S97 Raider
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Land of the Angles
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTR makes several valid points on post #155 and to add to this, Sikorsky is now wholly owned by LM, whose share price has risen impressively these past few years in-spite of major US defense spending cut-backs and is a very different beast from UTC (whose share price took a major hit following the decision to sell or spin-off Sikorsky, and has yet to recover).
What makes me smile is that for the current FVL JMR-TD Medium/Utility program, the SB-1 is a 50/50 JV with Boing (
) and Sikorsky (a company wholly owned by LM) and the Bell V-280 Valor has LM as a major partner.
Were it a 50/50 JV on both programs, then one would think the DoD would raise competitive pricing concerns, as one company could be seen as a win/win bidder whatever the outcome, but not knowing what value share there is on the Valor program (but likely less than 50%), then one could question whether this bidder has a preferred platform solution.
As for the S-97 Raider, I still don’t see anything else to compete with it on the JMR-Light option, so I don’t suppose either Sikorsky or LM is that worried about any lack of Raider press releases just now and logically any of the data coming out of the Raider program is being fast tracked to the Defiant platform.
What makes me smile is that for the current FVL JMR-TD Medium/Utility program, the SB-1 is a 50/50 JV with Boing (
) and Sikorsky (a company wholly owned by LM) and the Bell V-280 Valor has LM as a major partner. Were it a 50/50 JV on both programs, then one would think the DoD would raise competitive pricing concerns, as one company could be seen as a win/win bidder whatever the outcome, but not knowing what value share there is on the Valor program (but likely less than 50%), then one could question whether this bidder has a preferred platform solution
.As for the S-97 Raider, I still don’t see anything else to compete with it on the JMR-Light option, so I don’t suppose either Sikorsky or LM is that worried about any lack of Raider press releases just now and logically any of the data coming out of the Raider program is being fast tracked to the Defiant platform.
Hilife
The main reason for the 97 was as a demo/risk reduction for the Defiant when it was to fly in 2014. To meet the JVL schedule Defiant's design had to proceed without any 97 input. So now Lockheed has decided it is irrelevant and appears to have defunded it. Makes the Defiant program very risky compared to the V-280 which is building off of XV-15, V-22, and the 609.
The Sultan
The main reason for the 97 was as a demo/risk reduction for the Defiant when it was to fly in 2014. To meet the JVL schedule Defiant's design had to proceed without any 97 input. So now Lockheed has decided it is irrelevant and appears to have defunded it. Makes the Defiant program very risky compared to the V-280 which is building off of XV-15, V-22, and the 609.
The Sultan
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The latest copy of Av Week provided a brief program update:
I/C
- Nine flights to date (since May 2015)
- Latest flight was performed with the gear retracted, for the first time
I/C
Originally Posted by Ian Corrigible
The latest copy of Av Week provided a brief program update:
I/C
- Nine flights to date (since May 2015)
- Latest flight was performed with the gear retracted, for the first time
I/C
AC1
Maiden flight (1.0hr): 5/22/15
4 month hiatus
Second flight (1.2hr): 9/29/15
Hiatus to accumulate 200 hours on PTSB (15-20 hr/wk) @ 32 hours 9/29/16 = 9 weeks?
7 total additional flights in 12 months
AC2
No flight time?
Maiden flight (1.0hr): 5/22/15
4 month hiatus
Second flight (1.2hr): 9/29/15
Hiatus to accumulate 200 hours on PTSB (15-20 hr/wk) @ 32 hours 9/29/16 = 9 weeks?
7 total additional flights in 12 months
AC2
No flight time?
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 28th Oct 2016 at 12:32.
Sikorsky posted new video. Looks like still limited to low speed runway work after 18 months when they stated full envelope by summer 2016 in their last program delay update.
The Sultan
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/11/07/wa...ls-up/?ref=yfp
Link added
The Sultan
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/11/07/wa...ls-up/?ref=yfp
Link added
Last edited by The Sultan; 8th Nov 2016 at 19:12.
Sultan, it might be possible that they are taking a cautious approach with new tech, a caution possibly reinforced by the tragic loss of that 525 a few months ago in Texas.
@SansAnhedral Making it work to a modern spec and modern requirements is indeed reliant on new tech, and new materials, as well as making them work together effectively. Likewise, requiring "new" is the effort to scale up from the X-2. You will note that those vintage efforts each was not successfully pursued at the time. Tradeoffs, etc.
Is this really another 4+ month hiatus?
Are there MGB issues? Vibration? Are the supplier-built composite blades or flexbeams delaminating/cracking/failing?
My money is on the latter.
Approaching 2 full years since first flight, this is beyond suspicious.
Are there MGB issues? Vibration? Are the supplier-built composite blades or flexbeams delaminating/cracking/failing?
My money is on the latter.
Approaching 2 full years since first flight, this is beyond suspicious.
Sans, what might be going on is that (with being part of LM now) the focus on design work is being directed to the next size up aircraft that is to compete with V-280 Valor. Maybe. No idea.
Lone
Your hypothesis is unlikely. The 97 has not left the airport grounds that I know of as Sikorsky would drop another video of that great achievement. After all the money spent if it was safe to fly anyone would take the opportunity to shake down the flight controls, basic design concept, or get PR. It was originally a concept demonstrator and risk reduction tool. The fact that it has done none of these points to major design issues.
Your hypothesis is unlikely. The 97 has not left the airport grounds that I know of as Sikorsky would drop another video of that great achievement. After all the money spent if it was safe to fly anyone would take the opportunity to shake down the flight controls, basic design concept, or get PR. It was originally a concept demonstrator and risk reduction tool. The fact that it has done none of these points to major design issues.
Or they are just flying over the swamps of Florida using it as a risk reduction tool for SB>1. It seems likely that they haven't met their flight test goals yet (I would expect a video and announcement, too), but I suspect progress is being made and they're just radio silent.
I know the flight test programs I've been associated with never made progress as public as I would have liked, lol.
I know the flight test programs I've been associated with never made progress as public as I would have liked, lol.
Originally Posted by IFMU
I bet if somebody at Sikorsky made a decision to do that they came from another company!
Last edited by SansAnhedral; 6th Apr 2017 at 16:45.
