S97 Raider
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Tr_no 688
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rule 1. Dont believe anything written by a Salesman
Rule 2. Dont believe anything written in the last 10 years
Rule 3. Dont believe anything .............everyones at it
Rule 2. Dont believe anything written in the last 10 years
Rule 3. Dont believe anything .............everyones at it
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
$15 Mil sounds about in line for a 200ish aircraft order for around 2020 delivery. Trying to compare this to CMHP is ridiculous though. While CMHP started as as an OTS program, the delays are the direct result of the Canadian government deciding to completely overhaul the design requirements every 6mos to 2 years and send engineers scrambling to redo everything. 
the delays are the direct result of the Canadian government deciding to completely overhaul the design requirements every 6mos to 2 years and send engineers scrambling to redo everything
At the same time, Mauer acknowledges that it was Sikorsky's problems developing the software for the CH-148 Cyclone fleet that led to the delays and the need to re-compete the contract.
"The issue we have in terms of the programme is that our software is behind on the mission system," he explains. "The contract doesn't allow us to deliver the aircraft that kind of disconnect."
"The issue we have in terms of the programme is that our software is behind on the mission system," he explains. "The contract doesn't allow us to deliver the aircraft that kind of disconnect."
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: DFW, TX
Age: 47
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While our head of military systems may publicly acknowledge resposibility for PR purposes to avoid blaming a customer, I assure you that's not what is discussed internally. The morons who negotiated the CMHP contract allowing the Canadian govnt. to change the specs at will and without cost associated have more to do with the delays in that program than anything.
bhawk60:
What? A customer changing specs at will without regard for cost? Who would believe such a thing could happen!
...Can you say, "VH-71"?
('course that worked out well for Canada, they got all nine of those dirt cheap to be used as parts birds)
What? A customer changing specs at will without regard for cost? Who would believe such a thing could happen!
...Can you say, "VH-71"?
('course that worked out well for Canada, they got all nine of those dirt cheap to be used as parts birds)
Last edited by Commando Cody; 16th Apr 2013 at 18:14.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Hy Brasil
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Sikorsky Raider
The new co-axial Sikorsky Raider. Very nice 
Quad A 2013: Sikorsky stands by its AAS aircraft - News - Shephard
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.
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.
HO
Are these the same sources that said a CH-53K would be $18M per unit? The blades alone on the 97 will cost more than the most advanced 58D upgrade proposed. Add to that the maintenance cost for replacing fodded pusher blades every time you take off from an unprepared surface or shoot a Hellfire this does not look viable (if it makes it back). Remember the pusher killed the Starship.
The Sultan
Are these the same sources that said a CH-53K would be $18M per unit? The blades alone on the 97 will cost more than the most advanced 58D upgrade proposed. Add to that the maintenance cost for replacing fodded pusher blades every time you take off from an unprepared surface or shoot a Hellfire this does not look viable (if it makes it back). Remember the pusher killed the Starship.
The Sultan
Sultan,
According to this:
Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER? Aircraft Overview
They have a clutched propeller. That would imply that FOD should not be an issue.
Did the pusher actually kill the Starship? Will it kill the Piaggio Avanti too? My recollection is not the best but I thought it just was not that competitive with the old iron, the king air, especially when price was considered and the relatively small difference in performance.
Bryan
According to this:
Sikorsky S-97 RAIDER? Aircraft Overview
They have a clutched propeller. That would imply that FOD should not be an issue.
Did the pusher actually kill the Starship? Will it kill the Piaggio Avanti too? My recollection is not the best but I thought it just was not that competitive with the old iron, the king air, especially when price was considered and the relatively small difference in performance.
Bryan
53K Costs
Sultan,
Please take a look at:
CH-53K: The U.S. Marines? HLR Helicopter Program
There was a note published recently regarding a 53K maintenance facility contract that was at the $15M range figure. Could that have been what was being discussed?
Please take a look at:
CH-53K: The U.S. Marines? HLR Helicopter Program
There was a note published recently regarding a 53K maintenance facility contract that was at the $15M range figure. Could that have been what was being discussed?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Back in 2000 the original CH-53E-to-X upgrade plan had a projected unit cost of $21M. When Milestone B was approved in 2005 the new-build unit cost was stated as $56M, a figure that has since grown to $76M excl. R&D (or $102M with).
'Course, Bell originally claimed the V-22 would cost only 25-50% more than a 214ST!
I/C
'Course, Bell originally claimed the V-22 would cost only 25-50% more than a 214ST!
I/C
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: netherlands
Age: 56
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Course, Bell originally claimed the V-22 would cost only 25-50% more than a 214ST!
Bell hopes to produce JVX for $5-6 million a copy, compared with $3.9 million for its Model 214ST transport helicopter.
Bell hopes to produce JVX for $5-6 million a copy, compared with $3.9 million for its Model 214ST transport helicopter.
I guess you have to name an acceptable price to get into the next phase of acceptance / funding.
As long as everyone has an interest in continuing and no firm commitments have to be made everyone is ok if further (public) money is spend.
The un-knowledgeable parliament/Senate / Congress needs to be neutralized until the point of no return.
The un-knowledgeable parliament/Senate / Congress needs to be neutralized until the point of no return.
Where do you think the money comes from for any major aircraft purchase?
S97 Raider
Sikorsky S-97 Raider Begins Final Assembly
Sikorsky S-97 Raider begins final assembly | Army Times | armytimes.com
WASHINGTON — Sikorsky will begin final assembly of its S-97 Raider helicopter prototype this week, according to company officials.
That puts the helicopter manufacturer — which is competing for the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout program — on track for a first flight at the end of 2014.
“It’s just a really exciting foundational milestone for us, and it’s great to be leaving the design phase of Raider and getting into the build phase,” Chris Van Buiten, Sikorsky Innovations vice president, said.
That puts the helicopter manufacturer — which is competing for the Army’s Armed Aerial Scout program — on track for a first flight at the end of 2014.
“It’s just a really exciting foundational milestone for us, and it’s great to be leaving the design phase of Raider and getting into the build phase,” Chris Van Buiten, Sikorsky Innovations vice president, said.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cambridgeshire, UK
Posts: 1,334
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting that even with rotor scaled up from X2 the advancing blade technology on S-97 is still capable of 220kts. Nr will have gone down a little, so the longer blades will still have a comparable effective hinge offset.
Impressive machine - I'll be following this one.
Impressive machine - I'll be following this one.
BB
Last time I checked the V-22 is proceeding with new orders coming in. A dedicated scout/light attack heli appears dead to justify the existence of the 64's. Even if the 97 has useful capabilities the Army's Attack mafia will ignore it as it makes early retirement of the 58D a bad decision.
In the future long ranges/fast cruise will be the game changer. The 97 will not be able to do both.
The Sultan
Last time I checked the V-22 is proceeding with new orders coming in. A dedicated scout/light attack heli appears dead to justify the existence of the 64's. Even if the 97 has useful capabilities the Army's Attack mafia will ignore it as it makes early retirement of the 58D a bad decision.
In the future long ranges/fast cruise will be the game changer. The 97 will not be able to do both.
The Sultan
Sultan, the Apache doesn't need justification. It's already there. Just to give you an idea on how multi purpose platforms arrive from specialized platforms, the Navy finally decided that the F-14 could indeed be a ground attack platform ... and sure enough, it became one. Apache will do what it needs to do, and as I've suggested in some other discussions on this topic, some of the "scout" function is already being done by various UAVs. The OH-58D is not leaving behind a vacuum of capability. The Army deploys with a mixed bag of tools.
The decision to retire OH-58D looks like a done deal. Whether or not that is a "bad" decision depends on subjective criteria. I don't see the Army reversing that, since decisions on force structure reduction in aviation must be viewed in context with all Army force structure reductions from top to bottom. Something had to go, so Aviation let go of OH-58D because the Other Programs were deemed to be a more pressing requirement to fund and support. I doubt anyone was happy with being forced to make that call.
On your last point: will X-2 demonstrated capability be able to scale up to the size and performance demands on S-97? It looks like Sikorsky is about to find out.
The decision to retire OH-58D looks like a done deal. Whether or not that is a "bad" decision depends on subjective criteria. I don't see the Army reversing that, since decisions on force structure reduction in aviation must be viewed in context with all Army force structure reductions from top to bottom. Something had to go, so Aviation let go of OH-58D because the Other Programs were deemed to be a more pressing requirement to fund and support. I doubt anyone was happy with being forced to make that call.
On your last point: will X-2 demonstrated capability be able to scale up to the size and performance demands on S-97? It looks like Sikorsky is about to find out.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The OH-58 is primarily a MK1 Eyeball scout; UAVs and the Apache w/ MTADS has largely replaced the old school. It isn't necessarily better or worse, just different. Except, the sensors don't have to get close to things, so they have reduced risk.
As to the X-2 concept, the upper limit of scalability is a very closely held Sikorsky secret, but from what I've inferred from industry types the S-97 is easy. Something significantly bigger than a Blackhawk gets troublesome.
As to the X-2 concept, the upper limit of scalability is a very closely held Sikorsky secret, but from what I've inferred from industry types the S-97 is easy. Something significantly bigger than a Blackhawk gets troublesome.
Not too much of a secret
X-2 Maxes Out in Medium-Sized Role: Sikorsky Executive | Defense News | defensenews.com
The real dirty secret is that even the traditional medium class is a stretch. I've said before, I would say you're looking at 12,000lbs max.
X-2 Maxes Out in Medium-Sized Role: Sikorsky Executive | Defense News | defensenews.com
The real dirty secret is that even the traditional medium class is a stretch. I've said before, I would say you're looking at 12,000lbs max.