Boeing FARA
 

Boeing is going to reveal their entry to Future Attack Recon Aircraft

https://www.boeing.com/defense/FARA/...efense#/videos

cheers

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....c28f53b221.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f54dcb2fe3.jpg

I see a six bladed head.
I see (I think) a tail rotor.
I see (I think) one engine.
I see the kind of open/fold internal-to-external weapons stations that were on Comanche.
I wonder: is this machine being made by Boeing Philly or Boeing Mesa?
Lastly: I wonder if they'll take the leap to LHX and build a single pilot (at last) scout helicopter.

Or Bell. Looks like the Invictus.

+Four Blade Pusher Propeller
 

Latest Boeing FARA video on same site now shows a 4 blade pusher propeller, like the Lockheed Cheyenne. But no wing.....

For CTR:
I finally looked at all of the videos, and yeah, I see what you are talking about.

For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA, or are you just foaming at the mouth again?

Slats in the Beanie?

LW wrote:

For Sultan:
What are you talking about?
Are you telling us that Bell and Boeing are in partnership on FARA[/QUOTE]

No. My comment was obviously referring to the fact that it is nearly identical to the Bell offering unveiled 5 or so months ago. Try to keep up.

You will note that I commented on the Invictus thread shortly after it was posted (and I like it).
Your incoherece is at least consistent.
Iif you bother to look at all of the concept art provided in detail: no, not identical.
This one's concept art also has a pusher prop. (I'd like to see the final thing IRL ... sounds like a complicated beast)
It is not unlikely that differing designs would have a number of similarities, given that they are aiming to meet the same requirements document.
(And Boeing likely still has the files on all of that Comanche development ...)

Bell and Boeing’s FARA Offerings Nearly Identical?
 

Sultan,

Take a close look again at the Boeing offering for FARA. You may also wish to edit your response to LF.

Boeing has six main rotor blades to Bell’s four.

Boeing has what appears to be a rigid rotor compared to Bell’s articulated rotor

Boeing has an open anti-torque tail rotor while Bell has a ducted fan.

Most significantly, Boeing has a pusher propeller, while Bell has a wing for high speed flight.

Yes they both have tandem seating and internal weapons carriage on the sides. But so did the Comanche.

Seems like the Army has a broad spectrum of configurations to pick from.

I'm surprised nobody has pointed out how ridiculous it would seem for Boeing to expect to achieve 180 kt cruise with a tall, open, unfaired hub and controls hanging out in the breeze as shown.

Similarly, both the mast diameter and blade roots look extremely paltry for a rigid rotor.

Aside from having a pusher prop and a tail rotor, the rest of what is shown probably deliberately disguises details of the design. Partly to keep competitors from taking shots at the design, partly to keep proprietary design hidden as long as possible.

Here's an enhanced picture from the video also on Jackonicko's post on the Military Aviation Forum which gives a better view of the tail configuration.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....067db52ace.png





I wonder if Sikorsky has checked to see if anyone stole any of their Black Hawk tail booms...

Yeah, the image could be a simplistic cartoon, but I wouldn't make the assumption it has a "rigid" rotor. Lack of a fairing around the swash plate at least is a little odd. The illustrated payload is on the low end of the spec range. I wonder if that's accurate and the've sized the aircraft accordingly, or if they're still hiding a bigger punch. Reports are in, not much point in hiding at this point.

The Hidden Cards
 

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.

I could see Boeing being selected for the reason above and their focus on relative simplicity compared to the coaxial aircraft, and Bell selected based on low risk and demonstrated ability to perform on schedule. Since the two aircraft are taking pieces of the AH-56 arrangement, flying them against each other has complementary knowledge gained for the Army: which is worth the pain of integrating, the wing and increased download or a prop and its increased complexity?

Agreed, that was my point. CTR above put a rigid rotor on the list of Boeing FARA features. I don't see it.

Except the Cheyenne had a significant size lift offset wing, which the Boeing design clearly does not.

Simply adding thrust power with a pusher prop to an articulated rotor would only be useful if you could keep MR tip speeds manageable, which would be rather tricky without a wing to provide lift at a necessarily slower Nr.

The low quality cartoons also don't lend much confidence to the design maturity. If you're not going to show something robust and marketable, why show anything at all.

Keep in mind that Boeing has, IIRC, never put a helicopter of their own design into production. The CH-46/47 were designed by Vertol, which was a separate company and were inherited when Boeing bought the company (as with H-6 and AH-64). AFAIK, the only helicopters of their own design that even flew were the three YUH-61 prototypes and one Model 179 (civilian derivative).

Part of the thing to keep in mind is that Army's requirements for FARA, including speed, are lower than for FLRAA,. In fact, the speed requirement is lower than that for Cheyenne. Cruise is only required to be 180 knots with faster speeds ~ 200 knots in a "dash". Not sure how much extra credit Army is giving for exceeding threshold and objective. So they're all looking at how much extra performance will be worth in the competition. Bell clearly thinks that the Army is not going to be willing to pay that much for over and above performance so they're going for lower cost/risk. Boeing looks like they feel Army may be willing to pay somewhat more but not a lot more.

Regarding the low quality cartoons, this is just a tease to pique interest. They used to do this when the new car models came out. You see this in movie trailers all the time. In the trailers for the 2014 Godzilla movie (which was actually pretty good) you got flashes of, or saw parts of, but there was never a good shot of Godzilla himself. Boeing says they'll reveal all in March.

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.