Easy now ... no need to panic.
Let's not acuse without solid grounds.
(1) This is not a patent. This is the merely the 18-month from earliest priority date publication of the application. The application has not been examined, as such the patentee has no right to exclude the public generally from practice of the invention.
(2) The patent statutory scheme refers to the issues you spoke of as anticipation and obviousness, 35 USC 102 and 35 USC 103 respectively. If there is not a reference which recites the elements of the claims for rejection purposes there will certainly be a combination of references that makes it obvious. The examiner will surely reject these claims, particular the aggressively broad claim 1. It is difficualt to tell what they will actually get, and prosecution will liekly take years.
As a member of the public there is a process for the public to submit references that you believe are relevant to prosecution of the application. This period is limited, so you need to act soon. The examiner's name is Michael Mansen; you can get intructions for how to submit references that you believe he needs to consider through the USPTO's inventor's assistance center at (800)PTO-9199.
(3) In the event that SAC does obtain a patent from this application, it will be in the US only unless they go international, and protection will thus be limited to the US. Since in the rest of the world absolute novelty dictates patentability, the practice of the invention will therefore not be restricted outside of the US. Bell will be hosed, but Eurocopter and Augusta-Westland among others will not be restricted in any way.
(4) This was not filed by a Sikorsky patent attorney. This was filed by a firm in Michegan that I imagine picked it up on an outsourced, firm-fixed basis. It it an extremely brief application, so they probably made decent money drafting it. I'd be curious to see who actually winds up prosecuting it.
SAC does not have an IP department at the moment, I believe, though things may be different by now. There is considerable confusion IP-wise at SAC as can be seen in inability to differentiate between their allowed trademark registrations and their pending applications, compare 'S-92A' and 'X2 Technology' registrations with the USPTO and SAC's use in news releases in view of the rules.
(5) Development of the concept of a mechanical, transmissionless rotor craft by SAC should be encouraged, particularly in view of state of the S-92A 'extremely reliable' transmission, the Couger crash and the vehicle's continued use over water. Senseless death followed additional senseless risk taking needs to be ended any way possible.
I agree with your concerns about SAC generally, but disagree that this is as serious as your post seems to imply.