Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Future Helicopters
- Thread starter a_majoor
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
The Army Picked a Black Hawk Replacement — But the Fight May Have Just Begun
Sikorsky and Boeing are protesting the service choosing a Bell-made tiltrotor, and lawmakers are angry.
www.defenseone.com
I'm not sure that I am following.
We have the Future Vertical Lift Program
Back in 2009 somebody figured it would be worthwhile taking a look at recapitalizing the Vertical Lift Fleet. Included in that was finding a new Utility Helicopter - something like the Black Hawk.
Now to this civvy the Black Hawk doesn't appear to be a Long Range aircraft of any sort (591 to 2221 km with stub wings and extra tanks).
The Defiant seems to be a Black Hawk replacement
But is it a Long Range Assault Aircraft?
It appears to me that in 2019 two different requirements were stuffed into one project. There is a need for a local run about but there is also a need for a runway independent aircraft capable of moving troops over long distances - such as those encountered by the Special Forces, the USMC and the US Army will encounter in the Indo-Pacific. And which could come in very handy for a small army that occasionally has to cover large distances in its own back yard.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
You probably aren’t wrong.The Army Picked a Black Hawk Replacement — But the Fight May Have Just Begun
Sikorsky and Boeing are protesting the service choosing a Bell-made tiltrotor, and lawmakers are angry.
I'm not sure that I am following.
We have the Future Vertical Lift Program
Back in 2009 somebody figured it would be worthwhile taking a look at recapitalizing the Vertical Lift Fleet. Included in that was finding a new Utility Helicopter - something like the Black Hawk.
Now to this civvy the Black Hawk doesn't appear to be a Long Range aircraft of any sort (591 to 2221 km with stub wings and extra tanks).
The Defiant seems to be a Black Hawk replacement
But is it a Long Range Assault Aircraft?
It appears to me that in 2019 two different requirements were stuffed into one project. There is a need for a local run about but there is also a need for a runway independent aircraft capable of moving troops over long distances - such as those encountered by the Special Forces, the USMC and the US Army will encounter in the Indo-Pacific. And which could come in very handy for a small army that occasionally has to cover large distances in its own back yard.
However the PSpec for FLRAA was altered before RFP release.
The Army however appears to have valued the Bell bid on some criteria from the Draft.
Sik/Boeing have argued that IF the Army wanted the criteria in the original Draft then they shouldn’t have changed it - as they wound have offered a different platform.
Boeing is well versed in Tilt Rotor from the Osprey, so had the Army articulated their desires correctly, it’s likely that LocMart would have gone in that direction as opposed to the Defiant style, and they made that point in the protest.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
Is a "Future Possible", assuming a LocMart or Congressional win, a splitting of the project?
It might make more sense than the splitting of the LCS.
Why was the Draft spec changed?
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
Honestly it’s a shit show - and shows why requirements need to be clearly articulated and outlined at the beginning, and any changes made public and the Government stand by any changes and no attempt to do double dealings with shadow criteria.
As it stands now, the Army appears to have been dealing in bad faith with Team Defiant.
I suspect the GAO will agree, which will either require the Army to award to Team Defiant - or force a completely new program, to give LocMart/Boeing 2 years to come up with a design to meet the desire of the Army.
What the Army probably should do if award FLRAA to Team Defiant - and reduce the airframes by 25% and create another FVL sub category for an extended range tilt rotor system.
As it stands now, the Army appears to have been dealing in bad faith with Team Defiant.
I suspect the GAO will agree, which will either require the Army to award to Team Defiant - or force a completely new program, to give LocMart/Boeing 2 years to come up with a design to meet the desire of the Army.
What the Army probably should do if award FLRAA to Team Defiant - and reduce the airframes by 25% and create another FVL sub category for an extended range tilt rotor system.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
Cant help but wonder if Army is carrying the can for a Joint project.
It really feels as if the LRAA requirement was driven by SOCOM and the USMC, possibly with a light/long range faction of the Army.
Traditional army would probably have been happy with recapitalizing the existing CABs.
Edit FLRAA resonates with Operation Eagle Claw.
It really feels as if the LRAA requirement was driven by SOCOM and the USMC, possibly with a light/long range faction of the Army.
Traditional army would probably have been happy with recapitalizing the existing CABs.
Edit FLRAA resonates with Operation Eagle Claw.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
I’d argue to split some of the program as I outlined above.
They really can’t split award as the contract was no setup that way (of course just because they legally can’t doesn’t mean…)
Honestly I wasn’t following the changes heavily. I suspect that in during Industry Days, the Army realized some if not all of the below:
1) the current spec was heavily weighted towards a tilt rotor,
A) The Osprey still has issues which some aviators have concerns on from a standpoint flight safety.
B) Bell was the only entity working on a tilt rotor in a medium sized application.
2) The aircraft was going to cost a lot of it was a tilt rotor and concerns with the Osprey repeated groundings let to cost overrun and platform availability concerns
3) Questions from Industry and internal Army oof some of the original speed and range requirements of the draft were truly necessary.
So they changed the threshold speed and range and went to a pass/fail PSpec with no middle ground.
Usually with requirements you have your KPP Threshold ‘Must Have’s’ and then Objective
‘Desired’.
The matrix usually allows for understanding of the weighting given to meeting or exceeding the Objective criteria. That is used to measure what is best value for the government in that term of contract.
When you have no Objective criteria other than the threshold- which is what FLRAA ended up as, it’s a very easy Lowest Price Technically Acceptable contract.
Either you checked all the boxes or you didn’t.
If you did and your competitor(s) did too, then it’s all on cost of the program.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
IMHO the Army jumped at the idea of a faster, longer range bird, that they originally had been told would be close to the price of a Blackhawk based on Bell early marketing prior to the Valor taking flight (the early Valor engine pylons moved like the Osprey, and I’m sure the redesigns cost a bunch and added some new complexities to reduce the issues found with the Osprey tilt nacelle)
I totally get the faster aspect, Blackhawks are no slouch for speed, but when you’re seeing incoming tracer at night - you want it to go a lot faster.
Given the footprint of the GWOT missions, the range and speed increase desires were totally understandable.
Regular Army don’t do FARP’s like SOCOM does, and thus the legs of the bird can be a limiting factor. USASOC aviators generally preferred the Defiant, as it’s a better platform in tight spots and only requires the same area to land as the Blackhawk (which was also a KSA for the program), while the Valor requires almost 75% more area.
No one in the Army really gives a shit about the USMC especially their vertical left component, as it’s insignificant numbers wise.
The Hook replacement program part of FVL resonates there, and a lot more USASOC/JSOC interest will be there.
- Reaction score
- 22,195
- Points
- 1,360
At least the black Hooks have some life to them still, as opposed to the USAF that put all the eggs into the CV-22B basket for CSAR, when it pulled the plug on the HH-47 CSAR-X. I definitely don’t hear much cheering for the V-22 from the JSOC world.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
That program is a ways out.
Good thing block II became a thing…
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Kevin I know you're Lockheed guy (or your wife is) but I do think the Bell win is better for the industrial military business. It keeps Bell in the game as a platform supplier. The US is short platform suppliers and major system developers. A mistake was made when the DoD made all the defence contractors merge. A loss on this program doesn't throw Lockheed out if the helicopter game at all. Boeing will be another case but they really not as big in the helicopter game with just Chinook, Apache and some Osprey. With just three American OEM helicopter players now. American Airbus is coming on strong but a hone grown product. MD helicopters is just one old product.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
My wife and I don’t really talk about this - as anything I’m interested in is protected info.
I like the idea of Valor for certain aspects, but for the long term good of the Industrial base I disagree with you.
Textron is still a giant, and not a real Mil competitor in vertical lift. Losing FLRAA is not a major issue to them, as it’s no current business loss. The loss of FLRAA to Sikorsky will be devastating to Connecticut, while there are Blackhawk contracts to 2027, I don’t think the company would remain viable past that without FLRAA.
More importantly the way the Army awarded FLRAA is corrosive to any Gov-Industry relationship.
Without transparency in contracts you end up with back room deals and who’s willing to bribe their way to gain advantages.
DoD didn’t do that, companies did that, and the USG didn’t do a lot of anti-trust homework.
How do you figure that?
Bell is mainly commercial, with Sik is 95% Mil, and 90% of that is the Blackhawk, which FLRAA replaces.
The CH-53K is another minor player, and frankly the Hook Block II doesn’t give it much room to operate.
Boeing in Rotary is really just the Hook these days, while the Apache and MH-6 line are still open, their days are numbered mainly as FARA will replace them. Boeing is trying to market an upgraded Apache to stay online with FARA, but that remains to be seen.
The AH-6/MH-6 are JSOC only birds with no larger customer, and really just a footnote.
The Osprey is a JV with Bell, it’s a minor player program with only 400 airframes, but has no intended replacement in FVL as it’s not an Army program.
MD hasn’t been a real Mil bird provider for a while, the base bird of the AH/MH-6J is the MD-530J but engine, avionics, and more is done by Boeing as the prime.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
This was the event I was referring to about the mergers. Old piece but you get the story. It was called the supper. And it created this mega defence contractors. And I would say it was an error.
I have been having these type of conversations alot lately. Everything from kids hockey, we need just one AAA team not two to big tech to auto suppliers.
As I have grown older I have come to the think bigger is not better. (LOL don't go there) these companies are to big to make fast decisions or response to changes or allow creative ideas to flow. In the past I thought is not problem new companies coming around will eat there lunch. But the problem is big companies can hire big lobbyists to work big government. You see it in tech how they are work hard to have government help lock in there markets. Etc.
One more thing I would say the break up of AT&T lead to one of the great periods of innovation. With out the break up we would not have seen the cell phone be what, the cost of calling to almost zero, the internet would also be very different. All those new companies create made an explosive change in telecom and tech industries
What could it do if you blew up the military industrial complex companies. Would also need procurement change too. I doubt you have a case of 7 billion dollar ship that its bullets are too expensive to manufacture.
I have been having these type of conversations alot lately. Everything from kids hockey, we need just one AAA team not two to big tech to auto suppliers.
As I have grown older I have come to the think bigger is not better. (LOL don't go there) these companies are to big to make fast decisions or response to changes or allow creative ideas to flow. In the past I thought is not problem new companies coming around will eat there lunch. But the problem is big companies can hire big lobbyists to work big government. You see it in tech how they are work hard to have government help lock in there markets. Etc.
One more thing I would say the break up of AT&T lead to one of the great periods of innovation. With out the break up we would not have seen the cell phone be what, the cost of calling to almost zero, the internet would also be very different. All those new companies create made an explosive change in telecom and tech industries
What could it do if you blew up the military industrial complex companies. Would also need procurement change too. I doubt you have a case of 7 billion dollar ship that its bullets are too expensive to manufacture.
- Reaction score
- 22,060
- Points
- 1,260
I actually know someone who was at the dinner and the article is not 100% accurate.
To paraphrase one of the guests ‘we will only be buying from 2-3 of you, and the rest of the bottom feeders will starve’
It was intended as a warning that due to budget constraints that low risk approaches would be conducted (using the large vendors) and that there would be fewer platforms and programs.
In theory the current large defense companies vertical integration is a major win for DoD.
Generally in a DoD program one company in the Prime and usually the integrator. In todays market having 20+ companies collaborating on an aircraft would most likely ballon prices more than they are now.
The helmet avionics display needs to interact with the MFD’s that in turn react with the controls, sensors, weapons etc.
With vertical integration it’s done with the company.
IR&D: Small firms don’t have billions to spend on internal R&D.
Design: yes large companies don’t turn on a dime, but when you look at Lockheed, they retained their Skunk Works, to allow small groups of talent to work without massive oversight, speeding the time of flash to bang on advanced projects.
Now as I pointed out, the USG did a poor job IMHO of enforcing Anti-Trust laws in some of the mergers.
Raytheon, LocMart and Textron are massive corporations, and are getting bigger almost daily.
I don’t think that is an issue that should affect the outcome however of FLRAA, as the government needs to be a transparent business partner, or the system won’t work for anyone.
Spencer100
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,201
- Points
- 1,040
Japan doing something different
www.defensenews.com
Japan to replace attack, observation helicopters with drone fleet
A Japanese document showed graphical representations of what appears to be loitering munitions and medium-altitude, long-endurance drones as replacements.
www.defensenews.com
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
Japan doing something different
Japan to replace attack, observation helicopters with drone fleet
A Japanese document showed graphical representations of what appears to be loitering munitions and medium-altitude, long-endurance drones as replacements.
Don't we have a Bell 412EPI variant in service already?
We do, but the Japanese version has some significant upgrades, including an 11% increase in torque. It's not clear if our Griffons could be upgraded to this same standard.
SUBARU BELL 412EPX｜SUBARU BELL 412EPX｜SUBARU Aerospace Company
Learn more about the latest variant of reputable 412 series, SUBARU BELL 412EPX.
aerospace.subaru.co.jp
Subaru Bell’s new pickup: the 412EPX
The 412EPX is the latest iteration of the storied 412 product line, created through a collaboration between Bell and Subaru. We got behind the controls to find out what’s new.
verticalmag.com
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 11,980
- Points
- 1,160
You take the data plate off of our Griffons and build a new helicopter around it, but it's just an "upgrade". Many of the Beaver floatplanes are basically new aircraft attached to an old data plate.We do, but the Japanese version has some significant upgrades, including an 11% increase in torque. It's not clear if our Griffons could be upgraded to this same standard.
SUBARU BELL 412EPX｜SUBARU BELL 412EPX｜SUBARU Aerospace Company
Learn more about the latest variant of reputable 412 series, SUBARU BELL 412EPX.
Subaru Bell’s new pickup: the 412EPX
The 412EPX is the latest iteration of the storied 412 product line, created through a collaboration between Bell and Subaru. We got behind the controls to find out what’s new.
The Beavers have a few old rivets left. funny I worked on a couple that had the original bullet hole repair patches from the Vietnam war. It was kind of neat to be WTH and then read the logs for the aircraft. At the time I thought the holes were for a removed antenna set up. Nope shot through and through, skin pounded flat, patch riveted over top. It was kind of neat to see.
UH-1Y Venom upgrade might be something we look at for out light fleet.
- Reaction score
- 8,323
- Points
- 1,160
An interesting 2021 video from Bell and the RCAF on the GLLE project
Stripping the analog CH-146 - adding the EPI Glass Cockpit and Digital Engine, integrating the INGRESS EO/IR and Mission Management System moving map, bringing all the nav, comms and avionics up to current civil and military standards and militarizing the whole shebang.
In other words the only thing left is likely to be the tail number
The aircraft will be redesignated as the CH-146C Griffon MkII.
Stripping the analog CH-146 - adding the EPI Glass Cockpit and Digital Engine, integrating the INGRESS EO/IR and Mission Management System moving map, bringing all the nav, comms and avionics up to current civil and military standards and militarizing the whole shebang.
In other words the only thing left is likely to be the tail number
The aircraft will be redesignated as the CH-146C Griffon MkII.
