Sikorsky X2 family

[F-14D]

What are the risks and disadvantages associate with Sikorsky's Advancing Blade Concept coaxial rotor and pusher propeller design? I have read that ABC was not used in the LHX program because of the transmission weight penalty. Are there issues that would cause the United States Army to reject X2 as a proposal for the Armed Aerial Scout program and go with a more traditional helicopter design?

ABC was not used because the XH-59 program was somewhat of a disappointment, the technology wasn't there yet, like it is now. It was nowhere hear as successful as the XV-15. To have accepted a bid for an ABC craft would have been incredibly risky for the Army, given the state of ABC. For various reasons, not the least of which was a fear that Boeing and Bell might merge their bids for a joint one as in the V-22, the Army "dumbed down" and redefined the LHX requirement so that a conventional rotorcraft had to win.

 

[Triton]

Artist's impressions of Sikorsky S-97 "Raider."

Source:
http://gizmodo.com/5680494/this-is-the-future-of-attack-helicopters?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+gizmodo%2Ffull+%28Gizmodo%29

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky Frontlines: Military Customer Newsletter Q4 2010
http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/NEWSLETTER/military/Frontlines_Q4_2010_issue22.pdf

 

[yasotay]

Current configuration of the S-97 can be seen on page 2 of the "Sikorsky Frontlines" .pdf file Triton posted.

 

[vstol]

Congrats to Sikorsky for winning the Collier Trophy on the 100th anniversary. They've also released some very nice art of possible X2 concepts.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3ae6c2886e-d967-4972-b8e7-bfe6ed3fb88e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

(And the award to the longest possible link goes to ... Aviation Week again!)

 

[Triton]

Congrats to Sikorsky for winning the Collier Trophy on the 100th anniversary. They've also released some very nice art of possible X2 concepts.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3ae6c2886e-d967-4972-b8e7-bfe6ed3fb88e&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

(And the award to the longest possible link goes to ... Aviation Week again!)

Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 corporate helicopter concept.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 tactical and utility (rear) helicopter concepts.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 helicopter concept for United States Coast Guard.

Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 attack helicopter concept.

 

[pedrospe]

Great pictures,thanks for sharing.


regards


pedro

 

[Triton]

Great pictures,thanks for sharing.


regards


pedro

Many thanks to vstol for finding the article.

 

[Triton]

Full-scale mock-up of Sikorsky S-97 "Raider."

Source:
http://wordlesstech.com/2011/01/07/sikorsky-x2-vs-eurocopter-x3/

 

[Triton]

Quick facts about the Sikorsky S-97 "Raider" from Sikorsky Frontlines newsletter Q4 2010.

Source:
http://www.sikorsky.com/StaticFiles/Sikorsky/Assets/Attachments/NEWSLETTER/military/Frontlines_Q4_2010_issue22.pdf

 

[fightingirish]

mhhh... different gear arrangement.

 

[pedrospe]

i think that the forward windows also look different,nevertheless, this is a great helicopter, i hope the USA buys it, and many thanks for the pdf file.


regards

Pedro

 

[yasotay]

mhhh... different gear arrangement.

It is changing as they get more input from their intended customer base...

 

[fightingirish]

Sikorsky's high-speed, coaxial-rotor S-97 X2 Raider (above) has changed slightly as it moves from full-scale mockup towards two flying prototypes. The latest artwork shows changes to the glasswork and the switch to a taildragger configuration with the retractable main gear upfront. The private-venture prototypes are scheduled to fly in 2014 and Sikorsky says an aircraft meeting the US Army's Armed Aerial Scout requirement would be ready to enter service in 2025.

Source: Ares - On the Show Floor at Quad-A, posted by Graham Warwick at 4/19/2011

 

[Stargazer]

Sikorsky says an aircraft meeting the US Army's Armed Aerial Scout requirement would be ready to enter service in 2025

I know the bit about technology being more sophisticated than before and everything... but frankly... Promising in 2011 an operational type for 2025 seems a bit crazy... Fourteen years! It's like ordering a B-17 bomber in 1937 and receiving it in 1951... By that time, the bombers had all gone swept-wing and supersonic... The Raider is not even for a huge stratospheric stealth bomber... it's merely a multipurpose helo! Nearer to us and to this topic, it took less than three years to Sikorsky and Lockheed to design, build and fly their Blackhawk and Cheyenne helos back in the 1960s... Kaman took about the same time with their first K-MAX in the late 80s. However sophisticated X2 technology may be, it is certainly not SO complicated and experimental as to justify these 14 years... After all, the technology is merely a refinement of what Piasecki has been offering for 50 years (yeah, f-i-f-t-y, as in 5-O) on its Model 16-H Pathfinder demonstrators!

All this leads me to wonder... what if there was a new world war? A war so sudden and global, and with threats so new and fearsome, that mass production of new aircraft, helo and weapon types had to be achieved in months? Would the manufacturers say: "Hey folks, it will only be operational in 10 years..." Big deal! When there used to be a rival superpower, the risk of losing one's technological edge represented a strong incentive to outdo oneself. I have a feeling that dealing with "only" terrorist groups and third world countries as our main enemies has made the defense deciders and manufacturers in the West overly confident that they have all the time in the world.

Am I being overly cynical or did I miss an episode here?

 

[Colonial-Marine]

I'm guessing one of the primary factors in the longer time-lines we see these days is due to all of the software development rather than putting together an airframe that actually works as advertised. Plus, how many separate and often redundant government agencies do Sikorsky and other companies have to work around/with in order to do anything these days?

It seems like the objective of reducing radar signature in new helo designs has been sidelined by the goal of greater speed and performance. Although I imagine the S-97 still has some LO features.

 

[robunos]

Promising in 2011 an operational type for 2025 seems a bit crazy...

Ahh, for the good old days of WWI; conceived, designed, built, tested, produced, deployed, and rendered obsolete,
all in eighteen months........


cheers,
Robin.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Am I being overly cynical or did I miss an episode here?

Nope.

 

[Stargazer]

Ahh, for the good old days of WWI; conceived, designed, built, tested, produced, deployed, and rendered obsolete,
all in eighteen months........

Don't get me wrong. I never said those were the days...

But let's take a look at the longest-running types in U.S. service: Lockheed Hercules, Grumman Greyhound, Sikorsky Sea King and the likes. These designs are over half a century old and show now sign of dying out. They also prove that an aircraft can be conceived and flown within a reasonable timespan and still be viable for a looooong time if it was sound from the start. The fact that avionics and electronics take longer to be developed shouldn't keep the aircraft from being developed and flown within a more reasonable length of time using older-generation equipment.

While I'm writing this I realize that this may be part of the answer to my initial question: the aircraft of the generation that I mentioned could fly by themselves. They could perform all the flight test program without having the complete electronics suite. Today's aircraft are naturally unstable and require all the electronics from the start to just stay up in the air.

 

[F-14D]

I'm guessing one of the primary factors in the longer time-lines we see these days is due to all of the software development rather than putting together an airframe that actually works as advertised. Plus, how many separate and often redundant government agencies do Sikorsky and other companies have to work around/with in order to do anything these days?

It seems like the objective of reducing radar signature in new helo designs has been sidelined by the goal of greater speed and performance. Although I imagine the S-97 still has some LO features.

I'd say it's more do the whims of those that control the purse strings. Money is now doled out so slowly and in such amounts that test programs have to be streeeeetched out. Another factor is that the purpose of test programs is no longer to find the answers , but to avoid risk. That's a subtle but extremely significant difference that adds a lot of time to a program. A big factor is the explosion of paperwork and acquisition regulations that gum up the works (people who haven't actually seen it simply can't believe how bad this is).

This last is not that new. Ben Rich was asked in 1990 if, given the then current regulations and Government requirements, he could build the SR-71 today (1990). In answer he said, "With the current requirements I couldn't build the F-117 today". Keep in mind that at the time he said that F-117 production had just ended. And compared to today, those were the golden days of simplicity!

Don't think it's software. The commercial world produces lots of incredibly complex software comparable to or more sophisticated than what's being developed for the military. The don't take 14 years. These factors are why things cost so much and take so long, IMO.

 

[robunos]

Don't get me wrong. I never said those were the days...

I'm not, I'm agreeing with you, the development timeframes of current (military) aerospace
projects are just ridiculous. It almost seems to be a 'catch 22' situation;

"The project will take 15 years to develop, so we'll aim for a target service life of 25 years.
The project has a target service life of 25 years, so development will take 15 years."

There also seems to be 'reverse arms race' going on, as in " the enemies' new fighter won't
be in service for 15 years, so we can take 16 years to develop our counter."

Likewise service lives, after reading some figures, somewhere, sorry can't remember where,
might have been on this forum, it seems that some aircraft will have longer service lives than ships......
(I mean individual airframes, not the type's lifespan.)

Compare this to other types of high technology; mobile phones, PCs, Ipads and the like, are updated
and replaced every 12-18 months, even cars have a life of only 4-6 years as a model, and 10+ years
as a vehicle.


cheers,
Robin.

 

[yasotay]

There are a multitude of reasons it takes so long. Many of them already mentioned. About six, seven years ago there was an article in the American Helicopter Society Magazine by a retired Boeing Executive. He wanted to figure out why Boeing could in the late 50's get a requirement and turn it into a production representative aircraft in three years (CH-47) and in the 80-s to 2000's it took twenty plus years to develop an aircraft for a basically similar requirement (V-22).

His finding were broken down into two sections: industry and government.

Industry: 1958 there were two engineers and a large numbers of draftsmen and mechanics developing the CH-47. Everyone working on the V-22 was an engineer.

Government: 1958 the Boeing Company had to deal with three (if I recall right) government agencies for oversight of CH-47 development. V-22 had something on the order of fifteen government agencies involved, many giving contradictory guidance.

Bottomline: more processes and personnel involved in the development create a drag on the development and thus the cost of a program.

As to the X2 there is a significant amount of new technology going into the aircraft that is being developed on the company's funding. Believe it or not they cannot just chop 300 million out of their corporate masters at one time and hire the expertise (which is very rare thesedays).

 

[donnage99]

What is this aircraft/concept (circled in red):

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks everyone (particularly yasotay) for your detailed answers to my candid question. One more thought that dawned on me as I was reading the above is that in the past, aviation companies would sometimes take the risk to privately fund projects that they believed in PRIOR to any military contract being allocated (and therefore, also, before any official agencies started getting their grip on these projects). This was a time when people believed in taking risks. Nowadays we live in a world where banks, manufacturers and insurance companies are obsessed with only one thing: zero risk.

I was so thrilled when Kaman started the K-MAX program, or when Cessna decided to join the JPATS program at the latest minute with an off-the-shelf design they built and flew in over a year... You don't see these things happen so often. Even at Sikorsky, the S-92 was a private venture that took a while to take off commercially (especially from a military viewpoint, being rejected by the U.S. armed forces) but now it has clearly become a success. Some people wonder why I like the Rutan story so much... but the answer is there: the guy spent his life daring to push the limits with a constant no-nonsense approach that allowed him to produce one original flying prototype almost every year!

What is this aircraft/concept (circled in red)

It is simply a second S-97 seen from below!

 

[robunos]

Thanks everyone (particularly yasotay)

Seconded...


cheers,
Robin.

 

[yasotay]

I was at a Forum four years ago... (or so), when Jeff Pino the CEO of Sikorsky stood on the stage and announced Sikorsky was going to go it alone and do X-2. He pointedly remarked he did not want the government involved. Frankly by today's standards going from commitment to an idea, to flying "Y" planes in ten years or less is bold.

It is spot on to say zero (financial) risk is the norm now. This is why aerospace companies for the most part is far more interested in modifying existing aircraft than whole cloth new starts. A sad reality.

Risk is for those nations that believe they have venture capital and a hunger to get to the table. This is why China, India and to a lesser extent Brazil have new start aircraft going.

My opinion.

 

[yasotay]

CammNut update on X-2/S-97: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/aviation_week/on_space_and_technology/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=a68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9c&plckPostId=Blog%3aa68cb417-3364-4fbf-a9dd-4feda680ec9cPost%3aca16a87f-ade6-47a4-a043-523bfbadb861&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Latest view of S-97 from the same.

 

[Stargazer]

Just realized today that Sikorsky's inhouse designation for the X2 prototype is SHM-41A.

Now what is strange is that this is NOT a Sikorsky designation proper, but a Schweizer one. Under the Schweizer system, the designation indicates Schweizer's (S) 41st (41) model, a helicopter type (H) of the manned (M) kind (the prototype Northrop Grumman Fire Scout, by comparison, was the SHU-40B, with "U" meaning "unmanned").

Could it be that the design existed with Schweizer BEFORE Sikorsky took over? Or is just because the helo was developed under the Schweizer branch's auspices?

I sure would like some opinions (or even better, facts!) about this question...

 

[TomS]

Sikorsky's press info says work on X2 began in their New Concepts group in 2003, which is a year before Sikorsky bought Schweizer.

Sikorsky is using Schweizer as its rapid prototyping facility, and X2 presumably got a Schweizer number because they built the airframes. The design concepts are pretty clearly out of Sikorsky's history with S-69 and ABC, and not very closely related to anything Schweizer had done before.

 

[Stargazer]

The design concepts are pretty clearly out of Sikorsky's history with S-69 and ABC, and not very closely related to anything Schweizer had done before.

Thanks for the answer. That's what I thought as well, but I was puzzled by that designation.

What's even more puzzling is that Schweizer, until now, only used their designation system for their own designs—types like the Schweizer 300 and 330 series (now Sikorsky S-333 and S-430), for instance, took over from the old Hughes system).

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Sikorsky S-97 Raider prototype.

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3A27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3Ac0dc5a87-6d12-4c59-8dea-e1e77a4ed670

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-97 Raider mock-up artist's impressions.

Source:
http://facebookvideoseyret.org/tomb-raider-anniversary-st-francis-folly-part-2.html

http://ww1.sikorsky.com/sikorskypresskit/X2/media.htm

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-97 mock-up.

NOTE: Higher resolution images are available at the source URL.

Source:
http://ww1.sikorsky.com/sikorskypresskit/X2/media.htm

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky S-97 Raider mock-up.

NOTE: Higher resolution images are available at the source URL.

Source:
http://ww1.sikorsky.com/sikorskypresskit/X2/media.htm

 

[Triton]

Artist's impression of Sikorsky X2 attack concept.

Source:
http://ww1.sikorsky.com/sikorskypresskit/X2/media.htm

 

[Triton]

Sikorsky flew its Coller Trophy-winning high-speed, coaxial-rotor X2 Technology demonstrator for the last time on July 14, 2011, at its West Palm Beach, Florida, development test center. In 23 flights totaling 22 hours, the single-seat, single-engine X2 reached a top speed of 253kt - about 100kt faster than a conventional helicopter. Sikorksy is now building two S-97 X2 Raider light tactical helicopter prototypes to fly in 2014.

http://youtu.be/kGpMNDxT8VI


Source:
http://www.youtube.com/user/theworacle#p/a/u/1/kGpMNDxT8VI

 

[flanker]

Why so soon?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/07/video-sikorskys-record-setting-helicopter-retires/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

 

[sferrin]

Why so soon?

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2011/07/video-sikorskys-record-setting-helicopter-retires/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Could be they learned all they needed to and they are funding it on their own dime so. . .

 

[ouroboros]

Still, getting an official record in place, if only to poke at the X3, would have been a good PR move.

 

[Matej]

Very expensive PR move. It is a good idea to switch all the funds to S-97. And besides, this vehicle is not a helicopter, so it cant set the official record for the helicopters (what matters from the PR point of view). Even if the achieved speed is official, we still need to say, that the fastest helicopter in all relevant categories is Westland Lnyx.