Bell-Stop upgrades and start FVL

Bell helicopters wants the Pentagon to start the Future Vertical Lift program as much as 8 years early. Their idea is to stop the Improved Turbine Engine Program, and use the money saved to start FVL. Under the current plan, both Bell and Boeing are building demonstrators for the Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator program. Whichever aircraft is selected under that program then goes to the Technology Maturation & Risk Reduction phase, before FVL even begins.

By accelerating the program, it's believed that they will be able to avoid at least some of the huge budget battle that is brewing for the 2020s. Even after the budget cap law expires and budgets increase, there are many programs that are going to require funding, which is going to make it difficult to get the funding required for FVL.

breakingdefense.com...

FVL stands for Future Vertical Lift program. Which the US military is in desperate need of.

VTOL jets and Osprey tilt rotor aren't 'working out'. The current fleet is aging and there is no replacement.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It is not just the FVL but something I read yesterday the AF is already squirming and unable to fund the F-35 past 2021.. Bell and Boeing are trying to get their financing before the SHTF on the military budget wars.

a reply to: 727Sky

At current resource levels, and at the numbers directed by Congress, they can't. But honestly they don't NEED 1900 in the inventory. We're not going to fight wars the way they planned for decades, and aircraft are far more capable than before. One F-22 can replace multiple aircraft. They need to look at force levels, not numbers in inventory. They need to be looking at a smaller, more capable force rather than maintaining the bloated beast we have. But the more aircraft they have, the more bribes congress gets to upgrade and maintain them.

a reply to: Zaphod58

It really does make sense downsizing to a degree I doubt it would have an effect on readiness levels as there wouldn't be as much to maintain more spare parts available at all times. But like you've said money changing hands causes so many problems.

originally posted by: Woody510
a reply to: Zaphod58

It really does make sense downsizing to a degree I doubt it would have an effect on readiness levels as there wouldn't be as much to maintain more spare parts available at all times. But like you've said money changing hands causes so many problems.

Plus with some of the modern simulators you can do more on the ground meaning fewer training hours.

Are ducted fans be better for larger platforms like Helos?

a reply to: Blackfinger

It depends. In some instances they might be, but probably not in all instances.

a reply to: Woody510

I'd love to see them cut the Air Force by a third. At least the fighter side. That would free up a lot of tankers for pure airlift missions, and save a huge amount of money.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Percentage wise what do you reckon the readiness for the fighters would be if all of them had to be airborne tomorrow morning?

a reply to: Woody510

There are various levels of mission capable. You have aircraft that have nothing wrong with them that affects their ability to do the mission, then you have aircraft that have minor issues, but can still do the mission, then you have the aircraft that are flat out broke.

Combining FMC and PMC aircraft, I'd say somewhere between 60-70%.

originally posted by: Blackfinger
Are ducted fans be better for larger platforms like Helos?

How much time are you going to spend in hover?