US Army FARA Competition Announced!
Thread Starter
US Army FARA Competition Announced!
The US Army announced the competition for the FARA Program at the AAAA Convention in Nashville.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...BtCD-1qNOsON8s
Bell Helicopters will be using Bell 525 Technology and Sikorsky will use their latest design based upon the ABC concept.
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-...BtCD-1qNOsON8s
Bell Helicopters will be using Bell 525 Technology and Sikorsky will use their latest design based upon the ABC concept.
Is this a future AH-64 replacement or a new requirement?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It says OH-58/UH-60 about half way through. The requirement has been there for a while, the last attempt to fill the 'gap' was the ill-fated RAH-66 Comanche.
It's to complement the AH-64, this will be a light attack/recce platform. Looks like it might have the capability to carry out CSAR missions too. Sikorski are pitching it at USSOCOM as a launch 'customer'.
The AH-64 replacement is intended to be part of the Future Vertical Lift plan (née Joint Multi-Role Program), intended to cover vertical lift platforms over the next 50+ years.
It's to complement the AH-64, this will be a light attack/recce platform. Looks like it might have the capability to carry out CSAR missions too. Sikorski are pitching it at USSOCOM as a launch 'customer'.
The AH-64 replacement is intended to be part of the Future Vertical Lift plan (née Joint Multi-Role Program), intended to cover vertical lift platforms over the next 50+ years.
Last edited by Willard Whyte; 25th Apr 2019 at 13:00.
The US Army has not successfully developed a new rotorcraft since the AH-64. Lakota was, effectively, COTS, and since the cancellation of the RAH-66 all the Army have done is upgrade legacy aircraft and retire the Kiowa. FARA suggests that the decision not to replace the Kiowa, but to re-purpose Apache, has been seen as something of a failure. FVL/JMR Cap Set 3 (UH-60 replacement) seems to be progressing well with V-280 exceeding 300Kts and the SB-1 finally flying so, perhaps, the tide is turning. With the FVL derived technologies moving the speed on to 250kts+, perhaps it is apropos to look at the same technology to confer additional protection/capability to a scout-class platform. FWIW, my opinion is that Tilt Rotor is possibly better for the Cap Set 3 with a thrust compound better for the scout (as it will likely be smaller and have better hover performance and low speed agility). Just my 10c…….
Thread Starter
FARA suggests that the decision not to replace the Kiowa, but to re-purpose Apache, has been seen as something of a failure.
Anyone with a grain of commonsense was saying that as the Army was making that grand decision....which built upon destroying the Commanche Tooling when the geniuses terminated that Contract.
The requirement has been there for a while, the last attempt to fill the 'gap' was the ill-fated RAH-66 Comanche.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
E8....not faulting you at all.....but very much unimpressed with the US Army Aviation Management!
You merely pointed out the truth of the matter.
You merely pointed out the truth of the matter.
LHX, all over again.
Yeah: too bad comanche tooling was destroyed.
Rebuild Comanche as a single pilot aircraft and ... sorry, don't get me started.
Yeah: too bad comanche tooling was destroyed.
Rebuild Comanche as a single pilot aircraft and ... sorry, don't get me started.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: The Whyte House
Age: 95
Posts: 1,966
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been three attempts since then - the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho, the Armed Aerial Scout (AAS), and most recently the upgraded OH-58F. On each occasion, it has been budget (or lack of) that has scuppered it, so will be interested to see if this one makes it past the finish line.
Whatever indeed, how dare anyone introduce facts into this discussion!!
Back to the subject, some interesting reading here on one of the FARA contenders that suffered a serious mishap recently. Alert 5 » NTSB report on S-97 accident reveals extensive damage to aircraft - Military Aviation News
Back to the subject, some interesting reading here on one of the FARA contenders that suffered a serious mishap recently. Alert 5 » NTSB report on S-97 accident reveals extensive damage to aircraft - Military Aviation News
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...00000011212635
”The U.S. Army announced that the Sikorsky-Boeing team has been selected to move forward in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft’s Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction Program (CD&RR) program.”
”The U.S. Army announced that the Sikorsky-Boeing team has been selected to move forward in the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft’s Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction Program (CD&RR) program.”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bel...raa-selection/
Bell’s Valor, Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant advance in U.S. Army Future Assault Aircraft program
Bell’s Valor, Sikorsky/Boeing Defiant advance in U.S. Army Future Assault Aircraft program
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://www.defensenews.com/smr/army...econ-aircraft/
Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft
WASHINGTON — Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin-owned company, and Bell have been selected to build and fly Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) prototypes for the U.S. Army in a head-to-head competition, according to a March 25 Army statement..........
Lockheed and Bell will compete head-to-head to build US Army’s future attack recon aircraft
WASHINGTON — Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin-owned company, and Bell have been selected to build and fly Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) prototypes for the U.S. Army in a head-to-head competition, according to a March 25 Army statement..........
ORAC - which of your posts is correct?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
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.”.
Thank you o Master - I get lost in the Acronyms......... 
Administrator
/notasmod
As I look at that illustration I note that there is a rack of forward firing ordnance stored right behind pilot and copilot stations.
(Swing the doors in to a "closed" position to see what I mean)
What could possibly go wrong?
As I look at that illustration I note that there is a rack of forward firing ordnance stored right behind pilot and copilot stations.
(Swing the doors in to a "closed" position to see what I mean)
What could possibly go wrong?