V-280 wins FLRAA competition

[Best-22]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/bells-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-picked-as-armys-black-hawk-replacement

[Best-22]

I've also been hearing that the base model will come plumbed for an air refueling probe to be attached as a kit at the unit level. Perhaps another use case for the KC-390?

[tac airlifter]

Interesting, thanks for posting.  Our CV-22s appear plagued by MX and parts issues; any idea if this program will avoid similar pitfalls?

[DirkDiggler]

1 minute ago, tac airlifter said:

Interesting, thanks for posting.  Our CV-22s appear plagued by MX and parts issues; any idea if this program will avoid similar pitfalls?

Engines are fixed on the -280, one of my Osprey buddies told me that alone would help to alleviate some the MX shenanigans the -22 experiences.  Also, it being a second-generation tilt rotor, you'd hope they'd incorporate some lessons learned into it.

[Best-22]

I can't say for certain as I'm not directly involved with the program, but I'd have to assume they learned a lot from the 700,000 flight hours on the Osprey.

[tac airlifter]

I do hope they have learned from the Osprey program. Being completely outside that world, I have no idea and can only speculate; it appears problems were not necessarily design issues but rather a lack of spare parts and maintenance distribution system for support.

[Blue]

The US Army has something like 2,100 Blackhawks, so I assume V-280 Valor buy will eventually be somewhere in that neighborhood.  And obviously more opportunities to replace Air Force and Navy Blackhawk variants down the road, USMC H-1s / V-22s, etc.

I don't like the "Winner take all" approach of these competitions.  Proponents talk about "economies of scale," and the like, but there is never a focus on the benefits of a split buy.  Keeping competition in the industrial base, for one.  Along with protecting yourself from any technical/reliability issue grounding your entire fleet.

I would have liked to see the US Army do a split buy between the Valor and the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant-X.

[Best-22]

24 minutes ago, Blue said:

The US Army has something like 2,100 Blackhawks, so I assume V-280 Valor buy will eventually be somewhere in that neighborhood.  And obviously more opportunities to replace Air Force and Navy Blackhawk variants down the road, USMC H-1s / V-22s, etc.

I don't like the "Winner take all" approach of these competitions.  Proponents talk about "economies of scale," and the like, but there is never a focus on the benefits of a split buy.  Keeping competition in the industrial base, for one.  Along with protecting yourself from any technical/reliability issue grounding your entire fleet.

I would have liked to see the US Army do a split buy between the Valor and the Sikorsky-Boeing Defiant-X.

I don't see how that would be anything other than a handout for sikorsky/Boeing honestly. Have there been any other procurement programs that ended in a split buy? I can't think of any examples. 

 

The defiant concept quite possibly doesn't work at all like it's advertised to. It's very likely plagued with unsolvable vibration and fuel consumption issues, plus it can't actually achieve the agility they keep touting due to the risk of blades intermeshing. It's literally worse in every performance metric and probably would have led to several years of delays and problems like every other Boeing program lately. 

[Clark Griswold]

I don't see how that would be anything other than a handout for sikorsky/Boeing honestly. Have there been any other procurement programs that ended in a split buy? I can't think of any examples. 
 
The defiant concept quite possibly doesn't work at all like it's advertised to. It's very likely plagued with unsolvable vibration and fuel consumption issues, plus it can't actually achieve the agility they keep touting due to the risk of blades intermeshing. It's literally worse in every performance metric and probably would have led to several years of delays and problems like every other Boeing program lately. 

Probably an Occam’s Razor decision but I could see some benefit to a split buy in maintaining a healthy industrial base

I would not be opposed to developing a spec ops focused version of the X2 to further the co axial rotor technology #porkbarrel maybe but there is a value in just R&D for seeing where it leads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Best-22]

6 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

Probably an Occam’s Razor decision but I could see some benefit to a split buy in maintaining a healthy industrial base

I would not be opposed to developing a spec ops focused version of the X2 to further the co axial rotor technology #porkbarrel maybe but there is a value in just R&D for seeing where it leads


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They still have a chance in the FARA competition for their advancing blade concept. If it loses that though I expect it to die out like the XC-142 or gyrocopters. 

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Best-22 said:

I don't see how that would be anything other than a handout for sikorsky/Boeing honestly. Have there been any other procurement programs that ended in a split buy? I can't think of any examples. 

 

The defiant concept quite possibly doesn't work at all like it's advertised to. It's very likely plagued with unsolvable vibration and fuel consumption issues, plus it can't actually achieve the agility they keep touting due to the risk of blades intermeshing. It's literally worse in every performance metric and probably would have led to several years of delays and problems like every other Boeing program lately. 

I do see some argument that there is a case to be made that keeping production giants in competition against each other over the life cycle of the platform versus the initial bid, does have some merit. Like any asset investment, its hedging the risk. So if in 5 years we determine the Bell is an absolute shit show in some capacity, perhaps that is now hedged by the Boeing product which is not quite overall as great, but at least does that one thing well. There's also the idea that you are keeping multiple production facilities open now which is a great hedge for a WW3 type event. Especially since Bell might be reliant on ball bearings but Boeing not so much. (This is all hypothetical). 

Maybe structure it so that the best overall performance to cost aircraft gets 2/3 to 3/4 of the buy and the remainder goes to the loser, but ONLY if the losing aircraft can still meet the contract minimums. 

In any case, I think the DoD does need to start getting more creative with how it buys/contracts. The B-21 thread is the perfect example. We are stuck in evolutions and not revolutions. At some point you can only invest in the same strategy for so long before the returns of that strategy diminish. I'm concerned the B-21 wont be the massive leap over the B-2 we need for the type of high tech warfare 2030 and beyond is looking to encapsulate. 

[Clark Griswold]

They still have a chance in the FARA competition for their advancing blade concept. If it loses that though I expect it to die out like the XC-142 or gyrocopters. 

True and probably so


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Biff_T]

That thing looks like it'd be fun to fly.   I've never flown a tilt rotor.   I've always enjoyed watching them transition (sts) from a hover to forward flight.   How does that feel in the cockpit?   

[Danger41]

7 hours ago, Best-22 said:

I can't say for certain as I'm not directly involved with the program, but I'd have to assume they learned a lot from the 700,000 flight hours on the Osprey.

I looked it up and according to the Marines website (https://www.aviation.marines.mil/About/Aircraft/Tilt-Rotor/) The inventory between the MV, CV, and HV (Navy) variants should total about 450. These started flying operationally in 2006 and have hit 700,000 hours in that time. For comparison, the U-28 fleet with 1/15 the fleet size, has amassed the same amount of hours approximately.

I highlight this point purely to show that I really, really, really hope that the V-280 has alot of the maintenance issues figured out. I'll admit that the V-22 is much more complicated than a PC-12, but damn.

[Best-22]

2 hours ago, Biff_T said:

That thing looks like it'd be fun to fly.   I've never flown a tilt rotor.   I've always enjoyed watching them transition (sts) from a hover to forward flight.   How does that feel in the cockpit?   

Just fairly smooth level acceleration, it's no aircraft carrier catapult but it's respectable. 

[Best-22]

1 hour ago, Danger41 said:

I looked it up and according to the Marines website (https://www.aviation.marines.mil/About/Aircraft/Tilt-Rotor/) The inventory between the MV, CV, and HV (Navy) variants should total about 450. These started flying operationally in 2006 and have hit 700,000 hours in that time. For comparison, the U-28 fleet with 1/15 the fleet size, has amassed the same amount of hours approximately.

I highlight this point purely to show that I really, really, really hope that the V-280 has alot of the maintenance issues figured out. I'll admit that the V-22 is much more complicated than a PC-12, but damn.

I would do unspeakable things to have a mx availability rate equal to the PC-12.. I think MC-130J rates are possible from a tiltrotor, but probably not the V-22. AFSOC has a mod ongoing right now specifically to address reliability, and I'm really hoping that pumps up the utilization rate. 

 

Minor point, the Navy version is the "CMV-22" but I agree with your larger point that it needs to be much better than the V-22 for the Army's needs. 

[ClearedHot]

9 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Engines are fixed on the -280, one of my Osprey buddies told me that alone would help to alleviate some the MX shenanigans the -22 experiences.  Also, it being a second-generation tilt rotor, you'd hope they'd incorporate some lessons learned into it.

Unfortunately I am not sure the MX issues will be resolved with fixed engines.  On the CV side most of the issues were with the IR center body, dust ingestion impact on the compressor blades, and rotor blade wear do to the amount and type of dust in the AOR. I only have about 200 hours flying the CV and with the exception of a few avionics issues, all of my EPs/MX issues were in the three areas above.

[DirkDiggler]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Unfortunately I am not sure the MX issues will be resolved with fixed engines.  On the CV side most of the issues were with the IR center body, dust ingestion impact on the compressor blades, and rotor blade wear do to the amount and type of dust in the AOR. I only have about 200 hours flying the CV and with the exception of a few avionics issues, all of my EPs/MX issues were in the three areas above.

Not an Osprey guy so all my info is second hand/comes from a very experienced-22 guy I worked with at Kirtland.  His opinion was only rotating the prop and not the entire engine nacelle would be very beneficial.  I believe there’s an ongoing mod program to fix the IR center body issues but could be wrong about that.

  I always viewed the Osprey the in the same vein as the early helicopters or maybe some of the century series fighters, first of their kind, pushing the technical/engineering envelope, still figuring things out.  My buddy referenced above said there were a lot of issues with the aircraft that only manifested themselves after the aircraft was in production/already in the fleet and the number of available spares for the parts that ended up commonly failing were low. Honestly hope that the industry takes all the lessons learned from the -22 program and incorporates them into the -280.

Edited December 7, 2022 by DirkDiggler
Clarity

[StoleIt]

1 hour ago, DirkDiggler said:

Honestly hope that the industry takes all the lessons learned from the -22 program and incorporates them into the -280.

Hell yea! Tilt rotor Raptor's would be tits. 🤣

[Lawman]

You guys are missing the most important win for the Army with this procurement….

In picking an aircraft like the V-22 we game the system on how it’s hours count to getting an airline job, substantially solving the man power problem we are facing with the current loss of personnel to RTP.

Winning….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[disgruntledemployee]

16 hours ago, DirkDiggler said:

Engines are fixed on the -280, one of my Osprey buddies told me that alone would help to alleviate some the MX shenanigans the -22 experiences.  Also, it being a second-generation tilt rotor, you'd hope they'd incorporate some lessons learned into it.

Like maybe steer clear of composite airframes?  I hear they don't handle bullets very well.  Just ask Rooster 73, 74, and 75.

[Best-22]

45 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Like maybe steer clear of composite airframes?  I hear they don't handle bullets very well.  Just ask Rooster 73, 74, and 75.

This is a dumb comment. The composite skin is very ballistically tolerant and the V-280 will probably be composite as well. The aircraft that got hit in south Sudan flew hundreds of miles after being effectively ambushed. 

[Lawman]

Like maybe steer clear of composite airframes?  I hear they don't handle bullets very well.  Just ask Rooster 73, 74, and 75.

We already have composite components on the current fleet.

The horizontal stabilator and the entire rotor system of the 64 (to include the new tail rotor) are entirely composite. Yes from a battle damage and austere repair requirement that does suck more than sheet metal and pro seal… but when you look at the problems inherent with the new build Chinook because of the structural decision on single milled frame components, that is a much bigger potential problem.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ThreeHoler]

You guys are missing the most important win for the Army with this procurement….

In picking an aircraft like the V-22 we game the system on how it’s hours count to getting an airline job, substantially solving the man power problem we are facing with the current loss of personnel to RTP.

Winning….


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. Tilt rotor time counts toward ATP mins since 21 Oct 22.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/21/2022-20328/recognition-of-pilot-in-command-experience-in-the-military-and-air-carrier-operations

[Lawman]

I can’t tell if this is sarcasm or not. Tilt rotor time counts toward ATP mins since 21 Oct 22.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/09/21/2022-20328/recognition-of-pilot-in-command-experience-in-the-military-and-air-carrier-operations

It is sarcasm, but keep in mind it took how many decades to get there?

This is another chance for the FAA to miff it and invent a new classification (Powered variable driveline? Or some BS) thus helping the Army solve its toxic crises and 58% manning for the force by simply… not doing anything for a while.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk