Boeing FARA

[chopper2004]

Boeing is going to reveal their entry to Future Attack Recon Aircraft

https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/index.page?playlistVideoId=6134309316001&utm_source=emaildatabase&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22520&utm_content=22520&utm_bu=bds&utm_topic=fara&utm_audience=defense#/videos

cheers

[Nige321]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1532x710/screenshot_2020_02_26_at_13_07_02_03a9187aa2b10f6a7e4e8bf588 6b3ac28f53b221.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1168x860/screenshot_2020_02_26_at_13_07_16_6c4af72224978d9739d890130c 2a70f54dcb2fe3.jpg

[Lonewolf_50]

I see a six bladed head.
I see (I think) a tail rotor.
I see (I think) one engine.
I see the kind of open/fold internal-to-external weapons stations that were on Comanche.
I wonder: is this machine being made by Boeing Philly or Boeing Mesa?
Lastly: I wonder if they'll take the leap to LHX and build a single pilot (at last) scout helicopter.

[The Sultan]

Or Bell. Looks like the Invictus.

[CTR]

Latest Boeing FARA video on same site now shows a 4 blade pusher propeller, like the Lockheed Cheyenne. But no wing.....

[Lonewolf_50]

For CTR:
I finally looked at all of the videos, and yeah, I see what you are talking about.

For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA, or are you just foaming at the mouth again?

[OnePerRev]

Slats in the Beanie?

[The Sultan]

LW wrote:

For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA[/QUOTE]

No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.

[Lonewolf_50]

No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.
You will note that I commented on the Invictus thread shortly after it was posted (and I like it).
Your incoherece is at least consistent.
Iif you bother to look at all of the concept art provided in detail: no, not identical.
This one's concept art also has a pusher prop (https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/index.page?playlistVideoId=6134309316001&utm_source=emaildatabase&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=22520&utm_content=22520&utm_bu=bds&utm_topic=fara&utm_audience=defense#/videos/boeing-fara-for-the-future). (I'd like to see the final thing IRL ... sounds like a complicated beast)
It is not unlikely that differing designs would have a number of similarities, given that they are aiming to meet the same requirements document.
(And Boeing likely still has the files on all of that Comanche development ...)

[CTR]

No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.

Sultan,

Take a close look again at the Boeing offering for FARA. You may also wish to edit your response to LF.

Boeing has six main rotor blades to Bell’s four.

Boeing has what appears to be a rigid rotor compared to Bell’s articulated rotor

Boeing has an open anti-torque tail rotor while Bell has a ducted fan.

Most significantly, Boeing has a pusher propeller, while Bell has a wing for high speed flight.

Yes they both have tandem seating and internal weapons carriage on the sides. But so did the Comanche.

Seems like the Army has a broad spectrum of configurations to pick from.

[SansAnhedral]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how ridiculous it would seem for Boeing to expect to achieve 180 kt cruise with a tall, open, unfaired hub and controls hanging out in the breeze as shown.

Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Aside from having a pusher prop and a tail rotor, the rest of what is shown probably deliberately disguises details of the design. Partly to keep competitors from taking shots at the design, partly to keep proprietary design hidden as long as possible.

[Commando Cody]

Here's an enhanced picture from the video also on Jackonicko (https://www.pprune.org/members/2976-jackonicko)'s post on the Military Aviation Forum which gives a better view of the tail configuration.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1436x790/boeingfara01_c03ac3e823ffb96da28e34b9fff892067db52ace.png





I wonder if Sikorsky has checked to see if anyone stole any of their Black Hawk tail booms...

[SplineDrive]

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how ridiculous it would seem for Boeing to expect to achieve 180 kt cruise with a tall, open, unfaired hub and controls hanging out in the breeze as shown.

Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.

Yeah, the image could be a simplistic cartoon, but I wouldn't make the assumption it has a "rigid" rotor. Lack of a fairing around the swash plate at least is a little odd. The illustrated payload is on the low end of the spec range. I wonder if that's accurate and the've sized the aircraft accordingly, or if they're still hiding a bigger punch. Reports are in, not much point in hiding at this point.

[noneofyourbusiness]

From Wikipedia:
"Lockheed designed the Cheyenne as a compound helicopter, which combines a helicopter with fixed-wing features for increased performance, usually speed. The design included features such as a rigid main rotor, low-mounted wings, and a pusher propeller. Thrust was provided by a pusher propeller at the rear of the aircraft. " Boeing is proposing an advanced Cheyenne, combining a tail rotor with a pusher prop. Bell an advanced Comanche. Sikorsky is not a lock here.

[CTR]

The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.

Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.

Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.

If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.

[SplineDrive]

The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.

Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.

Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.

If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.

I could see Boeing being selected for the reason above and their focus on relative simplicity compared to the coaxial aircraft, and Bell selected based on low risk and demonstrated ability to perform on schedule. Since the two aircraft are taking pieces of the AH-56 arrangement, flying them against each other has complementary knowledge gained for the Army: which is worth the pain of integrating, the wing and increased download or a prop and its increased complexity?

[SansAnhedral]

Yeah, the image could be a simplistic cartoon, but I wouldn't make the assumption it has a "rigid" rotor.

Agreed, that was my point. CTR above put a rigid rotor on the list of Boeing FARA features. I don't see it.

Boeing is proposing an advanced Cheyenne, combining a tail rotor with a pusher prop. Bell an advanced Comanche.

Except the Cheyenne had a significant size lift offset wing, which the Boeing design clearly does not.

Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.

The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.

[Commando Cody]

Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.

If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.

Keep in mind that Boeing has, IIRC, never put a helicopter of their own design into production. The CH-46/47 were designed by Vertol, which was a separate company and were inherited when Boeing bought the company (as with H-6 and AH-64). AFAIK, the only helicopters of their own design that even flew were the three YUH-61 prototypes and one Model 179 (civilian derivative).

[Commando Cody]

Agreed, that was my point. CTR above put a rigid rotor on the list of Boeing FARA features. I don't see it.



Except the Cheyenne had a significant size lift offset wing, which the Boeing design clearly does not.

Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.

The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.

Part of the thing to keep in mind is that Army's requirements for FARA, including speed, are lower than for FLRAA,. In fact, the speed requirement is lower than that for Cheyenne. Cruise is only required to be 180 knots with faster speeds ~ 200 knots in a "dash". Not sure how much extra credit Army is giving for exceeding threshold and objective. So they're all looking at how much extra performance will be worth in the competition. Bell clearly thinks that the Army is not going to be willing to pay that much for over and above performance so they're going for lower cost/risk. Boeing looks like they feel Army may be willing to pay somewhat more but not a lot more.

Regarding the low quality cartoons, this is just a tease to pique interest. They used to do this when the new car models came out. You see this in movie trailers all the time. In the trailers for the 2014 Godzilla movie (which was actually pretty good) you got flashes of, or saw parts of, but there was never a good shot of Godzilla himself. Boeing says they'll reveal all in March.

[noneofyourbusiness]

The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.

Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.

Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.

If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.

Connecticut is a solidly blue state, so there is no political reason for the administration to put work there. Mark Esper is from the swing state of Pennsylvania. If Sikorsky does not win a contract, their future is not very bright, note their commercial sales suck. The Army seems to want best product and value, so I would discount politics at the Army level.

[CTR]

; The Army seems to want best product and value, so I would discount politics at the Army level.

NOYB,

Sadly, I believe that statement has never been less true.

Historical note: The selection of Bell over Kaman to build what was to become the UH-1 “Huey” was made by a political appointee with no relevant experience.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Historically I agree with you and DOD contracts, you just never know. The Army likes Sikorsky, but this time feels different. Maybe they are disillusioned with X2 technology. We shall see. Trump could sure use Pennsylvania this fall. This time, I don't see politics at the Army level, although it could occur at a higher level.

[OnePerRev]

Politics in this sort of thing are largely emotional, good for here as a rumor. They also come into play on DOD budget appropriation discussions, and kill or don't kill a program. Politics don't mean much on downselect. For example on "Schedule", a company funded prototype schedule means far less than demonstrated performance on a funded program. Yes, that means Earned Value. You could research the GAO reports to determine actual programs and a thing called Schedule Performance Index. Risk Management Metrics are also reported, and can demonstrate quantitatively what a new technology risk looks like and a company's historical success at addressing them. Politics will no doubt challenge whatever result comes, but data will no doubt confirm the decisions.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Assessing risk for an X2 platform, as an example, different people will arrive at different answers. Don't pretend it is a science. Earned value tracks program status, basically tracks whether the program is ahead of, or behind schedule, and ahead of, or behind spending. The Secretary of Defense has overruled the desires of the services before, and politics will be a factor in contract awards, no matter how even handed the Army is. They will never say they gave Boeing a contract because they wish to carry Pennsylvania. They will say something like they want to preserve an industrial base, or they will say Boeing had the lowest risk, and so on.

[chopper2004]

Boeing: FARA (http://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/index.page)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bXB3milTA

[SansAnhedral]

Boeing: FARA (http://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/index.page)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8bXB3milTA

(Checks calendar)

Today isn't 1 April.

Wow. As shown that's.....not going to work.

[noneofyourbusiness]

The tail rotor looks low enough it is a safety hazard. Pusher prop close to the ground, if someone forgets to de-clutch, would be a hazard. No doubt it will perform well. I would choose the Bell design for the enclosed tail rotor, but who knows what DOD will fund. At this link, the picture shows the low tail and pusher prop, this will kill someone, at some point. Boeing: FARA (http://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/index.page)

[noneofyourbusiness]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2020/02/21/army-risks-election-fallout-as-it-slashes-lower-priority-weapons-programs/#677116aa1143

This article discusses the politics of contract awards and cancellations this year, including cancelling Chinook.

[noneofyourbusiness]

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2020/3/3/boeing-unveils-future-attack-recon-helo-concept

"One example is the main rotor system. That technology was first built and tested during the YUH-61 Vertol helicopter competition, he noted."

and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_YUH-61

"While Sikorsky chose a fully articulated rotor head with elastomeric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elastomeric) bearings, Boeing Vertol chose a rigid main rotor design, based upon technology supplied by MBB (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt-B%C3%B6lkow-Blohm), which was partnered with Boeing Vertol at the time."

[Lonewolf_50]

@noyb
I am trying to see how a 48 year old rotor design is relevant to this conversation.
The state of the art for rotor head systems (hubs, blades, yokes, grips, etc) has advanced considerably since then.
As an aside: I hope that Chinook does not get cancelled. (There's a related article running about vis a vis the French considering Chinook for their heavy lift ...)

[noneofyourbusiness]

@Lonewolf, That at first appears to be a strange quote out of Boeing, but then I remember often the goal is to put the military customer at ease: This isn't new, (even if it is all new), therefore our proposal is low risk.
I hate to see the Chinook go, it has provided outstanding service to the Army in Afghanistan.

[Lonewolf_50]

@Lonewolf, That at first appears to be a strange quote out of Boeing, but then I remember often the goal is to put the military customer at ease: This isn't new, (even if it is all new), therefore our proposal is low risk.
Ah, got it, soap sales. :O

[JohnDixson]

Any information out there re tip speeds for the Bell and Boeing FARA solutions?

[The Sultan]

Sikorsky and Bell selected for FARA next phase and fly off.

[CTR]

Hopefully the US Army realizes they are better off making this race a marathon versus a sprint, and add a year or two to the development schedule.

Especially since this competition is supposed to be for a near production aircraft

[SplineDrive]

Things are not looking good for Boeing’s helicopter division.

[SansAnhedral]

Things are not looking good for Boeing

FTFY

Bring on the bailouts.

[Commando Cody]

Hopefully the US Army realizes they are better off making this race a marathon versus a sprint, and add a year or two to the development schedule.

Especially since this competition is supposed to be for a near production aircraft

OTOH, taking as long as we do drives up costs makes planning uncertain and puts programs in serious risk of cancellation. Aside from other fiefdoms vying for another program's money for their own, there's political reality. FARA is intended to around 2028. That's 10 years after FARA was initiated and 19 years after FVL began. That's three Presidential and five Congressional elections away from today. A lot of the champions of the program now won't be around when it's time to pay the bills, and taking too long opens the door for too much political theater. ("I pledge to stop this wasteful killing machine that's ripping food from the mouths of disadvantaged [insert subject of pandering here]"!).

It didn't use to be this way. Take the F-14: RFP: 1968; Contract Award: 1969; First Flight: 1970;. IOC: 1973; First Deployment: 1974. The F-15 didn't take that much longer. Where have we gone wrong since then?

[Evil Twin]

It didn't use to be this way. Take the F-14: RFP: 1968; Contract Award: 1969; First Flight: 1970;. IOC: 1973; First Deployment: 1974. The F-15 didn't take that much longer. Where have we gone wrong since then?

That's easy. Too many faces in the financial feeding trough.

[CTR]

From Wikipedia on the F-15:

“The United States Air Force (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) selected McDonnell Douglas's design in 1967 to meet the service's need for a dedicated air superiority fighter (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter). The Eagle first flew in July 1972, and entered service in 1976.”

So the F-15 took five years from contract to first flight and four more to get it into production.

Grumman was selected for the contract award in January 1969. First flight was achieved in December of 1970. A remarkable two year achievement. Well, maybe not so remarkable ...

From Wikipedia on the F-111 and F-14:

“Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, in 1962 General Dynamics teamed with Grumman (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman) for the assembly and testing of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.”

“With the F-111B program in distress, Grumman began studying improvements and alternatives. In 1966, the Navy awarded Grumman a contract to begin studying advanced fighter designs.”

So the reality is that Grumman started on the F-14 design four years before first flight, and borrowed a great deal from the F-111 design and development three years before that.

Back to FARA. If first flight is to occur in 2023, that means there is only 33 months remaining to design and build a near production aircraft. Adding to schedule and manpower hurdles, both Sikorsky and Bell are working on FLARA production designs, and the country is in the middle of a pandemic.

Should be easy, right?

[etudiant]

That's easy. Too many faces in the financial feeding trough.

Not sure of that, my answer would be too few. We now have a situation where obviously deficient designs such as the F-35 go forward, because these is no alternative.
Imho, the 'last supper' was a disastrous mistake, because it saddled the US with an industry that has all the inflexibility of a nationalized business together with the short sightedness that is endemic to Wall Street oriented CEOs.

[Commando Cody]

From Wikipedia on the F-15:

“The United States Air Force (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Air_Force) selected McDonnell Douglas's design in 1967 to meet the service's need for a dedicated air superiority fighter (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_superiority_fighter). The Eagle first flew in July 1972, and entered service in 1976.”

So the F-15 took five years from contract to first flight and four more to get it into production.

Grumman was selected for the contract award in January 1969. First flight was achieved in December of 1970. A remarkable two year achievement. Well, maybe not so remarkable ...

From Wikipedia on the F-111 and F-14:

“Lacking experience with carrier-based fighters, in 1962 General Dynamics teamed with Grumman (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman) for the assembly and testing of the F-111B aircraft. In addition, Grumman would also build the F-111A's aft fuselage and the landing gear.”

“With the F-111B program in distress, Grumman began studying improvements and alternatives. In 1966, the Navy awarded Grumman a contract to begin studying advanced fighter designs.”

So the reality is that Grumman started on the F-14 design four years before first flight, and borrowed a great deal from the F-111 design and development three years before that.

Back to FARA. If first flight is to occur in 2023, that means there is only 33 months remaining to design and build a near production aircraft. Adding to schedule and manpower hurdles, both Sikorsky and Bell are working on FLARA production designs, and the country is in the middle of a pandemic.

Should be easy, right?


Although Grumman did benefit from the F-111B, the F-14 was not just a revised F-111B, it was a new design that shared some common concepts with it. For example, like the F-111 it had a variable sweep wing, but it was a new design. Just look at the way they did the pivot points. BTW, four of the submitted designs also featured variable sweep wings. Everyone was working on new designs because it was obvious the F-111B was not going to be able to handle the air superiority, escort or attack roles. The Navy's basic wants were finalized in November of 1967 after discussion with a number of companies, not just Grumman, and they received permission to go forward with the solicitation in June of 1968 (everything was faster then!). The thing that really accelerated everything was the 1967 Domodedovo air show., so everyone would have had to meet the same schedule. I might point out that if the F-111B helped Grumman a tremendous amount, then certainly it would have helped GD even more since it was their design, but they never even made it to the final cut. The other finalist was MDD.

Grumman, like everyone else was sniffing for a contract for some time. They figured there would be a need for a new Navy true fighter but so did everyone else except GD itself. Seven years before the F-14's first flight puts it a year before the F-111A's first flight and almost two years before the F-111B, so at that point they didn't realize yet just how much trouble was coming. I might point out that the F-15 was also developed with what we would call remarkable speed, just not so much. This is not unique to these planes. For CVNs, from contract award to having a ship in the ready for tests we could have one every four years (even faster before we had to dedicate the only dock big enough to RICOH instead of also using it alongside the other dock for construction). However, because of the way we run these programs, it takes at least seven. The Ford situation is hopefully unique and illustrates the problem when your expertise ages out. Same thing is starting to happen to the Virginias.

Using the FLRAA, back in 2015 Bell said they thought they could achieve LRIP/IOC with what would be the V-280 by 2025 with an aggressive program, I believe Sikorsky implied the same. We're looking, though, at at least four more years beyond that. This for a craft that we've already been working on this for at least five years and the first of the two finalists flew 2 1/4 years ago. I fear that anything that takes this long runs the risk of being delayed to the point where it just withers away. I also fear what stretching these out does to our industrial expertise base. So you can see why I'm not a fan of stretching out FARA. The requirements are not that big a push beyond wat we have now as so we should move on it soonest. There's also the consideration that if we add two years to FARA, we run into the possibility of its funding spike starting to overlap that of FLRAA, which could be a big problem for both of them in getting to production.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Sikorsky is committing suicide by pursuing a design they have not been able to make work. Boeing will be damaged. The US military may end up with one supplier.

[noneofyourbusiness]

It was risky enough to select X2 technology for FLRAA, now there are two programs with X2. Way not to go Army. Get it working on one program first.

[CTR]

So you can see why I'm not a fan of stretching out FARA. The requirements are not that big a push beyond wat we have now as so we should move on it soonest. There's also the consideration that if we add two years to FARA, we run into the possibility of its funding spike starting to overlap that of FLRAA, which could be a big problem for both of them in getting to production.

You failed to mention that the F-14 reused the F-111 engines. Not having to work through parallel development of a new engine and aircraft was a huge leg up for Grumman. And you can’t dismiss that having a engineering team coming right off the F-111 B onto the F-14 was not a big help. Not dismissing the Grumman engineers busted their butts and did a good job. But this aircraft’s two years period between contract award and first flight should not be viewed as a yardstick for other programs.

Also realize that FARA will also be doing a parallel development for both the aircraft and a new GE engine. Never a good plan for new aircraft development.

I agree that the attention span of our government and its unwillingness to commit to properly funding an aircraft development program is problematic. It has been the primary cause of new aircraft program delays and cost overruns. Although our government’s elected officials prefer to blame contractors for their own failures.

Starting at MCAIR in St Louis four decades ago, I was lucky to have learned what it takes to build an aircraft from a clean sheet from the best in the business. I also learned that unnecessary compressed schedules result in bad engineering compromises.

[Misformonkey]

Bell is a safe bet. It's proven technology, so is less of a risk than a coaxial configuration from a contractor who has no experience of such a design. I see Bell doing well across both competitions and although there is a feeling that the U.S wants to keep two key defence contractors going I don't think that will matrelise here. I'm unconvinced Boeing made a real effort here and I think given their current issues they will concentrate on current product line up rather than opening themselves up for an embarrassing competition failure with lack of consumer confidence is a prime factor.

[Copter Appreciator00]

i always wondered why the Boeing copter was not tapered towards the cockpit area - I mean, the greenhouse is a wide as the fuselage itself! How will the C/CP be able to see outside to the left and right? Moot point now, that the downselect has occured.

[Commando Cody]

You failed to mention that the F-14 reused the F-111 engines. Not having to work through parallel development of a new engine and aircraft was a huge leg up for Grumman. And you can’t dismiss that having a engineering team coming right off the F-111 B onto the F-14 was not a big help. Not dismissing the Grumman engineers busted their butts and did a good job. But this aircraft’s two years period between contract award and first flight should not be viewed as a yardstick for other programs.

Also realize that FARA will also be doing a parallel development for both the aircraft and a new GE engine. Never a good plan for new aircraft development.

I agree that the attention span of our government and its unwillingness to commit to properly funding an aircraft development program is problematic. It has been the primary cause of new aircraft program delays and cost overruns. Although our government’s elected officials prefer to blame contractors for their own failures.

Starting at MCAIR in St Louis four decades ago, I was lucky to have learned what it takes to build an aircraft from a clean sheet from the best in the business. I also learned that unnecessary compressed schedules result in bad engineering compromises.


Ah, but it wasn't that I failed to mention the execrable TF30 engines. The Navy's VFX (which became the F-14), like the Air Force's FX (which became the F-15) was directed to be designed around the in development IEDP (Initial Engine Development Program) engine, which would be furnished as GFE. This became the F100-PW-100 for USAF and the higher thrust, lower (dry) fuel burn but a bit "draggier" F401-PW-400 for USN. Because the USN needed their fighter sooner and everything else could be developed faster than the engines, the decision was made to build the first 69 (and maybe just the first 13) with the TF30 as the F-14A, as much of the flight testing could be accomplished with the lower thrust TF30s and operational F-14s (including some re-engined F-14As) would have the F401 and be the (original) F-14B. For a number of reasons, including some hinky actions by the Air Force, the F401 was canceled and the F-14A, plagued by the TF30, became the main production version. It was sort of like putting the EMD F-15 into production rather than fully developing it into the superb aircraft it became.

The point is that every bidder had the option to design their aircraft to have the versatility to use the TF30 as an interim engine during development pending arrival of the IDEP.

Regarding your point about FARA. There is apparently no off-the-shelf engine that will meet the Army's needs, there not having been a lot of work in this arena absent a program that could use it. No contractor is willing anymore to spend gangs and gangs solely of their own money to develop something like this without a guaranteed market. So in 2006 Army set up the Advanced Affordable Turbine (AATE) program which in 2009 morphed into the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) to replace the T700 in a number of applications (it may also be used on the AH-64), telling all FARA respondents they had to design their craft to be powered by a single ITEP engine. That competition was eventually won in February 2019 by GE with their T901 which had been running since at least 2017, so the engine is further along than the IDEP was during the VFX/FX days. We'll see.