Sikorsky SB-1 flies for first time
Any day now, I expect the SB>1 team to excitedly put out a press release that proudly proclaims as one of their accomplishments in the two years since their first flight that their vehicle has required far less fuel than the V-280.
The mission isn't going away but the question remains if they are not too expensive/complex, too big and too fragile for the mission.
The big plus of the Blackhawk for this mission is that it is extremely rugged, rather nimble and small and not excessively complex and expensive. Almost the opposite of the new vertical lift high speed platforms. The most dangerous phase for the helicopter in combat has historically been the landing/de- boarding phase. And that is the phase where especially the valor is a huuuuge and beautiful target with lots of critical parts widely spread and is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk. I'm not really convinced that they are not going to cancel the current bid. For certain special missions the new platforms surely offer very interesting possibilities but I have a hard time to figure them as real replacement for the rugged 'bread and butter' combat mule that is the Blackhwak.
The big plus of the Blackhawk for this mission is that it is extremely rugged, rather nimble and small and not excessively complex and expensive. Almost the opposite of the new vertical lift high speed platforms. The most dangerous phase for the helicopter in combat has historically been the landing/de- boarding phase. And that is the phase where especially the valor is a huuuuge and beautiful target with lots of critical parts widely spread and is also rather limited in its agility and descent rate compared to the nimble Blackhawk. I'm not really convinced that they are not going to cancel the current bid. For certain special missions the new platforms surely offer very interesting possibilities but I have a hard time to figure them as real replacement for the rugged 'bread and butter' combat mule that is the Blackhwak.
Last edited by Commando Cody; 13th Mar 2021 at 05:12.
Isn’t Time Running Out?
The FLRAA RFP responses are due in less than three months. Isn’t time running out for the SB>1 to prove it can meet the US Army threshold requirements?
I guess they're not going to do that much more with the SB>1 airframe. The consensus here seems to be that it'll never reach its promised speeds. I don't know, but then again S-97 Raider (to be replaced by "Raider-X") never reached its promised speed, either. I wonder if Army is thinking that if they don't have two "competitors" regardless of how they're doing, Congress, not paying attention as usual, will complain about the lack of competition and that could hurt funding.
I didn’t think it was going to be another competition of flight demonstrators. Isn’t the next competition phase just a proposal?
The Biden administration is trying to come up with a coherent approach to China without breaking too many eggs. It is obvious the Afghanistan withdrawal will be prelude to a mess at best.
After the very public failure in this small arena, no one can trust the Pentagon claims about their strategy for deterring China.
The US needs a 'come to Jesus' moment, to admit they have not won a war in 75 years and that more of the same will only stretch that string to a century or more.
Hopefully the Biden team will catch on before the NATO allies do.
After this phase comes the actual request for Best and Final Offers and selection scheduled (for now) in 2022. Then there will be more design reviews, and reviews, until delivery of the prototype of the winning design in 2025, and delivery to the first Army unit in 2030. No I don't know why the Army wants it to take so long.
After this phase comes the actual request for Best and Final Offers and selection scheduled (for now) in 2022. Then there will be more design reviews, and reviews, until delivery of the prototype of the winning design in 2025, and delivery to the first Army unit in 2030. No I don't know why the Army wants it to take so long.
Interesting tidbit I missed before... when Sikorsky Boeing unveiled Defiant-X in January, they said it was optimized for, "...speed where it matters". To me that seems to say, "No, we won't be as fast as we said we would be, but it's not important anyway. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain". What they seem to be trying to push everyone to focus on is how fast they promise they will be able to decelerate from whatever speed they do achieve while staying in a level attitude (have they actually demonstrated that in the nearly six years since S-97 first flight?) by putting the pusher in Beta.
Or am I reading too much in?
Or am I reading too much in?
So, is the consensus that the Defiant flight test is over, and the aircraft was probably grounded even before 2021?
If that really is true, the entire program smacks of a mind-boggling study of incompetence and engineering failure, not to mention the dubious absolute lack of coverage on this fact by the aerospace/defense "journalism" community.
If that really is true, the entire program smacks of a mind-boggling study of incompetence and engineering failure, not to mention the dubious absolute lack of coverage on this fact by the aerospace/defense "journalism" community.
I think the Army sees keeping both V-280 and SB>1 funded during the current concept development and risk reduction phases as political cover and investment to make sure no one can protest that it wasn't a good competition when V-280 is chosen next year, despite Bell not being the incumbent VTOL supplier for the Army. Next year will be crucial for the X-2 concept... I'm assuming SB>1/Defiant-X will stop work and all X-2 hopes and dreams get pinned to Raider-X. If that thing can't have first flight on schedule and make Vh in a reasonable amount of time (less than two years, lol) then it's toast and so is the X-2 platform. A decades' worth of engineering effort and a ton of money for zero return.
I cannot imagine the 280 being chosen. Yes it is fast but that’s it. It would make a nice semi-strategic transport between FOBs with secured landing sites but I cannot imagine how that bird will perform in a hot-LZ, possibly taking fire and survive like a Blackhawk (or even Huey in the old days) can. It will have massive down wash, a bigger footprint, no clear field of fire for a door gunner due to the nacelles, etc etc... but yes it is fast....
Bell improved the design so that they split and pivot upwards, so there is a clear field of fire.
It is a very different ship to the V22.
I cannot imagine the 280 being chosen. Yes it is fast but that’s it. It would make a nice semi-strategic transport between FOBs with secured landing sites but I cannot imagine how that bird will perform in a hot-LZ, possibly taking fire and survive like a Blackhawk (or even Huey in the old days) can. It will have massive down wash, a bigger footprint, no clear field of fire for a door gunner due to the nacelles, etc etc... but yes it is fast....
I cannot imagine the Defiant-X being chosen. Can’t reach Vh, no publicly demonstrated low speed agility, only dozens of flight hours, no demonstration of any required capabilities, no flights with Army pilots, no field history, and no field history of any ABC aircraft. None. Since the XH-59 flew and didn’t meet it’s design goals there have been three more rigid coaxial aircraft and a grand total flight time in the mid-hundreds of flight hours… combined. Three of those vehicles don’t appear to have met the engineering goals and one was only ever designed to fly fast with very limited maneuver requirements. Any projections of costs, maintenance requirements, service suitability are just made up bunk. Sikorsky needs a new strategy and product in the pipeline to maintain a viable engineering department because the X-2 has been a 15 year long dead end.
I agree, slightly less than V22...I said nacelles, what I meant was the wings and it’s nacelles. If you are landing in slightly lower terrain than the area around you (clearly not ideal but sometimes no other options), you probably have more restrictions than with a regular rotor disc. And how vulnerable is such a split nacelle already for small arms fire? And that times 2 as you have 2....
“It is fast but that’s it.” Hmm… well, let’s see, compared to the V-22, V-280 is smaller, has much lower disk loading, has increased low speed agility (meets the Army requirements for a tactical transport), has fixed nacelle on top of the wing for clear field of fire, and myriads of design and cost improvements based on 500,000+ flight hours of V-22 experience plus the development efforts of the 609 and JMR-TD tiltrotors and other aircraft in the last 30 years. It is not a V-22 painted olive green.
I cannot imagine the Defiant-X being chosen. Can’t reach Vh, no publicly demonstrated low speed agility, only dozens of flight hours, no demonstration of any required capabilities, no flights with Army pilots, no field history, and no field history of any ABC aircraft. None. Since the XH-59 flew and didn’t meet it’s design goals there have been three more rigid coaxial aircraft and a grand total flight time in the mid-hundreds of flight hours… combined. Three of those vehicles don’t appear to have met the engineering goals and one was only ever designed to fly fast with very limited maneuver requirements. Any projections of costs, maintenance requirements, service suitability are just made up bunk. Sikorsky needs a new strategy and product in the pipeline to maintain a viable engineering department because the X-2 has been a 15 year long dead end.
I cannot imagine the Defiant-X being chosen. Can’t reach Vh, no publicly demonstrated low speed agility, only dozens of flight hours, no demonstration of any required capabilities, no flights with Army pilots, no field history, and no field history of any ABC aircraft. None. Since the XH-59 flew and didn’t meet it’s design goals there have been three more rigid coaxial aircraft and a grand total flight time in the mid-hundreds of flight hours… combined. Three of those vehicles don’t appear to have met the engineering goals and one was only ever designed to fly fast with very limited maneuver requirements. Any projections of costs, maintenance requirements, service suitability are just made up bunk. Sikorsky needs a new strategy and product in the pipeline to maintain a viable engineering department because the X-2 has been a 15 year long dead end.
Casper
The first time they used the UH-60 in an airborne assault into contested territory (Grenada) they lost three aircraft at one LZ. The 280 has demonstrated that it meets all of the Army's agility goals while being twice as fast and twice the range of existing assault helicopter. With its characteristics the V-280 can pick and choose where to insert the troops while the shorter range 60 and Defiant will most likely have to pick the first (and most likely) one they get to.
The first time they used the UH-60 in an airborne assault into contested territory (Grenada) they lost three aircraft at one LZ. The 280 has demonstrated that it meets all of the Army's agility goals while being twice as fast and twice the range of existing assault helicopter. With its characteristics the V-280 can pick and choose where to insert the troops while the shorter range 60 and Defiant will most likely have to pick the first (and most likely) one they get to.
500 Hours?
https://newatlas.com/military/sikors...ility-us-army/The Sikorsky PR team is really stretching credibility with the statement ”Sikorsky has been flying and testing X2 Technology for more than a decade, accumulating nearly 500 hours”
To get to this number Sikorsky needed to add the flight test time on four different X2 aircraft, plus ground runs and multiple ground test benches for over a decade;
X2 Demonstrator: 22 Flight Hours
S-97 Raider Ship 1: 20 Flight Hours (Crashed)
S-97 Raider Ship 2: 100 Flight Hours
SB>1 Defiant: 30 Flight Hours (estimated based on 26 FH in Jan 2021)
Total for all aircraft: 172 Flight Hours
So the remaining 328 Flight Hours advertised by Sikorsky were accumulated on ground runs and test stands.
Compare this to the “single” Bell AVCD V-280 aircraft, which since it’s first flight three years ago has accumulated over 216 real Flight Hours.
I didn’t post this last month when the article came out, because I felt I was beating a dead horse. But it appears hyperbole, smoke and mirrors, and snake oil are all part of Sikorsky‘s sales pitch.
The engineers at Sikorsky are working their tails off to make this aircraft work. But there comes a time when do you need to look at the data with eyes wide open.
To get to this number Sikorsky needed to add the flight test time on four different X2 aircraft, plus ground runs and multiple ground test benches for over a decade;
X2 Demonstrator: 22 Flight Hours
S-97 Raider Ship 1: 20 Flight Hours (Crashed)
S-97 Raider Ship 2: 100 Flight Hours
SB>1 Defiant: 30 Flight Hours (estimated based on 26 FH in Jan 2021)
Total for all aircraft: 172 Flight Hours
So the remaining 328 Flight Hours advertised by Sikorsky were accumulated on ground runs and test stands.
Compare this to the “single” Bell AVCD V-280 aircraft, which since it’s first flight three years ago has accumulated over 216 real Flight Hours.
I didn’t post this last month when the article came out, because I felt I was beating a dead horse. But it appears hyperbole, smoke and mirrors, and snake oil are all part of Sikorsky‘s sales pitch.
The engineers at Sikorsky are working their tails off to make this aircraft work. But there comes a time when do you need to look at the data with eyes wide open.
I agree, slightly less than V22...I said nacelles, what I meant was the wings and it’s nacelles. If you are landing in slightly lower terrain than the area around you (clearly not ideal but sometimes no other options), you probably have more restrictions than with a regular rotor disc. And how vulnerable is such a split nacelle already for small arms fire? And that times 2 as you have 2....
In a (very rare) defilade-type position you describe, the larger and lower spinning rotor of a conventional helicopter causes essentially the same occlusion within a couple of degrees, but over the entire circular arc instead of just the narrow aspect wing area. This difference is accentuated due to fact that the gun positions are largely forward of the wings.
The dual engine and pylon arrangement and the tiltrotor platform has proven itself in combat with the V-22 for going on 15 years now, from both small and heavy arms fire. Just look up Rooster 73 in south Sudan, or the DFC awards for the Osprey pilots flying in Afghanistan in 2012.
https://newatlas.com/military/sikors...ility-us-army/The Sikorsky PR team is really stretching credibility with the statement ”Sikorsky has been flying and testing X2 Technology for more than a decade, accumulating nearly 500 hours”
To get to this number Sikorsky needed to add the flight test time on four different X2 aircraft, plus ground runs and multiple ground test benches for over a decade;
X2 Demonstrator: 22 Flight Hours
S-97 Raider Ship 1: 20 Flight Hours (Crashed)
S-97 Raider Ship 2: 100 Flight Hours
SB>1 Defiant: 30 Flight Hours (estimated based on 26 FH in Jan 2021)
Total for all aircraft: 172 Flight Hours
So the remaining 328 Flight Hours advertised by Sikorsky were accumulated on ground runs and test stands.
Compare this to the “single” Bell AVCD V-280 aircraft, which since it’s first flight three years ago has accumulated over 216 real Flight Hours.
I didn’t post this last month when the article came out, because I felt I was beating a dead horse. But it appears hyperbole, smoke and mirrors, and snake oil are all part of Sikorsky‘s sales pitch.
The engineers at Sikorsky are working their tails off to make this aircraft work. But there comes a time when do you need to look at the data with eyes wide open.
To get to this number Sikorsky needed to add the flight test time on four different X2 aircraft, plus ground runs and multiple ground test benches for over a decade;
X2 Demonstrator: 22 Flight Hours
S-97 Raider Ship 1: 20 Flight Hours (Crashed)
S-97 Raider Ship 2: 100 Flight Hours
SB>1 Defiant: 30 Flight Hours (estimated based on 26 FH in Jan 2021)
Total for all aircraft: 172 Flight Hours
So the remaining 328 Flight Hours advertised by Sikorsky were accumulated on ground runs and test stands.
Compare this to the “single” Bell AVCD V-280 aircraft, which since it’s first flight three years ago has accumulated over 216 real Flight Hours.
I didn’t post this last month when the article came out, because I felt I was beating a dead horse. But it appears hyperbole, smoke and mirrors, and snake oil are all part of Sikorsky‘s sales pitch.
The engineers at Sikorsky are working their tails off to make this aircraft work. But there comes a time when do you need to look at the data with eyes wide open.
Facts are unimportant when you can just repeat your marketing bullet points ad nauseum and the media parrots them on command.