Connecticut is a solidly blue state, so there is no political reason for the administration to put work there. Mark Esper is from the swing state of Pennsylvania. If Sikorsky does not win a contract, their future is not very bright, note their commercial sales suck. The Army seems to want best product and value, so I would discount politics at the Army level.

NOYB,

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.

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.

Boeing: FARA

(Checks calendar)

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.

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."

@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 ...)

@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.

Ah, got it, soap sales. :O

Any information out there re tip speeds for the Bell and Boeing FARA solutions?

Sikorsky and Bell selected for FARA next phase and fly off.

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

Things are not looking good for Boeing’s helicopter division.

FTFY

Bring on the bailouts.

OTOH, taking as long as we do drives up costs makes planning uncertain and puts programs in serious risk of cancellation. Aside from other fiefdoms vying for another program's money for their own, there's political reality. FARA is intended to around 2028. That's 10 years after FARA was initiated and 19 years after FVL began. That's three Presidential and five Congressional elections away from today. A lot of the champions of the program now won't be around when it's time to pay the bills, and taking too long opens the door for too much political theater. ("I pledge to stop this wasteful killing machine that's ripping food from the mouths of disadvantaged [insert subject of pandering here]"!).

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.