Bell MV-75 Cheyenne II (aka V-280 Valor)

Lays off at Amarillo affecting MV-75 staff:

Company officials shared that getting clarity from the government on the funding for this fiscal spending year showed them that layoffs were necessary to align with “current funding and budget realities.” The CEO made it clear that these decisions were based on funding and not employee behavior. “These decisions are not a reflection of the value of the team or the importance of the mission,” Maldonado said. “They are about ensuring we stay aligned to the program, protect long-term success, and position ourselves to deliver what matters most.” In addition to layoffs, Bell is entering a four-week furlough period for certain staff on the MV-75 team that begins June 14. Employees affected by the furlough are expected to receive notice within the next few days, according to Maldonado.
Click to expand...

https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/fort-worth/article315996074.html
 
Wait! Going faster might mean you burn through a budget faster...

Good, Fast, Cheap. Pick 2. The rule still applies.
 
TomcatViP said:
Lays off at Amarillo affecting MV-75 staff:
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/business/fort-worth/article315996074.html
Click to expand...

Reading the press release in full, the layoffs make sense, even if they are painful to see.

“Maldonado said as the company moves from design to production, it has to make “additional adjustments to align our overall cost structure with current funding and business needs.”

Two different conditions are behind these layoffs. In Amarillo manpower supporting production of the V-22 is tapering down, in preparation of ending next year. In Fort Worth detail design of MV-75 components should be complete, with few exceptions. It is typical for engineering staffing levels to drop off following completion of detailed design. In a perfect world, Bell would be able to start MV-75 production this year and have a new aircraft beginning the design process.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4496.jpeg
    IMG_4496.jpeg
    1.5 MB · Views: 67
  • IMG_4497.jpeg
    IMG_4497.jpeg
    1.4 MB · Views: 66
Scott Kenny said:
They're building a full wing in 6% the time of the V-22 wing?!?
Click to expand...

Much less labor man hours, which could mean there is a lot more automation going on, not that the actual process takes less time on the clock. You'd hope this would translate to cheaper, eventually, but that depends on how expensive the automated tools are.
 
Scott Kenny said:
They're building a full wing in 6% the time of the V-22 wing?!?
Click to expand...
The first V-22 wing was assembled over forty years ago, and at the time had the largest composite wing skins ever produced. Bell has learned a lot over the past four decade, both in composite manufacturing and designing composites for ease of manufacture.
 
Looking at the pictures associated with the press release, I think that while still an impressive timeline, it appears we are talking about the core of the wing. To me CTR's comment above it is both impressive and damning at the same time. The US industry has not moved some of the core rotorcraft technologies in 40 years. AH-64 was the last "whole cloth" helicopter developed by the U.S. Army and V-22 was the last "whole cloth" rotorcraft developed for the United States.

Sikorsky and Boeing are now reliant on Congressional add ons to keep 40-60 year old production lines running, churning out helicopters that, while still of value, are increasingly less viable in a changing world. They now operate in a world where an opponent can reach out and kill them on the ground tens of kilometers and more. They will have to be positioned further back and this reduces their forward operations capability.

In 2009 the US DoD started a program that was to revitalize the military rotorcraft industry with up to five new rotorcraft programs. They got one, maybe two if the U.S. Navy elects to go with a new start to replace their H-60. A proposition I seriously doubt.

I am hopeful that the MV-75 program will help start a reversal of this trend.
 
yasotay said:
if the U.S. Navy elects to go with a new start to replace their H-60. A proposition I seriously doubt.
Click to expand...
Agreed, I expect the replacement for the Romeo/Sierra Seahawks to be something like the SH-60K or J Kai with bigger engines.
 
yasotay said:
Looking at the pictures associated with the press release, I think that while still an impressive timeline, it appears we are talking about the core of the wing. To me CTR's comment above it is both impressive and damning at the same time. The US industry has not moved some of the core rotorcraft technologies in 40 years. AH-64 was the last "whole cloth" helicopter developed by the U.S. Army and V-22 was the last "whole cloth" rotorcraft developed for the United States.

Sikorsky and Boeing are now reliant on Congressional add ons to keep 40-60 year old production lines running, churning out helicopters that, while still of value, are increasingly less viable in a changing world. They now operate in a world where an opponent can reach out and kill them on the ground tens of kilometers and more. They will have to be positioned further back and this reduces their forward operations capability.

In 2009 the US DoD started a program that was to revitalize the military rotorcraft industry with up to five new rotorcraft programs. They got one, maybe two if the U.S. Navy elects to go with a new start to replace their H-60. A proposition I seriously doubt.

I am hopeful that the MV-75 program will help start a reversal of this trend.
Click to expand...
The V-22 wasn't the last "whole cloth" rotorcraft developed for USG. The CH-53K is a completely new design and actually has made to to production. The only things it has in common with the CH-53 are the letters "CH" and the numbers "53". Of course, the RAH-66 was also a clean sheet design as was the Model 918 tiltrotor, both developed for USG requirements as were a number of smaller UAV platforms, none of which made it to production.

Your overarching point remains, though... the defense side of rotorcraft development stagnated affecting both the industrial base and the services themselves. They're now well staffed with fine people experienced with managing fleets of aging aircraft and essentially no experience in developing and qualifying new ones. Those are different skillsets.
 
CTR said:
Reading the press release in full, the layoffs make sense, even if they are painful to see.
Click to expand...

They don't really make sense - chopping experienced design and production staff just to please the market.

Bell made profit of $363 million in 2025, and $370 million in 2024. That's the money they couldn't find a way to spend after paying for everything. More than enough cash sloshing around to avoid sacking people.
 
CTR said:
The US, and by association all US manufactures of military hardware has under the current administration ceasing to be a reliable suppliers. Helicopters don't remain flying for long without replacement of life limited parts.
Click to expand...
So more European in other words?
 
European countries, and by extension their arms, are still seen as reliable currently, or at least at lot less likely to threaten their allies than the US. As a result there will certainly be more people picking them over US arms than they might have in the past. Certainly countries like Canada have been pivoting to more European arms where it can already. US helicopters like the Chinook, Blackhawk, and yes the Cheyenne (once it's actually available to be sold), will be facing a much more uphill climb for orders vs European helicopters on the export market because military equipment purchases are a multi-decade commitment and you need to be sure the seller will support you for that entire time.
 
As I have posted elsewhere the U.S. (and European) rotorcraft industry used to have only Russia to compete with. Now all of them are facing a growing market. Turkey, South Korea, China are beginning to enter the market and with their lower price point for a product with less political baggage. Once Cheyenne is fielded it may find a niche' market for countries that still retain overseas concerns. Africa and the Pacific are both huge distances with minimal infrastructure.
 
NCQ said:
European countries, and by extension their arms, are still seen as reliable currently, or at least at lot less likely to threaten their allies than the US. As a result there will certainly be more people picking them over US arms than they might have in the past. Certainly countries like Canada have been pivoting to more European arms where it can already. US helicopters like the Chinook, Blackhawk, and yes the Cheyenne (once it's actually available to be sold), will be facing a much more uphill climb for orders vs European helicopters on the export market because military equipment purchases are a multi-decade commitment and you need to be sure the seller will support you for that entire time.
Click to expand...
I don't think so. Once the current American president leaves office, I doubt there will ever be another who professes a desire to annex Greenland or Canada. Coming presidents will continue the draw down of American forces from Europe (because the American people want it) but will remain in The treaty structure (because the American people want it) but that does not make America a "threat" to anyone.
There will continue to be a market for American military products - including helicopters - because they are built in larger numbers than European equivalents, making them price competitive.
Also, the U.S. continues to be an ally to many countries in the western camp, including many in Europe. Not all of the Nato allies are in a snit over Trump's actions and are, in fact, in full agreement over his insistence on European rearmament and pulling their weight in military spending.

However, Yasotay is 100% correct when he points out that the rest of the world is now competing in the helicopter market. Times they are a-changing.
 
Titus said:
I don't think so. Once the current American president leaves office, I doubt there will ever be another who professes a desire to annex Greenland or Canada.
Click to expand...
Draw a great-circle route from the Russian ICBM fields to the US, shooting west.

Know what's directly under that flight line? Greenland.
If you draw a great-circle route from those same ICBM fields shooting east, it goes past Alaska, and the US already has defenses in place there.​

So either the US takes out a long-term lease on a chunk or three of Greenland or the US buys the whole island outright (for the peaceful options). Because having radars and ABMs placed there is that important.

Chinese ICBMs? Great Circle route runs more or less over (northern) Alaska.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Draw a great-circle route from the Russian ICBM fields to the US, shooting west.

Know what's directly under that flight line? Greenland.
If you draw a great-circle route from those same ICBM fields shooting east, it goes past Alaska, and the US already has defenses in place there.​

So either the US takes out a long-term lease on a chunk or three of Greenland or the US buys the whole island outright (for the peaceful options). Because having radars and ABMs placed there is that important.

Chinese ICBMs? Great Circle route runs more or less over (northern) Alaska.
Click to expand...
You do realize that the US not only already has a base on Greenland, it has, in fact, got de-facto permission to expand it as it sees necccesary. By treaty.

All this bullshit about the US NEEDING! TO! OWN! GREENLAND! is just nonsense conjured up by the current administration. No other administration ever saw the need to annex part of one of it's allies. After all, they already had a treaty, they could just inform everyone that they were expanding the base, and that would fullfill their treaty obligations, and then they could start work.

And it's not like the trajectories of ICBMs suddenly changed in the last few years.

But owning Greenland makes perfect sense if you're a conman who only sees the dollar signs under Greenland's snow.

Edit: This is also straying really far from the topic of the thread....
 
NCQ said:
European countries, and by extension their arms, are still seen as reliable currently, or at least at lot less likely to threaten their allies than the US.
Click to expand...
Of course, they just stop the US from using airspace, bases, and try to go after their citizens and their rights. "Oh, you can use your aircraft to defend US but if you want to do anything else with them GFY." Tots not the same at all. :rolleyes: I seem to recall some Scandinavian country refusing to deliver JDAM parts because they didn't like our politics at one time too.
 
Titus said:
I don't think so. Once the current American president leaves office, I doubt there will ever be another who professes a desire to annex Greenland or Canada.
Click to expand...
He offered to BUY Greenland, and he's not the first President to do so. TDS just made Euros lose their shit.
 
MihoshiK said:
Trump is on record as wanting to ANNEX Greenland, and also threatened 25% tariffs if the dastardly EU didn't give him Greenland.

That's not TDS, that's the leader of the "greatest" nation on Earth being a fuckhead. The bigliest fuckhead.
Click to expand...
Total TDS. You might want to read it again.

"The White House said on Tuesday: "The president and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilising the US military is always an option at the commander-in-chief's disposal.""

Saying something is an option (a fact) doesn't mean we're going to do it (as history has shown despite the histrionics of some). Hell, it wasn't even Orange Hitler that said it.
 
JS23 said:
Once again, the only TDS on display is the full commitment to justifying, downplaying, or otherwise attempting to reason-wash someone who is *objectively* erratic and nonsensical when fact-checking it is literally a 5 second Google search away.
Click to expand...
My point exactly. A five second Google search would show he never said he was going to conquer Greenland.
 
Sferrin said:
My point exactly. A five second Google search would show he never said he was going to conquer Greenland.
Click to expand...
You've literally been pointed at it twice, on video. Here's the UK House of Commons official assessment of the statement and then extended refusal to rule out annexing by military force.

Do you realize how insane you seem right now?
 
JS23 said:
You've literally been pointed at it twice, on video. Here's the UK House of Commons official assessment of the statement and then extended refusal to rule out annexing by military force.

Do you realize how insane you seem right now?
Click to expand...
So your "evidence" is to point me to someone who is not Trump? Got it. Also, refusing to rule something out is not the same thing as saying you're going to do it. If you want to make your case, show me where Trump said he wants to conquer Greenland or intends to take it by military force. I won't be holding my breath.
 
Sferrin said:
So your "evidence" is to point me to someone who is not Trump? Got it. Also, refusing to rule something out is not the same thing as saying you're going to do it. If you want to make your case, show me where Trump said he wants to conquer Greenland or intends to take it by military force. I won't be holding my breath.
Click to expand...
Yes. The entire world is suffering from TDS, even some of the US closest allies. Everyone is out to get him, the EU, NATO, me, the Freemasons, and the Bilderberg Group.

Meanwhile keep enjoying your victory over Iran comrade.
 
MihoshiK said:
Yes. The entire world is suffering from TDS, even some of the US closest allies. Everyone is out to get him, the EU, NATO, me, the Freemasons, and the Bilderberg Group.

Meanwhile keep enjoying your victory over Iran comrade.
Click to expand...
Calm yourself. Nobody is invading Greenland.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom