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.

well it's great news for everybody not paying the bill !!

With Sikorsky and Boeing's track record on recent programs the Bell offering was probably 1/2 the cost of their proposal.

Congratulation Team Valor!

Here is the official skinny from Bell

https://news.bellflight.com/en-US/22...OhFxz7NKbvHjUg

cheers

Well done Bell! Sikorsky screwed the pooch on this one and Bell was ahead all the way.

​​​​​​

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.

That and their concept actually worked as advertised

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 .

So US ground forces will move at 280 knots cruise soon. How fast will the Europeans be? 140?

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.”…..

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 main rotor hub drag of Defiant means you could fly it fast or far, but not both. This will also play out in FARA.

Talking to the team about the Bell/Boeing V-22, the V-280 is what happens when you leave it just to Bell...

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.

Based on your logic the UH-60 should have never replaced the H-1. In fact, no advancement in aviation would ever take place.

Increased speed and range do not come for free. Higher speeds require more power and typically require more fuel. This is physics, not politics.

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.

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 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?)

The true Sikorsky types had been battling loss of momentum long before X2. X2 was a triumph in that we pulled it off with little management support. Back at the turn of the millennium we were stricken with a series of presidents/VPs from Lockheed, P&W, Boeing, and Bell. They all wanted to fix what was broken at Sikorsky. Besides X2, 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. 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.

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.

Do you include Borgman in that group? I can PM you if this discussion is getting too sensitive?
Without those two wars spinning up, I wonder at how that might have otherwise played out. :uhoh:
Thanks, that's what I had heard, and I think I had read a post from you a (long) while back covering that bit. :ok:

As ever , I know little of this but I have some questions:
How much is the V-280 compared to a Blackhawk?
How many Blackhawks do the US Army have & do they plan to replace them 1 for 1 with the V-280?
If the V-280’s a great deal more $$$ per airframe , is there a chance of reluctance to risk them in real hot zones?
How are spares costs & will a new piece of kit cost WAY more to maintain?
Are the Army going to lose any of their present capability?
Logic dictates that if the new kit’s way more costly , they’ll buy fewer aircraft...
Is there a danger that ‘traditional’ helicopters will be seen as unsuitable for future roles as they’re not as ‘all singing & dancing’ as the V-280?
It’s apparently great but I think costs will have a great part to play.

With thousands of Black Hawks, the Army will have a mixed fleet for many years. The Army budget is tight. Possibly, FARA is sacrificed to fund Valor. So some high low mix will be the actuality, for many years to come. There will be no new orders for Black Hawk after the last multi year contract that was awarded.

Several other interesting considerations/observations I was thinking about:

logistically, parking pads at all US Army facilities will need modifications from 50 foot box to maybe 100 foot(?) to accommodate the nearly 81 foot width of Valor.

Currently the UH-60 Aircrew Training Manual has minimum crew of 2 pilots, would assume they would change to minimum crew of 3 with a Flight Engineer like CH-47? Would pilots qualify fixed wing first then transition to the Valor airframe?

The doctrine changes for the usage of the aircraft will be interesting as well, and with increased speed comes time compression when completing critical tasks.

A lot of learning to be done. Sure DES is salivating at the opportunity to reinvent all these wheels.

FltMech

V-280: costs way more to buy & run than a Blackhawk , needs more crew , can’t get into the space that a Blackhawk can , but it flies faster.
Forgive me folks , I can’t see anything but mainly DISadvantages.

Given the volume likely to be needed, was there not a very strong argument for splitting this order between the two contenders? Best of both worlds?

Anybody know if they plan to arm the 280 now that they have sliding doors again? Or will the new 60W Jolly Green II handle all the CSAR?

No, as there was nothing the Defiant was best at. It was significantly slower, had a laughably short range, might tear itself apart during aggressive maneuvering, and probably cost significantly more.

We all know you don't like anything that isn't a Bell. All the videos of V-22 Osprey we have seen so far show them doing slooooooow approaches to LZ. Is Valor going to be different? How that sedate rate is going to work at dynamic battlefield? Yeah, Valor will be great at covering distances, but if it can't do helicopter stuff when it's needed, we might as well use the airplanes. After all, they are faster than V-280.

It meets the contract specification, which the Blackhawk doesn’t?

If you have an argument with the spec go back a decade or so and argue with those that wrote it….

Osprey had the rotor diameter limited by the Navy to fit on a carrier. Valor has no such restriction. Valor has a much nicer rotor diameter to aircraft weight ratio. A true hot rod.

A couple of questions come to mind, if you went to war again in, say as an example the Middle East.
How would you transport it, will it fit on a carriers lift and below decks? and bearing in mind the ability to fold the rotors and haul the likes of the Blackhawk into theater in a relatively short period of time if needed as C17 cargo.
How on earth would the Army move these half way across the world, will they fit in a roll on roll off?
I take it this was looked at, but just curious as it does seem to have disadvantages on transportation and time constraints over a conventional helicopter.

I have read they were looking at a modified version for naval use so it obviously has flaws as a carrier born asset.

.

That is a damm good question but surely something that would have been considered throughout the process?

Yeah, like military minds never had an uh-oh moment before

I would not use the word flaws. Carrier based has special requirements. The Army won't pay for navalized special features. Just like there is a Sikorsky Black Hawk and a Sikorsky Seahawk. A sea modified Valor wold fit on a carrier just as the Osprey does. Bell can readily supply a Marine Corps version. Valor was not designed to fit in a C-17, but blade fold and wing stow can be added if other services want this. Osprey has blade fold and wing stow.

From an article in 2018, head of Bell's tilt rotor division, "The V-280 is designed to be a multi-service, multi-mission aircraft capable of meeting shipboard compatibility requirements." Article also mentions the Valor can self-deploy around the world.

so that is a no then.

Which I take it is a major mod in adding a wing stowage capability which will increase weight and reduce lift capability? So transporting them on a carrier would be as deck cargo unless they would fit inside a RoRo or having them fly half way across the world..

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...trotor-systems

Bar that it looks good and you do need to advance in design.

​​​​​​…

Range + Speed = Self Deploy = V-280
 

With the V-280 speed and range, why would you disassemble it, haul it piece by piece into a C-17, and then reassemble it? Like the V-22 tilt rotor the V-280 can self deployed to its destination any where in the world with ferry tanks and inflight refueling. And unlike conventional helicopters (or the Defiant), the V-280 risk of a rotor chopping off the refuel drogue, or its own refuel probe is far less. A cruise speed closer matching the refuel aircraft is also a big advantage.

Remember a primary goal of FLRAA is to give the US Army independence from the Air Force and Navy to deploy its aircraft.

Note, to get the Defiant into a C-17 for transport, the main rotor gearbox needs to be removed. Not a minor task. Not to mention having the hoist required to reassemble the aircraft, unless you plan to haul it in the C-17.

There are several spec sheets out there that state it was designed as self-deployable with a deploy range of approx. 2000nm on aux fuel. There are other notes that production models will have inflight refuel capability.

That’s ok if you have permission for overflights I suppose and is weather permitting.

How cool are the fire bases going to look in 2050.