S97 Raider

[CTR]

Waiting for an Engine

Currently both Sikorsky and Bell state the first flight of the FARA prototypes are being delayed waiting for the customers supplied engine.

Assuming both receive their engines this November, it will be interesting to see if this is really the long pole in their first flight schedules.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

Lone Wolf:

I for one think your "revolver" idea is really clever, although eight missiles might be a tight fit. The big bugaboo would be weight, since Army has tight limit on acceptable gross weight for FARA.

The idea could be scaled down a bit to a pair of 'three packs' (one for each side) that revolve: top two un armed, bottom one armed, so more of a 'triangle' than a revolver, if they have to meet an internal weight bogey.
Aha, finally see what they are up to with the Invictus/360 sliding armament racks, from the link.

Can anyone explain to me why 360/Invictus/Bell FARA has two pilots? (Or pilot/gunner)
I would think that the automation, helmets, and mission packages developed for a variety of aircraft over last 30 years could be modded and integrated into this weapons system and allow it to be flown/operated by a single pilot. (Like an A-7, F-35, F-16, and so on).
Comments on that?
Did the Army write a hard requirement for 'must be a two seat aircraft' into this future system?

The impression I get from the pictures at The Drive link is that the wings are intended to be lift producing devices, not stub wings for weapons stations.
As depicted, they do not look to be adjustable in pitch (like the Black Hawk Horizontal stab) but basically wings similar to a fixed wing aircraft. And it occurs to me that they might include fuel capacity / tanks that cannot be down in the hull where the missiles / weapons slide in and out on that rack.
An interesting hybrid, to be sure.

[The Sultan]

Invictus’s wings date back to the Bell 533 high speed test aircraft with the main purpose to allow rotor thrust to be used for speed instead of lift.

Invictus is less two pilots than a pilot and a systems/drone manager. Also, when lurking in the trees a second pair of eyes is essential.

[Commando Cody]

Aside from lift, one of the other purposes that has been shown in illustrations is that they provide two more weapons stations. However, they probably couldn't be used for such while staying within the Army's weight limit unless it's acceptable to go over to carry more so long as you meet the requirement when carrying the Army specified load. In any case, using the stations would entail a noticeable performance hit, but it might be an acceptable option in cases where maximum firepower is most important.

Regarding the second crewman, Raider-X also has a crew of two. Don't forget, the original Army requirement for LHX (which eventually became Comanche) specified single pilot. This was eventually dropped when reality stepped in. Like The Sultan said, workload.

[Lonewolf_50]

Originally Posted by Commando Cody

Regarding the second crewman, Raider-X also has a crew of two. Don't forget, the original Army requirement for LHX (which eventually became Comanche) specified single pilot. This was eventually dropped when reality stepped in. Like The Sultan said, workload.

I am reasonably aware of the LHX failure, and the risk decisions on missions systems integration on Comanche in terms of cockpit loading, but mission systems in general have come a long way since the 1980's. Army is not good at getting out of old paradigms, and never has been. I will say that I believe that the Apache mafia did as much harm as good in the Comanche's development ... but that's all water under the bridge.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50

I am reasonably aware of the LHX failure, and the risk decisions on missions systems integration on Comanche in terms of cockpit loading, but mission systems in general have come a long way since the 1980's. Army is not good at getting out of old paradigms, and never has been. I will say that I believe that the Apache mafia did as much harm as good in the Comanche's development ... but that's all water under the bridge.

I'd say there's a fundamental reality to flying rotorcraft nap of the earth, which is that the pilot flying has a high workload and a no fail task that automation can't cope with yet unless you give it active sensors (trees, wires, ducks and geese). Active sensors come with a freedom of action penalty due to emcon, so that rules out most automation for now, until computer vision gets really good. Maximum allowable time eyes in for a pilot flying at or below 50' is maybe a second or 2 at cruise speeds. Not really an opportunity there to operate anything or assess a sensor picture.

Contrast that with fast jet aircraft at medium level where the pilot can be eyes in for a few more seconds at a time - here automation of flying tasks and sensor fusion has made single pilot ops feasible.

I would say that advances have meant the non flying crew member can be expected to do a lot more: uncrewed teaming brings in a lot of information but we're a long way from that just being neatly dropped as threats on to a map from an EO picture though AI might help get that over the line to warfighting standard in the next decade or so. (Noting that things a helicopter crew care about tend to be harder to find than something a jet monkey cares about).

Tesla's computer vision kit is probably the most advanced real world example and that can't cope with the real world to appropriate safety standards yet, so we can't really expect a niche application for military rotorcraft to be any better tbh. Everyone that has gone one better is essentially relying on an active sensor of some description (typically LIDAR, which at least is relatively low prob of intercept). Active sensor reliance, as mentioned earlier, limits you due to emcon, but also introduces as massive vulnerability for hostile exploitation unless you have a few alternatives. Demoes of uncrewed Blackhawks going from A to B are great, but it's not tactical flying in a warfighting operation with a bad guy vote.

[Lonewolf_50]

OK, I guess the old 'task saturation' bogey is still out there, thanks for the in depth response pba_target.

[CTR]

Drone Captain

The introduction of armed drones has forced the Army to continually redefine mission and crew requirements.

Armed drones helped kill the need for the Comanche, and commanding a squadron of drones may require a FARA second seat.

[Commando Cody]

There are some other reasons for the second crew member in addition to what's in pba_target's comprehensive post:

Aside from strictly nap of the earth operations, there's simply the reality of flying low level in irregular terrain that's going to keep the pilot pretty focused without the complication of trying to read and interpret sensors and programming and launching weapons. Army says it wants to operate FARA in urban environments. There's going to be enough going on in that situation without burdening the pilot with other tasks unrelated to flying and maneuvering the ship. There'd be a lot of right brain/left brain things going on which would Beverly degrade effectiveness. Also, while firing the cannon straight ahead wouldn't be too burdensome, consider what would be involved mentally in maintaining safe flight while simultaneously operating the cannon off-axis, especially against a mobile target.

[chopper2004]

Greetings from Le Bourget

Just did walk around of static and found the Raider so here are my photos.







cheers

[exwessex]

Did you take any shots of the cockpit you could post?

[The Sultan]

With Racer at 240 kts Sikorsky is not going to get much interest.

[chopper2004]

Originally Posted by exwessex

Did you take any shots of the cockpit you could post?

sure here my photos from the brief later that afternoon.





and also got to sit in the mock-up cabin that s aimed at NGRC




cheers

[exwessex]

Thanks 👍 .

[CTR]

Aviation week S97 video

Chopper 2004,

Thank you for the photos! In my morning feed aviation week also has a video of the cockpit.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/air...ed-martin-s-97

[T28B]

Originally Posted by CTR

Chopper 2004,

Thank you for the photos! In my morning feed aviation week also has a video of the cockpit.

https://aviationweek.com/defense/air...ed-martin-s-97

Thank you for the video link.
If the US Army isn't going to buy it, who else out there can afford it?
I had heard a rumor that the GE 901 Engine had been canceled, but perhaps I had heard that as associated with Invictus and the Raider programs, which are canceled and GE 901 was to power both of them.
The pilot calls out the "two engine" version (Defiant) as he discusses speeds and sideways flight.
I appreciate his enthusiasm, but I am not sure who the customer base is for that weapons system.
(Not posted as mod nor as admin)

[maxtork]

Did anyone notice the single collective and cyclic on the left side for the copilot? I know the fixed wing guys switch hands from left to right seat but never heard of doing this in a helicopter. I suppose the FBW system takes out a lot of pilot workload allowing this to be possible but I can't imagine flying a typical helicopter with my left hand on the cyclic for more than a few minutes. I guess you could get used to it...but why would you?

[exwessex]

Yeh I noticed that also I got the impression that the collective on the S97 is a force stick!(rather like F16's side stick) as I guess the FCS software sets whatever collective angle is appropriate for the flight conditions so either you backdrive the lever or use the force stick.I believe that US Army did not like single central collective on the Defiant and asked for a more conventional arrangement!

[JohnDixson]

Yes, several of the “older “ pilots noticed the single collective early on. Somewhere I recall reading a report on the WWII R-4 ( S-47 ) which had a single centered collective. There were flying problems when it was fielded and the story was that they did a field mod, added a second collective to resolve it. But I cannot now find that reference.

[wrench1]

Originally Posted by JohnDixson

Yes, several of the “older “ pilots noticed the single collective early on. Somewhere I recall reading a report on the WWII R-4 ( S-47 ) which had a single centered collective. There were flying problems when it was fielded and the story was that they did a field mod, added a second collective to resolve it. But I cannot now find that reference.

I remember listening to one of the original R-4 pilots explain the single collective was initially a weight saving decision. There was also a "pitch indicator" or something that was attached to the collective via a cable that would show the relative blade pitch angle while flying. Must have been a riot to track and balance those MR blades.