Bell Textron Valor wins FLRAA contest for Blackhawk replacement.

[lucklucky]

https://breakingdefense.com/2022/12/bells-valor-wins-armys-future-long-range-assault-aircraft-competition-to-replace-black-hawk/

 

I prefered the other Boeing-Sikorsky offer.

Edited December 5, 2022 by lucklucky

[TrustMe]

Now we will wait for the inevitable law suit from the other company's 😀

[Stuart Galbraith]

Im just going to love seeing them do sling loads with that.

[seahawk]

So the Raider will probably win the other tender. So the Army went with the expensive option in both cases.

[Stuart Galbraith]

15 years from now they will be buying Leonardo's.

[Olof Larsson]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Im just going to love seeing them do sling loads with that.

Or doing air assault escorted by far slower AH-64's...

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, great point. At least the USMC has Harriers to make it work.

[bfng3569]

1 hour ago, Olof Larsson said:

Or doing air assault escorted by far slower AH-64's...

Or this win will affect the FARA competition.

and lets also not forget the compound apache.....

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, Olof Larsson said:

Or doing air assault escorted by far slower AH-64's...

The existing Chinooks are alot faster than the Apache. It's nothing new there.

[Skywalkre]

1 hour ago, TrustMe said:

The existing Chinooks are alot faster than the Apache. It's nothing new there.

So are the Blackhawks.

[TrustMe]

The Little Birds are the worst helicopters in the world. Not only are they slow, but they lack range as they rapidly run out of fuel. I didn't know this until a friend pointed it out when we were watching the film Blackhawk Down on veterans commentary track.

[shep854]

15 hours ago, TrustMe said:

The Little Birds are the worst helicopters in the world. Not only are they slow, but they lack range as they rapidly run out of fuel. I didn't know this until a friend pointed it out when we were watching the film Blackhawk Down on veterans commentary track.

Interesting.  In the '60s and '70s, the Loach was far more popular than the Kiowa.  The OH-6 was purpose-designed as a scout, while the OH-58 was a light corporate transport kludged into the role since the factory was in TX, and President Johnson happened to be a Texan.

[TrustMe]

2 hours ago, shep854 said:

Interesting.  In the '60s and '70s, the Loach was far more popular than the Kiowa.  The OH-6 was purpose-designed as a scout, while the OH-58 was a light corporate transport kludged into the role since the factory was in TX, and President Johnson happened to be a Texan.

At a guess i'd say its down to drag or weight issues. Carrying all those 70mm rocket pods and mini guns weight a lot, added to that they were carrying 4 delta force operatives, all this adds up.

[Olof Larsson]

20 hours ago, Skywalkre said:

So are the Blackhawks.

So for the helo escorted air assault, the only thing the Valor brings to the table vs. the UH-60 is higher cost, greater vulnerability to combat damage, greater IR-signature and more time spent around the LZ. And possibly reduced range, as it seems like it cannot fly in airplane mode at helikopter speeds. One can obviously replace the AH-64 with a tiltrotor as well, but then you end up with a system, that is only really good at escorting other tilt rotors, but that is poor at escorting remaining helos, and is inferior (or far inferior) for deep strike compared to conventional helos and especially jets.

[R011]

4 hours ago, shep854 said:

Interesting.  In the '60s and '70s, the Loach was far more popular than the Kiowa.  The OH-6 was purpose-designed as a scout, while the OH-58 was a light corporate transport kludged into the role since the factory was in TX, and President Johnson happened to be a Texan.

I'm sure that helped, but Kiowa was also cheaper and I suspect Bell could make more of them in Texas and Quebec quicker than Hughes.

[Skywalkre]

39 minutes ago, Olof Larsson said:

So for the helo escorted air assault, the only thing the Valor brings to the table vs. the UH-60 is higher cost, greater vulnerability to combat damage, greater IR-signature and more time spent around the LZ. And possibly reduced range, as it seems like it cannot fly in airplane mode at helikopter speeds. One can obviously replace the AH-64 with a tiltrotor as well, but then you end up with a system, that is only really good at escorting other tilt rotors, but that is poor at escorting remaining helos, and is inferior (or far inferior) for deep strike compared to conventional helos and especially jets.

It's also ~20% bigger as far as landing space needed than a Blackhawk.  I'm actually surprised it's not more (looks like those blades on each wing have a much smaller diameter than a Blackhawk's singular system).  Still... I've seen plenty of footage from Medevac ops in Iraq where a bird 20% larger wouldn't have fit into some of those LZs.  I made this comment years ago when this competition started that I thought that larger size would be a big hindrance.  Maybe USMC experience with their larger birds (Osprey and 53s) has shown that that's not a big deal?

Given the history of Army procurement I'm as skeptical as the next guy this was the right decision.  However, there are an incredibly large number of factors that come into play.  Some articles I found since this news broke made it sound like the competition was plagued with technical issues throughout.  It doesn't matter how good a design looks on paper if it actually doesn't work IRL.  If that's the case and your other option is something that is a step down in several areas but actually works... you go with what actually works.

Edited December 7, 2022 by Skywalkre

[TrustMe]

25 minutes ago, Skywalkre said:

It's also ~20% bigger as far as landing space needed than a Blackhawk.  I'm actually surprised it's not more (looks like those blades on each wing have a much smaller diameter than a Blackhawk's singular system).  Still... I've seen plenty of footage from Medevac ops in Iraq where a bird 20% larger wouldn't have fit into some of those LZs.  I made this comment years ago when this competition started that I thought that larger size would be a big hindrance.  Maybe USMC experience with their larger birds (Osprey and 53s) has shown that that's not a big deal?

Given the history of Army procurement I'm as skeptical as the next guy this was the right decision.  However, there are an incredibly large number of factors that come into play.  Some articles I found since this news broke made it sound like the competition was plagued with technical issues throughout.  It doesn't matter how good a design looks on paper if it actually doesn't work IRL.  If that's the case and your other option is something that is a step down in several areas but actually works... you go with what actually works.

 

It could be a doctrine modification. A lot of the EU and ex-Soviet states go for larger troop carrying helo's. The US Army and Marine Corps tend to go smaller but more of them. Does anyone else have an idea's?

[shep854]

The Marine Corps has preferred larger troop carriers, both ground and air, since they are limited by amphib accommodation, while the Army built its troop carriers around squad-size platforms.  Part of the Army's thinking was fewer troop losses if the vehicle was hit.  It seems that over the last few decades, the Army is drifting towards larger transports, possibly due to increasing costs.

[Burncycle360]

Wasn't a fan of either, would have preferred something HH46 sized for a UH60 replacement.  My guess is the pacific is driving a lot of these decisions and the range and transit time for the Valor is attractive in that regard, with flight envelope and performance on final being of secondary consideration to the big picture stuff.  Escorting them has the same problem as the V-22, which is why I'd like to see a return of something like OV-10 NOGS and maybe a waiver allowing the US Army to operate them.   They can already operate off gators, so they could be used in support of CSAR / SOF in conjunction with V-22 on gators and carriers too.

Frankly, I wish they'd have gone the extra mile and done a full up V-22 replacement (wing folding and all), I'd like to think we've probably come a long way WRT safety, reliability and maintainability since 1989 on the computer / software end of things.



 

[Colin]

On 12/6/2022 at 1:46 PM, TrustMe said:

The Little Birds are the worst helicopters in the world. Not only are they slow, but they lack range as they rapidly run out of fuel. I didn't know this until a friend pointed it out when we were watching the film Blackhawk Down on veterans commentary track.

We used them in the mining business, we loved them as they had better power to weight ratio, better crash survivabilty and smaller rotor diameter than a 206

[bfng3569]

a pipe dream, but i'm hoping they 'find' a use for the Boeings Defiant just to keep them going and to further develop the design and tech as its not something the U.S. has done much with.

Also a bit of speculation that with Bell winning this it may push the FARA competition in Boeings favor just to keep the manufacturing base of both companies going

[shep854]

1 hour ago, bfng3569 said:

a pipe dream, but i'm hoping they 'find' a use for the Boeings Defiant just to keep them going and to further develop the design and tech as its not something the U.S. has done much with.

Also a bit of speculation that with Bell winning this it may push the FARA competition in Boeings favor just to keep the manufacturing base of both companies going

Maybe the Navy could pick it up for shipboard use.  VERTREP and ASW calls for a lot of hovering.

[seahawk]

On 12/6/2022 at 10:46 PM, TrustMe said:

The Little Birds are the worst helicopters in the world. Not only are they slow, but they lack range as they rapidly run out of fuel. I didn't know this until a friend pointed it out when we were watching the film Blackhawk Down on veterans commentary track.

A small and light helicopter, is a small and light helicopter. It comes with less range and less endurance. On the other hand it can land, where bigger helicopters can not. In addition the power to weight ratio is quite good and the firepower is also not too bad for such a small bird.

[TrustMe]

3 hours ago, seahawk said:

A small and light helicopter, is a small and light helicopter. It comes with less range and less endurance. On the other hand it can land, where bigger helicopters can not. In addition the power to weight ratio is quite good and the firepower is also not too bad for such a small bird.

I can understand that. Like anything technical some things are better than others at different tasks.

[shep854]