Sikorsky executives today explained their strategy for moving their S-97 Raider coaxial rotor design forward in the Army’s armed aerial scout contest despite the fact that their design isn’t flying yet.
“We’re developing two prototype aircraft with the purpose of demonstrating this type of capability with the target of hitting the armed aerial scout,” said Doug Shidler, Sikorsky’s Raider program manager, when I asked him today how the company planned to effectively bid on the armed aerial scout contest with their unbuilt chopper at a press conference where Shidler was announcing the Raider’s 35 supplier companies.
“There aren’t any requirements out there yet for the armed aerial scout but what we’re trying to do is demonstrate that with new technology you can provide a great deal more capability to the Army versus extending the current fleet that has capabilities that have existed for many, many years,” said Shidler.
Keep in mind that the Army seems to largely be interested in developing an existing airframe into a new scout chopper.
Steve Engebretson, Sikorsky’s man in charge of winning the scout contest, added his two cents when I asked how the company can compete for the scout contract if it doesn’t have a prototype that can fly in this spring’s scout chopper demo.
“We have been told that everyone who was considered in the [Army’s analysis of alternatives for replacing the Kiowa Warrior chopper fleet] will have the opportunity to respond to the RfI we were one of the products included in the AoA,” said Engebretson. “The airplanes that fly [in the demo], and this is my understanding of what the Army is looking for, will be evaluated to see whether there is an existing capability good enough to meet the next AAS requirement. The other products, like ours, that were also evaluated in the AoA will get to come in and show off where our technology is, what we’re gonna cost, what our timeline looks like and how viable we are. We’ve got a ton of data, we’ve got 35 companies building hardware, we think we’re gonna be in a very good position to demonstrate the fact that we’ll provide a capability that will outdo anything that exists today at a timeline that will still meet the Army’s requirements.”
The S-97 is designed to be able to fly at 250 knots and turn in half the radius of current helos. The first flight of the Sikorsky’s demonstrator choppers is set for 2014. If the company is awarded a contract to build scout helos, it can begin production around 2021 and start fielding the choppers around 2025.
Engebretson went on to say that the coaxial technology upon which the Raider is based has already been proven, by Sikorsky’s record breaking X2 chopper and a number of existing tech that is being designed for use on the Raider.
“This is a fairly mature level of technology, it’s a new design, it’s next generation capability but it’s not a high-risk type of approach,” said Engebretson. “We’re going to demonstrate it to show that it’s an achievable in the timeline that’s there for the military requirements and that it’s going to be affordable as well.”
He also revealed that the Raider is one of the four technologies Sikorsky is considering offering up for the Pentagon’s next generation Joint Multirole Helo effort. He wouldn’t say what the other three technologies are.
{ 29 comments… read them below or add one }
I like the design quite a lot. I wonder what the risks are associated with that pusher prop being hit and taken out. Does the aircraft then operate like a conventional rotary wing at that point with a reduced top speed? The other question is will this be able to pull the KA-50 trick of being able to circle a target with the nose pointed towards it the whole time. I wonder if there would be an advantage to utilizing a turbine instead of a pusher prop or if the friction would be too much to be stable in flight.
On the X2 the pusher prop runs continuously and adjust the angles of the blades based on what the pilot wants the aircraft to do… they help with maneuvering. To what end I don't know. The engine is a turboprop so it is a turbine attached to a shaft than a propeller. The advantage in that configuration is mostly the balancing of overall engine power with fuel efficiency, range, and weight, as turbine driving the aircraft through propulsive exhaust would generally need to be larger than the engine they're currently using and would raise design challenges for lower speed flight… ie what do you do with that thrust when you're hovering?-since the engine still has to operate at power to keep the rotors spinning. It may very well be the direction the next-next-gen goes to achieve even higher speeds.
It doesn't have a tail blade, so if you loose one of your main props, the bird will start to rotate. Bottom line, if you loose one of your two props, you loose control.
So you're saying – if the helicopter loses its rotor, the helicopter loses control. Right? Because if that's true, I mean, this is clearly no better than a regular helicopter. DARPA WHERE IS MY JETPACK DARPA
Coaxial rotors share an axial as the name implies. Lose one you lose both. Even if you some how lose the props off one and not the other it doesn't mean you'd lose control. The pusher prop has angle-ing blades which at a low enough speed should be able to impart enough semi-lateral force to mitigate a counter-rotation of the cabin.
The chopper looks awesome and slick. But I don't see the money for such a program for a decade for be while before this cool chopper will fly.
I don't really understand your second sentence, but if you're hinting at confusion over why it would take 7 years to go from demo to production, I'm with you.
True im saying in the second sentence that DoD cuts will push this helicopter well into the 2020s before the Army would adopt this chopper.
Why would we need this instead of a couple of fire scouts??
Guy, read the comments for this article:
http://defensetech.org/2011/10/10/army-wants-to-s…
Thats like asking why the Army should buy a Stryker as opposed to a TALON. Apples to oranges.
You mean besides the firescouts terrible performance so far?
Or the fact that these will be able to fly in a enviroment that has something more dangerous than a taliban with a AK-47.
Or operate in an environment that prohibits data link operations…
Talking to the company reps and test pilots I'm hearing that since it doesn't have a traditional tail rotor it can literally out turn any conventional helo. Another thing mentioned was that the propeller could be used to create drag if desired therefore reducing the rate speed builds up during a dive. I even think it can reverse thrust. As a scout pilot I know first hand the limitations a tail rotor imposes on combat maneuvering. This thing will revolutionize the industry if it's given a fair shot. The OH-58D SLEP program is coming online and there's no reason for the Army not to take a look at the design and seriously consider it. All other alternatives for the AAS don't even come near this in terms of performance. I hope Sikorsky figures out a way to make the crew doors open and close in flight. Us scout types like stick our heads outside when working low and slow.
Well, based on the performance of the only other armed helicopter equipped with a pusher prop (the Cheyenne), this design should be both faster and quicker to accelerate/decelerate than a conventional copter. In addition, the pusher prop should be a powerful airbrake – the one on the Cheyenne was strong enough to enable dive-bombing manuvers to be accomplished.
I think coaxial rotor with duct fan fastest best way than tilt rotor.
V-22, F-22, F-35… I'm sure the company reps are very confident that the tech is mature and ready to go, but it seems like seven years always turns into ten, or 12, and that costs double by the time something like this comes to fruition.
If Sikorsky really wants to prove how confident they are in the maturity of the tech, they can offer a fixed price for their bid now. The design looks amazing, and it sounds like it would be a very capable aircraft. But I'm not in a hurry to have taxpayer-expense R&D for the next decade to get this thing just up to the tart of production. And when all the budget cuts start to be felt, I doubt the Army will have the budget to do so anyway.
Yeah, that 7 years sounds like the same crap we got with the F-22 and F-35. They can build an aircraft from scratch in a couple years and fly it, but it takes a decade or more to build a production model? It all has to do with who's paying the bill. When it's the company they can get development done real quick. When it is the US taxpayer, then everything takes 10 times longer than it should.
Cost-plus makes a difference.
Remember this is self-funded… and given the landscape of the military industry, self-funded is a pretty high level of confidence.
From the way this article sounds, the prototype is self funded, but the first production run is funded by the US taxpayer over 7 years. Perhaps that is similar to the C-130J, which was funded by Lockheed, but then took many years and dollars to get approved by the USAF. I'd rather it be that than like the YF-22 which took nearly 2 decades (if you can say it is actually operational now) or so to develop into the production jet, redesigning every single piece.
There isn't a contract yet, so how can you assert this is a US tax funded effort? You would have to go all the way back to the 60's to find any military industrial leader push as independent a military aircraft developement as this. You rarely get industry to put its own neck and money on the line for what they believe is so good an idea. Sikorsky's investor relations really spells it out… that without the advantages of governement investment, the helicopter industry has been left in the dust and that it only has a future by pushing the technology to edge on its own. The Osprey scares them and Sikorsky sees this as their only chance to fight back a trend towards tilt-rotors. They sincerely believe that if this effort fails it will mark the beginning of the end of military helicopters. Will it?-I don't know, but most are willing to bet more on someone who believes they have everything to lose.
Everyone says not using common parts will ultimately increase costs/decrease reliability.
Just how much do you think this project will cost before even making a prototype?
Does it matter?-Its Sikorsky's self-funded prototype. If everything had to start with common parts nothing new would ever be created. Sikorsky has told its investors its intent is to utilize these technologies in commercial models of helicopters. So they're putting the higher demand utility ahead of commonality and building up commonality in a secondary market.
Doesn't the Coast Guard use Sikorsky helo's? 250 knots? That is fast, it sounds great..but how do we pay for it?
The USCG, USN, USA, USMC, and USAF use Sikorsky helos. Most of the world uses Sikorsky helos. And the 250 kt that the X2 can do IS fast – much faster than those other Sikorsky birds. The skepticism I expressed above notwithstanding, it's paid for through the normal channels of company and government funding. Ask Congress?
But it isn't funded by taxpayers. This is funded solely by Sikorsky's own money.
Yes, the S-97 is. And the X2 was. But I4L was asking how *we* pay for it, with "we" implicitly the taxpayer, because we're talking about the Army's scout contest, and because it's overwhelmingly more likely that I4L is just a taxpayer, and not a Sikorsky employee.
i like this post :)