Sikorsky X2 family

I was told Sikorsky expects 10-15kts extra speed on X2 by fitting the inter-rotor fairing.
 
Artist's impression of Sikorsky S-97 Raider light tactical helicopter.

Source:
http://www.aurora.aero/Communications/Item.aspx?id=apr-284
 

Attachments

  • raider_mountains.jpg
    raider_mountains.jpg
    675.5 KB · Views: 89
dragon72 said:
I actually found an illustration of the XH-59B in 'Warplanes of the future' by Bill Gunston. If I only had a scanner.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • XH-59B.jpg
    XH-59B.jpg
    119.2 KB · Views: 103
Somewhat interesting "race" developing here. The Army wants another Scout sooner than X2 will be ready, but would also like something like X2 rather than just a new, more expensive Kiowa. So will they press ahead with Kiowa replacement as a priority now, or will they grit their teeth, keep the old birds in the air for another few years, and buy Raider (or something like it) "off the shelf" after Sikorsky has it flying?
 
Moose said:
Somewhat interesting "race" developing here. The Army wants another Scout sooner than X2 will be ready, but would also like something like X2 rather than just a new, more expensive Kiowa. So will they press ahead with Kiowa replacement as a priority now, or will they grit their teeth, keep the old birds in the air for another few years, and buy Raider (or something like it) "off the shelf" after Sikorsky has it flying?
Click to expand...

The Piasecki tail unit has been successfully fitted and flown on the Blackhawk as the X-49 Speedhawk. Projects using Cobras and other platforms exist. I guess it wouldn't be so difficult to adapt the technology to an existing type and recondition a few dozens of airframes until X2 is ready — which should be 2025, if memory serves.
 
yasotay said:
New website for the S-97 Raider

http://raider.sikorsky.com/
Click to expand...

The Next Big Thing in Army Aviation!

Brochure for Sikorsky S-97 Raider:
http://raider.sikorsky.com/ui/documents/RAIDER_Brochure.pdf
 

Attachments

  • x2-basics_02.png
    x2-basics_02.png
    278.1 KB · Views: 585
  • aircraft-specs-raider-rt.png
    aircraft-specs-raider-rt.png
    68.5 KB · Views: 600
  • aircraft-specs-raider-lt.png
    aircraft-specs-raider-lt.png
    67.1 KB · Views: 624
  • raider-overview_03.png
    raider-overview_03.png
    242 KB · Views: 635
Stargazer2006 said:
The Piasecki tail unit has been successfully fitted and flown on the Blackhawk as the X-49 Speedhawk. Projects using Cobras and other platforms exist. I guess it wouldn't be so difficult to adapt the technology to an existing type and recondition a few dozens of airframes until X2 is ready — which should be 2025, if memory serves.
Click to expand...

The Army says Kiowa "becomes obsolete" in 2025 (many woudl argue that it's already obsolete, but that's a separate issue).

S-97 is supposed to fly in 2013 or 2014, which is also when AAS is suppose to be awarded. You'd really want the replacement to start entering service before the outgoing aircraft is totally obsolete. But assuming S-97 as AAS stay mostly on schedule, you could see the design transition to Army development in maybe 2016-17. With luck. they could start limited fielding around 2025. But the Army's track record isn't encouraging...
 
TomS said:
Stargazer2006 said:
The Piasecki tail unit has been successfully fitted and flown on the Blackhawk as the X-49 Speedhawk. Projects using Cobras and other platforms exist. I guess it wouldn't be so difficult to adapt the technology to an existing type and recondition a few dozens of airframes until X2 is ready — which should be 2025, if memory serves.
Click to expand...

The Army says Kiowa "becomes obsolete" in 2025 (many woudl argue that it's already obsolete, but that's a separate issue).

S-97 is supposed to fly in 2013 or 2014, which is also when AAS is suppose to be awarded. You'd really want the replacement to start entering service before the outgoing aircraft is totally obsolete. But assuming S-97 as AAS stay mostly on schedule, you could see the design transition to Army development in maybe 2016-17. With luck. they could start limited fielding around 2025. But the Army's track record isn't encouraging...
Click to expand...

Problem is that Army is adamant that the demonstrators for the "interim" AAS must be flying this spring, which the S-97 can't possible meet. Even if S-97 stays on schedule, Army can't just "transition" to it. They'll have to hold another competition for the definitive AAS, assuming there's money, and that could involve anything .
 
Yeah, the Army has a problem here. The idea of an interim AAS makes very little sense to me -- they ought to be looking at a fairly minimal OH-58 life extension in the near term, followed by a definitive AAS. But whether that is possible depends hugely on the FY 13 budget, which comes out today, I think.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2012/01/23/AW_01_23_2012_p28-415864.xml&headline=New%20Army%20Helo%20A%20Tough%20Choice%20Amid%20Cuts
 
Well it really depends on what direction the "interim" AAS goes. Right now they've made no commitment to actually buy any, the "fly-off" is part of their ongoing evaluations. If, after looking at the competitors they decide to SLEP the Kiowas, or go with the slightly more expensive F-model upgrade, its a fairly logical move to keep the fleet going until X2 is ready. If they buy a non-Kiowa, though, and call it a bridge to the next generation there will be a lot of people wondering about their sanity.


For what its worth, I think Sikorsky and the Army could get Raider AAS operational by 2020 if they leaned into it.
 
Moose said:
Well it really depends on what direction the "interim" AAS goes. Right now they've made no commitment to actually buy any, the "fly-off" is part of their ongoing evaluations. If, after looking at the competitors they decide to SLEP the Kiowas, or go with the slightly more expensive F-model upgrade, its a fairly logical move to keep the fleet going until X2 is ready. If they buy a non-Kiowa, though, and call it a bridge to the next generation there will be a lot of people wondering about their sanity.


For what its worth, I think Sikorsky and the Army could get Raider AAS operational by 2020 if they leaned into it.
Click to expand...

I'd like to see a more advanced technology program as well. The danger of an "interim" bird is that it can end up being your "final" bird, witness the F/A-18E/F.

'Course if they slip it and open it up to Raider level technology and performance, you can get other conepts in there as well, such as Tilt-Rotor and who knows what else. That would in fact be a Good Thing.
 
There is no guarantee that there will be a contract award from the fly off this year... if it happens.
Someone wants S-97 or UT would not be dropping the bucks. Cannot see anyone going down the F-20 Tigershark road again with tight budget.
 
yasotay said:
There is no guarantee that there will be a contract award from the fly off this year... if it happens.
Someone wants S-97 or UT would not be dropping the bucks. Cannot see anyone going down the F-20 Tigershark road again with tight budget.
Click to expand...
From what I have heard, USSOCOM about did hand-stands when they saw the concept, and are making "we'll buy it if it works!" type promises to Sikorsky. It certainly looks like the sort of platform the Night Stalkers would love.
 
F-14D said:
The danger of an "interim" bird is that it can end up being your "final" bird, witness the F/A-18E/F.
Click to expand...
I just posted to that effect yesterday in the 747 thread. Calling a design 'interim' or 'stopgap' is really just asking it to end up as your finalized flagship design, so do it right the first time.
 
The February video for S-97 is up. Very smart bit of marketing. Most worthy of the video to me was at ~1 minute with a clip of the aircraft landing gear sequence. If it is up to date there is significant change to the layout with retracting FORWARD gear, they appear just aft of the pilots. It also has a non tracting tail wheel. The video shows that the landing gear has signifcant stroke length (always welcome to this ol' pilot). It also looks like there are changes to the engine inlets and the horizontal stablizer at the rear of the aircraft appears to me to have grown in size as well.

http://raider.sikorsky.com/program-updates.asp#!prettyPhoto
 
Would the "new" landing gear arrangement be more stable on the ground? I would think the gear weight closer to the CG is a benefit and the weight saving over the trike is a plus.
Thanks for the link - will check in there regularly.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Mark Nankivil said:
Would the "new" landing gear arrangement be more stable on the ground? I would think the gear weight closer to the CG is a benefit and the weight saving over the trike is a plus.
Thanks for the link - will check in there regularly.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
Click to expand...
the forward gear method had worked well for current US helicopters (H-60 and AH-64). Distributing the impact energy of a crash sequence across the width of the airframe versus a single post point of previous layout would seem smart to me. I also agree that the gear weight being closer to the CG is better as well.
 
Moving the landing gear closer to the cg makes it less stable on the ground and actually increases the weight of the main gear. However, by going with the fixed tail wheel they may have lowered the overall weight and complexity of the landing gear, though the mechanism looks fairly complex, like on amphibian aircraft.

Having said that, as Yasotay said, it may have been done to increase it's ability to alleviate crash forces/absorb energy in the cabin area. Also, putting it closer to the C.G. and having it retract as the model shows, without any longitudinal movement, means the CG doesn't change longitudinally during translation. It only moves the CG up and down. Therefore, there shouldn't be any trim changes required as the gear retracts or extends, other then due to the downwash on the gear.
 
Re-vamping the gear to incorporate a tail wheel also reduces the risk of a tail fan strike. That fan is big and closer to the ground than a typical tail rotor.
 
Moose said:
Re-vamping the gear to incorporate a tail wheel also reduces the risk of a tail fan strike. That fan is big and closer to the ground than a typical tail rotor.
Click to expand...

A very good point I completely missed.
 
I don't remember where I downloaded these from:

http://youtu.be/H6wqIfJ7Mvg

http://youtu.be/7J6os9IwDFw

http://youtu.be/-xvXTozuGn0

http://youtu.be/SKqhCfukI7k

Rafa
 
Sikorsky S-97 Raider™ helicopter program update - April 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYgryqsN_I4
 
Prototype flying by 2014. Operational by 2025. Really?! 11 years for operational development? The Army can't wait that long as the Kiowa's will have fallen out of the sky from age by then. :mad:
 
tfbjwi said:
Prototype flying by 2014. Operational by 2025. Really?! 11 years for operational development? The Army can't wait that long as the Kiowa's will have fallen out of the sky from age by then. :mad:
Click to expand...

I know. It sucks! But then again, think of the V-22 program. JVX design was frozen some time around 1982-83. Prototypes were flown in 1989, FSD phase took years more than expected, and as a result the fully operational variant, the MV-22B, didn't become operational until the late 2000s... I think that by announcing such a long development phase they are trying to play it safe to avoid that kind of scenario.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
tfbjwi said:
Prototype flying by 2014. Operational by 2025. Really?! 11 years for operational development? The Army can't wait that long as the Kiowa's will have fallen out of the sky from age by then. :mad:
Click to expand...

I know. It sucks! But then again, think of the V-22 program. JVX design was frozen some time around 1982-83. Prototypes were flown in 1989, FSD phase took years more than expected, and as a result the fully operational variant, the MV-22B, didn't become operational until the late 2000s... I think that by announcing such a long development phase they are trying to play it safe to avoid that kind of scenario.
Click to expand...
You know how many government agencies have their requirments that have to be met before an aircraft can be made operational? Then there are the competing Congressional delegations to be appeased and the competing services to overcome who have projects that make it redundant and useless. Check out the DoD regulations on acquistion if you want to see just how confusing it is.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
tfbjwi said:
Prototype flying by 2014. Operational by 2025. Really?! 11 years for operational development? The Army can't wait that long as the Kiowa's will have fallen out of the sky from age by then.
Click to expand...

I know. It sucks! But then again, think of the V-22 program. JVX design was frozen some time around 1982-83. Prototypes were flown in 1989, FSD phase took years more than expected, and as a result the fully operational variant, the MV-22B, didn't become operational until the late 2000s... I think that by announcing such a long development phase they are trying to play it safe to avoid that kind of scenario.
Click to expand...

What also happened their was that R&D was not adequately funded to move faster. Since DC only seems to have forward vision to the next election, funding seems to be determined so that R&D will look smaller in any given year even though if funded adequately $ billions could be saved in the long run. It also didn't help that the V-22 R&D was taking place during the 1993-200 "triangulation" period where programs weren't actually canceled, but restructured so that the big funding bulge would come after the 2000 elections.

Unfortunately that kind of pace seems to have become the standard since so the Raider timeframe is realistic. Frankly though, X2 technology is probably (and arguably correctly) viewed as being too risky for the timeframe of the Kiowa replacement, since that's been delayed for so long.
 
Source:
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?161770-Sikorsky-X2-Files-With-Engaged-Propeller
 

Attachments

  • sikorskyhighspeedhelo.jpg
    sikorskyhighspeedhelo.jpg
    94.5 KB · Views: 363
Sikorsky S-97 Raider™ Helicopter Program Update - May 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6FFxbMxv94&list=UUTJoP1HY16QwaGyTJATWMLw&index=5&feature=plpp_video
 
Sikorsky S-97 Raider™ Helicopter Program Update - June 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2bG5R0xQhA&list=UUTJoP1HY16QwaGyTJATWMLw&index=2&feature=plpp_video
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom