Replacing FARA Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft

It would have been much easier if they had just said that two aircraft programs at the same time was not affordable.
 
yasotay said:
It would have been much easier if they had just said that two aircraft programs at the same time was not affordable.
Click to expand...
What other aircraft program are you talking about in this context? FLRAA?

As far as I know there is no ambitious unmanned rotorcraft on the horizon similar to UCAR back in the early 2000s when the Comanche was canceled. That choice was defended with much of the same logic being repeated here. Of course, that central claim that UAVs could do the entire role wasn't exactly true then, as evidenced by the two following programs for a scout helicopter. It seems to me like there is a sizeable cap in capability between the relatively small cheap quadcopters and the bigger fixed wing models in use.

As with the Comanche cancellation I get the importance of modernizing the designs already in service. But given the geopolitical concerns at the time (and now) it's hard for me to believe that the funds can't be found within the vast amount the DoD has to work with.

If this current logic continues to be pursued, I fear we'll see cuts to the Apache fleet in coming years. Personally, I am not convinced that attack or reconnaissance helicopters represent a dead-end. I think using something like FARA to "quarterback" smaller drones is a better choice than this idea the drones will do it all themselves. They haven't even fully figured out how that latter idea would work.
 
The Army leadership doesn't know what they want to do or agree and that is big problem. Spending lots of tax payer money and getting nothing for it. The Army does not have a good track record and should be held accountable. But as we know in Govt, you screw up, you just get promoted to screw up more, like CEOs. FARA has a place and should be integrated into kind of an Army Loyal Wingman/CCA type of CONOPS. So when things start getting really hot on the global stage, US then panics and throws lots of money to either accelerate or re-instate various other programs including FARA, seems this is the way we like to work unfortunately.
 
I was indeed referring to FLRAA. The U.S. Army budget line, by percentage, is decreasing. The Army Aviation portfolio consumed ~25% of that budget. FARA would likely have required a fair amount of change (money) to meet operational specification.
To be clear I am right there with you on the necessity for a platform like this. I am frustrated that senior officials used haphazard analysis to validate the decision, vice honesty.
 
The FARA program was initially expected to develop an H-6 replacement. As the program went on, the desires of Army Aviation for a 21st century scout diverged from the smaller aircraft SOAR was anticipating. The Bell Invictus in essence dismissed the SOAR requirements and focused on the larger Army requirement. At least, that was the given impression. The Sikorsky X2 submission might have more closely met the SOAR requirement, but was also larger and heavier than the desired platform. The SOAR desire for a little bird replacement was the initial driver for the 40 foot rotor diameter so it could "fly through urban canyons." The U.S. Army sensor , range, and endurance requirements broke the physics of a single engine 40" rotor scout helicopter.
 
As soon as a turreted 20 mm cannon became a requirement, FARA was no longer a Little Bird replacement. Perhaps the original S-97 Raider could be if it were re-worked into a functional platform with vibrations under control and mission equipment added. A 34' rotor diameter is much closer to H-6 size than the 40+ that a production FARA was headed to.
 
Interestingly I have just read (alas, behind a pay wall) that the SOAR had also expected to use the FARA as a replacement for the MH-60M DAP..
 
yasotay said:
Interestingly I have just read (alas, behind a pay wall) that the SOAR had also expected to use the FARA as a replacement for the MH-60M DAP..
Click to expand...
Either might have worked for the CAS role of the DAP but neither Raider-X or Invictus (or their twin engined production configurations) would have had the speed and range to make sensible missions with the SOCOM FLRAA variants in work.

The FARA program will be remembered as a classic Pentagon screw job to the industry and force structure.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom