The money was spent mostly on R&D. That's not really a "waste". Some technologies developed may be used elsewhere and some had to be explored so now we know why we reject them. R&D always involves some dead ends. In fact, its often mostly dead ends. Its what isn't a dead end that makes it all worth while.
DARPA supports a small oceans worth of small businesses flailing away quietly like duck feet on pie in the sky projects mostly just to prove that they are impossible (and thus, not worth worrying about someone else developing).
My father flew Kiowas for 25+ years and when I mentioned this development to him he agreed that the scout helicopter role is too dangerous now and is a job that can be done better by unmanned systems... Would have been real cool to see the Comanche through to fruition though, we were right there at the finish line on that one.
It would have been nice to have the Comanche around as an option as we transition into drones. If there's a need to use a manned helicopter in a dangerous recon or attack situation it'd be nice for it to be as stealthy and safe as possible. Edit: I guess we do have a couple of fairly stealthy helicopter airframes around that we just almost never hear about, but only a handful I believe.
You're dad is a smart man. It's easy to be blinded to the platform you cut your teeth on, but the Ukraine war had made it clear, there is no purpose anymore for recon and attack helicopters on the modern battlefield. They're too expensive, too hard to support, and put lives in too much risk. Drones can do more, cheaper and safer. When you aren't risking lives, you can push a little further, see a little more, and potentially do more damage to the enemy. I see attack and recon moving to UCAVs entirely. Helicopters will be used primarily to move troops and equipment further back behind and to the frontlines.
Whoa whoa whoa... the Army scrapped a program after investing billions of dollars in it? That NEVER happens... (gives sideways glance at the SCAR, XM8, Land Warrior Project, Future Combat System Project, Future Soldier 2030 Project, XM2001 Crusader...) That said, $5 says the Army asks Bell to make a proper gunship version of the V-280
Yeah probably (to the V-280 Part), like Sikorsky had done With the Raider X (there was a version for the Fara Programm and the FLRAA Prgramm), than there will be two or even three Variants of the V-280 - Transport (which we have now) - Attack (probably with a 20/30mm chin mounted gun and retractable Hardpoints (like the Raider) - and maybe a Recon Version with even better Optics than the Attack and without the chin gun
@@dodo_hd9572 I think I saw some renderings somewhere with retractable hard points, as well as part of the passenger cabin replaced with sideways pointed ordinance launchers for a prospective gunship concept.
Yep, pretty much their MO. I was in two of those PMOs, the XM8 and FCS. The XM8 shouldn't have been cancelled (the Army still hasn't plugged that mission need), but the FCS was a monstrosity of a program that was doomed from the beginning. It bit off more than it could chew with its huge system of systems approach and its lead system integrator contracting approach never worked. Boeing pissed away billions on systems engineering and never produced anything real.
I’ll never forget back in the 90’s when the Comanche program was a parking lot for top labor grade engineers for almost 10 years. When the program was finally given the full “green light” a friend of mine happily exclaimed “I’ll be riding this puppy right into retirement”. Shortly after, him and a ton of other people got laid off when the Army formally drove a spike into the Comanche’s heart. The army has given us multiple master classes in how to piss away our tax dollars.
As cool as these platforms are it does give me hope that the military is able to change its mind in light of new technology and different modern battle space.
For all the criticism these kind of cancellations get, it's much better to end a program that's no longer required than to throw ever more money at a boondoggle.
It was cut because they would've ended up giving another contract to Bell, since the Raider X was way behind in developement. MIc politics rather than change in policy are responsible for this decision.
I'm disappointed that we won't stop taking care of Mexico's millions upon millions upon millions of citizens who have burdened us with costs that rival our defense budget. Since when did they become more important?
When you put the valor and FARA side by side and realize that the transport helicopter has nearly four times the range of the scout helicopter, the cancellation makes sense
Transport helicopters are useless. Can't go near the frontline due to proliferation of manpads. Can't fly in bad weather. 20x the cost of a military truck.
@@0202pmurT that's why there are boats and bridges. This was the trap they got into in Vietnam. Airmobile troops dropped into the combat zone, then they must be evacuated because there was no means of resupply. They lost whatever ground they gained.
@@PeacefulRallyCar-pw3csthe army marches on its stomach... fools argue strategy, experts discuss logistics.... You're underestimating the importance of the Valor
After seeing Ukraine decimate Russias helicopter fleet, you would be stupid to keep making these. There is no future for frontline helicopters with a modern peer as you just can’t make them stealth enough. The ones we already have can handle a less equipped foe. Drones are the future of this role.
Congress just sent them 97 billion dollars, they passed it just 12 hrs ago in the middle of the night. What has been learned, flow to them money while at the same time canceling not one but two major military programs. This administration is just making us weaker and weaker.
Don't feel sad for the Comanche, the knowledge and spirit of the design lives on. Lockheed has showcased designs for a future attack helicopter that has the technology from the Comanche built in . This and the introduction of new materials, digital control systems and information warfare technology could materialise a weapon platform that would make the AH-64 look like a ford model T.
@@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq seems like they should look to create a scout copter that can play the role of an f35. Quarterbacking drones. Which seems kind of what the Invictus was going for, but a range of just 200 miles is abysmal.
@@Joe-xq3zu that's the same regardless if it's manned or unmanned. That is, unless you're going to go to war without computers... in which case, you'll get smoked if you don't emp your enemy.
@Joe-xq3zu you can shield equipment against EMP whether man or unmanned. Don't you think the military wouldn't come up with contingencies for that, especially if we go full autonomous systems?
Re the claim at 4:30 that the AH-1 Cobra "tops out at 140", not so. The original AH-1G Cobra had a top speed of 149 knots (171 mph) in level flight, and a Vne (never-exceed speed) of 190 knots (220 mph). The newest Cobra, the USMC's AH-1Z, has a CRUISE speed of 160 knots (180 mph) and a Vne of 222 knots (255 mph). By comparison, the AH-64A/D has a maximum level speed of 158 knots (182 mph), cruise speed: of143 knots (165 mph) and Vne of 197 knots (227 mph). The FARA program almost seems like it was designed to fail. The Boeing/Sikorsky entry has much better performance, but its seating arrangement is not optimized for an attack helicopter. The Bell Invictus has the proper cockpit layout, but is just a conventional helicopter that is hopelessly outperformed by the Bell Valor (tiltrotor) utility rotorcraft. Re the Invictus with "586 extra horsepower when needed" (5:00), helicopters generally have more engine power than their transmissions can handle. This is so the engine can still produce enough power under high/hot conditions. If the "extra horsepower" is to be available in cooler/lower-altitude conditions, then the transmission has to be made stronger, which means more weight. Army Aviation has not successfully fielded a new helicopter since the UH-60 Black Hawk and the AH-64, both of which first flew almost 50 years ago. That's a failure rate that's hard to match.
I think the role of the helicopter in the short to mid term is either air transport or as a missile truck that can quickly move to where it is needed and launch ordnance from 5-15 miles behind the front line at targets spotted by drones or other spotters.
@@RUclipsuser1aa What's faster a truck? Maybe a plane but their harder to stage near the front. I'm no military expert by far, but it does seem to be a logical rapid response platform to launch rockets. But on the other hand, there's the possibility of doing the same thing with drones.
@@RUclipsuser1aa What on earth does that even mean? Are you saying that you don't get maximum missile range from a helicopter? If so, while true, it ignores the fact that you can get a lot closer before launching said missiles by hovering behind a hill or other terrain feature.
That kind of mission profile is something best performed by a C17, C130J or A400M (Missile/bomb truck platforms already exist for these roles and have been tested extensively) There's still a need for helicoptors but the roles may not be recognisable in future (eg: drones have already proven extremely effective at roles that used to be the speciality of Apaches (popup and kill), without putting operators in the direct line of fire - they're also almost impossible to hear without needing to resort to costly stealthing technologies) Drones have more or less supplanted the venerable loach too, for similar reasons
Because with drone technology we simply don't need to invest that much in a manned program when other solutions can fill the roll. I hate drones on a personal level, but I'm not going to pretend they're not the future. We're moving towards just having large mobile outposts/vehicles/ships/etc surrounded by semi-autonomous drones as a long-range standoff measure. Basically just large C&C logistics hubs largely dedicated to keeping a nice blanket of drones constantly in the air scouting/defending/attacking. Other troops and such will still be a thing, but drones will take over a large role of engaging the enemy and keeping stand-off distance. They're just too cheap and versatile compared to any other vehicle/platform.
@@ContraVsGigi I bet if one looks hard enough, he'll find a language where FARA means "this r&d will be used in the next helicopter program once we figure out we still need those in 5 years or so".
"Fare" in English is also cognate with the two Germanic examples given here. Now it usually means the cost or payment for a journey/trip but it also use to mean the journey itself.
Money invested in projects that are cancelled isn't wasted money. The new technologies developed, and skills and knowledge acquired, doesn't vanish in a cloud of smoke. They add, cumulatively, to military capabilities going forward.
Exactly this. Drones can be disposable. Anything with Mk1 wetware onboard is not Being disposable means you can dispense with a lot of "extraneous" things - like armour - which add weight and impinge on performance - or the need to have a return to base function The future of drones is likely to be swarms - _thousands_ of the things. They're hard to shoot down (even with directed energy weapons) but spaced out at 500-1000 yard intervals (vertically and horizontally) they become an effective area denial proposition for heavier fixed-wing or rotorcraft which can be downed simply by ingesting one (think: Birdstrike - except the birds aren't dodging) and don't carry enough ammunition to clear a path in front Don't be surprised to see "perching" drones hanging off overhead wires, trees or towers. These give the ability to observe and not be noticed, whilst consuming low amounts of energy for the mission profile (or to quietly carry in small payloads and lay in wait for the target. Sniping by remote) Most of this stuff has been kicking around in DARPA labs for 2-3 decades. Ukraine is forcing established command structures to rapidly re-evaluate theuir value (often dismissed as sci-fi pie-in-the-sky lunacy, Ukraine is only a foreshadowing of what's to come) There's a similar problem with ASBMs btw - you don't NEED hugely expensive highly manouverable hypersonic weapons if you can bring enough lower cost less manouverable ones to the fight that you cause the defenders to expend all their ammunition shooting them down. After that the target can be picked off "at leisure" - unless they GTFO the area (ie: a mission kill without casualties). DF4D and DF21 don't need to be excellent, merely "good enough" and "plentiful enough" for China to be able to use them as a threat. US Navy captains have already remarked about this in the context of how much it costs to shoot down a $500 drone off the coast of Lebanon, given that you can't afford to take the risk that it may or may not be armed. Directed energy weapons will help in defense, but not against swarms of the sizes being envisaged It's highly likely that the era of large aircraft carriers and escort fleets is facing the same wakeup call that Navies experienced with battleships at Pearl Harbour, despite having nearly a decade's warning that aircraft had made slab-armoured ships obsolete I'm not sure what the future holds, but one should bear in mind that the easiest way to bring a "superior" enemy to its knees is to cause it to outspend its resources fighting off low cost attacks - at cost of the general population's healthcare, education and overall welfare. Future enemies won't always be as incompetent or corrupt as Russia. Whilst focus is on China, there are a number of areas where issues can pop up - India being only one example of a burgeoning power
@@Triple_J.1I guess they took a close look at the performance of Russian helicopters like the Ka-52. While very capable, they took heavy losses to AA and also strikes against airfields.
@@alanbrown397issue is the drone in ukraine have worse performance than ww2 airplane (therefore would be "food" for fast firing ww2 anti air guns) ,except for vtol (only some drone) they are just airstrike, the truth most army for some fetishistic reason scrapped most of theirs guns based anti air defence and went for very expensive missiles, which are wasteful. If you brought back one of the air superpower from ww2 they would bomb ukraine or russia to dust as both side would quickly run out of theirs very costly missile, and lack the required air defence and productions capability ( plus they would be bombed to ashes) .
To everyone saying this was a waste think of how much more would’ve been wasted if we hadn’t evolved for the future. Technology moves so fast that sometimes it’s inevitable that a platform once thought as cutting edge ends to get crapped for something better. And not all of the money goes to waste. The training, development of systems, engineering expertise etc are forever valuable.
The X-2 technology made for a ridiculously fast helicopter. It really is far ahead of its time. It would still make a great medevac platform or Coast Guard interdiction role. But that might involve a lot of re-engineering for a larger airframe and whatnot.
There are things that could be put on drones. Right now many drones are slow so the technology to double or triple their speed will help the military out a lot.
I was very disappointed at the FARA program’s cancellation, I know there are reasons wether good or bad but I was still stunned it happens shortly before the Invictus’s first flight and final showdown with Raider X. I was invested heavily in the updates of the programs progression and even purchased a $525 model of the early Invictus prototype from Brickmania.. Sad to see how things played out, but it wouldn’t have been the first time, looking at you Cheyenne and Comanche.
So, a few of my buds flew Apache with the 101st airborne in Afghanistan back in 2018 in AH-64D models, last year their unit was upgraded to the latest AH-64 - the Echo Block 6 and the comments from them were astounding. The newest Apache ALREADY has absurd capability to integrate and network across all other US flying platforms and can launch drones and loitering munitions itself for scout/attack strikes. The Army's Attack Helicopter program has been adapting to the lack of the scout role now for a very long time. The Apache was already flying scout/attack missions in Afghanistan and the subsequent upgrades it received to bridge the gap between having a Scout rotor program seems to have exceeded the capabilities laid out on the FARA contract. Who needs a scout helicopter when you can launch your attack squad and have them at the ready watching the scout mission in real time, planning their strike, attacking with the scout munition itself or relaying targeting data in-real time so they can launch their missiles well from behind cover before they even need to lay eyes on the target? Like, there's zero time needed to plan a strike after the scout mission because THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE AIR WITH FAR MORE FIREPOWER THAN FARA COULD EVER CARRY. Just buy more Apaches, problem solved.
If it were that simple platforms like the F-22 and F-35 wouldn't exist, we would've bought more F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18's. Changes in warfare and technology makes developing new airframes necessary.
Hindsight is always 20/20. No one saw the usage of small civilian drones to shape the modern battlefield. The waste would have been to continue down the dead end road
FPV drone like DJI Phantom already changed the landscape 10 years ago. The FAA made sweeping changes in response. Their effectiveness for downing aircraft was clearly recognized.
Absolutely FALSE. Literally dozens of white papers throughout the army for decades and the army refused to invest in small drones, instead outlawed their use. The army is the mentally challenged kid that ate glue in school.
As a retired military analyst, I submit in a WW3 or near peer conflict, attack helicopters never made much sense. Attack helicopters are too slow, too vulnerable, and too short ranged for most missions. They were useful in Iraq and Afghanistan where there was 100% air superiority. But in a contested air environment they are just too easy to shoot down. Manned aircraft should be used only when it is necessary to have a human decision maker near the point of conflict. Drones in Ukraine have shown to be highly and increasingly efficient as technology improves. An operator close may make sense when jamming is effective. Filling the skies with attack and surveillance drones rather than a handful of exceedingly expensive crewed aircraft will be more deadly and harder to counter.
In a near peer war we’re going to lose many many aircraft, equipment, and people….that’s part of an actual war. Trying to turn a near peer conflict into Desert Storm is a fools errand….everything is easy to take out…tanks are easy to destroy…cruise missiles are easy to shoot down…helicopters are easy to take out…people are easy to kill. You’re still going to need all of those things plus countless unmanned platforms, cheaper solutions etc.
Lol... You're pretty misinformed for an analyst 😅 Speed isn't what saves you flying low, and hitting something the flies low isn't that easy in the clutter.
@@bo64hellfire Experience in Ukraine shows that the Russian attack helicopters can be very effective but are also extremely vulnerable in contested air space. At least 60 Ka-52s have been confirmed lost during the invasion. Moreover, their short range made them suspectable to attack while on the grounds of Berdiansk airport. They have been largely withdrawn from front line activities except for work inside Russian lines using long range missiles. The question is does it make economic sense to use an expensive attack helicopter when a drone / UAV will do just as well?
@@WWeronko "Short range" is poor TTPs and sheer laziness from the Russians, as you know the 60ish KA-52s weren't all shot down. Just curious who you think the near peer threat for the US actually is? Seeing how it can't be Russia, since they're struggling so hard with what up until the last few months was pretty much a smaller Soviet army. Who are we going up against that's going to deny our ability to win air superiority and shoot down all the attack helicopters? Speaking of, our own doctrine has our attack helicopters generally doing what you describe the KA-52s as being restricted to, which is mostly running around BEHIND the FLOT in supporting roles. But heck with it, let's panic and divest all attack helicopters, because they "never made much sense" for a WW3 or near peer fight. Guess we better invent super advanced tiny drones that we can deploy from bigger drone aircraft and that will act autonomously in swarms. Oh, we already did that. Gosh, I wonder why we didn't already scrap our attack helicopters, then. Cripes, and no way does any drone/uav do just as well as an attack helicopter, for a half dozen reasons. Name the drone that packs 6+ hellfire/spike missiles and a chain gun. Against a T-72b3, PK of a properly equipped drone is less than .5, PK of a hellfire is over .8. Factor in some EW and a little counter drone team action. Yea. Maybe it's about the right tool for the task at hand. I'll bet you a doughnut Ukraine would love to have a company of Apaches or even Tigers during those mass armored assaults they keep seeing. It's not just drones that are eating those attacks, it's Ukraine learning how to "combined arms".
Another ingredient is the new DARPA SPRINT program where the original requirements took into account advances in the industry that are leaving traditional VTOL designs in the dust - like helos, even co-axial designs (which first flew in 1931) and tiltrotors like the V-280. For instance our Vy 421 tilt wing which is a roughly FARA sized aircraft will have a top speed of 421 kts and a range of 1,906 nmi using technology dating back to the late 50s.
Yeah it just makes sense. I mean we still have other helicopters or platforms if you really need it. Shame. SF could've used a small helicopter like the Kiowa or further back the Little Birds. Those pilots can be a menace even with dumb rockets, and what... A 50cal? Waiting to see the attack variant of the V-280. Hope they do what they did with the Cobra. Take the platform and slim it down with room for just weapons.
Disagree antidrone EW is too new to judge if all the drones all the time is the future or not. Lots of untested things could be used against drones in mass and from off shelf parts. (Yes, this includes AI piloted drones.)
I was in Army as scout. The army will one day go back to WW2 standards of war after the first six months of near peer combat. Meaning, everything will be destroyed that is drone or unmanned. Or just damaged. Then humans will have to do the work again. No, a drone warfare won’t work. Who ever figures out to shut the other side down then send in own to clean wipe. That’s the end of drones in ww3. It’s actually way easier to do then many really want to realize. Sometimes our own drones and equipment would not even work in normal conditions. I could not fly my drone some days in Iraq due to sun flares and solar radiation problems. The communication to plane was lost on solar flares. My commander never believed me. It took months to figure out why one day my drone would not work.
Wouldn't that same reservation apply to any modern weapon system? From that perspective of course the Russian have the better weapon in the '50s T55 and RPG-7
no, its enough if benefit for the cost is good enough. If only 1/2 of the drones get through, but those do enough damage for half the total cost of operating the helicopter, its worth it. Drones just easily win out in cost effectiveness too hard.
Betting part of this program just went dark. The government rarely throws things away. Always suspected the Commanche was the source of the Stealth Hawk.
Loads of stuff gets shelved without any serious work continuing past that point. They shouldn't throw away the work (although I bet that happens a lot), but that's not the same as keeping it going as a black program.
The R&D we did for the Commanche yelided a lot of great technology. We applied some of that to the stealth Blackhawk. R&D usually isn't waste, we learn a lot from it. Building the products and having them prove themselves useless is a waste, tho. You have to remember, most programs that the US military sends requests for proposals for are for things that don't exist yet. There is no garuntee that what they are asking for can be built. R&D is required, and sometimes we find out what the military asked for isn't possible (or practical). But, they provide useful data and let us know what is possible and what isn't possible.
It seems clear that drones are the immediate future in the scout attack role. A drone that can find, track, and destroy targets for the cost of a sophisicated missile fired from a very expensive but increasingly vulnerable helicopter makes a great deal of sense.
When I learned of FARA a few years ago, my response was, "Why not adapt drones for the role?"" Someone along the line was definitely getting kickbacks from this. The vulnerability of copters and the superiority off drones for this role has been obvious for years. Just more money set on fire for little to no gain.
Because generals tend to be older, the Army has done stuff like this that way for 1/2 a century with helos and corporations/government loves shiny expensive Big projects. 20 people creating a 30lb drone for $50k each isn't nearly as cool and doesn't require a general & whole department !😊
Yes, the Navy should have continued to build battle ships too. Ha ha. Maybe even sailing ships. Don’t think build stuff for a was you lost 80 years ago can help you fight a war with Russia or China.
@@georgeburns7251 huh? I'm not saying they were wrong to cancel the program. Just that I think there is some cool potential for coaxial rotors be that military or commercial, manned or un-manned.
I worked on the S-97 and it was just the most fun to work on. The concept and actual performance cannot be debated. Dang, too bad; but still great memories.
My main issue with the FARA program and the US Army aviation field at large is the money pit that it has become. Speaking as a former Signals NCO, and knowing the age of most of the Army's tactical communications systems and knowing that come 2025 the current SINCGARS radios will no longer work as intended; the money that has been wasted on this project could have easily been better spent on fielding newer radios and tactical comms. With several billion dollars, Im pretty sure thats enough to replace every RT-1523 with Leaders radios or Single Channel TSM radios, across the force.
They don’t burn it. They often use the technology gained by building these demonstrators in future aircraft or in entirely different businesses. Not to mention all the jobs that were created through the funding of these programs.
Yea people also fail to see this. They see the money figure and just thinks that vanishes. How much did the government get back from taxes from materials, payroll, and other things.
Reminds me of "Duke Nukem: Forever" .. where "forever" means _"As we develop the program .. technology, possibilities, and demands change .. so we will continue to scrap what we've built and chase a never ending future."_
Outstanding commentary, as usual! I think the other term besides sunk cost fallacy might also be referred to as 'throwing good money after bad'. This is a subject I've been afraid of ever since I first saw the staged video of assassin drones on stage a while ago. It is so easy to get wrapped around the axle on traditional military doctrine that nothing moves and eventually, you are sunk. If there is one thing the Ukraine war has shown clearly it's that drones are the future of tactical combat and while I think the U.S. has had a great grasp of drones from a strategic POV, it is time to rethink the modern battlefield wholly! The Army's decision, as much as I hate the reality, is the right one! The U.S. can easily come up with drones that are stealthy, quiet, immune to jamming, have great range, and are deadly far easier than huge bloated projects that could easily be taken out by similar drones used by any enemy! When a homemade drone hauling an RPG-7 warhead can take out an MBT with relative ease, imagine what it could do to a helicopter with a little time to develop the tech! I think the future of combet is going to get VERY weird compared to current doctrines and the Army and Marine Corps will really need to be ready to adapt on a dime. That is what the Army is doing here! Certainly, the U.S. is also developing anti-drone tech, but killing swarms might not be very easy! Perhaps mini lasers that don't have to be very powerful but can target many drones quickly could be equipped on current helicopters and perhaps something like that is already in the works, I don't know.
Lasers have to be very powerful to do anything and are dependent on clear weather. A simple reflective chrome layer (or heck, even tin foil) could negate the laser's capabilities. I think a jamming pod would be much more effective, efficient, and reliable.
Just remember that all defense contracts are by law required to be with US companies. From the mega corporations to Mom and Pop ops. To say that this money is wasted is to say that your neighbor the engineer received salary that was waisted. He had a job to do and did it. He got paid. The information and advancements they produced will not be lost. This program has been going on in one form or another since the late 1960s. All of this money we spend on defense is just a support system for our people who stand ready to make the next generation military hardware systems a reality on a moments notice.
Can ANYTHING actually be designed, developed, built, tested, rolled out, and made fully operational in a reasonably short time frame now? You’re always going to run into similar issues if it takes 20 years to do anything.
There are some successful and on time procurement programs, but equipment has only become more advanced and technologically difficult to produce. Some successes are, Virginia class, super hornet, P8, Aim9x, SM6, MRAD, etc.
Makes complete sense. They should’ve realized it 5 years ago. The country that can bring the highest number of drones to the fight will be the one that wins any drawn out engagement.
5 years ago it was islamists with sticks (and IEDs) against high tech armies. Not drones vs drones. In another 5 years more probably than not the biggest threat will be damage limitation of a Russia in anarchy and a bankrupt China with fear that nukes get in the wrong hand. Maybe all of that money should actually go into Iron Domes (just a scenario, "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future" - Niels Bohr)
Not spending even more money on something that won😅't work in a changing world is wise. The technical knowledge gained in attempted development will find good use eventually.
The old adage goes that the military is always preparing for the last war. It hurts to see such amazing helicopters never get the greenlight, but the reality is the next war is a drone war.
The Invictus is not “known to exceed 210 mph”, as you stated at 4:48. It hasn’t even flown yet. 210 mph is how fast they hope it will go because FARA required 180 knots, but I have doubts that a conventional helicopter could achieve a cruise speed that high.
What China threat? How many Chinese bases are anywhere near the United States. More like “hype up China in order to scam the taxpayers out of trillions for a 6th gen money sink program”
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 gee, you think that MIGHT have something to do with a country run by corrupt politicians paid off by a military industrial complex that can’t get off the 20 years of war on terror gravy train putting military bases all around it?
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, this makes sense. As much as I would love to see these platforms, we can do more with less and it's nice to see Big Army stay flexible.
I like you think they did the right thing. This is just part of the cost of development and staying out there at the Forefront of Technology. At the end of the day it's really not that big of a cost in comparison to the overall federal budget and let's face it most of government is a jobs program anyway.
@@_MikeJon_ FARA being cancelled has nothing to do with support for Ukraine (though its being cancelled because of understandings of modern warfare drawn from Ukraine). But to answer your question, yes. Because what's at stake in Ukraine is a matter of the geopolitical order we built and curtailing the ambitions of Russia to dominate former soviet states that it doesn't see as legitimate countries. Trying to retain the balance of power in the world, and stopping old-world style land-grabbing imperialist aims before we get dragged into something more direct down the road. We're also degrading one of our greatest antagonists without boots on the ground, for far less than a direct conflict would cost. And most of that money is being spent *inside* the US building new systems and materials.
As much as it sucks to see the two FARA ships go, it's a wise decision. If they play their drone warfare doctrine right, build the cheap, combat-effective drones they should be building, and be ready to deploy these drones from delivery platforms near the battlefield, they could even take on armor roles - as well as overwhelm enemy armor just by economy alone.
What this means is that the top brass is paying a lot of attention to the drone warfare Ukraine is currently using to defend itself. Drones are cheaper, replaceable, and proving highly capable. They won’t replace crewed missions, but be their intelligence and if need be, sacrificial body guards. Humans, and particularly their knowledge base, are harder to replace. And rotorcraft are particularly vulnerable to attack. This is an intelligent decision as circumstances have radically changed.
Ukraine epitomises the valuie of asymetric warfare - and for decades the USA has been on the expensive end of the equation without lessons being learned What STILL hasn't been learned is that whilst it's relatively easy to win a war if you have overwhelming power, what really matters is "Winning the Peace" - something the USA managed to do in post WW2 Europe/Japan, but failed abjectly at in 1901 Philippines, 1960s Vietnam and 2000s Iraq/Afghanistan
After seeing how effective recon drones are in Ukraine, it would indeed be madness to rely on scout choppers. You could buy a massive armada of expendable scout drones for the cost of a single new fancy scout chopper. It's crazy how effectively Ukraine (and even Russia) can spot one another to call in artillery and missile strikes just with $1,000 crap little drones.
I was wondering if the FARA was going to be carying drones. If the Valor can get far enough forward and kick a crate of drones out the back... A swarm of kamikaze scout drones would probably be cheaper altogether than having to develop the scout helos. If they have the range to return back to base or park in treetops and recharge or sustain their sensors with solar.... It will be interesting to see what they develop.
The FARA had loitering munitions in mind from the start. I think one of Bell's early promotional videos for the Invictus showed that off. The scout would use them to poke around to look for weaknesses in the enemy line or do recon on enemy forces for other assets to strike at.
@@bl8danjilWith its weight range limits being what they are to make it small and nimble it was just a waste. It would work in Europe but elsewhere especially in the pacific Islands NOT.😊
Let's not forget that the Army was an early supporter of the V-22 Osprey, but dropped out just as the aircraft was rolled out. Instead, we have updated versions of a twin rotor helicopter designed back in the early 1960's.
@@Triple_J.1 I live less than a mile from the 1106th AVCRAD for the California Army NG, it's the refurb facility for their Black Hawks and Chinooks. I see Chinooks every day, even weekends, coming in from Lodi and elsewhere. The sound is so different now than 30 years ago. You hear the rotor thump well before you hear turbine whine, and even there is such a different sound. In older models you could hear, I don't know if it was transmission/drive line noise or what. But they're so much quieter now.
We here in Australia need to follow the same strategy and not fall victim to the "Sunk Cost Fallacy". We are currently going through with the FMS purchase of AH-64 Apache's and 4 MQ-4C Tritons. Once could argue in the case of the Apache's, that based on evidence from the Ukraine, that manned battlefield helicopters have seen their day and are just too dangerous to operate in a near peer conflict or in the case of a potential conflict with China, we are not even close to near peer. Additionally, they don't have the range to do anything besides patrolling our coastline. A lot of good that will be if the conflict is in the Pacific or the South China Sea. Similarly, we are too far down the rabbit hole to not succeed with the purchase of the MQ-4C in what appears to be a clear-cut case of sunk cost fallacy. The money saved could be diverted to other programs. As Marcus Hellyer from Strategic Analysis Australia has stated: AH-64 * Why is the (Australian) Department of Defence continuing to acquire a small number of exquisitely expensive yet increasingly irrelevant platforms? * Has the Australian Department of Defence drawn fundamentally different lesson on the future of aerial battlefield reconnaissance from the US Army? If so, why? * What role does the (Australian) Army see the Apache filling in a battlefield dominated by anti-aircraft threats that cannot be met by uncrewed and autonomous systems that can be acquired more cheaply and that we can afford to lose? MQ-4C Triton * Does the project represent value for money at a total cost of over $3 billion for only four aircraft? * Does a fleet of four aircraft represent a viable capability? What happens if one or more aircraft are lost to accident or hostile action? strategicanalysis.org/questions-on-defences-mid-year-budget-update/
Ultimately this cancellation is still better than continuing with a platform that is already foreseen to be ineffective. Just look at the navy's LCS program, that's a platform that the navy should have cut-off their losses early on.
What happened with the F22 was a situation engineered to ensure the F35 couldn't be killed. That aircraft is an outstanding example of sunk cost fallacy and of how when you only have one airframe, it becomes a "everything including the kitchen sink and a marching Suzafone band" pork project whose _real_ mission is to funnel taxpayer money into private pockets, not to be a capable aircraft(*) - the same way that NASA got painted into a corner with space missions until SpaceX proved reusability is viable (*) The F35 is starting to mature, but it didn't get nicknamed "the jet that ate the Pentagon" for nothing and I'm picking that future warfare will show that cheaper more capable airframes can do most of what it's now being asked, in the same way that AWACS (including the P8) are increasingly being replaced with business-jet sized airframes like the Dassault Falcon(**) or entirely unmanned airframes. Remember the F35 was originally intended to be a cheap and cheerful ground support machine to go in after F22s had cleaned up the skies, not an air superiority fighter - and its current per flight hour cost is untenable for most of the mission profiles it's being pitched to perform (**) Look up the aviation term "FLKA" - Funny Looking King Air - sometime.
@@alanbrown397People always shit on the F35 for eating up so much budget. But this has been the case with so many platforms over the years. Many of these old platforms are touted by these same people now. One would hope that this mindset would die off at this point. It's just a false narrative that the program is any worse or relatively more expensive than successful and unsuccessful platforms the US has developed in the past.
Every major fighter program gobbled up the DoD budget. F-4, F-15, F-16, etc... They buy as many airframes as they can, as fast as they can, with little for spares & depot support. Rinse & Repeat.
I am aware of no significant military or strategic harm coming to the USA in the wake of the 187 unit F-22 build run. So what actual harm worries you over this program's early cancelation?
@@kurtwicklund8901 in short, the small production run of the f22 meant that now that we're back in an era of great power competition there's a lack of airframes to adequately cover every front they might be needed - for instance, now the chinese j20 outnumbers the f22. i imagine the similarity here is that a project is cancelled early, which exposes a future weakness due to the lack of that equipment.
Remember when the AF decided that guns didn't matter anymore and gots lots of young men killed with their missiles only fighters? Now the army is about to make a similar mistake. Tell Lockheed to keep that Raider handy on the shelf, because when the Army comes back looking for it, they are going to be in a hurry.
Sunk Cost fallacy - first I've heard the term but have seen it all the time in the military/congress. So now that FARA is cancelled, has the Army designated specific models of UAVs to do the same mission ? Similar speed and range numbers ? Anything beyond 20 - 30 miles will need satellite connections and zipping along at 150+ MPH will need some kind of "detector" to avoid other objects in the air via AI type operations. So then how much will those types of UAVs cost ?
I think this is a great video and very well done. It is a positive thing that the military is looking at fighting future wars instead of buying hardware based upon the last war. It saves lives.
I can see one of the big problems is that your helicopters are based within long range rocket range of the front lines. The new V-280 from Bell has the range and speed to operate from outside the immediate danger zone.
Drones have pretty much taken over the scouting role in Ukraine and been hideously effective but perhaps the FARA idea could be taken forward as a potential replacement for the Apache if they are allowed to redesign it a little bigger to increase its payload. The UH60 isn't the only bird that is getting long in the tooth in that regard.
I flew the RQ-7B UAV for the army and when they retired the Kiowa they tasked the RQ-7B as the scout in the "Hunter-Killer team". The RQ7-B system (includes 3 UAVs) cost the same as 1 Kiowa aircraft and it's all enlisted flying it.
I agree with the Army for once. Focus on drones and upgrading existing rotary aircraft, then continue to fund the V280 Valor because it could be a game changer.
I mean we can see Comanche traits in both competing FARA prototypes, and we can bet then next competition they will undoubtedly have later on will have more of that.
Actually, the US Army has canceled FOUR attempts to replace the Kiowa Warrior -- the RAH-66 Comanche, the ARH-70 Arapaho, the OH-58F Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade, and now the FARA. That does not mean unmanned aircraft systems are the magical solution. Manned AH-64D/E Apaches have teamed with unmanned MQ-1C Gray Eagle since the Kiowa Warrior retired, and the experience led to the FARA requirement.
Sure. But like the Comanche, that may have just been the best course of action as technology and battlefield needs have changed. Ukraine has changed a lot.
In a few decades, I think the technology to achieve such a goal would be looking fundamentally different anyway. Fielding this now in anticipation of possibly finding the perfect role for it in a few decades is obviously pretty suspect procurement strategy.
@@Cyrribrae true, I just wonder cause of all the projects that got canceled due to the fall of the Soviet union and the shift to guerilla fighting. What happens when the focus shifts again in 2 decades and the super range to cover the Pacific isn't needed?
@@rt_goblin_hours That's part of the reason the pentagon wants much more modular systems and weapons that present multiple options, it's not possible to reliably predict the future with any high degree of accuracy so they try to offset that with flexibility. But ultimately, there's always going to be an element of adapting to changing times and capabilities will come and go as needed.
@@rt_goblin_hours If the US had spent tens or hundreds of billions in the 90s on weapons and systems designed to fight a war in the Pacific against China, it would have been a ridiculous waste of money on a load of kit that would have been hopelessly obsolete and worn out long before it might be needed.
While I personally disagree with the decision as an ex-AF guy laying on his couch, I think you're right. We won't know if it's right or wrong for many years, if ever. But one thing that bothers me is a trend that I've noticed. It seems like since the 80's, the military has been chasing the next "big thing". They start a program, it gets pretty far along, then it's cancelled one day with the brass saying "We're developing something better!". Then the forces are stuck with older equipment that should really have been replaced years ago for something better. I had a thirty year old aircraft when I was in. And it showed. Thankfully, she's been replaced and retired.
Common sense at the top of military budget decisions? What an excellent way to do things and honestly it's about time. Thank you for that excellent presentation.
NEWS FLASH: most drones ARE helicopters. Think about it! An alternate way to announce this would be: we've lifted the requirement for crew for the FARA competitors, so they can be resubmitted at about half the size and a quarter the price. Same payload, same speed but extended range, lower operating cost, faster rollout due to less testing requirements.
Not all of that money is lost. Some of it will be visible in technology applied to other aircrafts, some will be visible in having more viable companies that can build advanced helicopters, engines etc. even for the civilian field.
I look at the LCS program whenever I want to remind myself what the alternate option is when the military figures out that a new vehicle isn't going to be as useful as they had hoped. I'll take the cancellation now over being forced to build a couple dozen of them just because Congress said so, and having the Army ignore them.
this sounds way worse than it actually is. If you scrap a program, you dont just through everything away. You can be pretty sure, that stuff is used in future programs. If you also apply the concept of sunken costs - then every dollar already invested should not affect the decision
Thanks Jeezus it’s canceled, phew, 5 billion going for research of drones, no people should be flying in the sky, too much space and weight to keep them alive
An absolutely excellent video. Your points were delivered in a logical, even-keeled manner that is a rarity on YT today. No hype or sensationalism, but Joe Friday ("Just the facts, please."). Nicely done.
The money was spent mostly on R&D. That's not really a "waste". Some technologies developed may be used elsewhere and some had to be explored so now we know why we reject them. R&D always involves some dead ends. In fact, its often mostly dead ends. Its what isn't a dead end that makes it all worth while.
Money grows on trees!!...I mean future generations of financial well-being.
Truck em all, right!?
@jamstagerable are you suggesting that research that doesn't produce immediate positive results is pointless? That's silly.
DARPA supports a small oceans worth of small businesses flailing away quietly like duck feet on pie in the sky projects mostly just to prove that they are impossible (and thus, not worth worrying about someone else developing).
@@jamstagerableyou wouldn’t know it but your entire way of life is enabled by military R&D. Not to forget: the internet, transistor, jet aircraft, etc
@@Laminar-Flow
Also the radar & sonar.
My father flew Kiowas for 25+ years and when I mentioned this development to him he agreed that the scout helicopter role is too dangerous now and is a job that can be done better by unmanned systems... Would have been real cool to see the Comanche through to fruition though, we were right there at the finish line on that one.
It was 😮
It would have been nice to have the Comanche around as an option as we transition into drones. If there's a need to use a manned helicopter in a dangerous recon or attack situation it'd be nice for it to be as stealthy and safe as possible.
Edit: I guess we do have a couple of fairly stealthy helicopter airframes around that we just almost never hear about, but only a handful I believe.
I hope the 280 tiltrotor is next. The whole concept is crazy. It supposes there will be a corridor free of manpads to the objective.
Unmanned are no where near to that of a manned scout helicopter. Unmanned has its place but simply cannot compete.
You're dad is a smart man.
It's easy to be blinded to the platform you cut your teeth on, but the Ukraine war had made it clear, there is no purpose anymore for recon and attack helicopters on the modern battlefield. They're too expensive, too hard to support, and put lives in too much risk. Drones can do more, cheaper and safer. When you aren't risking lives, you can push a little further, see a little more, and potentially do more damage to the enemy.
I see attack and recon moving to UCAVs entirely. Helicopters will be used primarily to move troops and equipment further back behind and to the frontlines.
Whoa whoa whoa... the Army scrapped a program after investing billions of dollars in it? That NEVER happens... (gives sideways glance at the SCAR, XM8, Land Warrior Project, Future Combat System Project, Future Soldier 2030 Project, XM2001 Crusader...)
That said, $5 says the Army asks Bell to make a proper gunship version of the V-280
Yeah probably (to the V-280 Part), like Sikorsky had done With the Raider X (there was a version for the Fara Programm and the FLRAA Prgramm),
than there will be two or even three Variants of the V-280
- Transport (which we have now)
- Attack (probably with a 20/30mm chin mounted gun and retractable Hardpoints (like the Raider)
- and maybe a Recon Version with even better Optics than the Attack and without the chin gun
@@dodo_hd9572 I think I saw some renderings somewhere with retractable hard points, as well as part of the passenger cabin replaced with sideways pointed ordinance launchers for a prospective gunship concept.
Doubt it. That would be 1 manufacturer for the majority of the aviation fleet. Only way around that is force bell to marry up with Boeing or LM.
Yep, pretty much their MO. I was in two of those PMOs, the XM8 and FCS. The XM8 shouldn't have been cancelled (the Army still hasn't plugged that mission need), but the FCS was a monstrosity of a program that was doomed from the beginning. It bit off more than it could chew with its huge system of systems approach and its lead system integrator contracting approach never worked. Boeing pissed away billions on systems engineering and never produced anything real.
And a stealth version. It already has canted stabilizers
I’ll never forget back in the 90’s when the Comanche program was a parking lot for top labor grade engineers for almost 10 years. When the program was finally given the full “green light” a friend of mine happily exclaimed “I’ll be riding this puppy right into retirement”. Shortly after, him and a ton of other people got laid off when the Army formally drove a spike into the Comanche’s heart. The army has given us multiple master classes in how to piss away our tax dollars.
Yeah. High-end labor grade engineer, here, at a subcontractor. Does not feel good after 4 years.
As cool as these platforms are it does give me hope that the military is able to change its mind in light of new technology and different modern battle space.
For all the criticism these kind of cancellations get, it's much better to end a program that's no longer required than to throw ever more money at a boondoggle.
I'd agree if the guys making the decisions knew fuck-all about how the jobs get done.
It was cut because they would've ended up giving another contract to Bell, since the Raider X was way behind in developement. MIc politics rather than change in policy are responsible for this decision.
Probably canceled because someone referred to the FARA as the LITTORAL COMBAT CHOPPER. 😂😂😂😂
Im dying
@@craigcrissman4651 I know, right? 😂
That stings 😂
I'm disappointed because I really liked the raider x, but I understand the favoring of drones
Agree, but maybe they can make a civilian variant based on Raider X.
Agreed
Drones cannot replace manned craft. They can augment force projection but never replace helicopters.
@@Art-is-craft Never say never, maybe not yet.
I'm disappointed that we won't stop taking care of Mexico's millions upon millions upon millions of citizens who have burdened us with costs that rival our defense budget. Since when did they become more important?
When you put the valor and FARA side by side and realize that the transport helicopter has nearly four times the range of the scout helicopter, the cancellation makes sense
Transport helicopters are useless. Can't go near the frontline due to proliferation of manpads. Can't fly in bad weather. 20x the cost of a military truck.
Scout helicopters are not about long range transport.
Trucks can't hop between islands or cross rough terrain.
@@0202pmurT that's why there are boats and bridges.
This was the trap they got into in Vietnam. Airmobile troops dropped into the combat zone, then they must be evacuated because there was no means of resupply. They lost whatever ground they gained.
@@PeacefulRallyCar-pw3csthe army marches on its stomach... fools argue strategy, experts discuss logistics....
You're underestimating the importance of the Valor
Good to see the Pentagon learning from Ukraine and not throwing money away to fight the LAST war
By the time any of these decisions have any effect on the battlefield, Ukraine will be the last war.
Arent they spending so much moeny to make sure that this last war wont happen?
But they're doing just that
After seeing Ukraine decimate Russias helicopter fleet, you would be stupid to keep making these. There is no future for frontline helicopters with a modern peer as you just can’t make them stealth enough. The ones we already have can handle a less equipped foe. Drones are the future of this role.
Congress just sent them 97 billion dollars, they passed it just 12 hrs ago in the middle of the night. What has been learned, flow to them money while at the same time canceling not one but two major military programs. This administration is just making us weaker and weaker.
iam still sad for Comanche not being in production ;) its the coolest chopper ever.
Agreed, completely.
AH-56? That one I liked.
Cheyenne was rad
I couldn’t agree more that thing was so ahead of its time
Don't feel sad for the Comanche, the knowledge and spirit of the design lives on. Lockheed has showcased designs for a future attack helicopter that has the technology from the Comanche built in . This and the introduction of new materials, digital control systems and information warfare technology could materialise a weapon platform that would make the AH-64 look like a ford model T.
The more we offload onto unmanned systems, the more I worry about our ability to maintain a battle “grid” electronically
Agree. That’s why manned/unmanned teaming will remain a thing for the foreseeable future.
One good EMP and all that fancy tech goes bye bye . . .
@@CaptainBanjo-fw4fq seems like they should look to create a scout copter that can play the role of an f35. Quarterbacking drones. Which seems kind of what the Invictus was going for, but a range of just 200 miles is abysmal.
@@Joe-xq3zu that's the same regardless if it's manned or unmanned. That is, unless you're going to go to war without computers... in which case, you'll get smoked if you don't emp your enemy.
@Joe-xq3zu you can shield equipment against EMP whether man or unmanned. Don't you think the military wouldn't come up with contingencies for that, especially if we go full autonomous systems?
Re the claim at 4:30 that the AH-1 Cobra "tops out at 140", not so. The original AH-1G Cobra had a top speed of 149 knots (171 mph) in level flight, and a Vne (never-exceed speed) of 190 knots (220 mph). The newest Cobra, the USMC's AH-1Z, has a CRUISE speed of 160 knots (180 mph) and a Vne of 222 knots (255 mph). By comparison, the AH-64A/D has a maximum level speed of 158 knots (182 mph), cruise speed: of143 knots (165 mph) and Vne of 197 knots (227 mph). The FARA program almost seems like it was designed to fail. The Boeing/Sikorsky entry has much better performance, but its seating arrangement is not optimized for an attack helicopter. The Bell Invictus has the proper cockpit layout, but is just a conventional helicopter that is hopelessly outperformed by the Bell Valor (tiltrotor) utility rotorcraft.
Re the Invictus with "586 extra horsepower when needed" (5:00), helicopters generally have more engine power than their transmissions can handle. This is so the engine can still produce enough power under high/hot conditions. If the "extra horsepower" is to be available in cooler/lower-altitude conditions, then the transmission has to be made stronger, which means more weight.
Army Aviation has not successfully fielded a new helicopter since the UH-60 Black Hawk and the AH-64, both of which first flew almost 50 years ago. That's a failure rate that's hard to match.
I think the role of the helicopter in the short to mid term is either air transport or as a missile truck that can quickly move to where it is needed and launch ordnance from 5-15 miles behind the front line at targets spotted by drones or other spotters.
Too slow to launch many missiles efficiently
@@RUclipsuser1aa What's faster a truck? Maybe a plane but their harder to stage near the front. I'm no military expert by far, but it does seem to be a logical rapid response platform to launch rockets. But on the other hand, there's the possibility of doing the same thing with drones.
@@RUclipsuser1aa What on earth does that even mean? Are you saying that you don't get maximum missile range from a helicopter? If so, while true, it ignores the fact that you can get a lot closer before launching said missiles by hovering behind a hill or other terrain feature.
That kind of mission profile is something best performed by a C17, C130J or A400M (Missile/bomb truck platforms already exist for these roles and have been tested extensively)
There's still a need for helicoptors but the roles may not be recognisable in future (eg: drones have already proven extremely effective at roles that used to be the speciality of Apaches (popup and kill), without putting operators in the direct line of fire - they're also almost impossible to hear without needing to resort to costly stealthing technologies)
Drones have more or less supplanted the venerable loach too, for similar reasons
Except that we could have a designated drone for that. It would risk less lives
Great video as always, and just FYI, Kiowa is pronounced just like the state of Iowa but with a K at the beginning, not "key-o-wa."
Because with drone technology we simply don't need to invest that much in a manned program when other solutions can fill the roll. I hate drones on a personal level, but I'm not going to pretend they're not the future. We're moving towards just having large mobile outposts/vehicles/ships/etc surrounded by semi-autonomous drones as a long-range standoff measure. Basically just large C&C logistics hubs largely dedicated to keeping a nice blanket of drones constantly in the air scouting/defending/attacking. Other troops and such will still be a thing, but drones will take over a large role of engaging the enemy and keeping stand-off distance. They're just too cheap and versatile compared to any other vehicle/platform.
Sandboxx is a good head above the rest. Thanks Alex, you're one extremely smart, humble young man.
Heh, in Swedish 'Fara' literally means either "Danger" or "To go (or trek/travel)"
So, both similar to Gefahr and fahren like in German. Gotta love how languages work :)
In Romanian it means "without". Suits what it happens to the program.
@@ContraVsGigi I bet if one looks hard enough, he'll find a language where FARA means "this r&d will be used in the next helicopter program once we figure out we still need those in 5 years or so".
in Georgian it means Flock (of sheep) lol
"Fare" in English is also cognate with the two Germanic examples given here. Now it usually means the cost or payment for a journey/trip but it also use to mean the journey itself.
Money invested in projects that are cancelled isn't wasted money. The new technologies developed, and skills and knowledge acquired, doesn't vanish in a cloud of smoke. They add, cumulatively, to military capabilities going forward.
This is a response to the losses in Ukraine they need larger quantities of smaller drones not small numbers of flashy choppers
Exactly this. Drones can be disposable. Anything with Mk1 wetware onboard is not
Being disposable means you can dispense with a lot of "extraneous" things - like armour - which add weight and impinge on performance - or the need to have a return to base function
The future of drones is likely to be swarms - _thousands_ of the things. They're hard to shoot down (even with directed energy weapons) but spaced out at 500-1000 yard intervals (vertically and horizontally) they become an effective area denial proposition for heavier fixed-wing or rotorcraft which can be downed simply by ingesting one (think: Birdstrike - except the birds aren't dodging) and don't carry enough ammunition to clear a path in front
Don't be surprised to see "perching" drones hanging off overhead wires, trees or towers. These give the ability to observe and not be noticed, whilst consuming low amounts of energy for the mission profile (or to quietly carry in small payloads and lay in wait for the target. Sniping by remote)
Most of this stuff has been kicking around in DARPA labs for 2-3 decades. Ukraine is forcing established command structures to rapidly re-evaluate theuir value (often dismissed as sci-fi pie-in-the-sky lunacy, Ukraine is only a foreshadowing of what's to come)
There's a similar problem with ASBMs btw - you don't NEED hugely expensive highly manouverable hypersonic weapons if you can bring enough lower cost less manouverable ones to the fight that you cause the defenders to expend all their ammunition shooting them down. After that the target can be picked off "at leisure" - unless they GTFO the area (ie: a mission kill without casualties). DF4D and DF21 don't need to be excellent, merely "good enough" and "plentiful enough" for China to be able to use them as a threat. US Navy captains have already remarked about this in the context of how much it costs to shoot down a $500 drone off the coast of Lebanon, given that you can't afford to take the risk that it may or may not be armed. Directed energy weapons will help in defense, but not against swarms of the sizes being envisaged
It's highly likely that the era of large aircraft carriers and escort fleets is facing the same wakeup call that Navies experienced with battleships at Pearl Harbour, despite having nearly a decade's warning that aircraft had made slab-armoured ships obsolete
I'm not sure what the future holds, but one should bear in mind that the easiest way to bring a "superior" enemy to its knees is to cause it to outspend its resources fighting off low cost attacks - at cost of the general population's healthcare, education and overall welfare. Future enemies won't always be as incompetent or corrupt as Russia. Whilst focus is on China, there are a number of areas where issues can pop up - India being only one example of a burgeoning power
Ukraine has shown FPV drones are about as effective Warthogs and Apaches.
@@Triple_J.1I guess they took a close look at the performance of Russian helicopters like the Ka-52. While very capable, they took heavy losses to AA and also strikes against airfields.
@@alanbrown397issue is the drone in ukraine have worse performance than ww2 airplane (therefore would be "food" for fast firing ww2 anti air guns) ,except for vtol (only some drone) they are just airstrike, the truth most army for some fetishistic reason scrapped most of theirs guns based anti air defence and went for very expensive missiles, which are wasteful. If you brought back one of the air superpower from ww2 they would bomb ukraine or russia to dust as both side would quickly run out of theirs very costly missile, and lack the required air defence and productions capability ( plus they would be bombed to ashes) .
To everyone saying this was a waste think of how much more would’ve been wasted if we hadn’t evolved for the future. Technology moves so fast that sometimes it’s inevitable that a platform once thought as cutting edge ends to get crapped for something better. And not all of the money goes to waste. The training, development of systems, engineering expertise etc are forever valuable.
What training?
The X-2 technology made for a ridiculously fast helicopter. It really is far ahead of its time. It would still make a great medevac platform or Coast Guard interdiction role.
But that might involve a lot of re-engineering for a larger airframe and whatnot.
I really hope they continue developing the technology whatever the scale.
If ik not mistaken they designed 3 different versions two are even bigger. But the Valor won that contract.
The Army picked the Valor. But yet it’s forbidden for Staff Officers,and high ranking government officials to ride in it. Look it up.
There are things that could be put on drones. Right now many drones are slow so the technology to double or triple their speed will help the military out a lot.
@@robmccormick3197 probably because the only one that currently exists is a prototype.
I was very disappointed at the FARA program’s cancellation, I know there are reasons wether good or bad but I was still stunned it happens shortly before the Invictus’s first flight and final showdown with Raider X. I was invested heavily in the updates of the programs progression and even purchased a $525 model of the early Invictus prototype from Brickmania.. Sad to see how things played out, but it wouldn’t have been the first time, looking at you Cheyenne and Comanche.
Bell makes the best looking helicopters.
So, a few of my buds flew Apache with the 101st airborne in Afghanistan back in 2018 in AH-64D models, last year their unit was upgraded to the latest AH-64 - the Echo Block 6 and the comments from them were astounding. The newest Apache ALREADY has absurd capability to integrate and network across all other US flying platforms and can launch drones and loitering munitions itself for scout/attack strikes. The Army's Attack Helicopter program has been adapting to the lack of the scout role now for a very long time. The Apache was already flying scout/attack missions in Afghanistan and the subsequent upgrades it received to bridge the gap between having a Scout rotor program seems to have exceeded the capabilities laid out on the FARA contract. Who needs a scout helicopter when you can launch your attack squad and have them at the ready watching the scout mission in real time, planning their strike, attacking with the scout munition itself or relaying targeting data in-real time so they can launch their missiles well from behind cover before they even need to lay eyes on the target? Like, there's zero time needed to plan a strike after the scout mission because THEY ARE ALREADY IN THE AIR WITH FAR MORE FIREPOWER THAN FARA COULD EVER CARRY. Just buy more Apaches, problem solved.
If it were that simple platforms like the F-22 and F-35 wouldn't exist, we would've bought more F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18's. Changes in warfare and technology makes developing new airframes necessary.
Now THIS is some top tier level Journalism and why I've stayed subbed for YEARS. We love you Alex! Keep up the good work!
Hindsight is always 20/20. No one saw the usage of small civilian drones to shape the modern battlefield. The waste would have been to continue down the dead end road
"No one saw this"
They were using rc planes in iraq.
Piloted (remote & baka Bombs) were used in WW II
FPV drone like DJI Phantom already changed the landscape 10 years ago. The FAA made sweeping changes in response. Their effectiveness for downing aircraft was clearly recognized.
Absolutely FALSE. Literally dozens of white papers throughout the army for decades and the army refused to invest in small drones, instead outlawed their use. The army is the mentally challenged kid that ate glue in school.
I first learned about the Commanche from the MegaDrive/Genesis video game Jungle Strike back in 1994ish. Loved flying it.
And Desert and Urban Strike
Those were other helicopters if I recall correctly.
@@OnSilverWings .....yeah desert strike was the Apache....cant remember Jungle Strike
The Comanche was also in Nuclear Strike.
Thanks again for digging out the detail on Military programs some of us may not even know about existing. Great reporting as always!
I want a detail in depth video on the IVAS goggles from microsoft.
Hopefully we can bring this program back in the future those helicopters are so beautiful and agile it’s simply incredible
As a retired military analyst, I submit in a WW3 or near peer conflict, attack helicopters never made much sense. Attack helicopters are too slow, too vulnerable, and too short ranged for most missions. They were useful in Iraq and Afghanistan where there was 100% air superiority. But in a contested air environment they are just too easy to shoot down. Manned aircraft should be used only when it is necessary to have a human decision maker near the point of conflict. Drones in Ukraine have shown to be highly and increasingly efficient as technology improves. An operator close may make sense when jamming is effective. Filling the skies with attack and surveillance drones rather than a handful of exceedingly expensive crewed aircraft will be more deadly and harder to counter.
In a near peer war we’re going to lose many many aircraft, equipment, and people….that’s part of an actual war. Trying to turn a near peer conflict into Desert Storm is a fools errand….everything is easy to take out…tanks are easy to destroy…cruise missiles are easy to shoot down…helicopters are easy to take out…people are easy to kill. You’re still going to need all of those things plus countless unmanned platforms, cheaper solutions etc.
Lol... You're pretty misinformed for an analyst 😅 Speed isn't what saves you flying low, and hitting something the flies low isn't that easy in the clutter.
@@bo64hellfire Experience in Ukraine shows that the Russian attack helicopters can be very effective but are also extremely vulnerable in contested air space. At least 60 Ka-52s have been confirmed lost during the invasion. Moreover, their short range made them suspectable to attack while on the grounds of Berdiansk airport. They have been largely withdrawn from front line activities except for work inside Russian lines using long range missiles. The question is does it make economic sense to use an expensive attack helicopter when a drone / UAV will do just as well?
@@WWeronko "Short range" is poor TTPs and sheer laziness from the Russians, as you know the 60ish KA-52s weren't all shot down. Just curious who you think the near peer threat for the US actually is? Seeing how it can't be Russia, since they're struggling so hard with what up until the last few months was pretty much a smaller Soviet army. Who are we going up against that's going to deny our ability to win air superiority and shoot down all the attack helicopters? Speaking of, our own doctrine has our attack helicopters generally doing what you describe the KA-52s as being restricted to, which is mostly running around BEHIND the FLOT in supporting roles. But heck with it, let's panic and divest all attack helicopters, because they "never made much sense" for a WW3 or near peer fight. Guess we better invent super advanced tiny drones that we can deploy from bigger drone aircraft and that will act autonomously in swarms. Oh, we already did that. Gosh, I wonder why we didn't already scrap our attack helicopters, then. Cripes, and no way does any drone/uav do just as well as an attack helicopter, for a half dozen reasons. Name the drone that packs 6+ hellfire/spike missiles and a chain gun. Against a T-72b3, PK of a properly equipped drone is less than .5, PK of a hellfire is over .8. Factor in some EW and a little counter drone team action. Yea. Maybe it's about the right tool for the task at hand. I'll bet you a doughnut Ukraine would love to have a company of Apaches or even Tigers during those mass armored assaults they keep seeing. It's not just drones that are eating those attacks, it's Ukraine learning how to "combined arms".
Even in a jamming environment, autonomous or semi-autonomous drones will usually make more sense than an attack helicopter.
Another ingredient is the new DARPA SPRINT program where the original requirements took into account advances in the industry that are leaving traditional VTOL designs in the dust - like helos, even co-axial designs (which first flew in 1931) and tiltrotors like the V-280. For instance our Vy 421 tilt wing which is a roughly FARA sized aircraft will have a top speed of 421 kts and a range of 1,906 nmi using technology dating back to the late 50s.
As much as I would like to see Raider X tech on a Comanche air frame, small drones are the future.
Yep ! 👍
Yeah it just makes sense. I mean we still have other helicopters or platforms if you really need it.
Shame. SF could've used a small helicopter like the Kiowa or further back the Little Birds. Those pilots can be a menace even with dumb rockets, and what... A 50cal?
Waiting to see the attack variant of the V-280. Hope they do what they did with the Cobra. Take the platform and slim it down with room for just weapons.
Disagree antidrone EW is too new to judge if all the drones all the time is the future or not. Lots of untested things could be used against drones in mass and from off shelf parts. (Yes, this includes AI piloted drones.)
@@andrewyork3869 antidrone EW isn't new at all. it's more than half a century old.
Sometimes you have to turn off the FARA faucet in order to find the Cheryl Ladd.
The Army must be very confident it's drones will be immune from eEectronic/Cyber attack.
I was in Army as scout.
The army will one day go back to WW2 standards of war after the first six months of near peer combat.
Meaning, everything will be destroyed that is drone or unmanned. Or just damaged.
Then humans will have to do the work again.
No, a drone warfare won’t work. Who ever figures out to shut the other side down then send in own to clean wipe. That’s the end of drones in ww3.
It’s actually way easier to do then many really want to realize. Sometimes our own drones and equipment would not even work in normal conditions.
I could not fly my drone some days in Iraq due to sun flares and solar radiation problems. The communication to plane was lost on solar flares. My commander never believed me. It took months to figure out why one day my drone would not work.
No, men who paint their nails and wear makeup are making decisions...
Wouldn't that same reservation apply to any modern weapon system?
From that perspective of course the Russian have the better weapon in the '50s T55 and RPG-7
Actually yeah they are. Any ewar broadcasts its position for attack.
no, its enough if benefit for the cost is good enough. If only 1/2 of the drones get through, but those do enough damage for half the total cost of operating the helicopter, its worth it.
Drones just easily win out in cost effectiveness too hard.
Betting part of this program just went dark. The government rarely throws things away.
Always suspected the Commanche was the source of the Stealth Hawk.
might be, or it is being shelved for the time being
Loads of stuff gets shelved without any serious work continuing past that point. They shouldn't throw away the work (although I bet that happens a lot), but that's not the same as keeping it going as a black program.
The R&D we did for the Commanche yelided a lot of great technology. We applied some of that to the stealth Blackhawk.
R&D usually isn't waste, we learn a lot from it. Building the products and having them prove themselves useless is a waste, tho. You have to remember, most programs that the US military sends requests for proposals for are for things that don't exist yet. There is no garuntee that what they are asking for can be built. R&D is required, and sometimes we find out what the military asked for isn't possible (or practical). But, they provide useful data and let us know what is possible and what isn't possible.
@@davidspiller7977 I remember seeing Comanche on tv as a kid, it looked so futuristic and slick compared to Soviet ones we had then :D
Calm down Claney 🤣
It seems clear that drones are the immediate future in the scout attack role. A drone that can find, track, and destroy targets for the cost of a sophisicated missile fired from a very expensive but increasingly vulnerable helicopter makes a great deal of sense.
When I learned of FARA a few years ago, my response was, "Why not adapt drones for the role?"" Someone along the line was definitely getting kickbacks from this. The vulnerability of copters and the superiority off drones for this role has been obvious for years. Just more money set on fire for little to no gain.
Because generals tend to be older, the Army has done stuff like this that way for 1/2 a century with helos and corporations/government loves shiny expensive Big projects. 20 people creating a 30lb drone for $50k each isn't nearly as cool and doesn't require a general & whole department !😊
I like the Raider-x, but I question how survivable it is on the modern battlefield with MANPADs everywhere.
I'm sad to see both the Sikorsky X2 helicopters get the axe. It seems like there is a definite future for this kind of rotor layout.
Simply not enough range. Their badass looking helis though.
Yes, the Navy should have continued to build battle ships too. Ha ha. Maybe even sailing ships. Don’t think build stuff for a was you lost 80 years ago can help you fight a war with Russia or China.
@@georgeburns7251 huh? I'm not saying they were wrong to cancel the program. Just that I think there is some cool potential for coaxial rotors be that military or commercial, manned or un-manned.
@@looseygoosey1349 yeah the tech still needs to mature I think.
@@georgeburns7251somebody can't read
I worked on the S-97 and it was just the most fun to work on. The concept and actual performance cannot be debated. Dang, too bad; but still great memories.
My main issue with the FARA program and the US Army aviation field at large is the money pit that it has become. Speaking as a former Signals NCO, and knowing the age of most of the Army's tactical communications systems and knowing that come 2025 the current SINCGARS radios will no longer work as intended; the money that has been wasted on this project could have easily been better spent on fielding newer radios and tactical comms. With several billion dollars, Im pretty sure thats enough to replace every RT-1523 with Leaders radios or Single Channel TSM radios, across the force.
They don’t burn it. They often use the technology gained by building these demonstrators in future aircraft or in entirely different businesses. Not to mention all the jobs that were created through the funding of these programs.
Yea people also fail to see this. They see the money figure and just thinks that vanishes. How much did the government get back from taxes from materials, payroll, and other things.
If nothing else the $ pumped into company's R&D help keep them afloat and there so they can develop drones
A solid and nuanced take on a tricky topic. Bravo
Also, you can read Tyler Rogoway’s recent write up on this topic over at The Warzone.
Reminds me of "Duke Nukem: Forever" .. where "forever" means _"As we develop the program .. technology, possibilities, and demands change .. so we will continue to scrap what we've built and chase a never ending future."_
Outstanding commentary, as usual!
I think the other term besides sunk cost fallacy might also be referred to as 'throwing good money after bad'.
This is a subject I've been afraid of ever since I first saw the staged video of assassin drones on stage a while ago.
It is so easy to get wrapped around the axle on traditional military doctrine that nothing moves and eventually, you are sunk.
If there is one thing the Ukraine war has shown clearly it's that drones are the future of tactical combat and while I think the U.S. has had a great grasp of drones from a strategic POV, it is time to rethink the modern battlefield wholly!
The Army's decision, as much as I hate the reality, is the right one!
The U.S. can easily come up with drones that are stealthy, quiet, immune to jamming, have great range, and are deadly far easier than huge bloated projects that could easily be taken out by similar drones used by any enemy!
When a homemade drone hauling an RPG-7 warhead can take out an MBT with relative ease, imagine what it could do to a helicopter
with a little time to develop the tech!
I think the future of combet is going to get VERY weird compared to current doctrines and the Army and Marine Corps will really need to be ready to adapt on a dime.
That is what the Army is doing here!
Certainly, the U.S. is also developing anti-drone tech, but killing swarms might not be very easy! Perhaps mini lasers that don't have to be very powerful but can target many drones quickly could be equipped on current helicopters and perhaps something like that is already in the works, I don't know.
Lasers have to be very powerful to do anything and are dependent on clear weather. A simple reflective chrome layer (or heck, even tin foil) could negate the laser's capabilities. I think a jamming pod would be much more effective, efficient, and reliable.
Just remember that all defense contracts are by law required to be with US companies. From the mega corporations to Mom and Pop ops. To say that this money is wasted is to say that your neighbor the engineer received salary that was waisted. He had a job to do and did it. He got paid. The information and advancements they produced will not be lost. This program has been going on in one form or another since the late 1960s. All of this money we spend on defense is just a support system for our people who stand ready to make the next generation military hardware systems a reality on a moments notice.
Can ANYTHING actually be designed, developed, built, tested, rolled out, and made fully operational in a reasonably short time frame now? You’re always going to run into similar issues if it takes 20 years to do anything.
Well obviously not. We're well past the stage of being able to compete with simple machines.
There are some successful and on time procurement programs, but equipment has only become more advanced and technologically difficult to produce. Some successes are, Virginia class, super hornet, P8, Aim9x, SM6, MRAD, etc.
Makes complete sense. They should’ve realized it 5 years ago. The country that can bring the highest number of drones to the fight will be the one that wins any drawn out engagement.
5 years ago it was islamists with sticks (and IEDs) against high tech armies. Not drones vs drones. In another 5 years more probably than not the biggest threat will be damage limitation of a Russia in anarchy and a bankrupt China with fear that nukes get in the wrong hand. Maybe all of that money should actually go into Iron Domes (just a scenario, "Prediction is difficult, especially about the future" - Niels Bohr)
Not spending even more money on something that won😅't work in a changing world is wise. The technical knowledge gained in attempted development will find good use eventually.
The old adage goes that the military is always preparing for the last war. It hurts to see such amazing helicopters never get the greenlight, but the reality is the next war is a drone war.
The Invictus is not “known to exceed 210 mph”, as you stated at 4:48. It hasn’t even flown yet. 210 mph is how fast they hope it will go because FARA required 180 knots, but I have doubts that a conventional helicopter could achieve a cruise speed that high.
As long as they don’t cancel future vertical lift…
The lack of range alone probably justifies the cancellation given the China threat.
What China threat? How many Chinese bases are anywhere near the United States. More like “hype up China in order to scam the taxpayers out of trillions for a 6th gen money sink program”
@@lolwutyoumad China is doing the largest military buildup since the start of the cold war... go get your social credit score elsewhere.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 gee, you think that MIGHT have something to do with a country run by corrupt politicians paid off by a military industrial complex that can’t get off the 20 years of war on terror gravy train putting military bases all around it?
Given what we are seeing in Ukraine, this makes sense. As much as I would love to see these platforms, we can do more with less and it's nice to see Big Army stay flexible.
I like you think they did the right thing. This is just part of the cost of development and staying out there at the Forefront of Technology. At the end of the day it's really not that big of a cost in comparison to the overall federal budget and let's face it most of government is a jobs program anyway.
The army needs to stop canceling these programs it's complete BS
I agree 💯with the army, we simply don’t need that craft at that cost.
But we do need to send 60 billion to Ukraine...? Rather the helicopter lol
@@_MikeJon_We sent 60 billion in supplies, rather than in dollars
@@_MikeJon_take a chill pill
@@_MikeJon_ FARA being cancelled has nothing to do with support for Ukraine (though its being cancelled because of understandings of modern warfare drawn from Ukraine). But to answer your question, yes. Because what's at stake in Ukraine is a matter of the geopolitical order we built and curtailing the ambitions of Russia to dominate former soviet states that it doesn't see as legitimate countries. Trying to retain the balance of power in the world, and stopping old-world style land-grabbing imperialist aims before we get dragged into something more direct down the road. We're also degrading one of our greatest antagonists without boots on the ground, for far less than a direct conflict would cost. And most of that money is being spent *inside* the US building new systems and materials.
@@Eddie_Munster yeah calm down. Its only 60 billion.
As much as it sucks to see the two FARA ships go, it's a wise decision. If they play their drone warfare doctrine right, build the cheap, combat-effective drones they should be building, and be ready to deploy these drones from delivery platforms near the battlefield, they could even take on armor roles - as well as overwhelm enemy armor just by economy alone.
What this means is that the top brass is paying a lot of attention to the drone warfare Ukraine is currently using to defend itself. Drones are cheaper, replaceable, and proving highly capable. They won’t replace crewed missions, but be their intelligence and if need be, sacrificial body guards. Humans, and particularly their knowledge base, are harder to replace. And rotorcraft are particularly vulnerable to attack. This is an intelligent decision as circumstances have radically changed.
Ukraine epitomises the valuie of asymetric warfare - and for decades the USA has been on the expensive end of the equation without lessons being learned
What STILL hasn't been learned is that whilst it's relatively easy to win a war if you have overwhelming power, what really matters is "Winning the Peace" - something the USA managed to do in post WW2 Europe/Japan, but failed abjectly at in 1901 Philippines, 1960s Vietnam and 2000s Iraq/Afghanistan
After seeing how effective recon drones are in Ukraine, it would indeed be madness to rely on scout choppers. You could buy a massive armada of expendable scout drones for the cost of a single new fancy scout chopper. It's crazy how effectively Ukraine (and even Russia) can spot one another to call in artillery and missile strikes just with $1,000 crap little drones.
I was wondering if the FARA was going to be carying drones. If the Valor can get far enough forward and kick a crate of drones out the back... A swarm of kamikaze scout drones would probably be cheaper altogether than having to develop the scout helos. If they have the range to return back to base or park in treetops and recharge or sustain their sensors with solar.... It will be interesting to see what they develop.
The FARA had loitering munitions in mind from the start. I think one of Bell's early promotional videos for the Invictus showed that off. The scout would use them to poke around to look for weaknesses in the enemy line or do recon on enemy forces for other assets to strike at.
@@bl8danjilWith its weight range limits being what they are to make it small and nimble it was just a waste. It would work in Europe but elsewhere especially in the pacific Islands NOT.😊
Let's not forget that the Army was an early supporter of the V-22 Osprey, but dropped out just as the aircraft was rolled out. Instead, we have updated versions of a twin rotor helicopter designed back in the early 1960's.
Hard to argue with the Chinook when it comes to placing Artillery on inaccessible, very defendable mountain tops.
@@Triple_J.1 I live less than a mile from the 1106th AVCRAD for the California Army NG, it's the refurb facility for their Black Hawks and Chinooks. I see Chinooks every day, even weekends, coming in from Lodi and elsewhere. The sound is so different now than 30 years ago. You hear the rotor thump well before you hear turbine whine, and even there is such a different sound. In older models you could hear, I don't know if it was transmission/drive line noise or what. But they're so much quieter now.
We here in Australia need to follow the same strategy and not fall victim to the "Sunk Cost Fallacy". We are currently going through with the FMS purchase of AH-64 Apache's and 4 MQ-4C Tritons. Once could argue in the case of the Apache's, that based on evidence from the Ukraine, that manned battlefield helicopters have seen their day and are just too dangerous to operate in a near peer conflict or in the case of a potential conflict with China, we are not even close to near peer. Additionally, they don't have the range to do anything besides patrolling our coastline. A lot of good that will be if the conflict is in the Pacific or the South China Sea.
Similarly, we are too far down the rabbit hole to not succeed with the purchase of the MQ-4C in what appears to be a clear-cut case of sunk cost fallacy. The money saved could be diverted to other programs.
As Marcus Hellyer from Strategic Analysis Australia has stated:
AH-64
* Why is the (Australian) Department of Defence continuing to acquire a small number of exquisitely expensive yet increasingly irrelevant platforms?
* Has the Australian Department of Defence drawn fundamentally different lesson on the future of aerial battlefield reconnaissance from the US Army? If so, why?
* What role does the (Australian) Army see the Apache filling in a battlefield dominated by anti-aircraft threats that cannot be met by uncrewed and autonomous systems that can be acquired more cheaply and that we can afford to lose?
MQ-4C Triton
* Does the project represent value for money at a total cost of over $3 billion for only four aircraft?
* Does a fleet of four aircraft represent a viable capability? What happens if one or more aircraft are lost to accident or hostile action?
strategicanalysis.org/questions-on-defences-mid-year-budget-update/
Both of which are now legacy systems there are better cheaper systems now available. 100 greyghosts/byractors.
Ultimately this cancellation is still better than continuing with a platform that is already foreseen to be ineffective. Just look at the navy's LCS program, that's a platform that the navy should have cut-off their losses early on.
I agree, but I can't forget what happened with the F-22. Situations change rapidly.
What happened with the F22 was a situation engineered to ensure the F35 couldn't be killed. That aircraft is an outstanding example of sunk cost fallacy and of how when you only have one airframe, it becomes a "everything including the kitchen sink and a marching Suzafone band" pork project whose _real_ mission is to funnel taxpayer money into private pockets, not to be a capable aircraft(*) - the same way that NASA got painted into a corner with space missions until SpaceX proved reusability is viable
(*) The F35 is starting to mature, but it didn't get nicknamed "the jet that ate the Pentagon" for nothing and I'm picking that future warfare will show that cheaper more capable airframes can do most of what it's now being asked, in the same way that AWACS (including the P8) are increasingly being replaced with business-jet sized airframes like the Dassault Falcon(**) or entirely unmanned airframes. Remember the F35 was originally intended to be a cheap and cheerful ground support machine to go in after F22s had cleaned up the skies, not an air superiority fighter - and its current per flight hour cost is untenable for most of the mission profiles it's being pitched to perform
(**) Look up the aviation term "FLKA" - Funny Looking King Air - sometime.
@@alanbrown397People always shit on the F35 for eating up so much budget. But this has been the case with so many platforms over the years. Many of these old platforms are touted by these same people now.
One would hope that this mindset would die off at this point. It's just a false narrative that the program is any worse or relatively more expensive than successful and unsuccessful platforms the US has developed in the past.
Every major fighter program gobbled up the DoD budget. F-4, F-15, F-16, etc... They buy as many airframes as they can, as fast as they can, with little for spares & depot support. Rinse & Repeat.
I am aware of no significant military or strategic harm coming to the USA in the wake of the 187 unit F-22 build run. So what actual harm worries you over this program's early cancelation?
@@kurtwicklund8901 in short, the small production run of the f22 meant that now that we're back in an era of great power competition there's a lack of airframes to adequately cover every front they might be needed - for instance, now the chinese j20 outnumbers the f22. i imagine the similarity here is that a project is cancelled early, which exposes a future weakness due to the lack of that equipment.
Remember when the AF decided that guns didn't matter anymore and gots lots of young men killed with their missiles only fighters? Now the army is about to make a similar mistake. Tell Lockheed to keep that Raider handy on the shelf, because when the Army comes back looking for it, they are going to be in a hurry.
AGAIN??? That sucks. Those helo’s are awesome!
that drone launching animation was sick
Sunk Cost fallacy - first I've heard the term but have seen it all the time in the military/congress. So now that FARA is cancelled, has the Army designated specific models of UAVs to do the same mission ? Similar speed and range numbers ? Anything beyond 20 - 30 miles will need satellite connections and zipping along at 150+ MPH will need some kind of "detector" to avoid other objects in the air via AI type operations. So then how much will those types of UAVs cost ?
I think this is a great video and very well done. It is a positive thing that the military is looking at fighting future wars instead of buying hardware based upon the last war. It saves lives.
I can see one of the big problems is that your helicopters are based within long range rocket range of the front lines. The new V-280 from Bell has the range and speed to operate from outside the immediate danger zone.
The success of drones in Ukraine rang every body's bell.
The human that gets trained stays somewhat safe.
Drones have pretty much taken over the scouting role in Ukraine and been hideously effective but perhaps the FARA idea could be taken forward as a potential replacement for the Apache if they are allowed to redesign it a little bigger to increase its payload. The UH60 isn't the only bird that is getting long in the tooth in that regard.
I see the RIder-X as a needed platform for Marines, Army Rangers, and special forces and Delta team types of units.
just make a stealth Valor version. Just as fast and with more range.
I flew the RQ-7B UAV for the army and when they retired the Kiowa they tasked the RQ-7B as the scout in the "Hunter-Killer team".
The RQ7-B system (includes 3 UAVs) cost the same as 1 Kiowa aircraft and it's all enlisted flying it.
And the pilots will survive a loss and live to learn from it.
I agree with the Army for once. Focus on drones and upgrading existing rotary aircraft, then continue to fund the V280 Valor because it could be a game changer.
The RnD won’t be wasted, it wasn’t before.
I mean we can see Comanche traits in both competing FARA prototypes, and we can bet then next competition they will undoubtedly have later on will have more of that.
Actually, the US Army has canceled FOUR attempts to replace the Kiowa Warrior -- the RAH-66 Comanche, the ARH-70 Arapaho, the OH-58F Cockpit and Sensor Upgrade, and now the FARA. That does not mean unmanned aircraft systems are the magical solution. Manned AH-64D/E Apaches have teamed with unmanned MQ-1C Gray Eagle since the Kiowa Warrior retired, and the experience led to the FARA requirement.
V-280 equipped with drones covers basically everything the program set out to do at a fraction of the cost and far more effectively.
The drones can be miniature FARA helicopters!
As much as I hate the V-22 they got it right with the cargo ramp at least.
The V-280 should have had a cargo ramp.
It's really disturbing how inefficient the US government is with our tax dollars. Just wasting money.
Most the programs are test beds for future programs
I mean I get why they canceled it...
BUT I WAN COOL HELICOPTER 😭😭
I worked at Sikorsky back in 1985. They had a single boom counter rotor system back then. It had the pusher in the back like the current offering.
What AGAIN!! It’s the Comanche all over again
Sure.
But like the Comanche, that may have just been the best course of action as technology and battlefield needs have changed.
Ukraine has changed a lot.
Awareness of the sunk-cost fallacy is great as long as you learn from it and stop constantly sinking more costs.
How nany decades before we see the army saying they wish they had a versatile light helicopter
In a few decades, I think the technology to achieve such a goal would be looking fundamentally different anyway. Fielding this now in anticipation of possibly finding the perfect role for it in a few decades is obviously pretty suspect procurement strategy.
@@Cyrribrae true, I just wonder cause of all the projects that got canceled due to the fall of the Soviet union and the shift to guerilla fighting. What happens when the focus shifts again in 2 decades and the super range to cover the Pacific isn't needed?
@@rt_goblin_hours That's part of the reason the pentagon wants much more modular systems and weapons that present multiple options, it's not possible to reliably predict the future with any high degree of accuracy so they try to offset that with flexibility. But ultimately, there's always going to be an element of adapting to changing times and capabilities will come and go as needed.
@@rt_goblin_hours If the US had spent tens or hundreds of billions in the 90s on weapons and systems designed to fight a war in the Pacific against China, it would have been a ridiculous waste of money on a load of kit that would have been hopelessly obsolete and worn out long before it might be needed.
Well at least they’ll still have all the R and D from this program to have a head start with 🤷♂️
Army and the Marine Corp is good at not wasting money on garbage compared to Navy and Air Force. It is the contrast in leadership.
Because the future is drones not manned helicopters
The bell 360 was so dope... reminded me of the Comanche... disappointed is an understatement..
Im kinda sad to see this, because yes, recce by helicopters is dead, but it could be a more affordable small attack helicopter for US partners.
While I personally disagree with the decision as an ex-AF guy laying on his couch, I think you're right. We won't know if it's right or wrong for many years, if ever.
But one thing that bothers me is a trend that I've noticed. It seems like since the 80's, the military has been chasing the next "big thing". They start a program, it gets pretty far along, then it's cancelled one day with the brass saying "We're developing something better!". Then the forces are stuck with older equipment that should really have been replaced years ago for something better. I had a thirty year old aircraft when I was in. And it showed. Thankfully, she's been replaced and retired.
Common sense at the top of military budget decisions? What an excellent way to do things and honestly it's about time. Thank you for that excellent presentation.
NEWS FLASH: most drones ARE helicopters. Think about it! An alternate way to announce this would be: we've lifted the requirement for crew for the FARA competitors, so they can be resubmitted at about half the size and a quarter the price. Same payload, same speed but extended range, lower operating cost, faster rollout due to less testing requirements.
Probably the right call, I just hope we're not scrambling around for a robust maned scout platform in 20 years.
Not all of that money is lost. Some of it will be visible in technology applied to other aircrafts, some will be visible in having more viable companies that can build advanced helicopters, engines etc. even for the civilian field.
I look at the LCS program whenever I want to remind myself what the alternate option is when the military figures out that a new vehicle isn't going to be as useful as they had hoped. I'll take the cancellation now over being forced to build a couple dozen of them just because Congress said so, and having the Army ignore them.
I really do enjoy Alex's videos!
There have been very valuable technologies that were developed in these processes that will pay off down the road...
this sounds way worse than it actually is. If you scrap a program, you dont just through everything away. You can be pretty sure, that stuff is used in future programs. If you also apply the concept of sunken costs - then every dollar already invested should not affect the decision
Thanks Jeezus it’s canceled, phew, 5 billion going for research of drones, no people should be flying in the sky, too much space and weight to keep them alive
An absolutely excellent video. Your points were delivered in a logical, even-keeled manner that is a rarity on YT today. No hype or sensationalism, but Joe Friday ("Just the facts, please."). Nicely done.