Thanks for the update.Bell Textron’s Valor wins Army’s FLRAA competition to replace Black Hawk
Maybe @phrogdriver can take a break from griping about the TH-73 for a while![]()
Thanks for the update.
With the focus on the expanses of the Pacific, I don’t think there was much doubt the Army would select the tilt rotors range and speed.
With tensions ratcheting up everywhere, wonder if DoD will mandate the production be split among different companies to maintain the industrial base?
Tanking? I admittedly don't know much about the V-280, but in all the pictures the pointy thing off the nose looks like a test/prototype pitot-static probe.Interesting that a tiltrotor brings tanking to mainstream Army Aviation. A culture shift indeed!
Keep in mind that is a tech demonstrator, not a fielded combat configuration.Tanking? I admittedly don't know much about the V-280, but in all the pictures the pointy thing off the nose looks like a test/prototype pitot-static probe.
Tanking? I admittedly don't know much about the V-280, but in all the pictures the pointy thing off the nose looks like a test/prototype pitot-static probe.
This is exactly what I've been hearing. Production model plumbed for air refueling probe to be attached as a kit at the unit level.No doubt, as that's a flight test vehicle. I'm sure they'll at least have the option to mount a refueling probe on it, similar to the optional capability on the 60, 53, and 22. I'd be surprised if the fuel system wasn't already plumbed for it, or will be in the production airframe.
Of course they did. They’d be happy if FVL died altogether and we kept flying H-60s until the sun runs out of hydrogen.Just in case you were wondering about this…
![]()
Lockheed Martin Sikorsky, Boeing file protest over US Army FLRAA contract - ROTOR Media
Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company, has filed a protest asking the US Government Accountability Office to review the US Army’s decision on the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) contract.rotormedia.com
This is exactly what I've been hearing. Production model plumbed for air refueling probe to be attached as a kit at the unit level.
Of course they did. They’d be happy if FVL died altogether and we kept flying H-60s until the sun runs out of hydrogen.
I don't think the USAF has any KC-130s. I'm 99.999% sure it's all -135s and KC-10s.USAF is going to pony up C-130s
MC-130J is the organic tanker for AFSOC/SOCOM low speed progue and drogue tanking CV-22, HH-60W, MH-47G, MH-60M, etc.I don't think the USAF has any KC-130s. I'm 99.999% sure it's all -135s and KC-10s.
So, good luck to the Army getting support from the VMGRs. They're already tapped out.
And I'm not sure if the KC-10 or KC-135 can get slow enough to refuel helos.
You may be overestimating these problems. In the V-22 (USAF) air refueling is a 6 month currency and can be accomplished in the sim provided you plug twice total in real life every year. It doesn't have to be a -130 either; KC-10, KC-46, and contract tankers (Omega for example) can all support. I've also been hearing rumors of serious discussions to procure the KC-390 but worst case only few select air assault units maintain currency but it's nice to have the option if you know your unit will need it on an upcoming deployment. We have 10 years to figure this out so it's not an urgent problem.…and exactly zero programmed tankers to support it. I’d be surprised if only a handful of conventional Army assault aircrew actually remain current and qualified in TAAR. The only reason Marine assault support aircraft can maintain any semblance of currency is because of dedicated VMGR support. Unlikely the USAF is going to pony up C-130s at the cyclic rate to support that training Army wide. Depending on how FARA shakes out any TAAR will likely out range the capability of any dedicated RW escorts. (Yes, I know it provides extended contingency holding, flexibility, sour tanker plans etc). The lack of dedicated USAF fixed wing escorts is also problematic. The Marines are also in this problem but to a lesser extent. Marine TACAIR platforms are limited in escort capabilities and should probably be off doing pointy nose things anyways.
I am curious how the FLARA decision will influence the FARA program. Both Bell and Sikorsky are submitting somewhat conventional RW designs. Both of which are probably not apt to support the V-280. I get it coax rotors, pusher props, and wings help speed/range, but I am not convinced it will be able to support the FLRAA decision. Anyone have a copy of the FARA requirements specs? I’m taking a wild shot in the dark here but I am assuming the Army has thought through the problem set and I am just ignorant.