Replacing FARA Future Attack and Reconnaissance Aircraft

yasotay said:
It would have been much easier if they had just said that two aircraft programs at the same time was not affordable.
Click to expand...
What other aircraft program are you talking about in this context? FLRAA?

As far as I know there is no ambitious unmanned rotorcraft on the horizon similar to UCAR back in the early 2000s when the Comanche was canceled. That choice was defended with much of the same logic being repeated here. Of course, that central claim that UAVs could do the entire role wasn't exactly true then, as evidenced by the two following programs for a scout helicopter. It seems to me like there is a sizeable cap in capability between the relatively small cheap quadcopters and the bigger fixed wing models in use.

As with the Comanche cancellation I get the importance of modernizing the designs already in service. But given the geopolitical concerns at the time (and now) it's hard for me to believe that the funds can't be found within the vast amount the DoD has to work with.

If this current logic continues to be pursued, I fear we'll see cuts to the Apache fleet in coming years. Personally, I am not convinced that attack or reconnaissance helicopters represent a dead-end. I think using something like FARA to "quarterback" smaller drones is a better choice than this idea the drones will do it all themselves. They haven't even fully figured out how that latter idea would work.
 
The Army leadership doesn't know what they want to do or agree and that is big problem. Spending lots of tax payer money and getting nothing for it. The Army does not have a good track record and should be held accountable. But as we know in Govt, you screw up, you just get promoted to screw up more, like CEOs. FARA has a place and should be integrated into kind of an Army Loyal Wingman/CCA type of CONOPS. So when things start getting really hot on the global stage, US then panics and throws lots of money to either accelerate or re-instate various other programs including FARA, seems this is the way we like to work unfortunately.
 
I was indeed referring to FLRAA. The U.S. Army budget line, by percentage, is decreasing. The Army Aviation portfolio consumed ~25% of that budget. FARA would likely have required a fair amount of change (money) to meet operational specification.
To be clear I am right there with you on the necessity for a platform like this. I am frustrated that senior officials used haphazard analysis to validate the decision, vice honesty.
 
The FARA program was initially expected to develop an H-6 replacement. As the program went on, the desires of Army Aviation for a 21st century scout diverged from the smaller aircraft SOAR was anticipating. The Bell Invictus in essence dismissed the SOAR requirements and focused on the larger Army requirement. At least, that was the given impression. The Sikorsky X2 submission might have more closely met the SOAR requirement, but was also larger and heavier than the desired platform. The SOAR desire for a little bird replacement was the initial driver for the 40 foot rotor diameter so it could "fly through urban canyons." The U.S. Army sensor , range, and endurance requirements broke the physics of a single engine 40" rotor scout helicopter.
 
As soon as a turreted 20 mm cannon became a requirement, FARA was no longer a Little Bird replacement. Perhaps the original S-97 Raider could be if it were re-worked into a functional platform with vibrations under control and mission equipment added. A 34' rotor diameter is much closer to H-6 size than the 40+ that a production FARA was headed to.
 
yasotay said:
Interestingly I have just read (alas, behind a pay wall) that the SOAR had also expected to use the FARA as a replacement for the MH-60M DAP..
Click to expand...
Either might have worked for the CAS role of the DAP but neither Raider-X or Invictus (or their twin engined production configurations) would have had the speed and range to make sensible missions with the SOCOM FLRAA variants in work.

The FARA program will be remembered as a classic Pentagon screw job to the industry and force structure.
 
Would a VTOL aircraft like an AV-8B be a better replacement for FARA? Longer range = Basing further from front. Faster.
 
Forest Green said:
Would a VTOL aircraft like an AV-8B be a better replacement for FARA? Longer range = Basing further from front. Faster.
Click to expand...
No. We’re talking about the army where fixed wing combat aircraft are forbidden. Moreover, the AV-8B is being rapidly phased out and was known for its high attrition rate. At this point, after so many failed attempts, the Army will probably have to do without a dedicated manned recon helicopter.
 
TinWing said:
No. We’re talking about the army where fixed wing combat aircraft are forbidden. Moreover, the AV-8B is being rapidly phased out and was known for its high attrition rate. At this point, after so many failed attempts, the Army will probably have to do without a dedicated manned recon helicopter.
Click to expand...
Work on both of the FARA prototypes seemed to be moving along rather nicely, I hadn't heard of any serious problems. Bell redesigned the tail rotor to a conventional configuration but that didn't seem too difficult. The Sikorsky design had more risk involved but offered some promising capabilities. Both seemed to represent reasonable and somewhat different offerings the Army could have taken. FARA was a failed attempt, yet like the Comanche it wasn't because of technical reasons.

From an outsider's perspective I'm not seeing much of a plan for the Army aviation reconnaissance that aren't fixed wing types. There is testing with VTOL drones of various types but even the largest of these is relatively small and limited in range and endurance.

The USAF would have a massive fit if the Army tried to get those aging AV-8s and for once they'd probably be entirely right. I don't think the sort of reconnaissance ability it could theoretically provide is really the equivalent of what they had scout helicopters for. Its avionics are also getting dated.
 
And the noise! Harrier engine exhaust noise is deafening. Hardly something that any scout would want.

I would rather think that the a-10 with air launched and retrievable effectors could risk into the mission. At the end, the A-10 is more or less an evolved Mohawk with a big gun.
Why not even adding a Side Looking Radar for MTI reco and targeting?
 
Jason Dykstra (Wyvern) said:
Nor can an AV-8B really, I doubt many Harrier pilots would want to hover for extended periods in a combat zone
Click to expand...
You would hover below the horizon, well away from the front and fire missiles (e.g. Brimstone, JAGM, SPEAR or SiAW) at OTH targets pre-selected by drones, then RTB. That is the only safe way to use any VTOL in a peer conflict.
 
Last edited:
Forest Green said:
You would hover below the horizon, well away from the front and fire missiles (e.g. Brimstone, JAGM, SPEAR or SiAW) at OTH targets pre-selected by drones, then RTB. That is the only safe way to use any VTOL in a peer conflict.
Click to expand...
You fire missiles on the move... you only want to hover when you absolutely have to in pretty much any VTOL aircraft.

If the Army wants a ALE/drone based recon capability and an organic ability to deliver those ALEs (which are short range), then seems like the logical answer post FARA cancellation is to configure the FLRAA tiltrotor as an ALE truck. Common platform, long range, large capacity, high speed. Plenty of room for a few ALE operators and then racks of ALEs/drone to yeet out the side of the cabin. Relative to FARA, you'd lose the cannon and direct "hunter-seeker" legacy tank hunting role but that's about it.

Pour one out for FARA and long live FLRAA.
 
It is the budget. That is it. The U.S. Army's budget has not had real growth, beyond cost of living for soldiers, in four years (or more). The U.S. Army cannot afford many of the programs because of cost, which continues to grow. These cost are hidden behind phrases like"supply chain disruption." Other casual factors include funding external concerns.

Because of this they have wedded themselves to UAS, rightly or wrongly. Because of cost, nothing else. Generals will espoused the new age of warfare and other catchy quotables, but in the end they are about stretching the funds.

Another reason for the demise of FARA, like all the other reconnaissance helicopter programs is the arrogance of the Army Aviation branch. The high egos, necessary for combat pilots, made them believe it was obvious as to the necessity. They felt no need to get buy in from the rest of the Army.

There is however a replacement for the lost FARA, and the Apache as well. It is the FLRAA, the flying truck. By 2050 I propose a much smaller Aviation branch will have two aircraft types; CH-47Z+, and FLRAA.
 
yasotay said:
It is the budget. That is it. The U.S. Army's budget has not had real growth, beyond cost of living for soldiers, in four years (or more). The U.S. Army cannot afford many of the programs because of cost, which continues to grow. These cost are hidden behind phrases like"supply chain disruption." Other casual factors include funding external concerns.

Because of this they have wedded themselves to UAS, rightly or wrongly. Because of cost, nothing else. Generals will espoused the new age of warfare and other catchy quotables, but in the end they are about stretching the funds.

Another reason for the demise of FARA, like all the other reconnaissance helicopter programs is the arrogance of the Army Aviation branch. The high egos, necessary for combat pilots, made them believe it was obvious as to the necessity. They felt no need to get buy in from the rest of the Army.

There is however a replacement for the lost FARA, and the Apache as well. It is the FLRAA, the flying truck. By 2050 I propose a much smaller Aviation branch will have two aircraft types; CH-47Z+, and FLRAA.
Click to expand...
And by 2050 we should be working on a tiltrotor to replace the CH-47... by that point, it would have long been the logistical constraint in the Army's air movement capabilities.
 
e-Graphite said:
You fire missiles on the move... you only want to hover when you absolutely have to in pretty much any VTOL aircraft.
Click to expand...
You know, you're right, there is no need to hover with a VTOL jet, you can just fire the missiles at drone selected targets and RTB.
e-Graphite said:
If the Army wants a ALE/drone based recon capability and an organic ability to deliver those ALEs (which are short range), then seems like the logical answer post FARA cancellation is to configure the FLRAA tiltrotor as an ALE truck. Common platform, long range, large capacity, high speed. Plenty of room for a few ALE operators and then racks of ALEs/drone to yeet out the side of the cabin. Relative to FARA, you'd lose the cannon and direct "hunter-seeker" legacy tank hunting role but that's about it.

Pour one out for FARA and long live FLRAA.
Click to expand...
Drones will definitely be part of any solution, that much is certain.
 
Forest Green said:
You would hover below the horizon, well away from the front and fire missiles (e.g. Brimstone, JAGM, SPEAR or SiAW) at OTH targets pre-selected by drones, then RTB. That is the only safe way to use any VTOL in a peer conflict.
Click to expand...
But why would you need to hover then? Wouldn't it make more sense to fly at high speed, fire off a salvo and fly off, as was intended on the Harrier GR.9?
 
If that is your doctrine - why use a jet? Why not used a fixed wing STOLL turbo prop carrying a few brimstones?
 
Avimimus said:
If that is your doctrine - why use a jet? Why not used a fixed wing STOLL turbo prop carrying a few brimstones?
Click to expand...
STOLL? Depends on range. The idea of using something like an AV-8B was to have enough range to avoid strike by TBMs and move between FARPs like a heli but further back.
 
Forest Green said:
STOLL? Depends on range. The idea of using something like an AV-8B was to have enough range to avoid strike by TBMs and move between FARPs like a heli but further back.
Click to expand...
You just described using FLRAA for the role :) except that FLRAA can operate from unimproved landing pads/strips that AV-8B or F-35B cannot.
 
e-Graphite said:
You just described using FLRAA for the role :) except that FLRAA can operate from unimproved landing pads/strips that AV-8B or F-35B cannot.
Click to expand...
But that isn't as fast, can't put as much energy into the missiles for range and it costs more than an AV-8B.
 
yasotay said:
Interestingly I have just read (alas, behind a pay wall) that the SOAR had also expected to use the FARA as a replacement for the MH-60M DAP..
Click to expand...
Can you say what the SOAR uses the DAPs for? I've not really ever figured it out. It's got door gunners still like an H60, plus Apache gun with one set of either Hydra 70s or Hellfires and fuel tanks.

It feels like a deliberate attempt to keep the older UH1B style gunships that kept their door gunners in addition to their extra guns and rockets.



Colonial-Marine said:
From an outsider's perspective I'm not seeing much of a plan for the Army aviation reconnaissance that aren't fixed wing types. There is testing with VTOL drones of various types but even the largest of these is relatively small and limited in range and endurance.
Click to expand...
Tilt rotor types, you mean.

I expect the eventual "recon" tiltrotor to be the same airframe as the attack version, but with more sensors and the same type of drone control setup as the AH64E. Note that they may end up being the entirely same thing as the attack tiltrotor, and SOAR will have to buy a custom bird themselves with that 40' rotor diameter. Because no Tilt-rotor will fit.
 
@Scott Kenny - SOAR likely went for MH-60 DAP as a cost saving. First, only three platforms to maintain in the unit. Second, a DAP can become a lift MH-60 with armament removal. Third, MH-60's can fold up easier than an AH-64 to put into a C-17. Fourth, it is easier to put air refueling onto the aircraft. I'm sure that there were other considerations, but these are the ones I could come up with.

The DAP provides massive firepower (compared to an AH-6) and has better range and refuel capability. More ballistic protection too I would imagine. AH-6/MH-6 are used almost exclusively for urban operations, unless it is a long-term operation (like Iraq).
 
yasotay said:
@Scott Kenny - SOAR likely went for MH-60 DAP as a cost saving. First, only three platforms to maintain in the unit. Second, a DAP can become a lift MH-60 with armament removal. Third, MH-60's can fold up easier than an AH-64 to put into a C-17. Fourth, it is easier to put air refueling onto the aircraft. I'm sure that there were other considerations, but these are the ones I could come up with.

The DAP provides massive firepower (compared to an AH-6) and has better range and refuel capability. More ballistic protection too I would imagine. AH-6/MH-6 are used almost exclusively for urban operations, unless it is a long-term operation (like Iraq).
Click to expand...
Gotcha.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom