New Bell 360 Invictus attack chopper

Helicopters and tilt-rotor aircraft
  • Author
  • Message
Online

basher54321

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1829
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 18:22

Looks cool - thought Comanche at first

http://news.bellflight.com/en-US/182601-versatile-lethal-sustainable-bell-announces-360-invictus-for-u-s-army-fara-competition?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FARA&utm_source=twitter

Fort Worth, Texas (October 2, 2019) – Bell Textron Inc., a Textron Inc. (NYSE: TXT) company, has announced a new rotorcraft, Bell 360 Invictus, as the company’s entrant for the U.S. Army’s Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA) Competitive Prototype program. Bell’s innovative approach to designing the Bell 360 Invictus combines proven low-risk technologies with advanced processes to deliver soldiers an affordable, agile and lethal solution to win on the modern battlefield. The Bell 360 Invictus meets or exceeds all requirements as laid out under the FARA contract.


Bell360 concept.jpg
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post02 Oct 2019, 19:51

Looks very nice indeed!

Here is the link to the Bell site where you also have a 360 degree view of the Invictus:
https://www.bellflight.com/products/bell-360
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline
User avatar

southernphantom

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1080
  • Joined: 06 Aug 2011, 17:18
  • Location: Nuevo Mexico

Unread post03 Oct 2019, 00:52

I love it! It looks like the up-to-date offspring of a Cobra and a Comanche.
I'm a mining engineer. How the hell did I wind up here?
Offline
User avatar

jetblast16

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 654
  • Joined: 23 Aug 2004, 00:12
  • Location: USA

Unread post04 Oct 2019, 02:02

Have F110, Block 70, will travel
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2222
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 18:25

I agree, very cool indeed! Looks like a cheaper Comanche.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3311
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post16 Oct 2019, 21:33

Sounds pretty impressive. Excellent performance without unnecessary risk/complexity.
Offline

charlielima223

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1073
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post20 Oct 2019, 19:25

Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 00:31

wrightwing wrote:Sounds pretty impressive. Excellent performance without unnecessary risk/complexity.


Looks like Bell is pursuing a deliberate strategy here. Of all the designs we've seen so far, the 360 may not have the best performance, but is by far the lowest risk. This will probably translate out to the lowest acquisition cost. That should be good enough to get them to where they'll be one of the two finalists for the flyoff, providing the Army with a "safe" option that does meet the baseline requirements.

Then if the other, higher tech, candidate suffers big problems or comes in at a substantially higher cost (or if the procurement budget turns out to be less than Army expected), their gamble pays off and they win.
Offline

Scorpion1alpha

F-16.net Moderator

F-16.net Moderator

  • Posts: 1634
  • Joined: 21 Oct 2005, 00:47

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 13:18

Looks good…very good to me.

What I like is the Invictus looks advanced, yet overall simple and traditional to meet the operational and sustainment costs throughout the life of the program. The Bell management team seems to recognize that as important factors in designing, operating and maintaining the aircraft in service.

I hope the customer (Army) and the contractor (Bell in this case) understands and adheres to what this helicopter is designed for, the requirements to achieve it and stick with it. In other words, they shouldn’t expect this chopper to be what it is not, don’t build more than what you need it to accomplish and KISS where you can, but advanced where it needs to be. The two Bell managers seem to understand that. Sure hope the Army does too. If they’re in sync, then I think it can be successful.

Comparatively, I see Sikorsky’s Raider X entry to be a very good design too, but much more complex. It may have higher overall performance, but if the Invictus meets the requirements set forth by the customer to accomplish its mission and is simpler and more cost efficient to procure and maintain, then is the higher overall performance of the Raider X (with the stated room for growth) worth the higher costs at the expense of the complexity?

The Trump Administration has been very good to the military in terms of support for the troops and funding for programs. The services cannot expect this level of support to last forever. If somebody else is elected that doesn’t support the military as much, money will be tight and a factor to consider. Costs is one of the reasons why the RAH-66 Camanche was canceled. Don’t want or need this to repeat itself with this FARA program because they later find out that money is needed to upgrade this or fix that because this part or section is complex, and the associated delays, delays, delays…etc.

At this point, it seems the Invictus and Raider X are the leading design offerings. We don’t know what Boeing has coming yet. Maybe the big “B” will surprise us with their offering.

Good luck to Invictus:
Image
I'm watching...
Offline

aaam

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 902
  • Joined: 21 Aug 2010, 22:52

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 17:56

Scorpion1alpha wrote:
Comparatively, I see Sikorsky’s Raider X entry to be a very good design too, but much more complex. It may have higher overall performance, but if the Invictus meets the requirements set forth by the customer to accomplish its mission and is simpler and more cost efficient to procure and maintain, then is the higher overall performance of the Raider X (with the stated room for growth) worth the higher costs at the expense of the complexity?



At this point, it seems the Invictus and Raider X are the leading design offerings. We don’t know what Boeing has coming yet. Maybe the big “B” will surprise us with their offering.

Good luck to Invictus:



Although Army is funding Sikorsky with a considerably larger amount than they're giving to anyone else at this point, Raider X shouldn't be considered a shoo-in. At this point in time X2 technology does not have a good track record with the vehicles that have flown so far. Maybe the will roll the dice and take AVX or Karem to the next stage. Of course, we don't know yet what Boeing is planning.
Last edited by aaam on 22 Oct 2019, 20:33, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5444
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post22 Oct 2019, 18:29

aaam wrote:Although Army is funding Sikorsky with a considerably larger amount than they're giving to anyone else at this point, Raider X shouldn't be considered a shoo-in. X2 technology does not have a good track record with the vehicles that have flown so far. Maybe the will roll the dice and take AVX or Karem to the next stage. Of course, we don't know yet what Boeing is planning.


I'd rate them

1. Sikorsky (because they're already flying hardware).
2. Bell
3. Boeing
.
.
.
.
..
..
..
..
.
..
.
.
.
Karem
AVX
"There I was. . ."

Return to Rotary Wing Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests