Originally Posted by
IFMU
I've been out of Sikorsky for nearly a decade now, so I can't really speak too much of recent developments. My observations are based on the leadership trajectory of a decade ago. I was part of the small team that built & flew the X2. Most of us were pushed aside with a new crew and leadership that seemed more suited to viewgraphs and animation than aircraft development. Ultimately I'd say they screwed up by not getting their demonstrators working in time. Bell kicked ass on that facet of the program.
Would you say that any momentum that X-2 had gained was lost due to a leadership change, to UTC spinning off / selling SAC, or was there an aviation/rotary wing business/market issue that cropped up?
Or was the Army requirement at that point in time not well enough defined?
I seem to recall that initial discussion of what became the S-97 assessed as a case of
"an aircraft that was designed to meet a requirement that didn't exist" or something like that... man, it's been a while.
(IIRC, SAC spent their own money on X-2, or UTC/SAC did. Is that right?)