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

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
Army in 2019 attempted to accelerate T901 by about a year so it would be usable for the FARA flyoff
Correct. The schedule slipping now is the accelerated schedule. And the plan remains to use the 2600 shp engine that's been flying with the 160th SOAR. I think most people expected this even before COVID. There's definitely been a backup plan from the get go once whoever got the wild hair to attempt to get the T901 ready for the FARA prototypes.
The SOAR 2600 shp? T607? Is that a "plug and play" engine like to 901 is suppose to be for for 701? No engineer here, but if it is not, I would assume there would be some changes required to the FARA prototypes to accept a new engine.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
766
Reaction score
657
The SOAR 2600 shp? T607? Is that a "plug and play" engine like to 901 is suppose to be for for 701? No engineer here, but if it is not, I would assume there would be some changes required to the FARA prototypes to accept a new engine.
YT706, which is currently mounted in the Raider, also. The engines (YT706T901) have roughly the same diameter (25-26") and length (48.2-48.8"). Might not be exactly plug and play, but shouldn't require major work to integrate.
There's also an existing upgrade path for YT706 aiming for 3,000 shp started for the ill-fated VH-71 program, which is potentially added insurance against the T901 development (if someone throws money at it).
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
727
So far, the problems don't seem to with the design just with the actual resources to finish developing the thing under the accelerated schedule. There doesn't seem to be that much concern (yet) with developing the engine under the original schedule, just trying to do it sooner in time to be used in the FARA flyoffs. Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

You know, the same thing happened with the F-14. It was known that the aircraft would be ready for flight testing before the definitive engine (from either GE or Pratt) would be available. So it was decided for the first 13-69 airframes initial development/testing/training would be done with the "interim" engine, the TF30. And the rest is sad history...
 

Spyclip

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
88
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
828
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?
 

Spyclip

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
88
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
828
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

Ok, so no second source.

Thank you for confirming that RaiderX does not have an SPU a la 360.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,962
Reaction score
727
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.
You know, if Sikorsky waits much longer to reveal they in fact need an SPU, even if it was always was in the plans, this could be perceived as a deficiency. In other words, the perception could be that ,regardless of the reality, the design wasn't going to meet their promises so they had to add a SPU,. Of course, if they can't get T901 power at T901 weight, both competitors will have a tough time meeting the requirements SPU or no.

But then didn't the program manager say that even with T901 power an aircraft that meets all the FARA specs at present can't be built?
 

Spyclip

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
88
Obviously, in the flyoff a competitor will not be required to meet those specs that require the advanced engine to achieve; just that it would be reasonable to project that it would meet those once the definitive engine becomes available.

The fact that both platforms already needed and integrated power-offsetting SPUs - I would be suspicious if Raider X in particular would be baseline operational with any less power than the T901 since its SPU implementation is less capable than Invictus

I really wonder what makes you that confident that RaiderX has in fact an integrated SPU.
There is actually only this single article from AW that very briefly mentions it (And I digged it out for you).
Can you provide a second source?

There are details about these programs I am privy to due to personal and professional connections, however you can imagine much of it would not be published publicly at this stage. It is nice to see them occasionally make it to print, however, most of this information is revealed in time regardless.

The "speculation" on Raider X is that their SPU setup is lower power and only offsets some of the accessory drive power draw - a la RAH-66 in-flight APU usage. Therefore they would have less power headroom to turn up the wick past MCP compared to the PW unit on the 360 to make up for a main engine power deficiency should a T901-level engine not be available/installed.

Ok, so no second source.

Thank you for confirming that RaiderX does not have an SPU a la 360.

You didn't have to ask me. Trimble went on record in the article you found saying it does (probably to Sikorsky's chagrin). Why do you need a second source? Do you not trust a reporter who has been a pillar of the defense news industry for over 20 years?
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
828
This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “We weren’t trying to get every last bit of drag out to hit a speed requirement. We didn’t need to,” Malia said. “We are not doing anything cute or tricky by trying to add additional engines. We are using the power that’s available from the T901, and we’ve got a really solid design built around it..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.
 
Last edited:

Spyclip

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
88
This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “We weren’t trying to get every last bit of drag out to hit a speed requirement. We didn’t need to,” Malia said. “We are not doing anything cute or tricky by trying to add additional engines. We are using the power that’s available from the T901, and we’ve got a really solid design built around it..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.

If you choose to believe Sikorsky's claims versus what is reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media, that is your prerogative. But you should look closely at their history and statements with FLRAA and anything to do with X2 for that matter.

To many in the industry, they have long since lost the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, the whole SPU situation will be public in due time.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
828
This is not about Trimble. I would always prefer to have a second source.

However, as you noticed by yourself, Sikorsky repeatedly and very specifically pointed out that Raider X doesn't need an SPU:

"...By contrast, Sikorsky is confident their Raider-X can beat 205 knots – using the same GE T901 engine as the Bell 360, but with no supplemental power system... “We weren’t trying to get every last bit of drag out to hit a speed requirement. We didn’t need to,” Malia said. “We are not doing anything cute or tricky by trying to add additional engines. We are using the power that’s available from the T901, and we’ve got a really solid design built around it..."

If that changes, and AW was aware about it as of Aug 2021, I would expect such a significant piece of news would get more attention by other aviation / defence-news outlets as well. Wouldn't it?

Edit: Furthermore, in the AW-article it is just mentioned casually, like it wasn't news at all.

If you choose to believe Sikorsky's claims versus what is reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media, that is your prerogative. But you should look closely at their history and statements with FLRAA and anything to do with X2 for that matter.

To many in the industry, they have long since lost the benefit of the doubt.

In any case, the whole SPU situation will be public in due time.

"reported by their customer (the US Army) through the media"

All I'm asking for is a source other than the AW-article.
 

skyblue

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Sep 20, 2009
Messages
70
Reaction score
61

I wonder if FLRAA will still have funding difficulties. Just as the Army was diminishing in importance relative to the Pacific oriented Navy and Airforce, suddenly an Army somewhat adrift has found VERY good reason to enhance the defenses needed for a land war in Europe. What whiplash, from the middle east to a pivot toward the pacific and now refocused back to Europe. Not that the threats in the Pacific have diminished at all...
 

shin_getter

ACCESS: Top Secret
Joined
Jun 1, 2019
Messages
673
Reaction score
750
I wonder if FLRAA will still have funding difficulties. Just as the Army was diminishing in importance relative to the Pacific oriented Navy and Airforce, suddenly an Army somewhat adrift has found VERY good reason to enhance the defenses needed for a land war in Europe. What whiplash, from the middle east to a pivot toward the pacific and now refocused back to Europe. Not that the threats in the Pacific have diminished at all...
It really depends on how the war gets resolved. If the European land threat actually just implode the whole case for investment gets weakened.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
I see an article on the FLIGHT GLOBAL website, behind the paywall, that says Sikorsky has ruled out the development of a civil X2 technology rotorcraft.
If nothing else I am suprised at the timing, with the impending FVL decision.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
488
Reaction score
1,012
If nothing else I am suprised at the timing, with the impending FVL decision.
Here’s a few quotes from the article. Translation: “X2 is a technological dead end, and even tilt rotors are too expensive for commercial applications”.


Sikorsky:

There had been an expectation that should Sikorsky win either of the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) or Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) contests then it would leverage the volumes involved to spin out a commercial derivative.

However, Sikorsky has explicitly ruled out a civil programme incorporating the X2 configuration. “We initially thought we would have to apply that to everything,” said Jason Lambert, vice-president of global military and commercial systems, speaking at the recent Heli-Expo conference.

“But the benefit of what that brings in terms of agility is not so important in the commercial space. Speed is nice but from an overall [fuel] efficiency perspective we don’t think it’s the right thing for commercial.”

Lambert says the future for the commercial portfolio is likely to see the application of hybrid-electric propulsion and increased levels of autonomy: “We are modelling it now.”

An aircraft of a similar size to the 13-passenger S-76 helicopter using a tiltwing, rather than tiltrotor architecture is being consider, he says: “It’s conceptual, but we are evaluating it.”


Bell:
Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.

Thacker stresses, however, that until the V-280 is picked by the US military “it is too soon to really contemplate what that [civil helicopter] would be”.

Meanwhile, Bell’s FARA offer is the 360 Invictus – a more conventional helicopter that can still cruise at 180kt. Thacker suggests that technologies matured through that programme might offer a simpler route to the civil market.

Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
488
Reaction score
1,012
P.S. That leaves Airbus’ RACER as the only technology that may work commercially (not surprising really).

And even RACER seems to have weight problems (~50% weight penalty to go from 150kts to 220kts).
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,472
Reaction score
5,219
I am pretty sure that the raw power, much above any threshold for a civilian application and GB weight and size is what limits both design to be directly applied to the civilian world.
Then, resize the rotors (cut down power requirements) and add an hybrid setup and there you go. There is no more, nor less of FVL tech that is suitable to a civilian usage than what a Battleship can be to a cargoship: they are diametrically opposed. Any straightforward application from one to the other is just... Inappropriate.

This does not mean that tilt rotors will not see the light of the day in passengers transportation or cargo. Idem for the abc-rotor.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
488
Reaction score
1,012
I am pretty sure that the raw power, much above any threshold for a civilian application and GB weight and size is what limits both design to be directly applied to the civilian world.
I would have thought that the Raider X’s drivetrain (6.3 ton take-off weight, ~3,000hp) would be directly applicable to the civilian market to replace the S-76 and compete against the AW169, H160 etc.

(With hybrid / APU module in case of engine failure)

But no… so I don’t think it’s an issue of too much raw power.
 
Last edited:

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
766
Reaction score
657
Well, speed is desirable in the commercial market, but they usually don't want to pay for it.
Same reason we didn't see this happen:
v3n2art14.jpg


(drawing courtesy of OBB)

No reason to keep the weight and complexity (and most importantly cost) of the drive train if there's no demand for the speed (or more technically, if one can otherwise deliver 75% of the speed for 50% of the cost).
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
Speed does not buy its was into the equation if you are not routinely operating at 100 miles or more. So the only place rotorcraft with much greater speed are potentially viable would be deep sea oil I think. Possibly specialised medical.
 

_Del_

I really should change my personal text... Or not.
Joined
Jan 4, 2012
Messages
766
Reaction score
657
Same Flight Global Article said:
Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
976
Reaction score
828
Speaking of civil tilt-rotors: Is AW609 finally certified? Bell dropped out years ago.
 

MihoshiK

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 9, 2007
Messages
267
Reaction score
233
Same Flight Global Article said:
Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:
As mentioned in that article:

"But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not."

Markets change.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
It is standard business practice to tell customers what they want to hear. No comercial ever touted a car as a gas guzzling maintenance nightmare. No beer ever advertised as tasting horrible.

The comments from Sikorsky caused Bell to have to make a similar statement when the pundits sensed a broader story.

Of note AW 609 continues to creep toward US certification, with European certification to happen soon (I may be recalling this inaccurately). So there is a potential for a commercial TR soon(er).

The worlds largest rotorcraft consumer wants to go further and faster. The two most likely technologies to meet the desired endstate, from established OEM, were selected.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
488
Reaction score
1,012
Speaking of civil tilt-rotors: Is AW609 finally certified? Bell dropped out years ago.
Leonardo are “hopeful” for FAA certification in late 2022 or early 2023, with service entry following soon after in 2023 with Bristow.

 

Spyclip

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Jun 18, 2021
Messages
57
Reaction score
88
Same Flight Global Article said:
Bell is offering the V-280 Valor for FLRAA and Michael Thacker, the airframer’s executive vice-president of innovation and commercial business, says if the tiltrotor is selected it would “consider commercial variants”.

“But is there a clear business case for that today? Probably not. But we are certainly open to the idea – we have certainly seen interest in that concept from a commercial perspective,” said Thacker at Heli-Expo.
...
Transferring some the “learnings” or systems developed from the Invictus into a commercial product “is nearer to shore than the commercial application of a V-280”, he says.

Bell has explicitly touted commercial tilt-rotor applications for decades. Are we supposed to believe they only suddenly had some kind of epiphany?

Or is this a sort of implicit admission that Bell sucks, and they are professional liars?


1999:

I must have missed the part where Bell stated that there were now no plans for a commercial tiltrotor ever.

Err wait, that's not what was said at all (Bell even still builds the blades for the AW609).

Sikorsky, on the other hand, was clear as a Bell on their newly abandoned X2 commercial plans and even mentioned a tiltwing alternative. If that isn't earth-shaking in light of the Steve Weiner "all-eggs-in-the-ABC-basket" Sikorsky philosophy of last 20 years, I don't know what is.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
The FARA options were never enough of a leap to justify the cost, nor are they survivable so will agree w csis. Likewise, ALE in current configurations is not worth anything but conceptualization either.
Btw, I think by now we can safely say that rotary-wing platforms are actually doing quite well in a theater literally oversaturated with all sorts of SAMs, from MANPADS all the way down to ABM-capable S-300Vs. CAS, SAR, large-scale assaults, specops insertions. And by both sides at that.

Even non-stealthy UCAVs (without Bluefly brains) slip through to get their prey from time to time.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,472
Reaction score
5,219
I would say that's It's a bit too early to say such.

B/w, It would have been better if Airbus had delivered all the reconditioned Caracal to the Ukrainians as they agreed in 2018. Late is still better than never. Those airfraime can still be pushed across the border until now.
 

Ainen

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Aug 25, 2011
Messages
135
Reaction score
106
I would say that's It's a bit too early to say such.
it's hard indeed, but rotary wings are arguably the best visible (and measurable) part of the conflict right now.
Telling much is difficult, but they're definitely most active over the battlefields.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
Big data dump on FVL. First interesting to note that even with the plus up, FARA had money taken away.

Army aviation benefits from overall defense increase / Inside
Defense
DATE: March 18, 2022
BYLINE: Evan Ochsner

Army aviation programs, including legacy programs and Future Vertical Lift priorities, appear to be among the winners from the defense spending increase above what President Biden requested in the fiscal year 2022 omnibus spending law.
The FY-22 Omnibus Appropriations Act, signed by Biden earlier this week, includes increases for procurement and research and development for legacy Army aviation programs like the Black Hawk and Chinook, as well as increases for Future Vertical Lift.
Army Secretary Christine Wormuth said last week that the higher total defense funding had buoyed the Army's efforts to continue to fund its Future Vertical Lift programs while modernizing and maintaining its current fleet.
In total, lawmakers increased defense spending by about $30 billion over what Biden had requested.
"We can't just turn off those enduring programs while we work to the future," Wormuth said at the McAleese Defense Programs conference. "We have to have a bridge that gets us to the future. So, we've got to be able to do both things: continue to invest in our enduring programs while we develop the new systems."
The FY-22 spending law increases multiyear procurement of the Black Hawk, which the Army seeks to begin replacing in 2030 with the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, by about a third, bumping the budget to $842 million from about $630 million. The increase is for nine HH-60M model Black Hawks for the National Guard, according to the law's language.
The legislation also includes a bump to about $15 million from about $5 million for Black Hawk blade improvement.
For the Chinook, the budget bill includes an increase to $286 million from the initial $145 million request for F Block II procurement and $29 million above the budget request for current year advanced procurement. The Block II Chinook is an upgraded version that Boeing says has increased lift capabilities.
For Chinook product improvement, the law includes an increase to $68 million from $52 million for engine enhancements and lightweight ballistic protection system.
The program increases for legacy programs appear not to have come at the expense of the Army's Future Vertical Lift priorities, as Congress increased FVL research and development funding above Biden's request. That includes an additional $77 million in advanced development funds for FLRAA, and an increase to $133 million from $91 million for applied research on FVL technology. FVL advanced technology development funds were increased to $262 million from $180 million in the request.
Not every aviation program got a lift, however. The law decreased Apache procurement funding and kept level future development funding. The Army's Future Attack Reconnaissance program also saw slight decreases.
The Pentagon's portion of the overall FY-22 defense budget, including military construction, will be $743.2 billion.
The final tally for the Pentagon includes about a $20 billion modernization boost, with around $12 billion going toward procurement and approximately $7 billion for research, development, test and evaluation.

In other FVL news -




 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
3,106
Reaction score
2,024
Army increases FARA funding request, seeks information on proposals
Inside Defense
DATE: March 29, 2022
BYLINE: Evan Oschner

The Army is again seeking to raise funding for its top Future Vertical Lift modernization priority, asking Congress in its fiscal year 2023 budget request to increase Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft funding by about 50%, according to an Army official and Pentagon budget documents. Under the Army's FY-23 request, the FARA program would receive $978.5 million, Kirsten Taylor, director of investments in the Army comptroller's office, told reporters on Tuesday. That's up from $650.2 million the Army
requested for FY-22, according to budget documents.
The increase represents at least the third consecutive year that the Army has ramped up funding for the development of the aircraft, the first of which it plans to field in FY-30. The Army asked for $377 million for FARA for FY-20 and $480.7 million for FY-21.
The Army, in a sources-sought notice posted Monday, asked the two remaining vendors in the FARA competition to provide specifications about their aircraft proposals, their companies and their manufacturing abilities.
"The FARA program intends to utilize results of this inquiry as an element of market research to pursue a Limited Source Justification and Approval . . . to limit further competition on the follow-on contract for the continued development and production in support of the FARA program of record," the notice states.
After initially awarding other transaction agreements to five potential vendors to prototype the FARA, the Army in 2020 selected two vendors, Bell and Sikorsky, to build prototypes for the competitive test phase.
The Army's notice asks the companies to provide estimates of maximum combat airspeed, combat radius, payload and maximum takeoff gross weight, as well as information about integration capabilities with an open architecture the service is developing alongside its future vertical lift platforms.
But the Army is interested in more than aircraft specifications, as it also seeks information about revenue, employment and manufacturing abilities, asking the companies to provide documentation that demonstrates "past performance manufacturing a new build manned rotorcraft system" at a minimum production rate of 24 units per year.
The companies must also provide a "detailed program schedule" that includes milestones for maturity of all critical technologies and the completion of critical design review.
Production targets included by the Army in the notice ask for the delivery of a flight-ready test aircraft by the first quarter of FY-28 and eight total test aircraft by the third quarter of FY-29, followed by the delivery of 44 low-rate initial production aircraft over a 36-month period. The Army in the notice asks the companies to ramp up to 24 deliveries per year by production year four.
Bell and Sikorsky are both "over 50% complete with prototype builds in preparation for FY23 flights and subsequent source selection to a single vendor for the baseline capability for FARA, Increment 1, Engineering and Manufacturing Development," the announcement states.
Increment 1 covers "next-generation flight performance, air vehicle design, and establishing the initial FARA ecosystem consisting of FARA teamed with Air Launched Effects and Long Range Precision Munitions," according to the announcement.
The program is currently an acquisition category 1B, pre-major defense acquisition program, the notice states.
The resultant EMD base contract will "include scope for critical weapon system design, six test article builds, associated long lead for six test articles and developmental testing," the announcement states.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
5,472
Reaction score
5,219
The Defiant, the Sikorsky-Boeing team’s offering for the Army’s Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft, flew the 700 nautical miles from its home at Sikorsky’s flight test center in West Palm Beach, Fla., to Nashville, Tenn., just in time for the Army Aviation Association of America annual conference taking place there next week.

Defiant completed the flight in seven hours on March 21, including two stops for refueling, according to Sikorsky President Paul Lemmo, who noted that the fuel burn was less than expected.

 

Similar threads

Top