Future Helicopters

[KevinB]

I find it a little disgusting that the Army can alter ratings after contractor debrief.
The Army had admitted earlier both bids were technically acceptable based on the RFP.


I guess the suitcase of money Bell dropped off did sweeten the pot for a bunch of folks.

 

[Kirkhill]

I find it a little disgusting that the Army can alter ratings after contractor debrief.
The Army had admitted earlier both bids were technically acceptable based on the RFP.


I guess the suitcase of money Bell dropped off did sweeten the pot for a bunch of folks.

I still think the clue was in the name "Long Range". That ties in with the Indo-Pacific, Multi-Domain, Theater and LRPFs. I think you said the buzz words were "speed" and "range".

I feel for Sikorski and Boeing but I think the error occurred with some bright person trying to bundle too many projects.

The sad part is that there will be a continuing need for short range helicopters, just as there is a continuing need for jeeps, light tanks and landing craft.

 

[Spencer100]

I still think the clue was in the name "Long Range". That ties in with the Indo-Pacific, Multi-Domain, Theater and LRPFs. I think you said the buzz words were "speed" and "range".

I feel for Sikorski and Boeing but I think the error occurred with some bright person trying to bundle too many projects.

The sad part is that there will be a continuing need for short range helicopters, just as there is a continuing need for jeeps, light tanks and landing craft.

There 3 more future lift programs after this. The FARA is in bid right now. Lockheed and are facing off again of this one. Lockheed with the Raider X, based on the much of the same tech against the Bell 360 Invictus based on the 525.

Then after that is the Chinook replacement.
If they don't win the FARA they may have to drop the Co Axel rotor idea. And then Sikorski may just go with a CH-53 Extra Super King Stallion. As a low risk development idea.

Bell will must likely stick to the tiltrotor.

Boeing is under gun with the end of the Apache, Chinook and V-22. This be the end of Boeing Vertol (and their part of Hughes helos)

And then believe it not the C-130 replacement the army wants. This many be a stretch.

 

[Good2Golf]

Interesting…the Army didn’t like an overview systems drawing of DefiantX’s proposal, even though they actually flew the aircraft and saw the entire system in person. Doesn’t matter that Bell’s V-280 would be almost twice as expensive.

Sikorsky-Boeing’s FLRAA bid was much cheaper, but couldn't offset 'unacceptable' design metric: GAO - Breaking Defense

The Army reasoned “Sikorsky’s proposal provided something similar to a drawing of what the house looked like on the outside…. Such a picture did not provide the functional detail that the Army required showing what the space would look like on the inside,” according to the Government...

breakingdefense.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Interesting…the Army didn’t like an overview systems drawing of DefiantX’s proposal, even though they actually flew the aircraft and saw the entire system in person. Doesn’t matter that Bell’s V-280 would be almost twice as expensive.

Sikorsky-Boeing’s FLRAA bid was much cheaper, but couldn't offset 'unacceptable' design metric: GAO - Breaking Defense

The Army reasoned “Sikorsky’s proposal provided something similar to a drawing of what the house looked like on the outside…. Such a picture did not provide the functional detail that the Army required showing what the space would look like on the inside,” according to the Government...

breakingdefense.com

I’v learned to be sceptical on prices quoted by defence contractors…

 

[Good2Golf]

I’v learned to be sceptical on prices quoted by defence contractors…

Me as well, although it’s *hit and miss and much of the chicanery comes from ‘slightly less than optimal’ procurement systems (especially those where politics ‘may’ be involved [as you know]).

Interesting lot, DoD didn’t take issue with any of Boeing-Sikorsky’s costings. It’ll be interesting to see how close Bell comes to its proclaimed cost.


*Edit to fix: ludicrous-level autocorrect ‘hot and kiss and ouch’

 

[KevinB]

Interesting…the Army didn’t like an overview systems drawing of DefiantX’s proposal, even though they actually flew the aircraft and saw the entire system in person. Doesn’t matter that Bell’s V-280 would be almost twice as expensive.

Sikorsky-Boeing’s FLRAA bid was much cheaper, but couldn't offset 'unacceptable' design metric: GAO - Breaking Defense

The Army reasoned “Sikorsky’s proposal provided something similar to a drawing of what the house looked like on the outside…. Such a picture did not provide the functional detail that the Army required showing what the space would look like on the inside,” according to the Government...

breakingdefense.com

The funniest part of that is if the drawing package was not suitable, every other government program would have kicked it out before this stage, or given notice that the program required more.

All this has done is proven to most Defense contractors that the Government often goes into programs with a preconceived winner, and will do their damnedness to justify that as a winner.

The Army wasn’t happy that their first RFP requirements got modified and graded as though they weren’t changed.

 

[Kirkhill]

And in the runner up category




“I don’t see the Chinook going [anywhere],” Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville told reporters today during the annual AAAA conference in Nashville, Tenn. “The challenge that the Chief and Secretary have now, and the next Chief and Secretary will [have too], will be about priorities.”

Those priorities, he noted, include balancing future weapons, “enduring” systems like the CH-47 Chinook, and “legacy” systems that will be retired.

Army poised to decide CH-47F Chinook Block II buy this year - Breaking Defense

It's been roughly four years since the service put the brakes on buying the CH-47F Chinook Block II configuration, but a decision is expected this calendar year.

breakingdefense.com

“If we’re getting FLRAA at 30 or 40 per year, that doesn’t make a significant dent” right away, he told Breaking Defense during an April 21 interview.

“For the next 40 to 60 years, I see us continuing to incrementally improve [the Black Hawk fleet],” Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville told lawmakers on April 19.​

The 3 key questions the Army is asking about the UH-60 Black Hawk's future - Breaking Defense

“For the next 40 to 60 years, I see us continuing to incrementally improve [the Black Hawk fleet],” Army Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville told lawmakers on April 19.

breakingdefense.com

Army postpones production decision for UH-60V Black Hawk cockpit redesign - Breaking Defense

“The milestone decision authority is following a very deliberate and rigorous review process to ensure that the 60V is ready for full-rate production,” a spokesperson for the Program Executive Office for Aviation told Breaking Defense.

breakingdefense.com

 

[Good2Golf]

B-52 and CH-47, both heading for a century of service.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Dammit, we should have kept the Sea King- we were well over half way there!

 

[Spencer100]

Dammit, we should have kept the Sea King- we were well over half way there!

Ukraine is using the UK ones.

 

[KevinB]

B-52 and CH-47, both heading for a century of service.

I think that the BlackHawk may make that too, and Canada will probably have a Huey airframe well past that…

 

[KevinB]

More details emerge.
Seems like it was a lack of detail on modular open architectures US Army says open system requirements clear for next-gen helicopter

 

[Spencer100]

More details emerge.
Seems like it was a lack of detail on modular open architectures US Army says open system requirements clear for next-gen helicopter

Any one else read like do? Lockheed playing to protect future work and profits by trying to keep subsystems as "Blackboxes" Making it complicated so there is proprietary IP. They can protect their future by having IP in the subsystems. That's the way I see it.

 

[KevinB]

Any one else read like do? Lockheed playing to protect future work and profits by trying to keep subsystems as "Blackboxes" Making it complicated so there is proprietary IP. They can protect their future by having IP in the subsystems. That's the way I see it.

I’d argue that’s generally what everyone tries.
Especially when they are also doing mission systems etc (and for Bell too). No one is going to try to end run the OEM on an aviation related issues, and critical mission subsystems.

In most cases the Q&A would have spelled it out, I think that DoD chose to interpret the requirements differently than they have done before. Most times when you are down to two competing bids, you give a team to address potential issues like this with a best and final pricing review and supplemental data.

Given how Bell was acting weeks ahead of the award, and the fact they had hired a lot of former Army Aviation folks they knew before the award was given, so the SSC leaked or was skewed.