280) will still be manned with unmanned capabilities to be built in. So FLRAA is still a thing?
I wonder what companies will participate in the attack/scout drone program when one is announced - will we be seeing Bell-Textron and Lockheed Martin competing again?

[ORAC]

https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/aaaa/2024/04/26/army-officials-question-plan-for-future-attack-reconnaissance/

Army officials question plan for future attack reconnaissance

[NutLoose]

As neither mod nor admin:
What other aircraft was the ITEP engine slotted for? Curious.

DENVER — The U.S. Army’s next-generation helicopter engine is projected to hit the skies early next year, powering a UH-60M Black Hawk, according to the service and industry representatives involved in the program.

The Improved Turbine Engine Program engine, developed by General Electric’s aerospace division, has experienced a slew of delays related to technology development and supply chain woes. A year ago, the Army predicted a nearly two-year delay getting the T901 engine into the UH-60.

The Black Hawk will be the first to receive the capability, and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter will follow.

The T901 engine will replace the 1970s-era T700 and provide aircraft with a 50% power increase to restore performance. It’s 25% improved fuel consumption reduces energy usage and carbon emissions. The engine is also expected to have more durable components, which will lower life-cycle costs.

While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place.

Even so, ITEP engines are scheduled to arrive at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida, test center this summer, Paul Lemmo, the company’s president, told reporters at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual summit.

The Army had planned to use the ITEP engine in its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, or FARA, but canceled the helicopter program this year after two competing industry teams — Bell and Sikorsky — received the engine for the prototypes they were building.

Sikorsky had taken advantage of fiscal 2024 FARA program funding before the Army officially closed the program at the end of the year to run tests of the ITEP in the prototype, ahead of integrating the engine into the UH-60, in order to drive down risk, Lemmo said. On April 10, the company conducted its first ground run of the ITEP engine in the FARA prototype, Lemmo added.

“We lit off the engine and turned rotors for the first time on our FARA [competitive prototype],” Lemmo said. “Obviously watching the rotors turn could be mundane, but it’s pretty exciting to see multiple years’ worth of work that went into that aircraft, but also that engine by our partners General Electric.”

The ITEP engine had previously undergone testing in stands; it was the first time, Lemmo said, that the engine was under a full load, turning rotors.

“We collected that data [at] low speed, and we’re analyzing it,” Lemmo said, noting that “it performed well.”

The Army authorized Sikorsky to run the rotors at full speed to further test ITEP and collect more data, he added.

The ITEP engine, when installed, also fit into the aircraft with no issues, Lemmo noted.

“I think the fact that we proved it on FARA, that the engine fit the first time, it gives us good confidence that it should fit properly, that all the connections should match up when we fit it into the Black Hawk,” Lemmo said.

The Army plans to deliver two ITEP engines to Sikorsky in late May or June, according to Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the service’s program executive officer for aviation, who spoke at the AAAA event.

The company will conduct a fit check with an engine in one of the two modified Black Hawks and install one in the Black Hawk for actual ground runs and flight tests, Lemmo said. Once the company has the engines, it could begin ground runs within a month, he noted.

Then “it’s probably going to take us a good six months to integrate and do the ground runs,” Lemmo said. The aircraft is expected to begin “flying about six months after we get the engine,” he added.

Phillips predicted that getting in the air would “probably occur next year, just based on the schedule where we’re at today.”


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2024/04/25/us-armys-next-gen-helicopter-engine-could-fly-in-black-hawk-next-year/

[Lonewolf_50]

The Army plans to deliver two ITEP engines to Sikorsky in late May or June, according to Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the service’s program executive officer for aviation, who spoke at the AAAA event. The company will conduct a fit check with an engine in one of the two modified Black Hawks and install one in the Black Hawk for actual ground runs and flight tests, Lemmo said. Once the company has the engines, it could begin ground runs within a month, he noted. Then “it’s probably going to take us a good six months to integrate and do the ground runs,” Lemmo said. The aircraft is expected to begin “flying about six months after we get the engine,” he added. Phillips predicted that getting in the air would “probably occur next year, just based on the schedule where we’re at today.”

By the end of the year "getting it in the air" might be ambitious...but it's promising to see that they see the systems interface process taking about half a year.
If we take him at his word: early 2025 to be flyin​​​​​​​g around West Palm Beach or Stratford?
Any bets on that coming to pass? :E​​​​​​​