Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
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/
“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.
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.
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/
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.
aumaverick wrote:What is a virtual prototype vs what has already been flown? What is the award really for?
Avatar2go wrote:Sikorsky/Lockheed are protesting the preliminary FLRAA award.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/s ... ent-choice
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
kitplane01 wrote:Second, this seems like an excellent way to maximize money spent.
kitplane01 wrote:Third, where are you finding 10,000kw engines?
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.
[...]
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.
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.
kitplane01 wrote:OK. Now it sounds like your plan is to greatly (2x or 3x) reduce the number of non-Lakotas.
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
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.