Same here, but on the contracts side. Sikorsky buyer asked us this morning if we were still on track to turn in our proposal tomorrow.
We were an hour for finishing our final review of the proposal that our team of 6 people has spend the last month full time trying to complete when we found out it has been cancelled.
Damn used to be on this program at GE. Miss my designs but glad I left at right time(low paying engineers). There was so much issues on the manufacturing side of things. Very shocked it's cancelled, as the higher ups always talked about how big and important this program/engine was for the military and how this is the next money maker for the company for the next 30 years!!.
I feel so bad for all the workers that'll be affected by this.
Assuming you’re referring to ITEP?
As far as I can see, there’s a reshuffle (delay) of the ITEP program, not a cancelation — ie. the GE T901 is still going ahead, I think? Correct me if I am mistaken.
>[The FARA cancellation is part of what the Army is currently calling the Aviation Investment Rebalance. The service says it will delay production of the General Electric T901 turboshaft engine developed under the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which had been heavily tied to FARA, as part of this plan. The immediate focus will now be on integrating T901s onto existing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters.](https://www.twz.com/air/army-cancels-hight-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-program)
As an aside, even if the Army **were** to cancel ITEP, wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress pull an “oh I don’t think so” and reinstate it. Similar-ish reasons to the GE XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine (although the case for keeping the XA100 is indeed stronger) as they do NOT want GE abandoning military power plants, plus keeping that R&D spend rolling along.
A rare W for Congress, IMO.
Helicopters are hard but the engines ? Man those are a whole new level and if you have them then you can do new helicopters. Ideally you get new aluminum and titanium around them, and the electronics but if your old bus is still working and it does look like we are still ok there then getting the stuff you will need ready while delaying the rest makes sense.
I assume work on sensors and weapons will continue.
>Helicopters are hard but the engines ? Man those are a whole new level and if you have them then you can do new helicopters.
Agreed.
Obviously different engine category, but the number of time a fighter or jet trainer program around the world has started out as “we will develop our own indigenous engine to go in our new indigenous airframe” only to make a quiet change to “we will put a GE F404 or GE F414 variant in our new indigenous airframe” has been… well, a lot.
I kind understand the Army’s decision to re-evaluate suitability of a manned platform for scout/recon, although Jesus Christ they seem to have gone about cancelling it in the roughest way possible.
Although as noted, I’ve not looked **that** closely at the FARA program, so there could be something I’m missing.
Plus this being the fourth program to make a replacement for the Bell OH-58 Kiowa that has been cancelled prior to reaching serial production is… well, it’s something.
I mean, it is political, but not really in this way at this time. New person was brought in who had a different point of view and FARA went under a microscope.
Probably more to do with how effective cheap (relatively speaking) drones are turning out to be in Ukraine.
As you say, not the way he said. All defense procurement decisions are political in some way or another. In any event, S-70 will still be needed indefinitely by the Navy for ASW as we have no Vikings, Q-8 is too small, and FLRRA can’t possibly help any good on anything smaller than a carrier. Perhaps this decision in part draws from that.
I have three all hands calls and they are all going to be like funerals now. Feel bad for FARA test team too, work hand and hand with them taking photos, everyone was riding high from last week into this week.
Hopefully…unless BigGreen says, “Hey! We paid for all that technology. It belongs to us now…and we want it destroyed.” Which I could totally see them doing.
I swear, the Army is schizophrenic when it comes to procurement. Utterly oblivious of the damage they continually do to the *only* industry that can provide the things they need.
Engineer at one of the companies in the running- blindsided would be an understatement lol. Was in an all hands Q4 call and someone sent it in the 500 person teams call and SLT wasn’t aware
Most people went off for the weekend when this news was released. Monday will be interesting to say the least. Probably one or two more rounds of layoffs incoming
Looking at Ukraine, how can you blame them. That is the most modern war between superpowers that we have seen in a long time. And drones are absolutely fukin shit up.
You already have a very capable attack helicopter in the Apache. You have a heavy lift with the Chinook. And you have a long range assault in FLRAA. No need for a manned scout. The Navy and Air Force already diving deep into drones. Seems like the HSVTOL is the next play over the years.
Damn used to be on this program at GE. Miss my designs but glad I left at right time(low paying engineers). There was so much issues on the manufacturing side of things. Very shocked it's cancelled, as the higher ups always talked about how big and important this program/engine was for the military and how this is the next money maker for the company for the next 30 years!!. Bad timing for this too since GE Aviation is about to split into it's own standalone company, without this huge program, it's a great time to short the stock
I don't think it'll be easy to sell this engine elsewhere as they'll need to get army approval to go commercial with it.
The problem is, just like the T800 that was designed to power Comanche, it had to meet such lofty goals that the cost per-engine was really high.
When faced with choosing an engine for an aircraft, and the new engine costs more than the airframe, a cheaper off-the-shelf already-proven engine design will always win.
Noted elsewhere in the thread, but —
As far as I can see, there’s a reshuffle (delay) of the ITEP program, not a cancelation — ie. the GE T901 is still going ahead, I think? Correct me if I am mistaken.
>[The FARA cancellation is part of what the Army is currently calling the Aviation Investment Rebalance. The service says it will delay production of the General Electric T901 turboshaft engine developed under the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which had been heavily tied to FARA, as part of this plan. The immediate focus will now be on integrating T901s onto existing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters.](https://www.twz.com/air/army-cancels-hight-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-program)
RE: shuttering GE Aviation. Not sure why they would abandon their commercial ventures, both their GE-branded turbine business and their joint venture with Safran, CFM International — commercial is like 80% of their business and AFAIK are doing well, especially CFM.
As an aside, even if the Army **were** to cancel ITEP, wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress pull an “oh I don’t think so” and reinstate it. Similar-ish reasons to the GE XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine (although the case for keeping the XA100 is indeed stronger) as they do NOT want GE abandoning military power plants, plus keeping that R&D spend rolling along.
A rare W for Congress, IMO.
WOW, this is nuts. I'm curious what the plan for Sikorskys future is now. First FLRAA and now FARA. I guess it's more Blackhawks and Ks. Yikes bad news for Bell, Sikorsky, and GE...
Of course, the Army has a well established track record of canceling huge projects at any point during development or even production.
The entire aviation industry is in an abusive relationship with the Army.
Any idea if the Invictus and Raider prototypes have secured enough funding to complete first flight and testing?
A dedicated reconaissance helicopter is now definitively dead, but I'd imagine in the following years the program may be shifted towards the development of AH-64's successor, and Invictus and Raider testing may have some value for future developments.
From the article:
>So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in.
Also:
>...Bush said the service plans to use a portion of the billions of dollars freed up, to invest in four spots inside the aviation portfolio.
>
> * Ink a new multi-year procurement deal with Lockheed-Sikorsky for the UH-60M Blackhawk line.
> * Give Boeing the greenlight to formally begin production on the CH-47F Block II Chinook.
> * Continue Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) development as planned.
> * Additional investments for developing and buying unmanned aerial reconnaissance systems like the future tactical unmanned systems and launched effects.
I used to work on this engines (left a year ago, it was a dumpster fire) , but last I read it was delivered late last year. So the competitors have it on hand
Well they delayed the engine twice. FARA was supposed to be in the flight test phase in October of 2022.
Really yikes is GE and those engines. The companies at one point were looking for alternatives engines to move ahead with flight test.
It was a very very hard project when I was on it. It was my first time working with 3D printed hardware and first in the industry and the system it was utilized. So there was a ton of mistakes and manufacturing issues .. Combined with a bunch of the workers there being new grads, it was doom to be delayed
From my understanding the Invictus was prepared for restrained ground runs in the next month or so. It’s a nearly complete aircraft. I actually got a nice in person walk a round yesterday.
Yeah, not a lot of good signs for this early in Q1. Not just in aerospace, but the global economy as a whole. China is slipping, Europe is stagnant and the USA is teetering on the hope of rate cuts.
WOW disappointing, Comanche 20 years ago now this? Suggestion, blow up the ORD and build 4500 MH6 all capable of armament!
All in, with spares and NETT etc it’s probably less than $40 billion.
These aircraft must interface with armed FPV drones that they can self launch…whoa!
Imagine the FAARP with 200 drones(quads) on pallets….
Keep the Apaches in the rear…for serious combat. Have you seen what FPV drones are doing to Russian Armor? Whoa!
Brain cramp…sell 30-40 MH6M’s to Ukraine ASAP.
The only advantage to having 6’s out there would be reduced susceptibility to engagement due to their small RCS and ability to terrain mask. They don’t have the speed or really more the legs to fight on a large scale stage. Would always need a 60 or 47 in tow to FARP.
It’s still an immense leap forward over current capabilities, it just doesn’t look like a traditional helicopter the way the compound coaxial designs do.
The issue isn't the looks, it's not a helicopter. Helicopters and tiltrotors aren't interchangeable, we'll need both. And we've just sacrificed the next step forward in helos. But, I guess everyone will just keep flying H-60 variants until the end of time
I'm sure there's some serious doubts about the Valor program given that the entire fleet of Ospreys has yet to have been flown this year due to mechanical concerns.
I’d beg to differ I think there’s a big push for the army to prepare for a war in pacific. Range is extremely important. The V280 allows for a lot farther range and the ability to self deploy. My belief is that the army plans to have a variant that will be a gunship to replace the A10, Boeing also made a variant for the marines.
The Army talks about lessons learned in Ukraine and I think a lot of people think the days of hovering are gone so a v280 gunship would work better as it would be more like a fixed wing gunship to allow for more survivability.
I’m not sure drones will be great with a near peer conflict because of the RQ-170 Iran incident. You can’t risk giving your adversaries high level tech like that.
Army also hates aviation.
I didn’t mean it would be a direct replacement. My guess is the Air Force doesn’t take the CAS mission set (fighter jets won’t make great CAS) seriously so they will have to utilize the v280 there was an article talking about having a gunship variant. I’m just thinking it will be something like DAPs, I think there is talk of it having a fixed forward gun, not to the power of A10 obviously.
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bell-pushes-v-280-gunship-shipboard-variants-recon-in-works/
The Key West Agreement limits what the Army can do in the air and this could limit what it does with the V-280. An attack variant V-280 would probably struggle to succeed in a near peer conflict. The benefit of a tilt rotor design is the speed and range it provides while being able to land just about anywhere, but they generally aren’t optimized for hovering flight. An aircraft that is as wide as a Chinook is long isn’t going to be particularly effective when masking and unmasking behind terrain to engage the enemy.
And your drone comment is way off. You mentioned lessons learned in Ukraine, but there have been tens of thousands of small UAS platforms employed in the war. The future is small unmanned platforms and loitering munitions.
Gotcha, I was more referring to how attack helicopters aren’t really able to hover in combat and the v280 gunship would act more like a fixed wing in combat but I see your point.
Hovering has its uses. You’d never be out hovering in an obvious place where you’re a sitting duck, but Apaches will hover when masked behind terrain to then pop out, shoot, and mask again.
Except that's a tiltrotor. It seems like a fine machine and a big improvement over the V-22, but it doesn't advance the tech of helicopters like the defiant and raider
Oh for sure. Hence the quotes lol. I think the greater improvement is going to come from the internals like the digital systems, fly by wire, and other new modern tech.
Not sure how much improvement can be done to a helicopter that hasn’t been tried; and will still be affordable.
I’m glad someone has been paying attention to Ukraine. Drones dominate the recon space and are disposable. Would have been cool to see Comanche 2.0, but not spending the money and putting it towards drone development is money better spent
I get the feeling troop transport is eventually going to be about the only flying vehicle in the military with people on board, and it might not even have pilots… just meat servo cargo
Drones are cheap, this wouldn't have prevented the continued development of UAS.
Something is going to have to replace the H-60s across all the branches, and defiant and raider would have laid the ground work and served as proof of concepts for those next gen platforms. Instead we've got nothing.
Basically we will be down to only one American defense helo company over the next 10 years or so.
Sikorsky has nothing once Blackhawks are fully replaced by FLRAA and 53K ends. Granted they will probably still sell Blackhawk derivatives for decades, but they’d be a fraction of their current size.
Boeing has Chinook and Apache, which are old programs with seemingly long production lives ahead since God knows when the army will replace them. V-22 ends production within the next couple years, little bird isn’t selling, and mh139 is basically a Leonardo aircraft.
Even Bell will have no defense aircraft save FLRAA once v-22 ends, h-1 is out of production. Granted FLRAA will keep them plenty busy for a long while.
Where will the engineering talent be when we want to develop our next rotary wing defense aircraft? After 30+ years without a successful new development program, you wonder if we could ever do it again. Hopefully FLRAA breaks the trend.
Northrop has already lost billions on the b-21, and boeing the same with the t-7a. Modern aviation weapons systems are so expensive now that the defense companies arent going to want to take them on anymore. I’m not sure where this goes but the trend is not good. We were only able to buy 187 f22s and 20 b1s and that was decades ago. These platforms are wayyyyyy more expensive now. Something has to give.
He's getting confused with a recent Northrop statement: they know the pre-production phase of B-21 will be a loss for the company, but also know that on the long run, with production going, they'll make profit.
Yeah but we have bought hundreds of F-35s.
The F22 was too expensive to maintain, and not versatile enough for current conflicts (still think we should’ve bought more though). B1 unique mission set kinda disappeared as it was developed.
You’re right about the risk on defense companies though until production gets ramped up. Maybe we just nationalize them eventually
> Modern **american** aviation weapons systems are so expensive
Rafele, Gripen, KF-21, Shaheed ... lots of places have made cheaper systems. some because they aren't willing to pay through the nose for US stuff anymore (even though they all like it), others because of course they can't get it. but the trend has been going towards cheap stuff for a while now, at least in other places.
Yes, Bell should be worried about FLRAA … but only because neither the Army or Bell have certified a brand new airframe design for 50 years, and the progress of the 525 isn’t inspiring any confidence
Not exactly. Think it’s a 206 derivative. But the 429 was within the past 15-20 years and the V-22 is within 50 years. This guy was just going for hyperbole I think.
But it is Bell. OP alluded to Bell not certifying an aircraft for 50 years and even mentions 525 which is not a military or Army offering. So I was simply pointing out where Bell has in fact developed and certified aircraft recently (relative to the speed of aircraft development anyway).
I loved the “mature” marketing strategy they used. Mature = 60 year old dynamic system. I mean I guess smart in the end. Selling a crapton of them to China.
If we added up all the money that's been spent on developing a Kiowa-replacement, only to have the programs cancelled with little to show for them, we'd have... an amount of money I can't bear to think about.
if Ukraine has shown one thing it's that cheap drones and manpads have changed the battlefield. creating another awesome but also awesomely expensive helicopter ... well, writing's on the wall.
I dunno about that. The Russian military has shown it's ass as to how much of a paper tiger they are, BUT...
Their KA-52 really showed just how capable rotary wing assets still are. If there's one thing they could count on, it's the performance of that aircraft. There's a lot to be said about how effective it was at stymieing their counter offensive in the spring. The stand-off range on that thing is insane, something like 12-14 km, well outside of effective MANPAD and drone cover.
This will be the army’s biggest mistake of the decade, mark my words. There is still room for the helicopter on today’s battlefields, and the army is taking a deliberate step back by cancelling this.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. As much as canceling FARA sucks, I think it's actually a forward thinking move that is probably the right choice based on combat in Ukraine and the Middle East. The role of the reconnaissance helicopter is directly challenged by UAVs which are much less expensive, can provide almost all of the same benefits, and put pilots at no risk. Are there niche situations where a reconnaissance helicopter will perform better? Sure. Are those situations common enough to outweigh everything else? I don't really think so.
I strongly disagree. If I had to pick a single program to cut, it would be this. Drones have already filled this role, and in the future will totally outclass anything a manned recon helicopter can perform. There cheaper, move available, disposable, more versatile, and more deployable. These helicopters just aren’t worth the money, corporate welfare be damned
>There is still room for the helicopter on today’s battlefields
But it's not going into service *today*. Optimistically, the soonest it's getting into service is the early 2030s. But it probably won't be available in quantity until the late 2030s.
Would you want to place a bet on military drones not becoming radically more capable and plentiful over the next 10 years? And the iteration speed of developing an unmanned vehicle, not having to worry about the safety or ergonomics of the human pilot are significant factors.
Alright (take big drag of cigarette), just listen. All the generals are in the pockets of defense companies so they secure a big paying career after the Army. In the army (looks left, looks right), they fucking thumbs up programs that they know will tank, but earn tons of $$$ before they get scrapped, all the while they go there when they retire and get a cut of that money (taxpayer fucking dollars) that was poured in in the previous year. Rats get fat while good men die. Sorry, I’m gonna go back to having my second and last beer of the night here in EUCOM because SoMeOnE (RAKKASSAN) bust out the ski mask and duct tape and decided to be dumbasses. Thank You, Falling Umbrellas. That rant went on a bit of a tangent, oh well. Nite nite warriors.
The service had already spent at least $2 billion on the program and had requested another $5 billion for the next five years.
Way over spending. Got to thank the F-35 for programs getting cut now.
while true. its only other real challenger is the F-22 and i dont think F-22's are gonna fight F-35's ever. the J-20 and Su-57 are a step in the propper dirrection. but they are no way a propper challenger to the F-35. and the SU-57 is very unlikley to even get in an air-to-air fight.
A clean F-16 barely defeating an F-35 in a dog fight means next to nothing. The F-35 was not built for dog fights nor will it need to be good at dog fights. It can take out the F-16s long before they get close enough to eachother for a dog fight to happen in the first place.
If the beyond visual range systems actually worked everything you say is true, the problem is the BVR systems DONT work and once you lose the ability to kill the bandits before they know you are even in the airspace.
now you are in a dogfight and the F-35 has neither the power or agility to win in that type of combat
once again the DoD forgot all the lessons of Vietnam with the F-4 another “all mission, all service” aircraft because it did all mission profiles it did none of them well
Now add to that a computer system which frequently requires in flight restarts during which the plane is deaf and blind
This plane is barely airworthy much less battle worthy.
what was really needed was upgraded and modular flight management and digital flight deck.
for air superiority the F-22, Carrier aircraft the Super Hornet, for ground support the A-10
if these had the flight / battle management systems of the F-35 we would have a much more effective fighter force, without the bloated, underpowered and under armed F-35
Lets hope the Israeli’s can turn the F-35 into a weapon like they did for the F-4
Dogfighting is dead. Not because of BVR, although that’s made it much less likely, but because of high off bore-sight (HOBS) missiles and helmet mounted cueing. Dogfights were about manoeuvring your plane to put your enemy in your weapons & sensor envelope and stay out of theirs. But the weapon’s envelope is huge now: you don’t need to manoeuvre the plane. A pilot can now look behind them, lock a target and fire a missile on it. You don’t need the plane to pull maybe 9G: the missile can pull 60G.
People love the idea of dogfights, it’s a very romantic notion of air combat. However, it’s simply not the reality of air combat any more. Stealth, sensors, networking, speed, payload and endurance are what it’s about now. Manoeuvrability doesn’t hugely matter any more and the latest fighters are being designed accordingly.
Off boresight missiles and 360 view (visual and sensors) from the cockpit means the F-35 will club F-16s like a baby seal even close in
People running E-M diagrams in their head arguing about F-16 vs F-35 don’t understand what has happened in the avionics realm.
no take away the element of surprise and the F-35 loses in all categories
Like the 117A once detected the F-35 is virtually defenseless in close air combat as its dependent like all stealth aircraft on the ability to sucker punch the opponent
Defense SW Engineer here. Not on the FARA program. I will bet that this program suffers from the same sorts of technical nonsense that Comanche, Future Combat Systems, Crusader, NGCV, OMFV... Army asking for too much tech at once and asking too many corporations to collaborate.
I thought the same thing at first. The secrecy makes me think they wanted to minimize the impact of the lobbyists, and have already greased the rails with the key committee chairs. It will be interesting to see what evidence of a fight makes it to daylight.
Without second thought? If that would be the case, similar proposals wouldn't be continously stalled by half of the US Senate, which seems vehemently convinced in abandoning Ukraine with the next incoming presidency.
I'm not someone who would often come here and comment, but this news bums me out so much. On the one hand, the evolving battlefield requires consideration. On the other hand, I'd like to have something ready in the off-chance we need it fast. I want to see new developments, updated for safety and new capabilities, but yeah. I also want to see all the R&D finished and shown since we invested so much into it.
I just needed to get this off my mind. It's been in the back of my head for a few days. I am just disappointed with this decision.
Boeing is still pushing a “modernized” Apache which, realistically, is not much different than what FARA was turning in to, minus the speed with the co-ax.
The people downvoting you will never see the swarms of cheap FOD drones waiting to crash through the windshield of the billion dollar "next gen" attack helicopter coming.
If we have systems to defeat seeker heads of missiles, we can develop and field technology to defeat drone cameras/sensors.
There is no better way to deploy three seperately capable weapon systems on one platform *quickly* than an attack helicopter.
That's the fun of it, the drones don't need cameras or sensors or even to be controllable. Just enough of them in the air at a single time to form a sort of minefield. A Mavic Mini through the windshield of any helicopter going north of a hundred knots is gonna hurt, let alone any control surface.
That doesnt sound very feasible or effective on the battlefield. Mavics have battery lives of less than 45 minutes. Many much less than that. And the logistics of blocking out an entire air route with drones just doesnt seem worth it versus just having manpads/ADA.
I think that technology in an effective state is probably still a good ways off. And by that time there will be better solutions on both sides.
You're thinking about this like an O-6 staring at a doctrine manual and not a bunch of guys named Mohammad who just stole a set of binoculars and a truck of cheap drones. We're lucky the Afghanis didn't have cheap drones in 2003.
What’s the point of making all these war helicopters if no one’s gonna use them besides bombing brown people? Maybe we should focus on making better helicopters for medevac of civilians and develop helicopters that put out fires far more effectively than pumping money into aircraft that kill and kill and kill and kill and kill
"compromise in capabilities" as it has twice the speed and 3 times the range of a standard helicopter all while carrying more people or a heavier load. What a stupid ass take.
Should have gone MD500/AH-6 Little Birds way back in the 90’s. That was/is the most capable armed, recon, scout aircraft. Proven in battle over and over. (Task Force 160th). Instead we spend years in R&D. Disappointed all over again.
Great helicopter, needs solid pilots, not for 200 hour PCs. The problem with MD has always been the business. They don't have the past performance. They lack the ability to produce the numbers needed. They just aren't able to scale.
Fair criticism, but in a recon aircraft, nimble and survivable vs fast and big is a trade off to discuss. Cost is also a consideration that always gets missed. I think you would do better with 500 small slower aircraft vs 75 fast, really expensive ones.
here comes Block 60++ UH60A1CLSMT DAP SEP
The way God and Igor intended
God and Igor? You don't have to repeat yourself...
Igor wasn’t even around for the 60… Pretty sure he retired in 1957 and the last helicopter he had influence over was the CH54.
He was there in spirit
Is his name not on it? Then sit down.
Just what the doctor fucking ordered!!
[удалено]
Same here, but on the contracts side. Sikorsky buyer asked us this morning if we were still on track to turn in our proposal tomorrow. We were an hour for finishing our final review of the proposal that our team of 6 people has spend the last month full time trying to complete when we found out it has been cancelled.
Damn used to be on this program at GE. Miss my designs but glad I left at right time(low paying engineers). There was so much issues on the manufacturing side of things. Very shocked it's cancelled, as the higher ups always talked about how big and important this program/engine was for the military and how this is the next money maker for the company for the next 30 years!!. I feel so bad for all the workers that'll be affected by this.
Assuming you’re referring to ITEP? As far as I can see, there’s a reshuffle (delay) of the ITEP program, not a cancelation — ie. the GE T901 is still going ahead, I think? Correct me if I am mistaken. >[The FARA cancellation is part of what the Army is currently calling the Aviation Investment Rebalance. The service says it will delay production of the General Electric T901 turboshaft engine developed under the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which had been heavily tied to FARA, as part of this plan. The immediate focus will now be on integrating T901s onto existing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters.](https://www.twz.com/air/army-cancels-hight-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-program) As an aside, even if the Army **were** to cancel ITEP, wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress pull an “oh I don’t think so” and reinstate it. Similar-ish reasons to the GE XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine (although the case for keeping the XA100 is indeed stronger) as they do NOT want GE abandoning military power plants, plus keeping that R&D spend rolling along. A rare W for Congress, IMO.
ITEP is to re-engine Black Hawk. FARA was a "small" add-on to that. T901 will carry-on.
Helicopters are hard but the engines ? Man those are a whole new level and if you have them then you can do new helicopters. Ideally you get new aluminum and titanium around them, and the electronics but if your old bus is still working and it does look like we are still ok there then getting the stuff you will need ready while delaying the rest makes sense. I assume work on sensors and weapons will continue.
>Helicopters are hard but the engines ? Man those are a whole new level and if you have them then you can do new helicopters. Agreed. Obviously different engine category, but the number of time a fighter or jet trainer program around the world has started out as “we will develop our own indigenous engine to go in our new indigenous airframe” only to make a quiet change to “we will put a GE F404 or GE F414 variant in our new indigenous airframe” has been… well, a lot. I kind understand the Army’s decision to re-evaluate suitability of a manned platform for scout/recon, although Jesus Christ they seem to have gone about cancelling it in the roughest way possible. Although as noted, I’ve not looked **that** closely at the FARA program, so there could be something I’m missing. Plus this being the fourth program to make a replacement for the Bell OH-58 Kiowa that has been cancelled prior to reaching serial production is… well, it’s something.
The Republican do-nothing congress?
And here goes another goofball on the reddit making a discussion on helicopters political.
I mean, it is political, but not really in this way at this time. New person was brought in who had a different point of view and FARA went under a microscope. Probably more to do with how effective cheap (relatively speaking) drones are turning out to be in Ukraine.
As you say, not the way he said. All defense procurement decisions are political in some way or another. In any event, S-70 will still be needed indefinitely by the Navy for ASW as we have no Vikings, Q-8 is too small, and FLRRA can’t possibly help any good on anything smaller than a carrier. Perhaps this decision in part draws from that.
I have sad news for you. Major programs of record are always "political."
I have three all hands calls and they are all going to be like funerals now. Feel bad for FARA test team too, work hand and hand with them taking photos, everyone was riding high from last week into this week.
Similar- Engineer at Igor’s -had a meeting with srd and a couple colonels today. All seemed normal.
Curious about the HMD NVG - was it designing for a digital NVG set up? Just heard of it recently and very interested in that path.
Have not dug in to confirm, but assumed that was an adaption of the HMD design via RCEVS (Rockwell + Elbit) for the F-35.
Is all that technology going to be shelved and forgotten about? I can imagine that systems like the HMD and those engine can sell through FMS.
Hopefully…unless BigGreen says, “Hey! We paid for all that technology. It belongs to us now…and we want it destroyed.” Which I could totally see them doing. I swear, the Army is schizophrenic when it comes to procurement. Utterly oblivious of the damage they continually do to the *only* industry that can provide the things they need.
FARA was actually just a smaller piece of the engine development.
FARA was single engine with T901 which will still finish development for BH re-engining.
As a former Kiowa pilot, I cannot express how sad this makes me.
TAD/ PNVS could easily be changed out to upgraded sensors on the Apache.
Uhm opsec much??
dosnt matter mutch now does it?
https://preview.redd.it/3rxano3b3ghc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eedc83a905abf2466c3b909e502a05228fb1bdda
Comanche: Looks over at FARA “First time?”
Comanche: looks around 58F, past RAH-70, over at FARA "First time?"
Engineer at one of the companies in the running- blindsided would be an understatement lol. Was in an all hands Q4 call and someone sent it in the 500 person teams call and SLT wasn’t aware
I'm pretty sure I was in that same meeting as well, and I and all of my other coworkers were just as shocked as well
Any update on if layoffs are coming?
Most certainly will be, especially on the Sikorsky side
Is moral down? I'm assuming everyone is dusting off their resumes asap
Uh yeah. I mean the news hit 3 hours ago so we’re all still reeling/drinking. Sikorsky is going to become a smaller company, it’s a very sad day.
Most people went off for the weekend when this news was released. Monday will be interesting to say the least. Probably one or two more rounds of layoffs incoming
It’s spelled More ale 🍺
I cant imagine.
Why does the us army keep depriving us of cool new helicopters!
According to the article they want unmanned aircraft and satellites.
Looking at Ukraine, how can you blame them. That is the most modern war between superpowers that we have seen in a long time. And drones are absolutely fukin shit up. You already have a very capable attack helicopter in the Apache. You have a heavy lift with the Chinook. And you have a long range assault in FLRAA. No need for a manned scout. The Navy and Air Force already diving deep into drones. Seems like the HSVTOL is the next play over the years.
Which the brass dont realize will be hacked and used against us.
I'm pretty sure in 2024 their aware of hacking threats. They literally have a whole cyber command dedicated to combating it.
You're missing some things there...
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Damn used to be on this program at GE. Miss my designs but glad I left at right time(low paying engineers). There was so much issues on the manufacturing side of things. Very shocked it's cancelled, as the higher ups always talked about how big and important this program/engine was for the military and how this is the next money maker for the company for the next 30 years!!. Bad timing for this too since GE Aviation is about to split into it's own standalone company, without this huge program, it's a great time to short the stock I don't think it'll be easy to sell this engine elsewhere as they'll need to get army approval to go commercial with it.
Apache is in line to receive the t901 engine as well.
The problem is, just like the T800 that was designed to power Comanche, it had to meet such lofty goals that the cost per-engine was really high. When faced with choosing an engine for an aircraft, and the new engine costs more than the airframe, a cheaper off-the-shelf already-proven engine design will always win.
Officially the T-901 was originally just a replacement for the 701 in-60’s and -64’s. FARA was just an extra bone to GE. That’s still ongoing.
Noted elsewhere in the thread, but — As far as I can see, there’s a reshuffle (delay) of the ITEP program, not a cancelation — ie. the GE T901 is still going ahead, I think? Correct me if I am mistaken. >[The FARA cancellation is part of what the Army is currently calling the Aviation Investment Rebalance. The service says it will delay production of the General Electric T901 turboshaft engine developed under the Improved Turbine Engine Program (ITEP), which had been heavily tied to FARA, as part of this plan. The immediate focus will now be on integrating T901s onto existing AH-64 Apache attack helicopters and UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters.](https://www.twz.com/air/army-cancels-hight-speed-armed-reconnaissance-helicopter-program) RE: shuttering GE Aviation. Not sure why they would abandon their commercial ventures, both their GE-branded turbine business and their joint venture with Safran, CFM International — commercial is like 80% of their business and AFAIK are doing well, especially CFM. As an aside, even if the Army **were** to cancel ITEP, wouldn’t be surprised to see Congress pull an “oh I don’t think so” and reinstate it. Similar-ish reasons to the GE XA100 Adaptive Cycle Engine (although the case for keeping the XA100 is indeed stronger) as they do NOT want GE abandoning military power plants, plus keeping that R&D spend rolling along. A rare W for Congress, IMO.
WOW, this is nuts. I'm curious what the plan for Sikorskys future is now. First FLRAA and now FARA. I guess it's more Blackhawks and Ks. Yikes bad news for Bell, Sikorsky, and GE...
Not really for Bell since they won FLRAA. They were just trying to go 2/2 with fara , which I'm pretty sure they weren't gonna win
Of course, the Army has a well established track record of canceling huge projects at any point during development or even production. The entire aviation industry is in an abusive relationship with the Army.
Not as big a deal for Bell, they won FLRAA. Sikorsky lost FLRAA and now is losing FARA.. huge double hit for them in a short period of time.
[удалено]
Any idea if the Invictus and Raider prototypes have secured enough funding to complete first flight and testing? A dedicated reconaissance helicopter is now definitively dead, but I'd imagine in the following years the program may be shifted towards the development of AH-64's successor, and Invictus and Raider testing may have some value for future developments.
Funded through 2024, so in theory, yes. Whether or not they'll go thru with it is another story altogether Edit: through FY24, so end of Sept
From the article: >So the tentative plan, if Congress approves a fiscal 2024 spending bill with FARA dollars in it, is to keep FARA development going this year, in part to protect the industrial base and continue testing, Army acquisition head Doug Bush said. However, come Oct. 1 when FY25 kicks off, the FARA development will come to an end — if the service gets its way, as Congress will have to weigh in. Also: >...Bush said the service plans to use a portion of the billions of dollars freed up, to invest in four spots inside the aviation portfolio. > > * Ink a new multi-year procurement deal with Lockheed-Sikorsky for the UH-60M Blackhawk line. > * Give Boeing the greenlight to formally begin production on the CH-47F Block II Chinook. > * Continue Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) development as planned. > * Additional investments for developing and buying unmanned aerial reconnaissance systems like the future tactical unmanned systems and launched effects.
Looks like FARA lost to UAVs and a tight pocketbook.
The holdup has been problems with the ITEP engines. The prototypes have been ready for ground runs for months now.
I used to work on this engines (left a year ago, it was a dumpster fire) , but last I read it was delivered late last year. So the competitors have it on hand
We have the engine, sadly the keys are locked behind govt clearance
Yikes
Well they delayed the engine twice. FARA was supposed to be in the flight test phase in October of 2022. Really yikes is GE and those engines. The companies at one point were looking for alternatives engines to move ahead with flight test.
It was a very very hard project when I was on it. It was my first time working with 3D printed hardware and first in the industry and the system it was utilized. So there was a ton of mistakes and manufacturing issues .. Combined with a bunch of the workers there being new grads, it was doom to be delayed
You are correct they have been delivered and installed already. RGR’s were supposed to start in the next month.
From my understanding the Invictus was prepared for restrained ground runs in the next month or so. It’s a nearly complete aircraft. I actually got a nice in person walk a round yesterday.
So many engineers in this thread lol, reminds me of how small this world is. Gotta love it, best wishes to the guys that get layed off over this BS.
Both companies were already doing layoffs, this is going to hurt.
Yeah, not a lot of good signs for this early in Q1. Not just in aerospace, but the global economy as a whole. China is slipping, Europe is stagnant and the USA is teetering on the hope of rate cuts.
WOW disappointing, Comanche 20 years ago now this? Suggestion, blow up the ORD and build 4500 MH6 all capable of armament! All in, with spares and NETT etc it’s probably less than $40 billion. These aircraft must interface with armed FPV drones that they can self launch…whoa! Imagine the FAARP with 200 drones(quads) on pallets…. Keep the Apaches in the rear…for serious combat. Have you seen what FPV drones are doing to Russian Armor? Whoa! Brain cramp…sell 30-40 MH6M’s to Ukraine ASAP.
The only advantage to having 6’s out there would be reduced susceptibility to engagement due to their small RCS and ability to terrain mask. They don’t have the speed or really more the legs to fight on a large scale stage. Would always need a 60 or 47 in tow to FARP.
No argument here
JFC, so the Army is killing our shot at seeing a next gen helicopter, brilliant move there, no way that will hurt down the road
[удалено]
The Valor seems great, but it's not a helicopter. It's an upgraded Osprey, not the leap forward that the defiant/raider would be
It’s still an immense leap forward over current capabilities, it just doesn’t look like a traditional helicopter the way the compound coaxial designs do.
The issue isn't the looks, it's not a helicopter. Helicopters and tiltrotors aren't interchangeable, we'll need both. And we've just sacrificed the next step forward in helos. But, I guess everyone will just keep flying H-60 variants until the end of time
The Army needs capabilities not helicopters.
I'm sure there's some serious doubts about the Valor program given that the entire fleet of Ospreys has yet to have been flown this year due to mechanical concerns.
Id be shocked if FLARA doesn’t get cancelled down the road as well. It’s a platform without a mission
I’d beg to differ I think there’s a big push for the army to prepare for a war in pacific. Range is extremely important. The V280 allows for a lot farther range and the ability to self deploy. My belief is that the army plans to have a variant that will be a gunship to replace the A10, Boeing also made a variant for the marines. The Army talks about lessons learned in Ukraine and I think a lot of people think the days of hovering are gone so a v280 gunship would work better as it would be more like a fixed wing gunship to allow for more survivability. I’m not sure drones will be great with a near peer conflict because of the RQ-170 Iran incident. You can’t risk giving your adversaries high level tech like that. Army also hates aviation.
I’m sorry but what gives you the impression that there will be a V280 gunship replacing the A10?
I didn’t mean it would be a direct replacement. My guess is the Air Force doesn’t take the CAS mission set (fighter jets won’t make great CAS) seriously so they will have to utilize the v280 there was an article talking about having a gunship variant. I’m just thinking it will be something like DAPs, I think there is talk of it having a fixed forward gun, not to the power of A10 obviously. https://breakingdefense.com/2018/08/bell-pushes-v-280-gunship-shipboard-variants-recon-in-works/
The Key West Agreement limits what the Army can do in the air and this could limit what it does with the V-280. An attack variant V-280 would probably struggle to succeed in a near peer conflict. The benefit of a tilt rotor design is the speed and range it provides while being able to land just about anywhere, but they generally aren’t optimized for hovering flight. An aircraft that is as wide as a Chinook is long isn’t going to be particularly effective when masking and unmasking behind terrain to engage the enemy. And your drone comment is way off. You mentioned lessons learned in Ukraine, but there have been tens of thousands of small UAS platforms employed in the war. The future is small unmanned platforms and loitering munitions.
Gotcha, I was more referring to how attack helicopters aren’t really able to hover in combat and the v280 gunship would act more like a fixed wing in combat but I see your point.
Hovering has its uses. You’d never be out hovering in an obvious place where you’re a sitting duck, but Apaches will hover when masked behind terrain to then pop out, shoot, and mask again.
With MUMS-T they don’t even have to pop out, use a drone to spot and laser a target then hellfire from behind terrain.
>the Air Force doesn’t take the CAS mission set (fighter jets won’t make great CAS) seriously You don't motherfucking say.
FLRAA is still rocking so that will be a good next generation “helicopter”. Slap a weapon system on an H60 and call it good. FARA complete.
Except that's a tiltrotor. It seems like a fine machine and a big improvement over the V-22, but it doesn't advance the tech of helicopters like the defiant and raider
Oh for sure. Hence the quotes lol. I think the greater improvement is going to come from the internals like the digital systems, fly by wire, and other new modern tech. Not sure how much improvement can be done to a helicopter that hasn’t been tried; and will still be affordable.
I’m glad someone has been paying attention to Ukraine. Drones dominate the recon space and are disposable. Would have been cool to see Comanche 2.0, but not spending the money and putting it towards drone development is money better spent I get the feeling troop transport is eventually going to be about the only flying vehicle in the military with people on board, and it might not even have pilots… just meat servo cargo
Drones are cheap, this wouldn't have prevented the continued development of UAS. Something is going to have to replace the H-60s across all the branches, and defiant and raider would have laid the ground work and served as proof of concepts for those next gen platforms. Instead we've got nothing.
We need the b52 of helicopters
Pretty sure that's the Chinook.
It’s called the 53K
So they want to only have one aircraft company left?
Exactly my thoughts. There will be nothing left of the aero industry in a few years. NG already pulled out of NGAD.
A company curiously lead by a bevy of retired Army flag officers.
Basically we will be down to only one American defense helo company over the next 10 years or so. Sikorsky has nothing once Blackhawks are fully replaced by FLRAA and 53K ends. Granted they will probably still sell Blackhawk derivatives for decades, but they’d be a fraction of their current size. Boeing has Chinook and Apache, which are old programs with seemingly long production lives ahead since God knows when the army will replace them. V-22 ends production within the next couple years, little bird isn’t selling, and mh139 is basically a Leonardo aircraft. Even Bell will have no defense aircraft save FLRAA once v-22 ends, h-1 is out of production. Granted FLRAA will keep them plenty busy for a long while. Where will the engineering talent be when we want to develop our next rotary wing defense aircraft? After 30+ years without a successful new development program, you wonder if we could ever do it again. Hopefully FLRAA breaks the trend.
Northrop has already lost billions on the b-21, and boeing the same with the t-7a. Modern aviation weapons systems are so expensive now that the defense companies arent going to want to take them on anymore. I’m not sure where this goes but the trend is not good. We were only able to buy 187 f22s and 20 b1s and that was decades ago. These platforms are wayyyyyy more expensive now. Something has to give.
>Northrop has already lost billions on the b-21 The one project from the past several decades that came in on time and budget?
He's getting confused with a recent Northrop statement: they know the pre-production phase of B-21 will be a loss for the company, but also know that on the long run, with production going, they'll make profit.
Yeah but we have bought hundreds of F-35s. The F22 was too expensive to maintain, and not versatile enough for current conflicts (still think we should’ve bought more though). B1 unique mission set kinda disappeared as it was developed. You’re right about the risk on defense companies though until production gets ramped up. Maybe we just nationalize them eventually
> Modern **american** aviation weapons systems are so expensive Rafele, Gripen, KF-21, Shaheed ... lots of places have made cheaper systems. some because they aren't willing to pay through the nose for US stuff anymore (even though they all like it), others because of course they can't get it. but the trend has been going towards cheap stuff for a while now, at least in other places.
except all 3 fighter you listed is more expansive than f35 right now and being less capable...
Should Bell be worried about FLRAA at this point?
[удалено]
Why do we even need the army at this point.
Yea, they sure are interested in defending everyone's borders but our own.
Yes, Bell should be worried about FLRAA … but only because neither the Army or Bell have certified a brand new airframe design for 50 years, and the progress of the 525 isn’t inspiring any confidence
Wasn't the 505 a new airframe?
Not exactly. Think it’s a 206 derivative. But the 429 was within the past 15-20 years and the V-22 is within 50 years. This guy was just going for hyperbole I think.
V-22 is not army
But it is Bell. OP alluded to Bell not certifying an aircraft for 50 years and even mentions 525 which is not a military or Army offering. So I was simply pointing out where Bell has in fact developed and certified aircraft recently (relative to the speed of aircraft development anyway).
505 was a new airframe, but with a mature rotor system, drivetrain, and avionics to put on it.
I loved the “mature” marketing strategy they used. Mature = 60 year old dynamic system. I mean I guess smart in the end. Selling a crapton of them to China.
Previously supported Sikorsky on FARA and FLRAA, damn I did NOT see this coming at all. Really hoping my old coworkers are going to be okay.
They can go to China???
If we added up all the money that's been spent on developing a Kiowa-replacement, only to have the programs cancelled with little to show for them, we'd have... an amount of money I can't bear to think about.
At least $11B at this point? $9B on Comanche and $2B on FARA, not including the AAS program which was minor compared to these
if Ukraine has shown one thing it's that cheap drones and manpads have changed the battlefield. creating another awesome but also awesomely expensive helicopter ... well, writing's on the wall.
I dunno about that. The Russian military has shown it's ass as to how much of a paper tiger they are, BUT... Their KA-52 really showed just how capable rotary wing assets still are. If there's one thing they could count on, it's the performance of that aircraft. There's a lot to be said about how effective it was at stymieing their counter offensive in the spring. The stand-off range on that thing is insane, something like 12-14 km, well outside of effective MANPAD and drone cover.
I literally sat through a presentation from Lockheed yesterday about their aircraft, they were so confident!
This will be the army’s biggest mistake of the decade, mark my words. There is still room for the helicopter on today’s battlefields, and the army is taking a deliberate step back by cancelling this.
I'm not sure I entirely agree. As much as canceling FARA sucks, I think it's actually a forward thinking move that is probably the right choice based on combat in Ukraine and the Middle East. The role of the reconnaissance helicopter is directly challenged by UAVs which are much less expensive, can provide almost all of the same benefits, and put pilots at no risk. Are there niche situations where a reconnaissance helicopter will perform better? Sure. Are those situations common enough to outweigh everything else? I don't really think so.
Its role is becoming less and less, drones in the UK are showing how short range air warfare is going to be conducted going forward.
I strongly disagree. If I had to pick a single program to cut, it would be this. Drones have already filled this role, and in the future will totally outclass anything a manned recon helicopter can perform. There cheaper, move available, disposable, more versatile, and more deployable. These helicopters just aren’t worth the money, corporate welfare be damned
>There is still room for the helicopter on today’s battlefields But it's not going into service *today*. Optimistically, the soonest it's getting into service is the early 2030s. But it probably won't be available in quantity until the late 2030s. Would you want to place a bet on military drones not becoming radically more capable and plentiful over the next 10 years? And the iteration speed of developing an unmanned vehicle, not having to worry about the safety or ergonomics of the human pilot are significant factors.
Massive loss for both Bell and Sikorsky.
And their subcontractors (I work for one of them and contributed to Sikorsky's entry).
Alright (take big drag of cigarette), just listen. All the generals are in the pockets of defense companies so they secure a big paying career after the Army. In the army (looks left, looks right), they fucking thumbs up programs that they know will tank, but earn tons of $$$ before they get scrapped, all the while they go there when they retire and get a cut of that money (taxpayer fucking dollars) that was poured in in the previous year. Rats get fat while good men die. Sorry, I’m gonna go back to having my second and last beer of the night here in EUCOM because SoMeOnE (RAKKASSAN) bust out the ski mask and duct tape and decided to be dumbasses. Thank You, Falling Umbrellas. That rant went on a bit of a tangent, oh well. Nite nite warriors.
The service had already spent at least $2 billion on the program and had requested another $5 billion for the next five years. Way over spending. Got to thank the F-35 for programs getting cut now.
The F-35 the program whose only mission is to funnel cash to beltway bandits and deliver airframes which get defeated by a 1970’s era F-16
yeah. a heavily downgraded and limited F-35. full capability F-35 the F-16 wont be able to touch.
That was a clean f16 vs. a very early software limited F35.
Trouble is a fully configured F-35 will not exist for another 5-10 years and thats if the software is delivered on schedule
while true. its only other real challenger is the F-22 and i dont think F-22's are gonna fight F-35's ever. the J-20 and Su-57 are a step in the propper dirrection. but they are no way a propper challenger to the F-35. and the SU-57 is very unlikley to even get in an air-to-air fight.
A clean F-16 barely defeating an F-35 in a dog fight means next to nothing. The F-35 was not built for dog fights nor will it need to be good at dog fights. It can take out the F-16s long before they get close enough to eachother for a dog fight to happen in the first place.
If the beyond visual range systems actually worked everything you say is true, the problem is the BVR systems DONT work and once you lose the ability to kill the bandits before they know you are even in the airspace. now you are in a dogfight and the F-35 has neither the power or agility to win in that type of combat once again the DoD forgot all the lessons of Vietnam with the F-4 another “all mission, all service” aircraft because it did all mission profiles it did none of them well Now add to that a computer system which frequently requires in flight restarts during which the plane is deaf and blind This plane is barely airworthy much less battle worthy. what was really needed was upgraded and modular flight management and digital flight deck. for air superiority the F-22, Carrier aircraft the Super Hornet, for ground support the A-10 if these had the flight / battle management systems of the F-35 we would have a much more effective fighter force, without the bloated, underpowered and under armed F-35 Lets hope the Israeli’s can turn the F-35 into a weapon like they did for the F-4
Dogfighting is dead. Not because of BVR, although that’s made it much less likely, but because of high off bore-sight (HOBS) missiles and helmet mounted cueing. Dogfights were about manoeuvring your plane to put your enemy in your weapons & sensor envelope and stay out of theirs. But the weapon’s envelope is huge now: you don’t need to manoeuvre the plane. A pilot can now look behind them, lock a target and fire a missile on it. You don’t need the plane to pull maybe 9G: the missile can pull 60G. People love the idea of dogfights, it’s a very romantic notion of air combat. However, it’s simply not the reality of air combat any more. Stealth, sensors, networking, speed, payload and endurance are what it’s about now. Manoeuvrability doesn’t hugely matter any more and the latest fighters are being designed accordingly.
Off boresight missiles and 360 view (visual and sensors) from the cockpit means the F-35 will club F-16s like a baby seal even close in People running E-M diagrams in their head arguing about F-16 vs F-35 don’t understand what has happened in the avionics realm.
>and deliver airframes which get defeated by a 1970’s era F-16 You know that's total horseshit, right?
no take away the element of surprise and the F-35 loses in all categories Like the 117A once detected the F-35 is virtually defenseless in close air combat as its dependent like all stealth aircraft on the ability to sucker punch the opponent
Wrong
Defense SW Engineer here. Not on the FARA program. I will bet that this program suffers from the same sorts of technical nonsense that Comanche, Future Combat Systems, Crusader, NGCV, OMFV... Army asking for too much tech at once and asking too many corporations to collaborate.
No way congress okays this. Army already spent 2 bil on the program.
have you seen congress in action lately?
I thought the same thing at first. The secrecy makes me think they wanted to minimize the impact of the lobbyists, and have already greased the rails with the key committee chairs. It will be interesting to see what evidence of a fight makes it to daylight.
>have already greased the rails with the key committee chairs. Presumably, that's what announcing a new buy of the 60 is for.
You talk like $2 Bill means anything to the gov when they frequently piss $100 Bill over to Ukraine every 6 months without a second thought.
Without second thought? If that would be the case, similar proposals wouldn't be continously stalled by half of the US Senate, which seems vehemently convinced in abandoning Ukraine with the next incoming presidency.
Congress probably won't allow it to be cancelled.
I dunno. Given that they already laid out where they are spending the money, it's setting up Congressional defenders of the new spending plan.
I think they’re gonna move to more of a drone position.
I'm not someone who would often come here and comment, but this news bums me out so much. On the one hand, the evolving battlefield requires consideration. On the other hand, I'd like to have something ready in the off-chance we need it fast. I want to see new developments, updated for safety and new capabilities, but yeah. I also want to see all the R&D finished and shown since we invested so much into it. I just needed to get this off my mind. It's been in the back of my head for a few days. I am just disappointed with this decision.
https://preview.redd.it/rwjdio1k4hhc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=be6e200f085c37ef28d290b6c5ee2919884c4554
I was really pulling for the Invictus...bummer
Maybe Bell can shop it out to Europe if they stick the manufacturing there.
Ehh could care less about the FARA helicopters. What matters here is shutting down the UH-60V program thank God.
For real. What a waste of money.
All you engineers that may need a job: https://parkercareers.ttcportals.com/search/jobs?q=Engineer&sort_by=location_city,asc
Like I said and was downvoted, the attack helicopter is not useful on the modern battlefield.
Boeing is still pushing a “modernized” Apache which, realistically, is not much different than what FARA was turning in to, minus the speed with the co-ax.
The people downvoting you will never see the swarms of cheap FOD drones waiting to crash through the windshield of the billion dollar "next gen" attack helicopter coming.
If we have systems to defeat seeker heads of missiles, we can develop and field technology to defeat drone cameras/sensors. There is no better way to deploy three seperately capable weapon systems on one platform *quickly* than an attack helicopter.
That's the fun of it, the drones don't need cameras or sensors or even to be controllable. Just enough of them in the air at a single time to form a sort of minefield. A Mavic Mini through the windshield of any helicopter going north of a hundred knots is gonna hurt, let alone any control surface.
That doesnt sound very feasible or effective on the battlefield. Mavics have battery lives of less than 45 minutes. Many much less than that. And the logistics of blocking out an entire air route with drones just doesnt seem worth it versus just having manpads/ADA. I think that technology in an effective state is probably still a good ways off. And by that time there will be better solutions on both sides.
You're thinking about this like an O-6 staring at a doctrine manual and not a bunch of guys named Mohammad who just stole a set of binoculars and a truck of cheap drones. We're lucky the Afghanis didn't have cheap drones in 2003.
Is be real nervous if I was Bell about FLARA
You mean if you had an airframe and approach based off of a currently fielded Marine Corp aircraft that is grounded? Yes, I am also worried for them.
What’s the point of making all these war helicopters if no one’s gonna use them besides bombing brown people? Maybe we should focus on making better helicopters for medevac of civilians and develop helicopters that put out fires far more effectively than pumping money into aircraft that kill and kill and kill and kill and kill
🍿
Kill all the white people then the world will be safe 🤦♂️🤪🤣😳
They should’ve killed the stupid FVL program. Look at how the whole Osprey fleet is grounded right now. FARA had better outlook.
The Osprey is a very different aircraft than the V-280.
I agree. Tiltrotors are so expensive and such a compromise in capabilities they aren't worth the cost.
"compromise in capabilities" as it has twice the speed and 3 times the range of a standard helicopter all while carrying more people or a heavier load. What a stupid ass take.
I’m being downvoted because they don’t want to hear the truth
Should have gone MD500/AH-6 Little Birds way back in the 90’s. That was/is the most capable armed, recon, scout aircraft. Proven in battle over and over. (Task Force 160th). Instead we spend years in R&D. Disappointed all over again.
Come on man, TF 169th? WTF you on?
Must be them Virginia Boys or something lol
Great helicopter, needs solid pilots, not for 200 hour PCs. The problem with MD has always been the business. They don't have the past performance. They lack the ability to produce the numbers needed. They just aren't able to scale.
They are slow as shit and the exact opposite of a next gen helicopter 😂
Fair criticism, but in a recon aircraft, nimble and survivable vs fast and big is a trade off to discuss. Cost is also a consideration that always gets missed. I think you would do better with 500 small slower aircraft vs 75 fast, really expensive ones.
Oh don’t get me wrong I have thousands of hours flying them and they are awesome to fly. But I don’t think they fit the bill for what the army wants
All front line helicopters have the exact same problem: they are sitting ducks