Why did the US Army just scrap its FARA helicopter program?

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

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.

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.

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.

Probably canceled because someone referred to the FARA as the LITTORAL COMBAT CHOPPER. 😂😂😂😂

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.

iam still sad for Comanche not being in production ;) its the coolest chopper ever.

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

Good to see the Pentagon learning from Ukraine and not throwing money away to fight the LAST war

I'm disappointed because I really liked the raider x, but I understand the favoring of drones

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.

I first learned about the Commanche from the MegaDrive/Genesis video game Jungle Strike back in 1994ish. Loved flying it.

The more we offload onto unmanned systems, the more I worry about our ability to maintain a battle “grid” electronically

Heh, in Swedish 'Fara' literally means either "Danger" or "To go (or trek/travel)"

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.

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.

This is a response to the losses in Ukraine they need larger quantities of smaller drones not small numbers of flashy choppers

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.

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!