The new co-axial Sikorsky Raider. Very nice
Quad A 2013: Sikorsky stands by its AAS aircraft - News - Shephard
Sikorsky has defended its offering for the US Army’s Armed Aerial Scout (AAS) programme, saying that it will be ready in time for the requirement and will match the expected price point set by the DoD.
Speaking to Shephard at the AAAA Professional Forum and Exposition in Ft Worth on 12 April, Steve Engebretson, director of AAS at Sikorsky, said that it will adhere to the $15 million per aircraft budget, as well as offering a greater saving in the long run because of the nature of the company’s AAS platform.
‘The affordability question is more than “what can I afford today?” he said. ‘Of course you can’t ignore the upfront cost today, so we took a very bold step…to say this is a $15 million fly away aircraft. To do that absent of a requirement takes a lot of courage and conviction for a company to stand by a new product and say “here it is and it’s going to cost you $15 million”.
‘The reason we did that is because frankly our leadership was getting frustrated with the misperceptions that were in defence and the rotorcraft industry in general. It’s a very natural misperception.’
Sikorsky is offering the Raider co-axial rigid-rotor platform for the requirement, which derives from its X2 technology demonstrator that has undergone 23 flight tests. Two aircraft are being built, the first of which is expected to fly at the end of 2014.
‘If you take a look at what the X2 technology aircraft can do…we’re going to fly the Raider in 18 months and we’re going to do some very impressive things with that aircraft,’ he continued. ‘The natural inclination is that, if you believe we can do it, it must be a very complex and expensive platform.’
Engebretson admitted that X2 technology is more expensive than conventional helicopter technologies, although this is balanced out in the performance.
‘When you compare our price point to others we think we may be as much as 25% more expensive than conventional helicopters of the same sized aircraft for initial acquisition, but you get 100% more capability.’
He said that the army hasn’t published a requirement yet, so when looking at the replacement for Kiowa Warrior the army has to look at how long it will be in service and what capabilities it wants.
‘Do you really want the aircraft out there extended for another service life, another 20-30 years?’ he said.
If the DoD plans to remanufacture the current Kiowa Warrior the life of the aircraft will only be another 20 years or so, Engebretson stated. If this is the case it will end mid-way between the predicted life of the Future Vertical Lift programme also underway, and in turn will not be saving the DoD money in the long run.
‘Again, if you buy something off the shelf and it’s only an incremental improvement of what you have today, and again you have to replace it right in the middle of the largest DoD programme, where is my affordability challenge? You’re better with a new start platform,’ he added.
‘If you go for a new start programme that will get forty years and lay it across a 4,000 aircraft replacement, all of a sudden you realise you don’t have to replace your Kiowa Warriors now until you have finished your Future Vertical Lift replacements.’
He also said that the presidential budget sent to Congress this week did not indicate that the AAS would go ahead this year, which gives more time for Sikorsky to develop the Raider to meet the expected army programme timeline.