Boeing FARA
The hidden cards in this FARA competition are political influence and the military need to maintain the engineering capability of three helicopter manufacturers.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Having recently developed new aircraft, both Sikorsky and Bell both have strong engineering departments capable of clean sheet designs.
Sustaining engineering is far from being able to design a new aircraft from scratch. It has been over a quarter century since Boeing engineering partnered with Sikorsky on the Comanche, and with Bell on the Osprey. Forty five years have past since Boeing (actually Hughes) designed the Apache on their own.
If next month Boeing Vertol does not win the opportunity to design and build a FARA prototype aircraft, I don’t see their future as very promising.
Originally Posted by noneofyourbusiness
; The Army seems to want best product and value, so I would discount politics at the Army level.
Sadly, I believe that statement has never been less true.
Historical note: The selection of Bell over Kaman to build what was to become the UH-1 “Huey” was made by a political appointee with no relevant experience.
Historically I agree with you and DOD contracts, you just never know. The Army likes Sikorsky, but this time feels different. Maybe they are disillusioned with X2 technology. We shall see. Trump could sure use Pennsylvania this fall. This time, I don't see politics at the Army level, although it could occur at a higher level.
Last edited by noneofyourbusiness; 29th Feb 2020 at 12:39.
Politics in this sort of thing are largely emotional, good for here as a rumor. They also come into play on DOD budget appropriation discussions, and kill or don't kill a program. Politics don't mean much on downselect. For example on "Schedule", a company funded prototype schedule means far less than demonstrated performance on a funded program. Yes, that means Earned Value. You could research the GAO reports to determine actual programs and a thing called Schedule Performance Index. Risk Management Metrics are also reported, and can demonstrate quantitatively what a new technology risk looks like and a company's historical success at addressing them. Politics will no doubt challenge whatever result comes, but data will no doubt confirm the decisions.
Assessing risk for an X2 platform, as an example, different people will arrive at different answers. Don't pretend it is a science. Earned value tracks program status, basically tracks whether the program is ahead of, or behind schedule, and ahead of, or behind spending. The Secretary of Defense has overruled the desires of the services before, and politics will be a factor in contract awards, no matter how even handed the Army is. They will never say they gave Boeing a contract because they wish to carry Pennsylvania. They will say something like they want to preserve an industrial base, or they will say Boeing had the lowest risk, and so on.
Last edited by noneofyourbusiness; 3rd Mar 2020 at 00:11.
Thread Starter
Today isn't 1 April.
Wow. As shown that's.....not going to work.
The tail rotor looks low enough it is a safety hazard. Pusher prop close to the ground, if someone forgets to de-clutch, would be a hazard. No doubt it will perform well. I would choose the Bell design for the enclosed tail rotor, but who knows what DOD will fund. At this link, the picture shows the low tail and pusher prop, this will kill someone, at some point. Boeing: FARA
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenth.../#677116aa1143
This article discusses the politics of contract awards and cancellations this year, including cancelling Chinook.
This article discusses the politics of contract awards and cancellations this year, including cancelling Chinook.
https://www.nationaldefensemagazine....n-helo-concept
"One example is the main rotor system. That technology was first built and tested during the YUH-61 Vertol helicopter competition, he noted."
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_YUH-61
"While Sikorsky chose a fully articulated rotor head with elastomeric bearings, Boeing Vertol chose a rigid main rotor design, based upon technology supplied by MBB, which was partnered with Boeing Vertol at the time."
"One example is the main rotor system. That technology was first built and tested during the YUH-61 Vertol helicopter competition, he noted."
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_Vertol_YUH-61
"While Sikorsky chose a fully articulated rotor head with elastomeric bearings, Boeing Vertol chose a rigid main rotor design, based upon technology supplied by MBB, which was partnered with Boeing Vertol at the time."
Last edited by noneofyourbusiness; 4th Mar 2020 at 13:51.
@noyb
I am trying to see how a 48 year old rotor design is relevant to this conversation.
The state of the art for rotor head systems (hubs, blades, yokes, grips, etc) has advanced considerably since then.
As an aside: I hope that Chinook does not get cancelled. (There's a related article running about vis a vis the French considering Chinook for their heavy lift ...)
I am trying to see how a 48 year old rotor design is relevant to this conversation.
The state of the art for rotor head systems (hubs, blades, yokes, grips, etc) has advanced considerably since then.
As an aside: I hope that Chinook does not get cancelled. (There's a related article running about vis a vis the French considering Chinook for their heavy lift ...)
@Lonewolf, That at first appears to be a strange quote out of Boeing, but then I remember often the goal is to put the military customer at ease: This isn't new, (even if it is all new), therefore our proposal is low risk.
I hate to see the Chinook go, it has provided outstanding service to the Army in Afghanistan.
I hate to see the Chinook go, it has provided outstanding service to the Army in Afghanistan.
Three years to FARA First Flight
Hopefully the US Army realizes they are better off making this race a marathon versus a sprint, and add a year or two to the development schedule.
Especially since this competition is supposed to be for a near production aircraft
Especially since this competition is supposed to be for a near production aircraft
Last edited by CTR; 26th Mar 2020 at 16:39.
It didn't use to be this way. Take the F-14: RFP: 1968; Contract Award: 1969; First Flight: 1970;. IOC: 1973; First Deployment: 1974. The F-15 didn't take that much longer. Where have we gone wrong since then?
That's easy. Too many faces in the financial feeding trough.