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

FLRAA delay will cut into Bell profits, CEO says

(Inside Defense, July 29, Evan Ochsner)

The Army’s multi-month delay in announcing the winner of the competition to replace the Black Hawk helicopter will result in a decrease in annual profits for Bell, its parent company’s CEO said Thursday.
Bell is competing against a joint bid from Sikorsky and Boeing to manufacture the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft for the Army.
The company had originally anticipated a FLRAA decision this month, but it now appears the earliest the Army will likely make its announcement is October. That means Bell will keep employing its FLRAA team for additional months but without the benefit of winning the contract award to fund the team, Textron CEO Scott Donnelly told investors during an earnings call Thursday.
“That's probably a three- or four-month slip from where we thought it would be when we gave our guidance originally,” Donnelly said. “So, obviously we have a big team and we're going to retain that team and keep pressing on, but certainly that will result in some more investment in our program before we get to a contract award.”
The result will likely be lower profits for Bell this year, even if its revenue is strong, he said.
Bell is expecting the FLRAA announcement “sometime in October,” likely after the annual Association of the United States Army meeting, according to Donnelly.
Army acquisition executive Doug Bush on Wednesday left the door open for a September decision during a conversation with reporters, but he also suggested the decision could come later: “The goal would still be the end of fourth quarter '22, and perhaps early first quarter '23, fiscal '23. But I don't have an exact date yet.”
Bush established the September decision target during congressional testimony earlier this year.
Donnelly said Thursday the Army appears to be in its “detailed evaluation phase” of the decision process: “There haven't been data requests or proposal-related activity here for some time.”
Bell faces further headwinds due to the drawdown of the H-1 upgrade program, a key revenue stream for the company, officials said Thursday. Bell is seeing lower demand volume for that helicopter program, Donnelly said.
Bell reported $687 million in second quarter revenue, down $204 million from last year, a drop consisting primarily of a $170 million decrease in military revenues, which the company attributed to the H-1 demand slip.
The company said its second-quarter profit of $63 million was down $47 million from the year before.
 
I always enjoy the biz development narrative. I guess we will soon see if having aircraft with similar aerodynamics weighs on down select decision making. Both companies, with both FVL programs, are touting the benefits of having like aircraft to call upon to demonstrate viability.
 
yasotay said:
FLRAA delay will cut into Bell profits, CEO says

(Inside Defense, July 29, Evan Ochsner)

The Army’s multi-month delay in announcing the winner of the competition to replace the Black Hawk helicopter will result in a decrease in annual profits for Bell, its parent company’s CEO said Thursday.
Bell is competing against a joint bid from Sikorsky and Boeing to manufacture the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft for the Army.
The company had originally anticipated a FLRAA decision this month, but it now appears the earliest the Army will likely make its announcement is October. That means Bell will keep employing its FLRAA team for additional months but without the benefit of winning the contract award to fund the team, Textron CEO Scott Donnelly told investors during an earnings call Thursday.
“That's probably a three- or four-month slip from where we thought it would be when we gave our guidance originally,” Donnelly said. “So, obviously we have a big team and we're going to retain that team and keep pressing on, but certainly that will result in some more investment in our program before we get to a contract award.”
The result will likely be lower profits for Bell this year, even if its revenue is strong, he said.
Bell is expecting the FLRAA announcement “sometime in October,” likely after the annual Association of the United States Army meeting, according to Donnelly.
Army acquisition executive Doug Bush on Wednesday left the door open for a September decision during a conversation with reporters, but he also suggested the decision could come later: “The goal would still be the end of fourth quarter '22, and perhaps early first quarter '23, fiscal '23. But I don't have an exact date yet.”
Bush established the September decision target during congressional testimony earlier this year.
Donnelly said Thursday the Army appears to be in its “detailed evaluation phase” of the decision process: “There haven't been data requests or proposal-related activity here for some time.”
Bell faces further headwinds due to the drawdown of the H-1 upgrade program, a key revenue stream for the company, officials said Thursday. Bell is seeing lower demand volume for that helicopter program, Donnelly said.
Bell reported $687 million in second quarter revenue, down $204 million from last year, a drop consisting primarily of a $170 million decrease in military revenues, which the company attributed to the H-1 demand slip.
The company said its second-quarter profit of $63 million was down $47 million from the year before.
Click to expand...

Bell keeps essentially paying penalties by adhering to schedules and performing and delivering on time with FVL.

Gotta feel like a total kick in the nuts every time the Army slips dates to the right when you work your ass off and make major investments to ensure you meet the customer's original dates

1659462528763.png
 
@Spyclip - I certainly agree, but given the US Army's stellar record on aircraft acquisitions, I would have thought industry would have expected this. Likely have, but understand trying to keep investors less anxious about their profit margin.
 
this reminds me of the ATF when the northrop mcdonnell douglas team had to swallow a bitter pill when air force extended the deadline so lockheed can catch up having pitched an unflyable design, which conveniently also gave them time to add weapon release demonstration which was not even part of the requirements.
 
RavenOne said:
yasotay said:
TomS said:
Moose said:
On the topic of the US Navy, it's important to remember that Knighthawks are half the Navy's current -hawk fleet. The ASW mission of the MH-60R might not seem a good fit for a high-speed airframe, especially if you see the dunking sonar as the most important piece of kit, but the MH-60S mission set is arguably one a tiltrotor would do well in. Aiding Bell's cause is that the CMV-22B is getting reasonably rave reviews right now.
Click to expand...

Of course, then the next question is, if CMV-22B is so good, why not buy more of those for the portion of the Sierra mission that tiltrotor works for (logistics, SAR/CSAR, NSW support, I'm guessing) and converge the other parts back with the Romeo replacement.
Click to expand...
I do see CMV-22 getting mentioned as a SAR/CSAR and NSW platform in some of the USN narrative. I will try to find and post a link.
Click to expand...

Which was the original requirement / fielding when JVX materialised as V-22 ...with the navy receiving the HV-22 CSAR version.

cheers
Click to expand...
And ASW I thought. There are old ads showing a V-22 dropping a torpedo on a Typhoon SSBN.
 
Interesting that they had to get Vertical Mag to publish a press release masquerading as a fake Q&A, rather than subjecting themselves to a normal press interview and real Q&A by a journalist.
 
Normal method honestly. Both teams have relied on "sponsored content" to get their message out.
 
H_K said:
Interesting that they had to get Vertical Mag to publish a press release masquerading as a fake Q&A, rather than subjecting themselves to a normal press interview and real Q&A by a journalist.
Click to expand...

Considering they would not even permit the only non-Sikorsky USG pilot to actually fly the S-97 on its single guest "pilot" flight, I don't think any kind of objective interview on X2 is in the cards any time soon.

The S-97 guest pilot and the USG pilots on the SB-1 flight were similarly muzzled (for obvious competitive reasons), but I do wonder if we will hear any of their sentiments after downselect.

There were 5 different multi-service USG experimental pilots that flew the V-280 in 15 sorties, so the bucket of opinion should be deeper for that platform if anything comes out publicly.
 
Experimental Test Pilots are predisposed to focus on the negative aspects of a test flight, no matter how miniscule. Government Test Pilots are not inclined to be PR fodder. Video of them walking to an aircraft, checking log books, or strapping into the aircraft is about all you get. There opinion regarding the capabilities of a platform will likely never see daylight. Pretty sure they have NDA in place to keep there opinions and results closed to only the government.
 
yasotay said:
Experimental Test Pilots are predisposed to focus on the negative aspects of a test flight, no matter how miniscule. Government Test Pilots are not inclined to be PR fodder. Video of them walking to an aircraft, checking log books, or strapping into the aircraft is about all you get. There opinion regarding the capabilities of a platform will likely never see daylight. Pretty sure they have NDA in place to keep there opinions and results closed to only the government.
Click to expand...
It isn't so much that developmental test pilots (and other blue patch aircrew, navs, wso's & FTE's) are predisposed towards negativity it's that they're in the business of specification verification. The rudder pedal force either exceeds 150 lbf or doesn't, even more subjective things such as handling qualities have the Cooper-Harper scale to minimize it as much as possible.

The PR fodder depends completely on the nature of the test program, spent half of my time in the AF in DT flight test with the aforementioned test pilots. Something competition sensitive as you might imagine carries with it NDA's and the like to avoid creation of grounds for protest or reversal (signed at least one of those).

Now the operational test folks tend are focused on validation of effectiveness, tend to have the gray patch wearers. Those opinions do see the light of day in the mandated OT&E reports, the better stuff is of course classified, but enough comes out to give the media and congress something about which to complain.

Think of the blue patch wearers as engineer aircrew, because they are, and the gray patch wearers as they weapon employment experts, because they are the weapon instructors.
 

JUST IN: Army Sees Role for Next-Gen Aircraft in Indo-Pacific

JUST IN: Army Sees Role for Next-Gen Aircraft in Indo-Pacific
www.nationaldefensemagazine.org www.nationaldefensemagazine.org

Not much new but - "The improvement to the Army fleet will give combatant commands more options for operations in the Indo-Pacific working alongside aircraft from the other services, he added." was said at the meeting in DC for the sake of making sure the "Joint" implications were highlighted. "Joint" is a happy word in Congress that seems to keep the money flowing to programs.
 
Fort Worth-Based Bell Gunning for Deal to Supply Army Aircraft of the Future
(The Dallas Morning News (TX), Sept. 2, Joseph Morton)

Executives at Fort Worth-based Bell are optimistic the company could soon land a coveted deal to provide the U.S. Army with a new long range assault aircraft to replace its iconic Black Hawk helicopter.
“We’re confident,” Carl Coffman, Bell’s vice president for military sales and strategy, said in an interview. “We’re not cocky. We’re confident.”
Bell supplies aircraft to the U.S. military and private sector customers and has been building new facilities across North Texas, including a 140,000 square foot Manufacturing Technology Center in Fort Worth.
The army is poised to announce in coming months the winner of the long-running assault aircraft competition between Bell, which is owned by Textron, and a collaboration between Boeing and Connecticut-based helicopter manufacturer Sikorsky, which is owned by Lockheed Martin.
The companies also are vying to win a separate assignment to produce the army’s new attack reconnaissance helicopter. At stake in the high-profile competitions: the billions of dollars and thousands of jobs involved in producing a generation of army aircraft.
Bell officials said securing either deal would likely result in hundreds of additional jobs in the Fort Worth, Amarillo and Arlington areas as well as other parts of the country, although they said it would be inappropriate to speculate on specific numbers.
Bell currently employs more than 4,500 workers in the Dallas-Fort Worth area.
Latest in manufacturing
Bell has proposed the tilt-rotor V-280 Valor as the army’s next long range assault aircraft and the Bell 360 Invictus as the service’s future attack reconnaissance aircraft. If it wins either, the company plans to perfect production at its Manufacturing Technology Center.
Glenn Isbell, the company’s vice president of rapid prototyping and manufacturing innovation, described the center as a “test kitchen” where Bell can craft “recipes” for manufacturing different components of those aircraft and others in the future.
The center is intended to make dramatic advances in cutting-edge manufacturing techniques rather than incremental improvements.
“This particular facility is really a place where we can enable and try to change the way we manufacture our hardest-to-build parts,” Isbell said.
The first aircraft would come from the center as the company fine-tunes the process before moving large-scale production to other locations. Bell could build entirely new facilities or expand its existing plants to churn out the large number of aircraft the army is expected to order.
Coffman said producing the advanced aircraft will require highly skilled employees and the company will look to the area’s technical schools and junior colleges to help provide a pipeline of future workers.
“It’s going to be a manufacturing boost to the Fort Worth area, certainly, and advanced manufacturing too, not just the way we’ve done things traditionally in the past,” Coffman said.
Competing designs
Helicopters and their ability to swiftly move personnel and equipment over challenging terrain transformed how the army fought in the Vietnam War era.
Over the years, those helicopters have evolved to increase their airspeed, range and capabilities. But now the army is looking to respond to modern threats with major boosts across all categories.
Bell’s V-280 Valor prototype features a tilt-rotor design that combines the vertical take-off and hovering ability of a helicopter with the speed and range of an airplane.
“If you want to go far and you want to go fast and you want to be efficient in flight, there’s going to be a wing involved,” Coffman said.
Bell has plenty of experience when it comes to tilt rotors. Its pioneering V-22 Osprey was the first production tilt rotor aircraft.
Company officials say the V-280′s range and speed will allow a group of aircraft to attack in a dispersed formation, flying around threats before massing on a target.
On the other side of the competition, Sikorsky and Boeing tout the benefits of their Defiant X, which they describe as “the fastest, most maneuverable and most survivable military helicopter in history.”
Sikorsky also cites its experience supplying the army with Black Hawks and other helicopters.
Faster and farther
The army aircraft being developed are key to countering modern threats, Maj. General Walter Rugen, who oversees the aviation modernization efforts known as Future Vertical Lift, said during a recent event at the Washington-based Center for Strategic and International Studies.
He said the Black Hawk has been “tried and true” but is now 50 years old.
“And what we’re finding is just that analog age will not give us the decisive transformational capabilities we need on the future battlefield,” he said.
Rugen said the fighting in Ukraine has validated core principles behind the army’s modernization efforts, including how military aircraft need to be faster in both the physical world and the cyber domain.
Today’s battlefield features more advanced threats especially during higher-altitude daytime flights. That means pilots need to fly faster and lower, which requires superior technology.
“There’s plenty of places to hide if you stay low,” Rugen said.
He also cited the importance of improving army aircraft ranges as the United States seeks to bolster its military presence in the Pacific, with its vast expanses of open water.
The development of advanced, next-generation projects is expected to support the country’s defense industrial base even as older aircraft are phased out.
“We’ve done a great job of incrementally upgrading them, but there’s really no more work there because we’ve run out of SWaP - Size, Weight and Power,” Rugen said.
 
Italy is going all cylinders blasting as Aeronautica Militare Italiana Chief General Coretti wants in with Sikorsky on the Defiant / Raiser Co axial push pull prop tech

www.defensenews.com

Italy Air Force chief wants in on US next-gen helicopter tech — pronto

Gen. Luca Goretti said Italy urgently needs to get in on the ground floor of development of the technology to avoid playing catch-up later.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
 
Last edited:
RavenOne said:
Italy is going all cylinders blasting as Aeronautica Militare Italiana Chief General Coretti wants in with Sikorsky on the Defiant / Raiser Co axial push pull prop tech

www.defensenews.com

Italy Air Force chief wants in on US next-gen helicopter tech — pronto

Gen. Luca Goretti said Italy urgently needs to get in on the ground floor of development of the technology to avoid playing catch-up later.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
Italy is already the European leader in tilt rotor. By jumping on the coaxial compound wagon, Italy has access to two of the three leading high speed rotorcraft technological means so far explored.
 
breakingdefense.com

Bell’s V-280 VALOR is the standalone choice for FLRAA - Breaking Defense

To deter the threat from near-peer competitors, the Army’s air assault mission demands a revolution in capability that only a tiltrotor can provide — not just a faster helicopter.
breakingdefense.com breakingdefense.com

Pre-AUSA volley from Bell.

Seems they took the "gloves off" (U.S. sports slang for throwing off sporting equipment to get into a brawl).
 
Last edited:
Yes, pretty much everything that had to be said is there.
Except that if the US Army don't field this technology today, inherently it will surface somewhere else with the risk of an opponent being then able to outpace and outrange them.

Tilt rotors are there to stay.
 
Thinking more about the Italian General's comments. If the V-280 version of FLRAA goes into production there will be competion within the military and para-military market against the AW-609. While I think there would still be a market for 609, it would be reduced by another tilt rotor platform. Not happy news for one of Italy and Europes primary MIC.
 
I'd like to see how easily both of them fly 280 knots. I don't want to see Scotty trying to keep the Enterprise together at Warp 9 just to get to 250 knots.
 
yasotay said:
If the V-280 version of FLRAA goes into production there will be competion within the military and para-military market against the AW-609
Click to expand...
V-280 is double the weight class of AW-609 and I’m not sure it will be civil certified which could be a problem for some para-military operators. I see them as two very different aircraft with very little market overlap.

(Airbus’s Racer on the other hand seems to compete much more directly with AW-609).
 
Forest Green said:
sferrin said:
I'd like to see how easily both of them fly 280 knots. I don't want to see Scotty trying to keep the Enterprise together at Warp 9 just to get to 250 knots.
Click to expand...
Airwolf made Mach 2, so it should be a piece of cake.
Click to expand...
The V-280 has already flown at 300+ knots so I doubt it would have a problem hitting 280.
 
Well once they add all the external "bobs and bits" 280 may be the top end. I suspect efficient cruise would be somewhere around 250.
As to competition with the 609, or lack of it, I hope others here are right. Although Leonardo is fighting one of the few bureaucracies in the US that is worse than the DoD. The FAA.
 
Spyclip said:
www.flightglobal.com

Army delays Black Hawk replacement decision

Although the US Army previously planned to select a winner of the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft helicopter contest in September, programme officials say they are still working through the process.
www.flightglobal.com www.flightglobal.com

The folks at Bell are probably tearing their hair out.
Click to expand...
Their bottom line is nowhere near LMCO. The CEO already warned that the longer the Army takes the more it cost Bell. Given the implications of the program and the inevitable protest, regardless of the winner, I am sure that the lawyers and senior officers alike are "digging in" for the impending political storm.
 
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

US Army nearly ready to make future long-range assault aircraft award

The Army is just weeks from revealing its choice for a future long-range assault aircraft, according to the service’s acquisition chief.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
They are just weeks away. Don't hold your breath. Unspecified "weeks" make up a month. It would be nice of the Army, for once, to tell folks if they have jobs or not before the Christmas holidays.
Biggest Army Aviation aircraft program in 40 years... if it is successful. Remember Comanche was down selected and awarded too.

At best cagey mixed signals from Army Leaderhip.
 
yasotay said:
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

US Army nearly ready to make future long-range assault aircraft award

The Army is just weeks from revealing its choice for a future long-range assault aircraft, according to the service’s acquisition chief.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
They are just weeks away. Don't hold your breath. Unspecified "weeks" make up a month. It would be nice of the Army, for once, to tell folks if they have jobs or not before the Christmas holidays.
Biggest Army Aviation aircraft program in 40 years... if it is successful. Remember Comanche was down selected and awarded too.

At best cagey mixed signals from Army Leaderhip.
Click to expand...
Know a guy who worked on Comanche. "The colonel came around and told our company how vital the program was to the US Army, how important we were to the program, etc. The next week it was cancelled."

As for decision time, I just hope once it's made there are no protests.
 
sferrin said:
yasotay said:
bobbymike said:
www.defensenews.com

US Army nearly ready to make future long-range assault aircraft award

The Army is just weeks from revealing its choice for a future long-range assault aircraft, according to the service’s acquisition chief.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com
Click to expand...
They are just weeks away. Don't hold your breath. Unspecified "weeks" make up a month. It would be nice of the Army, for once, to tell folks if they have jobs or not before the Christmas holidays.
Biggest Army Aviation aircraft program in 40 years... if it is successful. Remember Comanche was down selected and awarded too.

At best cagey mixed signals from Army Leaderhip.
Click to expand...

As for decision time, I just hope once it's made there are no protests.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that is likely the only thing guaranteed ro happen.
 
Vertical climb capability is often considered an excellent predictor of helicopter maneuverability. In DEFIANT, we hovered at a mission weight with one engine at idle and the other engine peaking below its torque limit. We’ve also climbed vertically, quickly at mission weight. DEFIANT’s maneuverability is impressive and sure to provide better survivability and improved safety.
Click to expand...
www.lockheedmartin.com

How Black Hawk Modernization Will Drive Down Risk for Future Vertical Lift

A conversation with test pilots Bill Fell and John Groth.
www.lockheedmartin.com www.lockheedmartin.com
 
AUSA 2022: U.S. Army Will Leave FLRAA Teams on Their Own After October
(Aviation Week, Oct. 13, Steve Trimble)

The U.S. Army says it will not pay to keep small industry teams intact to continue working on designs for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program after the existing contracts expire at the end of October.
The statement means the competing teams – led by Lockheed Martin/Boeing and Bell – must self-fund the costs or disband the industry teams until the delayed contract award for the service's replacement for the UH-60 Black Hawk is finalized.
The Army awarded contracts worth $292 million to Bell and $284 million to Lockheed/Boeing in March 2021 to complete the Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction (CD&RR) Phase II efforts. Those contracts expire at the end of the month, and the timing of the FLRAA contract award remains uncertain.
“The Army will finish the second phase of the FLRAA CD&RR at the end of October 2022. The Army does not plan to add a third phase for CD&RR,” a spokesman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation says.
The Army originally planned to award the FLRAA contract in mid-year, but Army officials said in July that the award had moved to late September or early October. During the Association of the US Army’s annual meeting this week, senior Army leaders said that finalizing the award could take up to a “few months.”
“FLRAA’s source selection is still underway, and the contract award decision is event-driven. The formal date of the award announcement is contingent upon the completion of the deliberate and rigorous proposal review process and successful negotiations with the winning offeror,” the spokesman tells Aviation Week.
The final decision on FLRAA also is subject to a protest by the losing bidder, which can take up to three more months to adjudicate.
The Army has paid to keep industry teams together in previous competitions with postponed contract awards. The service, for example, awarded GE Aviation and a Pratt & Whitney/Honeywell team contracts in October 2018 to keep their industry teams together for the Improved Turbine Engine Program until March 2019, when the contract was awarded.
FLRAA is one of two programs in the Army’s Future Vertical Lift effort. The second, the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, will follow.


More insight into the inner workings of the Army FLRAA program. Note protest can take 3 months.
 
yasotay said:
AUSA 2022: U.S. Army Will Leave FLRAA Teams on Their Own After October
(Aviation Week, Oct. 13, Steve Trimble)

The U.S. Army says it will not pay to keep small industry teams intact to continue working on designs for the Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program after the existing contracts expire at the end of October.
The statement means the competing teams – led by Lockheed Martin/Boeing and Bell – must self-fund the costs or disband the industry teams until the delayed contract award for the service's replacement for the UH-60 Black Hawk is finalized.
The Army awarded contracts worth $292 million to Bell and $284 million to Lockheed/Boeing in March 2021 to complete the Competitive Demonstration and Risk Reduction (CD&RR) Phase II efforts. Those contracts expire at the end of the month, and the timing of the FLRAA contract award remains uncertain.
“The Army will finish the second phase of the FLRAA CD&RR at the end of October 2022. The Army does not plan to add a third phase for CD&RR,” a spokesman for the Army’s Program Executive Office for Aviation says.
The Army originally planned to award the FLRAA contract in mid-year, but Army officials said in July that the award had moved to late September or early October. During the Association of the US Army’s annual meeting this week, senior Army leaders said that finalizing the award could take up to a “few months.”
“FLRAA’s source selection is still underway, and the contract award decision is event-driven. The formal date of the award announcement is contingent upon the completion of the deliberate and rigorous proposal review process and successful negotiations with the winning offeror,” the spokesman tells Aviation Week.
The final decision on FLRAA also is subject to a protest by the losing bidder, which can take up to three more months to adjudicate.
The Army has paid to keep industry teams together in previous competitions with postponed contract awards. The service, for example, awarded GE Aviation and a Pratt & Whitney/Honeywell team contracts in October 2018 to keep their industry teams together for the Improved Turbine Engine Program until March 2019, when the contract was awarded.
FLRAA is one of two programs in the Army’s Future Vertical Lift effort. The second, the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, will follow.


More insight into the inner workings of the Army FLRAA program. Note protest can take 3 months.
Click to expand...

The irony is that FLRAA was structured as an OTA ostensibly to pre-empt the idea of a protest.

Nothing the Army has said or done explains whatsoever why there needs to be further delay in their already-delayed-from-June (which is already delayed from end of FY2020) "event driven process". The official Army-mandated FLRAA flight demonstration timeline was completed ~18 months ago. No new technical or objective demonstration data or information that should affect any decision making process has been presented. Its clear in retrospect the Army was trying to buy time for Sikorsky to get Defiant working, but they didn't manage to fly it at all after AAAA which left it with a paltry flight hour total.

The entire company line from the Army is nonsense.
 
TomcatViP said:
Vertical climb capability is often considered an excellent predictor of helicopter maneuverability. In DEFIANT, we hovered at a mission weight with one engine at idle and the other engine peaking below its torque limit. We’ve also climbed vertically, quickly at mission weight. DEFIANT’s maneuverability is impressive and sure to provide better survivability and improved safety.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Bullsh*t. You guys never once demonstrated a damn thing remotely more maneuverable than a UH-60, Bill.

There are 3 year old public videos of the V-280 doing high rate hover maneuvers in every axis. If you could have done anything approaching that, we would have seen it in myriad promos outside of your computer generated cartoons. Fact is - mast structural limits, vibration, and blade clearances make all those maneuver claims complete rubbish.

S-97 at half the gross weight couldn't even show it possible on the technology!
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom