Sikorsky and Boeing plan to submit a joint proposal to a develop and build a new prototype helicopter based on Sikorsky's X-2 high speed rotorcraft design for the US Army's Joint Multi-Role (JMR) technology demonstrator (TD) phase 1 programme.
"By leveraging our proven design, we can offer the Army reduced risk, a 100-knot (185 km/h) improvement in speed, a 60% improvement in combat radius, and 50% better high-hot hover performance," says Samir Mehta, president of Sikorsky's military aircraft division.
Mehta says the joint proposal will use the X-2's counter-rotating coaxial main rotors, pusher propeller, and advanced fly-by-wire system. The aircraft will efficiently cruise at 230 knots (426 km/h), and have improved hover efficiency, Mehta says.
The coaxial-rotor, pusher-propeller X2 configuration was picked to meet the Army Aviation Applied Technology Directorate's (AATD) requirement for a cruise speed of up to 230kt - at least 50% faster than a conventional helicopter. Sikorsky's company-funded X2 Technology demonstrator exceeded 260kt is September 2010 and two industry-funded S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter prototypes now being built are designed to cruise at 235kt clean and 220kt with weapons. The first Raider will fly in 2014.
Boeing and Sikorsky say the X2 configuration was also chosen for its coaxial-rotor hover efficiency. Before teaming in January, the two companies independently studied advanced conventional and compound helicopters and tiltrotors. After teaming, they jointly conducted another "analysis of alternatives" using their separate studies as the baseline. This resulted in selection of the X2 configuration.
AATD plans to award cost-sharing contracts for two competitive air-vehicle demonstrators to fly in 2017. JMR is a precursor to the planned FLV Medium utility program to field a replacement for the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks beginning in 2035. An X2-configuration FVL Medium would cruise at 230kt, a 100kt improvement over the UH-60M, have higher hover efficiency, 60% longer combat radius and 50% better hot-and-high performance, says the team.
jsport said:Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"sferrin said:jsport said:Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Elaborate.
jsport said:a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"sferrin said:jsport said:Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Elaborate.
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.
yasotay said:A smart move really. Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk. Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on. Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.
These things are going to cost more but will still not shed the huge vulnerability that Rand so keenly described some years ago. Increasingly less space for development shortfalls that cost alot. Survivability suites, including DEW and 'armaments to overall payload' ratios for each member of the increasingly costly, family of craft, for instance, should demand detailed oversight.sferrin said:jsport said:a mannered person would say "please elaborate?"sferrin said:jsport said:Yes, the USG needs to assume the vast majority of the risk and should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects.
Elaborate.
any development beyond incremental improvement in Rotor aircraft (which hopefully still remains at least part of the goal) is going be to fraught w/ high technical and thus financial risk. Likewise, the elastic and complicated system requirements for NGen family of future rotorcraft (which must all complement each other) is likely to be even worse than programs like the F-35, therefore also arguing for the USG to assume the risk...
Thank you for your time.
And this? "should therefore more thoughly direct all aspects"
I suspect that it is actually a case of an easier industrial teaming approach. Whereas the BB Tilt-Rotor is a straight 50/50 across the board that leaves both parties with an equal vote/veto (a situation both partners have likely been frustrated with) I see in the press release Sikorsky is focusing on the air vehicle and Boeing is focused on mission equipment. Really savy for Boeing if you ask me. If the X2 does not work out as a medium weight rotorcraft, Boeing can take its MEP work to another vendor with a successful rotorcraft.Triton said:yasotay said:A smart move really. Sikorsky can reduce significantly the amount of corporate investment expected by having another finacially solvent rotorcraft company assume some of the finacial risk. Boeing gets a rotorcraft that has demonstrated an ability to operate at the speeds the government is looking for (although not within the weight class) that they did not have to pay for the initial research on. Hopefully they have learned how to avoid the pitfalls of their last joint endevor, although the government has a share in that fiasco.
Does Boeing see Sikorsky's X2 as a less risky technology than Bell's tilt-rotor JMR proposals?
A good question.jsport said:Can Tiltrotors meet all mission requirements in increasingly dense urban environments and be the center of family of new generation rotorcraft? There is place for but...
jsport said:Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.
Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?
Good points, Thank you ..still learninAeroFranz said:My guess is there is a rotor and separate lift fans to provide anti-torque in hover. There doesn't seem to be a tail rotor in that concept.
There are at least two options: One, the rotor and fans are driven by separate powerplants, and two, they are driven by separate engines. Both have advantages and disadvantages. In either case it would be advantageous to let the rotor autorotate at high speed and use the fans for propulsion.
Still, the DARPA BAA calls for speeds greater than 300-400kts, so a compound of this type may not be ideal for this speed range.
My .02
roger copySundog said:jsport said:Thank you..learned some ..which is always good.
Was wondering why the Sikorsky 2 departed from the Piaseki VTDP but it sounds like for dense environments duct fan/prop should be reconsidered. guessing duct is 'draggy' but maybe necessary. Thought duct helped steath for that prop.
Also interesting in the new DARPA VTOL program mentioned in another thread the add displays an artist concept of lifting duct fan augmenting a conventional rotorcraft..maybe some load passed to duct fans in hover?
Also, the duct isn't just draggy, it adds more weight/cost as well.
EADS North America confirms it has submitted a bid to build one of two advanced-rotorcraft technology demonstrators planned under the the US Army's Joint Multi Role (JMR) program - putting its foot on the first rung of a ladder that could lead to replacing all of the Army's UH-60 Black Hawks and AH-64 Apaches beginning in the mid-2030s.
EADS is not saying what configuration it has proposed for JMR, but the Army's Aviation Applied Technology Directorate has called for a cruise speed of 230kt - 50% faster that a conventional helicopter - so it is likely to be based on Eurocopter's X3 hybrid helicopter technology demonstrator, which has reached 232kt in flight test
Triton said:Eurocopter patent drawing from the above article. A hint at the configuration of EADS's JMR proposal?
yasotay said:Even AVX went with a common airframe for lift and attack. Seems to be a trend.
Jemiba said:Then, for the attack version, field of view is limited for the pilot to one side and for the gunner
to the other side and minimal frontal area seems not to matter anymore, too ?