US Army FARA Competition Announced!
If the design constants dictate storing self propelled ordnance inside the airframe, inadvertent launch of said ordnance while stored is likely catastrophic regardless.
Putting it directly behind the pilots just reduces the suffering if it happens
Both.........
The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) programme overlaps with the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft programme, but is not the same.
The Valor and the Defiant have been down-selected for FLRAA; there are 5 companies still in the running for FARA, which will almost certainly be a helicopter rather than tilt-rotor. e.g.
”The CEO of Textron, Bell’s parent company, said during a recent earnings call, that its FARA design will be based on its 525 technology rather than its tiltrotor technology. Bell has built and flown a tiltrotor prototype — the V-280 Valor — for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program.”.
The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) programme overlaps with the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft programme, but is not the same.
The Valor and the Defiant have been down-selected for FLRAA; there are 5 companies still in the running for FARA, which will almost certainly be a helicopter rather than tilt-rotor. e.g.
”The CEO of Textron, Bell’s parent company, said during a recent earnings call, that its FARA design will be based on its 525 technology rather than its tiltrotor technology. Bell has built and flown a tiltrotor prototype — the V-280 Valor — for the Army’s Future Vertical Lift program.”.
FARA's performance requirements are far more modest than those of FLRAA. As a result Tilt-Rotor's speed and range advantages won't gain it enough credit to offset higher upfront costs. Plus, an absolute go/no go requirement is that total diameter over the rotor must be no more than 40', something hard to do in a Tilt-Rotor
My non-expert eye says the design is intended to be stealthy for radar. If so, storing rockets and other ordnance 'inside' would be pretty much mandatory (and of course that also help with drag and top speed).
If the design constants dictate storing self propelled ordnance inside the airframe, inadvertent launch of said ordnance while stored is likely catastrophic regardless.
Putting it directly behind the pilots just reduces the suffering if it happens
If the design constants dictate storing self propelled ordnance inside the airframe, inadvertent launch of said ordnance while stored is likely catastrophic regardless.
Putting it directly behind the pilots just reduces the suffering if it happens
The final two FARA contenders tell us much about the Army's thinking. The Bell Invictus has the lowest technical risk, in effect being a lightly lift compounded conventional rotorcraft re-using the Bell 525 running gear and familiar features from its (whisper it…) RAH-66 inspiration - tandem seating, shrouded TR and retractable gear.
The Raider X, however, is much more high-risk as there's never been a mass-produced thrust compounded design. The X2 tech has been around for a while; the S-97 had a modestly successful flight test program, but the FLRAA contender (SB>1 Defiant) has struggled against its Tiltrotor competitor (V-280), in my opinion because the X2 tech doesn't seem to scale up well and Tilt-rotor is now a mature technology. My guess is that the Army (and The Hill) will not pick the same winner for both FLRAA and FARA for capacity, industrial base and pork barrel reasons. X2 looks better as a small aircraft, so will likely win FARA (accepting it's higher risk) whereas the V-280 looks miles ahead in terms of moderated risk for FLRAA.
If you want to see complex, look at the Karem FARA proposal…..
The Raider X, however, is much more high-risk as there's never been a mass-produced thrust compounded design. The X2 tech has been around for a while; the S-97 had a modestly successful flight test program, but the FLRAA contender (SB>1 Defiant) has struggled against its Tiltrotor competitor (V-280), in my opinion because the X2 tech doesn't seem to scale up well and Tilt-rotor is now a mature technology. My guess is that the Army (and The Hill) will not pick the same winner for both FLRAA and FARA for capacity, industrial base and pork barrel reasons. X2 looks better as a small aircraft, so will likely win FARA (accepting it's higher risk) whereas the V-280 looks miles ahead in terms of moderated risk for FLRAA.
If you want to see complex, look at the Karem FARA proposal…..
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/congress...on-helicopter/
Lawmakers demand Army justify pursuit of new attack recon helicopter
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers would curb the U.S. Army secretary’s travel until the service shows a thorough analysis of alternatives to pursuing a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, according to a draft of the fiscal 2024 policy bill released this week by the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
No more than 70% of the Office of the Secretary of the Army’s travel budget can be obligated or spent until Secretary Christine Wormuth submits that analysis for the FARA program to congressional defense committees, the mark of the bill laid out.
The Army completed a “very robust” analysis of alternatives in 2019 for its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft program, subcommittee Chairman Rob Wittman, R-Va., told Defense News in a June 14 interview. “So our question was why not the same for FARA?”….
Lawmakers demand Army justify pursuit of new attack recon helicopter
WASHINGTON — Lawmakers would curb the U.S. Army secretary’s travel until the service shows a thorough analysis of alternatives to pursuing a Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, according to a draft of the fiscal 2024 policy bill released this week by the House Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces.
No more than 70% of the Office of the Secretary of the Army’s travel budget can be obligated or spent until Secretary Christine Wormuth submits that analysis for the FARA program to congressional defense committees, the mark of the bill laid out.
The Army completed a “very robust” analysis of alternatives in 2019 for its Future Long Range Assault Aircraft program, subcommittee Chairman Rob Wittman, R-Va., told Defense News in a June 14 interview. “So our question was why not the same for FARA?”….
" how important is stealth to a craft you can just look out the window and see? "
or hear
I think a few people on here might remember an early military hovercraft presentation described by Flight as "RM hovercraft sneaks up on totally deaf "Warsaw pact" sentry"...............................
or hear
I think a few people on here might remember an early military hovercraft presentation described by Flight as "RM hovercraft sneaks up on totally deaf "Warsaw pact" sentry"...............................
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Army cancels FARA helicopter program, makes other cuts in major aviation shakeup
WASHINGTON — The US Army is cancelling its next generation Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, service officials announced today, taking a potential multi-billion-dollar contract off the table and throwing the service’s long-term aviation plans into doubt.
In addition, the Army plans to end production on the UH-60 V Black Hawk in fiscal 2025, due to “significant cost growth,” keep General Electric’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) in the development phase instead of moving it into production, and phase the Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems out of the fleet, the service added.
All told, it reflects a massive shift in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning. There is also an ironic sense of history repeating: the decision to end FARA comes two decades to the month after the Army ended its plans to procure the RAH-66 Comanche and nearly 16 years after it terminated work on the ARH-70A Arapaho, both aircraft designed to replace the Kiowa — the same helicopter FARA was supposed to, finally, replace.
The reason for ending FARA, Army leaders told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement, is a reflection of what war looks like in the modern era.
“We absolutely are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting, because we could go to war tonight, this weekend,” head of Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
“We are learning from the battlefield — especially Ukraine — that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief Gen. Randy George said in a press release. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”….
While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained.
So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.
WASHINGTON — The US Army is cancelling its next generation Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) program, service officials announced today, taking a potential multi-billion-dollar contract off the table and throwing the service’s long-term aviation plans into doubt.
In addition, the Army plans to end production on the UH-60 V Black Hawk in fiscal 2025, due to “significant cost growth,” keep General Electric’s Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) in the development phase instead of moving it into production, and phase the Shadow and Raven unmanned aerial systems out of the fleet, the service added.
All told, it reflects a massive shift in the Army’s aviation strategy and upends years of planning. There is also an ironic sense of history repeating: the decision to end FARA comes two decades to the month after the Army ended its plans to procure the RAH-66 Comanche and nearly 16 years after it terminated work on the ARH-70A Arapaho, both aircraft designed to replace the Kiowa — the same helicopter FARA was supposed to, finally, replace.
The reason for ending FARA, Army leaders told a small group of reporters ahead of the announcement, is a reflection of what war looks like in the modern era.
“We absolutely are paying attention [to world events] and adjusting, because we could go to war tonight, this weekend,” head of Army Futures Command Gen. James Rainey told reporters at the Pentagon on Thursday.
“We are learning from the battlefield — especially Ukraine — that aerial reconnaissance has fundamentally changed,” Army Chief Gen. Randy George said in a press release. “Sensors and weapons mounted on a variety of unmanned systems and in space are more ubiquitous, further reaching and more inexpensive than ever before.”….
While observations from places like Ukraine and Gaza are part of the impetus for FARA’s cancellation, the need to free up billions of dollars to invest in unmanned systems was also a prime factor, Rainey and other aviation leaders explained.
So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.
Gutsy call with both aircraft so close to flight after (finally) getting the ITEP engines. There have been rumours that it might be scaled back in ambition, but cancellation does come as a surprise. That said, we accuse military leaders of not listening and learning, nor of making tough decisions. They may be right here, but have they, perhaps, taken too many lessons from Ukraine?
Administrator
As neither mod nor admin:
What other aircraft was the ITEP engine slotted for? Curious.
What other aircraft was the ITEP engine slotted for? Curious.
The T900 series is intended to have variants to replace the T700 family... so that is a long list of platforms, notably Blackhawk and Apache. If the fuel efficiency improvement is proven, and supposedly in engine cell testing it is... the same aircraft can do the same mission with less fuel, or longer range missions with full fuel, etc. That would be without even changing the installed power rating, so minimal change to dynamic components.
The T900 series is intended to have variants to replace the T700 family... so that is a long list of platforms, notably Blackhawk and Apache. If the fuel efficiency improvement is proven, and supposedly in engine cell testing it is... the same aircraft can do the same mission with less fuel, or longer range missions with full fuel, etc. That would be without even changing the installed power rating, so minimal change to dynamic components.
I had heard a rumor that Apache was going to get that upgrade, but "when" is an open question.
It's a real kick in the pants for the design and build teams, and personally, I would love to see them fly. However, I think it's probably the overall right thing to do with the world as it is today.
FARA Is Dead - The Army Will Trade New Scout Helicopters For Drones (forbes.com)
Bummer - i was hoping to see the Bell 360 become a reality. So i guess the FLRAA program will continue, since the role of attack and scout will be put into drone tech, but troop-moving ships (V-280) will still be manned with unmanned capabilities to be built in. So FLRAA is still a thing?
I wonder what companies will participate in the attack/scout drone program when one is announced - will we be seeing Bell-Textron and Lockheed Martin competing again?
Bummer - i was hoping to see the Bell 360 become a reality. So i guess the FLRAA program will continue, since the role of attack and scout will be put into drone tech, but troop-moving ships (V-280) will still be manned with unmanned capabilities to be built in. So FLRAA is still a thing?
I wonder what companies will participate in the attack/scout drone program when one is announced - will we be seeing Bell-Textron and Lockheed Martin competing again?
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
DENVER — The U.S. Army’s next-generation helicopter engine is projected to hit the skies early next year, powering a UH-60M Black Hawk, according to the service and industry representatives involved in the program.
The Improved Turbine Engine Program engine, developed by General Electric’s aerospace division, has experienced a slew of delays related to technology development and supply chain woes. A year ago, the Army predicted a nearly two-year delay getting the T901 engine into the UH-60.
The Black Hawk will be the first to receive the capability, and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter will follow.
The T901 engine will replace the 1970s-era T700 and provide aircraft with a 50% power increase to restore performance. It’s 25% improved fuel consumption reduces energy usage and carbon emissions. The engine is also expected to have more durable components, which will lower life-cycle costs.
While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place.
Even so, ITEP engines are scheduled to arrive at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida, test center this summer, Paul Lemmo, the company’s president, told reporters at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual summit.
The Army had planned to use the ITEP engine in its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, or FARA, but canceled the helicopter program this year after two competing industry teams — Bell and Sikorsky — received the engine for the prototypes they were building.
Sikorsky had taken advantage of fiscal 2024 FARA program funding before the Army officially closed the program at the end of the year to run tests of the ITEP in the prototype, ahead of integrating the engine into the UH-60, in order to drive down risk, Lemmo said. On April 10, the company conducted its first ground run of the ITEP engine in the FARA prototype, Lemmo added.
“We lit off the engine and turned rotors for the first time on our FARA [competitive prototype],” Lemmo said. “Obviously watching the rotors turn could be mundane, but it’s pretty exciting to see multiple years’ worth of work that went into that aircraft, but also that engine by our partners General Electric.”
The ITEP engine had previously undergone testing in stands; it was the first time, Lemmo said, that the engine was under a full load, turning rotors.
“We collected that data [at] low speed, and we’re analyzing it,” Lemmo said, noting that “it performed well.”
The Army authorized Sikorsky to run the rotors at full speed to further test ITEP and collect more data, he added.
The ITEP engine, when installed, also fit into the aircraft with no issues, Lemmo noted.
“I think the fact that we proved it on FARA, that the engine fit the first time, it gives us good confidence that it should fit properly, that all the connections should match up when we fit it into the Black Hawk,” Lemmo said.
The Army plans to deliver two ITEP engines to Sikorsky in late May or June, according to Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the service’s program executive officer for aviation, who spoke at the AAAA event.
The company will conduct a fit check with an engine in one of the two modified Black Hawks and install one in the Black Hawk for actual ground runs and flight tests, Lemmo said. Once the company has the engines, it could begin ground runs within a month, he noted.
Then “it’s probably going to take us a good six months to integrate and do the ground runs,” Lemmo said. The aircraft is expected to begin “flying about six months after we get the engine,” he added.
Phillips predicted that getting in the air would “probably occur next year, just based on the schedule where we’re at today.”
The Improved Turbine Engine Program engine, developed by General Electric’s aerospace division, has experienced a slew of delays related to technology development and supply chain woes. A year ago, the Army predicted a nearly two-year delay getting the T901 engine into the UH-60.
The Black Hawk will be the first to receive the capability, and the AH-64 Apache attack helicopter will follow.
The T901 engine will replace the 1970s-era T700 and provide aircraft with a 50% power increase to restore performance. It’s 25% improved fuel consumption reduces energy usage and carbon emissions. The engine is also expected to have more durable components, which will lower life-cycle costs.
While the Army remains committed to the ITEP engine, earlier this year it decided to keep the program in development longer, pushing back plans for procurement and fielding. The service does not yet have a new plan for when fielding will take place.
Even so, ITEP engines are scheduled to arrive at Sikorsky’s West Palm Beach, Florida, test center this summer, Paul Lemmo, the company’s president, told reporters at the Army Aviation Association of America’s annual summit.
The Army had planned to use the ITEP engine in its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, or FARA, but canceled the helicopter program this year after two competing industry teams — Bell and Sikorsky — received the engine for the prototypes they were building.
Sikorsky had taken advantage of fiscal 2024 FARA program funding before the Army officially closed the program at the end of the year to run tests of the ITEP in the prototype, ahead of integrating the engine into the UH-60, in order to drive down risk, Lemmo said. On April 10, the company conducted its first ground run of the ITEP engine in the FARA prototype, Lemmo added.
“We lit off the engine and turned rotors for the first time on our FARA [competitive prototype],” Lemmo said. “Obviously watching the rotors turn could be mundane, but it’s pretty exciting to see multiple years’ worth of work that went into that aircraft, but also that engine by our partners General Electric.”
The ITEP engine had previously undergone testing in stands; it was the first time, Lemmo said, that the engine was under a full load, turning rotors.
“We collected that data [at] low speed, and we’re analyzing it,” Lemmo said, noting that “it performed well.”
The Army authorized Sikorsky to run the rotors at full speed to further test ITEP and collect more data, he added.
The ITEP engine, when installed, also fit into the aircraft with no issues, Lemmo noted.
“I think the fact that we proved it on FARA, that the engine fit the first time, it gives us good confidence that it should fit properly, that all the connections should match up when we fit it into the Black Hawk,” Lemmo said.
The Army plans to deliver two ITEP engines to Sikorsky in late May or June, according to Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the service’s program executive officer for aviation, who spoke at the AAAA event.
The company will conduct a fit check with an engine in one of the two modified Black Hawks and install one in the Black Hawk for actual ground runs and flight tests, Lemmo said. Once the company has the engines, it could begin ground runs within a month, he noted.
Then “it’s probably going to take us a good six months to integrate and do the ground runs,” Lemmo said. The aircraft is expected to begin “flying about six months after we get the engine,” he added.
Phillips predicted that getting in the air would “probably occur next year, just based on the schedule where we’re at today.”
The Army plans to deliver two ITEP engines to Sikorsky in late May or June, according to Brig. Gen. David Phillips, the service’s program executive officer for aviation, who spoke at the AAAA event. The company will conduct a fit check with an engine in one of the two modified Black Hawks and install one in the Black Hawk for actual ground runs and flight tests, Lemmo said. Once the company has the engines, it could begin ground runs within a month, he noted. Then “it’s probably going to take us a good six months to integrate and do the ground runs,” Lemmo said. The aircraft is expected to begin “flying about six months after we get the engine,” he added. Phillips predicted that getting in the air would “probably occur next year, just based on the schedule where we’re at today.”
If we take him at his word: early 2025 to be flying around West Palm Beach or Stratford?
Any bets on that coming to pass?
