V-280 wins US ARMY FLRAA contract

[SansAnhedral]

https://www.army.mil/article/262523

The U.S. Army has awarded the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft contract to Bell Textron, Incorporated.“I am excited to be part of this momentous day for our Army,” said Mr. Doug Bush, Assistant Secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics, and Technology. “The thoughtful and disciplined execution of the FLRAA program strategy will deliver the transformational capabilities we need to support the Joint force, strengthen deterrence and win in multi-domain operations.”

The Army initiated the FLRAA program in 2019 as part of its Future Vertical Lift initiative to replace a portion of its assault and utility helicopter fleet. The FLRAA is intended to eventually replace the UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter, which has been in service for more than four decades.

“This down-select represents a strategic pivot for Army Aviation to the transformational speed and range our Army needs to dominate future battlefields,” said Maj. Gen. Walter Rugen, director of the Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team. “The prototyping and risk-reduction efforts allowed the Army to significantly reduce the time needed to get to today’s announcement.”

FLRAA will expand the depth of the battlefield by extending the reach of air assault missions and enabling ground forces to converge through decentralized operations at extended distances. FLRAA’s inherent reach and standoff capabilities will ensure mission success through tactical maneuver at operational and strategic distances.

“I am very proud of the entire team and our aviation enterprise partners," said Maj. Gen. Robert Barrie, Program Executive Officer, Aviation. “They've worked diligently to ensure that the Army delivers a new, vertical lift capability that meets its modernization objectives.”

The Army followed a deliberate and disciplined process in evaluating proposals to ensure rigorous review and equitable treatment of both competitors.

“Our ability to support this critical Army aviation modernization program is a testament to the outstanding commitment and capabilities of our contracting professionals across the acquisition workforce,” said Joseph Giunta Jr., senior contracting official for Army Contracting Command-Redstone Arsenal. “The FLRAA award reinforces our ability to maximize the spectrum of authorities available in our contracting tool kit to meet high-priority Army needs.”

By implementing reform initiatives granted by Congress that were designed to streamline the acquisition process, this contract will deliver virtual prototypes that can be updated quickly and affordably. These virtual prototypes will directly support design, integration, training and developmental test activities.

As the Army transforms to meet an uncertain future, FLRAA is one of the many modernized capabilities that will help ensure that the Army of 2030 is ready and able to win when the nation calls.

[Sir Korsky]

well it's great news for everybody not paying the bill !!

[The Sultan]

well it's great news for everybody not paying the bill !!

With Sikorsky and Boeing's track record on recent programs the Bell offering was probably 1/2 the cost of their proposal.

Congratulation Team Valor!

[chopper2004]

Here is the official skinny from Bell

https://news.bellflight.com/en-US/220998-textron-s-bell-v-280-valor-chosen-as-new-u-s-army-long-range-assault-aircraft?fbclid=IwAR2fwOb7g0CNVBoPiI06JnEGl3XPfhCp3SOOb1-zpkgeCOhFxz7NKbvHjUg

cheers

[IFMU]

Well done Bell! Sikorsky screwed the pooch on this one and Bell was ahead all the way.

​​​​​​

[Zionstrat2]

Well done Bell! Sikorsky screwed the pooch on this one and Bell was ahead all the way.

​​​​​​
In what way? Up to this point, I had understood that Sikorsky had done a good job putting together an incremental step that could have done the job, however, Bell shifted the model for an entirely different more advanced approach. What did Sikorsky miss with a conventional approach?

I'm extremely happy that Bell has succeeded because I was concerned that the army may be too short-sited and go with a very conventional approach, as they did with the Cheyenne many years ago... I I'm happy because I believe that Bell's speed and range are tremendous advantage and the teething pain should be less due to the osprey experience.

[Commando Cody]

With Sikorsky and Boeing's track record on recent programs the Bell offering was probably 1/2 the cost of their proposal.

Congratulation Team Valor!

That and their concept actually worked as advertised

[Commando Cody]

In what way? Up to this point, I had understood that Sikorsky had done a good job putting together an incremental step that could have done the job, however, Bell shifted the model for an entirely different more advanced approach. What did Sikorsky miss with a conventional approach?

I'm extremely happy that Bell has succeeded because I was concerned that the army may be too short-sited and go with a very conventional approach, as they did with the Cheyenne many years ago... I I'm happy because I believe that Bell's speed and range are tremendous advantage and the teething pain should be less due to the osprey experience.


One could hardly call X2 conventional. It is an advanced concept that at least for now seems to be "a bridge too far". As one wag put it, Bell was able to do more with six blades than Sikorsky could with 16. It'll be interesting to see what the tests for FARA show since there will be a case of a new technology competing with an advanced, but conventional, rotorcraft .

[Less Hair]

So US ground forces will move at 280 knots cruise soon. How fast will the Europeans be? 140?

[ORAC]

Let’s say their performance on what was, supposedly, the less technologically challenging design didn’t inspire confidence.

In what way? Up to this point, I had understood that Sikorsky had done a good job putting together an incremental step that could have done the job


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/

”While Valor’s first flight was right on schedule in December 2017, Sikorsky and Boeing ran into several issues leading up to their expected first flight, delaying it by more than a year.

First, in early August 2017, Sikorsky’s Raider aircraft, essentially a smaller version of Defiant the company built and flew, crashed at its test flight facility in West Palm Beach, Florida (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2017/09/11/s-97-raider-sustained-substantial-damage-in-crash-but-program-moves-forward/). That left Sikorsky with one Raider aircraft to continue in its internal test program for refining its X2 coaxial helicopter technology for both the FLRAA program and the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft effort.

Then the company struggled to build Defiant’s rotor blades due to manufacturing issues (https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/11/defiants-delay-due-to-blade-manufacturing-challenges/), causing a delay.The team had hoped to fly by the end of 2018, but while running the powertrain systems test bed, engineers discovered a series of issues that caused them to hit pause (https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/12/12/first-flight-for-defiant-delayed-to-2019/) on testing. Defiant eventually flew for the first time in March 2019.”…..

[CTR]

A decade ago when Lockheed and Boeing announced their teaming for what is now FLRAA, the business press hailed them as the “Dream Team”. The press went on to state that without Boeing’s support as a partner, Bell did not have a chance of winning.

The Bell V-280 Valor prototype was flown on schedule, achieving all specification requirements. The Valor additionally beats the Defiant in both speed and range by large margins. Hopefully, Lockheed and Boeing recognizes Bell as the rightful winner and do not file a protest.

Sometimes small and agile beats large and lumbering.

[noneofyourbusiness]

The main rotor hub drag of Defiant means you could fly it fast or far, but not both. This will also play out in FARA.

[rrekn]

Talking to the team about the Bell/Boeing V-22, the V-280 is what happens when you leave it just to Bell...

[noneofyourbusiness]

Sikorsky partnered with Boeing to disrupt development of Valor. This strategy failed. Both Valor and Defiant cost a lot more than a Black Hawk, use larger engines, higher fuel burn. Army Aviation will shrink over time, or have to locate additional funding.

[CTR]

Sikorsky partnered with Boeing to disrupt development of Valor. This strategy failed. Both Valor and Defiant cost a lot more than a Black Hawk, use larger engines, higher fuel burn. Army Aviation will shrink over time, or have to locate additional funding.

Based on your logic the UH-60 should have never replaced the H-1. In fact, no advancement in aviation would ever take place.

Increased speed and range do not come for free. Higher speeds require more power and typically require more fuel. This is physics, not politics.

[IFMU]

In what way? Up to this point, I had understood that Sikorsky had done a good job putting together an incremental step that could have done the job, however, Bell shifted the model for an entirely different more advanced approach. What did Sikorsky miss with a conventional approach?

I've been out of Sikorsky for nearly a decade now, so I can't really speak too much of recent developments. My observations are based on the leadership trajectory of a decade ago. I was part of the small team that built & flew the X2. Most of us were pushed aside with a new crew and leadership that seemed more suited to viewgraphs and animation than aircraft development. Ultimately I'd say they screwed up by not getting their demonstrators working in time. Bell kicked ass on that facet of the program.

[Lonewolf_50]

I've been out of Sikorsky for nearly a decade now, so I can't really speak too much of recent developments. My observations are based on the leadership trajectory of a decade ago. I was part of the small team that built & flew the X2. Most of us were pushed aside with a new crew and leadership that seemed more suited to viewgraphs and animation than aircraft development. Ultimately I'd say they screwed up by not getting their demonstrators working in time. Bell kicked ass on that facet of the program. Would you say that any momentum that X-2 had gained was lost due to a leadership change, to UTC spinning off / selling SAC, or was there an aviation/rotary wing business/market issue that cropped up?
Or was the Army requirement at that point in time not well enough defined?
I seem to recall that initial discussion of what became the S-97 assessed as a case of
"an aircraft that was designed to meet a requirement that didn't exist" or something like that... man, it's been a while.
(IIRC, SAC spent their own money on X-2, or UTC/SAC did. Is that right?)

[IFMU]

Would you say that any momentum that X-2 had gained was lost due to a leadership change, to UTC spinning off / selling SAC, or was there an aviation/rotary wing business/market issue that cropped up?
Or was the Army requirement at that point in time not being well enough defined? I seem to recall that initial discussion of what became the S-97 was assessed as a case of
"an aircraft that was designed to meet a requirement that didn't exist" or something like that... m an, it's been a while.
(IIRC, SAC spent their own money on X-2, or UTC/SAC did. Is that right?)
The true Sikorsky types had been battling loss of momentum long before X2. X2 was a triumph in that we pulled it off with little management support. Back at the turn of the millennium we were stricken with a series of presidents/VPs from Lockheed, P&W, Boeing, and Bell. They all wanted to fix what was broken at Sikorsky. Besides X2, it was a miracle that the UH60 production program more or less recovered from their fixes, though at a cost to the profitability which led to UTC selling the division.

Sikorsky spent their money on X2. It was all IR&D. I was gone before the spinoff so I can't really talk about what I didn't witness.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Based on your logic the UH-60 should have never replaced the H-1. In fact, no advancement in aviation would ever take place.

Increased speed and range do not come for free. Higher speeds require more power and typically require more fuel. This is physics, not politics.

I am not saying there should not be an upgrade, just that the higher capability will cost more. Politics has nothing to do with it. Of course new aircraft will cost more. So the Army flies fewer aircraft, or pays more.

I am not saying there should not be an upgrade, just that the higher capability will cost more. Politics has nothing to do with it. Of course new aircraft will cost more. So the Army flies fewer aircraft, or pays more. Pure speculation, Valor is in, but funding of FARA to production becomes questionable. The tiltrotor is the last major innovation in vertical flight. Congratulations Bell.

[Lonewolf_50]

The true Sikorsky types had been battling loss of momentum long before X2. X2 was a triumph in that we pulled it off with little management support. Back at the turn of the millennium we were stricken with a series of presidents/VPs from Lockheed, P&W, Boeing, and Bell. Do you include Borgman in that group? I can PM you if this discussion is getting too sensitive?
it was a miracle that the UH60 production program more or less recovered from their fixes, though at a cost to the profitability which led to UTC selling the division. Without those two wars spinning up, I wonder at how that might have otherwise played out. :uhoh:
Sikorsky spent their money on X2. It was all IR&D. Thanks, that's what I had heard, and I think I had read a post from you a (long) while back covering that bit. :ok:

[Flugzeug A]

As ever , I know little of this but I have some questions:
How much is the V-280 compared to a Blackhawk?
How many Blackhawks do the US Army have & do they plan to replace them 1 for 1 with the V-280?
If the V-280’s a great deal more $$$ per airframe , is there a chance of reluctance to risk them in real hot zones?
How are spares costs & will a new piece of kit cost WAY more to maintain?
Are the Army going to lose any of their present capability?
Logic dictates that if the new kit’s way more costly , they’ll buy fewer aircraft...
Is there a danger that ‘traditional’ helicopters will be seen as unsuitable for future roles as they’re not as ‘all singing & dancing’ as the V-280?
It’s apparently great but I think costs will have a great part to play.

[noneofyourbusiness]

With thousands of Black Hawks, the Army will have a mixed fleet for many years. The Army budget is tight. Possibly, FARA is sacrificed to fund Valor. So some high low mix will be the actuality, for many years to come. There will be no new orders for Black Hawk after the last multi year contract that was awarded.

[60FltMech]

Several other interesting considerations/observations I was thinking about:

logistically, parking pads at all US Army facilities will need modifications from 50 foot box to maybe 100 foot(?) to accommodate the nearly 81 foot width of Valor.

Currently the UH-60 Aircrew Training Manual has minimum crew of 2 pilots, would assume they would change to minimum crew of 3 with a Flight Engineer like CH-47? Would pilots qualify fixed wing first then transition to the Valor airframe?

The doctrine changes for the usage of the aircraft will be interesting as well, and with increased speed comes time compression when completing critical tasks.

A lot of learning to be done. Sure DES is salivating at the opportunity to reinvent all these wheels.

FltMech

[Flugzeug A]

V-280: costs way more to buy & run than a Blackhawk , needs more crew , can’t get into the space that a Blackhawk can , but it flies faster.
Forgive me folks , I can’t see anything but mainly DISadvantages.

[NWSRG]

Given the volume likely to be needed, was there not a very strong argument for splitting this order between the two contenders? Best of both worlds?

[wrench1]

Anybody know if they plan to arm the 280 now that they have sliding doors again? Or will the new 60W Jolly Green II handle all the CSAR?

[The Sultan]

Given the volume likely to be needed, was there not a very strong argument for splitting this order between the two contenders? Best of both worlds?

No, as there was nothing the Defiant was best at. It was significantly slower, had a laughably short range, might tear itself apart during aggressive maneuvering, and probably cost significantly more.

[admikar]

No, as there was nothing the Defiant was best at. It was significantly slower, had a laughably short range, might tear itself apart during aggressive maneuvering, and probably cost significantly more.
We all know you don't like anything that isn't a Bell. All the videos of V-22 Osprey we have seen so far show them doing slooooooow approaches to LZ. Is Valor going to be different? How that sedate rate is going to work at dynamic battlefield? Yeah, Valor will be great at covering distances, but if it can't do helicopter stuff when it's needed, we might as well use the airplanes. After all, they are faster than V-280.

[ORAC]

Forgive me folks , I can’t see anything but mainly DISadvantages.
It meets the contract specification, which the Blackhawk doesn’t?

If you have an argument with the spec go back a decade or so and argue with those that wrote it….

[noneofyourbusiness]

We all know you don't like anything that isn't a Bell. All the videos of V-22 Osprey we have seen so far show them doing slooooooow approaches to LZ. Is Valor going to be different? How that sedate rate is going to work at dynamic battlefield? Yeah, Valor will be great at covering distances, but if it can't do helicopter stuff when it's needed, we might as well use the airplanes. After all, they are faster than V-280.
Osprey had the rotor diameter limited by the Navy to fit on a carrier. Valor has no such restriction. Valor has a much nicer rotor diameter to aircraft weight ratio. A true hot rod.

[NutLoose]

A couple of questions come to mind, if you went to war again in, say as an example the Middle East.
How would you transport it, will it fit on a carriers lift and below decks? and bearing in mind the ability to fold the rotors and haul the likes of the Blackhawk into theater in a relatively short period of time if needed as C17 cargo.
How on earth would the Army move these half way across the world, will they fit in a roll on roll off?
I take it this was looked at, but just curious as it does seem to have disadvantages on transportation and time constraints over a conventional helicopter.

I have read they were looking at a modified version for naval use so it obviously has flaws as a carrier born asset.

.

[nomorehelosforme]

A couple of questions come to mind, if you went to war again in, say as an example the Middle East.
How would you transport it, will it fit on a carriers lift and below decks? and bearing in mind the ability to fold the rotors and haul the likes of the Blackhawk into theater in a relatively short period of time if needed as C17 cargo.
How on earth would the Army move these half way across the world, will they fit in a roll on roll off?
I take it this was looked at, but just curious as it does seem to have disadvantages on transportation and time constraints over a conventional helicopter.

I have read they were looking at a modified version for naval use so it obviously has flaws as a carrier born asset.

.

That is a damm good question but surely something that would have been considered throughout the process?

[admikar]

Yeah, like military minds never had an uh-oh moment before

[noneofyourbusiness]

A couple of questions come to mind, if you went to war again in, say as an example the Middle East.
How would you transport it, will it fit on a carriers lift and below decks? and bearing in mind the ability to fold the rotors and haul the likes of the Blackhawk into theater in a relatively short period of time if needed as C17 cargo.
How on earth would the Army move these half way across the world, will they fit in a roll on roll off?
I take it this was looked at, but just curious as it does seem to have disadvantages on transportation and time constraints over a conventional helicopter.

I have read they were looking at a modified version for naval use so it obviously has flaws as a carrier born asset.

.
I would not use the word flaws. Carrier based has special requirements. The Army won't pay for navalized special features. Just like there is a Sikorsky Black Hawk and a Sikorsky Seahawk. A sea modified Valor wold fit on a carrier just as the Osprey does. Bell can readily supply a Marine Corps version. Valor was not designed to fit in a C-17, but blade fold and wing stow can be added if other services want this. Osprey has blade fold and wing stow.

[retoocs]

From an article in 2018, head of Bell's tilt rotor division, "The V-280 is designed to be a multi-service, multi-mission aircraft capable of meeting shipboard compatibility requirements." Article also mentions the Valor can self-deploy around the world.

[NutLoose]

From an article in 2018, head of Bell's tilt rotor division, "The V-280 is designed to be a multi-service, multi-mission aircraft capable of meeting shipboard compatibility requirements." Article also mentions the Valor can self-deploy around the world.

so that is a no then.

The V-280 is designed to be a multi-service, multi-mission aircraft capable of meeting shipboard compatibility requirements. Those may differ between services. The Army may or may not have a shipboard requirement. However, the USMC will likely require shipboard compatibility and marinization.

Why would an air arm that doesn't plan on deploying an aircraft primarily in the shipboard environment buy the V-22 when they can wait and get the Valor?

"Being shipboard capable is really not a discriminator in this discussion. The bottom line is the two aircraft are different in terms of size and designed for different missions. The V-22 was originally designed to perform a ship to shore assault mission. The unique capabilities of the aircraft have expanded the mission sets. The V-22 is an extremely capable medium to heavy lift aircraft while the V-280 was purpose-built to support the medium lift and long-range assault mission in demanding environments. The V-280 was designed around the infantry squad.

Which I take it is a major mod in adding a wing stowage capability which will increase weight and reduce lift capability? So transporting them on a carrier would be as deck cargo unless they would fit inside a RoRo or having them fly half way across the world..

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21162/we-talk-v-280-valor-versus-v-22-osprey-with-bells-head-of-tiltrotor-systems

Bar that it looks good and you do need to advance in design.

​​​​​​…

[CTR]

With the V-280 speed and range, why would you disassemble it, haul it piece by piece into a C-17, and then reassemble it? Like the V-22 tilt rotor the V-280 can self deployed to its destination any where in the world with ferry tanks and inflight refueling. And unlike conventional helicopters (or the Defiant), the V-280 risk of a rotor chopping off the refuel drogue, or its own refuel probe is far less. A cruise speed closer matching the refuel aircraft is also a big advantage.

Remember a primary goal of FLRAA is to give the US Army independence from the Air Force and Navy to deploy its aircraft.

Note, to get the Defiant into a C-17 for transport, the main rotor gearbox needs to be removed. Not a minor task. Not to mention having the hoist required to reassemble the aircraft, unless you plan to haul it in the C-17.

[wrench1]

How would you transport it, .
There are several spec sheets out there that state it was designed as self-deployable with a deploy range of approx. 2000nm on aux fuel. There are other notes that production models will have inflight refuel capability.

[NutLoose]

That’s ok if you have permission for overflights I suppose and is weather permitting.

[Milo450]

How cool are the fire bases going to look in 2050.

[CTR]

That’s ok if you have permission for overflights I suppose and is weather permitting.

i’m confused where are you trying to go with this line of thinking? If you fly them in a C-17, you need clearance for the C-17 and use of an airport. A V-280 will be able to fly directly to where it is needed and will be able to perform its mission almost immediately.

The aircraft is also all weather capable, and can fly at altitudes much higher than any helicopters. Even the Defiant.

[SASless]

What is its OGE Hover capacity at Max Gross Weight?

Same kind of drawback as the V-22 when it comes to hot and high helicopter style work?

Sling load capability....Armament?

Does it fully replace the Blackhawks current capability?

All weather capability....in the hands of the regular Army Aviation units....do tell us more please?

What kind of logistics tail will be required to maintain these aircraft in tactical field conditions?

Multi-mission capability built in?

All that will be a very tough nut to crack.

[NutLoose]

i’m confused where are you trying to go with this line of thinking? If you fly them in a C-17, you need clearance for the C-17 and use of an airport. A V-280 will be able to fly directly to where it is needed and will be able to perform its mission almost immediately.

The aircraft is also all weather capable, and can fly at altitudes much higher than any helicopters. Even the Defiant.

I thought it’s max altitude was around 6000 ft by the blurb so unlike a C17 they are never going to fly above the weather and I wouldn’t fancy chugging across the Atlantic in the winter at 320 MPH below 6000ft in case of a rapid deployment requirement. I mentioned clearance as I might imagine some countries having issues with military aircraft so visibly transiting through their airspace where as a C17 to those on the ground could just be another airliner.

That’s all
BTW you are still going to need fuel, etc to fly its mission.

[CTR]

What is its OGE Hover capacity at Max Gross Weight…,,


SASless,

Why do Tiltrotor trashers always try and dismiss them by comparing them to conventional helicopters?

Corvettes make terrible trucks. And while a V-280 can match the lift of a 40 year old design Blackhawk, why would you?

Unlike the Defiant, the Valor achieved all its customer requirements in flight test. This included matching Blackhawk performance.

Using a Valor to haul cargo is a stupid waste of a valuable asset. Blackhawks will be around until 2050. They will be the trucks.

[CTR]

I thought it’s max altitude was around 6000 ft by the blurb….,
That’s all
BTW you are still going to need fuel, etc to fly its mission.

Unpressurized Tiltrotors like the V-22 can fly at 20,000 ft with pilot oxygen. The pressurized 609 does 25,000 ft without pilot oxygen.

Fuel can always be trucked in to remote areas.

[Commando Cody]

Sikorsky partnered with Boeing to disrupt development of Valor. This strategy failed. Both Valor and Defiant cost a lot more than a Black Hawk, use larger engines, higher fuel burn. Army Aviation will shrink over time, or have to locate additional funding.

Army set a cost limit of $43. million in con-stat dollars (I don't remember which year) for FLRAA.

[Commando Cody]

What is its OGE Hover capacity at Max Gross Weight?

Same kind of drawback as the V-22 when it comes to hot and high helicopter style work?

Sling load capability....Armament?

Does it fully replace the Blackhawks current capability?

All weather capability....in the hands of the regular Army Aviation units....do tell us more please?

What kind of logistics tail will be required to maintain these aircraft in tactical field conditions?

Multi-mission capability built in?

All that will be a very tough nut to crack.


V280 is required to meet Army's HOGE requirement. They said achieved the goal of hovering at 6,000 feet in 95 degree heat, There was no hot and high requirement when V-22 was designed. Interestingly enough, Bell said their power requirement was not driven by desired top speed, but by the required power to hover hot and high. That much power, the calculations showed would deliver 280 knots, hence the designation. sS it turned out, the V280 was noticeable faster than that. FWIW, Defiant promised even higher hot and-high hover, but I don't know if they ever demonstrated it. .

V-280 has already demonstrated sling load at hover and forward speeds It will have two side gunners and there is talk of adding other armament depending on customer needs.

Assuming everything goes as expected, it'll beat the Black Hawk in almost everything. 30+ years newer technology tends to do that.

Depends on what the Army asks for, but Bell has stated that all-weather is there if the customer wants. That would mostly be in avionics.

The Army specified once fielded, less maintenance than Black Hawk.

The aircraft certainly would be multi-mission capable. Again, it all depends n what the customer wants (and is willing to pay for). For example, the Navy would want the aircraft to fold to fit into DDG hangars. Bell says their version fold up into a cube slightly smaller than that of a UH-1Y.

A tough nut indeed.

[Copter Appreciator00]

I was glad to see Bell win this FLRAA. I was thinking about buying Textron stock (an article said the stock soared) but I just had this sinking feeling that somehow Boe-Sik was going to win due the "industrial base concern". I coulda made some good $$.. With the AH-64 and UH-60 having won tons of the recent foreign competitions recently; both Morocco and Poland seemed to be leaning towards the AH-1Z, then *boom* they selected the AH-64, I was SURE that some behind-the-scenes thing was going to see the SB>1 as the winner. Then there was the Leonardo AW-139 winning the UH-1N comp, and Airbus seems to be selling their copters ALL over. But as Bell had two decades with the AH-1 and UH-1 at the forefront, say, 1962 to 1982, the Blackhawk and Apache came around in the late 70s to surpass them, now the V-280 and probably even the B360 will return Bell back on top after being 2nd fiddle. Maybe even the USAF will look into it, hopefully as their H-60 replacement, and maybe they can axe their deal with Leonardo and have the V280 as the UH-1N replacement, a Bell for a Bell..
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/600x362/bell_d790005b6de5afe7ae4617be2473367bc977057e.jpg

My scale model Bell helicopters are celebrating!

[The Sultan]

Relative to all weather, I would think that the ability of autonomous flight without a crew covers that nicely.

[SansAnhedral]

Which I take it is a major mod in adding a wing stowage capability which will increase weight and reduce lift capability? So transporting them on a carrier would be as deck cargo unless they would fit inside a RoRo or having them fly half way across the world..​​​​​​…

At least there is a physical solution to shipboard stowage, and a wing stow mod could feasibly be integrated.

Not so with Defiant. The mast height is non-starter for fitting in any deck elevators or doors. And since that total airframe height is the entire MGB and integral hub, there is no way to address that problem.

[The Sultan]

At least there is a physical solution to shipboard stowage, and a wing stow mod could feasibly be integrated.

Not so with Defiant. The mast height is non-starter for fitting in any deck elevators or doors. And since that total airframe height is the entire MGB and integral hub, there is no way to address that problem.


I noticed that throughout the demo SB never released a diagram with dimensions showing the height. The pictures and personal observations indicate that Defiant is twice as tall as the 280 would be with V-22 type folding rotors. That alone says the Defiant could never replace UH-60's in naval applications, but the 280 could.

[SansAnhedral]

I noticed that throughout the demo SB never released a diagram with dimensions showing the height. The pictures and personal observations indicate that Defiant is twice as tall as the 280 would be with V-22 type folding rotors. That alone says the Defiant could never replace UH-60's in naval applications, but the 280 could.

Sikorsky was always careful to compare the overall height of SB-1 as being on par with the UH-60...but that included a spinning tail rotor.

And even then, SB-1 is still 2 feet taller over the entire rotor diameter (18.7' vs 16.8')

[SASless]

CTR,

Why do Tiltrotor trashers always try and dismiss them by comparing them to conventional helicopters?

Wrong response.....if you are going to "replace" the Blackhawk with a Tilt Rotor....it is absolutely relevant to ask what its "helicopter" performance actually is compared to the Blackhawk.

That is not being a "Tilt Rotor Trasher"..... that is asking for an apples to apples comparison of the Blackhawk and its replacement.

We found out that places like Afghanistan demand performance that was lacking in the V-22 and some helicopters...with the Chinook and CH-53 becoming the airframes of choice for Ops in the higher elevations.

We know from V-22 experience that Tiltrotors do have an Achilles Heel of sort when it comes to the "helicopter" side of business.....due to the very design of the machine.

[SplineDrive]

CTR,



Wrong response.....if you are going to "replace" the Blackhawk with a Tilt Rotor....it is absolutely relevant to ask what its "helicopter" performance actually is compared to the Blackhawk.

That is not being a "Tilt Rotor Trasher"..... that is asking for an apples to apples comparison of the Blackhawk and its replacement.

We found out that places like Afghanistan demand performance that was lacking in the V-22 and some helicopters...with the Chinook and CH-53 becoming the airframes of choice for Ops in the higher elevations.

We know from V-22 experience that Tiltrotors do have an Achilles Heel of sort when it comes to the "helicopter" side of business.....due to the very design of the machine.

The V-22 is an amazing machine, especially considering it’s a 1980’s technology aircraft, but it’s unfortunate that it was the first tiltrotor to go into production because in may ways it represents the worst case for a tiltrotor. High disk loading, far higher than XV-15, 609, V-280, etc. means downwash is high, hover power required is high, autorotation isn’t possible, etc. FLRAA will have lower disk loading, addressing many of these weaknesses. The V-22 was also burdened with blade fold and wing stow, adding weight, cost, and complexity. Its primary operator is the Marines and Navy, which have higher DOC for any aircraft they operate as a result of the seaborne environment and requirements. So the tiltrotor concept gets a poor reputation, when those issues are particular to one implementation, not the concept in general.

[The Sultan]

CTR,

We found out that places like Afghanistan demand performance that was lacking in the V-22 and some helicopters...with the Chinook and CH-53 becoming the airframes of choice for Ops in the higher elevations.

We know from V-22 experience that Tiltrotors do have an Achilles Heel of sort when it comes to the "helicopter" side of business.....due to the very design of the machine.

Restating what has been said before.

The FLRAA had a requirement to operate at mission gross weight as a “helicopter” at a height of 6000’ and a temp of 95F. Something you admit the UH-60 couldn’t do. The winning selection has a rotor/engine configuration designed to meet this requirement.

As to the V-22, it was designed for the ship based sea level air assault mission.

[CTR]

CTR,



Wrong response.....if you are going to "replace" the Blackhawk with a Tilt Rotor....it is absolutely relevant to ask what its "helicopter" performance actually is compared to the Blackhawk….,.

SASless,

No, this is the correct response. Tiltrotors are not helicopters. Just like a Corvette will not haul a half ton of cargo, or a 8 x 4 sheet of plywood, a truck cannot go 0-60 in 4 sec, or pull one G in a corner.

There are some missions where the aircraft capabilities overlap, and because of the V-280 increased size and power, the V-280 matches the and lift capability of a Blackhawk. But again, why would you want to waste a expensive asset like a tilt rotor to do a cargo job that can be done cheaper by a conventional Helicopter?

Increased speed and range requirements drive design compromises. However, the V280 achieved the performance specifications required by the US Army, and exceeded others like range and speed.

I did not say the V280 is replacing the Blackhawk, that quote was made by press trying to get a story line. I said that the Blackhawk would continue in the fleet, performing roles where it is better suited to its capabilities.

If I came across as harsh, it comes from decades of responding to people who regurgitate what they read or see online from clearly biased sources. Just a few minutes doing research today allows an individual in most cases to determine what is true and what is false.

Back in the 80s, I was working on the F/A-18 Hornet. In the early days of the F/A-18 program we had to continuously respond to criticism that the aircraft did not match the payload of an A-6, or the speed of an F-14.

Recently, when the V-22 was selected by the Navy for the COD mission, similar criticism was leveled.

Note: A tiltrotor is not a fixed wing aircraft either.

[Lonewolf_50]

Two decades from now there will still be Blackhawks flying in the US Army.
The UH-60M handled the cited High Hot and Heavy requirement (thanks to the wide chord blade) I think.
I find the discussion about the V-280 being possibly modded for a maritime role interesting - that will take folding. :)
I am sure a few of the sharp folks at Bell are already figuring that out, in terms of forward thinking.

[The Sultan]

I find the discussion about the V-280 being possibly modded for a maritime role interesting - that will take folding. :)
I am sure a few of the sharp folks at Bell are already figuring that out, in terms of forward thinking.

Already done as part of the 247 effort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7f_gHE65E

[The Sultan]

Two decades from now there will still be Blackhawks flying in the US Army.
The UH-60M handled the cited High Hot and Heavy requirement (thanks to the wide chord blade.

From the attached the 60M is designed to operate to a 4000 ft/95F mission albeit at 4000 lb less than max gross with an improved engine in addition to the wider blades.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/black-hawk/sikorsky-UH60M-brochure.pdf

[Commando Cody]

The V-22 is an amazing machine, especially considering it’s a 1980’s technology aircraft, but it’s unfortunate that it was the first tiltrotor to go into production because in may ways it represents the worst case for a tiltrotor. High disk loading, far higher than XV-15, 609, V-280, etc. means downwash is high, hover power required is high, autorotation isn’t possible, etc. FLRAA will have lower disk loading, addressing many of these weaknesses. The V-22 was also burdened with blade fold and wing stow, adding weight, cost, and complexity. Its primary operator is the Marines and Navy, which have higher DOC for any aircraft they operate as a result of the seaborne environment and requirements. So the tiltrotor concept gets a poor reputation, when those issues are particular to one implementation, not the concept in general.

A little expansion on the high disk loading issue, which is unique to the V-22. The proprotor diameter in the V-22 was constrained because Navy/USMC wanted it to be able to operate from the two spots abeam the island on the smaller amphib classes of the time. This required reducing said diameter by five feet from optimum, IIRC, which ups the disk loading. But there was also another factor that isn't that well known. During design, Navy was running a competition for the engine to power the JVX (V-22). Bell/Boeing were told to expect an engine of a certain power, in a certain weight range of a certain size, with a given fuel burn. The competitors were Pratt and GE bidding advanced latest technology , with Allison included with a roe conventional engine as a fallback in case Pratt an GE couldn't design an engine that would meet requirements. Both of the advanced engines met the requirements and according to information at the time, the evaluation board recommended award for one of the advanced engines. The story goes that it was GE, but we'll never know for sure because at the last minute the Navy decided not to go with their team's recommendation and awarded the contract to Alison. Allison's engine actually produced more power, but more importantly it was heavier than the other two engines and had a higher fuel burn, which meant more fuel had to be carried, both factors necessitating more structure which further increased weight. So higher weight on top of constrained proprotror size gives you higher disk loading. BTW, a derivative of that GE engine today powers the CH-53K.

Regarding autorotation, the V-22, like all Tiltrotors can do it, but because of the issues mentioned above, does it badly. Of course most large helicopters (the CH-47 is an exception) don't autorotate that well. The decision was made to meet the power off landing survivability requirement by gliding, which gives you more landing area choices.

[Commando Cody]

Already done as part of the 247 effort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7f_gHE65E


For some reason I can't get multi quote to work. In any case, Bell had designed in the option for folding for a naval variant from the start of the V280 program and that work may have even preceded V247. They wanted it to be able to operate from shipboard hangars that can accommodate an H-60. Folded up, they say a V280 would occupy the same cubic "box" as a folded UH-1Y.



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x418/v_280navhngr_44b4d2d5e780e8d5f9a77e53076800272bfe2b32.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1504/v_280navy1_5a7a888871eb5f71f7541ccec973317427544caa.jpg

[Commando Cody]

Already done as part of the 247 effort.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tH7f_gHE65E

Sikorsky was always careful to compare the overall height of SB-1 as being on par with the UH-60...but that included a spinning tail rotor.

And even then, SB-1 is still 2 feet taller over the entire rotor diameter (18.7' vs 16.8')


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1920x1125/sb_1_h_60c_3a04e8ee3c871e787a8bca072183fba5fc2546aa.jpg
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/648x824/sb_1wpeople_f7a5fc0c61c61981fd5abb8d970983e4092a3353.jpg

[Commando Cody]

SASless:

I would say it's not relevant as to what the V280's (or SB>1's) helicopter performance actually is compared to the Black Hawk. Army is not asking for another Black Hawk, any more than the Army was asking for another Huey when it ran the UTTAS competition. The question is how well the V280 will perform the Army's FLRAA mission. It's the mission that's relevant. If you want to do apple to apple comparisons that's where you do them and there the Black Hawk fails completely. That's not a fault of the H-60 series, never in the designers' wildest dreams would they expect their craft to be capable of that.

[admikar]

SASless,

No, this is the correct response. Tiltrotors are not helicopters. Just like a Corvette will not haul a half ton of cargo, or a 8 x 4 sheet of plywood, a truck cannot go 0-60 in 4 sec, or pull one G in a corner.

There are some missions where the aircraft capabilities overlap, and because of the V-280 increased size and power, the V-280 matches the and lift capability of a Blackhawk. But again, why would you want to waste a expensive asset like a tilt rotor to do a cargo job that can be done cheaper by a conventional Helicopter?

Increased speed and range requirements drive design compromises. However, the V280 achieved the performance specifications required by the US Army, and exceeded others like range and speed.

I did not say the V280 is replacing the Blackhawk, that quote was made by press trying to get a story line. I said that the Blackhawk would continue in the fleet, performing roles where it is better suited to its capabilities.

If I came across as harsh, it comes from decades of responding to people who regurgitate what they read or see online from clearly biased sources. Just a few minutes doing research today allows an individual in most cases to determine what is true and what is false.

Back in the 80s, I was working on the F/A-18 Hornet. In the early days of the F/A-18 program we had to continuously respond to criticism that the aircraft did not match the payload of an A-6, or the speed of an F-14.

Recently, when the V-22 was selected by the Navy for the COD mission, similar criticism was leveled.

Note: A tiltrotor is not a fixed wing aircraft either.
I think SAS is correct here. If what Sultan said is true, what I will say is moot, but all we have experienced so far in form of Osprey leaves a lot to be desired. While it is true that tilt rotors are neither the helicopter nor the fixed wing aircraft, you can't tout speed and range and just dismiss "helicopter part " of the job. What is the point of sending tiltrotor, in this case 280, to do a mission of insertion, extraction, medevac (anything where hovering/vertical landing is required) if it can't do the final part? Yes, it will get there faster and then what?

[The Sultan]

Admikar

Where do you get that the V-280 can’t take off and land like a helicopter? It’s hover envelope exceeds that of a UH-60 and it met all of the “helicopter” mode maneuverability requirements in the FLRAA spec. Having witnessed V-280 demos low speed maneuverability is not an issue. As to decel/accel the 280 can tilt the rotors past 90 to rapidly decel with a level fuselage, and when it wants to depart the rotors tilt forward and it is gone (very Airwolf-ish).

it is the close stacked coax config of the X-2 technology which has maneuverability issues. Despite stating the rotors are so stiff they can never collide under any circumstance, the S-97 demonstrated this was a lie when the rotors on the S-97 collided while in a hover during computer induced roll reversals which occurred at rates less than expected in aggressive flight maneuvers. That incident exposed the fatal flaw of the ABC for all to see.

[admikar]

Read the last part of my second sentence from the post you responded to. Or maybe even better, read whole second sentence. And than let it sink.
If there is only one existing operational tiltrotor, that's what we will use as a measuring tool.
And I never said that V-280 can't do those things ( what I said in aforementioned post was more of making a point than stating a fact). And my post was in response to CTR who asked "why do tiltrotor bashers always compare it with conventional helicopter? It's so much faster, but if it needs to hover, we'll disregard that part of comparison." If it can hover, great, it will be worthy successor. And we just asked if it can hover as good as a conventional helicopter, we never said that it can't.

[CTR]

Read the last part of my second sentence from the post you responded to……If there is only one existing operational tiltrotor, that's what we will use as a measuring tool…….And my post was in response to CTR who asked "why do tiltrotor bashers always compare it with conventional helicopter?….

admikar,

The one “operational” Tiltrotor you are referring (V-22) has flown over 700,000 flight hours in combat and severe environments. The smaller 609 commercial Tiltrotor in development has accumulated over 2,000 flight hours and with proportionally bigger rotors than the V-22 has proven safe autorotation landing. The XV-15 Tiltrotor that first flew in 1977 accumulated over 500 flight hours, and now resides in the Smithsonian air and space Museum at Udvar Hazey. Finally, the V-280 accumulated over 200 flight hours, meeting or exceeding all US Army specification requirements. The aircraft was only retired, because there was nothing left to test, and the government did not wish to pay for further testing.

All X-2 technology Sikorsky aircraft combined have at my best estimate less than 500 flight hours. This includes at best guess about 80 flight hours on the Defiant. Unlike, Bell, Sikorsky does not openly publish information on the progress of flight testing. Time of the award announcement, Defiant flight testing was still ongoing because it has not proven its capability to meet all US Army requirements.

Accumulated flights test and operational use data was used by the US Army to determine the potential risks in FLRAA development. This was a significant US Army “measuring tool”.

Please also reread my post you referenced. You will see that I stated the V-280 matches the lift capabilities of the Blackhawk.


“There are some missions where the aircraft capabilities overlap, and because of the V-280 increased size and power, the V-280 matches the and lift capability of a Blackhawk. But again, why would you want to waste an expensive asset like a tilt rotor to do a cargo job that can be done cheaper by a conventional Helicopter?”

I mentioned that there are good sources out there. They will help you understand why the V-280 was selected by the US Army over the Defiant. One is a podcast by Aviation Week editors Steve Trimble, Brian Everstine and Graham Warwick;

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/aviation-weeks-check-6-podcast/id840308131?i=1000589202664

The second is an article this morning in Drive:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/a-reality-check-on-the-army-picking-v-280-valor-over-sb1-defiant

[Commando Cody]

admikar,


All X-2 technology Sikorsky aircraft combined have at my best estimate less than 500 flight hours.

Actually, I calculated this for another project back in June. IIRC, Every Tilt Rotor design has flown more hours than all X2 aircraft combined. In fact, you have to add the S-69's (which was a design that eventually evolved into X2 technology) flight time to get the total flight time to reach the flight hours the V280 alone achieved. I can't easily find the flight hours for XV-15 #1 but excluding it and production V-22s that have flown for less than three years, I believe every single Tilt-Rotor airframe that ever flew has more flight hours than all X2s combined.

[Commando Cody]

Read the last part of my second sentence from the post you responded to. Or maybe even better, read whole second sentence. And than let it sink.
If there is only one existing operational tiltrotor, that's what we will use as a measuring tool.
And I never said that V-280 can't do those things ( what I said in aforementioned post was more of making a point than stating a fact). And my post was in response to CTR who asked "why do tiltrotor bashers always compare it with conventional helicopter? It's so much faster, but if it needs to hover, we'll disregard that part of comparison." If it can hover, great, it will be worthy successor. And we just asked if it can hover as good as a conventional helicopter, we never said that it can't.


I don't know why folks (not just you) focus so much on hover. The facts are simple: A Tilt-Rotor will not hover as efficiently as a comparable conventional helicopter of the same technology level. . Although a Tilt-Rotor can put more twist on its blades than a conventional helo, that's not enough to overcome the weight of the wing and the effects of downwash on it. There's no overcoming the laws of physics. But, so what? The Tilt-Rotor concept is based on the fact that for most missions 85-90+% of the flight is not going to be spent hovering or at very low speed. The question is rather can a Tilt-Rotor do hover/low speed well enough to perform all missions assigned and that its other advantages outweigh that lesser efficiency in that small percentage of time in the real world Clearly, the answer is yes.

As to uncertainty whether the V280 can hover...


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lFAs2mf_e2A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRiZhCAmr6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUt6asLNaJM

[SplineDrive]

Actually, I calculated this for another project back in June. IIRC, Every Tilt Rotor design has flown more hours than all X2 aircraft combined. In fact, you have to add the S-69's (which was a design that eventually evolved into X2 technology) flight time to get the total flight time to reach the flight hours the V280 alone achieved. I can't easily find the flight hours for XV-15 #1 but excluding it and production V-22s that have flown for less than three years, I believe every single Tilt-Rotor airframe that ever flew has more flight hours than all X2s combined.

XV-15 ship 1 flew for ~800 hours before its crash and ship 2 flew for a similar number of hours. I think combined they were over 1500 hours. Hell, the even the 911 Eagle Eye flew about twice as many hours as the X-2 Demonstrator.

[Commando Cody]

XV-15 ship 1 flew for ~800 hours before its crash and ship 2 flew for a similar number of hours. I think combined they were over 1500 hours. Hell, the even the 911 Eagle Eye flew about twice as many hours as the X-2 Demonstrator.

Thanks. #2 flew over 900 hours

[admikar]

I don't know why folks (not just you) focus so much on hover. The facts are simple: A Tilt-Rotor will not hover as efficiently as a comparable conventional helicopter of the same technology level. . Although a Tilt-Rotor can put more twist on its blades than a conventional helo, that's not enough to overcome the weight of the wing and the effects of downwash on it. There's no overcoming the laws of physics. But, so what? The Tilt-Rotor concept is based on the fact that for most missions 85-90+% of the flight is not going to be spent hovering or at very low speed. The question is rather can a Tilt-Rotor do hover/low speed well enough to perform all missions assigned and that its other advantages outweigh that lesser efficiency in that small percentage of time in the real world Clearly, the answer is yes.

As to uncertainty whether the V280 can hover...


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/lFAs2mf_e2A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRiZhCAmr6Y

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUt6asLNaJM
Maybe hover wasn't the right word. Vertical landing and subsequent take off. And I am not talking airport-to-airport flying. Yes, it is less than 5-10% of flight time, but what's the point sending it to some unprepared landing site during combat if it can't land or take off afterwards. And that will be the case sooner or later. Yes, I have seen all those videos.
Now, all this being said, what I said previously is from what I have known before CTR and Sultan gave me some new information. Thx for that.
Another thing I would like to know is downwash? We know V-22 has abysmal downwash. I guess with larger discs Valor less so. But how does it compare to other helicopters (not just Blackhawk)?

[Jack Carson]

Having had an opportunity to fly the X-59 in the early 1980s and later follow the V-22 through its development and fielding, one has to wonder why one aircraft (tilt rotor) has progressed nicely while the other, the co-axial system aircraft have lagged so far behind. Early in the V-22 program naysayer’s argued that the V-22 didn’t have enough rotor to be a descent helicopter and not enough wing to be a descent airplane. History has been proven this wrong. The V-22 has a successfully found a niche within the military system.

In the meantime, the coaxial system aircraft proposed by Sikorsky still languishes in development with many questions unanswered. Sikorsky/ Boeing marketing projects an unsubstantiated story of an aircraft with capabilities not actually demonstrated in flight test. I believe that, at this time, the decision to select the V-280 was correct. Going forward we will see a mix of V-280s and legacy H-60s many years into the future.

[CTR]

Another thing I would like to know is downwash? We know V-22 has abysmal downwash. I guess with larger discs Valor less so. But how does it compare to other helicopters (not just Blackhawk)?

V-22 Disk Loading 22.2 LB/SQFT
V-280 Disk Loading 16.0 LB/SQFT
CH-53K Disk Loading 18.0 LB/SQFT

Amikar,

The information is out there at reputable sources if you look.

Please make a donation to Wikipedia while you’re at it. :-)

[Jack Carson]

The following chart was calculated compliments of Ray Prouty circa 1998. for the NSHP


Aircraft Model Gross Weight Down Wash Velocities (MPH) Down Wash Velocities at Half Fuel Load
S-61N 20,500 51.5 48.6
S-70(HH-60J) 21,884 61.5 58.6
S-92 25,200 62.9 59.8
H-53E 69,750 74.6 70.3
Cougar2 21,494 61.6 59.1
NH-90(NFH) 22,046 61.9 58.8
EH-101 32,190 65.6 61.7
MV-22 55,000 97.4 91.1

[heli1]

I just wish I'd followed my belief and actually put money on the V-280 to win. It was just the obvious winner when you looked st the complexities of the Coaxial/ pusher system

[CTR]

The You Tube video link below is a balanced and open minded discussion on the V-280 selection, by a former Tiltrotor skeptic.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKdiAbJFB-o&t=906s

Enjoy

[Commando Cody]

Maybe hover wasn't the right word. Vertical landing and subsequent take off. And I am not talking airport-to-airport flying. Yes, it is less than 5-10% of flight time, but what's the point sending it to some unprepared landing site during combat if it can't land or take off afterwards. And that will be the case sooner or later. Yes, I have seen all those videos.
Now, all this being said, what I said previously is from what I have known before CTR and Sultan gave me some new information. Thx for that.
Another thing I would like to know is downwash? We know V-22 has abysmal downwash. I guess with larger discs Valor less so. But how does it compare to other helicopters (not just Blackhawk)?

CTR and Jack Carson provided good data already, let me try to add a bit more.

I can't figure out what you mean by, "...but what's the point sending it to some unprepared landing site during combat if it can't land or take off afterwards". Why would you think a production V280 wouldn't be able to operate from unprepared fields? Kinda goes with the territory, and you'd think the Army might have said something if they didn't believe it could. Unless you're referring to the phony Sikorsky-pushed issue about vehicle size? Remember, the Army specified the minimum number of craft that could operate from a defined landing field with a required distance between spinning rotor tips and from surrounding terrain/vegetation, and the V280 meets the acquirement

Regarding downwash, V-22 has a lot, what it has is not solely a function of being a Tilt-Rotor. There are two big factors in its development that contributed to this. The first was the desire to be able to operate from the two spots abeam the island on the smaller amphibs of the time. This meant that the proprotors had to be constrained to a diameter less than optimum for its size and weight. Naturally, this raised the disk loading.

The second was the engine. During the design phase the Gov't told Bell/Boeing to plan on a Gov't supplied engine of a certain size, weight and fuel burn. Then during design the Gov't chose to supply an engine that weighed more and burned more fuel. This upped the weight on the craft and requiter a heavier structure in places to support this . The result was that those constrained proprotors had to lift even more weight, hence more disk loading hence more downwah.

Neither of those conditions apply to the V280.

[Flugzeug A]

I saw an a video article on ‘Military times’ that mentioned it’s also eventually replacing the Apache.
Is that right?

[CTR]

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at the Defiant footprint, in comparison to the Blackhawk. However, unlike Bell on the Valor, I can’t find a published number for the main rotor diameter on the Defiant.

There are published photos of both the Blackhawk and Defiant next to each other by Sikorsky, however, most are taken from a perspective that makes it difficult to judge the main rotor size. I finally found one plan view photo, and based on the Blackhawk rotor diameter being 53.66 feet in diameter, I am estimating the defiant rotor diameter at 65.23 feet.

Does anyone know what the Defiant main rotor diameter is?

I find it odd that the tail pusher prop diameter of 11 feet is published, but I can find no reference to the main rotor diameter.

[Commando Cody]

I saw an a video article on ‘Military times’ that mentioned it’s also eventually replacing the Apache.
Is that right?

Although Bell has shown models and artis' concept of attack V280s, that is aimed more at USMC and other potential customers, although they could certainly could build it if someone was willing to pay, Army is talking more about replacing at least some of the Apache fleet with whatever comes out of FARA.

[Commando Cody]

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at the Defiant footprint, in comparison to the Blackhawk. However, unlike Bell on the Valor, I can’t find a published number for the main rotor diameter on the Defiant.

There are published photos of both the Blackhawk and Defiant next to each other by Sikorsky, however, most are taken from a perspective that makes it difficult to judge the main rotor size. I finally found one plan view photo, and based on the Blackhawk rotor diameter being 53.66 feet in diameter, I am estimating the defiant rotor diameter at 65.23 feet.

Does anyone know what the Defiant main rotor diameter is?

I find it odd that the tail pusher prop diameter of 11 feet is published, but I can find no reference to the main rotor diameter.

The pusher won't affect the size of the footprint but main rotor diameter will, I suspect they are being circumspect on purpose.

[rrekn]

Without being cynical about supporting the US military industrial base... now that Bell have won FLRAA, Sikorsky will be handed FARA.

Say hello to the new Apache... the Chippewa?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x640/raiderx_weapons_indopacom_43e2ddbdf078e046753ebbba70fb40799c aadf95.jpg

[SansAnhedral]

Out of curiosity, I decided to take a look at the Defiant footprint, in comparison to the Blackhawk. However, unlike Bell on the Valor, I can’t find a published number for the main rotor diameter on the Defiant.

There are published photos of both the Blackhawk and Defiant next to each other by Sikorsky, however, most are taken from a perspective that makes it difficult to judge the main rotor size. I finally found one plan view photo, and based on the Blackhawk rotor diameter being 53.66 feet in diameter, I am estimating the defiant rotor diameter at 65.23 feet.

Does anyone know what the Defiant main rotor diameter is?

I find it odd that the tail pusher prop diameter of 11 feet is published, but I can find no reference to the main rotor diameter.


Incredibly it was not until early 2022 that Sikorsky ever publicly disclosed an actual rotor diameter...of Defiant X at 58.5' vs 53.7' of UH-60.

As they never disclosed Defiant's rotor size, we can't be certain if Defiant X is the same.

[KiwiNedNZ]

So could Bell win the FARA comp as well or is it a foregone conclusion that Sikorsky will be handed it ???

What if the Bell product is way better ??

[casper64]

So US ground forces will move at 280 knots cruise soon. How fast will the Europeans be? 140?
300+…. They will take an A400M or Herc if they want to go fast. 😉

[bryancobb]

Sik/Lok 's performance on the CH-53K so far, is just embarrassing! That probably played a large role in the decision.

[CTR]

With all of the unsupported statements being made regarding the V-280 footprint compared to Blackhawk, I decided to lay it out for myself.

Full disclosure, I couldn’t find anything but photographs comparing the Blackhawk to the SB>1 Defiant. Therefore I was forced to use a Sikorsky image of them next to each other to scale the Defiant Main rotor size based on a 53’8” Blackhawk main rotor.


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/731x858/c65e1caa_14bc_4d39_b74d_28c9501de623_bdd282e867de20ef1296149 536ddcd136df8c7a8.jpeg
The shaded green areas show where the Valor footprint exceeds the Defiant footprint, while the violet shaded area s illustrate where the Defiant footprint exceeds that of Valor. For reference, a Blackhawk footprint is shown.

For footprint size, it seems to be a case of six of one, or a half a dozen of another. ;-)

[Droop Snoot]

So could Bell win the FARA comp as well or is it a foregone conclusion that Sikorsky will be handed it ???

What if the Bell product is way better ??
Stunning irony if Bell beats SAC with a conventional single main rotor design.

[JohnDixson]

More than ironic if the Bell “Comanche” was selected!

[Commando Cody]

300+…. They will take an A400M or Herc if they want to go fast. 😉

Works fine if you always have a long enough runway with clear enough approach and departure space and a ramp to park the things. But then, if you have those anywhere you might need to go, VTOL makes no sense

[Commando Cody]

Without being cynical about supporting the US military industrial base... now that Bell have won FLRAA, Sikorsky will be handed FARA.

Say hello to the new Apache... the Chippewa?



Industrial base concerns will no doubt be take into account "off the record", but that'll be part of the decision. It's important to keep in mind that this is Army's fifth attempt to replace the OH-58. They can't afford to fail again.

The contenders are approaching this with different philosophies. Bell is offering an advanced conventional helo that they say will meet or exceed Army's requirements with presumably lower risk and cost. Sikorsky is going to propose a vehicle will likely be higher risk and cost, but they will contend that their bird will have enough advantages in performance to justify paying extra to get it. This competition doesn't look like it's going to be a pure price shootout like the Air Force's. T-X competition mostly was.

Sikorsky can point to the fact that their S-97 has been flying for over seven years and has or more flight hours under its belt. OTOH, it's missed numerous announced goals and Sikorsky admits that it will not reach its promised speed. Fortunately, FARA required speeds are lower than what Sikorsky was hoping for with S-97.

So this looks like a true flyoff will be a big part of the decision. If Sikorsky can deliver what they promised at an acceptable risk and they aren't inordinately more expensive, they stand a good shot. However, if Bell achieves its goals and is dramatically cheaper, that could tip things their way. The fact that Raider-X could easily be built in another version that could include an small internal cabin instead of weapons (it doesn't look like it will be hot swappable; (Bell has a patent where an Invictus' wings are popped off and six people ride in basic seats against the fuselage on the outside) would bee a plus as a tiebreaker, but can't be a deciding factor because the Army never asked for a cabin so the lack of one can't count against a competitor. Invictus looks like it can carry more weapons if it offloads some fuel by using the two store stations on the wings, but that also can't be a deciding factor because both contenders can carry the Amy's specified load.

If both aircraft deliver what they promise and essentially tie overall, industrial base could figure in, but that issue doesn't make it a slam dunk for Sikorsky. Look at it this way (this is an example, not a prediction): If both contenders absolutely meet all their promises but Raider-X with its higher permanence has a program three times the cost of Invictus(unlikely, I'm just trying to make a point), would you award to Sikorsky on Industrial base grounds?

Of course none of this addresses the issue that some time back the Progrram Manger said that an aircraft that meets all the Army FARA specs can't be built.

[60FltMech]

Have had issues posting the past week, but as it turns out others have said what I was going to say anyway so no great loss. 🤣

The Drive Article is probably the most balanced read I’ve seen about all the discussion on this topic. If you want to read other interesting things related to V-280 I can suggest searching for US patent 10,570,931 B2 where Bell describes the tilting gearbox/prop rotor in great detail, with drawings of the drivetrain.

I found another patent for the possible Hydraulic system as well but I forgot to save it. Will post later when I find it.

FltMech

[SASless]

Welcome Back!

Good to see you posting again.

[60FltMech]

Thanks, SASless good to be back.

I had mixed up the patent numbers in my last post, that one was for hydraulic system, US 9,174,731 B2 is for the tilt rotor aircraft with fixed engine.

FltMech

[60FltMech]

Sorry to keep putting stuff up here, but think this patent information is pertinent to the larger conversation.

If you have trouble finding the above patent information you can also copy txt below and paste into google search bar:EP2837559B1 US20180274563A1
For some reason when you just copy US patent number and search that it doesn’t come very well.

FltMech

[SplineDrive]

Without being cynical about supporting the US military industrial base... now that Bell have won FLRAA, Sikorsky will be handed FARA.

Say hello to the new Apache... the Chippewa?

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x640/raiderx_weapons_indopacom_43e2ddbdf078e046753ebbba70fb40799c aadf95.jpg

Raider-X has to fly well and perform properly first. While the Army asked for a 14,000 lb aircraft for FARA, I deeply suspect both aircraft are thousands of pounds over this target with Raider-X being heavier than Invictus. Raider-X has a ~15% larger rotor diameter but I’d spitball 70% greater mass relative to Raider’s original design point. So it’s not a foregone conclusion that Raider scales well to the Raider-X size. Rotor loads, drag, vibes, clutch, whatever other issue you want to imagine could still end up being an issue and the simpler Invictus could come away as the more practical vehicle.

[SansAnhedral]

Stunning irony if Bell beats SAC with a conventional single main rotor design.

Its starting to sound like there is a power deficit with a single engine for both camps, however much more of a detriment for Raider X. There was even an unsolicited comment from Sikorsky in an interview regarding the Raider X cruising at 230 kts with a second engine, so if that isn't insight as to what is going on, I'm not sure what is.

The real issue for Sikorsky is that both they and Bell have already basically completed the demonstrator aircraft designed around a single engine. I don't find it unlikely at all, and it would be an immense embarrassment for Sikorsky, if the conventional Invictus actually demonstrates higher speeds and Sikorsky has to try and convince everyone that their platform actually would be faster with more installed power.

Assuming the historical X2 vibration and rotor load woes are magically solved, this would give the Army an "out" if they want to select Raider based on the "industry base" rationale.

[CTR]

Its starting to sound like there is a power deficit with a single engine for both camps, however much more of a detriment for Raider X. There was even an unsolicited comment from Sikorsky in an interview regarding the Raider X cruising at 230 kts with a second engine, so if that isn't insight as to what is going on, I'm not sure what is.

The real issue for Sikorsky is that both they and Bell have already basically completed the demonstrator aircraft designed around a single engine……

Add a second engine on FARA, and you have a Boeing Apache replacement, not a Kiowa replacement (admittedly the original FARA spec is far from a Kiowa).

This will not make Boeing happy. With all the FARA specification changes, Boeing could rightly file a protest to request the FARA competition be reopened.

With the loss of FLRAA, Boeing Helicopter engineers have nothing left but upgrades to 50+ year old designs. To retain the capability to design new helicopters, this time around Boeing might invest in developing worthwhile proposal.

[SplineDrive]

Add a second engine on FARA, and you have a Boeing Apache replacement, not a Kiowa replacement (admittedly the original FARA spec is far from a Kiowa).

This will not make Boeing happy. With all the FARA specification changes, Boeing could rightly file a protest to request the FARA competition be reopened.

With the loss of FLRAA, Boeing Helicopter engineers have nothing left but upgrades to 50+ year old designs. To retain the capability to design new helicopters, this time around Boeing might invest in developing worthwhile proposal.

What ability to design new helicopters? Boeing has bought/merged into every helicopter in their suite of offerings, or licensed the design for them. Even the YUH-61 had an MBB derived rotor system.

[Commando Cody]

What ability to design new helicopters? Boeing has bought/merged into every helicopter in their suite of offerings, or licensed the design for them. Even the YUH-61 had an MBB derived rotor system.

Absolutely! Every helicopter they've ever had in service was designed by another company. In fact, in their entire history they only built four airframes of their own design that ever flew, three YUH-61 and one model 179 (proposed civil version).

[Commando Cody]

Add a second engine on FARA, and you have a Boeing Apache replacement, not a Kiowa replacement (admittedly the original FARA spec is far from a Kiowa).

This will not make Boeing happy. With all the FARA specification changes, Boeing could rightly file a protest to request the FARA competition be reopened.


The Army mandated that FARA must have a single engine, that Army would specif. In fact, it is delays in supplying that engine that has slipped the flight test progrm for FARA. Bell finished its prototype a few months ago, and Sikorsky's I think is now complete or nearly so, but both are awaiting engines.

FARA already is intended to replace part of the Apache fleet.

[Commando Cody]

Its starting to sound like there is a power deficit with a single engine for both camps, however much more of a detriment for Raider X. There was even an unsolicited comment from Sikorsky in an interview regarding the Raider X cruising at 230 kts with a second engine, so if that isn't insight as to what is going on, I'm not sure what is.


Two things here. First, the S-97 was promised to be a 220 knot aircraft, but late in the test program Sikorsky admitted they didn't think they would be able to reach that, so that has to be taken into account in analyzing any statement. Second, remember that a while back the Program Manager said that an aircraft that meets all of the Army specs can't be built. No doubt Army will have to compromise on something, bu tit's unlikely they'll do it on engines. Two T901s would be too much power and would require extensive redesign of the aircraft to try and take advantage of it (unless Sikorsky is saying they really need more power).

[CTR]

…
FARA already is intended to replace part of the Apache fleet.


CC,

Since Boeing has lost the capability to compete with engineering excellence, their competition strategy is now more a legal strategy.

Yes, the FARA is planned to eventually replace part of the Boeing Apache fleet. But what if the FARA program becomes delayed or canceled like Comanche and ARH? Boeing keeps the Apache assembly line and DoD money flowing for years or even a decade longer.

Regardless of Boeing having no legal basis to protest a major FARA requirements change, if Boeing can delay or kill FARA, it is to their financial advantage.

The partnership between Sikorsky and Boeing on FLRAA was always just one of convenience and political alignment of goals. Boeing I believe would have zero qualms with stabbing Sikorsky in the back by derailing FARA.

On FLRAA, Boeing’s financial strategy was to invest as close to nothing as possible. Teamed with Bell this was not an option, since Bell demanded an equal share in investment.

The Boeing FLRAA partnership with Sikorsky was primarily a political strategy for both. Financially, Boeing contributed very little during the competition phase. Only after winning contract award was Boeing required to invest significantly for development of the production aircraft.

A decade ago to outsiders, the Sikorsky/Boeing FLRAA team seemed unstoppable. Just their combined congressional industry lobby force dwarfed the size of Bell’s parent company Textron.

There was also very flawed misconception by Sikorsky/Boeing leadership, and industry experts, that working alone Bell was technically and financially incapable of successfully competing for FLRAA.

[Commando Cody]

This is second had. but I've heard it a number of time...When it was announced at Bell that Boeing would not be partnering with them on FLRAA, there were cheers among those affected. The reaction at Sikorsky was less than thrilled. Boeing already had Til-Rotor knowledge from V-22, Defiant was a way to grab some X2 technology smarts from the inventor.

Remember, Boeing used to be an aviation company. Now it's a financial conglomerate one of who's revenue streams just happens to be aircraft. And if you look to where they've most recently moved their headquarters, they may no longer be that.

[Copter Appreciator00]

Just a Army vet 96-00 and (Bell) helicopter enthusiast and history buff here. Stoked that they won. Now the FLRAA is basically decided, i went back to read some of the news entries over the years on how this whole thing developed, and noticed some interesting patterns and dates and trends.
Here is a piece from July 2010 mentioning the Army realized its need to replace the Kiowa and also eventually UH-60s:
U.S. Army Eyes Joint Multirole Helo | Defense News | defensenews.com (archive.vn) (https://archive.vn/20130121093651/http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4713228)

By September 2013, the Army had offically launched the JMR (later FVL) program with specific needs. Bell-textron had the tilt-rotor idea, with Lockheed as partner, the two set to compete against Sikorsky-Boeing.
Lockheed joins Bell V-280 Valor tier one team - Army Technology (army-technology.com) (https://www.army-technology.com/news/newslockheed-joins-bell-v-280-valor-tier-one-team/)
Bell, Lockheed team up V-280 Valor for FVL - AR15.COM (https://www.ar15.com/forums/general/Bell__Lockheed_team_up_V_280_Valor_for_FVL/5-1531084/)

By Oct 2015, Lockheed Martin did the acquisition/merger of Sikorsky and Boeing, and switched sides to develop SB>1....*while still developing systems for the V-280*, so LM never really left Bell. This article is INTERESTING:
Bell and Lockheed modify V-280 contract ahead of Sikorsky takeover. (50skyshades.com) (https://50skyshades.com/news/manufacturer/bell-and-lockheed-modify-v-280-contract-ahead-of-sikorsky-takeover)

And 2017-2020 saw the various designs from AVX, Karem, Boeing, Bell, and Sikorsky for FLRAA and FARA emerge:
https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/...at-army-scout/ (https://breakingdefense.com/2019/05/fara-why-avx-has-shot-at-army-scout/)
Bell V-280 Vs. Sikorsky-Boeing SB>1: Who Will Win Future Vertical Lift? - Breaking Defense (https://breakingdefense.com/2017/10/bell-v-280-vs-sikorsky-boeing-sb1-who-will-win-future-vertical-lift/) (2017 article)
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....gains-momentum (https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2019/10/9/armys-future-attack-recon-aircraft-gains-momentum)

Also, I noticed some of 2016-era images of the SB>1 Defiant troop carrier and attack versions, and it hit me. Boeing has been and is currently fully teamed with Bell for V-22 osprey, but went the X2 route for FVL... yet their attack version of the Defiant (only shown sporadically around 2018) looks *awfully like an AH-1 Cobra* with its sleek lines, unlike the blocky/stocky AH-64. The FVL story is basically 10+ years and still ongoing... from the 1990s-early 2000s Sikorsky RAH-66, to the upper 2000s ARH-70 program, then retiring the OH-58 Kiowa around 2015, then JMR-T or whatever to FVL, with Lockheed first teamed with Bell before switching to the SB>1 while keeping a contract with Bell, to the five companies and their prototypes, then to Bell vs Sikorsky/Boeing, then the test flights, then the last year of waiting for the decision. Dang.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x263/sb_1_ah1_6c7f1b84b9226f8a4608fbc8a8dd86471073cb2e.jpg

This SB-1 looks like an AH-1Z!

[CTR]

This is second had. but I've heard it a number of time...When it was announced at Bell that Boeing would not be partnering with them on FLRAA, there were cheers among those affected. The reaction at Sikorsky was less than thrilled…..

I can confirm from a highly reputable source, there were cheers of elation at Bell when the V-280 program split with Boeing was announced.

Additionally, two senior Bell engineers, who had worked for decades with Boeing on the V-22 literally got up and danced with joy. They were chastised by the program, chief engineer, but kept on dancing :-D

[Copter Appreciator00]

The SB-1 is big af. I guess some clever photographs sort of diguise its dimensions, even when parked next to the UH-60. Landing footprint, okay, not too much more H-60. Defiant is as big around as a CH-46 or Mi-17. Look how much taller and wider it is, and how much heavier it seems. That would be a major factor if it's going to be on a carrier. As there's all that space required for the midpoint to support the two sets of stacked rotors, it's got to weigh twice as much.

2x as tall as UH60 and V280
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/475x500/sb1_big2_crop_reszied_6397f4720db859e173bffd38ad55e74aca571f 8b.jpg
UH-60 and SB-1
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/400x232/mi_17_ppl_9d6955f431f6f8d7930303aa7c8cf36021afdb8e.jpg
larger than an Mi-17?

[SASless]

Tall is not a trait typically useful in Scout or Attack helicopters.

It also limits the kind of transport that can move it from one location to another without major efforts to reduce its "cube" when preparing it for loading.

I can see some engineering problems ahead if the Army really does consider this design.

[CTR]

Unless the US Army selects the Sikorsky Raider for the FARA award, I doubt X-2 technology has a future. Sikorsky has already stated it does not envision any commercial applications for the technology. Tilt rotor aircraft are not perfect. But X-2 technology, based on all available data to date, does not provide substantial enough benefits to balance out the penalties.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Unless the US Army selects the Sikorsky Raider for the FARA award, I doubt X-2 technology has a future. Sikorsky has already stated it does not envision any commercial applications for the technology. Tilt rotor aircraft are not perfect. But X-2 technology, based on all available data to date, does not provide substantial enough benefits to balance out the penalties.

As it is, X2 technology still isn't proven after all these years. FARA is their last shot, and because of engine delays, Raider X has zero flight hours. Lose FARA and Sikorsky will no longer be a major supplier.

[Flugzeug A]

More dufus questions from me , sorry...
It’s got 2 engines , how does it fare when 1 quits when it’s being an aeroplane , and if 1 quits when doing hovering / vertical stuff?
Can a single engine keep it in the air when hovering?
I know helicopters autorotate but how do you do that if another ‘rotor’ - using that term as I don’t know the correct 1 & I’m referring to helicopter stuff-is powered?
It’s brand new , so I assume that like the F35 , lots of stuff is automated but can anyone answer the above please?
Ta!

[LTP90]

More dufus questions from me , sorry...
It’s got 2 engines , how does it fare when 1 quits when it’s being an aeroplane , and if 1 quits when doing hovering / vertical stuff?
Can a single engine keep it in the air when hovering?
I know helicopters autorotate but how do you do that if another ‘rotor’ - using that term as I don’t know the correct 1 & I’m referring to helicopter stuff-is powered?
It’s brand new , so I assume that like the F35 , lots of stuff is automated but can anyone answer the above please?
Ta!
there is a shaft that connects both sides. Should one engine fail, the other engine can power both sides at reduced capacity. The V-22 has a similar system. So hovering at full load, at full power and one quits, you are probably not going to have a great day, but will live to tell about it. They are suppose to be able to auto rotate but I have no knowledge on that subject.
in forward flight the loss of an engine should be better than in a conventional airplane, because you will still have power to both sides and won't have a dead prop on one side.

[Flugzeug A]

Thanks LTP’.

[Winemaker]

From FlightGlobal, February 2022:
During one flight, on 31 January, the SB-1 Defiant demonstrated three capabilities: the ability to fly with one engine; carry a 1,542kg (3,400lb) external sling load at speeds approaching 100kt (185km/h); and ADS-33 Level One flight performance, the Sikorsky-Boeing team says on 17 February. Flight tests took place at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida facility.

[CTR]

Winemaker,

Sadly, the Defiant completed these flight tests 5 months after the final report deadline had passed.

Additionally, if you read the full Flight Global article for details, you will see that ADS 33 Level 1 HQ was not demonstrated in high speed (for FLRAA) flight. The V-280 demonstrated Level 1 HQ up to specification cruise speed.

With the smaller FARA platform, and more schedule time for development, X-2 technology may prove itself viable.

[retoocs]

More dufus questions from me , sorry...
It’s got 2 engines , how does it fare when 1 quits when it’s being an aeroplane , and if 1 quits when doing hovering / vertical stuff?
Can a single engine keep it in the air when hovering?
I know helicopters autorotate but how do you do that if another ‘rotor’ - using that term as I don’t know the correct 1 & I’m referring to helicopter stuff-is powered?
It’s brand new , so I assume that like the F35 , lots of stuff is automated but can anyone answer the above please?
Ta!

The AW609 can autorotate. Here's an article describing how it was done. https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-06-02/test-pilots-take-autorotating-tiltrotor

[CTR]

Imagine if I said that all helicopters can safely auto rotate to the ground, that would be a false statement.

If I stated that all helicopters with two engines could safely climb following the loss of a single engine, that would be a false statement.

Finally, if I stated there’s no helicopters can achieve level one handling qualities per ADS 33, that would also be a false statement.

The performance capabilities of each tiltrotor design varies greatly, just like with helicopters. Each design is optimized to achieve the desired performance within the limitations specified. This is especially true when 40 years of technology development separates different aircraft designs.

The time has come to stop generalizations that all tiltrotors are the same.

[The Sultan]

By my count the 21st is the last day for SB to file a protest. Anyone have a better schedule?

if they don’t file one we will know they were more expensive than the Bell offering. It’s hard to contest when your offering is bigger, slower, shorter range, and more expensive.

[Commando Cody]

By my count the 21st is the last day for SB to file a protest. Anyone have a better schedule?

if they don’t file one we will know they were more expensive than the Bell offering. It’s hard to contest when your offering is bigger, slower, shorter range, and more expensive.

It's unlikely this was a low bid (in governmentalese "Lowest Price Technically Acceptable") competition. Those are used when, "... requirements are well defined; risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal...". Causally this is an off the shelf item or something that is very similar to regular commercial items with no major development or unique requirements expected.
FLRAA isn't that kind of a program.
I have no idea what price either company proposed, but even if the SB>1 came in at a lower bid price,aside from the performance differences the Army would hove to look at what was accomplished by both competitors in the JMR-TD phase to give them a feel for how likely it was that the bidder could achieve what they promised. Clearly Bell had an advantage here, not only for Valor's performance and demonstrations, but also with a history of successful Tilt-Rotor types stretching back to the 1980s, giving more confidence they'd be able to do what they promised.. This would also be factored in the decision. This definitely wasn't just a price shootout. Now the SB>1 team could protest, but there's a risk.If there's a protest lodged, the Gov't is free to defend itself by releasing data that would normally not be disclosed, in order to justify its decision.

Back in the late 1970s, the Coast Guard put out an RFP fpr a "Short Range Recocery (SRR) Aircraft". The Competitors were Bell with its Model 222 and Aerospatiale with a modified version of their 365C. The 365C won and became the HH-65. Bell protested, and so the Gov't released details of the evaluations that normally they wouldn't in order to defend their choice. This revealed that the 365C was not just better, it was a lot better. Once this data became public, it unquestionably would affect sales. The [unverified} story goes that the Bell team, including Marketing, didn't have the nerve to go into the lion's den of top management and tell them,"Our helicopter wasn't nearly as good" and so didn't object to the protest so that it would be the Gov't who would break the bad news. Now that story may be anecdotal, but I could see Sikorsky (and to a lesser extent Boeing) not going forward with a protest for similar reasons. They want to continue with X2 technology and there [i]may be stuff they just don't want to go public...

[CTR]

Sikorsky and Boeing Challenge Army Decision to Replace Black Hawk with Bell V-280 Tiltrotor

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2022/12/sikorsky-and-boeing-challenge-army-decision-replace-black-hawk-bell-v-280-tiltrotor/381335/

[CTR]

It appears Boeing and Sikorsky have begun their media effort to overturn the Bell FLRAA contract award.

https://youtu.be/rXwlLFPP3FM

Lacking any valid Defiant X performance capabilities over the V-280 to extol, Boeing and Sikorsky are left with insinuating the V-280 is to big to be compatible with existing US Army infrastructure. But is the V-280 size even an issue?


Based on scaling the images in the Sikorsky/Boeing video, the Defiant X is larger than the UH-60 Blackhawk. Significantly larger.

Using the Blackhawk main rotor diameter of 53' 8"as a reference, the Defiant X main rotor is approximately 59' 9" in diameter.

Using again the Blackhawk main rotor diameter as a reference for scaling, the hanger door opening shown in the video is approximately 62' wide. For worst case rotor position this leaves less than 14" clearance to the door opening on either side when towing the Defiant X into the hanger.

Indexing the Defiant X main rotor to as shown in the video reduces the aircraft width to approximately 56' 6", increasing door clearance to 33" per side. This would seem to be adequate clearance, but raises the question of how would mechanics index those two huge main rotors prior to towing?

The Bell V-280 Valor may visually appear larger than the Defiant X, but based on published data the V-280 is significantly shorter in total length. With the V-280's two main rotors indexed to minimize width for towing into a hanger, the aircraft is approximately 59' 4" wide (again based on scaling published data). For a hanger with a 62' opening, this provides 16" clearance on either side when towing the V-280 into the hanger. Note: On the V-22, manually indexing the two main rotors common procedure, performed from the ground with the pylons at 90 deg using a lanyard looped around a blade, or by hand with the pylons rotated to 45 deg to facilitate reach. I assume a similar procedures can be used on the V-280.

The ease in being able to manually index the rotors on the V-280 could also facilitate parking the V-280 in hangers with door openings smaller than the Defiant X would fit. By manually reindexing the V-280 rotors after the first blade passes through the hanger door, the effective aircraft width would be approximately 51'.

As far as footprint on the ground, as noted the Defiant X is significantly larger than the UH-60 Blackhawk. Just look at the relative aircraft sizes in the Sikorsky/Boeing video. Therefore, with maintaining the same rotor to rotor clearances used on the Blackhawk footprint, this claim appears to be a stretch. Additionally, ground footprint comparisons of the Defiant X to the V-280 need to take into consideration the different proportions of each aircraft.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1334x750/87227b80_b8c1_4d32_aa41_ba3387082387_f90d55ff7be1c87cc21194e 02d5899826ad50795.png

[Flugzeug A]

Isn’t the blade diameter more important re the landing zones any of these can get into?
Obviously getting them into a hanger is good , but I don’t think the people being shot at & waiting on the ground will care about that.
Again , I don’t see that other than speed & ‘Wow , it’s different’ , either proposal is bringing much to the party.

[CTR]

Isn’t the blade diameter more important re the landing zones any of these can get into?
Obviously getting them into a hanger is good , but I don’t think the people being shot at & waiting on the ground will care about that.
Again , I don’t see that other than speed & ‘Wow , it’s different’ , either proposal is bringing much to the party.


Agreed. Check out the video below.

https://www.facebook.com/BellFlight/videos/facts-matter-bell-v-280-footprint/371502048366351/

note that the V-280 not only provides 300 kits speed, but also twice the range and more payload than a Blackhawk.

[Flugzeug A]

Agreed. Check out the video below.

https://www.facebook.com/BellFlight/videos/facts-matter-bell-v-280-footprint/371502048366351/

note that the V-280 not only provides 300 kits speed, but also twice the range and more payload than a Blackhawk.

I was unaware of that , thanks.
I remain cynical in many ways about the V-280 though!

[CTR]

I was unaware of that , thanks.
I remain cynical in many ways about the V-280 though!

Cynical minds can rarely be changed. I believe you have a healthy skepticism. ;-)

[Flugzeug A]

!Cynical minds can rarely be changed. I believe you have a healthy skepticism. ;-)

Indeed , thanks!
Everyone’s better than me at maths , could someone work out the cost per Kg etc load carried by each airframe?
I mean based on the cost of the aircraft v the payload?
I suspect that though the V-280 can lift more , it’ll cost more because it’s a daftly expensive piece of kit!
There have been lots of comments regarding it now being ‘A 300mph battlefield’ but if your allies & other arms only have the old & slow stuff , doesn’t the battlefield remain slow too?

[CTR]

!
I mean based on the cost of the aircraft v the payload?
I suspect that though the V-280 can lift more , it’ll cost more because it’s a daftly expensive piece of kit!
There have been lots of comments regarding it now being ‘A 300mph battlefield’ but if your allies & other arms only have the old & slow stuff , doesn’t the battlefield remain slow too?

Flugzeug, Sorry, I only have access to what I can find online. There is quantitative data available on the Blackhawk out there. But as far as I can find, neither the Sikorsky Boeing team or Bell have published the specific data you’re asking for.

I’m sure some will try to use V-22 data as a baseline for the V-280 Valor. That would be a flawed comparison, however. The V-22 was the first generation production, tiltrotor, and the V-280 incorporates the many lessons, learned from700,000 V-22 flight hours.

At the same time, others will try to claim that the Defiant is similar to the Blackhawk. That would be even a more flawed a comparison. The Defiant is a very much more complex machine compared to a Blackhawk. And the total number of flight hours to base any evaluation on, is limited to a few hundred accumulated on flight test aircraft.

Qualitatively, it may be possible to draw some conclusions based on the complexity of each design. Maybe others out there can provide the information you are requesting.

As far as the speed question, higher speed makes sure you get there before the other guy. Getting you back fast saves lives.

[60FltMech]

Regarding compatibility of either Defiant or V-280 with existing US Army facilities, taking a look at Unified Facilities Criteria UFC 3-260-01, both aircraft would require a similar parking pad layout along the lines of the current Navy/Marines V-22 Parking pad in dimensions as shown below:

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1284x1436/82239f81_821c_43c8_bcb3_0949f6c5cabe_ac51073796a09f93dc41dd0 fbe32a88ec51dd0b5.jpeg


As far as Hangar Facilities go, here’s a table and figure out of UFC 4-211-01 that talks about clearances etc. I can tell you right now that my facility would only accommodate 2 V-280s per hangar and maybe 4 Defiant vs the 6 H-60’s we can currently accommodate:
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1200x2000/c59bfc0a_e86f_457a_8e82_0bfe55e2934f_0e87085ebd3d1aa629023af d140b17447e51bd67.jpeg


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1284x1221/b4b18151_f08d_4764_a5a2_b322c9086fee_722465087d9163b661ca4b7 d323093a79fcdf4d6.jpeg
I looks like we would lose 2-3 parking pads per aircraft depending on which aircraft was selected.

FltMech

[CTR]

FltMech,

Thanks for the data. I was especially interested in the requirement for minimum rotor to rotor spacing.

I just added to my earlier post an image superimposing the V-280 on top of the Defiant in a screen shot of the hanger used in the Boeing video.

Based on this image generated from available published data, how do you see the Defiant requiring less hanger space? Note that the blades on the Defiant do not fold, despite promotional videos you have seen. Sikorsky is still attempting to make the X-2 rigid rotor work without the complexity of folding

[60FltMech]

I’m wondering if the dimensions we are seeing for either aircraft are accurate. In the case of Defiant I’m not sure I’ve even seen official dimensions published anywhere. I can’t see how they fit in the same footprint as as an H-60 but your image makes a compelling argument against what Boeing/Sikorsky may be claiming.

Having said that, credit to the Army if they actually made the size requirement around a legacy aircraft and stuck to it, not an insignificant cost to revamp all Army Facilities!

flt mech

[chopper2004]

It's unlikely this was a low bid (in governmentalese "Lowest Price Technically Acceptable") competition. Those are used when, "... requirements are well defined; risk of unsuccessful contract performance is minimal...". Causally this is an off the shelf item or something that is very similar to regular commercial items with no major development or unique requirements expected.
FLRAA isn't that kind of a program.
I have no idea what price either company proposed, but even if the SB>1 came in at a lower bid price,aside from the performance differences the Army would hove to look at what was accomplished by both competitors in the JMR-TD phase to give them a feel for how likely it was that the bidder could achieve what they promised. Clearly Bell had an advantage here, not only for Valor's performance and demonstrations, but also with a history of successful Tilt-Rotor types stretching back to the 1980s, giving more confidence they'd be able to do what they promised.. This would also be factored in the decision. This definitely wasn't just a price shootout. Now the SB>1 team could protest, but there's a risk.If there's a protest lodged, the Gov't is free to defend itself by releasing data that would normally not be disclosed, in order to justify its decision.

Back in the late 1970s, the Coast Guard put out an RFP fpr a "Short Range Recocery (SRR) Aircraft". The Competitors were Bell with its Model 222 and Aerospatiale with a modified version of their 365C. The 365C won and became the HH-65. Bell protested, and so the Gov't released details of the evaluations that normally they wouldn't in order to defend their choice. This revealed that the 365C was not just better, it was a lot better. Once this data became public, it unquestionably would affect sales. The [unverified} story goes that the Bell team, including Marketing, didn't have the nerve to go into the lion's den of top management and tell them,"Our helicopter wasn't nearly as good" and so didn't object to the protest so that it would be the Gov't who would break the bad news. Now that story may be anecdotal, but I could see Sikorsky (and to a lesser extent Boeing) not going forward with a protest for similar reasons. They want to continue with X2 technology and there [i]may be stuff they just don't want to go public...


in my copy of Athur Pearcys book, the Bell 222 proposed for the USCG role looks suspiciously like it had a S-76A tailboom put on it,


https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/4c3d84cd_2026_4343_a0bf_16f9a93eb898_201f34443ab2ece0ee1e212 bb69dae3374202fcd.jpeg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/c1184279_d718_4d2b_bf2a_a23531e0c9e3_d6958b5116c856e7c9eaa0e 52fb14414314bb922.jpeg

Sikorsky also offered their 76..


https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1500x2000/1a5b3ab8_8945_4445_8a32_60195bc07859_a4bea1281dcbe1354db2128 0d8d32b9d7f1c2f5b.jpeg

cheers

[Lonewolf_50]

Sikorsky and Boeing Challenge Army Decision to Replace Black Hawk with Bell V-280 Tiltrotor
https://www.defenseone.com/business/2022/12/sikorsky-and-boeing-challenge-army-decision-replace-black-hawk-bell-v-280-tiltrotor/381335/
They would, wouldn't they?
!
Everyone’s better than me at maths , could someone work out the cost per Kg etc load carried by each airframe?
I mean based on the cost of the aircraft v the payload?
Given that they have not actually produced prototype #1, nobody can tell you that.
(As to the 'old and slow' problem the Marines got to enjoy the fun of their V-22s (potentially) outrunning their armed escorts, the AH-1W, which used to escort the Phrogs. :} Didn't stop them from getting V-22s)
An aircraft should be delivered for initial testing in 2024-ish, if the second-hand info I have is reliable.
The Valor you saw flying was the tech demonstrator. The first flight test article will have folded in some changes (lessons learned being applied, etc) before Prototype 1 rolls onto a flight line anywhere.
I’m wondering if the dimensions we are seeing for either aircraft are accurate.
In the case of Defiant I’m not sure I’ve even seen official dimensions published anywhere.
I can’t see how they fit in the same footprint as as an H-60 but your image makes a compelling argument against what Boeing/Sikorsky may be claiming.
Having said that, credit to the Army if they actually made the size requirement around a legacy aircraft and stuck to it, not an insignificant cost to revamp all Army Facilities!
flt mech That's a great point, 60FltMech. What facilities modifications are a follow on consequence of any new acquisition?
Important questions to ask and answer.
(A number of folks have, above, addressed the "how to you get it across the ocean" question so I'll not belabor that point)
As to the dimensions: as both were demonstrators, I suspect the dimensions will get refined by the time Number 1 shows up, but the general magnitudes are probably close enough.

(IIRC, Mr Dixson can talk to the UH-60 shaft extension and air transport geometry for the Blackhawk...from that program's early days)

[SASless]

What shall the protest be based upon?

Has Sikorsky provided test results that fairly demonstrate an advantage over the Bell offering?

If so....what are they?

If the basic goal is to replace a portion of the BlackHawk fleet, Blackhawks costing on the order of Twenty Million Dollars each these days......at what per Unit Cost?

If the cabin space and lift capacity is the same as for the Blackhawk....do the pro's outweigh the con's when costs. are factored in and shall budgets allow for the planned fleet sizes?

Have both aircraft conducted sling load testing to prove that capability and what effect does underslung loads have on airspeed capability?

What are the actual empty weights compared to design empty weights and as we all know.....every aircraft gets heavier over time as new requirements and equipment get added.

Does th 280 have the same autorotation issues as does the V-22?

Any autorotation issues with the Sikorsky concept?

The Army should be very careful in its analysis of the two very different concepts along with ensuring the planned strategy fits with the reality of warfare in wake of revelations from the Ukraine War.

[rrekn]

in my copy of Athur Pearcys book, the Bell 222 proposed for the USCG role looks suspiciously like it had a S-76A tailboom put on it,

Wasn't the Bell 222 Airwolf? How does it look so different here?

[The Sultan]

Wasn't the Bell 222 Airwolf? How does it look so different here?

Because the author was sloppy or an idiot. The pictured is obviously the S-76, and not the 222.

[soarbum]

While reading about the engineering challenges and additional height associated with the Defiant X double rotor, I wondered to myself why they didn't go for a conventional main rotor and articulate the tail rotor (a bit like the Valor but horizontally) so that it could be configured like a standard heli at low speed but as a pusher at high speed. It would probably also require either one or two winglets to counter the effect of retreating blade stall at high forward airspeed. Just when I though to myself "Eureka", I of course found that something similar has been tried already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_X-49_SpeedHawk

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/420x259/x_49a_b87629c3617d6855e388d366fc875c9153dd5620.jpg

[SASless]

Then there was this lovely Attack Helicopter that was way ahead of its time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

One thing that stands out to me is the empty weight of the various candidates and how that has grown over time and technology.

[soarbum]

Another interesting bird! I see that it has 2 rotors on the tail rather than the ducted system on the speedhawk.


Does anyone know of a compound helicopter where the tail rotor itself articulates?

[60FltMech]

The Army apparently decided to memorialize the AH-56 in this mural on the side of the new Army Aviation museum under construction.

FltMech
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x844/4b156d59_d180_4363_8fa9_3b9605429b04_327318bcf8bd83cebf01e46 f01f454cfdc1ab0f6.jpeg

[Flugzeug A]

What shall the protest be based upon?

Has Sikorsky provided test results that fairly demonstrate an advantage over the Bell offering?

If so....what are they?

If the basic goal is to replace a portion of the BlackHawk fleet, Blackhawks costing on the order of Twenty Million Dollars each these days......at what per Unit Cost?

If the cabin space and lift capacity is the same as for the Blackhawk....do the pro's outweigh the con's when costs. are factored in and shall budgets allow for the planned fleet sizes?

Have both aircraft conducted sling load testing to prove that capability and what effect does underslung loads have on airspeed capability?

What are the actual empty weights compared to design empty weights and as we all know.....every aircraft gets heavier over time as new requirements and equipment get added.

Does th 280 have the same autorotation issues as does the V-22?

Any autorotation issues with the Sikorsky concept?

The Army should be very careful in its analysis of the two very different concepts along with ensuring the planned strategy fits with the reality of warfare in wake of revelations from the Ukraine War.

By ‘...autorotation issues..’ , do you mean that it can’t autorotate & the crew / passengers just sit waiting for the impact?

[SplineDrive]

Another interesting bird! I see that it has 2 rotors on the tail rather than the ducted system on the speedhawk.


Does anyone know of a compound helicopter where the tail rotor itself articulates?

Yes, Sikorsky flew a modified S-61 called the S-61F that could add wings, jet pods, and a rotating tail rotor along with some aerodynamic cleanup. Sort of a precursor to the S-72 RSRA. They called the swiveling tail rotor “Rotoprop” and demonstrated the possibilities on the S-61F. Downside of shoving a draggy helicopter through the air with a propeller is that it takes a lot of power, far more than a tail rotor normally consumes if you want to get well over 200 knots. On the X-2 aircraft, the propellor requires more horsepower than the main rotors do. So this swiveling prop adds a lot of weight to the very aft of the aircraft which hurts yaw inertia and moves your CG back. If it’s part of a new design, this is all manageable.

I think the main issue is that a pusher propeller on a helicopter can’t give you tiltrotor speeds and is a significant weight and cost penalty. Since a simpler winged helicopter can cruise near 200 knots and a tiltrotor rules at 250+ knots, there is only a narrow window where a thrust compound might be competitive. So far, that window doesn’t appear to have been wide enough to result in a production aircraft.

Oh, Karem proposed a rotating prop/tail rotor solution for their FARA.

[60FltMech]

I referenced some Bell patent drawings a couple weeks ago, one of which is posted below:

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1380x974/3ef00194_24cf_4ef9_9575_75401e63ea9c_9c0bdee99dc66acd223c7b5 5222c34beffd5c94b.jpeg
As you can see, the drivetrain arrangement of V-280 would appear to lend itself to an autorotation at least as well as a CH-47, maybe even better as there is no combining transmission in the drive line. Notice the drive shafts along the wing trailing edge (item 135) , they feed power to a gearbox (item 129) to a quill shaft driving the tilting gearbox (item 147).

Here’s a better view of the tilting gearbox:
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1111x1205/e4ddf493_9355_41bf_a619_3e2554213668_50f39e0caba96e2501d29c9 48c0c386cad61e860.jpeg
on first glance this appears to be a pretty streamlined way of sharing power, similar to what we already see on conventional helicopters. Looks like the gearbox (item 129) has mounting provisions for generators and pumps etc.

Being skeptical of the V-280, I was actually pretty surprised at how simple this all looked. You can even see some of these actual components from to V-280 demonstrator in one of the Bell videos on YouTube.

I may be wrong but from my view, again as a skeptic, is that autorotation won’t be as big an issue as I thought. I feel like if V-280 really does enter service that the biggest adaptation will be regarding speed.
How long it will take aircrew (rated and non-rated) to not be “behind the aircraft”?

FltMech

[Flugzeug A]

Another skeptic?
I thought I was alone in this cynicism!
It costs way more than a Blackhawk to buy , it’s way more complex mechanically & therefore will need more maintenance , it MIGHT be able to autorotate , it’s bigger & can’t get into the same restricted LZs / needs more hanger space, the high purchase cost will likely curtail exports as only the US’ will be able to afford it...
But , it’s new & fast.
Seems somewhat overrated to me but then again , what do I know?!!

[SASless]

Flug,

By ‘...autorotation issues..’ , do you mean that it can’t autorotate & the crew / passengers just sit waiting for the impact?

What I am referring to by asking that question is the situation that exists in the V-22 design where a successful helicopter style authoritative landing is not assured due to several design issues.

Tiltrotor aircraft are not helicopters and thus cannot be evaluated the same way as a helicopter.

Being a two engined aircraft with the capability of a single engine driving both proprotors the likelihood of the Osprey or 280 having need of such a autoroatative capability seems remote.

The question I posed is directed to the situation when a single remaining engine fails for some reason while the aircraft is in the "helicopter mode" (Rotors tilted upwards) and at a speed/height combination that does not allow for a transition to "airplane" mode.

The difference I see between the 280 and the 22 is the wing and engines on the 280 do not rotate but the proprotors do thus reducing the size of the envelope that presents that critical danger.

The V-22 design was driven by many factors that ultimately resulted in some degraded capabilities in power and performance when in the "helicopter" mode.

The 280 should benefit from the 22 program and be a better machine than its predecessor which was the first mass produced and operated Tiltrotor.


https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/v-22-survive.htm

[60FltMech]

I think it’s an important point that while I’m a skeptic I’m not trying to fall the trap of “that’s so dumb it will never work!”.

As others have said, the technology in vertical lift keeps getting better and better. My (hopefully!) healthy skepticism of this program is informed by years of working on the main frontline aircraft the US Army uses, each with strength and weaknesses, and seeing what I consider abject failure by the Army (UH-72, and soon, the CCAD welfare project that is the UH-60V).

Having said that, New stuff is hard, and Bell has demonstrated something new and it will be, IF it can do everything it claims, a great advancement for Army Aviation and the Air Assault doctrine. That’s a fact. And as cynical as I am, and as hard as it is to say given the track record of the various services over the years, I think that not everyone involved in the flight evaluation of these competitors is a corrupt sellout. A lot of these issues that we are discussing here have been heavily evaluated by fellow aviators with pretty impressive professional experience.

After 3-4 schedule delays for initial operation capability and one or two billon $ of cost overruns we will find out if I’m right or wrong 🤣
FltMech

[Lonewolf_50]

Seems somewhat overrated to me but then again , what do I know?!!
Apparently, you don't know much about the V-22 Osprey. (Also fast, and expensive).
I consider abject failure by the Army (UH-72, and soon, the CCAD welfare project that is the UH-60V).
I was under the impression that the V is an attempt to back fit the glass cockpit and various systems upgrades into the L.
Can you expand on your disappointment as regards the L to V upgrade?
​​​​​​​(Didn't they do a lot of A to L upgrades over the years?)

[SplineDrive]

Having said that, New stuff is hard, and Bell has demonstrated something new and it will be, IF it can do everything it claims, a great advancement for Army Aviation and the Air Assault doctrine. That’s a fact. And as cynical as I am, and as hard as it is to say given the track record of the various services over the years, I think that not everyone involved in the flight evaluation of these competitors is a corrupt sellout. A lot of these issues that we are discussing here have been heavily evaluated by fellow aviators with pretty impressive professional experience.


It’s worth noting that tiltrotors as a concept aren’t new and the production V-280 would be following in the footsteps of the V-280 Tech Demonstrator, TR918 Deepwater UAV, 609 civil tiltrotor, TR911X Eagle Eye UAV, V-22 Osprey, XV-15, and the XV-3. That’s 70 years of tiltrotor research and products by Bell, usually in collaboration with NASA or one of the military services. The basics of “how to design, operate, and fly a tiltrotor” are well established. As you highlighted, I think the bigger risks are schedule and budget related, not technical.

[SplineDrive]

Another skeptic?
I thought I was alone in this cynicism!
It costs way more than a Blackhawk to buy , it’s way more complex mechanically & therefore will need more maintenance , it MIGHT be able to autorotate , it’s bigger & can’t get into the same restricted LZs / needs more hanger space, the high purchase cost will likely curtail exports as only the US’ will be able to afford it...
But , it’s new & fast.
Seems somewhat overrated to me but then again , what do I know?!!

A lot of the benefit is due to the much greater range and speed… these will allow for fewer aircraft to be needed and perhaps more importantly, fewer forward air bases in theater. Fewer FOBs is a smaller logistical footprint and all the compounded benefits that come from that. Longer range also means Army assaults in a Pacific theater is far more practical, something Black Hawks just can’t do effectively no matter how cheap or simple they are. The V-280 is simply a much more capable vehicle.

[soarbum]

Oh, Karem proposed a rotating prop/tail rotor solution for their FARA.

Thanks for your enlightenment regarding the challenges and the lead re Karem. After watching the vid below, I'd think that I'd like to see the Karem proposal make the final two in FARA, politics permitting



https://youtu.be/CVFYQcwmjAg

[60FltMech]

That’s 70 years of tiltrotor research and products by Bell, usually in collaboration with NASA or one of the military services. The basics of “how to design, operate, and fly a tiltrotor” are well established. As you highlighted, I think the bigger risks are schedule and budget related, not technical.

Point taken regarding maturity of the technology, maybe it would better to say that the “new” thing here is a generational advancement of tilt rotor design.

fltmech

[SplineDrive]

Thanks for your enlightenment regarding the challenges and the lead re Karem. After watching the vid below, I'd think that I'd like to see the Karem proposal make the final two in FARA, politics permitting

The final two FARA competitors were chosen a few years ago. Bell is building the model 360 Invictus and Sikorsky is building the Raider-X. Karem’s proposal hasn’t gone anywhere.

[SASless]

Along with the technical issues, some serious thought should be given to the strategy that is behind the "Need" for this aircraft.

Yes...going far quickly then being able to. land much as a helicopter does is fine if the rest of the forces can fulfill their roles.

The 280 is a Squad mover comparable to the Blackhawk it is to replace.

Moving Squads is nice....but how do you move Battalions along with the supporting arms that include artillery, mortars, vehicles, and supplies (food, water, ammo), and medical support?

Chinooks move more and will be in the mix....does the Army incorporate Air to Air Refueling for the Chinooks?

How about the Apache gunship support....it cannot keep up and does not have the legs to escort the 280.

If we are talking combat operations it is a combined arms operation and not an admin type transportation of troops.

We should look to how the Marines changed their operating methods when they fielded the Osprey to see how that combined arms thing works at the far end of the flight for the 280 if it is envisioned to be an "Air Assault" type attack.

We saw the 101st Airborne deploy a FARP to support the Apache attack deep behind Iraqi Lines (the one that ended disastrously for the Apaches).

That FARP required Chinooks, Blackhawks, and a lot of troops and equipment for defense of the FARP.

How does one do that in Pacific?

The Marines have settled upon a "Go Light" strategy and although with slightly different mission sets there are similarities between the anticipated Army mission and the Marines now that the Army is looking to Tiltrotor aircraft.

Then there is also Congressional Politics that shall. play a role in all of these planned acquisitions.

As said by one long serving member of Congress....."It is not about the Dollars....it is about the Zip Codes of where that money is spent.".

[Lonewolf_50]

The final two FARA competitors were chosen a few years ago. Bell is building the model 360 Invictus and Sikorsky is building the Raider-X. Karem’s proposal hasn’t gone anywhere. Karem's proposal was always vaporware.
Along with the technical issues, some serious thought should be given to the strategy that is behind the "Need" for this aircraft.
Yes...going far quickly then being able to. land much as a helicopter does is fine if the rest of the forces can fulfill their roles.
Something has to replace the Blackhawk, so they are looking ahead. Having seen what V-22 can do, Army is paying attention.

As to your question on Apache support, the Army has already re envisioned how Apache fits into the mix with the retirement of OH-58 Kiowa Warrior
Apache and RPV's are the combo platter. Your assumptions that Apache is needed near the LZ is erroneous. See also the current war in Ukraine if you doubt me.
FWIW: USN was exploring RPVs back in 1987 and previous. Head to a few posts by SpazSinbad in Mil Av forum where he links to Naval Aviation news from 1987.
How does one do that in Pacific? You send the Marines. :ok:
Then there is also Congressional Politics that shall. play a role in all of these planned acquisitions.
As said by one long serving member of Congress....."It is not about the Dollars....it is about the Zip Codes of where that money is spent.". Amen, Deacon. :ok:​​​​​​​

[SASless]

Lone,

"Proceedings" this month has some interesting articles that relate to this recent discussion about "future use" and strategy.

Opening page dices "SPY-6" radar technology and mentions Hypersonic Missile threats as Land to Sea missile technology has forced a change in the Navy/Marine Corps thinking on amphibious operations against a hostile shore.

The Marines have undergone a complete strategy change under General Berger's guidance that significantly alters conventional thinking by the Marines.

I found the article "Changing Geometry Of PLA Navy Carrier Ops" to be very informative about the growing capability and threat the PLAN is developing.

Additionally, the advent of the US Navy's Expeditionary Sea Base Ships at some point could play into the tactical use of the 280.

In the past the US Army has used leased civilian oil field support barges for covert operations in the Persian Gulf.

Guessing at a winning strategy with the rapid changes in technology is a difficult task these days.....let's hope the planners get it right.

[Commando Cody]

Then there was this lovely Attack Helicopter that was way ahead of its time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_AH-56_Cheyenne

.


Problems with Cheyenne included that it was not as fast as it was hoped, was behind schedule and had vibration issues. Also, Army was thinking that agility was going to be more important than speed and that was emphasized in the follow-on AAH competition. One other significant factor was USAF's intense opposition to the Cheyenne program as they felt it infringed on "their" mission of Close Air Support.

[Commando Cody]

While reading about the engineering challenges and additional height associated with the Defiant X double rotor, I wondered to myself why they didn't go for a conventional main rotor and articulate the tail rotor (a bit like the Valor but horizontally) so that it could be configured like a standard heli at low speed but as a pusher at high speed. It would probably also require either one or two winglets to counter the effect of retreating blade stall at high forward airspeed. Just when I though to myself "Eureka", I of course found that something similar has been tried already.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piasecki_X-49_SpeedHawk What worked against Speedhawk was that it turned out to offer no significant advantages (including speed, as it turns out) over a conventional helicopter and was a lot heavier.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Connecticut lawmakers demand more information on Army helicopter awardBy Jen Judson (https://www.defensenews.com/author/jen-judson) and Bryant Harris (https://www.defensenews.com/author/bryant-harris)
Feb 3, 07:04 AMWASHINGTON — The Connecticut delegation on Capitol Hill is pressing the U.S. Army for more information about its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/05/us-army-makes-largest-helicopter-award-in-40-years/) award, even as the Government Accountability Office reviews the procurement.

Late last year, Texas-based Textron Bell beat out a team of Connecticut-based Sikorsky and Boeing for the deal to build the next-generation vertical-life aircraft. The program, the Army’s largest helicopter procurement decision in 40 years, is worth up to $1.3 billion and would replace roughly 2,000 Sikorsky-manufactured UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters in the 2030 timeframe.
Sikorsky quickly filed a protest with the GAO (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/28/lockheed-challenges-us-armys-helicopter-award/) over the decision.

On Jan. 12, the Connecticut delegation, which includes both senators and five House representatives, wrote to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth seeking a briefing on the selection.

The lawmakers wrote that Sikorsky’s bid for FLRAA “was significantly superior in terms of cost, but that due to a subjective unsatisfactory evaluation on a single criteria, Sikorsky’s bid was rejected and never fully evaluated.”
But the Army this week declined to discuss its decision with lawmakers, citing the protest period. (The GAO is slated to decide the case by April 7.)

In a letter sent to Connecticut lawmakers this week, Army acquisition chief Doug Bush said the service would “respectfully” decline the invitation to conduct a briefing “at this time.” Bush, in the letter obtained by Defense News, said the Army would be able to provide its rationale once the protest is resolved.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee whose Connecticut district includes Sikorsky’s headquarters, told Defense News she will “continue to push for” a briefing.

Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut tweeted this week that he thinks the Army is choosing not to brief them because “the price difference between the affordable Sikorsky helicopter and the expensive Bell non-helicopter are enormous.”
He followed up with another tweet on Thursday: “FYI yesterday the Army denied Congress’s request for a briefing — for the 4th time. Is this because the price of the Bell helicopter is sky high compared to the Sikorsky bid? Why doesn’t the Army want Congress to know this?https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/mEDxWV1CtUtZmiCN_BADX8cqaRY=/1440x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/NT2IBGCCXNEVFJWSB66UWZABNA.jpg
Lockheed Martin and Boeing unveiled its offering to the U.S. Army's Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft competition Jan. 25, 2021 -- calling it Defiant X. (Artistic rendering courtesy of Lockheed Martin and Boeing)

DeLauro and Murphy joined fellow Connecticut Democrats Sen. Richard Blumenthal and Reps. Joe Courtney, John Larson, Jim Himes and Jahana Hayes in signing the January letter.

In that document, they wrote that a pending GAO protest should not prevent the Army from meeting with lawmakers.

Courtney told Defense News his staff and the rest of Connecticut’s delegation are researching whether the Army has consistently chosen not to brief lawmakers during a protest period.
“This is something that needs to be protected information, but on the other hand, this is going to be one of the largest acquisition programs in the country for a long time and I think the request by members is legitimate,” he said.

Courtney said lawmakers want to discuss a variety of issues surrounding the decision, from cost to whether they can be maintained in existing depots.

House Appropriations Chairwoman Kay Granger, DeLauro’s Republican counterpart, represents Fort Worth, where Bell is headquartered. Her office did not reply to Defense News’ request for comment.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/02/03/connecticut-lawmakers-demand-more-information-on-army-helo-award/


Asked about the deal, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Defense News he plans to “let all that play itself out,” but added that Bell holding onto its award “would be a good thing.”

[Lonewolf_50]

Connecticut lawmakers demand more information on Army helicopter award
Sikorsky quickly filed a protest with the GAO (https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2022/12/28/lockheed-challenges-us-armys-helicopter-award/) over the decision.
On Jan. 12, the Connecticut delegation, which includes both senators and five House representatives, wrote to Army Secretary Christine Wormuth seeking a briefing on the selection. ”
Gee, who saw that coming?
Everyone. :p

[The Sultan]

In the request for briefing they wrote:

Sikorsky’s bid for FLRAA “was significantly superior in terms of cost, but that due to a subjective unsatisfactory evaluation on a single criteria,

How could they possibly know any of this as they haven’t been briefed? Inspection of the two aircraft shows the simpler V-280 should, if anything, be lower cost than the more complex SB1. In one area that drives costs, the 280 has only 6 rotor blades while the SB-1 has 16 blades with similar cost per unit. If SB actually had a lower bid it was probably corrected by the govt based upon both Sik and Boeing’s cost overruns on current programs.

While the SB proposal may have been unsatisfactory in only one area (which is highly doubtful), it is clearly widely inferior by large margins, relative to the 280, in almost all categories including:

Maturity of design
Speed
Range
Comfort
Size (the 280 is close to the UH-60 while the SB1 is comparable to a Chinook)

In the end, the FLRAA has to be the one that has the longest range at a high enough speed to exploit that range to meet the anticipated primary missiion. The Army has determined that is the Bell offering.

[chopper2004]

Along with the technical issues, some serious thought should be given to the strategy that is behind the "Need" for this aircraft.

Yes...going far quickly then being able to. land much as a helicopter does is fine if the rest of the forces can fulfill their roles.

The 280 is a Squad mover comparable to the Blackhawk it is to replace.

Moving Squads is nice....but how do you move Battalions along with the supporting arms that include artillery, mortars, vehicles, and supplies (food, water, ammo), and medical support?

Chinooks move more and will be in the mix....does the Army incorporate Air to Air Refueling for the Chinooks?

How about the Apache gunship support....it cannot keep up and does not have the legs to escort the 280.

If we are talking combat operations it is a combined arms operation and not an admin type transportation of troops.

We should look to how the Marines changed their operating methods when they fielded the Osprey to see how that combined arms thing works at the far end of the flight for the 280 if it is envisioned to be an "Air Assault" type attack.

We saw the 101st Airborne deploy a FARP to support the Apache attack deep behind Iraqi Lines (the one that ended disastrously for the Apaches).

That FARP required Chinooks, Blackhawks, and a lot of troops and equipment for defense of the FARP.

How does one do that in Pacific?

The Marines have settled upon a "Go Light" strategy and although with slightly different mission sets there are similarities between the anticipated Army mission and the Marines now that the Army is looking to Tiltrotor aircraft.

Then there is also Congressional Politics that shall. play a role in all of these planned acquisitions.

As said by one long serving member of Congress....."It is not about the Dollars....it is about the Zip Codes of where that money is spent.".

you have a point re logistics ..anyhow Nightstalkers at Campbell been involved in MH-47 AAR for 3 and Half decades ……adapt their training manual to Rucker H-47 syllabus …

Realistically it probably will not happen due to budget ..

However, have AFSOC CV-22B that could help out if they not engaged on SOCOM missions or even have the Corps MV-22B and Navy CMV-22B at a Stretch .

cheers

[SASless]

I am thinking more along the lines of how does the Army plan to provide Attack Helicopter support at the destination unless the landing area is known to be uncontested due to the absence of defending forces?

Can the Apaches be equipped for AAR?

Or will there be armed versions of the new aircraft with equivalent capability of the Apache?

[JohnDixson]

004, I think the point SAS was making was that the FVL ( and FARA ) speed requirement puts them way out in front of the logistical support helicopters that provide the necessary logistical support for combat. I.e., air assault vs a special ops mission.
One other thing that has me puzzled is a subject I’m a rank amateur at: to whatever standards were set up, the Army tested the Comanche re radar and IR detectability and as far as I know, it passed. Comanche main rotor is oriented edge on looking forward. Now the tilt rotor 280 has its blades ( propellers ) oriented with flat areas lookiing forward. Then again so does the V-22 so does radar cross section not matter?
But then again, Bell initially presented a smaller FARA sized tilt rotor idea, but since have reverted to the Comanche look-alike Invictus. Curious.

[60FltMech]

Apparently, you don't know much about the V-22 Osprey. (Also fast, and expensive).

I was under the impression that the V is an attempt to back fit the glass cockpit and various systems upgrades into the L.
Can you expand on your disappointment as regards the L to V upgrade?
(Didn't they do a lot of A to L upgrades over the years?)

Lonewolf,
sorry I missed your question somewhere along the lines re: UH-60V. I’m not personally disappointed in the program in itself, on its face it seemed like a good plan: Providing a cost effective aircraft with a modern cockpit configuration that is similar to UH-60M(notice I say “Similar”, the actual displays/processors are not the same as 60M, I haven’t read where they are interchangeable) the the National Guard and Medical Services Corps. Initially this was going to be 300-400 or so aircraft, now it’s ballooned to 600-700.

Having spoken to someone who was associated with the organization who is doing the “Upgrade” (CCAD) and has flown the 60V it is fully transparent that this program has a sole purpose of keeping people busy at CCAD until UH-60M Recapitalization starts(think of Recap as a service life extension) near term, and FLRAA enters service long term.

Consider the following: the recapitalization effort for converting 60A to 60L and then life cycle extension for UH-60L have been completed, the battle damage/crash damage lines are slowing due to the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan, and HH-60G overhaul for the US Air Force will draw down as new build HH-60W aircraft enter service. How else will you keep the H-60 line going in the interim?

CCAD doesn’t have the capacity they claim to produce the amount of UH-60V aircraft being talked about. They are simply buying time and the politicians are more than happy to help by throwing them a bone, instead of negotiating with Sikorsky over a new multi year contract to get more new UH-60M airframes that, while more expensive, are way more capable. The additional expense could possibly even be reduced doing this when combined with Foreign Military Sales aircraft.

The Army would also end up with a more common configuration in the fleet across the Active Army and National Guard/Reserves, thereby driving support costs down.

Just my $0.02 🤣

[Lonewolf_50]

Lonewolf,
sorry I missed your question somewhere along the lines re: UH-60V.
I’m not personally disappointed in the program in itself, on its face it seemed like a good plan: Providing a cost effective aircraft with a modern cockpit configuration that is similar to UH-60M(notice I say “Similar”, the actual displays/processors are not the same as 60M, I haven’t read where they are interchangeable) the the National Guard and Medical Services Corps.
Initially this was going to be 300-400 or so aircraft, now it’s ballooned to 600-700.
I have a modest familiarity with the T-45A to T-45C mod that made that training aircraft a glass cockpit. Won't comment further.
Having spoken to someone who was associated with the organization who is doing the “Upgrade” (CCAD) and has flown the 60V it is fully transparent that this program has a sole purpose of keeping people busy at CCAD until UH-60M Recapitalization starts (think of Recap as a service life extension) near term. The M transmission is the same as the L transmission, but is put under heavier loads in certain flight configs thanks to the wide chord blade. (I suspect you are familiar with the Hontek disaster). I am not sure what a SLEP would look like for a UH-60M. You had mentioned in the Invictus thread an interest in how much more the M can take (transmission wise) than the L.
If you compare the two TMs (237 versus 280) you'll see the difference in fatigue life for selected parts.






Now, if you throw the -901 engine onto the M or L, and the boost in horsepower, would you need to upgrade the input module and some of the gears in the Main Module?
Good question, that answer is doubtless being sorted out by a few of the ten pound brains up in Stratford. (Back in the 70s one of the guys I knew put a 327 into a Chevy Vega. Yeah, it had more power, but that car needed a few more mods to handle it ... )
Consider the following: the recapitalization effort for converting 60A to 60L
That's basically done.
and then life cycle extension for UH-60L have been completed,
Yeah, that's the V as far as I can tell
the battle damage/crash damage lines are slowing due to the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan, Yes, the surge for that was met in some cases by hiring on contractor teams, not by boosting the GS/WG work force. (A decade or so ago IIRC Sikorsky had an airframes recap team in Beeville, TX that isn't there any more)
HH-60G overhaul for the US Air Force will draw down as new build HH-60W aircraft enter service.
That's the way to bet.
How else will you keep the H-60 line going in the interim?
I see your point about "keep the industrial base warm" by doing the upgrade, but there is also a training piece to that.
Training was a thing I was involved in quite a bit in the Navy, pilot training.
If your Blackhawk crews are all on steam gages, or all on glass cockpits, your training requirements for you total force will be different. Getting everyone on glass cockpits is a worthwhile goal.
As to cost, I am pretty sure that the burdened hour is still less in South Texas than it is in Connecticut. That may be another reason why they single site it.
​​​​​​​CCAD doesn’t have the capacity they claim to produce the amount of UH-60V aircraft being talked about. They are simply buying time and the politicians are more than happy to help by throwing them a bone, instead of negotiating with Sikorsky over a new multi year contract to get more new UH-60M airframes that, while more expensive, are way more capable. I can recall a funny horror story about the US Navy wanting to remanufacture a bunch of SH-60's , B and F, into the SH-60R rather than buy new (China Copy, as it were) back in the 90's when there was no money for APN-1 programs.
A few years later ... that remanufacture project went the way of the plains buffalo and the 'buy new' was the way ahead.

Call me biased if you like: I'd prefer more new M's. However, someone crunching the numbers in the Pentagon money office may have shown a substantial benefit to the remanufacture program. Not privy to that info. You still have to deal with annual caps on new procurement (Acquisition rules and such) and the color of money for remanufacture is different than new procurement. Not all that easy to change colors of money.
​​​​​​​The additional expense could possibly even be reduced doing this when combined with Foreign Military Sales aircraft. Depends on FMS levels, yeah.
I recall the CH-60S piggy backing on the UH-60L multi year in the 90's back when there was no/sparse money for anything new. That worked out in the end.
​​​​​​​The Army would also end up with a more common configuration in the fleet across the Active Army and National Guard/Reserves, thereby driving support costs down.
Long term, yes. Not going to argue. But when you look at the time horizons involved, someone will usually show up with "in the near term our budget dollars are less" and make a sound case for the Conversion/SLEP. Again, there are caps to budgeting and programming dollars in each fiscal year, and in the 2, 5, and 12 year time horizons.

FWIW, I think there are a dozen or so A models still hanging around, somewhere. I wonder if they are just too old to remanufacture into L's.

[SplineDrive]

004, I think the point SAS was making was that the FVL ( and FARA ) speed requirement puts them way out in front of the logistical support helicopters that provide the necessary logistical support for combat. I.e., air assault vs a special ops mission.
One other thing that has me puzzled is a subject I’m a rank amateur at: to whatever standards were set up, the Army tested the Comanche re radar and IR detectability and as far as I know, it passed. Comanche main rotor is oriented edge on looking forward. Now the tilt rotor 280 has its blades ( propellers ) oriented with flat areas lookiing forward. Then again so does the V-22 so does radar cross section not matter?
But then again, Bell initially presented a smaller FARA sized tilt rotor idea, but since have reverted to the Comanche look-alike Invictus. Curious.

It is the FARA requirement of a 40’ width that kills a tiltrotor with the desired payload. With a 5’ separation between the rotors, that only gives you 481 sq ft of disk area. At 16 lb/sq ft that’s a GW of 7700 lb and at a V-22 like 27 lb/sq ft that’s a GW of 13,000 lb. I deeply suspect that with the desired payload, crew, fuel, 20 mm cannon and ammo, a tiltrotor would have weighed well over 13,000 lb and the design doesn’t close. If you push disk loading even higher, your lift per hp curve goes the wrong way and now you’re a twin engine aircraft, making the empty weight higher as well as required fuel. The Army was firm on a 40’ width and desired a single ITE and the way to get that is with a single main rotor (whether coaxial or not).

I can’t speak to RCS specifics, but the rotor blades on a tiltrotor shouldn’t be thought of as “flat” to an onlooker ahead of the aircraft. The airfoils still need a modest angle of attack with the airstream to produce thrust and the higher cruise speed and lower rotational speed at cruise means the collective is very high to achieve those conditions. So the blades are still largely edgewise to the viewer ahead of the aircraft. To a Doppler radar, the blades have a low change in speed since they’re rotating around an axis pointed to the viewer/radar ahead of the aircraft. A conventional helicopter has a large Doppler return off the rotor from all azimuths. I suspect that a tiltrotor and edgewise rotor helicopter are just “different” with respect to RCS and the specific radar system thread being evaded.

[The Sultan]

004, One other thing that has me puzzled is a subject I’m a rank amateur at: to whatever standards were set up, the Army tested the Comanche re radar and IR detectability and as far as I know, it passed. Comanche main rotor is oriented edge on looking forward. Now the tilt rotor 280 has its blades ( propellers ) oriented with flat areas lookiing forward. Then again so does the V-22 so does radar cross section not matter?
But then again, Bell initially presented a smaller FARA sized tilt rotor idea, but since have reverted to the Comanche look-alike Invictus. Curious.

If you look at photos of the Osprey in cruise flight it is clear that the rotor blades are not "flat areas looking forward", as the highly twisted blades are themselves operating at a high pitch angle. The end result is the blade presents no flat area to the front in cruise flight with the root of the blade being edge on and the tip being around 45 degrees to the direction of travel. Thus the Osprey's rotor present a very stealthy "faceted" perspective to any radar in the frontal (or rear)arc.

Bell initially presented a smaller FARA sized tilt rotor idea, but since have reverted to the Comanche look-alike Invictus. Curious

Bell's initial LHX proposal was the BAT Bell BAT helicopter - development history, photos, technical data (http://aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/bell_bat.php#:~:text=In%201984%2C%20the%20Bell%20Advanced%20 Tilt%20Rotor%20%28or,of%20weight%20%28LHX%20had%20to%20be%20 under%203150kg%29.)

Like the LHX before it, the FARA requirements were dumbed down enough to accommodate the short comings of the X-2 technology that a tilt rotor was not needed and, therefore, would be at a disadvantage due to cost/weight. It will be interesting to see if Sikorsky miscalculated and had the FARA requirements scaled back so much a more traditional helicopter could meet them.

[60FltMech]

But when you look at the time horizons involved, someone will usually show up with "in the near term our budget dollars are less" and make a sound case for the Conversion/SLEP. Again, there are caps to budgeting and programming dollars in each fiscal year, and in the 2, 5, and 12 year time horizons.

FWIW, I think there are a dozen or so A models still hanging around, somewhere. I wonder if they are just too old to remanufacture into L's.[/QUOTE]

I agree, somewhere someone is making the case for all of this to be sure, and I’m also sure local politics is playing a role in the decisions, hopefully not to the detriment of actual war fighting capabilities.

As far as A Models go, the last of them are being sold as part of the Blackhawk Exchange and Sales Team, they are being auctioned off through the GSA(as well as some L Models) and some A+ airframes were abandoned in Afghanistan.

The Airframe Condition Evaluation(ACE) team scores figure in to what gets divested and what gets a service life extension.

I’ve heard that the S-92 drivetrain was designed with an eye towards being available for a potential capability enhancement for the H-60M, would be interesting to see an “M+” configuration with the new S-92B main gearbox. MH-60M already flies with the heavy S-92A bifilar assembly.

Whatever happens there will be a lot of interesting new developments in US Army Aviation in the next decade for sure!

FltMech

[SplineDrive]

https://www.gao.gov/press-release/gao-statement-protest-sikorsky-aircraft-corporation%2C-b-421359%2C-b-421359.2

Looks like Bell won FLRAA… again.

“In denying the protest, GAO concluded that the Army reasonably evaluated Sikorsky’s proposal as technically unacceptable because Sikorsky failed to provide the level of architectural detail required by the RFP. GAO also denied Sikorsky’s various allegations about the acceptability of Bell’s proposal, including the assertion that the agency’s evaluation violated the terms of the solicitation or applicable procurement law or regulation. Finally, GAO dismissed Sikorsky’s additional arguments on the basis that Sikorsky was no longer an interested party to further challenge the procurement.”

[The Sultan]

If I interpret this correctly, SB was deemed non-compliant, even before the performance part of the evaluation, because SB didn't provide high enough fidelity information of the design. The lack of detail is not surprising as they probably couldn't supply it due to delays and shortfalls of the SB-1 demonstrator program. If it had made it past architecture evaluation phase the SB bid would have been found inferior relative to speed, range, size, and most likely cost.

I did like the slap down on no longer being an interested party.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Now there will likely be an industry consolidation in the next few years. Boeing will likely be the one to go, all they have is assembly of a European helicopter in Philadelphia. All else is coming to an end.

[CTR]

Now there will likely be an industry consolidation in the next few years. Boeing will likely be the one to go, all they have is assembly of a European helicopter in Philadelphia. All else is coming to an end.

With the Chinook and Apache continuing production, for at least another decade, Boeing Philadelphia will continue to survive. However, Boeing has already lost all their engineering capability to develop new modern platforms. So it will be a slow death until these aircraft are replaced by newer models designed by either Sikorsky or Bell. If Boeing is part of a team in a replacement Chinook or Apache aircraft, it will only be in a manufacturing role.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Chinook production is on life support? 12 for Egypt, a few for special forces.
Also isn't the reworked Apache coming to an end?
"In October 2016, the Army revealed they would not pursue another Apache upgrade to focus on funding FVL; the Army will continue buying the Apache through the 2020s until Boeing's production line ends in 2026, then FVL is slated to come online in 2030"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

[SansAnhedral]

Chinook production is on life support? 12 for Egypt, a few for special forces.
Also isn't the reworked Apache coming to an end?
"In October 2016, the Army revealed they would not pursue another Apache upgrade to focus on funding FVL; the Army will continue buying the Apache through the 2020s until Boeing's production line ends in 2026, then FVL is slated to come online in 2030"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_AH-64_Apache

In 2016, CS3 was still intended to have an attack variant to supplant the Apache. That disappeared after CS3 morphed into FLRAA.

That said, when FARA is canceled, they will buy more AH-64s

[SplineDrive]

In 2016, CS3 was still intended to have an attack variant to supplant the Apache. That disappeared after CS3 morphed into FLRAA.

That said, when FARA is canceled, they will buy more AH-64s

Or add a 30mm cannon and lots of missile/ALE racks to a V-280 derivative. Is a slow Apache with two more weapons stations and more fuel really worth the investment?

[noneofyourbusiness]

Or add a 30mm cannon and lots of missile/ALE racks to a V-280 derivative. Is a slow Apache with two more weapons stations and more fuel really worth the investment?
If the Army budget holds, FARA lives, Apache dies
After the current multi-year contract, there will be an eventual Apache replacement, way down the road. If the budget tightens, FARA dies, but no more Apaches will be purchased beyond what is currently planned. Same for the Black Hawk, it mostly dies after the current multi-year. The Bell FARA will work just fine. The Sikorsky FARA is uncertain, unproven.
The Army needs to spend its money on FLRAA and FARA, not on more Apaches or Chinooks.

[CTR]

The Army needs to spend its money on FLRAA and FARA, not on more Apaches or Chinooks.

I would amend your final statement to add “US” before Army.

My point earlier was, Boeing and Sikorsky will have many years of profit coming in from foreign military sales of Blackhawks, Chinooks, and Apaches. Many countries will never be able to afford a FLRAA, or a FARA.

Boeing Philly new product engineering capabilities however will continue to atrophy.

[noneofyourbusiness]

ok, good point.

[SASless]

Many countries will never be able to afford a FLRAA, or a FARA.

Can the US Army afford it if no foreign military sales are possible to help keep down the Unit Cost per Airframe?

[NutLoose]

More on the decisions and the counter arguments

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/sikorskys-protest-of-bells-v-280-win-over-its-sb1-shot-down?utm_source=spotim&utm_medium=spotim_recirculation&spot_im_redirect_source=pitc

[SplineDrive]

https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/818991.pdf

Here is the full GAO report for public consumption. I know this forum probably wants to read the juicy details of an evaluation between a thrust compounded, coaxial rigid rotor aircraft and a tilt rotor, but those arguments aren't what decided this competition. The document is a dense read if you're not versed in the language of model based systems engineering and federal acquisition regulations but it boils down to one key issue:

Boeing/Sikorsky didn't complete their homework. They didn't read the rules of the assignment correctly and didn't do the work correctly. They asked questions for clarification, were given answers consistent with the assignment and then, inexplicably, decided to TURN IN LESS HOMEWORK in a critical area than their first submission. Because their submission lacked the detail to convince the USG that Boeing/Sikorsky understood the interplay of requirements, subsystem functions, and the rest of the elements of the systems engineering model, it was marked as "unacceptable" and they could not be awarded the contract.

Even though there was a significant cost difference between the proposals, without a complete system model, the Army couldn't evaluate if Boeing/Sikorsky's price was realistic or not... and it didn't matter because their submitted proposal was technically unacceptable.

Cutting through the jargon, it's a brutal document and not centered around any of the relative strengths/weaknesses of the aircraft concepts that have been discussed ad nauseam on these pages and others.

[CTR]

Thanks for the GAO link Spline Drive. The following table from the GAO report provides a good insight to Sikorsky’s proposal content quality.

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1097x508/69339563_819b_4db0_8d93_9fd3d3bf48ed_1232a1deffe0eade29902bf eca1220ab9238eccf.jpeg

[JohnDixson]

I read the GAO document, which is difficult to understand in a number of places without the RFP at hand. Disclaimer; I was completely out of the loop with re to any efforts at SA with re to this project.
Going back to our efforts to respond to the Army’s UTTAS RFP however, I was of course deeply involved in that effort. The GAO protest assessment shocked me. The direction in place for the team working the UTTAS RFP response was simple and direct: we will take zero deviations from the Army’s stated requirements in the RFP. Now, that was challenging as that RFP was in reality a design spec-very detailed. In the final analysis, I recall we did take 10 minor deviations-cases where one spec requirement conflicted with another so you couldn’t meet both. The Army was okay with those, and in any case they were minutiae.
But that was 50 years ago, with a completely different leadership group, both at UTC corporate and at Sikorsky.

[noneofyourbusiness]

From another forum "I think its much more about the adoption of open systems architecture which was viewed as an essential requirement by government for through life, cost effective support. Sikorsky didn't seem to want to offer this - its a different business model that potentially has less down stream income." and "I recall senior executives stating the explicit point of LM buying sikorsky was to get the helicopter systems integration business, and not the helicopter sales business"
True or not? In any case, Sikorsky gave away half the replacement Black Hawk business when they partnered with Boeing. The dumbest business move since New Coke.

"Raider at 10,000 lb gross weight with a 2600 HP YT706 hit 207 knots. Raider-X at probably 16,000 lb will go how fast with a 3000 HP ITE and more fuselage and hub drag? The FARA min requirement was 180 knots and that might be all Raider-X can do." and "Bell is using the PW207D1 engine from its civil 429 helicopter as an APU,. but can also use it to provide some additional power when a boost is needed"

Bell is using a second 625 hp engine for FARA. Sikorsky will have less power, and a heavier aircraft. I can't see Sikorsky winning FARA, since the only thing X2 technology potentially offered was higher speed.

[CTR]

But that was 50 years ago, with a completely different leadership group, both at UTC corporate and at Sikorsky.

John, not only has Sikorsky as a company changed substantially over the past 50 years, so have Boeing and Bell.

A major reason Bell lost UTTAS program to Sikorsky, was Bell became complacent, and believed that as the current aircraft provider they were entitled to winning.

Often history repeats itself. Same story, but with players changing roles.

What struck me most regarding the GAO report, was the obvious attempt by Sikorsky/Boeing to win the contract by low balling the bid. The US Army understood full well, that if the contract got a canceled due to cost overruns, their only option would be to continue building the Blackhawk.

Even when disregarding the fact that the Bell tiltrotor is a lower risk and more mature technology compared to Sikorsky X-2 technology, the overall complexity of both aircraft is relatively equal. These bids should’ve been very close to each other.

Plus, does anybody believe that it is cheaper to develop and manufacture an aircraft in PA and CT versus TX?

[JohnDixson]

Good post CTR. Re the location impact on development/production cost: you know, when the purchase of Sikorsky by LM surfaced, I thought that eventually LM might well move SA from CT to their Marietta campus, which has the space, right to work state etc.
Re Bell UTTAS proposal: may I use an another term, and apply it to the 1972 Bell RFP response and the SA 2023 response. “ corporate egomania “ i.e., we know better than you, Army. In 1972 Bell proposed the King Cobra teetering main rotor, in spite of the Army’s inclusion of the “ UTTAS Maneuver “ in the RFP, which was beyond that rotors ability, so they didn’t get into the fly-off stage, and in 2023 the SA/LM management essentially told the Army they really didn’t need MOSA-we know better, and the results of that approach ensued.
One wonders if the level of verbiage in the GAO protest denial will result in some changes at SA/LM?
In any event, it has the makings for a great Harvard B-School case study.

[CTR]

Re Bell UTTAS proposal: may I use an another term, and apply it to the 1972 Bell RFP response and the SA 2023 response. “ corporate egomania “ i.e., we know better than you, Army.

I like that term “corporate egomania”. If you don’t mind, I may steal it to use at a later date. That is also an excellent term of what happened while I was at McDonnell Douglas St. Louis during the ATF proposal in 1985. You will recall the ATF (resulting in the F-22) was the replacement for the F-15.

McDonnell, after reading the Air Force’s RFP reached the conclusion that a single aircraft could not meet all of the Air Force requirements. Therefore, they submitted multiple proposals for different configuration aircraft, each design to meet a portion of the requirements.

Again a case of the manufacturer, telling the customer they are stupid, so we will tell you what you actually want.

I mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating.

The Defiant team comprised Lockheed and Boeing, the two largest US defense contractors, with combined yearly earnings of over 100 billion dollars. They were beaten for the FLRAA contract by Bell Textron, with yearly earnings of less than 5 billion dollars.

[SplineDrive]

The team comprised of the number one and number two defense contractors in the United States, Lockheed and Boeing, were beaten for the FLRAA contract by Bell Textron. Textron is ranked at between 14 and 39 in size, depending on what source you’re looking at.

Turns out, it doesn’t take massive resources to follow the instructions of an RFP and complete the requested deliverables, but it does require humility to accept feedback and make course corrections.

MOSA was never just about radios and mission equipment packages, its also about lower level mechanical and electrical subsystems of the vehicle itself.

[CTR]

Very revealing to now re read this Breaking Defense article on MOSA from 2021.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/10/how-mosa-makes-flraa-and-fara-weapon-systems-and-not-just-aircraft/?amp=1

[SansAnhedral]

I will admit, I am surprised.

https://insidedefense.com/insider/lockheed-martin-wont-pursue-additional-legal-action-following-gao-protest-ruling

[CTR]

Sans,

I am surprised also. I wonder if Boeing is going to continue the protest alone, or are they required to proceed together?

thank you for the link to the article. I especially like the doublespeak made by the Lockheed CFO explaining how they were able to bid half as much as Bell, and still make a profit.

It reminds me of the car dealer who said every car sold was below his cost, but he made up the difference in volume sold.

[SplineDrive]

One wonders if the level of verbiage in the GAO protest denial will result in some changes at SA/LM?
In any event, it has the makings for a great Harvard B-School case study.

If there is a Harvard Business Review study of this disaster, I'll get a copy and put it next to my copy of Ray Leoni's "Black Hawk: Story of a World Class Helicopter".

[Commando Cody]

Sans and CTR.

Not that surprising. Boeing/LM's protest was basically, "Army didn't play fair and if you marked us down you should have marked Bell down as well". GAO said, "No, Army played fair and they didn't mark Bell down because Bell didn't make the mistakes you did". What's left to protest?

Don't feel too bad for LM. Don't forget they have a major role on the V-280.

[Commando Cody]

With the Chinook and Apache continuing production, for at least another decade, Boeing Philadelphia will continue to survive. However, Boeing has already lost all their engineering capability to develop new modern platforms. So it will be a slow death until these aircraft are replaced by newer models designed by either Sikorsky or Bell. If Boeing is part of a team in a replacement Chinook or Apache aircraft, it will only be in a manufacturing role.

It's arguable that Boeing never had engineering capability to develop new modern platforms. No helicopter of their own original design has eve rentered production. All their craft that entered service were designed by someone else and Boeing later acquired the company. In fact only for airframes of one of their own design ever even flew, and its rotor design benefited from Boeing's license production of the MBB Bo 105.

[noneofyourbusiness]

That may be too harsh an assessment of Boeing engineering capabilities. Comanche and Defiant never reached production, but Boeing, partnered with Sikorsky, had substantial design responsibility. Defiant could potentially be sold as an Apache replacement. Heck, even companies such as AVX can design a modern helicopter.

One can say Lockheed has never created a modern helicopter, but Sikorsky is still there. Boeing acquired Mesa, but the organization was still there. If Boeing acquires Textron, Bell would still exist.

[CTR]

I agree, Boeing Philly is not dead, yet. But their clean sheet, new platform design capabilities are gone. The Comanche was designed over 25 years ago.

Boeing’s primary contribution on FLRAA was political, not technical or financial. Boeing’s lobbyists and PR departments probably billed more hours than their engineering.

Boeing has now lost all hope for any FLRAA content (talk about betting on the wrong horse). Meanwhile, FARA has been delayed, likely grown is size, and probably changed to twin engine. This makes FARA more of a direct competitor to the Boeing Apache, than a Kiowa replacement.

So when the final FARA RFP is released, this contract may become a three way competition between Sikorsky, Bell, and Boeing. With Boeing proposing an upgraded Apache.

Regarding Boeing acquiring Bell, or Textron. Scary thought.

[noneofyourbusiness]

I agree, Boeing Philly is not dead, yet. But their clean sheet, new platform design capabilities are gone. The Comanche was designed over 25 years ago.

Boeing’s primary contribution on FLRAA was political, not technical or financial. Boeing’s lobbyists and PR departments probably billed more hours than their engineering.

Boeing has now lost all hope for any FLRAA content (talk about betting on the wrong horse). Meanwhile, FARA has been delayed, likely grown is size, and probably changed to twin engine. This makes FARA more of a direct competitor to the Boeing Apache, than a Kiowa replacement.

So when the final FARA RFP is released, this contract may become a three way competition between Sikorsky, Bell, and Boeing. With Boeing proposing an upgraded Apache.

Regarding Boeing acquiring Bell, or Textron. Scary thought.

I was working for Sikorsky at the time at an offsite location. I never worked this project. The work split with Bpeing was 50-50. Blades Boeing, rotors Sikorsky, transmissions Boeing., and so forth. From my limited viewpoint, all the feedback regarding Boeing engineering was good, I never heard anything negative.
This is news to me if the Army is considering going to twin engine on the FARA, this would be a total melt and repour. Politically FARA would be dead, as bean counters in DOD prefer drones over a manned reconnaissance helicopter. The delay and added cost would be fatal? If FARA is dropped and a replacement for Apache pursued instead, there could be a three way competition. As the Army has rejected the idea of adding a pusher prop to the Apache, this might be a rematch of Valor and Defiant.

It is scary, but my gut feel is the big three will become two, in whatever combination, over the next few years. More likely Boeing sells helicopters to Lockheed.

[CTR]

I was working for Sikorsky at the time at an offsite location. I never worked this project. The work split with Bpeing was 50-50. Blades Boeing, rotors Sikorsky, transmissions Boeing., and so forth. From my limited viewpoint, all the feedback regarding Boeing engineering was good, I never heard anything negative…...

noneofyourbusines,

If you’re referring to Boeing‘s participation on the Comanche, I agree, they were an added engineering asset, especially for flight control systems. However, that was 25 years ago. From everything I’ve been told by my acquaintances at Sikorsky, engineering support by Boeing on FLRAA was negative value added.

[Commando Cody]

noneofyourbusines,

If you’re referring to Boeing‘s participation on the Comanche, I agree, they were an added engineering asset, especially for flight control systems. However, that was 25 years ago. From everything I’ve been told by my acquaintances at Sikorsky, engineering support by Boeing on FLRAA was negative value added.

Take this for what it's worth, but I have heard from multiple sources that when it was announced at Bell that Boeing would not be a partner on Valor, there was actual cheering.

[Commando Cody]

I agree, Boeing Philly is not dead, yet. But their clean sheet, new platform design capabilities are gone. The Comanche was designed over 25 years ago.

Boeing’s primary contribution on FLRAA was political, not technical or financial. Boeing’s lobbyists and PR departments probably billed more hours than their engineering.

Boeing has now lost all hope for any FLRAA content (talk about betting on the wrong horse). Meanwhile, FARA has been delayed, likely grown is size, and probably changed to twin engine. This makes FARA more of a direct competitor to the Boeing Apache, than a Kiowa replacement.

So when the final FARA RFP is released, this contract may become a three way competition between Sikorsky, Bell, and Boeing. With Boeing proposing an upgraded Apache.

Regarding Boeing acquiring Bell, or Textron. Scary thought.

That may be too harsh an assessment of Boeing engineering capabilities. Comanche and Defiant never reached production, but Boeing, partnered with Sikorsky, had substantial design responsibility. Defiant could potentially be sold as an Apache replacement. Heck, even companies such as AVX can design a modern helicopter.

One can say Lockheed has never created a modern helicopter, but Sikorsky is still there. Boeing acquired Mesa, but the organization was still there. If Boeing acquires Textron, Bell would still exist.

For the record, both FARA competitors say they are ready to go. The delay is with the engine being delivered. As far as growing in size or adding an engine, haven't seen any indication of that. That would be a reboot of the whole program. OTOH, multiple sources say that FARA as specified can't be built, so there are going to have to be some changes somewhere.

Defiant-X as an Apache replacement would be a non-starter. If you're going to go that route, an attack version of Valor would be a lot cheaper and arguably better. A number of companies can design a modern helicopter, the question is can you build and fly a successful one? Boeing and AVX, among others, never have.

One difference is that United Aircraft wanted to divest Sikorsky. It went to Lockheed because the gov't made antitrust noises regarding a Bell-Sikorsky company and at first the only companies interested in acquiring Sikorsky were European and the concept of a foreign country acquiring a major US defense airframe manufacturer did not bode well. Lockheed's riding in as a White Knight brought relief to a lot of places. As far as I can tell, Textron is quite happy with Bell and are not themselves looking to be bought by anyone.

[SplineDrive]

Take this for what it's worth, but I have heard from multiple sources that when it was announced at Bell that Boeing would not be a partner on Valor, there was actual cheering.

Bell played hardball on teaming negotiations and drove Boeing to look for other options... this was one of the strategic masterstrokes that helped secure a Bell victory, frankly. The counterpoint to the cheering at Bell was the wailing and gnashing of teeth at Sikorsky when that partnership was announced.

[CTR]

Bell played hardball on teaming negotiations and drove Boeing to look for other options....

I heard a different background story. In early 2012, when Boeing and Bell were still teamed on the proposal for what was to evolve into FLRAA, Bell got uneasy, sensing that Boeing was up to something.

About seven years earlier, Bell was teamed with Boeing on the JHL (Joint Heavy Lift) proposal. Bell was obligated to team with Boeing on any tiltrotor configuration by contract. Half way through the proposal development, Boeing was running months late on delivery of their assigned sections. When the Boeing sections arrived, they were garbage. To salvage the proposal, Bell was forced to rewrite much of the Boeing content.

Just prior to the JHL proposal submission deadline, Bell discovered that Boeing had set up a second engineering team, to submit an all Boeing proposal for a huge Chinook configuration. Boeing engineering manpower had been diverted from the joint proposal with Bell, to ensure success of the Boeing only proposal.

On FLRAA in mid 2012, when Boeing started failing to meet schedule on their proposal commitments, Bell formed teams to write all of the Boeing content. When Boeing found this out, they protested at the CEO level, and finally began to submit their proposal content. But again, what Boeing submitted was garbage.

For the FLRAA demonstrator aircraft, Boeing insisted that only a modified full size V-22 could meet the Army schedule. This meant that the demonstrator aircraft would be approximately 125% the scale of the production aircraft. Additionally, Boeing stated that a fixed engine configuration was not possible due to system integration issues.

The final decision by Boeing to break from Bell came after Boeing was required to contractually make a financial commitment.

Based on Boeing’s duplicitous behavior on the JHL proposal, it was no surprise that soon after parting ways with Bell, the Sikorsky/Boeing teaming was announced. Teaming with Sikorsky, Boeing was only required to make a substantial financial commitment after the contract was awarded.

Regardless, most Bell engineers were very happy when Boeing left the program. And are even happier now.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Bell winning FLRAA has made Textron an attractive take over candidate. Don't believe that the big boys aren't aware of this. You don't buy Bell, you merge with Textron by legally bribing Textron's CEO. Then sell or spinoff the rest of Textron.

[chopper2004]

I agree, Boeing Philly is not dead, yet. But their clean sheet, new platform design capabilities are gone. The Comanche was designed over 25 years ago.

Boeing’s primary contribution on FLRAA was political, not technical or financial. Boeing’s lobbyists and PR departments probably billed more hours than their engineering.

Boeing has now lost all hope for any FLRAA content (talk about betting on the wrong horse). Meanwhile, FARA has been delayed, likely grown is size, and probably changed to twin engine. This makes FARA more of a direct competitor to the Boeing Apache, than a Kiowa replacement.

So when the final FARA RFP is released, this contract may become a three way competition between Sikorsky, Bell, and Boeing. With Boeing proposing an upgraded Apache.

Regarding Boeing acquiring Bell, or Textron. Scary thought.

I guess it was no surprise when Boeing offering to FARA was dropped then, mind you the design looked quite simple and conventional...

What was the official reason for either Boeing dropped or pulled out of FARA?

cheers

[CTR]

I guess it was no surprise when Boeing offering to FARA was dropped then, mind you the design looked quite simple and conventional...

What was the official reason for either Boeing dropped or pulled out of FARA?

cheers

The US Army only selected two companies to build prototype aircraft for the fly off. Boeing‘s proposal didn’t make the cut. However, if the final design requirement differ significantly from the prototype requirements, Boeing may file a protest to re-enter the competition.

[SplineDrive]

I guess it was no surprise when Boeing offering to FARA was dropped then, mind you the design looked quite simple and conventional...

What was the official reason for either Boeing dropped or pulled out of FARA?

cheers

Boeing's FARA wasn't simple or conventional. It was a thrust compounded single main rotor helicopter which is more complex than Bell's lift compounded design. Both are simpler than Sikorsky's Raider-X. My view is that the Army is giving Sikorsky as many chances as possible to show some success with an X-2 platform and picked a no-kidding low risk design as the alternate. Not only was Boeing's configuration not the lowest risk, but there is no track record of getting a demonstrator/prototype put together on time. Bell also had that going for them.

[Commando Cody]

Bell winning FLRAA has made Textron an attractive take over candidate. Don't believe that the big boys aren't aware of this. You don't buy Bell, you merge with Textron by legally bribing Textron's CEO. Then sell or spinoff the rest of Textron.

Textron's 2022 total revenues were 20.5 times what its defense revenues were and when many companies were showing a decline in revenue it ha nearly 4% growth. It might look desirable to some but my point is that it doesn't seem all that interested in being acquired.

[Commando Cody]

Boeing's FARA wasn't simple or conventional. It was a thrust compounded single main rotor helicopter which is more complex than Bell's lift compounded design. Both are simpler than Sikorsky's Raider-X. My view is that the Army is giving Sikorsky as many chances as possible to show some success with an X-2 platform and picked a no-kidding low risk design as the alternate. Not only was Boeing's configuration not the lowest risk, but there is no track record of getting a demonstrator/prototype put together on time. Bell also had that going for them.

Boeing and Sikorsky indeed proposed more complex compound helicopters while Bell proposed an advanced, but conventional, helicopter, the only non-compound submitted by the original five respondents. What's interesting is that Boeing's concept used the same type of compound propulsion configuration used by Lockheed in the AAFSS competition which resulted in the AH-56 while Karem's design used the concept proposed by Sikorsky in their bid for the same program.

[Commando Cody]

Boeing's FARA wasn't simple or conventional. It was a thrust compounded single main rotor helicopter which is more complex than Bell's lift compounded design. Both are simpler than Sikorsky's Raider-X. My view is that the Army is giving Sikorsky as many chances as possible to show some success with an X-2 platform and picked a no-kidding low risk design as the alternate. Not only was Boeing's configuration not the lowest risk, but there is no track record of getting a demonstrator/prototype put together on time. Bell also had that going for them.

I suspect that's the same reason that Karem and AVX didn't make the cut.

[chopper2004]

Perhaps Sikorsky will have a chance with Raider X as I mentioned in my thread, that they are stating that the Raider X is perfect for the Indo-Pacific region

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2023/sikorsky-x2-technology-propels-army-readiness-in-the-indo-pacific.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fvl&utm_term=us|aircraft_-_rotary_wing|rms_-_sikorsky|rms_-_future_vertical_lift|rms_-_raider&utm_content=technology_and_innovation_story&linkId=100000199896945&fbclid=IwAR1v_lr6F2CtZkHXuyftzgMztbpsmGdJ2vPGkNe8BpRl6u2LU8F R4pvmNvU

Maybe the DoD will give them a crack at the whip and give them FARA...

Also re X" tech, the Italians are keen on partnering with Sikorsky on using the tech for their next gen of rotary wing platforms...so all may be not lost with the X2.

cheers

[Commando Cody]

Perhaps Sikorsky will have a chance with Raider X as I mentioned in my thread, that they are stating that the Raider X is perfect for the Indo-Pacific region

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2023/sikorsky-x2-technology-propels-army-readiness-in-the-indo-pacific.html?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fvl&utm_term=us|aircraft_-_rotary_wing|rms_-_sikorsky|rms_-_future_vertical_lift|rms_-_raider&utm_content=technology_and_innovation_story&linkId=100000199896945&fbclid=IwAR1v_lr6F2CtZkHXuyftzgMztbpsmGdJ2vPGkNe8BpRl6u2LU8F R4pvmNvU

Maybe the DoD will give them a crack at the whip and give them FARA...

Also re X" tech, the Italians are keen on partnering with Sikorsky on using the tech for their next gen of rotary wing platforms...so all may be not lost with the X2.

cheers

Well, when you're trying to sell something, you'll say it's perfect for whatever you hope you can get someone to pay for it.

For Sikorsky to win FARA, they're going to have to reliably show enough extra capability to overcome the technology's greater complexity and cost.

As for Italy partnering with Sikorsky, if they don't win FARA one wonders if they'd be willing to pay what it would cost to bring X2 to satisfactory levels. Last year one Italian defense official was quoted as saying she had reservations about Tilt-Rotor. The reason he gave clearly indicated he had probably been given information from a source that let's just say had a vested interest in not being a fan of Tilt-Rotor technology. More recently, at a February European defense conference, both the Italian Army and Air Force described the need for a Tilt-Rotor with a 250 knot cruise speed. This might also be included in the Army's Esercito 4.0 future model.

[CTR]

To paraphrase a famous UK Prime Minister:

“The Tiltrotor is a horrible aircraft configuration, except when compared against all other alternatives”

[SplineDrive]

If Sikorsky doesn’t win FARA, X-2 Technology is dead for another few decades until people forget why it died in the first place… again. I don’t see any European group being willing the fund the further development of a concept that lost not one, but two recent US Army contracts.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Bell added a second smaller engine to their version of FARA. The GE engine appears to be too small for the Sikorsky FARA. Sikorsky could lose because the Army forced them to use too small of an engine.

[SplineDrive]

Bell added a second smaller engine to their version of FARA. The GE engine appears to be too small for the Sikorsky FARA. Sikorsky could lose because the Army forced them to use too small of an engine.

Plenty of us expect that the final FARA production proposal will allow twin ITE configurations, which will enable more powerful aircraft with greater growth potential... and definitely butt up against upgraded Apache capabilities. So regardless of how well (or not) Raider-X's competitive prototype flies, Sikorsky would once again be looking at scaling up an aircraft from demonstrator to production and having to answer questions about X-2 scalability. The S-97 is NOT an 80% scale model of a twin ITE FARA. I suspect it's closer to a 50% scale by gross weight.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Plenty of us expect that the final FARA production proposal will allow twin ITE configurations, which will enable more powerful aircraft with greater growth potential... and definitely butt up against upgraded Apache capabilities. So regardless of how well (or not) Raider-X's competitive prototype flies, Sikorsky would once again be looking at scaling up an aircraft from demonstrator to production and having to answer questions about X-2 scalability. The S-97 is NOT an 80% scale model of a twin ITE FARA. I suspect it's closer to a 50% scale by gross weight.

The Defiant X used two 5000 shp Lycoming T55 engines. Growth was slated to go to 7500 shp.
S97 9000 lbs gvw 2600 shp
S97X 16000 lb gvw 3000 shp
Invictus ?gvw 3600 shp
525 21000 lb gvw 3600 shp
Apache 18000 lb gvw 4000 shp
S97X twin engine ?gvw 6000 shp
Defiant X 30000 lb gvw 15000 shp

Invictus with 2 crew capability, weighs less than the Bell 525 with its 19 passenger capability. It will have the same total engine hp. It should have no problem exceeding the Army minimum speed requirement.
Raider X did not get enough engine to match the original S97 power to weight ratio. Not that the max speed demonstrated by the S97 was that special.
A twin engine FARA would have 6000 shp using the GE engine.

[Commando Cody]

Bell added a second smaller engine to their version of FARA. The GE engine appears to be too small for the Sikorsky FARA. Sikorsky could lose because the Army forced them to use too small of an engine.

Sikorsky wasn't "...forced to use to small of an an engine" unless you say both competitors were"forced". In the basic RFP it said that the aircraft should be designed to use a single ITE . That was the criteria.

What Bell did was for their APU they used the PW207D1 used in their 429. The innovation for Invictus is that for certain conditions when needed, they designed a way for it to be temporarily coupled to the main transmission for a time. When so coupled the 360 gets an effecive ~20% increase in power available to the rotor. Sort of like the effect of an afterburner.

[Commando Cody]

Plenty of us expect that the final FARA production proposal will allow twin ITE configurations, which will enable more powerful aircraft with greater growth potential... and definitely butt up against upgraded Apache capabilities. So regardless of how well (or not) Raider-X's competitive prototype flies, Sikorsky would once again be looking at scaling up an aircraft from demonstrator to production and having to answer questions about X-2 scalability. The S-97 is NOT an 80% scale model of a twin ITE FARA. I suspect it's closer to a 50% scale by gross weight.

If Army changes the requirements to allow two engines, the whole program collapses. Boeing, Karem and AVX will come back and say, "Well, if we had been allowed to use two engines, our designs would have been more competitive, so we're heading over to GAO to protest the awards to Bell and Sikorsky.. .and they'd win.

Going to two engines would add weight, increase fuel consumption possibly reduce range, etc. Still, Army is going to have to compromise somewhere for either of these designs to meet all the specs.

USMC found themselves in a similar situation with their MUX program when the prospective bidders came back and said that at this time, a vehicle that could meet all the requirement couldn't be built and so USMC canceled the program.

[noneofyourbusiness]

The Bell Invictus should be able to meet all requirements. Guessing a 12000-14000 lb gross weight with as much hp as the much larger 20000 lb Bell 525.

The Defiant X needed 10000 hp to "go fast", with a planned increase to 15000 hp. So 30000lb/10000 hp = 3lb/hp. Raider X would then need 16000lb/3 or approximately 5300 hp. It only has 3000 hp. The Sikorsky X2 had 6000lb/1800 hp = approximately 3.3 lb/hp. Raider X is trying to haul 16000 lb/3000 hp or 5.33 lb/hp.

Raider X may not be faster than the Invictus, and may even be slower. Then Raider X loses because of increased complexity and weight for no gain. Therefore Sikorsky has a strong incentive to start over with a twin engine design.

[Commando Cody]

The Bell Invictus should be able to meet all requirements. Guessing a 12000-14000 lb gross weight with as much hp as the much larger 20000 lb Bell 525.

The Defiant X needed 10000 hp to "go fast", with a planned increase to 15000 hp. So 30000lb/10000 hp = 3lb/hp. Raider X would then need 16000lb/3 or approximately 5300 hp. It only has 3000 hp. The Sikorsky X2 had 6000lb/1800 hp = approximately 3.3 lb/hp. Raider X is trying to haul 16000 lb/3000 hp or 5.33 lb/hp.

Raider X may not be faster than the Invictus, and may even be slower. Then Raider X loses because of increased complexity and weight for no gain. Therefore Sikorsky has a strong incentive to start over with a twin engine design.

Max. allowable weight for FARA has been specified by Army.

Regarding power requirements, I don't know about Sikorsky, but Bell publicly stated where their power requirement came from. For FLRAA Army had stringent Hot and High HOGE requirements. For Bell that drove the required power for Valor. With that kind of power, the speed expectation came out at 280 knots, hence the name. As it turned out V-280 was able to go 25 knots faster than that. Sikorsky may have determined Defiant-X's power requirements the same way.

Your calculations may very well be spot on. If Raider-X turns out slower, I don't think it can win except on industrial policy grounds. Aside from how far behind Army schedule it would put Sikorsky, since the Army specified one ITEP engine only for main power, Sikorsky really doesn't have an option to go to a twin. Plus, as I stated elsewhere, if Sikorsky was allowed to go to two engines, the whole FARA competition collapses and Army has to start over with a new RFP on which everyone can bid. They're already on slippery grounds with the specs as is.

[SplineDrive]

Max. allowable weight for FARA has been specified by Army.

Regarding power requirements, I don't know about Sikorsky, but Bell publicly stated where their power requirement came from. For FLRAA Army had stringent Hot and High HOGE requirements. For Bell that drove the required power for Valor. With that kind of power, the speed expectation came out at 280 knots, hence the name. As it turned out V-280 was able to go 25 knots faster than that. Sikorsky may have determined Defiant-X's power requirements the same way.

Your calculations may very well be spot on. If Raider-X turns out slower, I don't think it can win except on industrial policy grounds. Aside from how far behind Army schedule it would put Sikorsky, since the Army specified one ITEP engine only for main power, Sikorsky really doesn't have an option to go to a twin. Plus, as I stated elsewhere, if Sikorsky was allowed to go to two engines, the whole FARA competition collapses and Army has to start over with a new RFP on which everyone can bid. They're already on slippery grounds with the specs as is.

https://www.defensedaily.com/engine-delay-pushing-back-fara-timeline-by-about-8-months-milestone-b-slated-for-early-fy-26/army/

The Army is currently going through an Analysis of Alternatives that won't be complete for months. Will definitely be interesting to see what alternatives are being analyzed.

The X-2 power demands are more typically set by target max cruise speed and then hover and hover agility is a fall out of that, so the opposite of a tilt rotor. You're right that, in FARA's case, the competitive prototypes were heavily influenced to have a single ITE engine which will cap the max cruise speed of both aircraft. Bell's Invictus get's a little wiggle room with its SPU approach.

If the AoA process determines that a twin best suits the Army's needs, the final proposal requirements will reflect that and both competitive prototypes will feed data into the design of the new, larger FARA... assuming the aircraft fly before important decisions get made on those aircraft. Not sure how the Army will handle protests/lawsuits if the final requirements are substantially different than those of the earlier FARA phase that birthed the competitive prototypes.

[Commando Cody]

https://www.defensedaily.com/engine-delay-pushing-back-fara-timeline-by-about-8-months-milestone-b-slated-for-early-fy-26/army/

The Army is currently going through an Analysis of Alternatives that won't be complete for months. Will definitely be interesting to see what alternatives are being analyzed.

The X-2 power demands are more typically set by target max cruise speed and then hover and hover agility is a fall out of that, so the opposite of a tilt rotor. You're right that, in FARA's case, the competitive prototypes were heavily influenced to have a single ITE engine which will cap the max cruise speed of both aircraft. Bell's Invictus get's a little wiggle room with its SPU approach.

If the AoA process determines that a twin best suits the Army's needs, the final proposal requirements will reflect that and both competitive prototypes will feed data into the design of the new, larger FARA... assuming the aircraft fly before important decisions get made on those aircraft. Not sure how the Army will handle protests/lawsuits if the final requirements are substantially different than those of the earlier FARA phase that birthed the competitive prototypes.

When I was talking how Bell's power requirement was derived I was referring to V-280's because Defiant-X was cited. In the absence of the stringent hot and high requirement I don't know that they'd need that much power

I believe the RFP specifically mandated that designs had to be based on a single ITEP engine. If that hadn't been in there, I doubt that all five FARA contenders would have picked the same propulsion package. The speed requirement was 180 knots with a 200-205 knot dash. RFP also capped maximum weight as ≤14,000 lbs with a 40' rotor. I'm saying that if Army now said, "Weeell, engine selection and how many is now open", that would be such a major change they'd have to go back out and re-solicit since the losers could say they could have designed something different and they would be better than what won. That may or may not be true, but it would be a valid enough claim that it would stop the program.

[txtworld]

After Sikorsky's FLRAA debacle (with their submission's lack of architectural detail as articulated by GAO, and the underwhelming performance of their SB>1 Defiant demonstrator) - why don't they concede that X2, whilst being a novel concept, is a dud in practical terms?

With X2, the marginal gain in top speed provided by the pusher prop and coaxial rotors, is insufficient to offset the detriments ... such as increased cost (to start with), together with increased weight, cubic-foot volume / displacement, complexity, and maintenance to flight hour ratio. Which shall likely lead to reduced reliability, operational tempo, and readiness rate.

Given the valid questions raised, about whether Raider-X shall realize a speed advantage of any significance over the Bell 360 Invictus - what's the point of Sikorsky continuing with the design?

With the delay in receipt of the GE T901, they've an opportunity (if they act fast) to start from scratch - and produce an entirely new FARA design.

Perhaps they aren't permitted to do so, by the FARA tender rules - given the Army selected them as one of the two finalists, based upon their originally submitted X2-centric design.

[CTR]

To a slightly lesser degree, Sikorsky and LM management are suffering from the same delusions as EVTOL startup developers “This technology will be viable, if just given time for development, a huge infusion of cash, and one or two technical miracles”.

For the FLRAA program, LM management was betting that Bell would fail badly. This would have left the US Army with the option of either canceling the whole program (and continue buying Blackhawks), or selecting the least bad of two failures. If choosing the second option, selecting the cheapest of the two would have made good sense. Since this would leave the Army more money to buy more Blackhawks. This also explains the ridiculous low ball cost of the LM submission.

For FARA, given the Army’s track record of failures to develop a Kiowa replacement, LM was more interested in getting US Army funding to develop X-2 technology than manufacturing production aircraft. The limited mission and high cost of an X-2 FARA translates to very low production volume.

So in short, LM is in FARA for the development dollars for X-2 technology. Switching to a conventional helicopter configuration robs them of this funding.

[SplineDrive]

Given the valid questions raised, about whether Raider-X shall realize a speed advantage of any significance over the Bell 360 Invictus - what's the point of Sikorsky continuing with the design?

With the delay in receipt of the GE T901, they've an opportunity (if they act fast) to start from scratch - and produce an entirely new FARA design.

Perhaps they aren't permitted to do so, by the FARA tender rules - given the Army selected them as one of the two finalists, based upon their originally submitted X2-centric design.

Raider-X is the last chance to realize some revenue out of the many hundreds of millions of IRAD dollars and years of engineering time expended on X-2 technology. Raider-X is being designed/build on Army money, so it would require the Army's permission to radically change the design and Sikorsky can't move fast enough to build a largely new aircraft even if it wanted to, at this point.

They're stuck building a ship that will be more expensive and heavier than the Bell while barely meeting the performance goals and having to promise that the "full potential of X-2 Technology" will get unlocked with future power pushes of T901 or adding a second T901 while promising that they won't run into scaling issues... again.

[SplineDrive]

To a slightly lesser degree, Sikorsky and LM management are suffering from the same delusions as EVTOL startup developers “This technology will be viable, if just given time for development, a huge infusion of cash, and one or two technical miracles”.

For the FLRAA program, LM management was betting that Bell would fail badly. This would have left the US Army with the option of either canceling the whole program (and continue buying Blackhawks), or selecting the least bad of two failures. If choosing the second option, selecting the cheapest of the two would have made good sense. Since this would leave the Army more money to buy more Blackhawks. This also explains the ridiculous low ball cost of the LM submission.

When Sikorsky teamed with Boeing on SB>1, the Sikorsky troops were told that Boeing examined Bell's proposed tilt rotor and decided it wasn't a good aircraft, Boeing didn't have technology inside the firm to meet FLRAA goals, and that left Sikorsky with the technology Boeing wanted to partner with. Of course, that line was a bunch of BS. Some years later, when V-280 first flew, there were some public congratulations on social media by various Sikorsky engineers. The SB>1 CE called an all-hands meeting and told staff not to give congratulations because Bell's success was a serious threat to Sikorsky. Defiant was badly behind schedule with lots of critical paths holding first flight far into the future.

So I don't know that Sikorsky's leadership really bet on Bell failing badly, but their schedule and flight successes were a shock.

Sikorsky has actually studied tilt rotors quite a bit, though mostly in the context of their variable diameter technology, but the VDTR bits aren't necessary. There must have been some critical meetings in the early 2000's where the future IRAD efforts of the company were aimed. The V-22 was still struggling towards initial operating capability and the 609 was entering flight testing. So tilt rotors were moving from a future threat to a present threat, but one with observable challenges even for the industry leader in the field. Instead of being a second tier OEM for tilt rotor technology, they reached to the XH-59A and decided to be the first tier OEM for a different approach to higher performance. All the problems of the XH-59A were known but only some got solved or improved sufficiently by todays technology (in the end). Would love to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions. The XH-59A had the same general level of technology as the XV-15 but only few a few hundred hours before being retired as opposed to the thousands of hours and decades of flight history of the XV-15. Given the same level of technology, the tilt rotor appears to be a more practical aircraft. Even if today's technology made an X-2 practical, did Sikorsky not imagine that the same level of technology applied to a tilt rotor would make it even more practical? Or did they imagine that Bell would use the 1980's technology of the V-22 and Defiant could leap past it?

[CTR]

When Sikorsky teamed with Boeing on SB>1, the Sikorsky troops were told that Boeing examined Bell's proposed tilt rotor and decided it wasn't a good aircraft, Boeing didn't have technology inside the firm to meet FLRAA goals, and that left Sikorsky with the technology Boeing wanted to partner with. Of course, that line was a bunch of BS……

So I don't know that Sikorsky's leadership really bet on Bell failing badly, but their schedule and flight successes were a shock……….


Both FLRAA teams were Partially funded to build prototypes by the US Army. Sikorsky/Boeing were awarded approximately 15% more than Bell was. The remainder of the funding required was ponied up by the companies as an investment.

Sikorsky and Boeing Defence divisions combined have over one hundred billion dollars in annual revenue. Textron Defense divisions have slightly over four billion dollars.

Sikorsky made a losing bet, that they did they didn’t need to invest more company funds and manpower to beat Bell, and win FLRAA. Both companies had the funds and manpower to perform much better than shown in the demonstration phase.

[CTR]

When Sikorsky teamed with Boeing on SB>1, the Sikorsky troops were told that Boeing examined Bell's proposed tilt rotor and decided it wasn't a good aircraft, Boeing didn't have technology inside the firm to meet FLRAA goals, and that left Sikorsky with the technology Boeing wanted to partner with. Of course, that line was a bunch of BS……

So I don't know that Sikorsky's leadership really bet on Bell failing badly, but their schedule and flight successes were a shock……….


Both FLRAA teams were partially funded to build prototypes by the US Army. Sikorsky/Boeing were awarded approximately 15% more than Bell was. The remainder of the funding required was ponied up by the companies as an investment.

Sikorsky and Boeing Defence divisions combined have over one hundred billion dollars in annual revenue. Textron Defense divisions have slightly over four billion dollars.

Sikorsky made a losing bet, that they didn’t need to invest more company funds and manpower to beat Bell to win FLRAA. Sikorsky and Boeing had the funds and manpower to perform much better than shown in the demonstration phase.

[Commando Cody]

When Sikorsky teamed with Boeing on SB>1, the Sikorsky troops were told that Boeing examined Bell's proposed tilt rotor and decided it wasn't a good aircraft, Boeing didn't have technology inside the firm to meet FLRAA goals, and that left Sikorsky with the technology Boeing wanted to partner with. Of course, that line was a bunch of BS. Some years later, when V-280 first flew, there were some public congratulations on social media by various Sikorsky engineers. The SB>1 CE called an all-hands meeting and told staff not to give congratulations because Bell's success was a serious threat to Sikorsky. Defiant was badly behind schedule with lots of critical paths holding first flight far into the future.

So I don't know that Sikorsky's leadership really bet on Bell failing badly, but their schedule and flight successes were a shock.

Sikorsky has actually studied tilt rotors quite a bit, though mostly in the context of their variable diameter technology, but the VDTR bits aren't necessary. There must have been some critical meetings in the early 2000's where the future IRAD efforts of the company were aimed. The V-22 was still struggling towards initial operating capability and the 609 was entering flight testing. So tilt rotors were moving from a future threat to a present threat, but one with observable challenges even for the industry leader in the field. Instead of being a second tier OEM for tilt rotor technology, they reached to the XH-59A and decided to be the first tier OEM for a different approach to higher performance. All the problems of the XH-59A were known but only some got solved or improved sufficiently by todays technology (in the end). Would love to have been a fly on the wall during those discussions. The XH-59A had the same general level of technology as the XV-15 but only few a few hundred hours before being retired as opposed to the thousands of hours and decades of flight history of the XV-15. Given the same level of technology, the tilt rotor appears to be a more practical aircraft. Even if today's technology made an X-2 practical, did Sikorsky not imagine that the same level of technology applied to a tilt rotor would make it even more practical? Or did they imagine that Bell would use the 1980's technology of the V-22 and Defiant could leap past it?

From what I've been able to determine, when Bell and Boeing talked, the latter wanted too much control, espeecially in the Fkight Control System, and Bell wouldn't agree so Boeing walked (much to Bell's relief).

Regarding the XH-59A, after the initial tests, the Government proposed a shared cost continued program with the craft being converted to an "XH-59B" configuration that involved new advanced rotors, two GE T700s) and a ducted pusher propeller at the tail. Sikorsky refused to share any of the costs and so the plane was grounded. Not a great show of confidence.

Contrast that with the XV-15 where Bell shared the cost of the initial NASA testing and then with supplemental NASA/Army testing. After that phase, NASA was going to ground one of the two XV-15s because it wasn't needed for what further research was planned. Bell stepped forward and leased their XV-15 back from the government and continued flying it at 100% their cost. That's where you saw all those demonstrations, air shows and guest pilot flights. It even went to the Paris Air Show. . That one flew until August of 1992 when while being flown by a guest pilot a bolt slipped out of the collective control system on one pylon and caused a rollover while in hover. The aircraft suffered major damage but the crew only had minor injuries. The other XV-15 flew until September of 2003 when after using up all its rotor life it was flown to the Smithsonian.

Probably more than anyone wanted to know, but it shows there was an advantage even then.

[CTR]

From what I've been able to determine, when Bell and Boeing talked, the latter wanted too much control, espeecially in the Fkight Control System, and Bell wouldn't agree so Boeing walked (much to Bell's relief)…...

Commando Cody, My friends told me the same Boeing departure story. There’s also a follow up story.

After the Boeing FLRAA split, Bell approached Boeing with an offer that they build the fuselage for the V280 as a subcontractor to Bell. Boeing responded that they would only build the fuselage if they were paid to develop the flight control system also. This truly displays the inflated ego Boeing had in dealing with Bell.

Boeing assumed that Bell could not develop an advanced Fly-by-Wire flight control system without their help. But the opposite was true. Bell developed a much better flight control system, by not having any Boeing “help”.

[chopper2004]

Interesting piece here talking about half of 160th SoAR Mh-60 and A/MH-6 going to be replaced by high speed platforms come 2030s…

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/half-of-night-stalker-black-hawks-little-birds-replaced-with-high-speed-types-by-2030s?fbclid=IwAR22SaCU9mknLl4Gk7eL_CDOSqLjr2T8Zo85Bn174qoKk bX2P3RG_lqOZD8

cheees

[noneofyourbusiness]

The Army has now started looking into what they want as a future heavy lift helicopter. Defiant could only lift half what the Valor lifted, and Sikorsky's president said X2 technology would not make a good heavy lift helicopter. So the Army has three choices. An upgraded Chinook, but the Army has seemed lukewarm to this idea. A Sikorsky CH-53K, but the CH53 series has never been able to displace the Boeing Chinook. Or a tiltrotor, if the Army wants speed and range. All of the big three will propose a tiltrotor if the Army requirement is for higher speed.

[SplineDrive]

The Army has now started looking into what they want as a future heavy lift helicopter. Defiant could only lift half what the Valor lifted, and Sikorsky's president said X2 technology would not make a good heavy lift helicopter. So the Army has three choices. An upgraded Chinook, but the Army has seemed lukewarm to this idea. A Sikorsky CH-53K, but the CH53 series has never been able to displace the Boeing Chinook. Or a tiltrotor, if the Army wants speed and range. All of the big three will propose a tiltrotor if the Army requirement is for higher speed.

I don't think it's true that Defiant could only lift half of what Valor can. They have similar installed power and gross weight, but Defiant has lower disk loading (counting the coaxial system as a single disk of 8 blades). It will fundamentally be more efficient at turning engine power into lift in a hover than a tilt rotor with higher disk loading and increased download due to the wing. There are lots of things to criticize X-2 aircraft on, but hover capability isn't one of them. Smoothly flying forward from a hover or yaw authority in a hover, certainly, lol.

In any case, X-2 technology doesn't scale to the heavy lift class because of the rotor loads, structure, and vibrations problems scale faster than the aircraft does. Since Bell's winged Invictus was selected, perhaps the Army is taking another look at lift compounded helicopters. BV-347 tested out lift compounding on the CH-47 platform (along with 4 bladed rotors and increased rotor separation). Combined with the drag clean up work on the BV-360, it's possible that a modern winged tandem could be attractive to the Army. Less top speed than a tilt rotor, but more longitudinal CG control for external lift operations. Still, if the Army wants a heavy lifter to match the range and speed of their V-280's, the tilt rotor configuration will be the baseline to compare to.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Defiant only lifted 5300 lbs, Valor 10,000. I agree in theory the Defiant should be able to lift more, but this was never demonstrated. Perhaps transitioning to forward flight with a heavy load is a problem.

[SplineDrive]

Defiant only lifted 5300 lbs, Valor 10,000. I agree in theory the Defiant should be able to lift more, but this was never demonstrated. Perhaps transitioning to forward flight with a heavy load is a problem.

Do you have a public reference for Valor lifting 10,000 lb?

[noneofyourbusiness]

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopters/not-just-a-helicopter-company-bell-makes-a-play-for-the-future-of-vertical-lift/151927.article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_V-280_Valor
https://www.inceptivemind.com/bell-v-280-valor-selected-new-u-s-army-long-range-assault-aircraft/28660/

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/bell-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-progresses-flight-tests/ (https://www.inceptivemind.com/bell-v-280-valor-selected-new-u-s-army-long-range-assault-aircraft/28660/)
"The V-280 will have a crew of 4 and be capable of transporting up to 14 troops. Dual cargo hooks will give it a lift capacity to carry a 10,000 lb M777A2 Howitzer while flying at a speed of 150 knots."
So maybe not demonstrated yet, but most probably can. Yet Sikorsky/Boeing should have demonstrated what should have been their strong point, but never did.

"Sikorsky has said that the X2 design is not suitable for heavy-lift size, and instead suggests the CH-53K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky_CH-53K_King_Stallion) for heavy-lift and tiltrotor for the ultra-class."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikorsky%E2%80%93Boeing_SB-1_Defiant

[SplineDrive]

Yes, exactly. The 10,000 lb requirement was a sizing requirement for both aircraft during that phase of development. I'm not disputing that either aircraft was or was not sized to that requirement, just pointing out Bell has not publicly demonstrated that yet with the V-280. There's enough BS and mixing up of facts/FUD on the internet, we don't need to generate more.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Bell did perform sling load demos in 2020/2021.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-12-17/bell-v-280-flies-sling-loads
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/bell-v-280-valor-revolutionary-speed-range#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20V%2D280,215th%20flight%20 hour%20in%202021.

I just haven't seen the max weight they hauled.

If we just consider Defiant, they did achieve a max level flight speed of 247 knots against the original target of 250 knots, which is pretty impressive. As Defiant achieved a lift of 5300 lbs, that is underwhelming, considering the requirement of 10000 lbs.

[Commando Cody]

Bell did perform sling load demos in 2020/2021.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2020-12-17/bell-v-280-flies-sling-loads
https://aviationweek.com/shownews/farnborough-airshow/bell-v-280-valor-revolutionary-speed-range#:~:text=In%202020%2C%20the%20V%2D280,215th%20flight%20 hour%20in%202021.

I just haven't seen the max weight they hauled.

If we just consider Defiant, they did achieve a max level flight speed of 247 knots against the original target of 250 knots, which is pretty impressive. As Defiant achieved a lift of 5300 lbs, that is underwhelming, considering the requirement of 10000 lbs.


Of course Bell achieved a max level flight speed of 305 knots against their original target of 280 knots, which is even more impressive. Still, your post raises an interesting question: Why couldn't the Defiant team get just three more knots to achieve their promise? Could it be vibration was so bad that they just couldn't do it? I don't know but I'm curious. It's also interesting to observe that a while back they started trumpeting they had reached 235 knots which, ..."met the Army requirement" and said they were going to concentrate "...where it is more important..." "...at the X.." in the lower speed regime. BTW, the original FLRAA requirement was supposed to be for 250 knots but was lowered in the final RFP. that went out. Note also that S-97 never achieved its promised speed.

Regarding sling load, don't forget these were technology demonstrators, not even prototypes, whose purpose was to demonstrate that their technology was viable and could be counted on in a production version to achieve all FLRAA requirements. Given that, I wouldn't hold it against either of them that they didn't demonstrate all of the FLRAA requirements expected of a fully developed production model. For one thing, they didn't have definitive engines . They were just supposed to demonstrate that it was likely that they would be able to do so after EMD.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Commando Cody
Tiltrotor wins on speed and range, which is what the Army wanted. So why did Sikorsky bid what was likely to be a losing design? People rightfully questioned whether the X2 could be scaled up to a larger size. Defiant proved the answer is yes.

You are right regarding engines, the Honeywell engine on Defiant was going to be scaled up to provide 7500 hp each compared to the demonstrator 5000 hp, giving a total of 15000 hp, which would provide more lift. Given larger engines and more time, hitting 260 knots, matching the X2, seems plausible. Though fuel burn rate might be very high.

Raider is intriguing regarding its low max speed, it had plenty of engine. Maybe Boeing or Sikorsky figured out how to solve the problem for Defiant? But I don't see how they would have been able to significantly improve aerodynamics. So maybe improving vibration control was the solution?

[Hilife]

A good point.

Although, the precursor to FLRAA was JMR/FVL and in the early days, it was not so much about speed and range (I believe 230kn and a combat radius of 263nm were the original JMR-Medium requirements), but about getting a solution that provided a broad range of advanced capabilities, technologies and efficiencies.

At the point of having to choose a preferred solution in late 2022, I'm not convinced either TD provided what the US Army had envisioned way back in the early days of JMR, but the move away from Europe to the Pacific, with range and speed being two key factors, certainly for any USMC solution, kinda left X2 behind.

That and Team Defiant were clearly not on the same page when it came to interpretating the requirements the way the author had intended. :)

JMR-Medium was initially an $80Bn program for some 4,000 machines, but it does not look like the FLRAA solution will end up anything like being that big, which for me, backs up my 2nd paragraph, but time will tell.

[Commando Cody]

Commando Cody
Tiltrotor wins on speed and range, which is what the Army wanted. So why did Sikorsky bid what was likely to be a losing design? People rightfully questioned whether the X2 could be scaled up to a larger size. Defiant proved the answer is yes.

You are right regarding engines, the Honeywell engine on Defiant was going to be scaled up to provide 7500 hp each compared to the demonstrator 5000 hp, giving a total of 15000 hp, which would provide more lift. Given larger engines and more time, hitting 260 knots, matching the X2, seems plausible. Though fuel burn rate might be very high.

Raider is intriguing regarding its low max speed, it had plenty of engine. Maybe Boeing or Sikorsky figured out how to solve the problem for Defiant? But I don't see how they would have been able to significantly improve aerodynamics. So maybe improving vibration control was the solution?

To my mind Sikorsky was hoping the problems that had plagued X2 so far could be worked out and at a lower cost than a Tilt-Rotor. They may also have felt that if performance of the two competitors was close, Army's familiarity with them plus their political influence would pull them through. Keep in mind X2 was all they had and they had spent some significant money on it over the years. I don't think it can be said that Defiant proved X2 technology could be scaled up to this size. At best it would have to be a profound, "Maybe".

You know, one of Sikorsky's complaints in filing the protest was their claim that Army had always wanted a Tilt-Rotor and this was reflected in their original requirements which they said were later changed, to allow others to compete. I take this to be referring to the original anticipated speed requirement of 250 knots which in the final specs was lowered to 235 knots. Given that Sikorsky said that on Defiant they had lots more power they hadn't yet used, I don't believe more power would have gotten them any more speed or they would have claimed that. . The X2 demonstrator briefly hit 260 knots, but was grounded after that. I think that like Bell, it was the hot and high HOGE requirement that drove ultimate power required.

Vibration control undoubtedly would have been a big factor in higher speeds, but with what we've seen so far is it fair to say that the problem was solved? They came up short in a number of other areas as well.

[Commando Cody]

A good point.

Although, the precursor to FLRAA was JMR/FVL and in the early days, it was not so much about speed and range (I believe 230kn and a combat radius of 263nm were the original JMR-Medium requirements), but about getting a solution that provided a broad range of advanced capabilities, technologies and efficiencies.

At the point of having to choose a preferred solution in late 2022, I'm not convinced either TD provided what the US Army had envisioned way back in the early days of JMR, but the move away from Europe to the Pacific, with range and speed being two key factors, certainly for any USMC solution, kinda left X2 behind.

That and Team Defiant were clearly not on the same page when it came to interpretating the requirements the way the author had intended. :)

JMR-Medium was initially an $80Bn program for some 4,000 machines, but it does not look like the FLRAA solution will end up anything like being that big, which for me, backs up my 2nd paragraph, but time will tell.

As always when the Gov't is involved, there's an alphabet soup. JMR/JMR-TD was the technology demonstration phase and it provided data to FVL, which was for operational vehicle; FLRAA and FARA are two of the operational vehicle categories for which one aircraft will be selected for each. The Marines my choose to leverage FLRAA technology, but it's not a guarantee that they'l just l buy a marinized version of the V-280. Regarding FARA, USMC does not have the kind of mission for which it is designed..

Nothing is ever simple.

[noneofyourbusiness]

To my mind Sikorsky was hoping the problems that had plagued X2 so far could be worked out and at a lower cost than a Tilt-Rotor. They may also have felt that if performance of the two competitors was close, Army's familiarity with them plus their political influence would pull them through. Keep in mind X2 was all they had and they had spent some significant money on it over the years. I don't think it can be said that Defiant proved X2 technology could be scaled up to this size. At best it would have to be a profound, "Maybe".

You know, one of Sikorsky's complaints in filing the protest was their claim that Army had always wanted a Tilt-Rotor and this was reflected in their original requirements which they said were later changed, to allow others to compete. I take this to be referring to the original anticipated speed requirement of 250 knots which in the final specs was lowered to 235 knots. Given that Sikorsky said that on Defiant they had lots more power they hadn't yet used, I don't believe more power would have gotten them any more speed or they would have claimed that. . The X2 demonstrator briefly hit 260 knots, but was grounded after that. I think that like Bell, it was the hot and high HOGE requirement that drove ultimate power required.

Vibration control undoubtedly would have been a big factor in higher speeds, but with what we've seen so far is it fair to say that the problem was solved? They came up short in a number of other areas as well.

Matching X2 performance just means achieving high speed for a short time. X2 never demonstrated anything else. It may have been shaking like a son of a gun. If vibration was the problem, then Sikorsky or Boeing solved the problem well enough to allow Defiant to nearly match the X2 demonstrator speed. We do know Defiant flew few hours, and as far as I know, never allowed Army pilots to fly the Defiant. The last Defiant video released appeared pretty impressive, which occurred after the final proposals were turned in.

Lol - Sikorsky whining the Army wanted a tiltrotor all along. Reply to Sikorsky: Is water wet? Of course dummy.

[noneofyourbusiness]

A good point.

Although, the precursor to FLRAA was JMR/FVL and in the early days, it was not so much about speed and range (I believe 230kn and a combat radius of 263nm were the original JMR-Medium requirements), but about getting a solution that provided a broad range of advanced capabilities, technologies and efficiencies.

At the point of having to choose a preferred solution in late 2022, I'm not convinced either TD provided what the US Army had envisioned way back in the early days of JMR, but the move away from Europe to the Pacific, with range and speed being two key factors, certainly for any USMC solution, kinda left X2 behind.

That and Team Defiant were clearly not on the same page when it came to interpretating the requirements the way the author had intended. :)

JMR-Medium was initially an $80Bn program for some 4,000 machines, but it does not look like the FLRAA solution will end up anything like being that big, which for me, backs up my 2nd paragraph, but time will tell.

Interesting, thanks. Sikorsky engineering management just did not have the cojones to bid a tiltrotor for FLRAA. I imagine they **** a brick when they saw the speed and range requirements. Boeing is just plain clueless.

[CTR]

To my mind Sikorsky was hoping the problems that had plagued X2 so far could be worked out and at a lower cost than a Tilt-Rotor. They may also have felt that if performance of the two competitors was close, Army's familiarity with them plus their political influence would pull them through. Keep in mind X2 was all they had and they had spent some significant money on it over the years. I don't think it can be said that Defiant proved X2 technology could be scaled up to this size. At best it would have to be a profound, "Maybe".

You know, one of Sikorsky's complaints in filing the protest was their claim that Army had always wanted a Tilt-Rotor and this was reflected in their original requirements which they said were later changed, to allow others to compete. I take this to be referring to the original anticipated speed requirement of 250 knots which in the final specs was lowered to 235 knots. Given that Sikorsky said that on Defiant they had lots more power they hadn't yet used, I don't believe more power would have gotten them any more speed……

CC,

I concur your analysis, but I believe Sikorsky had dual path to winning in their strategy.

One path, was as you stated, hope that you can work out the X-2 technology for a Defiant size aircraft adequately enough to compete. Also, Sikorsky’s and Boeing’s combined corporate ego believed Bell could not succeed in producing a viable demonstrator aircraft.

The second path, was ensuring that the FLRAA program would be either canceled, or so underfunded, it would fail to succeed. This would allow Sikorsky and Boeing to continue building their legacy aircraft as long as possible.

Following Sikorsky’s lack of success of the first path, this second path of insuring FLRAA fails is now Sikorsky’s main strategy . This is best illustrated by the following video of Connecticut senator Chris Murphy questioning the Secretary of the Army.

https://youtu.be/TxLJfm1cfy4

[SansAnhedral]

Following the failure of the first path, this second path of insuring FLRAA fails is now Sikorsky’s main strategy . This is best illustrated by the following video of Connecticut senator Chris Murphy questioning the Secretary of the Army.

The mental gymnastics required by the messaging senator Murphy continues to espouse is really quite remarkable. To be making the argument that a new tiltrotor will be unaffordable simply because the first-of-its-kind production tiltrotor predecessor (designed to insanely costly maritime requirements) was expensive and difficult to develop, while the entirely unproven competing platform that has never even had a remotely successful demonstrator predecessor is somehow the less risky and a more rational selection...well that pretty much beguiles logic.

The V-280 was designed from inception to incorporate all the lessons learned in design and manufacturing from XV-3, XV-15, 609, and V-22. It also contained specific design details (eg straight wing) to meet cost targets that the Army specified early in the JMR programme. The maturity of tiltrotors in general is now essentially beyond reasonable question, yet senator Murphy's "parochial" interest in pushing what is pretty blatant propaganda continues.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Sikorsky strove to be second best. Pick us, we're kinda good. But it isn't about what Sikorsky wants to build, it's about what the customer wants. When Bob Lutz was at Chrysler, he saved Chrysler by replacing the fading K cars with modern cars, which were well received. Lutz said that you wouldn't sell many cars if you were everyone's second choice.

[noneofyourbusiness]

Next up will be FARA. The Army will pick what is best for their soldiers, as their lives depend on this equipment. This will override jobs in Connecticut concerns. The clutched pusher prop on Raider X is a potential problem. Sikorsky will be very careful, most of the parts in the clutch will be flight safety parts. Still, anything mechanical can fail, even if it only happens once. Unlike a Cessna where everyone knows to stay away from the prop, people will become careless because they think the prop will never be turning on the ground, until one time it is. This is insidious.

There is no significant reason to select the underpowered Raider X unless it is substantially faster than Invictus. Even then, it depends on whether this increased speed is considered to be much of an advantage by the Army, if Invictus meets the required speed. Simplicity improves reliability, safety and maintainability, and Invictus is simpler than Raider X.

The Army probably will not go to a twin engine melt and repour. Keeping the GE engine would give us two 3000 hp engines, or 6000 hp, compared to the Apache 4000 hp. Essentially this would give us a growth Apache, not a scout helicopter. It is unlikely the Army would pull the plug on its new engine and go back to using something like two older technology T800 engines. The new GE engine is a major improvement over previous engines.

[SansAnhedral]

The Army probably will not go to a twin engine melt and repour.

Hold onto your butt.

The clutched pusher prop on Raider X is a potential problem. Sikorsky will be very careful, most of the parts in the clutch will be flight safety parts. Still, anything mechanical can fail, even if it only happens once. Unlike a Cessna where everyone knows to stay away from the prop, people will become careless because they think the prop will never be turning on the ground, until one time it is. This is insidious.

Remember that the S-97 pusher is wet clutched so it does not stop rotating. Defiant used a dry clutch to attempt to demonstrate the safety aspect of stopping it during ground ops. Unfortunately that clutch sh*t the bed and the Army knows all about it.