FARA - Future Armed Reconnaissance Aircraft

[Simon Tan]

This is the successor to the failed Armed Aerial Scout program itself intended to replace the OH-58 Kiowa.

Two bidders were downselected to provide flying prototypes, Bell with the 360 'Invictus' and Sikorsky with RAIDER X (yes, all caps).

The RAIDER X is a supersized S-97 Raider which has been flying for a while and is to me the better and more mature design.

The general architecture of Raider X also lends itself the possibility of a SF-Support configuration in the vein of Little Bird/Killer Egg.

I would be very surprised in 160 SOAR isn't already flying S-97s for eval and design work. 

In many ways this what the Cheyenne promised. I wonder which Native identity it will carry?

[Rickard N]

Hmm, the Raider is an ugly mother and the Invictus is very Apache IMHO. Too bad they didn't go for a more Airwolf style of the 525 it's based on

/R

[seahawk]

Invictus seems low risk and cheaper to operate. Speed for a Scout Helicopter is a questionable need.

[Simon Tan]

Why is speed a questionable need? I would imagine going fast is a good thing to avoid exposure and to shorten transit times.

Invictus is a paper development of a helicopter that is undergoing certification with a different power plant, tail rotor and has different lift characteristics (stub wings). 

In terms of flight dynamics, I reckon the Raider has it in spades over Invictus. 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Simon Tan

[seahawk]

Due to the range requirement speed will make little difference. With 135nm range it will be hard to create a meaningful difference in transit times.

Apart from that it depends on how you want to do the Scout role. If you follow in the footsteps of the OH-6 and OH-58 it would be low, slow and use cover whenever possible, which is generally considered the safe approach. Or you could go the fast, recon by fire, approach, for which both designs are too slow anyway. For me the main part of the Scout helicopters is to reduce the signature (radar, IR, sound, visual) and have the best sensors, so that it can see the enemy before the enemy sees the helicopter.

[Stuart Galbraith]

The Hind opted for the high speed approach as well. That the Russians have been modifying them since the 1990's with fixed undercarriage shows fairly clearly how unsound the concept is. Id suggest that if you want  covert, use a low speed helicopter. If you want low exposure, use a fighter bomber.

That said, I have to wonder if we really need scout helo's at all. Wouldnt it make more sense to be using larger drones with a transport helicopter standing off as a drone controller?

[seahawk]

I consider the OH-58D a very healthy design for the recon role. Especially with the mast mounted sensors. But this is also light attack which I like the Bell design. It seems more conservative but hopefully cheaper too.

[Burncycle360]

While they're designing something new, I'm curious as to why the US Army didn't specify a desire for ejection systems like the Kamov, especially if they're going to be at the tip of the spear.
 

Edited November 25, 2020 by Burncycle360

[Rick]

Drones?

[Stuart Galbraith]

From Westland in the 1970's. Ive actually seen this in Weston Super Mare Helicopter museum.

http://www.starfiretor.com/AerialDrones/pix/27_UAVdrone_WestlandReconDrone_unrealaircraftqbranch.jpg

[JasonJ]

OH-1 Ninja. Put in a little money to put life in the production run again and for the latests gizmos and then good to go. 

[seahawk]

UH-72 with mast mounted / roof mounted sensors.

[Simon Tan]

Might suck at the attack role.

[shep854]

Linky(s)?

[CaptLuke]

The Raider's cabin seems to make it a far more flexible design.  The ability to carry a small spec-ops/scout team or maybe 1-2 drone operators would be a big plus IF (big "if") Sikorsky can keep the costs down and reliability up.

As for "low and slow" vs. "high and fast", it's good to be able to do both.  High intensity warfare, against layered air defences, needs low and slow, but in low intensity work (or even high intensity after a SEAD campaign has won) low and slow is the most dangerous place to be.  If you can do both, then you don't need to guess right about the next conflict. 

[seahawk]

The question is if 30-40 kts difference makes a difference.

[Simon Tan]

RAIDER X™ | Lockheed Martin

Bell 360 Invictus - Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (bellflight.com)

 

[Simon Tan]

FARA is to be optionally manned but not having drivers is going to reduce your decision time.

[Ivanhoe]

Keep in mind that published specs and real specs can be quite different. The Army has been known to publish much more sedate specs than delivered.

 

[Simon Tan]

Invictus looks like a supersized Commanche. Bell screwed the pooch on Arapaho.

[Simon Tan]

(157) Sikorsky Raider-X aircraft and simulator - YouTube

[shep854]

Thanks, Simon.

[Simon Tan]

(162) Bell 360 Invictus - YouTube

[Daan]

The Invictus looks to be a really cool system, but I still do not see the rational behind this aircraft for the future. For the same investment you can probably replace each manned helicopter with a multiple of different drones, some of them armed.

[Simon Tan]

Invictus is old tech. Raider is Lockheed's dream reborn.

Edited November 27, 2020 by Simon Tan