Not much has been happening, but the Lockheed-Boeing bid is flying well, I guess.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/01/sik ... n-profile/

texl1649 wrote:

Not much has been happening, but the Lockheed-Boeing bid is flying well, I guess.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/01/sik ... n-profile/

Another article with an interesting video:
https://verticalmag.com/press-releases/defiant-executes-flraa-mission-profile/

The downwash from that rotor looks like a weapon all of its own...

BTW, the title of this thread should probably be extended to "FARA/FLRAA" (the links are to FLRAA, it's easy to confuse the two)

FARA and SB-1 news

Sikorsky - Boeing just completed single engine tests, the 'slalom' run, and transporting a 3,400# sling load at 100 kt. It's a highly accurate, nimble craft.

https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 03.article

Separately, the FARA entrants are getting close to first flights.

Thx Jay, yes it is exciting to see these aircraft advancing. Maybe a moderator could edit the title to reflect this being FARA and FLRAA program updates/milestones. I think at one point we had separate threads but I can’t find it now for FLRAA.

https://www.vintageaircraftgroup.org/be ... -complete/



Interesting that Bell might shift production of some legacy military helo’s (I assume AH-1Z) abroad if they do win one of these. If the army chooses the V-280 it will be a big ramp up/line I guess out in Amarillo. I thought we anticipated a selection toward March of this year, but haven’t seen any formal updates/timelines in 2022.

https://www.flightglobal.com/dubai-2021 ... 96.article

Rumors of FARA cancellation; good article though I think this author has been a Sikorsky/Defiant writer previously.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 19778.html

“ Scott Trail is a retired Marine CH-46E helicopter pilot, V-22 developmental test pilot, and a member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots. He served as a Secretary of Defense Corporate Fellow at Sikorsky from 2014-2015, but has never received any compensation from that company, Boeing, or Bell.”

Previously he certainly has speculated that the Sikorsky will be much cheaper in life cycle/training costs, though I think his bias is clear:

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

Lockheed to me has never been a ‘low cost’ prime contractor in modern times, but I admit I am biased.

The GE T901 (ITEP) engine fired up last month for the first time, and they sound confident of being ready to mate it to an aircraft (FARA) in November.

https://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org ... pward-ramp

“I’m very confident that November is the bottom line and confident in GE and those suppliers despite the challenges,” he told National Defense.

The Army initially expected the engine — known as the Improved Turbine Engine Program — to be set for takeoff in the spring of 2021. Both competitors for FARA told reporters during the Army Aviation Association of America summit in April that their prototypes are mostly finished and waiting for the engine integration.

While the engine program suffered the same supply chain issues that rocked the rest of the defense industry, advances in additive manufacturing and digital design alleviated the worst of it, according to GE executives.

“There are things that we can print into that additively manufactured part that we could not do any other way, and so it dramatically opens the design space,” said Michael Sousa, GE’s product development manager for turboshaft engines.

While the parts for 80 percent of the engine’s components are ready, some are taking longer. The engine’s front frame — which is being additively manufactured — is the “pacing” part, Kuykendall said.

Bell V-280 Valor selected for FLRAA (not FARA), i.e., the Black Hawk replacement. Not the full production selection, but clearly a major accomplishment for Bell.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/bells-valor-wins-armys-future-long-range-assault-aircraft-competition-to-replace-black-hawk/

Most people in the industry knew the V-280 had an easy win for the last couple years. If it needed to be a legitimate competition it really needed two tilt rotors against eachother. FLRAA stands for Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft. The name says long range yet one of the two competitors has more than double the range...

My opinion is that the only reason the SB-1 Defiant had two OEMs is because they knew from the start it is a losing bid. So there would be a bit of research and development knowledge exchange going on.

In summary from what I posted 2 years ago.

RJMAZ wrote:

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.

Now the Sikorsky Raider X win should be announced soon as the engines are ready. Bell can't win both, not that the Bell 360 had a chance of winning. The Bell 360 has approximately 75% of the speed and range of the Raider X. The Bell 360 also has no ability to be adapted into a troop transport.

Congrats indeed to the Bell team. Now, I did always expect this to be a split award between FARA/FLRAA but this was the way I wanted the Fara to go first and foremost. I am convinced it is just a more sound/simple solution than the somewhat ungainly Lockheed. Will see how FARA is decided in 6 months?

IADFCO wrote:

Bell V-280 Valor selected for FLRAA (not FARA), i.e., the Black Hawk replacement. Not the full production selection, but clearly a major accomplishment for Bell.

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/bells-valor-wins-armys-future-long-range-assault-aircraft-competition-to-replace-black-hawk/

From the article...

In a subsequent call with reporters, several Army officials provided additional details about the new contract. In total, they said, this current deal is worth up to $1.3 billion with the initial obligation valued at $232 million over the next 19 months.

Major General Robert Barrie, the Army’s Program Executive Officer for Aviation, said the initial dollar figure will allow Bell to continue onward with the preliminary design of the aircraft and deliver “virtual prototypes of a potentially model-based system.”

“There are zero aircraft being procured in the initial portion,” the two-star general said. If the aircraft moves into production, though, the program could soar up to $70 billion over its lifetime.

What is a virtual prototype vs what has already been flown? What is the award really for?

The design isn't finalised.

The prototype V-280 flew with the GE T64. The production version will use engines from the Osprey with nearly 50% more thrust. I assume the Osprey engines being decades newer are similar size and weight and the extra power is an added bonus.

Sikorsky/Lockheed are protesting the preliminary FLRAA award.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/s ... ent-choice

aumaverick wrote:

What is a virtual prototype vs what has already been flown? What is the award really for?

There could be a number of differences.

The prototype flown could be made from less expensive materials and are designed just to last through the development stages (plus some margine). Hardly any fatigue life.

Once contract is awarded, they would proceed with final detail design to include final material selection to last the full life cycle of the frame. This derailed design would be fully digital and that digital model will be analyzed and "flown" in virtual space before the first full up flight test frames are assembled.

For example, the X-32 wing ribs and spars were aluminum while the final F-32 wing rib and spars would have been titanium.

bt

Avatar2go wrote:

Sikorsky/Lockheed are protesting the preliminary FLRAA award.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/s ... ent-choice

This is not what I expected. In my opinion Lockheed/Sikorsky has the clear winner for the smaller FARA helicopter. I would only expect this behavior from Lockheed if they thought the smaller FARA helicopter program might be cancelled.

It would not surprise me if the US Army is getting cold feet with with the smaller FARA helicopter. This size has a very bad history. RAH-66 Comanche cancelled in 2004. Bell ARH-70 Arapaho cancelled in 2008. Then the purchased the UH-72 Lakota.

If I had my way the US Army would have 3 helicopters.

1) Light helicopter. UH-72 Lakota - 3,500kg MTOW - Very cheap light utility helicopter.

2) Light tilt rotor. Bell/Agusta BA609 - 7,500kg MTOW - add some side weapons bays and armor around the sensitive spots. Long range scout and Apache replacement.

3) Medium tilt rotor. Bell V-280 - 15,000kg MTOW - Blackhawk replacement with 3 times the range.

4) Heavy tilt rotor. 40,000kg MTOW - Two 10,000kw engines - Chinook replacement with 3 times the range.

The V-280 was not really a prototype, but a developmental proof of concept vehicle, I believe.

It used for instance an entirely unrelated engine (as did the Sikorsky) with something like a third less power. The composite fuselage was materially significant (from Spirit, btw, I believe), as were the flight control systems/total weight of the vehicle, but to get to a milspec aircraft/components means a lot of changes will flow into future actual prototypes (including ballistic protection, various software bits not needed such as communications/radios etc. from the V-280).

bikerthai wrote:

aumaverick wrote:

What is a virtual prototype vs what has already been flown? What is the award really for?

There could be a number of differences.

The prototype flown could be made from less expensive materials and are designed just to last through the development stages (plus some margine). Hardly any fatigue life.

Once contract is awarded, they would proceed with final detail design to include final material selection to last the full life cycle of the frame. This derailed design would be fully digital and that digital model will be analyzed and "flown" in virtual space before the first full up flight test frames are assembled.

For example, the X-32 wing ribs and spars were aluminum while the final F-32 wing rib and spars would have been titanium.

bt

Thanks for the clarification, and excellent summary. With changes to the design and production of aircraft going digital, it makes sense the initial contract would fund the final digital design and manufacturing of the mil-spec aircraft before a full-rate contract is awarded.

aumaverick wrote:

it makes sense the initial contract would fund the final digital design and manufacturing of the mil-spec aircraft before a full-rate contract is awarded.

This is typical business practice. Sometimes company will spend their own money to do conceptual layout and pre plan in anticipate for the final decision. But rarely would they risk detail design until a contract is signed.

They would pre-hire managers and set up potential pools of engineers for the project. However they would not risk pre-hire or pre-design the product until the decision is made.

Now that the decision is made, the winner could then bring into their organization all the engineers to start on the final design. It will take time to bring in all the bodies and spool up the organization. So the contract challenge from the losing company could actually help the winner have a more stable ramp up as opposed to full speed ahead from the get go.

And technically this first contract is not considered a "full rate" contract. The first few frames would be under a developmental contract to get through flight testing. After that they would go with an Stage II development contract if further testing or optimization is needed. If everything is good, they would go next to a low rate production contract. Only after the manufacturing kinks are worked out under LRIP would "full rate" production contract be signed.

bt

If the V-280 was just a development prototype what will the production version look like now they have switched to Osprey engines with 30% more power?

The Osprey can lift 21,546 kg vertical and even more with a rolling takeoff. Even if the production V-280 has slightly smaller rotors we are close to double the takeoff weight of the Blackhawk. That small 14 soldier cabin is starting to look rather volume limited. With only 14 soldiers the production V-280 should be able to takeoff with a much larger fuel load compared to the development prototype so it's range advantage would increase. I could definitely see the production version getting a bigger cabin.

The problem is the US Army no longer has a Blackhawk replacement. A 20 seat V-280 creates a big capability gap. The next smallest troop carrier is the tiny UH-72 and that isn't really designed for combat zones. With the smaller FARA competition the Sikorsky Raider X must win as it is the only entrant that could have a 8 seat troop version.

If the US Army changes the FARA requirements to require a troop version the whole competition might have to get restarted from scratch. The Bell Invictus cant have a troop version.

The Osprey engines have no relation to the FLRAA/FARA programs. I recommend you read up on the program/award, RJMAZ. You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions/guesses that are just wrong, in post 118 here.

texl1649 wrote:

The Osprey engines have no relation to the FLRAA/FARA programs. I recommend you read up on the program/award, RJMAZ. You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions/guesses that are just wrong, in post 118 here.

The V-280 demo prototype which is the FLRAA winner used the Honeywell T55 from the Chinook. The poduction V-280 will now have the AE 1107 used on the Osprey. They even had the new V-280 engine on display at an expo and it was the same size as the Osprey engines that they had displayed in previous years.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... valor.aspx

Wikipedia lists the V-280 having an empty weight 57% of a V-22 yet they will now use the same engines. It doesn't add up. We will probably see soemthing like the YF-22 to F-22 where the production aircraft gained 30% in empty weight. Double the weight of the Blackhawk it is meant to replace.

RJMAZ wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

The Osprey engines have no relation to the FLRAA/FARA programs. I recommend you read up on the program/award, RJMAZ. You seem to be jumping to a lot of conclusions/guesses that are just wrong, in post 118 here.

The V-280 demo prototype which is the FLRAA winner used the Honeywell T55 from the Chinook. The poduction V-280 will now have the AE 1107 used on the Osprey. They even had the new V-280 engine on display at an expo and it was the same size as the Osprey engines that they had displayed in previous years.

https://www.rolls-royce.com/products-an ... valor.aspx

Wikipedia lists the V-280 having an empty weight 57% of a V-22 yet they will now use the same engines. It doesn't add up. We will probably see soemthing like the YF-22 to F-22 where the production aircraft gained 30% in empty weight. Double the weight of the Blackhawk it is meant to replace.

Check out the T901/ITEP program.

https://www.geaerospace.com/press-relea ... ne-program

https://www.geaerospace.com/press-relea ... onstration

https://aviationweek.com/shows-events/a ... raded-t408

RJMAZ wrote:

Avatar2go wrote:

Sikorsky/Lockheed are protesting the preliminary FLRAA award.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/s ... ent-choice

This is not what I expected. In my opinion Lockheed/Sikorsky has the clear winner for the smaller FARA helicopter. I would only expect this behavior from Lockheed if they thought the smaller FARA helicopter program might be cancelled.

It would not surprise me if the US Army is getting cold feet with with the smaller FARA helicopter. This size has a very bad history. RAH-66 Comanche cancelled in 2004. Bell ARH-70 Arapaho cancelled in 2008. Then the purchased the UH-72 Lakota.

If I had my way the US Army would have 3 helicopters.

1) Light helicopter. UH-72 Lakota - 3,500kg MTOW - Very cheap light utility helicopter.

2) Light tilt rotor. Bell/Agusta BA609 - 7,500kg MTOW - add some side weapons bays and armor around the sensitive spots. Long range scout and Apache replacement.

3) Medium tilt rotor. Bell V-280 - 15,000kg MTOW - Blackhawk replacement with 3 times the range.

4) Heavy tilt rotor. 40,000kg MTOW - Two 10,000kw engines - Chinook replacement with 3 times the range.

First, that's four helicopters not three.

Second, this seems like an excellent way to maximize money spent.

Third, where are you finding 10,000kw engines? The closest thing that exists in the west flies on an Airbus A400 and at 8200kw would need a 22% increase. And is not built in the USA (if that matters). I don't think you can reasonably develop a new engine just to make one helicopter with a short American production run and no chance of exports.

kitplane01 wrote:

Second, this seems like an excellent way to maximize money spent.

Not at all. Tilt rotors are a game changer.

UH-72 Lakota is extremely cheap and it can do many simple jobs that a Blackhawk performs. Even if you needed 3 UH-72 to do the job of 2 Blackhawks there is still a big cost saving.

The small attack tilt rotor. It would have more than double the combat radius of the Apache. With the faster transit speed a single small attack tilt rotor could easily replace two Apache. Two T901 engines at 2,200kw each in a tilt rotor would make an ideal size. From a runway it could probably takeoff around 12,000kg. Vertical takeoff would be a bit below 10,000kg.

A single V-280 can do the job of 3 Blackhawks depending on how you compare them. The V-280 can carry much more per trip and it could do more trips in any given time frame. The V-280 can carry 14 soldiers 1,600nm that is more than twice the distance of the Blackhawk. If the V-280 is too big for the job then the UH-72 can be used.

The large tilt rotor would save significant money. It would do the job currently done by the C-130 and Chinook. There would be no need to land a C-130 at the front line to offload cargo into the Chinook. The big tilt rotor would elimate that entire forward operating base and take the cargo directly to where it is needed. The USAF then would get hundreds of US built Kawasaki C-2's to do the long distance C-130 flights and supplement the C-17 fleet.

kitplane01 wrote:

Third, where are you finding 10,000kw engines?

The obvious solution is a pair of T408 engines driving the one big prop on each side. That is 11,200kw per side. This eliminates the need of a drive shaft running between the props. That is 2.44 the power of the Osprey. If the Osprey using a runway has a MTOW of 27,442 kg then 2.44 times that is 67,000kg MTOW. Not far off the weight of the C-130.

A quad tilt rotor has many disadvantages, but another solution would be a quad tilt rotor using four Osprey engines. It could still fit a pair of joint light tactical vehicles.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Second, this seems like an excellent way to maximize money spent.

Not at all. Tilt rotors are a game changer.

[...]

The small attack tilt rotor. It would have more than double the combat radius of the Apache. With the faster transit speed a single small attack tilt rotor could easily replace two Apache. Two T901 engines at 2,200kw each in a tilt rotor would make an ideal size. From a runway it could probably takeoff around 12,000kg. Vertical takeoff would be a bit below 10,000kg.

[...]

Rotorcraft are not just about power available, weight, and speed. If the focus is range-range-range (= China-China-China), sacrificing all else, then a tilt rotor is probably the best compromise. If low speed maneuverability comes into the picture, the tilt rotor is quickly at a disadvantage, especially with respect to a coaxial-pusher like the Raider/Defiant. In pitch, a tilt-rotor works like a helicopter, through rotor flapping, which is a maneuver that occurs at essentially constant thrust. In roll, it works by differential thrust, which means that one of the rotors has to have enough thrust margin to keep the tilt rotor airborne plus to generate the desired roll moment, without stalling.

Also, a coaxial-pusher has what is essentially a fifth control, in the pusher prop. A coaxial pusher can accelerate/decelerate without changing pitch attitude, i.e., keeping the fuselage flat.

IADFCO wrote:

If low speed maneuverability comes into the picture, the tilt rotor is quickly at a disadvantage, especially with respect to a coaxial-pusher like the Raider/Defiant.

The V-22 gave tilt rotors a bad reputation when it comes to agility. V-280 showed a massive improvement over the V-22 in low speed agility testing. Tilt rotors now have enough maneuverability for 99% of combat situations. The advantages of tilt rotors are so great and the disadvantages are now so small. My opinion is the US Army will be looking at the smaller sized FARA and they will think that it should now be a small tilt rotor.

https://youtu.be/xRiZhCAmr6Y

I think FARA will get cancelled. The US Army has a history of being undecided when it comes to this size of helicopter. The cheap, small, single engine Bell OH-58 Kiowa was the Advanced Scout Helicopter. The larger and more advanced RAH-66 Comanche failed to replace it as it was an high end attack helicopter trying to replace a cheap helicopter. The US Army started again with the Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter program. They tried to use a cheap off the shelf single engine Bell 407 to replace the Kiowa in the form of the Bell ARH-70 Arapaho. That surprisingly failed also. Now they are going back to a high end attack helicopter solution like the Comanche with the latest FARA program.

What is FARA actually replacing? Is it still replacing the small 485kw and 2,495 kg Kiowa? The Blackhawks and Apache are getting new T901 engines. The US army has just purchased around 500 UH-72 Lakota helicopters that are 3,585 kg and would be the perfect direct Kiowa replacement.

FARA could be outright cancelled and the Army could simply purchase additional UH-72 and additional AH-64E. Expand the re-engine program on the existing Blackhawk and Apache fleet and save billions of dollars with no lost capabilities.

The V-280 by comparison offers capabilities that can not be performed by existing platforms.

Long term the Apache should be replaced with a dedicated attack tilt rotor. I'm sure a third generstion tilt rotor design being smaller than the V-280 would have even greater agility. This smaller tilt rotor powered by say two GE T901 engines could also suit the Marines to replace the UH-1Y Venom and AH-1Y viper. It could also replace the Navy Seahawks. Being smaller than the V-22 it would need a fancy folding wing. Just the rotors fold and fit in a 11x 11m box.

RJMAZ wrote:

kitplane01 wrote:

Second, this seems like an excellent way to maximize money spent.

Not at all. Tilt rotors are a game changer.

UH-72 Lakota is extremely cheap and it can do many simple jobs that a Blackhawk performs. Even if you needed 3 UH-72 to do the job of 2 Blackhawks there is still a big cost saving.

The small attack tilt rotor. It would have more than double the combat radius of the Apache. With the faster transit speed a single small attack tilt rotor could easily replace two Apache. Two T901 engines at 2,200kw each in a tilt rotor would make an ideal size. From a runway it could probably takeoff around 12,000kg. Vertical takeoff would be a bit below 10,000kg.

A single V-280 can do the job of 3 Blackhawks depending on how you compare them. The V-280 can carry much more per trip and it could do more trips in any given time frame. The V-280 can carry 14 soldiers 1,600nm that is more than twice the distance of the Blackhawk. If the V-280 is too big for the job then the UH-72 can be used.

The large tilt rotor would save significant money. It would do the job currently done by the C-130 and Chinook. There would be no need to land a C-130 at the front line to offload cargo into the Chinook. The big tilt rotor would elimate that entire forward operating base and take the cargo directly to where it is needed. The USAF then would get hundreds of US built Kawasaki C-2's to do the long distance C-130 flights and supplement the C-17 fleet.

kitplane01 wrote:

Third, where are you finding 10,000kw engines?

The obvious solution is a pair of T408 engines driving the one big prop on each side. That is 11,200kw per side. This eliminates the need of a drive shaft running between the props. That is 2.44 the power of the Osprey. If the Osprey using a runway has a MTOW of 27,442 kg then 2.44 times that is 67,000kg MTOW. Not far off the weight of the C-130.

A quad tilt rotor has many disadvantages, but another solution would be a quad tilt rotor using four Osprey engines. It could still fit a pair of joint light tactical vehicles.

OK. Now it sounds like your plan is to greatly (2x or 3x) reduce the number of non-Lakotas.

kitplane01 wrote:

OK. Now it sounds like your plan is to greatly (2x or 3x) reduce the number of non-Lakotas.

Definitely.

The medium sized V-280 can easily do the job of two Blackhawks.
A large sized tilt rotor can easily do the job of two Chinook.
A small attack tilt rotor can easily do the job of two Apache.

This plan could involve halving of the total number of aircraft yet have no reduction in capability.

The UH-72 Lakota was selected for the US army Light Utility Helicopter program in 2006. A total of 345 were ordered.

The Armed Aerial Scout program started in 2012. An improved UH-72 was one of the helicopters offered. This program was cancelled but since then the US Army managed to purchase more than 100 extra Lakotas. Some Blackhawk deployments have already been replaced with the Lakota. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Aerial_Scout

The Lakota is excellent because it is no frills and being based on an off the shelf civilian helicopter so it is extremely cheap. It does not have all the cost of a ground up military development. Repeating this would be a very good idea.

This solution could be to start a Medium Utility Helicopter program to replace the easy roles done by the Blackhawk. The high end roles will be done by the V-280. A second civilian off the shelf helicopter would be purchased. Something slightly larger than the Lakota such as the AW169 would be perfect. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AgustaWestland_AW169

Now the AW169 would have a significantly lower operating cost than a Blackhawk. So instead of refurbishing the Blackhawk fleet and fitting GE T901 engines that money could simply go towards purchasing brand new AW169. It wouldn't surprise me if a brand new AW169 would be similar cost to refurbishing a Blackhawk. Even if the AW169 did cost slightly more to purchase it would soon become cheaper due to the operating cost savings.

With a Medium Utility Helicopter purchased the Lakota fleet can remain unarmed without defensive systems. The AW169 could then get a basic door gun and flare dispenser.

The US Army would then pick the balance between the number of AW169 and additional V-280 purchased depending on the number of high end and low end missions. If we assume 500 Blackhawks get refurbished with T901 engines to operate beyond 2040 I would rather 100 additional V-280 and 300 AW169.

While the Army has not officially thrown in the towel, the lack of a firm commitment signals FARA isn’t likely to happen in a budget environment where everyone is looking to the service as the bill payer. But if FARA does get canceled, the stakes get that much higher for the Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition. As the only major rotary wing acquisition remaining, the FLRAA will now have generational impacts on warfighter capability

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articl ... 19778.html

It seems many people consider the FLRAA a high priority and FARA is a high risk of cancellation.

Could Budget Constraints Force U.S. Army To Cancel FARA?

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... ancel-fara

The Kiowa has already been completely retired by the US Army. The Apache and other helicopters are now doing the scout mission. The FARA is then technically taking the Kiowa armed scout mission back from the Apache. FARA can also take some to the attack role from the Apache. I can't see FARA offering a cost saving over just using existing Apache instead. Apache powered by two new T901 engines would have speed and range very close to FARA.

This is Comanche repeating itself.

That’s not a new analysis and I am not sure what you are throwing on the thread at this point, RJMAZ. Yes, the T901 is slated to be on the Apache, Blackhawk, and -47 down the road. No, the Army doesn’t have a specific procurement timeline on those. Yes the OH-58’s are retired. FARA is to fill that role/some of the Blackhawks, using the common engines to replace the ancient T-55’s over time in the inventory. Logically, ITEP was developed as a ‘plug and play’ replacement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_ ... ne_Program

There is plenty of analyses out there on the program/T901.

The Comanche ultimately did not have an engine/power source that would work for the design/goals, which is part of the reason it was finally cancelled. This has no bearing on the FARA selection, nor does it impact how the two competitors are quite differently laid out.

The AE1107F is quite different in its application on the V-280 vs. the AE1107C on the V-22. The V-280 is essentially 10 tons lighter.

https://vtol.org/files/dmfile/fvl-v_mayjun_2022.pdf

I believe it is very likely the T901 will ultimately be used in any production V-280 FLRAA platform, though this has not been integrated; the first engine was delivered to Bell for the 360 just this year on the FARA side. Bell of course is very familiar with the AE1107’s.

https://www.helis.com/database/news/t90 ... t-testing/

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news ... ging-ahead

The -1107 selection by Bell is still a bit of a mystery:

The V-280 prototype demonstrator was equipped with General Electric T64 series engines. The issue of equipping serial samples with a specific type of engine is still unclear. Earlier it was reported that helicopters of any FLRAA proposals should be equipped in a series with two promising General Electric T901 turboshaft engines created under the US Army Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE) program and having a take-off capacity of more than 5,000 hp. However, in October 2021, Bell Textron and Rolls Royce announced a decision to replace the V-280 demonstrator Valor T64 engines for Rolls-Royce AE 1107F turboshaft engines, which are a modification of the Rolls-Royce T406/AE 1107C engines used on the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor. The maximum take-off power of the AE 1107F should reach 7000 hp. According to recent reports, the US Army has chosen the V-280 variant with Rolls-Royce AE 1107F engines, which, among other things, also promises unification with the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor fleet.

The cruising speed of a serial machine based on the V-280 should be 280 knots (520 km/ h, hence the index "280"), the maximum is more than 300 knots (560 km/ h). The distillation range is stated at 3,900 km, the range (depending on the load) is from 930 to 1,480 km. The serial tiltrotor V-280 with a crew of four people should carry 14 military personnel. With a declared maximum take-off weight of about 30 thousand pounds (13620 kg; apparently it will actually be more), the device should have a maximum payload of up to 10 thousand pounds (4540 kg).

https://vpk.name/en/661787_the-us-army- ... ogram.html

Regardless, as the T901 continues to mature if the V280 program advances I’d expect the selection to be re-visited unless weight becomes a challenge.

The V-280 will never use two of the new GE T901 turboshafts. The production V-280 version will be using Osprey engines. The weights of the V-280 on Wikipedia are incorrect and are estimates from 2018. Bell has not disclosed any weights but I guarantee it will weigh over 10,000kg empty and have a vertical takeoff weight of over 16,000kg.

The original FLRAA plan to use two 2,200kw class engines was only if the design was a normal helicopter. Tilt rotors require more engine power for any given MTOW so that rules out using the 2,200kw GE T901 for the V-280.

The GE T901 at only 2,200kw each is simply too small for a Blackhawk sized tilt rotor. It would however be the perfect engine for a smaller dedicated attack tilt rotor to replace the Apache.

The CH-47 Chinook is getting the much more powerful GE T408 5,600kw turboshaft used in the King Stallion. This is an excellent medium term solution.

If we look at the two smaller FARA helicopters.
FARA Sikorsky Raider X uses a single 2,200kw T901 engine. The similar size Comanche used two 1,100kw engines which would be much more survivable. The FARA Bell 360 Invictus uses a single 2,200kw T901 engine and for some reason also has a second small 439kw engine. Very unusual. You say FARA can do some of the role of the Blackhawk. FARA doesn't have has room for troops. FARA is a small attack helicopter and when compared to the Apache it has far more disadvantages than advantages. Each FARA helicopter will cost more than refurbishing an Apache with T901 engines.

If I had to think of 3 good helicopter renewal plans for the US Army none of them involves FARA. There's no point of having an expensive FARA light attack helicopter when you already have the heavy attack Apache helicopter. If the Army needs something cheaper than the Apache for scout work then just put some weapons on the small TWIN engined UH-72 Lakota.

I also question the reasoning for re-engining the Blackhawks with T901 when the V-280 is meant to be the Blackhawk replacement. If the Blackhawks will then be allocated the low end missions then I see no need to fit more powerful engines. The transmissions can't even handle the extra power so it's really only for improved hot and high performance. The T901 will put out the same power at 10,000 feet that the old T700 engines put out at sea level. But on a cold day at sea level the T901 will have to be derated. I don't see the benefit if the Blackhawks will now do low end missions.

As good as the T901 is it should only be fitted to the Apache.

They just can’t afford to replace all of those blackhawks, 1:1 or otherwise, over 10 years or so, and Lockheed is gonna be very motivated to throw the T901’s to keep selling them both to the US Army and others, I expect.

As well, the FARA won’t replace any Blackhawk’s, if I said that, sorry. The FARA role of scout/attack helicopter will need range/speed to keep up with V280’s though (or deviants if LMT/Boeing win their protest eventually, which is doubtful). The Lakota is just not intended for an attack/armed/combat role, as I understand it. Going light/cheap has an appeal all it’s own as the F-16 in another time demonstrated. The ‘auxiliary’ power source strategy for making the 360 ‘kind of a single engine’ is odd to me, I agree. Will be interested to see if it wins.

The Apaches could, frankly, be easily/simply evolved further, as Boeing has studied for years. The Chinooks though are where I’d look to throw money at re-engine continuing with. FARA/FLRAA have substantially advanced designs ready, and with FARA the T901 will be in inventory so good to go with putting them as well on Chinooks which do have good speed still and then even more range/lift.

Why throw huge money at replacing those toward the early 2030’s with both FARA/FLRAA procurements in the pipeline? A CH-47X-NEO or whatever should provide plenty of capabilities/upgrades/connectivity to work through 2050, I’d think, and very likely a significant amount of export/commercial sales potential.

Interesting points I concede you may be right on about the AE1107’s. I really assumed it would go to the T901’s also but maybe not. The CH-53K going to full production now, it is going to be interesting to see if LMT chooses to pitch it aggressively for both foreign, or possibly US Army sales if they don’t pick up some sort of FLRAA/FARA business in short order. As has been the case for decades, it’s still vastly more expensive per copy (I think 2 or 3 times?) than the old Vertol’s, but sometimes politics is more important in DoD procurement than $$ or capabilities alone...

To add to that, 3000 shp ‘class’ is what is discussed with the T901. UH-60V, Lakota, and others are probably in advanced planning stages internally/commercially.

https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/ ... ernization

That may or may not be enough for the V280 down the road, and I am going to guess the Allison is already spec’d in the contract award for now.

texl1649 wrote:

They just can’t afford to replace all of those blackhawks, 1:1 or otherwise, over 10 years or so, and Lockheed is gonna be very motivated to throw the T901’s to keep selling them both to the US Army and others, I expect.

The more you look the more confusing it appears.

The US Army only started delivery of their 250 UH-60M Blackhawks 15 years ago. These are fairly new and have the higher power T700 engines.

The US Army only started delivery of the AH-64E Guardian in 2011 and nearly 600 has been delivered. Deliveries are still going right now. These also have the latest T700 engines.

Why do these even need newer T901 engines? It makes no sense. None of these need replacement in the next 10 years.

Fitting the T901 to both the Apache and Blackhawk hasn't even been funded yet. Everything including FARA seems undecided. What we are seeing are technology demonstrators and there is no firm plan.

The older Blackhawks are the only issue but the US Army just reveived extra Lakotas and have the V-280 coming which means there is no shortage of troop transports. The older Blackhawks could easily just get a quick basic refurbishment with no new engines or avionics.

Money is clearly not an issue if the are proceeding with FARA. If replacing the older Blackhawks one to one is a priority then a Medium Utility Helicopter program could easily be run to select a civilian helicopter with very little mods like the AW169M. So with the newer UH-60M Blackhawks staying around for more than 10 years the troop fleet would look like this.

Very high: V-280
High: UH-60M
Medium: AW169M
Low: UH-72

As V-280 production continues the remaining UH-60M Blackhawks will eventually be retired. As you pointed out US Army is considering fitting more powerful engines to the UH-72 Lakota as they have begun to use them as mini Blackhawks. This is why a slightly larger helicopter such as the AW169M makes perfect sense. The Lakota fleet then does not have to be upgraded.

The V-280 has the green light. Lockheed lost the protest.

https://www.defensenews.com/land/2023/0 ... rons-bell/

The smaller single engine FARA helicopters are waiting for the new, compact and high powered GE T901 engines.

https://verticalmag.com/news/bell-360-i ... ound-runs/

RJMAZ wrote:

texl1649 wrote:

They just can’t afford to replace all of those blackhawks, 1:1 or otherwise, over 10 years or so, and Lockheed is gonna be very motivated to throw the T901’s to keep selling them both to the US Army and others, I expect.

The more you look the more confusing it appears.

Money is clearly not an issue if the are proceeding with FARA. If replacing the older Blackhawks one to one is a priority then a Medium Utility Helicopter program could easily be run to select a civilian helicopter with very little mods like the AW169M. So with the newer UH-60M Blackhawks staying around for more than 10 years the troop fleet would look like this.

Very high: V-280
High: UH-60M
Medium: AW169M
Low: UH-72

As V-280 production continues the remaining UH-60M Blackhawks will eventually be retired. As you pointed out US Army is considering fitting more powerful engines to the UH-72 Lakota as they have begun to use them as mini Blackhawks. This is why a slightly larger helicopter such as the AW169M makes perfect sense. The Lakota fleet then does not have to be upgraded.

Glad to read today the V280 program can now advance with further hiring/funding.

Still confused/dismayed with the delays/prospects regarding the Army's plans with the T901:

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... her-delay/

Now, according to the Army’s acquisition chief, Doug Bush, the service will not deliver ITEP engines for installation on the FARA prototypes until “early next year.”

GE’s T901 engine will replace the 1970s-era T700 in both the Army’s Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, and it is the engine of choice for FARA.

Both competitors in the FARA program — Lockheed Martin and Bell — have essentially completed building their FARA prototypes, and the teams are waiting for the ITEP engines. The plan was to execute a first flight for each aircraft in 2023, albeit closer to the end of the year.

So, the FARA prototypes won't get engines until around Feb 2024? Fly by summer 2024? Why fly the 'brand new engine on a brand new helicopter' first? This engine was chosen specifically for FARA, Apache, and Blackhawks in 2019. They got a huge contract to integrate it onto AH-64E's thru 2026:

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/arm ... ep-engine/

With testing/EMD work going back over a decade, has this thing not gotten to where it can be produced and fitted on an AH-64 even yet? Apparently, that won't happen before 2025 at the earliest from what rumors/reading I am seeing. I do see funding as a challenge (both for FARA and all US Army aviation programs) but I do not think that is the driver. It will also deliver a lot more power and fuel efficiency (range) vs. the T700's.

None of the planning/development timelines make sense to me, so sorry if this is a muddled post, I am just confused/dismayed.

texl1649 wrote:

Glad to read today the V280 program can now advance with further hiring/funding.

Still confused/dismayed with the delays/prospects regarding the Army's plans with the T901:

https://www.defensenews.com/industry/te ... her-delay/

Now, according to the Army’s acquisition chief, Doug Bush, the service will not deliver ITEP engines for installation on the FARA prototypes until “early next year.”

GE’s T901 engine will replace the 1970s-era T700 in both the Army’s Black Hawk and Apache helicopters, and it is the engine of choice for FARA.

Both competitors in the FARA program — Lockheed Martin and Bell — have essentially completed building their FARA prototypes, and the teams are waiting for the ITEP engines. The plan was to execute a first flight for each aircraft in 2023, albeit closer to the end of the year.

So, the FARA prototypes won't get engines until around Feb 2024? Fly by summer 2024? Why fly the 'brand new engine on a brand new helicopter' first? This engine was chosen specifically for FARA, Apache, and Blackhawks in 2019. They got a huge contract to integrate it onto AH-64E's thru 2026:

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/03/arm ... ep-engine/

With testing/EMD work going back over a decade, has this thing not gotten to where it can be produced and fitted on an AH-64 even yet? Apparently, that won't happen before 2025 at the earliest from what rumors/reading I am seeing. I do see funding as a challenge (both for FARA and all US Army aviation programs) but I do not think that is the driver. It will also deliver a lot more power and fuel efficiency (range) vs. the T700's.

None of the planning/development timelines make sense to me, so sorry if this is a muddled post, I am just confused/dismayed.

I think this reflects the fact that newer engines are on the bleeding edge of potential performance, using exotic materials and manufacturing processes, that can be difficult to scale up to higher volumes. There is not much margin for error, and the consequences of a failure are dire. So the manufacturing quality control has to be very tight. And that control has to be pushed out to the supply chain as well. It's a major undertaking to stand up a production line like that.

You may be right, Avatar2go but if so that implies the selection process/criteria was very poor, then. Why was the engine spec’d to such standards if it can’t then be transitioned to production? I am reminded that Honeywell/Pratt protested the award as they had the much lower risk design (per their opinion of course).

https://www.defensedaily.com/atec-prote ... alue/army/

Ah well, I guess it’s all water under the bridge now.

texl1649 wrote:

You may be right, Avatar2go but if so that implies the selection process/criteria was very poor, then. Why was the engine spec’d to such standards if it can’t then be transitioned to production? I am reminded that Honeywell/Pratt protested the award as they had the much lower risk design (per their opinion of course).

https://www.defensedaily.com/atec-prote ... alue/army/

Ah well, I guess it’s all water under the bridge now.

That's a great question, and I think the answer is that the military will generally opt for what has the most promise of performance, in the long term. Even if that leads to problems in the short term.

We saw this also in the AETP debate for the F-35.
Once it was dangled out there as a possibility, it became desired, and that added years to the decision, and the eventual appearance of the competing solution.

All of this technology is great, and we do need it to stay ahead. But the estimation of where and when the selected program will land, becomes more uncertain, the more advanced the technology is.

Based on current history, we can all see the mack truck coming down the road while the Ostrich hides its head in a hole and fears not.
The F-35 should have had two engine OEM's that program is so expensive that there my have been some cost savings in a engine competition, the Navy use one engine the Air Force another. Imagine how many of the Army aviation assets will be down once the first problem with the engine arrives, and yes, I think we can all agree that will happen, after all, its a military not civilian engine. Let's see how they roll them out, to multiple lines at the same time or a select Guinea pig, definitely not the Black Hawk as too many souls on board, the AH-64 however......

Oh, on the more advanced technologies, being available has a monetary factor all of its own, versus having all the bells and whistles available for one flight out of 10.......interesting to know whether all the purported cost savings from predictive maintenance and computer monitoring is actually paying off or costing more.

Hey guys,
Any ideas on the official designation for the V-280 moving forward?
Will it have a ‘V’ designation like the V-22 Osprey or an ‘H’ designation like the UH-64 Black Hawk? And what about its name? Will it keep ‘Valor’?
Finally… who do you think will be the first export customer?
Take care
Bunumuring

bunumuring wrote:

Hey guys,
Any ideas on the official designation for the V-280 moving forward?
Will it have a ‘V’ designation like the V-22 Osprey or an ‘H’ designation like the UH-64 Black Hawk? And what about its name? Will it keep ‘Valor’?
Finally… who do you think will be the first export customer?
Take care
Bunumuring

I’d think we are up to something like UV-74 at this point? V for vertical tiltrotor (not a helicopter), and utility for the type of aircraft. I think the UH-72 Lakota is the most recent numerical suffix, right? The -280 nomenclature was just a Bell marketing term for the speed (though it did hit 322mph I think, using the older/less powerful demonstrator engines).

Hey texl,
You are possibly right.
The UH-72 and the TH-73 are in service and I can’t find any reference to a ‘-74’ anywhere…
But could it follow on from fellow tilt rotor ‘V-22’ and be ‘UV-23’ instead?
As for a name….?!?!?
Take care,
Bunumuring

More details from the GAO report: Sikorsky-Boeing bid was cheaper, but several aspects of their bid was either deficient or was unacceptable to the Army:

https://breakingdefense.com/2023/04/sik ... etric-gao/

In it, GAO noted four overarching evaluation factors that led to the Army’s decision, including where Bell envisioned their bid costing $8 billion while Sikorsky-Boeing said their Defiant X would eventually cost $4.4 billion. However, those potential cost savings were not enough to make up for what the government said were other deficiencies with the Sikorsky-Boeing bid.

When explaining its decision to the GAO, the Army used an analogy of blueprints to build a house.

“Sikorsky’s proposal provided something similar to a drawing of what the house looked like on the outside, a basic indication of the size and shape of the house,” the GAO report said. “Such a picture did not provide the functional detail that the Army required showing what the space would look like on the inside (i.e., how the system functions would be allocated to different areas of the system — for example, that food storage and preparation would be allocated to a space for the kitchen).”

The report goes on to detail core evaluation factors and the associated subfactors for each team, with the Sikorsky-Boeing being hit with an “unacceptable” mark for its engineering design and development.

Here is a link to the GAO denial of the protest.

It's interesting that the Test and Evaluation portion of the ranking was in Sikorsky's favor, and superior to Bell. Many observers have claimed that Sikorsky was unable to demonstrate performance, but that appears to be incorrect.

Rather, the deficiency was in the decomposition of functionality, particularly within the weapons system, to individual subsystems. The Army requires this in order to comply with the Modular Open Systems Architecture (MOSA) requirements of the federal government. MOSA is intended to ensure that the Army can contract out future support and development to other vendors, and does not become locked into the aircraft vendor.

Sikorsky appears to have deferred the granular decomposition to future design efforts, instead repeating a broad allocation of functionality from earlier stages of the proposal. The Army found that unacceptable.

Thus the selection came down to perceived risk. The Army assigned substantial future risk to the promise and the lack of detailed functional decomposition.

Sikorsky argued in the protest that their allocation was sufficient for the level of detail requested in the RFP, but GAO disagreed and highlighted both the RFP language and commentary by the Army as evidence.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/820/818991.pdf

Hope Boeing / Sikorsky refine their prototype for safety and bring it to production, tons of countries operate helicopters and would transition to that versus whatever the Bell Valor tilt rotor ultimately becomes, a market exist for a medium lift helicopter outside of what the US Army wants to operate.

I have downloaded and read the GAO report too. Of course the GAO does not try to second guess the services, it only determines whether the process was followed fairly. To me, as Lead Armchair Acquisition Officer, it looks like the Army decided early which design was going to win, and worked backwards to justify its decision: MOSA-based issues take a fraction of the time to fix compared to changing a rotorcraft architecture. The Army had decided that the focus had to be China, so range, range, range, and more range, and nothing else mattered. I am not a fan of either design. The tiltrotor has its usual problems of maneuverability and low efficiency (not a good airplane, not a good helicopter). The coax-pusher is a mechanical complexity nightmare. I wonder whether/how the lessons learned in Ukraine will affect this program and FARA. Good luck relying on the V-280 to move troops to Taiwan.

If the Army really was concerned about moving troops in the Pacific to austere fields, they should have found a way to fight with the US Airforce who demanded control of an a/c they did not want and as soon as possible kicked it to the curb. Imagine the Army and Marines using them in the Pacific to supplement the Air Forces Herks and C-17's.
If the Air Force does not like the "too much like aircraft" for the Valor, the Army is going to be in a world of hurt, I guess they thought that since the Air Force was among the factors that killed the Cheyenne due to its speed, they figured the same would happen now to a newer pusher prop.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alenia_C-27J_Spartan

If you read the GAO report carefully, the crux of the issue was confusion over the meaning of FBSM vs ABSM.

For example, Sikorsky contends that the chart titled “FLRAA Development Meta Model” does not support the agency’s interpretation that allocation to “functional areas of the system” means allocation to the subsystem level. As noted above, this chart is found in multiple parts of the RFP and depicts the functional baseline system model (FBSM) and allocated baseline system model (ABSM) industry-developed models that are applicable to the overall FLRAA program.

With respect to this procurement, the agency and
Sikorsky agree that the RFP’s requirement for “allocation of system functions to functional areas of the system” happens in the development of the FBSM.

They disagree, however, on what exactly the FBSM encompasses. In this regard, Sikorsky believes that the allocation down to the subsystem level happens instead in the subsequent development of an ABSM that Sikorsky had not completed by the time of FPR submission.

In a nutshell, FBSM refers to function, but applies to allocation, which is what Sikorsky provided. Whereas ABSM refers to allocation, but applies to functional assignment, which Sikorsky did not provide, believing it was not required.

In reality, the Army expected both FBSM and ABSM to be included. The confusion is understandable due to the inconsistent use of terminology. But as the GAO pointed out, the RFP did clarify the meaning in other areas of the text. The GAO also ruled that major bidding contractors should be familiar enough with these concepts, to not make this mistake. And the Army apparently mentioned the lack of detail in earlier review commentary.

In the end, it was a dumb reason to have your proposal rejected, but that's how the procurement process works. There are no do-overs if you don't get the documentation right, and satisfy all the requirements.

Sikorsky has to be kicking themselves. I'm sure they were perfectly capable of providing the needed detail. There was no technical flaw in their design or proposal.

Hey guys,
I have no idea the answer to this….
Is it possible that Sikorsky could refine the SB>1 into a Seahawk replacement? Like has been suggested upstream, the future market for helicopters in this class worldwide would be massive, and a second US option in the market might be a good thing… but would Sikorsky be able to develop the SB>1 without a US military requirement / order if the eventual Seahawk replacement contract doesn’t go to them?
Take care
Bunumuring