November 20, 2019
Army Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Program
The major combat rotorcraft platforms in U.S. inventory—
foci are a medium transport platform capable of succeeding
the Chinook, Black Hawk, Apache, and Kiowa Warrior—
the Army UH-60 Black Hawk and Marine H-1 “Huey”
are based on designs from the 1960s and 1970s. While
utility helicopters—the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft
several are still in production or remanufacture, the Army is
(FLRAA)—and a scout platform roughly in the role of the
leading DOD’s effort to move to a new generation of
current Apache, now called the Future Attack and
rotorcraft technology.
Reconnaissance Aircraft (FARA). Heavy-lift variants may
follow.
The Future Vertical Lift (FVL) program is a research and
development effort dedicated to discovering, investigating,
FLRAA
and refining the technologies that is to provide the next
Bell and Sikorsky (with Boeing) have produced
generation of vertical lift aircraft for the United States
demonstrators for FLRAA. The two companies are taking
armed forces. According to the Army, the goal of the
different technology approaches to their efforts. The Bell
program is to develop technologies that improve
V-280 is a tiltrotor aircraft like the V-22 Osprey, with
“maneuverability, range, speed, payload, survivability,
engines and rotors at the end of its wings that swivel. The
reliability, and reduced logistical footprint” compared with
Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 is a compound helicopter, using twin
current rotorcraft.
coaxial rotors to provide lift and a pusher propeller to
enhance speed.
The Army lists FVL as one of its top six modernization
priorities. The Marine Corps and Navy also plan to use
Figure 1. FLRAA Schedule
FVL-derived technology in their next-generation rotorcraft.
Although the FVL effort is intended to benefit all services,
and elements of the work are joint, the Army is the lead
service, and most funding for the program is included in the
Army’s R&D budget.
FVL is in a fairly early stage, and aircraft likely to result
from this program’s work are not expected to be operational

until the early 2030s. However, in April 2018, then-Army
Source: FY2020 budget submission for Research, Development,
Secretary Mark Esper directed the FVL team to determine
Test & Evaluation, Army.
whether promising technologies could be incorporated into
a new aircraft within 10 years.
The next major FLRAA milestones are a projected
Milestone A decision in FY2021 to proceed with
History
development and a follow-on request for proposals for risk
FVL officially began in 2009, and the strategic plan for the
reduction (the main step from technology demonstrators to
project was issued in October 2011. The pace of work has
competitive aircraft) in FY2022.
varied over time due to shifting Army budget priorities. For
example, the FY2018 Army budget submission projected
Figure 2.Bell V-280 Valor
that the FVL technology development phase would begin in
the second quarter of FY2019, but the FY2020 budget
documents now put that goal in the third quarter of
FY2021.
The Army is also resolving an internal debate as to its
priorities. While the FVL development focus had been on
the medium-lift Black Hawk helicopter replacement, Army
officials have more recently noted a larger capability gap in
the attack/reconnaissance fleet, and are considering whether
to shift focus to that smaller platform. The FY2020 budget
submission did not resolve that debate; the lengthened
timelines for the program may indicate an interest in
leaving options open.

Source: Bell.
FVL is currently looking at five basic categories (or
“capability sets”) of aircraft varying in size, but the initial
https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Army Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Program
Figure 3.Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant
Figure 5.Bell 360 Invictus Concept


Source: Sikorsky.
Source: Bell.
FARA
An actual request for proposals for FVL design concepts is
now expected in the fourth quarter of FY2021, with initial
Five competitors have been selected to develop
contracts awarded in FY2023. That delay from the previous
technologies for FARA. Those awards went to
schedule may be due to the unavailability of the SB-1. The
 AVX/L-3;
Army had originally anticipated both prototypes flying by

the end of calendar 2017.
Bell;
 Boeing;
Figure 6.FARA Schedule
 Karem Aircraft/Raytheon/Northrop Grumman; and
 Sikorsky.
The Army makes clear that these aircraft are technology
demonstrators, not finished prototypes. Rather than being
developed against a particular set of performance criteria,
they are intended to increase the understanding of different
approaches to FVL that will inform future program
decisions. The next major decision is a 2020 downselect to
two vendors for the final design, build, and test phase,

which is expected to provide the required data for a final
Source: FY2020 budget submission for Research, Development,
FARA selection in FY2024.
Test & Evaluation, Army.
Sikorsky is already flying a prototype FARA, the S-97
Funding
Raider. Bell has revealed its FARA concept, the 360
FVL funding is carried in the Research and Development,
Invictus.
Army budget in PE 0603801A, Aviation Advanced
Development. That budget was funded at $86.2 million in
Figure 4.Sikorsky S-97 Raider
FY2019; the FY2020 request is for $31.9 million, going to
$652.9 million by FY2024. Separately, the FY2020 request
for FARA (under the same PE) is $427.3 million.
Since its inception, FVL has relied on investment by
industry to advance its technologies. Although the
companies have not released exact figures, they have
consistently pushed for the Army to increase its
commitment to the R&D phase and to define a deployment
schedule and plan that could inform corporate investment
decisions.
Jeremiah Gertler, Specialist in Military Aviation

IF11367
Source: Sikorsky.


https://crsreports.congress.gov

---

Army Future Vertical Lift (FVL) Program


Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be
reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include
copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you
wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

https://crsreports.congress.gov | IF11367 · VERSION 1 · NEW

---