Originally Posted by
The Sultan
SD
I didn’t right the press release.
And it's a good thing too, given how atrocious your writing skills are.
Thankfully, your paycheck is not governed by your communication skills, but rather your technical skills.
As to your points/criticisms on this
PR release-I share most of them. (Bell Ringer's post made me chuckle).
This press release reminds me of the guy who thinks that foreplay is
telling her how great of a time she's about to have.
For Spline Drive:
In other words, the empty weight of Raider-X is bound to be higher than Model 360. Since the Army has requested a max gross weight and limited the rotor diameter, Sikorsky’s ship likely has less payload/fuel than the Model 360 at the customer requested max gross weight. To carry the full payload at the desired range, they’ll have to fly Raider-X at higher gross weights and disk loading which then incurs additional structural penalties unless they choose to have lower maneuver margins at those gross weights. Adding more power just compounds those issues.
Seems like a lot of downside for a little more speed.
Thanks for that post. The Raider (S-97) as a follow up to what was achieved by X2 has intrigued me. Will it or won't it fulfill it's promise/potential? We simply don't know.
As to the Acquisition angle on this:
I am reminded of something from about 40 years ago, the infamous 'Hi-Low" mix for a Fighter program, which ended up with F-15 and F-16. And a by product of that was the F-18. Maybe, someone will finally accept a low risk, truly "low cost" for the Low in a proposal like this.
Not everything one buys needs to be bleeding edge. Cost is a variable in any acquisition decision.
But let's look at how deployable the FARA candidates are.
How many 360's fit into a C-17? How many Raiders?
What is the notional "self deployment" capability. (See V-280 for a comparison)
As one of you above said, Speed isn't the only metric.