V-280 wins US ARMY FLRAA contract
V-280 wins US ARMY FLRAA contract
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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
The following 2 users liked this post by The Sultan:
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.
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.
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 .
The following 2 users liked this post by Commando Cody:
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Let’s say their performance on what was, supposedly, the less technologically challenging design didn’t inspire confidence.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry...d-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. 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, 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 on testing. Defiant eventually flew for the first time in March 2019.”…..
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
”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. 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, 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 on testing. Defiant eventually flew for the first time in March 2019.”…..
David beats Goliath. Actually 2 Goliaths
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.
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.
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.
Increased speed and range do not come for free. Higher speeds require more power and typically require more fuel. This is physics, not politics.
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.
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?)
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?)
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?)
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.
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.
Last edited by noneofyourbusiness; 6th Dec 2022 at 17:10.
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.
The following users liked this post:
