Originally Posted by
JohnDixson
You know,LW,going down that road has just a few former SA folks asking why then didn’t SA simply ( airframe/drivetrain/rotors/power plant -wise ), simply update the RAH-66. Bell has to do development testing whereas the Comanche, aircraft wise, was developed.
I agree and I have heard the same comments. RAH-66 was a ~165 knot (cruise) machine and certainly with some more modern aerodynamics in the rotor, a drag clean up, small wing, etc. could be pushed to 180+ as Bell has done. Yes, it would be a clean sheet design and not a resubmission of RAH-66 due to the Boeing-Sikorsky teaming, but the knowledge base inside SAC to do so is still there, for now. Assuming an analysis of options was performed, I deeply suspect a strong X-2 "thumb" was placed on the scale. I think the company leadership is "all in" on the X-2 platform, even if it isn't the best match for the customer requirements.