JMR (Joint Multi-Role) & FVL (Future Vertical Lift) Programs

TomcatViP said:
Zeroing your next combat helicopter needs in function of what is compatible with your rear line infrastructures would be like a Formula one team lining up their lounge couch on the race track.

iu
Click to expand...
Sofa, so good. New ejection couch trials and three-man flight crew, gotta love it.
 

VFS - Commentary: The Need for FARA

Founded in 1943 as the American Helicopter Society (AHS), the Vertical Flight Society is the world's oldest and largest technical society dedicated to advancing vertical flight technology.
vtol.org vtol.org

The war of words on the FARA program is now fully involved in "the swamp" (a.k.a. Washington DC).
 
defence-blog.com

US Army tests modular effects launcher of new scout helicopter

The U.S. Army is experimenting with a new weapons launcher able to shoot missiles, rockets, and small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to equip its Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). The U.S. Army Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team has shared a picture on social media of a FARA...
defence-blog.com defence-blog.com
https://twitter.com/x/status/1455503458547601418
View: https://twitter.com/FVLCFT/status/1455503458547601418
medium.com

Area-I , an Anduril Company, Unveils the ALTIUS 700

ALTIUS 700 Offers Greater Payload Capacity and Flight Endurance
medium.com medium.com
The ALTIUS-700 carries 300 percent more payload than the -600 and endures up to five hours of flight, depending on payloads, which are customizable and include ISR, cUAS, electronic warfare, munitions and signals intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Ok, can someone explain to me what i'm looking at? is that the long-announced MEL for FARA, which is an internal launcher, but tested externally on this UH-60? Also, what are the other suspended payloads besides the Hellfire? ALEs or something else?
1636150611256.png
 
Looks like the usual ESSS on a Black Hawk, just seen from an unusual angle.

The light-colored tubes on the inner pylon are probably ALTIUS-600s, which have been used as surrogate ALEs.

The dark-colored pod above the Hellfire looks a lot like the Fletcher LGR-4 land-based APKWS pod, just in an aircraft application. Not a new idea -- there was another guided rocket (DAGR) that was supposed to fit in a quad pod replacing a single Hellfire.
 
Those are interesting loadouts, but the really juicy bit would be if what's in the picture is the MEL. Together with MOSA and another couple of buzzwords, it's a centerpiece of FARA. The air vehicles are to a large extent designed around its use.
 
AeroFranz said:
Those are interesting loadouts, but the really juicy bit would be if what's in the picture is the MEL. Together with MOSA and another couple of buzzwords, it's a centerpiece of FARA. The air vehicles are to a large extent designed around its use.
Click to expand...

Seems like it is. Same picture is in this article, with mention of a recent exercise with the UH-60 as a FARA surrogate.

www.google.com

US Army tests modular effects launcher of new scout helicopter

The U.S. Army is experimenting with a new weapons launcher able to shoot missiles, rockets, and small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to equip its Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). The U.S. Army Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team has shared a picture on social media of a FARA...
www.google.com www.google.com

I infer that the MEL is basically the orange bits in the photo, equivalent to the M299 launcher associated with Hellfire.
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
AeroFranz said:
Those are interesting loadouts, but the really juicy bit would be if what's in the picture is the MEL. Together with MOSA and another couple of buzzwords, it's a centerpiece of FARA. The air vehicles are to a large extent designed around its use.
Click to expand...

Seems like it is. Same picture is in this article, with mention of a recent exercise with the UH-60 as a FARA surrogate.

www.google.com

US Army tests modular effects launcher of new scout helicopter

The U.S. Army is experimenting with a new weapons launcher able to shoot missiles, rockets, and small unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) to equip its Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). The U.S. Army Future Vertical Lift Cross-Functional Team has shared a picture on social media of a FARA...
www.google.com www.google.com

I infer that the MEL is basically the orange bits in the photo, equivalent to the M299 launcher associated with Hellfire.
Click to expand...
I agree the orange bits are the MEL.
 
MOSA will either be a brilliant success for how to operate in the mid-21st Century, or another stillborn US government concept. I am enthusiastic that there is a recognition that the speed of change makes something of this nature an imperative, however I am troubled that an organization as hidebound and bureaucratic as the US DoD will struggle to allow it to succeed.
 
breakingdefense.com

Divining the future of heavy vertical lift in the Army - Breaking Defense

With the Army focused on FLRAA and FARA, the question of heavy lift under the Future Vertical Lift program won’t be answered for a decade or more. In the meantime, here’s what the Army is thinking.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Clearly the US Army is staying focused on the two programs in hand. Last time they tried to do a new "heavy vertical lift" The USAF Inc. pitched a fit, took over the program, and cancelled it. Ironically USAF Inc., is now saying "Gosh! We have to stop being reliant on runways."

Anything larger than CH-47 with more capability (speed, range) will draw a tirade from USAF Inc. I suspect that even if the US Army decided it could use MV-22, USAF Inc., would fight it. US Army probably has enough fight with DoD right now with the two current efforts.
 
breakingdefense.com

How digital systems integration makes future vertical lift more capable and affordable for the Army - Breaking Defense

The future of Army aviation depends on major improvements in aircraft speed, range, and reliability. Bell’s vision to ensure these programs enhance national security and are affordable relies on digital engineering and modeling to integrate missions and air vehicle systems with sustainment in...
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Interesting insight into Bell's methodology ... with a healthy dose of business development.
 
yasotay said:
www.forbes.com

Army’s Future Vertical Lift Will Reshape The Rotorcraft Industry—And Companies Know It

Army managers are systematically assessing industry's ability to build and support next-gen rotorcraft.
www.forbes.com www.forbes.com

Unsurprising the cautionary tale of strategic loss starts with financial media.
Click to expand...

Lauren Thompson is a paid industry lobbyist. His article basically says that the FVL selection decision is too important to leave to the Army, and that Congress should make sure that each major manufacturer gets a share of the pie, no matter their designs’ merits or flaws.

By implication FLRAA should go to Boeing-Sikorsky. And FARA should go to Bell.

This outcome would of course be advantageous to both Boeing and Sikorsky as this would reduce the competitive threat of Bell’s tilt rotor technology and Boeing would otherwise be cut out of FVL.

Expect this kind of argument to circulate in DC until the Army caves in to the pressure.
 
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
 
Last edited:
Bell should market abroad the V-280 as it is today without waiting for FLRAA completion. A lot of countries might have an interest for the core design and the willingness to left room for their industry with customization.
Let's not repeat the faulty process that led to many costly national programs.

As built today a V-280 could be a transformational asset for countries involved in counter-insurgency across Africa or choke points in Asia without the cost of a V-22. And those countries need to build that capability today.

IMOHO, the Valor is the Mustang of tomorrow.

1640106926805.png
 
I suspect there are a number of countries that are very interested in a "V-22 lite" capability. The problem these days is no appears willing to pony up the start up cost for a new platform and the associated logistics of new equipment. The days of taking a risk like that seem long gone.
 
TomcatViP said:
Bell should market abroad the V-280 as it is today without waiting for FLRAA completion. A lot of countries might have an interest for the core design and the willingness to left room for their industry with customization.
Let's not repeat the faulty process that led to many costly national programs.

As built today a V-280 could be a transformational asset for countries involved in counter-insurgency across Africa or choke points in Asia without the cost of a V-22. And those countries need to build that capability today.

IMOHO, the Valor is the Mustang of tomorrow.

View attachment 670177
Click to expand...
The thing is, the Army/USG has invested some money in V-280 (and SB>1). What that means is that Bell can not market to anyone without the Government's "blessing". For example, IIRC, Bell offered a while back (over a year ago) to fly extra test flights and demonstrations at various Army aclilities at their own expense and the Gov't said, "No", and that was the end of that.
 
yasotay said:
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
Click to expand...


That's what keeps floating around, but it always seems to be based on a "feeling". Part of it may be that so far Valor has pretty much outclassed Defiant, whereas it appears that the fact that an earlier version of what will grow into Raider-X has been flying for some time and although it doesn't seem to have met all of its goals., for now that seems to be worth more than something that hasn't flown as a complete aircraft at all.

I'm more concerned that the program manager in August said that a VTOL that meets Army specs might not be able to be built. Specifically a VTOL that has a max sustained speed of at least 180 knots r (and given what you have to pay to get that I personally think they should ask for more), specified performance (payload, range, endurance) with 3,000 shp driving a ≤40' diameter rotor with a gross weight of ≤14,000 lbs may be beyond the technology available.
 
F-14D said:
TomcatViP said:
Bell should market abroad the V-280 as it is today without waiting for FLRAA completion. A lot of countries might have an interest for the core design and the willingness to left room for their industry with customization.
Let's not repeat the faulty process that led to many costly national programs.

As built today a V-280 could be a transformational asset for countries involved in counter-insurgency across Africa or choke points in Asia without the cost of a V-22. And those countries need to build that capability today.

IMOHO, the Valor is the Mustang of tomorrow.

View attachment 670177
Click to expand...
The thing is, the Army/USG has invested some money in V-280 (and SB>1). What that means is that Bell can not market to anyone without the Government's "blessing". For example, IIRC, Bell offered a while back (over a year ago) to fly extra test flights and demonstrations at various Army aclilities at their own expense and the Gov't said, "No", and that was the end of that.
Click to expand...
I recall that the USG declined the opportunity to put hours on V-280 for more demo's. Curious though I believe the UK and AUS have both received permission to be linked into the FVL program. I do know that both vendors have had considerable interest from NATO and ASEAN nations in their efforts. Several members of the government FVL team are participating in the NATO NGRC effort as well.
 
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
Click to expand...


That's what keeps floating around, but it always seems to be based on a "feeling". Part of it may be that so far Valor has pretty much outclassed Defiant, whereas it appears that the fact that an earlier version of what will grow into Raider-X has been flying for some time and although it doesn't seem to have met all of its goals., for now that seems to be worth more than something that hasn't flown as a complete aircraft at all.

I'm more concerned that the program manager in August said that a VTOL that meets Army specs might not be able to be built. Specifically a VTOL that has a max sustained speed of at least 180 knots r (and given what you have to pay to get that I personally think they should ask for more), specified performance (payload, range, endurance) with 3,000 shp driving a ≤40' diameter rotor with a gross weight of ≤14,000 lbs may be beyond the technology available.
Click to expand...
A fair point. I think the perceptions of success (flight program with "minimal" issue) for Bell V-280 and Sikorsky Raider, are a major source of this "feeling". To my knowledge the SB>1 remains incomplete with the initial test plan. Down select for FLRAA is to occur mid year 2022.

I think everyone (especially AW&ST) was surprised at a program manager saying in public that the Army was trying to defy the laws of physics. That no doubt caused some choice language to be floated amongst leadership and vendors alike. The US Army efforts toward a manned reconnaissance rotorcraft have been, by any count, an abysmal failure. Mostly because they have failed to get the DoD to comprehend the necessity for such a platform. Nor that the Army does not conduct reconnaissance in the same manner as that done by other services. Nor do I think they have adequately outlined that UAV cannot land next to the supported ground commander and talk over a map about what is "over the next hill", especially when communications means for the UAV are inoperable.

I suspect that if the FARA program does survive, it will be a political decision to maintain one of the vendors, vice the Army having demonstrated adequately the necessity of the program.
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
Click to expand...


That's what keeps floating around, but it always seems to be based on a "feeling". Part of it may be that so far Valor has pretty much outclassed Defiant, whereas it appears that the fact that an earlier version of what will grow into Raider-X has been flying for some time and although it doesn't seem to have met all of its goals., for now that seems to be worth more than something that hasn't flown as a complete aircraft at all.

I'm more concerned that the program manager in August said that a VTOL that meets Army specs might not be able to be built. Specifically a VTOL that has a max sustained speed of at least 180 knots r (and given what you have to pay to get that I personally think they should ask for more), specified performance (payload, range, endurance) with 3,000 shp driving a ≤40' diameter rotor with a gross weight of ≤14,000 lbs may be beyond the technology available.
Click to expand...
A fair point. I think the perceptions of success (flight program with "minimal" issue) for Bell V-280 and Sikorsky Raider, are a major source of this "feeling". To my knowledge the SB>1 remains incomplete with the initial test plan. Down select for FLRAA is to occur mid year 2022.

I think everyone (especially AW&ST) was surprised at a program manager saying in public that the Army was trying to defy the laws of physics. That no doubt caused some choice language to be floated amongst leadership and vendors alike. The US Army efforts toward a manned reconnaissance rotorcraft have been, by any count, an abysmal failure. Mostly because they have failed to get the DoD to comprehend the necessity for such a platform. Nor that what the Army does not conduct reconnaissance in the same manner as that done by other services. Nor do I think they have adequately outlined that UAV cannot land next to the supported ground commander and talk over a map about what is "over the next hill", especially when communications means for the UAV are inoperable.

I suspect that if the FARA program does survive, it will be a political decision to maintain one of the vendors, vice the Army having demonstrated adequately the necessity of the program.
Click to expand...
Yes, your last sentence regarding the "political decision to maintain one of the vendors" is an important statement. Maintaining healthy and viable primes is a weighted factor when determining program placement and the aftermath affect of a down-select. Another aspect to consider for decision, both FLRAA and FARA will be the potential for technology growth and expansion. This was clearly learned from the H-60 evolution.
 
Maybe they will realize that Bell won't certainly terminate its successful decades of attack and scout helicopters just because of the army decision. They will move probably forward with their design or a refined one whatever the outcome proves to be.
In that sense, there is no difficult choice to be made. It's more a matter of ensuring that both pass a minimal set of KPI and draw perspectives around the final product.
 

03 | The Hill

thehill.com thehill.com

A timely promotional from Bell in The Hill. The second paragraph is the impact statement to the Congressional staffers who page through the magazine. Bottom line: less risk for the money.

The Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA), where Bell is offering the flight-proven V-280 Valor, and the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA), where Bell’s 360 Invictus offers a high-speed, proven configuration for what will be the most advanced scout ever developed, are prime examples of how the Army is developing FVL systems that deliver the capabilities necessary to protect American interests around the world in a way that maximizes the investment of American taxpayers.
 
TomcatViP said:
Maybe they will realize that Bell won't certainly terminate its successful decades of attack and scout helicopters just because of the army decision. They will move probably forward with their design or a refined one whatever the outcome proves to be.
In that sense, there is no difficult choice to be made. It's more a matter of ensuring that both pass a minimal set of KPI and draw perspectives around the final product.
Click to expand...
The outlier in this is the USMC H-1 replacement effort. The Marines have made it clear that they want a tilt rotor solution. So there is a logic that Army gets SB>1 (Sikorsky and Boeing get paid), FARA is canceled and Marines get a V-280 variant (Bell is paid). Politically, everyone is still happy. Now what would be interesting is to see if there is a Congressional push like that of the F-4 Phantom with USAF and USN in the 60's. Commonality is good and, at least philosophically, cheaper.
 
Interesting prospective scenario. I had more in mind the international market with Invictus being definitely a step forward in term of mass, load out and performance aside of sensors regarding all other potential competitors. It will be astonishing to see them put all that effort inside a box and forget about it.
So, you are probably right for the Marines that aspire to their own design. But will they have the budget to sustain yet another advanced one?
 
yasotay said:
TomcatViP said:
Maybe they will realize that Bell won't certainly terminate its successful decades of attack and scout helicopters just because of the army decision. They will move probably forward with their design or a refined one whatever the outcome proves to be.
In that sense, there is no difficult choice to be made. It's more a matter of ensuring that both pass a minimal set of KPI and draw perspectives around the final product.
Click to expand...
The outlier in this is the USMC H-1 replacement effort. The Marines have made it clear that they want a tilt rotor solution. So there is a logic that Army gets SB>1 (Sikorsky and Boeing get paid), FARA is canceled and Marines get a V-280 variant (Bell is paid). Politically, everyone is still happy. Now what would be interesting is to see if there is a Congressional push like that of the F-4 Phantom with USAF and USN in the 60's. Commonality is good and, at least philosophically, cheaper.
Click to expand...
The F-4 was a case of a carrier-capable aircraft designed and built to perform certain roles for one service. It was found that with minimal modifications this already existing aircraft could perform those same missions for the Air Force better than AF's existing aircraft and obviated the need for USAF to develop a whole new aircraft to perform them. Same for the A-7 and to a lesser extent, A-3. This is different from a single aircraft designed to perform different missions for different services primarily to be landbased with a carrier based version, such as the F-111 and F-35.

USMC's requirements for AURA are or the most part higher than Army's for FLRAA, except for carrying capacity. They're replacing the H-1 instead of the H-60. Bell will probably propose an aircraft using V-280 based technology, but probably wouldn't be a variant.
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
Click to expand...


That's what keeps floating around, but it always seems to be based on a "feeling". Part of it may be that so far Valor has pretty much outclassed Defiant, whereas it appears that the fact that an earlier version of what will grow into Raider-X has been flying for some time and although it doesn't seem to have met all of its goals., for now that seems to be worth more than something that hasn't flown as a complete aircraft at all.

I'm more concerned that the program manager in August said that a VTOL that meets Army specs might not be able to be built. Specifically a VTOL that has a max sustained speed of at least 180 knots r (and given what you have to pay to get that I personally think they should ask for more), specified performance (payload, range, endurance) with 3,000 shp driving a ≤40' diameter rotor with a gross weight of ≤14,000 lbs may be beyond the technology available.
Click to expand...
A fair point. I think the perceptions of success (flight program with "minimal" issue) for Bell V-280 and Sikorsky Raider, are a major source of this "feeling". To my knowledge the SB>1 remains incomplete with the initial test plan. Down select for FLRAA is to occur mid year 2022.

I think everyone (especially AW&ST) was surprised at a program manager saying in public that the Army was trying to defy the laws of physics. That no doubt caused some choice language to be floated amongst leadership and vendors alike. The US Army efforts toward a manned reconnaissance rotorcraft have been, by any count, an abysmal failure. Mostly because they have failed to get the DoD to comprehend the necessity for such a platform. Nor that what the Army does not conduct reconnaissance in the same manner as that done by other services. Nor do I think they have adequately outlined that UAV cannot land next to the supported ground commander and talk over a map about what is "over the next hill", especially when communications means for the UAV are inoperable.

I suspect that if the FARA program does survive, it will be a political decision to maintain one of the vendors, vice the Army having demonstrated adequately the necessity of the program.
Click to expand...



In the case of SB>1/FLRAA, we don't have competitors on equal footing. Given what the two have demonstrated so far, awarding the contract to Sikorsky solely on spreading the wealth around is quite risky. If they were neck and neck it might be a deciding factor since both could meet the requirements, but as of now they aren't neck and neck.
 
Last edited:
yasotay said:
F-14D said:
yasotay said:
Interestingly much of what I have seen in this actually gives Bell FLRAA, Sikorsky FARA, and Boeing continues to sell AH-64 and CH-47 at there current rate. With Sikorsky having a number of UH-60 on the books to sell and the after market updates for another ~40 years, everyone in the industry is in business for at least another couple of decades. Bell with a handful of H-1 for the Czech Republic and the last few MV-22 for the USMC, are the most at risk. But I can see how one can read @H_K 's point in the article.
Click to expand...


That's what keeps floating around, but it always seems to be based on a "feeling". Part of it may be that so far Valor has pretty much outclassed Defiant, whereas it appears that the fact that an earlier version of what will grow into Raider-X has been flying for some time and although it doesn't seem to have met all of its goals., for now that seems to be worth more than something that hasn't flown as a complete aircraft at all.

I'm more concerned that the program manager in August said that a VTOL that meets Army specs might not be able to be built. Specifically a VTOL that has a max sustained speed of at least 180 knots r (and given what you have to pay to get that I personally think they should ask for more), specified performance (payload, range, endurance) with 3,000 shp driving a ≤40' diameter rotor with a gross weight of ≤14,000 lbs may be beyond the technology available.
Click to expand...
A fair point. I think the perceptions of success (flight program with "minimal" issue) for Bell V-280 and Sikorsky Raider, are a major source of this "feeling". To my knowledge the SB>1 remains incomplete with the initial test plan. Down select for FLRAA is to occur mid year 2022.

I think everyone (especially AW&ST) was surprised at a program manager saying in public that the Army was trying to defy the laws of physics. That no doubt caused some choice language to be floated amongst leadership and vendors alike. The US Army efforts toward a manned reconnaissance rotorcraft have been, by any count, an abysmal failure. Mostly because they have failed to get the DoD to comprehend the necessity for such a platform. Nor that what the Army does not conduct reconnaissance in the same manner as that done by other services. Nor do I think they have adequately outlined that UAV cannot land next to the supported ground commander and talk over a map about what is "over the next hill", especially when communications means for the UAV are inoperable.

I suspect that if the FARA program does survive, it will be a political decision to maintain one of the vendors, vice the Army having demonstrated adequately the necessity of the program.
Click to expand...


Looking around, it seems like there are a number of sources inside and outside the Governmnent that are saying, "We told the Army this from the beginning, that they couldn't get all they wanted, but they just pushed ahead". The contractors', or course, couldn't afford to not bid on this so they're going to give it their best shot and hope that when reality clicks in Army will compromise on the requirements and they'll have something ready to bid.
 
I suspect the need to compromise is already being worked.
 
On the AURA effort, I think that V-280 dynamic components married to a new attack/recon fuselage would be able to meet the desires of the USMC. I do not know if they would be willing to compromise on the utility variant, only being able to keep up with MV-22B. There is of course opportunity for improvement with the Rolls Royce engine. Improved engines and new prop-rotors might be more economical than a whole cloth new air vehicle. Although Karem is an outlier I would love to see get to flight, I suspect that would add years (and $$) to the program development effort. Not likely something the USMC, nor the DoD, would be overly enthused at doing.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom