- Joined
- 18 October 2006
- Messages
- 3,720
- Reaction score
- 3,352
LOL - A photo that neither vendor is too keen on having done. Have to wait till ~2026.I would love to see some pictures of Valor next to a Blackhawk.
LOL - A photo that neither vendor is too keen on having done. Have to wait till ~2026.I would love to see some pictures of Valor next to a Blackhawk.
Seems a sensible approach since the US Army has indicated several decades of continued operations.I think they should take the opportunity of re-engining to have the mass restricted UH-60 cabin increased in volume through a deep upgrade.
Since range and speed are now de-facto decoupled from UH-60 family mission (doesn't mean they can't be fitted with large EFT), a deep upgrade will focus on what Valor can't do better.
I think they should take the opportunity of re-engining to have the mass restricted UH-60 cabin increased in volume through a deep upgrade.
Since range and speed are now de-facto decoupled from UH-60 family mission (doesn't mean they can't be fitted with large EFT), a deep upgrade will focus on what Valor can't do better.
There's only so much volume you can add to that cabin, though. Any taller and you run into air transport issues, for example. Unless we're talking about hanging a nearly clean-sheet composite cabin under the turbines, I don't know if they can add enough to be worth the cost of the effort.I think they should take the opportunity of re-engining to have the mass restricted UH-60 cabin increased in volume through a deep upgrade.
Since range and speed are now de-facto decoupled from UH-60 family mission (doesn't mean they can't be fitted with large EFT), a deep upgrade will focus on what Valor can't do better.
MURPHY: “Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you both for being here today. Mr. Chairman, I wanted to take my time to ask a few questions about the Future Vertical Lift Program. First of all, this is the first opportunity to talk about this in this subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, as you know, I made, along with Senator Blumenthal, a series of requests of the Army to get a briefing on a FLRAA award and was denied that briefing by the Army multiple times.
“I think this subcommittee, and more broadly the Appropriations [Committee], has to pretty rigorously guard our equities when it comes to getting information from the Army and from the administration when it comes to contract awards. In fact, the regulations governing the awarding of contracts carves out a very specific role for Congress to be briefed on these matters even while the award is pending. And I hope this committee will continue to work on what I think is a misaligned equilibrium right now between the administration, the Department of Defense, and this committee when it comes to how much information is shared.
“Ms. Wormuth, I wanted to talk to you about this specific award. I understand I have parochial interests, right. This was a contest between Bell Textron and Sikorsky and the award went to the Bell program. But I guess I want to talk to you a little bit about my concerns regarding tiltrotor aircraft. My understanding is that past performance did not factor into the contract award, and this committee is going to be charged with picking up the full cost of this new program. Tiltrotor aircraft, like the V-22 Osprey, have a pretty miserable performance, reliability, and safety record over the last 30 years. The V-22 is supposed to have a mission readiness of 82%, but over the last five years, the Osprey has been at 56%. The procurement cost went from 33 million to almost 100 million [per aircraft]. Today, the cost per flight of the V-22 is $10,000 an hour, which is double the initial estimate.
“What was interesting about this particular contract award is that the bid that came in from Textron was twice, twice the amount of the bid that came in from Sikorsky. Layer on top of that, this history suggesting that a tiltrotor is going to end up costing our taxpayers inordinately more than even the initial bids. And I worry that we're going to have a hard time being able to fund the full cost of this award.
“So I guess my question is, do you have any information as to why the Army did not take past performance of tiltrotor aircraft into account when awarding the FLRAA contract? And what do you say about my concerns that if the cost curve on this new helicopter, which is obviously a foundational program for the Army, is anything like what we saw for the Osprey that, then we're in for some pretty big, unexpected costs that we're going to have to bear on this subcommittee?”
WORMUTH: “Senator Murphy, first of all, I want to say, you know, of course, I completely support and value the important oversight role of Congress in these matters. So we want to be good partners with you in terms of being transparent. And if you have not already received a detailed briefing now that the GAO has issued its decision, if you will, on the competition, I certainly will make sure that Mr. Doug Bush and their team get up to talk with you about that.
“My understanding is that the things that were valued or emphasized, if you will, in the selection process did include looking at lower technical risk, precisely because of the fact that in the past if the technical risk is higher, a lot of times that means the costs in the out years are higher. The sustainment costs can be higher because they're not appropriately baked into the competitive process. So one of the reasons, as I understand it, that we selected the Bell Textron aircraft was because it was assessed to have lower technical risk, even though the bid that came in from Sikorsky from an overall dollar amount was lower. You know, it was a best value competition. It wasn't strictly based on price. And we in the Army had some considerable concerns about our visibility into the design process that came from Sikorsky. So I can get back to you in more detail in terms of how exactly we incorporated past performance of the Osprey into the calculations. But we absolutely emphasize the importance of having lower technical risk in the program.
MURPHY: “Mr. Chairman, I will just note that our subcommittee has a GAO report on this very specific question of whether risk is being properly calculated when awarding programs within the Future Vertical Lift aircraft process. And what this GAO report comes to the conclusion is that right now, the Army is not properly identifying long term risk on these programs. And so look forward to being in a dialogue about some of the recommendations in this GAO report and getting a better, holistic sense of how much this is going to cost the taxpayer in the long run. Thank you very much.”
Unless we're talking about hanging a nearly clean-sheet composite cabin under the turbines, I don't know if they can add enough to be worth the cost of the effort.
Posturing has begun.
![]()
US Army says open system requirements clear for next-gen helicopter
Lockheed's future assault aircraft proposal lacked detail needed to validate its design had an open architecture at sub-system levels, the GAO found.www.defensenews.com
Last year, at the same event, his directorate put together a video using a fifth grader to explain MOSA, playing it during a panel discussion. We intentionally made it to where a fifth grader could understand it… to try to help people understand it’s not nearly as complicated as it sounds, which is really just existing standards, not somebody’s special mouse trap [where] they are the only people in the world that understand how that mouse trap works,” Langhout said. “It’s really that simple, but yet it’s amazing how unbelievably complicated some folks try to make it.”
Posturing has begun.
Posturing has begun.
![]()
US Army says open system requirements clear for next-gen helicopter
Lockheed's future assault aircraft proposal lacked detail needed to validate its design had an open architecture at sub-system levels, the GAO found.www.defensenews.com
Last year, at the same event, his directorate put together a video using a fifth grader to explain MOSA, playing it during a panel discussion. We intentionally made it to where a fifth grader could understand it… to try to help people understand it’s not nearly as complicated as it sounds, which is really just existing standards, not somebody’s special mouse trap [where] they are the only people in the world that understand how that mouse trap works,” Langhout said. “It’s really that simple, but yet it’s amazing how unbelievably complicated some folks try to make it.”
I cannot imagine being a member of that Sikorsky / Boeing proposal team over the past 3 weeks.
I think at this point it is extremely likely that Sikorsky will win that one, because of simple industrial policy concerns, but if they do lose, it will be for the exact same reason why their bid for FLRAA was disqualified. Very clear public signalling helps prevent that outcome.
What the Captain meant to say was : "We now return you to our soap opera, "As the Stomach Churns" sometimes titled "As the Dollars Burn", already in progress."This week's FVL update.
As stated in another thread I think it was Leonardo hedging it's bet. It has tilt rotor technology. Had X2 won, then they would have had the European market for the other US high tech rotorcraft.A very interesting article with some hints at the Italian Military leadership's unusual interest in X2 despite Leonardo's reservations.
Some LM greased skids perhaps?
![]()
Industry eyes Ukraine war to sharpen proposals for NATO helo fleet
Industry officials and military leaders have studied tactics as they craft their designs for a new generation of rotorcraft supporting alliance forces.www.defensenews.com
The tiltrotor currently has greater cruising speed and autonomy but greater size and less maneuverability.
If the priority is to transport passengers or material across greater distances in shorter times, its advantages are undoubted.
The choice made by the U.S. Army to purchase the Bell V-280 Valor is linked to the Indo-Pacific theater, where the U.S. envisages an increasing presence.
On the other hand the coaxial helicopter with propellers can perform sudden and fast maneuvers, albeit having less speed and autonomy than a tiltrotor in the same category.
In the future, both these platforms will enter service with NATO armed forces since both show, at least on paper or in preliminary trials, good performance. However, I would also say that no country can do without, at least for now, a fleet of reliable, traditional helicopters. The new technologies will increase performance but have not yet reached the maturity to be game changers for at least another 10 years.
Sounds like his future (after retirement) is assured… helping Sikorsky-Boeing make that happen!He even then goes on to say both platforms would be in service with NATO!
If FARA isn't canceled, it will go to Bell, and I can't see Italy picking up the tab to carry an X2 aircraft to production in that scenario, either.Regardless of its potential viability at some point, if FARA is cancelled I cannot see Italy electing to pick up the full tab for X2.
How do you know it will go to Bell?If FARA isn't canceled, it will go to Bell, and I can't see Italy picking up the tab to carry an X2 aircraft to production in that scenario, either.Regardless of its potential viability at some point, if FARA is cancelled I cannot see Italy electing to pick up the full tab for X2.
You know more than Sikorsky and Lockheed? Really?Or... it's a deeply informed opinion utilizing all available evidence and theoretical knowledge.
judging by the brain drain at Sikorsky, he may know exactly as much as themYou know more than Sikorsky and Lockheed? Really?Or... it's a deeply informed opinion utilizing all available evidence and theoretical knowledge.![]()
Not surprising, Bell has established a facility in Pennsylvania to look at advanced technologies and has advertised in Philadelphia and Connecticut.judging by the brain drain at Sikorsky, he may know exactly as much as themYou know more than Sikorsky and Lockheed? Really?Or... it's a deeply informed opinion utilizing all available evidence and theoretical knowledge.![]()
You've also got the OMS lead saying that they made it so simple that they got a tennyear to explain it. For me, it just points towards it not being a mistake and instead being a Sikorsky business decision to ignore OMS compliance (in order to secure vendor lock in and future income) which has bitten them. Its nothing to do with technical merits of one configuration or the other.It's all about the functional architecture, or rather the lack of detail of it:
It's puzzling how they could mess up so bad in this regard. Allocation and decomposition of functions is an elementary engineering discipline. I really don't get it.
Sounds to me like the Army carefully circumvented the whole mess of whether or not the rigid coaxial rotor actually worked, and found a ready made excuse in the non-compliance in other fields.You've also got the OMS lead saying that they made it so simple that they got a tennyear to explain it. For me, it just points towards it not being a mistake and instead being a Sikorsky business decision to ignore OMS compliance (in order to secure vendor lock in and future income) which has bitten them. Its nothing to do with technical merits of one configuration or the other.It's all about the functional architecture, or rather the lack of detail of it:
It's puzzling how they could mess up so bad in this regard. Allocation and decomposition of functions is an elementary engineering discipline. I really don't get it.
I can only think of one intermeshing incident while in the air. The S-97 Raider's control laws fumbled the transition between ground and air mode and had the wrong set of control laws active while in the air and intermeshed the rotors while in a hover while suffering massive roll oscillations. The XH-59A had a crash early in flight test due to running out of longitudinal pitch authority. There's a photo of it practically standing on its tail but the rotors don't appear intermeshed. Perhaps they did a few seconds later. The X-2 Technology Demonstrator didn't intermesh rotors and neither did the SB>1 Defiant. So I count 4 Sikorsky X-2 aircraft but only 1 intermesh incident. I'd call it 25%.There are a number of reasons that the U.S. Army would prefer not to question the viability of the coaxial compound concept at this point. First there is an active competition ongoing with the coaxial compound one of the competitors. Second, pointing out that one of the platforms is not tenable in an already contentious program is not good for maintaining the program. Third, the U.S. Army might really want coaxial compound as it is more technologically challenging, and Congress prefers to through money at fancy new aviation technology.
I would remind all that 50% of the coaxial compound that Sikorsky has flown, have had rotor intermeshing issues (fortunately while at a hover). All have shown excessive vibration at the higher speeds. High speed being the reason to do the unconventional rotor technology in the first place.