Sikorsky X2 family

[Triton]

Sikorsky Aircraft ‏@SikorskyAircrft 8 Nov

Raider Program Director Deb Zampano welcomes suppliers to the hangar. 1st prototype is the backdrop! pic.twitter.com/Tf1zfgP0s2

 

[Triton]

Thanks for the analysis, yasotay.

 

[F-14D]

Given that military fuel cost far more than what even our friends in Europe have to pay at the pump. I cannot see a future aircraft that does not somehow take fuel economy into consideration. I have heard that fuel in Afghanistan is the equivalent of ~$400 per gallon. Certainly this takes into account all cost associated with getting that gallon to the aircraft. Still with competition for that gas going up, thus driving the cost per unit up, I cannot see cost conscious governments disregarding fuel economy as a criterion. I do not think it will be the paramount factor, but total operating cost will be a significant criterion. This is why the CEO for Bell is already campaigning for the US DoD to take total operating cost into account with the FVL program.
On the issue of X2 versus Tilt Rotor as an attack platform... it depends (in my opinion).
You want speed for three reasons: 1. Get there faster (your troops need help, enemy decision loop, you can get to the rearm/refuel faster a.k.a. retasking) 2. Bad guys have less time to shoot at you 3. wider area of operation for given unit of time. ADVANTAGE: Tilt rotor
You want agility: 1. maneuver (urban fight will be the 21st century jungle {electronic, thermal, human}, bring kinetic weapons to bear, avoid green or orange golf balls coming at you (i.e. tracers and the unseen round between them). Having once upon a time been a scout/attack helicopter pilot, getting around trees and buildings as well as out of the way of tracers is rather important. ADVANTAGE: X2.
There are of course many considerations that go into the decisions for a new military rotorcraft. "helicopter agility" with "high speed flight" with "fuel efficiency" will be tough.
If Yasotay were king for a day I would tell Sikorsky to make sure the S-97 was capable of carrying a decent war load for attack and reconnaissance missions, while telling Bell to make a utility TR that was not twice/three times the cost of a UH-60. That way I keep the politico's happy, have at least two major rotorcraft vendors to compete on the world market and yeah... probably get the right rotorcraft for the missions.

I'd favor proven X2 technology for scout because you can make it smaller. A Tilt-Rotor wouldn't be as long, but it would be wider, and since you're pointing your nose at whatever, that's the dimension the bad guys are going to be shooting at. Also, I'd imagine an X2 could just be physically smaller and hopefully weigh less and that's going to be a big thing in urban warfare. Not sure how the two would do at low speed maneuvering, I remember that Bell's LHX was going to be really agile, and I suspect that Boeing's would have been as well. As good as a conventional rotorcraft of this size in those days at low speed? Probably, maybe even better. As good as X2 if they could have built one then? Not so sure there.

Of course, the FVL-attack is going to be bigger than the AAS machine. I wonder what proportion of time they'll posit the mission of the attack bird will be at hover/very low speed when they do their analysis. That could influence how they evaluate.

 

[Triton]

I know this has been mentioned previously in this topic, but I thought that I would post the comments of Scott Starrett, Sikorsky's vice president for government business development.

"X-2 Maxes Out in Medium-Sized Role: Sikorsky Executive"
Sep. 14, 2011 - 03:45AM |
By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110914/DEFSECT01/109140306/X-2-Maxes-Out-in-Medium-Sized-Role-Sikorsky-Executive

Sikorsky's breakthrough X-2 high-speed helicopter likely can't be scaled up to the size of a heavy-lift helo, a Sikorsky executive told reporters Sept. 14.

"There is a question on the scalability on the X-2 technology at the medium class," said Scott Starrett, Sikorsky's vice president for government business development. "When you get to the utility-medium or attack-medium class, it scales nicely." However, with size and weight increases "you starting getting up to that kind of payload and physical size and it gets to be a different challenge for the technology."

Starrett said that the company's CH-53K, which Sikorsky is developing for the U.S. Marine Corps, could fit into the Defense Department's Joint Multi-Role (JMR) requirement for the heavy-lift helicopter.

"When that becomes available, we think the other services might be interested in it," he said.

For the so-called "ultra-class," which would be a vertical lift machine the size of a C-130 tactical fixed-wing transport, Starrett said that tilt-rotor technology would be the technology of choice. Yet Loren Thompson, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va., said that the prospect of developing such an aircraft in the foreseeable future is virtually non-existent given the nation's dire fiscal situation.

 

[F-14D]

I know this has been mentioned previously in this topic, but I thought that I would post the comments of Scott Starrett, Sikorsky's vice president for government business development.

"X-2 Maxes Out in Medium-Sized Role: Sikorsky Executive"
Sep. 14, 2011 - 03:45AM |
By DAVE MAJUMDAR

Source:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20110914/DEFSECT01/109140306/X-2-Maxes-Out-in-Medium-Sized-Role-Sikorsky-Executive

I wonder if some data developed during the demonstrator program to change their minds, because as late as early 2008 they were still talking about 200,000+ llbs. X2s. The early posts on this topic show a number of the concepts.

 

[yasotay]

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.

 

[jsport]

Given that military fuel cost far more than what even our friends in Europe have to pay at the pump. I cannot see a future aircraft that does not somehow take fuel economy into consideration. I have heard that fuel in Afghanistan is the equivalent of ~$400 per gallon. Certainly this takes into account all cost associated with getting that gallon to the aircraft. Still with competition for that gas going up, thus driving the cost per unit up, I cannot see cost conscious governments disregarding fuel economy as a criterion. I do not think it will be the paramount factor, but total operating cost will be a significant criterion. This is why the CEO for Bell is already campaigning for the US DoD to take total operating cost into account with the FVL program.
On the issue of X2 versus Tilt Rotor as an attack platform... it depends (in my opinion).
You want speed for three reasons: 1. Get there faster (your troops need help, enemy decision loop, you can get to the rearm/refuel faster a.k.a. retasking) 2. Bad guys have less time to shoot at you 3. wider area of operation for given unit of time. ADVANTAGE: Tilt rotor
You want agility: 1. maneuver (urban fight will be the 21st century jungle {electronic, thermal, human}, bring kinetic weapons to bear, avoid green or orange golf balls coming at you (i.e. tracers and the unseen round between them). Having once upon a time been a scout/attack helicopter pilot, getting around trees and buildings as well as out of the way of tracers is rather important. ADVANTAGE: X2.
There are of course many considerations that go into the decisions for a new military rotorcraft. "helicopter agility" with "high speed flight" with "fuel efficiency" will be tough.
If Yasotay were king for a day I would tell Sikorsky to make sure the S-97 was capable of carrying a decent war load for attack and reconnaissance missions, while telling Bell to make a utility TR that was not twice/three times the cost of a UH-60. That way I keep the politico's happy, have at least two major rotorcraft vendors to compete on the world market and yeah... probably get the right rotorcraft for the missions.

would second that emotion (and have before)..there should be both a Joint TiltRotor and coaxial rotor rotorcraft strategy for various missions. That would be global civilian military market strategy. Maybe cost sharing w/ some Europeans.

 

[Triton]

Does this mean that we will see tiltrotor concepts from Sikorsky for FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra? Or perhaps Sikorsky/Boeing? Or are we going to see corporate alliances shift depending on the program within FVL with different manufacturers agreeing to different joint projects?

 

[jsport]

Does this mean that we will see tiltrotor concepts from Sikorsky for FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra? Or perhaps Sikorsky/Boeing? Or are we going to see corporate alliances shift depending on the program within FVL with different manufacturers agreeing to different joint projects?

not sure if addressing your question or if even directed at..
A long term NATO strategy (governments assuming must of the risk w/ incentives etc.. but enforcing a long term price structuring/lowering plan) for long term civilian/military multiple classes of tiltrotor would be a start.

This understanding that tiltrotor is not the solution for all military roles.

Finally, a final determination whether Canard Rotor Wing (CRW) technology is viable and if so scalable.

Joint projects overseen by a Swedish modeled ( ) new org as written about by LO in AW&ST.

 

[yasotay]

Sikorsky will promote the CH-53K as the heavy solution. Boeing will advocate a larger CH-47 (already some NATO work done in this regard). Bell may or may not even consider participation, however if they did, I would expect them to advocate a Tilt Rotor.

 

[Triton]

I wonder if Kamov is having the same scaling issues as Sikorsky with rigid rotor coaxial technology? Haven't seen or heard anything about the Ka-92 project for a while. Has Kamov ceased work on the project due to lack of funding? It seems as though Kamov is working with similar technology to Sikorsky X2, the difference being that Kamov has two counter-rotating pusher props rather than one in the X2 concepts. The Ka-92 is a 30-seat passenger helicopter with a take-off weight of 16 tons, I presume much larger and heavier than the Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant. The Ka-92 is expected to reach a cruise speed of 420 to 430 km/h or 227 knots to 230 knots or 261 to 265 mph.

Incorrect three-view drawing deleted.

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky will promote the CH-53K as the heavy solution. Boeing will advocate a larger CH-47 (already some NATO work done in this regard). Bell may or may not even consider participation, however if they did, I would expect them to advocate a Tilt Rotor.

I guess it depends on whether the United States Army and United States Operations Command is willing, or able, to pay a premium for speed in the FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra class of vehicle. Is the performance of the Sikorsky CH-53K or the Boeing/Eurocopter Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) good enough for their needs in the FVL-Heavy class? Will the Boeing/Eurocopter Future Transport Helicopter have the same speed and range as the CH-47 Chinook?

 

[F-14D]

Sikorsky will promote the CH-53K as the heavy solution. Boeing will advocate a larger CH-47 (already some NATO work done in this regard). Bell may or may not even consider participation, however if they did, I would expect them to advocate a Tilt Rotor.

I guess it depends on whether the United States Army and United States Operations Command is willing, or able, to pay a premium for speed in the FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra class of vehicle. Is the performance of the Sikorsky CH-53K or the Boeing/Eurocopter Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) good enough for their needs in the FVL-Heavy class? Will the Boeing/Eurocopter Future Transport Helicopter have the same speed and range as the CH-47 Chinook?

Sikorsky has the advantage that come next year they will actually have something flying, while FVL-Heavy and FTH are just paper products, especially the latter. Given that FVL-Heavy isn't even supposed to come on line until 2035. Now FVL-Heavy is part of the family that will have performance and capabilities far, "...beyond any current rotorcraft", it's unlikely that CH-53K or FTH will meet that need. OTOH, "A bird in the hand...".

Frankly, I hope Army stays the course, but we are talking 22 years out.

 

[Triton]

I was under the impression that Germany and France had a pressing need for a helicopter in the HTH/FTH class to internally transport their current generation of vehicles that was larger than the Sikorsky CH-53G or CH-47.

 

[Triton]

Frankly, I hope Army stays the course, but we are talking 22 years out.

Me as well, but I wonder how many units need to be sold in the FVL-Heavy and FVL-Ultra class for it be economically viable for a defense contractor and if it would need customers in addition to the United States Army and United States Special Operation Command. If the United States Air Force, United States Marine Corps, or NATO countries needed to be brought on board for it to be economically viable. That an FVL-Heavy rotorcraft needed to be large enough to carry the German Army's ATF Dingo or LGS Fennek? Though all three Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV) protoypes are larger than the current Humvee which may mean that the United States Army would require a vehicle larger than the Sikorsky CH-53K.

 

[F-14D]

I was under the impression that Germany and France had a pressing need for a helicopter in the HTH/FTH class to internally transport their current generation of vehicles that was larger than the Sikorsky CH-53G or CH-47.

Here's an older drawing showing cabin cross sections of existing helos and what they originally wanted for F/HTH. That Boeing thing they're talking about is pretty big, but the question would be are they willing to pay all it would cost to develop that if the CH-53K is already in service.

 

[F-14D]

I wonder if Kamov is having the same scaling issues as Sikorsky with rigid rotor coaxial technology? Haven't seen or heard anything about the Ka-92 project for a while. Has Kamov ceased work on the project due to lack of funding? It seems as though Kamov is working with similar technology to Sikorsky X2, the difference being that Kamov has two counter-rotating pusher props rather than one in the X2 concepts. The Ka-92 is a 30-seat passenger helicopter with a take-off weight of 16 tons, I presume much larger and heavier than the Sikorsky/Boeing SB-1 Defiant. The Ka-92 is expected to reach a cruise speed of 420 to 430 km/h or 227 knots to 230 knots or 261 to 265 mph.

Two things. From the pics, it seems that Kamov is putting the rotors a lot closer to each other than Sikorsky is, maybe they're not doing a true ABC craft.

Another thing is/was the placement of the mast and engines over the cabin. Prior to 2008, the year the X2 demonstrator took flight, Sikorsky's concepts (except for the gunship) showed them located over the main cabin as in conventional helos. Since then the S-97, JMR and other new concepts have all shown the cabin being forward of the mast. Maybe I'm reading too much into this, but this seems to make
for "wasted" space and makes the fuselage longer. If this is a necessary requirement for X2 design, I could see where that could be a problem as the vehicle gets larger.

 

[Triton]

That Boeing thing they're talking about is pretty big, but the question would be are they willing to pay all it would cost to develop that if the CH-53K is already in service.

I thought that the Sikorsky CH-53K was not large enough. The Eurocopter Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) was expected to carry the German Dingo or Fennek armed personnel carrier, the French VBL and VAB (13,000 kg) vehicles, as well as Wolf and Wiesel (4,500 kg) or Bv 206 internally, thus the larger fuselage. Am I mistaken?

 

[flateric]

Haven't seen or heard anything about the Ka-92 project for a while. Has Kamov ceased work on the project due to lack of funding?

Yep. Shelved.
Note: 3-view in your post is not official and lacks accurate proportions.

 

[F-14D]

That Boeing thing they're talking about is pretty big, but the question would be are they willing to pay all it would cost to develop that if the CH-53K is already in service.

I thought that the Sikorsky CH-53K was not large enough. The Eurocopter Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) was expected to carry the German Dingo or Fennek armed personnel carrier, the French VBL and VAB (13,000 kg) vehicles, as well as Wolf and Wiesel (4,500 kg) or Bv 206 internally. Am I mistaken?



I thought that the Sikorsky CH-53K was not large enough to internally carry the German Army's ATF Dingo, which was a requirement for the Eurocopter Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) program and what the German Army wanted. Am I incorrect?

You may well be right, I don't know the size of the cabin box of the -53K offhand. What I'm speculating on is given that the CH-53K will be flying years and years before FTH will and undoubtedly will be significantly cheaper, will the Europeans be willing to spend the risk, money and time to get their full FTH instead of a CH-53K derivative?

 

[Triton]

Maybe slung loads would be sufficient for Germany and France using the CH-53K to transport the previously mentioned vehicles, perhaps manufactured by Eurocopter under license from Sikorsky.

 

[Triton]

Haven't seen or heard anything about the Ka-92 project for a while. Has Kamov ceased work on the project due to lack of funding?

Yep. Shelved.
Note: 3-view in your post is not official and lacks accurate proportions.

Is the same true of the Kamov Ka-65 utility helicopter that appeared to be the equivalent of the FVL-Medium? Not to be confused with the UVK (Udarny Vertolyotny Kompleks: Strike Helicopter System). Did this concept also have the counter-rotating pusher prop?

 

[Jemiba]

Note: 3-view in your post is not official and lacks accurate proportions.

But Triton already posted a correct 36-view here http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2766.msg125616.html#msg125616.
And judging the model, that's shown there, too, it seems to me, someone just did quite a lousy
job with the 3-view.

 

[yasotay]

Maybe slung loads would be sufficient for Germany and France using the CH-53K to transport the previously mentioned vehicles, perhaps manufactured by Eurocopter under license from Sikorsky.

Sling loads are okay in uncontested operations, however they drastically affect the manueverability of the rotorcraft. When someone is shooting at you your choices are to either play WW2 bomber and take it or punch off the load in order to maneuver.

 

[Avimimus]

Of course noting that WWII four-engined bombers such as the Lancaster made evasive manoeuvres when not constrained by formation flying, and the Russians did try using a remote controlled sling-loaded gunpod under an Mi-8 at one point...

 

[Triton]

Sling loads are okay in uncontested operations, however they drastically affect the manueverability of the rotorcraft. When someone is shooting at you your choices are to either play WW2 bomber and take it or punch off the load in order to maneuver.

True. But does the issue justify the development of a new heavy transport helicopter in the Eurocopter HTH or Eurocopter/Boeing FTH size class or can Germany and France get most of their needs met with the purchase, or license, of an existing design like the Sikorsky CH-53K?

 

[Triton]

The Sikorsky X2-based Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) concepts appear to be larger than the Eurocopter Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) and the Eurocopter/Boeing Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) with a maximum cargo weight of 20 short tons.

 

[F-14D]

The Sikorsky X2-based Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) concepts appear to be larger than the Eurocopter Heavy Transport Helicopter (HTH) and the Eurocopter/Boeing Future Transport Helicopter (FTH) with a maximum cargo weight of 20 short tons.

JHL is pretty much dead, and its requirements have been folded into what is now FVL. You noted in your November 12 post that Sikorsky no longer thinks that X2 will scale up that large. Probably when those giant X2s were being depicted, they hadn't yet realized that.

 

[Triton]

JHL is pretty much dead, and its requirements have been folded into what is now FVL. You noted in your November 12 post that Sikorsky no longer thinks that X2 will scale up that large. Probably when those giant X2s were being depicted, they hadn't yet realized that.

Yeah, Joint Heavy Lift wasn't that joint with the Marines pursuing Heavy Lift Replacement (HLR) in the CH-53K and the JHL being too large for shipboard use. I guess we have to wait and see whether FVL-Heavy will also require a 20-ton internal lift capacity, but it seems within the range of what France and Germany want in a Future Transport Helicopter (FTH). It will be interesting to see what the Sikorsky/Boeing alliance proposes in FVL-Heavy and what it means to Boeing and Eurocopter's previous work with the FTH and the Boeing Advanced Tandem Rotor Helicopter (ATRH).

 

[Triton]

Is there any significance that Sikorsky calls the S-97 Raider a light tactical helicopter (LTH) rather than a light utility, light attack, or light reconnaissance helicopter? Should light tactical helicopter be considered a new category of rotorcraft? Or is this puffery by Sikorsky marketing?

 

[Grey Havoc]

Is there any significance that Sikorsky calls the S-97 Raider a light tactical helicopter (LTH) rather than a light utility, light attack, or light reconnaissance helicopter? Should light tactical helicopter be considered a new category of rotorcraft? Or is this puffery by Sikorsky marketing?

Perhaps they are trying to make a connection with the 'Air Infantry Fighting Vehicle' concept from the 1990s?

It is actually a design that Sikorsky worked on for a bit, although I dare say that they really never expected much to come of it. Somewhere I have a sketch of an assault version that was given in a briefing to the US Army back in the Army After Next Days. I will see if I can dig it up and scan it. Think about NH-90 sized... without a tail boom.

Found the briefing. As you can see I was not kidding about a sketch. This effort was done in the mid 1990's when the US Army was exploring ways to get to significantly greater operational maneuver capability over much greater distances. Air Mechanization was very much in vogue with the "jeune école" within the concepts community. That was before FCS became a 28 ton behemoth, the compromise between the traditionalist and the new school. While this is not an air mechanized carrier of any sort it was recognized that the desire to maneuver across significantly greater distances required completely new capabilities for dismounted vertical maneuver as well.

 

[sferrin]

Is there any significance that Sikorsky calls the S-97 Raider a light tactical helicopter (LTH) rather than a light utility, light attack, or light reconnaissance helicopter?

Since all three are tactical missions why not do exactly what they did?

Should light tactical helicopter be considered a new category of rotorcraft?

Why?

Or is this puffery by Sikorsky marketing?

"Puffery"? : [/quote][/quote]

 

[Triton]

Perhaps they are trying to make a connection with the 'Air Infantry Fighting Vehicle' concept from the 1990s?

Interesting idea that they are trying to make the connection between Light Tactical Helicopter and Air Infantry Fighting Vehicle. That would make the S-97 Raider more than just a scout helicopter.

"Sikorsky SH-X"
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5944.0.html

 

[Triton]

Since all three are tactical missions why not do exactly what they did?

Only that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider is not optimized for the light observation helicopter mission of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior it is intended to replace or the attack reconnaissance mission of the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche. Further, Sikorsky did not use the term light utility helicopter so it would be compared to the Eurocopter UH-72A Lakota. The phrase light tactical helicopter being used to differentiate the S-97 Raider from existing helicopter platforms. Would the United States Army create a new designation for the S-97 Raider such as TH for Tactical Helicopter or an existing designation?

 

[sferrin]

Since all three are tactical missions why not do exactly what they did?

Only that the Sikorsky S-97 Raider is not optimized for the light observation helicopter mission of the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior it is intended to replace or the attack reconnaissance mission of the cancelled RAH-66 Comanche. Further, Sikorsky did not use the term light utility helicopter so it would be compared to the Eurocopter UH-72A Lakota. The phrase light tactical helicopter being used to differentiate the S-97 Raider from existing helicopter platforms. Would the United States Army create a new designation for the S-97 Raider such as TH for Tactical Helicopter or an existing designation?

You're reading too much into it. I think they're just saying that it can be used for tactical missions.

 

[Triton]

You're reading too much into it. I think they're just saying that it can be used for tactical missions.

Perhaps so.

 

[yasotay]

I have to agree that the objective is to allow the aircraft to be useable for as many missions as possible.

 

[Triton]

Model of Sikorsky X2 Joint Heavy Lift (JHL) aerial crane.

Joint Heavy Lift flying Crane, (JHL) and High Speed Lifter (HSL) helicopter, are proposed as tactical heavy lifters for the FCS family of vehicles. Both the JHL crane and high speed heavy lifter will be able to lift around 40,000 lbs (18.1 metric tons). The crane will be designed to carry external stores, utilizing a four point winch external load handling system flying at a top speed of 165 kts (305 km/h). The High Speed Lifter will be able to carry the same weight internally, flying at speed of up to 245 kts (453 km/h).

Source:
http://defense-update.com/products/j/jhl.htm

 

[Triton]

If the Sikorsky S-97 Raider prototype is deemed to be too large for an aerial scout, would Sikorsky continue work on this X2 concept? About the size of the Hughes OH-6 Cayuse/MD Helicopters MH-6 Little Bird/Boeing AH-6?

 

[yasotay]

165 knots likely referred to the aircraft without a payload. Flat plat drag associated with external loads becomes very significant at higher speeds. Also some of the things you slingload are not designed to operate in ~150 knot breeze. Windshields and radio antenna, etc., have a bad habit of collapsing or snapping off in the wind.