JayinKitsap wrote:

OK this is the FARA thread but there is no FLRAA thread. But today the Army did the down select to 2 - the Bell V-280 and the Boeing/ Sikorsky SB>1 are getting contracts to develop the design and bid for the final contract in around 2 years. All other bidders are out.

"Bell’s V-280 advanced tiltrotor and the SB>1 Defiant coaxial compound helicopter are now the two official contenders for the U.S. Army’s Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, or FLRAA."

https://www.verticalmag.com/news/bell-v ... selection/

The tilt-rotor and the compound advance here. I see where FLRAA, and FARA may actually split into getting 3 helo's instead of 2. The V-280 has lots of great capabilities, but the compounds have a great set of different capabilities. Could it become - the V-280, the Defiant or Raider as the compound choice, and the 3rd becomes the low risk conventional proposals of FARA.

texl1649 wrote:

And the answer is: Bell and Lockheed/Sikorsky!

https://twitter.com/fvlcft/status/12429 ... 77664?s=21

Congrats to both teams. I look forward to the next phase/flights.

Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin-owned company, and Bell have been selected to build and fly Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) prototypes for the U.S. Army in a head-to-head competition, according to a March 25 Army statement.

The Army is planning to procure both a FARA and Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) that will slowly replace the current fleet of Sikorsky-manufactured UH-60 Black Hawks utility helicopters and Boeing-made AH-64 Apache attack helicopters. The service plans to initially field both in the 2030s.

FARA will fill a critical capability gap currently being filled by AH-64E Apache attack helicopters teamed with Shadow unmanned aircraft following the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior helicopters.

The service has tried and failed three times to fill the gap with an aircraft.

...

Boeing also says the compound helicopter is not aimed at any specific future request from the service, but would be part of a modernisation effort of the existing AH-64 programme. Images of the rotorcraft were first previewed at a Vertical Flight Society conference in 2016 where the aircraft was described as a bridge between the current Apache fleet and the US Army's Future Vertical Lift replacement. Boeing now speaks of the compound rotorcraft as a longer-term solution for the service's attack aircraft needs.

texl1649 wrote:

Cynically, Boeing is probably considered as having enough reserves and a broad enough portfolio to take the pain of not winning FARA.

texl1649 wrote:

So, who wins what?

The simple answer is both Bell and Sikorsky win one each. My money is that the X2 technology looks very difficult to scale up for the SB>1, so I think the Bell V-280 will win the FLRAA contract having convinced the Army with mature tilt-rotor technology and a flight test programme which has met and exceeded every goal. It’s the low-risk option. For FARA, however, the manoeuvrability promised by the X2 technology, especially in an urban environment, and the relative success of the smaller scale prototypes such as the S-97, make me lean towards the Raider X – provided the US Army can swallow the increased risk.

It’ll be a couple of years before we know how cloudy my crystal ball is….”

The FARA Project Manager (PM) seeks information on potential mission systems to be integrated and qualified on the FARA aircraft during engineering and manufacturing development (EMD) with eventual transition to production and fielding. Information provided as part of this RFI will inform FARA risk reduction activities and near-term aircraft configuration decisions. As a follow-up to this RFI, the FARA and Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) Project Offices are planning a combined Industry Day event in Huntsville, AL in summer 2020. Details will be provided to all RFI participants at a later date.

FARA Mission Systems Domains

Sensors: Sensor systems and fused sensor systems capable of providing pilotage through a solid state staring array covering 360 degrees in degraded visual environments (DVE), day/night air and ground targeting at close, mid, and extended ranges to maximize target acquisition capabilities and support all munition types, low-light and wire/obstacle detection, radar detection, radar interferometry, weather detection, terrain avoidance, and situational awareness. Software that minimizes pilot workload through fusion of multiple sensor inputs and artificial intelligence to aid in pilot decision-making. All sensor data should be capable of internal transmission to pilot head-up displays and multiple cockpit displays and external transmission to other systems in the operational environment.

Communications: A multi-band and single band communications suite capable of providing line of sight and beyond light of sight communications in HF, VHF (AM/FM), UHF (AM/SATCOM), Link 16, advanced networking waveforms, Blue Force Tracking, workload-reduced manned/unmanned (MUM) teaming through Level of Interoperability (LOI) 5, identification/transponders, and internal communications. Aircraft Surveillance capable of Mode 5 Level 2 out/in, Mode 5 Level 2 Broadcast, Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast (ADS-B) In/out, and interrogation of air and ground threats. The FARA PM is interested in a comprehensive suite that minimizes weight, simplifies integration for future modifications/upgrades, and is fully integrated with and conformant to the aircraft open system architecture.

Navigation: Aircraft navigation sets capable of legacy and next generation civil navigation modes in VHF Nav/ILS, TACAN, Doppler, EGI with M-code encryption, and assured precision navigation and timing (A-PNT), and Digital Terrain Elevation Data (DTED) assisted visual-based solutions for aerial navigation in GPS denied environments and under Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The FARA PM is also interested in solutions and software applications that support supervised autonomy / optionally-manned flight.

Survivability: Aircraft Survivability Equipment to provide spherical coverage of the host platform in order to defeat the FARA threats. Aircraft survivability systems capable of detecting RF, IR, and laser threats. Missile warning systems capable of threat launch detection. Hostile fire systems capable of ballistic fire detection. Countermeasure systems capable of protecting against RF and IR threats. Electronic Warfare (EW) to include RF jamming systems. The FARA PM is interested in a comprehensive ASE suite that minimizes weight, can be fused with aircraft navigation and pilotage systems, and fully integrated with and conformant to the aircraft open architecture.

Infrastructure / Digital Backbone: Components, technologies and standards that support and complement the Government’s MOSA objective to enable rapid development, integration, and modification of mission systems and enhanced mission systems capabilities by qualified third-party integrators without air vehicle OEM involvement.

Data Fusion: Technology that enables fusion of multiple aircraft data inputs to support creation of a synthetic operating picture to improve mission effectiveness and reduce crew workload.

Pilot Interface: Heads up / helmet mounted displays that are high definition, color-capable, and night-vision device compatible. Cognitive decision aiding tools such as voice activation technology, 3D audio, and other cueing capabilities.

Effectors: Fully-integrated 20mm cannon with minimum 180 degree, desired 360 degree of azimuthal coverage and 60 degree elevation coverage.

texl1649 wrote:

So, who wins what?

The simple answer is both Bell and Sikorsky win one each. My money is that the X2 technology looks very difficult to scale up for the SB>1, so I think the Bell V-280 will win the FLRAA contract having convinced the Army with mature tilt-rotor technology and a flight test programme which has met and exceeded every goal. It’s the low-risk option. For FARA, however, the manoeuvrability promised by the X2 technology, especially in an urban environment, and the relative success of the smaller scale prototypes such as the S-97, make me lean towards the Raider X – provided the US Army can swallow the increased risk.

It’ll be a couple of years before we know how cloudy my crystal ball is….”

For the US Army, speed means advantage, so it has set demanding targets for its planned Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). With a cruise speed of at least 180kt (333km/h), the aircraft that will replace the Bell OH-58 Kiowa Warrior as its scouting and light attack rotorcraft is to be designed, built, tested, flown and fielded to its first unit by 2028.

...

Adding FARA to its fleet is the US Army’s number one aviation priority.

...

“When the aircraft is in the fleet or in the field, if it becomes a big resources drain that impacts everything else [negatively],” says Frank Lazzara, Bell’s director of advanced vertical lift systems sales and strategy. “We did not go after a complex propulsor because of the complexity and weight. With weight usually comes cost.” Bell also points out that it went with a four-bladed main rotor to reduce complexity. And, the company says its main rotor will be made of conventional materials, making it easier to manufacture.

“The retreating blade stall that any kind of single main rotor aircraft is going to have, you don’t have with this aircraft,” says Jay Macklin

...

Sikorsky also notes that its side-by-side cockpit makes for a wider aircraft body which can hold additional munitions, fuel or soldiers, should the army want to make use of the extra capacity in the future. “While that wasn’t an explicit request or requirement on the army’s part, you can imagine as they evolve their tactics, techniques and procedures, and try to find new ways to use the asset, that could certainly be a warfighter enhancement,” says Macklin.

Bell will start building its 360 Invictus helicopter this week. The company is developing the 360 Invictus for the US Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft-Competitive Prototype (FARA-CP) programme, according to a company official.

Chris Gehler, Bell FARA vice president and programme director, told Janes on 8 October ahead of the Association of the United States Army (AUSA) annual trade show that Bell has already begun building gearboxes, rotor pieces, and airframe structure for the 360 Invictus. Bell is about to begin building the rotor blades for the aircraft and has already started manufacturing main rotor blade extensions. The company, he said, has already built blades that it used to performed process verification and destructive testing.

...

kitplane01 wrote:

Writing about the attack helicopter...

An AH-64 costs $50M. It's replacement is going to cost much more, and be much faster. A Super Tuscano is even faster still, and cost something like $20M. But the Army is not allowed to buy fixed winged aircraft any more.

Suppose the Army was allowed to buy fixed winged aircraft. Would they prefer 3 Super Tuscanos over one FLRAA?

mxaxai wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Writing about the attack helicopter...

An AH-64 costs $50M. It's replacement is going to cost much more, and be much faster. A Super Tuscano is even faster still, and cost something like $20M. But the Army is not allowed to buy fixed winged aircraft any more.

Suppose the Army was allowed to buy fixed winged aircraft. Would they prefer 3 Super Tuscanos over one FLRAA?

Fixed wing aircraft don't usually have hover or VTOL capabilities. That makes helicopters much more adaptable to any situation. For example, you can hide behind a hill, pop up, do something, and hide again. You can maneuver in close vicinity to buildings and trees. You can stay focused on a target for a long time without interruptions. You can easily escort transport helos and secure the landing site.

The army will not retire the attack helicopter.

texl1649 wrote:

The Army doesn’t have nor has it requested the ability to operate fixed wing aircraft since the agreement with USAF in 1966.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson-M ... nt_of_1966

It’s the Tucano, no “S” required (it’s not named for Tuscany), in the Super Tucano nomenclature. SOCOM is a joint command (meaning both USAF/USA), and plausibly (as has been requested) could operate both a future FARA winner and the Super Tucano (A-29).

RJMAZ wrote:

In summary we have two programs. With two contenders left in each.

FARA - Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft.
Light weight, single engine, two seat attack helicopter.
Bell 360 Invictus - conventional design with wing.
Sikorsky Raider X - coaxial with pusher prop.

FLRAA - Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft.
Medium weight twin engine transport helicopter.
Bell V-280 Valor - tilt rotor
Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant - coaxial with pusher prop.

Each design has their own advantages. It will be a tough job picking only two.

Last year the General Electric T901 was also selected as the winner of the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP) and will power these new helicopters.

Bell V-280 Valor
This tilt rotor is faster and has significantly longer range than the others but it is significantly heavier and needs engines bigger than the GE T901 to achieve the VTOL payload requirement. It is really in a class above its competitor when you do a rolling takeoff you can fly 2-3 times as far with the same payload.

Sikorsky–Boeing SB-1 Defiant
This compound helicopter is slower and has less range than the V-280. Using the GE T901 is a big advantage. Agility will be much higher than the tilt rotor competitor.

Bell 360 Invictus
The most conventional and slowest design. We assume it will be the cheapest but we now know the assembly process and parts count plays a bigger part to the total cost.

Sikorsky Raider X
This compound helicopter with pusher prop is faster than the Bell 360. The biggest advantage is the side by side seating design. This will make it easy to convert this to a 8 seat transport in the future. This design is basically a 20% scaled up S-97 Raider which was a 6 seat light transport.

I expect the Bell V-280 and Sikorsky Raider X to win.

The V-280 extreme range is a game changer will actually have a big impact on the JMR-Heavy competition which is yet to come. The heavy and ultra lift requirement could be merged into a single design as a result.

Sikorsky Raider X can easily have the fold out weapon bays swapped out for a 8 seat passenger cabin like the S-97. Both types would have very high commonality. It might not be able to carry as much max payload as a blackhawk but the increased efficiency means it could probably carry 8 troops further than 8 troops in a blackhawk.

kitplane01 wrote:

Love the summary.

Isn't side-by-side seating bad for an attack helicopter. That was done for things like the Gazelle, but modern attack helicopters (AH-1, AH064, Tiger, etc) are never side-by-side. Too large a profile, to big a target

kitplane01 wrote:

I understand one might make the Raider X into something like a Mil-25 with a cabin in the back, but that's nothing like the Army's current usage. Would they really want that especially if it came at a cost of having a larger helicopter than needed for the attack mission?

RJMAZ wrote:

Sikorsky Raider X can easily have the fold out weapon bays swapped out for a 8 seat passenger cabin like the S-97.

RJMAZ wrote:

The main advantage to tandem seating is both crew have a 270 degree view for improved situational awareness.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Love the summary.

Isn't side-by-side seating bad for an attack helicopter. That was done for things like the Gazelle, but modern attack helicopters (AH-1, AH064, Tiger, etc) are never side-by-side. Too large a profile, to big a target

Thanks.

I think in terms of target size there is not much difference. Tandem seating like the Apache has a longer nose and a larger side profile but a smaller frontal profile.

The main advantage to tandem seating is both crew have a 270 degree view for improved situational awareness. However since the 2003 attack on Karbala attack helicopter tactics involve high speed and no hovering. When traveling at speed all the targets will be in the forward hemisphere so side by side seating might actually be preferable.

kitplane01 wrote:

I understand one might make the Raider X into something like a Mil-25 with a cabin in the back, but that's nothing like the Army's current usage. Would they really want that especially if it came at a cost of having a larger helicopter than needed for the attack mission?

The F-35 replaced multiple aircraft types. The Future Vertical Lift program will also replace multiple types with fewer more versatile types.

The Raider X clearly has the internal weapon bay doors located where the passenger doors are located on the original S-97 Raider. The Huey still needs a replacement and a single engine utility aircraft would eventually be needed. An 8 seat Raider X would be perfect.

The V-280 makes a poor replacement for the Blackhawk in some roles. The 8 seater Raider X would become crucial to fill in this capability gap where high agility and extreme low level flight is required.

The V-280 in my opinion must be selected at any cost even if that means a smaller 6-8 seat helicopter has to be purchased. The V-280 will allow for the entire supply chain during a war to be moved further from the front line. The cost savings and lives saved would be huge. Forward operating bases can then be located in areas that are safer or closer to major airports to reduce tactical fixed wing airlift.

bikerthai wrote:

Another advantage of tandem seating is the smaller frontal area let you squeeze a few extra knots.

texl1649 wrote:

Still, Bell has also shown some alternative/possible future variants too;

https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bel ... -in-works/

bikerthai wrote:

RJMAZ wrote:

Sikorsky Raider X can easily have the fold out weapon bays swapped out for a 8 seat passenger cabin like the S-97.

This reminded me of a book I read called "Chicken Hawk". It was about a Viet Nam war Huey pilot. He was on the heavy size so he was relegated to fly troop Huey instead if gun ship Huey. They wanted the extra weight to cary more amo.

Today's birds will have better efficiency and more powerful engines, but the need to carry more amo or fuel will still be preferred, so you'll want to optimize for one or the other and not try do both with the same frame, if you have the option.

bt

RJMAZ wrote:

It seems the opposite based on real world speeds. At a guess the wider fuselage might provide some body lift.

Max Q wrote:

, have you read the sequel?

For the first time, Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin subsidiary, flew its Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft prototype in two demonstrations this week for service leaders and soldiers at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama.

In demonstrations Tuesday and Thursday, the S-97 Raider, which is based on the company's X2 coaxial-rotor technology, flew high-speed passes, hovered and showed off its maneuverability, according to a Lockheed Martin news release.

Sikorsky's S-97 is competing against Bell Textron Inc.'s 360 Invictus single-rotor prototype helicopter for the Army's FARA program, designed to fill a capability gap left by the retirement of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior scout helicopters. FARA is the Army's top priority in the Future Vertical Lift, or FVL, effort, which modernization officials see as a critical tool for penetrating enemy air defense networks.

JayinKitsap wrote:

An interesting article written by a former V-22 test pilot, he strongly is for the Defiant X. A huge issue is the time to train on a tilt rotor. Learn the helicopter phase, then learn the plane phase, and finally train for tilt rotor operation. The Defiant X training is basically for the helicopter phase. Also brings up the difference in footprint between the two.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/fvl ... ells-army/

The service has been undergoing a competitive demonstration and risk deduction phase with the companies, Phillips said during a media roundtable with reporters. In late March, the Army awarded phase 2 contracts to both teams for the competitive demonstration and risk reduction phase.

Sikorsky-Boeing is offering its Defiant X platform and Bell is offering its V-280 Valor aircraft.

The Army is working to accelerate the FLRAA program, Phillips said.

“We looked at the schedule we're on — which we knew was aggressive — … [and] wanted to move some of that design work to the left,” he said. “We want to do that in a competitive environment … [and] optimize those designs going forward before we award our contract next summer" in 2022.

Requirements for the program were informed by a precursor effort known as the joint multi-role technology demonstrator, which both Bell and Sikorsky-Boeing participated in.

Following the selection of a vendor next year, the Army will launch directly into the engineering and manufacturing development phase of the program, Phillips said.

“We're maintaining … the momentum of the program, the digital engineering environment, the model-based systems engineering,” he said. “We're getting to realize those efficiencies in real time.”

Phillips said the final RFP will not likely have any major changes relative to the draft RFP.

JayinKitsap wrote:

An interesting article written by a former V-22 test pilot, he strongly is for the Defiant X. A huge issue is the time to train on a tilt rotor. Learn the helicopter phase, then learn the plane phase, and finally train for tilt rotor operation. The Defiant X training is basically for the helicopter phase. Also brings up the difference in footprint between the two.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/fvl ... ells-army/

Daetrin wrote:

JayinKitsap wrote:

An interesting article written by a former V-22 test pilot, he strongly is for the Defiant X. A huge issue is the time to train on a tilt rotor. Learn the helicopter phase, then learn the plane phase, and finally train for tilt rotor operation. The Defiant X training is basically for the helicopter phase. Also brings up the difference in footprint between the two.

https://breakingdefense.com/2021/04/fvl ... ells-army/

Hanger space is non-trivial. It's not just all those active duty units but there are a lot of National Guard units that would also have to have hanger space modified too, and not all of them easily. Being able to use the same footprint as the Blackhawk is certainly a factor that some may gloss over. I'm also thinking of how much the blade hours are for each. Not sure how it is today, but at least when I was in the ARNG that was a big factor in flight time.

Not saying it's as motivating as the other factors mentioned, but is part of the calculations.

Some have questioned the larger footprint of the V-280 compared to traditional helicopters like the Black Hawk and how it could adversely impact certain mission sets. What's Bell's view on this?

"The V-280 has a slightly larger footprint than the UH-60. However, you get speeds and ranges to fight against near-peer threats with unprecedented operational productivity. You can’t win the fight unless you’re in the fight. As an example, if you put 10 UH-60s on a soccer field for an air assault, you can put 10 V-280s in that same field, but you could execute missions with twice the speed and twice the range."

The service is on a path to procure two new vertical lift aircraft by 2030, pursuing a future attack reconnaissance aircraft, or FARA, in addition to FLRAA. Bell and Sikorsky are competing against one another in the FARA competition, and each is building an aircraft for a first flight in fiscal 2022.

Although Bell’s first V-280 technology demonstrator is retiring, the technology and lessons learned from the first aircraft will live on in the company’s solution that will be submitted for the FLRAA competition.

Over the demonstration and risk-reduction phase, the V-280 flew more than 214 hours and showed off low-speed agility and long-range cruise capabilities, and reached a maximum 305-knot cruising speed. The Army’s threshold requirement is expected to be in the 230- to 250-knot range for the FLRAA program of record.

The Bell 360 Invictus, our FARA candidate, is based on the Bell 525 Relentless. We pulled a lot of lessons learned out of the advanced technology of the 525. It is on track to be the first fly-by-wire commercial helicopter and has an optimally designed main rotor and drive system informed by more than 1,900 hours of flight time.

The bottom line: when you achieve the agility, speed, range, and endurance, and you need the ability to sustain an aircraft over an extended maintenance-free operating period in an austere environment, the coaxial aircraft is just not optimized for that life-cycle affordability consideration.

One of the words that keeps coming up to me is ‘efficiency.’ One of the reasons that we have a lot of confidence in the reliability of our aircraft is the reduced complexity and higher efficiency that you get from the engineering that we’ve put into both the V-280 Valor and the Bell 360 Invictus. Reduced complexity in the aircraft matters over its lifecycle in terms of sustainability, supporting readiness goals, and meeting cost targets.

The high-maintenance and cost drivers on rotorcraft are drive systems, rotor blades (the V-280 is a 6-blade design), and flight-control software. You want to be able to control and manage those high-maintenance drivers, and at Bell we retain that work in-house. Ultimately, we are responsible for the quality of our delivered weapon system. We manage other components of the aircraft through premier supplier relationships, but those key dynamic systems stay with us. We keep that core competency in-house at Bell because we want to be able to ensure that we are being responsive and meeting customer needs for readiness and costs typically driven by rotorcraft dynamic components.

RJMAZ wrote:

The V-280 is now getting more powerful Osprey engines. I think the MTOW of the design will be much higher than is currently listed. The V-280 being three quarters of the size of the V-22 and having no wing folding mechanism should allow it to have excellent range while taking off vertical.

https://www.defenseone.com/business/202 ... st/185953/

IADFCO wrote:

For what is publicly known, footprint, downwash, and maneuverability were and still are IMHO the weak points (Defiant's the transmission/gearbox complexity). It will be interesting to see real world data.

SeamanBeaumont wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

For what is publicly known, footprint, downwash, and maneuverability were and still are IMHO the weak points (Defiant's the transmission/gearbox complexity). It will be interesting to see real world data.

Technical capabilities aside the tiltrotor takes nearly twice as long to train pilots as a coaxial. That will play as important a role as technical merit.