Army is Pushing Future Vertical Lift Forward

Bell’s V-280 prototype

A recent DefenseNews post reports that the Army has issued a Request for Information (RFI) (read it here) for a Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) to be fielded by FY2030. This would be a replacement for their H-60 Blackhawks.

There are some details of what they expect.

Price: “… roughly $43 million per unit.”

“FLRAA — at a minimum — to have a 95% maximum rated power to perform a 500 feet per minute vertical rate of climb from a hover-out-of-ground effect. The helicopter should be able to fly at 6,000 feet in 95 degree heat with 12 passengers.…objective requirements for the aircraft to maintain 100% maximum continuous power in a 500 feet per minute vertical climb.”

Range: Threshold 1,725 nautical miles one way without refueling. Objective 2,449.

Speed: Threshold 250 knots, objective cruise speed goal of 280 knots.

There could be a “competitive down select by FY2022.”

10 thoughts on “Army is Pushing Future Vertical Lift Forward”

The key thing I see is that the nacelles don’t point down to melt the flight deck.
This a/c might be able to resupply small combatants and cutters using a smaller flight deck?

Reply ↓

Steve Taylor on April 6, 2019 at 3:12 am said:

I think it is a more viable format for maritime sphere than land. Though I still think it is too complicated for the gains.

Reply ↓
- Chuck Hill on April 6, 2019 at 11:18 am said:
  
  After some initial problems, the V-22 has proven pretty reliable.
  
  The ability to go twice as far, twice as fast is a strong incentive. Helicopters were always complicated anyway.

V-22 Osprey and the CH-47 Chinook, approx same operational range, Osprey ~50% faster, Chinook ~20% more payload & larger cabin takes ~50% more troops.

V-22 cost ~$71M vers CH-47 ~$35M. The tilt rotor Osprey is double the cost of a Chinook helicopter, what are operational benefits that Osprey can bring to the party in anyway to justify its very high price.

Chinook made overseas sales to 24 countries, Osprey only a single order from Japan for 5, failed to sell to Israel so far even though would be funded US military aid budget.

My view tilt rotors not worth cost premium.

Reply ↓

More complete information on the projected requirements including additional from the Special Ops community and Marines. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27299/heres-whats-in-the-armys-requirements-for-a-future-high-speed-assault-helicopter

Reply ↓

Nick on April 8, 2019 at 5:53 am said:

Thanks for link – Blackhawk $15.5m vers FLRAA $43M, FLRAA 2.8x cost of a Blackhawk, both in 2018 year $

Army have a current fleet of 2,000 Blackhawks, if Congress funded new FLRRA to same level fleet would drop to 720, max speed ~55% higher, 1.55 x 720 so equivalent to ~1,100 Blackhawks a reduction of current total troop/payload capacity of 45% (assuming an upgraded Blackhawk using the new T900’s-50% more power to replace their T700s, GE recently won contract for T900, giving same payload as a FLRRA).

High speed is very, very expensive in helicopters / tilt rotors as in ships, Congress would need fund an additional $25B for ~580 FLRAA at $43M plus the 720 to give Army same capability as now. No doubt Army/Congress will fund a mix of both FLRAA and Blackhawk leading to lower numbers/capacity/capabilities due the very high cost of the high speed FLRAA.

“Quantity has a quality all its own” Napoleon/Stalin.

Reply ↓