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

The F-35 is the first and probably only affordable performance stealth fighter (obviously, if you set aside the Qaher-313).
I don't see LM as a variable for failure. On the contrary. They simply messed-up (big) that time with the Defiant.
 
...While somewhat stingy on specifics of why the Army chose Bell’s tiltrotor over Sikorsky’s pusher-compound-rotor design derived from the company's 'X2' technology, Barrie said the decision boiled down to a “best value proposition."...
“Can we be more specific on the factors of how exactly we arrived at this point? No,” Barrie said. “However, best value is meant in the truest sense that it was a comprehensive analysis of a variety of factors. No one really drove that decision. So, if you look broadly at a very high level, the factors are variables and performance, cost, and schedule, all were considered, and the combination of those are defined explicitly and evaluated and what's arrived ... that is what I would describe as the best value ... what the Army would describe as its best value selection.”...

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...trotor-picked-as-armys-black-hawk-replacement
 
I would guess the Valor does the faster and further more easily. Looks easier to maintain and covers the slow speed manoeuvres adequately.
 
The F-35 is the first and probably only affordable performance stealth fighter (obviously, if you set aside the Qaher-313).
I don't see LM as a variable for failure. On the contrary. They simply messed-up (big) that time with the Defiant.
That sort of ignores the torturous (and expensive) development of the F-35, doesn't it?
 
 
I would guess the Valor does the faster and further more easily. Looks easier to maintain and covers the slow speed manoeuvres adequately.
In war, everything breaks down. Also: designed by PhDs, tested by MScs, fixed by dropouts (sorry, that might be unfair - lets say fixed in a hurry under fire).

Maintenance might have been a major factor as the Defiant was having ongoing gearbox and blade issues. Bell, meanwhile, has learned lessons from the Osprey having been in service for a decade and a half now. As an example, separating the articulated rotors/props from the engines may look like an unnecessary complication, keeping the engines level ensures that the lubricants and sumps behave properly.

I'm tilting a little towards the Raider X winning FARA as the basic design seems more adaptable so that B and C versions could perform other missions and that might feature in calculations. However, Invictus' more conservative mechanical design may give it an advantage (which seems to be Bell's reasoning). OTOH, the political consideration of preserving the industrial-technological base might give the Raider X a lead after all... so I dunno.
 
Was thinking about this last night and figured it was Bell for sure. Set aside performance for the moment. This would be the last opportunity to keep the tilt-rotor type alive for a long time. Once the V-22s are done delivering (if they're not already) that would be that. This keeps the type in production if you later want to build some ASW or other types that require more speed.
Given the importance of US army mainline aircraft, this probably won't just make tiltrotor survive, but will make it mainstream.
Both through foreign sales and through influence on other producers.
 
I am 50/50 regarding FARA. The Invictus seems a better fit for FARA based on it's configuration (kind of Son of Comanche) and the mission, we would have had a nice RAH-66 Comanche if the Army had not screwed that program up, hope they have learned. I don't think the Army will go with Bell for both but you never know. Defiant and Raider X could find homes with either USN, USMC, USG or FMS?
 
Some wag declared the Bell 360 Invictus the "Cobranche" (as in Cobra/Comanche love child).
As to X2 technological future, Sikorsky already indicated that they are in the process of working with Europe (Italy?) on an X2 aircraft.
 
Reality of US politics.

Army awards Bell Textron contract worth billions to replace Black Hawk helicopter

(KERA-PBS (TX), Dec. 6, Seth Bodine)

Bell Textron Inc. beat two of the biggest defense contractors in the industry for a U.S. Army contract to manufacture the replacement of the UH-60 Black Hawk. Securing the contract means billions for the company for decades to come.

Bell was competing against Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky and Boeing’s DEFIANT X helicopter. The Army chose Bell’s tilt-rotor design with the V-280 Valor, which will eventually replace the Black Hawk. The Black Hawk has been flying for more than four decades.

The contract could be worth about $70 billion for decades to come, according to reporting from Reuters. The first set of helicopters will be worth $7.1 billion
The contract is part of Future Vertical Lift – an effort to modernize the Army, under the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program.

“We are honored that the U.S. Army has selected the Bell V-280 Valor as its next-generation assault aircraft,” said Scott C. Donnelly, Textron’s chairman and chief executive officer. “We intend to honor that trust by building a truly remarkable and transformational weapon system to meet the Army’s mission requirements. We are excited to play an important role in the future of Army Aviation.”

Bell, which is headquartered in Fort Worth, employs more than 4,000 people.

Richard Aboulafia, managing director at Aerodynamic Advisory, a boutique aerospace and defense consultancy, said this is a huge deal for Bell Textron as its programs, such as V-22 Osprey and AH-1Z Viper, start to wind down.

“They wouldn’t have had much of a future without this,” Aboulafia said. “This is going to be the center of what Bell does in the next decade. They’ll still have their civil business, but you know, they’re a third player after Airbus and Leonardo.”

The new contract is bound to create jobs as time goes on and the helicopter becomes in service starting in 2030, Aboulafia said.

Fort Worth Mayor Mattie Parker called the contract a historic moment.

“This historic decision will preserve and expand our world-class workforce here in Texas. This is a historic win for Bell and Team Valor, and a big win for the state of Texas,” Parker wrote in a tweet.

Texas ranks third in the amount of defense contracts – companies in the state received $47.3 billion in 2021.

There’re several components that go into choosing a new helicopter. In a past interview with Fort Worth Report, Dudley Smith, a professor of practice in mechanical engineering with expertise in the aerospace industry at University of Texas at Arlington, said how far and fast the aircrafts can fly, and their reliability and cost effectiveness go into awarding a contract.

“We’re American taxpayers. And the people that derive these requirements, they’re very sensitive to that, and the military is sensitive to that,” Smith said. “They only have so many dollars, so they have to get as they would say, the best bang for your buck.”

Experts like Aboulafia believe the contract will be formally contested by Sikorsky and Boeing. Doing so is common but seldom successful, and is often used as a way of getting more information about why the company lost the contract and why the other company won.

Sikorsky and Boeing officials remain confident in their product, DEFIANT X, as the best choice.

“We remain confident DEFIANT X is the transformational aircraft the U.S. Army requires to accomplish its complex missions today and well into the future. We will evaluate our next steps after reviewing feedback from the Army,” according to a joint statement from Sikorsky and Boeing.

It isn’t a huge loss for Sikorsky or Boeing, Aboulafia said. The Black Hawk will still be in production even with the new helicopter for decades to come. Boeing still has the Apache and Chinook helicopters.

“It also means that they’re going to be lobbying, to delay FLRAA to fund Black Hawk procurement on an ongoing basis,” he said. “In other words, the FLRAA program now has an enemy.”

Lockheed Martin is the top recipient of defense contracts. In fiscal year 2021, the Department of Defense awarded $39.2 billion in contracts to Lockheed. The company employs more than 22,000 people in the Fort Worth area and has produced aircrafts such as the F-16 Falcon, F-35 Lightning II at an aeronautics facility according to a Lockheed Martin spokesperson. Sikorsky is headquartered in Stratford, Connecticut. Bell and Lockheed Martin are also competing for the Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft, which are helicopters designed for scouting and reconnaissance.

Sikorsky Aircraft loses $1.3B contract with U.S. Army

(WTNH-ABC (CT), Dec. 6, Kent Pierce and Jodi Latina)


Sikorsky Aircraft, the Stratford-based helicopter manufacturer, lost out on a big contract with the U.S. Army. The Army was searching for the next generation of long-range helicopters, but Sikorsky will not be its new supplier. Instead, the Army signed Bell Textron, a Texas-based company.

It was awarded the $1.3 billion contract over Sikorsky to come up with the future workhorse of the American Army.

For decades, Sikorsky’s Black Hawk helicopter has been that workhorse, and it’s looked relatively the same for all those years. Now, however, the Army wants to go in a new direction, one that’s faster with a longer range. That chalks up to a radically different helicopter.

Sikorsky thought its Defiant-X helicopter would fit this new bill. Instead, the Army decided to go in a different direction entirely. It chose Bell’s V-280 Valor.

That vehicle isn’t really a helicopter, however. It’s a tilt-rotor aircraft, meanings it’s more like an airplane, except its propellers tilt up so it can take off and land like a helicopter. It’s similar to Bell’s Osprey aircraft, which the Navy and Marines have been using for 30 years. The Osprey did have its share of safety controversies years ago, however.

Sikorsky signed a deal with the state of Connecticut this year to remain in the state in exchange for big tax breaks. But those tax breaks were contingent on Sikorsky winning some of these important military contracts.

Gov. Ned Lamont said the decision took the start by surprise. He spoke to the head of Sikorsky over the phone when the news broke.

“I wished him happy holidays, and he said, ‘I wish I had happier news for you,'” Lamont said.

Despite the loss, the company remained optimistic about its future.

“We remain confident DEFIANT-X is the transformational aircraft the U.S. Army requires to accomplish its complex missions today and well into the future. We will evaluate our next steps after reviewing feedback from the Army,” commented a spokesperson from Sikorsky. And even though evaluations need to be made, the state reaffirmed its support of Sikorsky as a Connecticut legacy.

“This news is disappointing, but it’s important to remember you can’t fly without Connecticut,” Lamont said. “Sikorsky is a legacy Connecticut company with one of the best-trained workforces in the world, and while leadership takes the time to review their bid to understand more about the Army’s decision, we stand behind them and their employees. The state will continue to work closely with Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky to secure future opportunities for the people of Connecticut to make the most advanced aircraft in the skies.”

There are still years on the Black Hawk contract, which Lamont said means jobs will stay in Connecticut.

State Sen. Kevin Kelly (R-District 31) said his concern is making sure Sikorsky headquarters stays in Connecticut.

“You also have all the folks who work at Sikorsky in our communities,” he said. “They are the fabric of Stratford, Shelton and Seymour.”

The company generates nearly 30,000 jobs in Connecticut and billions in tax revenue.

“I’m confident they will continue to do what they need to do to grow their footprint in Connecticut,” Kelly said.
 
Latest Check 6 podcast includes some rumination on the FLRAA selection, including speculation that Blackhawk buys are far from finished in a future with V-280.
 
I wonder what it would take to adapt the Raider-X rotor system to the Blackhawk?
Can't be done, practically, because the transmission/main module would consume most of the aft portion of the cabin. Also, the weight would have required new engines, which would require more fuel, which would have required a larger fuselage...

You get the idea.

I'm sure that was considered early in the process.
 
I think the SpeedHawk gives a decent idea both of what's possible working with the basic Blackhawk and also what compromises you end up with.

However I think the idea would be to keep Blackhawk in roles which do not require the FLRAA range and speed numbers, gradually becoming the specialized "low and slow" element of a mixed fleet.
 
Exactly. There is so much a modernized Blackhawk can do, especially after the war in Ukraine put the incentive back on survivability and ground mobility.
 
Last edited:
if blackhawks stay, they will remain within european and middle east theater. Valor will be concentrated toward the Pacific where its speed and range are absolutely required for army.
 
What options exist for the Sikorsky-led consortium? Is there are a domain/requirement where the 'Defiant' pattern excels sufficiently that it could still end up seeing production?
 
We may see this if the Sikorsky announcement of consortium with Europe comes to fruition. The challenge remains the technology level of the X2 rotor system.
 
Came across this in the comments section of a War Zone post on FLRAA...too good not to share

So I finally got around to watching this video. Whomever did it was very well informed. And I don't mean what happened at Sikorsky HQ.
 
Came across this in the comments section of a War Zone post on FLRAA...too good not to share

So I finally got around to watching this video. Whomever did it was very well informed. And I don't mean what happened at Sikorsky HQ.
Should have said, "X-Wing" instead of tilt-wing there at the end. :p
 
I am not surprised at the decision to appeal. To much money involved. It is certainly no surprise to the Army as they basically said they expected it. Surprising to me though as the government will make public (by law I think) all of the documentation of their decision making. All of the faults (many mentioned in the Hitler meme) will be made public. This will potentially put the Raider X at risk as many of the questions will be asked of it as well now.
 
They just won final decision for the King. They should choose their appeal more wisely.
There may be a little more risk to this move than usual with FARA still to come, but maybe they're worried about that getting cancelled/re-launched. LM-Sikorsky also has years, perhaps even decades, of UH-60 production still ahead of it regardless of the FVL contracts. But, as they say, it's a lot of money.
 
It's a lot of money they just lost... By being inefficient. Probably it's time they bring together those highly competent people and do for once a (real) brain storming.
 
I wonder if it would have been better for Sikorsky to further develop their Rotoprop rather than go all in with ABC (X2).
Just imagine Defiant with stub wings, a smaller empennage and the upper rotor chopped off ;)

View attachment 690290
If they really want to be innovative, they could make it an electric driven tail rotor and reduce the mechanical complexity. That said, we must recall that this very methodology was exactly what was proposed by Karem who was not selected.
 
I wonder if it would have been better for Sikorsky to further develop their Rotoprop rather than go all in with ABC (X2).
Just imagine Defiant with stub wings, a smaller empennage and the upper rotor chopped off ;)

View attachment 690290
If they really want to be innovative, they could make it an electric driven tail rotor and reduce the mechanical complexity. That said, we must recall that this very methodology was exactly what was proposed by Karem who was not selected.
Karem's swiveling tail rotor concept was proposed for FARA... For FLRAA they proposed a tilt rotor. Neither of them was selected.
 
I wonder if it would have been better for Sikorsky to further develop their Rotoprop rather than go all in with ABC (X2).
Just imagine Defiant with stub wings, a smaller empennage and the upper rotor chopped off ;)

View attachment 690290
If they really want to be innovative, they could make it an electric driven tail rotor and reduce the mechanical complexity. That said, we must recall that this very methodology was exactly what was proposed by Karem who was not selected.
Karem's swiveling tail rotor concept was proposed for FARA... For FLRAA they proposed a tilt rotor. Neither of them was selected.
Agreed. However, on the assumption that this would scale up to medium rotorcraft (as in powerful enough electric motor within SWaP) with multi-path power from a generator it would reduce mechanical complexity{?} and provide more survivability through the multi-path power paths. I do appreciate it would take significant testing, but then the flight testing of the mechanical swiveling means did not have a fully robust test effort either.
 

It is our understanding that Sikorsky’s bid for FLRAA was significantly superior in terms of cost, but that due to a subjective unsatisfactory evaluation on a single criteria, Sikorsky’s bid was rejected and never fully evaluated.

If the subjective criteria is "does your aircraft f****** work at all" after years of glacial flight testing, then that's a pretty damn relevant evaluation.

So I guess their claim is their cost-basis for a ship that has 8 immensely difficult to manufacture blades (that ostensibly delayed the program by over a year), another 8 on a massive complicated clutched and swashplated pusher prop, and one of the most egregiously sized transmissions and rotorheads ever installed in a VTOL machine was somehow even remotely plausible after literally every single other analysis by Sikorsky fell flat on its face?

Not to mention that no compound coaxial aircraft has ever been put into production, so all their synthetics were probably just simply erroneously based on UH-60, while the competitive analysis Sikorsky likely used baselined V-280 against V-22 despite all the specific design changes it made for cost. It would be no wonder that the Army would question the credibility of a low bid.
 
The Army certainly anticipated that ANY decision was going to be a political football. Had Sikorsky/Boeing won the competitions, you could take the same verbiage and attributed it to the Congressional delegation from Texas. Perhaps telling is that the Congressional delegations from Pennsylvania and Florida have not joined the protest.
Sadly, I think one of the reasons that the Army has resisted open discussion is that the public airing of the FLRAA decision could put the FARA competition at risk of giving one of the competitors plenty of ammunition for a protest if the decision does not go their way.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom