Sikorsky X2 family

yasotay said:
Upper pitch links are inside the upper hub I would think.
Click to expand...
Yes, you can see the tops of the links inside the mast, near the arrow marked 36 in the last image.
 
Sikorsky S-97 Raider poster found on eBay.

Source:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/SIKORSKY-S-97-RAIDER-HELICOPTER-POSTER-25-X-19-H-ARMY-COPTER/221508137030?_trksid=p2050601.c100272.m3467&_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20140717092400%26meid%3D8685162531596065134%26pid%3D100272%26prg%3D20140717092400%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D4%26sd%3D221508137030%26clkid%3D8685164543389902898&_qi=RTM1562569
 

Attachments

  • $_57.JPG
    $_57.JPG
    299.3 KB · Views: 566
  • $_57B.JPG
    $_57B.JPG
    252 KB · Views: 88
  • $_57C.JPG
    $_57C.JPG
    265.8 KB · Views: 72
  • $_57D.JPG
    $_57D.JPG
    301.4 KB · Views: 65
Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant propulsion system test bed.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant.

Source:
http://events.aviationweek.com/html/ad13/Nov%2014_1100_Shidler%20Donnelly.pdf
 

Attachments

  • SikorskyBoeingDefiantTop.jpg
    SikorskyBoeingDefiantTop.jpg
    13.7 KB · Views: 910
  • testbed.jpg
    testbed.jpg
    64.1 KB · Views: 108
Something for those of you with AHS memberships:

https://vtol.org/store/product/sikorsky-boeing-jmr-presentation-9388.cfm
 

Attachments

  • sm_aeromech_2014_p04_page_1.jpg
    sm_aeromech_2014_p04_page_1.jpg
    7.3 KB · Views: 887
Sikorsky X2 concept for US Coast Guard.

Source:
http://www.tu.no/industri/2014/11/18/nordsjo-helikoptre-far-stealth-teknologi
 

Attachments

  • 1200034597.jpg
    1200034597.jpg
    80.8 KB · Views: 47
Triton said:
Sikorsky X2 concept for US Coast Guard.

Source:
http://www.tu.no/industri/2014/11/18/nordsjo-helikoptre-far-stealth-teknologi
Click to expand...

I guess that the concept is actually a Sikorsky S-97 Raider in US Coast Guard colors.
 
Triton said:
Triton said:
Sikorsky X2 concept for US Coast Guard.

Source:
http://www.tu.no/industri/2014/11/18/nordsjo-helikoptre-far-stealth-teknologi
Click to expand...

I guess that the concept is actually a Sikorsky S-97 Raider in US Coast Guard colors.
Click to expand...
Same space (maybe) in the back as a Dauphin and twice the speed. Looks like it could work when the Coast Guard looks to replace their current fleet.
 
yasotay said:
Same space (maybe) in the back as a Dauphin and twice the speed. Looks like it could work when the Coast Guard looks to replace their current fleet.
Click to expand...

I don't think they can extend the Dolphin's life long enough to wait for the Raider to be operational (which, if I'm not mistaken, is supposed to happen circa 2027...).
 
Skyblazer said:
I don't think they can extend the Dolphin's life long enough to wait for the Raider to be operational (which, if I'm not mistaken, is supposed to happen circa 2027...).
Click to expand...


The Raider? I would think it would be operational well before than if they have a customer. Do you mean JMR for 2027?
 
USCG just started a new Dolphin upgrade (MH-65E) so I expect it will be around a while yet.
 
Sundog said:
Raider? I would think it would be operational well before than if they have a customer. Do you mean JMR for 2027?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm quoting from memory, it's an article that was given as a link earlier in the S-97 thread or this one, at the time the Raider mockup was rolled out. It gave several projected dates for flight of the prototype (2015 I think), beginning of active service, etc. I remember being shocked (even commenting to that effect) that there could be a whole 12 years between flight of a prototype and start of active military service... So, yes, probably it was JMR, that's the problem with such long topics, it's tough retrieving a specific reference, especially if it was in a link and not reproduced within the post... :-\
 
TomS said:
USCG just started a new Dolphin upgrade (MH-65E) so I expect it will be around a while yet.
Click to expand...

The question that I can't answer, and maybe yasotay can help me on this, is whether the customer will beg, borrow, or steal to get Sikorsky X2. It seems to me that the increased speed, maneuverability and range of Sikorsky X2 would render conventional helicopters obsolete in the roles of drug interdiction, air rescue, air ambulance, law enforcement, and emergency response. If Sikorsky is to be believed that X2 Technology is a game changer, wouldn't the customer rather sell his obsolete fleet of rotorcraft and upgrade to X2 Technology?
 
Triton said:
If Sikorsky is to be believed that X2 Technology is a game changer, wouldn't the customer rather sell his obsolete fleet of rotorcraft and upgrade to X2 Technology?
Click to expand...

Not if they can only get one X2-technology rotorcraft for the price of 12 more conventional ones...
 
Skyblazer said:
Not if they can only get one X2-technology rotorcraft for the price of 12 more conventional ones...
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 12x more expensive figure? Not that I am debating you, but I was under the impression that X2 Technology was price competitive, according to Sikorsky, to existing conventional helicopters.
 
In most cases, an increase in performance in one field, say speed, doesn't
come without disadvantages in others, maybe stronger downwash. Or internal volume
is more restricted, due to the dynamic components placed inside the fuselage and not
mainly above, as in standard helis ? To fly to an oil rigg with 150 % of nowadays speed
isn't enough, when you have to fly the distance twice, because only half the number of
pax can be carried by an ABC vehicle of broadly the same weight.
The timeframe given by Skyblazer for the actual in-service date of the S-97 may not be
that unrealistic, especially not with regards to the civil offsprings, I think.
 
Think there are some sound arguments by all. Certainly all aircraft are compromises. IF the added capability is worth the extra cost then it will sell itself, if not it won't. So while a government agency charged with saving lives may accept the extra cost (it does not matter how many slower helicopters you send if you don't reach the objective in time), a business that delivers personnel and equipment is all about the 'bottom line'. If the aircraft does not improve the bottom line then it will not get bought.
A question. Has there been a major military rotorcraft in the western world that has taken less than ~15-20 years to go from inception to being fielded? Recently. I can't think of one off the top of my head.
 
Jemiba said:
In most cases, an increase in performance in one field, say speed, doesn't
come without disadvantages in others, maybe stronger downwash. Or internal volume
is more restricted, due to the dynamic components placed inside the fuselage and not
mainly above, as in standard helis ? To fly to an oil rigg with 150 % of nowadays speed
isn't enough, when you have to fly the distance twice, because only half the number of
pax can be carried by an ABC vehicle of broadly the same weight.
The timeframe given by Skyblazer for the actual in-service date of the S-97 may not be
that unrealistic, especially not with regards to the civil offsprings, I think.
Click to expand...

All important considerations in the general aviation market. We should also add fuel consumption and cost per flight hour to the list. But in time critical applications, would the customer also be willing to pay a performance premium for X2 Technology and accept less carrying capacity and other drawbacks of the technology, if present. I understand that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider is approximately the same size of a Airbus Helicopters EC-145. Would the Sikorsky S-97 be a better medevac helicopter application than the UH-72 Lakota or MH-60 Black Hawk when casualties need to arrive at the surgical hospital within the critical hour?
 
Triton said:
Jemiba said:
In most cases, an increase in performance in one field, say speed, doesn't
come without disadvantages in others, maybe stronger downwash. Or internal volume
is more restricted, due to the dynamic components placed inside the fuselage and not
mainly above, as in standard helis ? To fly to an oil rigg with 150 % of nowadays speed
isn't enough, when you have to fly the distance twice, because only half the number of
pax can be carried by an ABC vehicle of broadly the same weight.
The timeframe given by Skyblazer for the actual in-service date of the S-97 may not be
that unrealistic, especially not with regards to the civil offsprings, I think.
Click to expand...

All important considerations in the general aviation market. We should also add fuel consumption and cost per flight hour to the list. But in time critical applications, would the customer also be willing to pay a performance premium for X2 Technology and accept less carrying capacity and other drawbacks of the technology, if present. I understand that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider is approximately the same size of a Airbus Helicopters EC-145. Would the Sikorsky S-97 be a better medevac helicopter application than the UH-72 Lakota or MH-60 Black Hawk when casualties need to arrive at the surgical hospital within the critical hour?
Click to expand...
For the military the answer is yes. There is a reason that everyone talks about the 'golden hour'. For the US, it has been mandated by the Secretary of Defense.
 
There was a fascinating documentary series on the National Geographic Channel titled Inside Combat Rescue about PJs of the 38th Rescue Squadron flying medevac missions in Afghanistan. Highly recommended!

http://tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2012/11/08/inside-combat-rescue/
 
Triton said:
Skyblazer said:
Not if they can only get one X2-technology rotorcraft for the price of 12 more conventional ones...
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 12x more expensive figure? Not that I am debating you, but I was under the impression that X2 Technology was price competitive, according to Sikorsky, to existing conventional helicopters.
Click to expand...

That was merely a figure of speech.
 
...15 million $ a copy - promised ;)

Just for comparison. The ARH-70 was cancelled 2008 due to massive cost overruns:
John Young, the Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics, cited the reason as excessive costs of the program which had increased over 70 percent with an estimated per-unit cost of US$14.5 million, up from US$8.5 million.
Click to expand...

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_ARH-70_Arapaho

BR Michael
 

Attachments

  • X2 ad.jpg
    X2 ad.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 212
Keep in mind that Sikorsky's $15 million figure is for a complete aircraft, but does not include mission equipment. So yes, this is a fair bit more expensive than a conventional helo (both to buy and to run). How could it not be, considering it has two or three times the installed power and a much more complex drivetrain? The question becomes, does that extra cost buy you enough enhanced mission capability to justify it? For many users, the answer is probably "no". For many military users, it may well be "yes."
 
TomS said:
Keep in mind that Sikorsky's $15 million figure is for a complete aircraft, but does not include mission equipment. So yes, this is a fair bit more expensive than a conventional helo (both to buy and to run). How could it not be, considering it has two or three times the installed power and a much more complex drivetrain? The question becomes, does that extra cost buy you enough enhanced mission capability to justify it? For many users, the answer is probably "no". For many military users, it may well be "yes."
Click to expand...
Agreed. If it cannot make the 'cost per seat/mile' value to the operator, or drastic productivity improvements, it will be exclusive to the military and para-military until such time as they can improve the technology to the point that it is fiscally viable for the civil operator.
 
Screenshot showing Sikorsky X2 attack concept with Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

Source:
http://www.vidiho.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/sikorsky-x2-technology.jpg
 

Attachments

  • sikorsky-x2-technology.jpg
    sikorsky-x2-technology.jpg
    37.7 KB · Views: 840
Triton said:
Screenshot showing Sikorsky X2 attack concept with Bell-Boeing V-22 Osprey.

Source:
http://www.vidiho.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/sikorsky-x2-technology.jpg
Click to expand...
The question of the day is which one of the rotorcraft is running a higher SFC for that ~ 230 it's cruise?
 
Link to Sikorsky video of "X2 Technology Future Applications":

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2d9qzn_sikorsky-x2-technology-commercial-applications_tech
 

Attachments

  • 1280x720-AFU.jpg
    1280x720-AFU.jpg
    126 KB · Views: 610
yasotay said:
It is nothing more than a ploy to promote the CH-53K for the heavy mission. That said, the weight associated with the X-2 dynamics probably does not scale that well.
Click to expand...

Looks like it was indeed a ploy to promote the CH-53K King Stallion.

"Good things come in threes: Boeing-Sikorsky to develop two larger X2 offshoots for JMR and Future Vertical Lift"
2014-10-16 09:22:37
by Andrew D. Parke

Source:
http://www.verticalmag.com/news/article/GoodthingscomeinthreesBoeingSikorskytodeveloptwolargerX2offs
 
Triton said:
yasotay said:
It is nothing more than a ploy to promote the CH-53K for the heavy mission. That said, the weight associated with the X-2 dynamics probably does not scale that well.
Click to expand...

Looks like it was indeed a ploy to promote the CH-53K King Stallion.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?
 
sferrin said:
Triton said:
Looks like it was indeed a ploy to promote the CH-53K King Stallion.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Marketing 101. Sikorsky wants to sell as many CH-53K King Stallion helicopters as possible as a heavy lift solution. They cannot place doubt in the mind of the customer that something better is coming along that will encourage him or her to defer making the purchase decision. There are case studies in business school of how companies had warehouses full of unsold inventory when they announced a better version of a product. This is termed the "Osborne Effect" after Osborne Computer Corporation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osborne_effect
 
I don't know if this larger X2 would be a direct competitor to the CH-53K in any case. Payload fraction for X2 is lower than a conventional helicopter (lots more machinery for a given MTOW). That means a 33,000-lb (empty) heavy-lift X2 will have a much lower payload than a 33,000-lb (empty) CH-53K.
 
TomS said:
I don't know if this larger X2 would be a direct competitor to the CH-53K in any case. Payload fraction for X2 is lower than a conventional helicopter (lots more machinery for a given MTOW). That means a 33,000-lb (empty) heavy-lift X2 will have a much lower payload than a 33,000-lb (empty) CH-53K.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 33,000lb empty weight for the X2? ???
 
Triton said:
sferrin said:
Triton said:
Looks like it was indeed a ploy to promote the CH-53K King Stallion.
Click to expand...

How do you figure?
Click to expand...

Marketing 101. Sikorsky wants to sell as many CH-53K King Stallion helicopters as possible as a heavy lift solution. They cannot place doubt in the mind of the customer that something better is coming along that will encourage him or her to defer making the purchase decision.
Click to expand...

And they do that by saying, "we're going to build a 33,000lb, 250kt helicopter"? Again, you're not making any sense. If they were going to make a CH-53K class X2 how is saying anything about it suppose to encourage anybody to buy the K?
 
sferrin said:
TomS said:
I don't know if this larger X2 would be a direct competitor to the CH-53K in any case. Payload fraction for X2 is lower than a conventional helicopter (lots more machinery for a given MTOW). That means a 33,000-lb (empty) heavy-lift X2 will have a much lower payload than a 33,000-lb (empty) CH-53K.
Click to expand...

Where did you get the 33,000lb empty weight for the X2? ???
Click to expand...


The article mentions a weight of 30,000 pounds for the largest proposed aircraft using the X2 configuration. I crossed that figure up with the 33,000-pounds empty weight for the CH-53K.


But as I reread the article and recheck the weights of the various aircraft, I think they've got something badly wrong. The article refers to something it calls "X2/S97" with a weight of 6000 pounds. That's close to the weight of the X2 demonstrator, but the S97 is much larger (roughly 9,000 lbs empty, 11,000 lbs loaded). And then the article refers to the SB>1 as an 11,000-pound aircraft. That's wrong; its full weight is actually close to 30,000 pounds full load.


I suspect that the three aircraft they're talking about are the X2 demonstrator (6,000 lbs), the S97 Raider (11,000 lbs), and the SB>1 Defiant (30,000 lbs).
 
Yes, I thought that was a possibility - they might be confusing the X2, the S-97 and the SB-2 as the different weight classes.

I take it the SB-2 would weigh 15 tons, whereas the CH-53K could lift 15 tons? Another point of confusion?
 
It appears that we missed this article from 3 Mar 2015.

"Sikorsky explores coaxial applications beyond Raider"
By: Dan Parsons
Orlando
Source: Flightglobal.com

Source:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/sikorsky-explores-coaxial-applications-beyond-raider-409714/

Sikorsky’s S-97 Raider has not yet flown, but the company is considering extending the aircraft’s coaxial rotor design to other platforms.

Chief executive Mick Maurer, speaking at the HAI Heli-Expo show on 3 March, says technology incorporated into the Raider, which was initially pitched as a replacement for the US Army’s Bell OH-58D Kiowa Warrior armed scout helicopter, could improve other platforms, although there are no firm plans to do so.

“The first applications that we expect for X2 are almost certainly going to be military,” Maurer says. “The reason for that is you’ve got to have a customer that buys enough of those for you to justify that big investment. The business case is very difficult to go out and speculatively do that on the commercial side.”

The Raider, which sports stiff coaxial rotors and a pusher propeller, is designed to take off, land and hover like a helicopter and fly fast and high like a fixed-wing aircraft. It is essentially in the weight and size-class as the S-76D medium class helicopter, Maurer notes.

“Raider is S-76 size. When you say -76 mission, not yet,” he says. “That’s not to say that we won’t eventually do that.”

The first S-97 prototype is complete and in ground test. So far, the first Raider has had 14 engine starts and has undergone a total 3.5h of ground testing. The aircraft will be put through 50h of pre-flight acceptance testing before it flies for the first time, Maurer says. The first bladed ground runs ended after achieving 85% of full rotor speed, he says.

There is no US government programme of record or official requirement for the S-97, but Sikorsky is basing its joint-multi role demonstrator on the technology. The SB-1 Defiant is a scaled-up version of the Raider that Sikorsky hopes will be chosen to replace the US Army’s H-60 Black Hawks and Boeing AH-64 Apache helicopters.

The company also is angling for the US Navy’s MH-XX maritime helicopter programme, but Maurer says coaxial rotors are not likely to be offered for that competition.

“I don’t want to presuppose a technical solution. That’s a possibility,” he says of a coaxial rotor configuration. “The tough thing with coax and the navy is fitting in a ship hangar. They want something that can be on station for a long time. So the premium on some of the things that a coax will do, let’s say for the army, in terms of mobility, high-hot performance, the speed for the army or even the Marine Corps, that proposition is a little different for the navy.

“I wouldn’t say never, but it doesn’t feel like that’s the right application for it,” Maurer adds.
Click to expand...
 
It's worth remembering that a year or two ago that Sikorsky itself said that X2 technology wouldn't scale up to the haevy lift category. If one looks back over this and similar topics, you'll see the dicussions aobut the space needed for the mast and transmission it is apparent why they would say this.

Even if that situation didn't exist, any FVL heavy wouldn't come on line for at least another 20 years. USMC has to have something a lot sooner than that, as do other potential customers. So the timeframe alone dictates that CH-53K (which is a new helicopter that only has the shape of the earlier CH-53).
 
F-14D said:
It's worth remembering that a year or two ago that Sikorsky itself said that X2 technology wouldn't scale up to the heavy lift category. If one looks back over this and similar topics, you'll see the discussions about the space needed for the mast and transmission it is apparent why they would say this.

Even if that situation didn't exist, any FVL heavy wouldn't come on line for at least another 20 years. USMC has to have something a lot sooner than that, as do other potential customers. So the timeframe alone dictates that CH-53K (which is a new helicopter that only has the shape of the earlier CH-53).
Click to expand...
Understand the K is a quite radical improvement, but believe it is stretching it to call it new and serious inefficiencies are not eliminated. Something like x2 is new but yes it seems not on the horizon. Again the gov is going to have to assume the risk of any tangible improvement.
 
There are no major components common between the 53K and 53E. They even managed to expand the cabin. Hard to see how it is not a new helicopter. The limitations that remain are mainly to do with the need to fit in an LHD hangar.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom