Sikorsky Raider X - FARA contender
Where's the engine, Chopper?
For CTR:
Most of what OH-58 can do drones can do, recon wise.
Shooting wise, the hellfire add on was nice, but it's too slow.
Manpower wise, when it was shelved, the army saved thousands of billets to move elsewhere during a manpower reduction
They also cut an entire logistics tail for a model Bell wasn't being great about supporting any more.
(The Navy ran into similar problems with the TH-57, but different ones at that).
Capability wise, the combined scout and attack mission with Apache and drones/UAVs works well enough.
Your are focusing on an airframe, not on a capability. Sorry, but it was the right choice for the Army.
The OH-58D was a great little aircraft, and the F update was something I once knew a small amount about but have mostly forgotten since.
With NDA's considered, I can say that during some ops - that involved shooting - the whole thing was aided and completed with OH-58D being a part of the op.
Good folks, good job, good bird, not too expensive to operate.
Letting it go was a very sound decision. (Particularly at the time, given the political environment).
For CTR:
Most of what OH-58 can do drones can do, recon wise.
Shooting wise, the hellfire add on was nice, but it's too slow.
Manpower wise, when it was shelved, the army saved thousands of billets to move elsewhere during a manpower reduction
They also cut an entire logistics tail for a model Bell wasn't being great about supporting any more.
(The Navy ran into similar problems with the TH-57, but different ones at that).
Capability wise, the combined scout and attack mission with Apache and drones/UAVs works well enough.
Your are focusing on an airframe, not on a capability. Sorry, but it was the right choice for the Army.
The OH-58D was a great little aircraft, and the F update was something I once knew a small amount about but have mostly forgotten since.
With NDA's considered, I can say that during some ops - that involved shooting - the whole thing was aided and completed with OH-58D being a part of the op.
Good folks, good job, good bird, not too expensive to operate.
Letting it go was a very sound decision. (Particularly at the time, given the political environment).
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 9th Oct 2023 at 18:25.
Thread Starter
Just seen the video that is put on Youtube
cheers
cheers
The OH-58 served well, and for a good long time.
It was time to retire it and allocate those program resources elsewhere. (Again, remember what was going on politically, in terms of the draw down, in 2013. That's where the money comes from, politicians). Retiring good platforms happens ...
Same with the Phantom.
Same with the T-2C Buckeye.
Same with the Tomcat.
Same with the Spruance class destoryers.
Same with the AH-1W (USMC)
Thread Starter
While a fine achievement, that doesn't matter.
The OH-58 served well, and for a good long time.
It was time to retire it and allocate those program resources elsewhere. (Again, remember what was going on politically, in terms of the draw down, in 2013. That's where the money comes from, politicians). Retiring good platforms happens ...
Same with the Phantom.
Same with the T-2C Buckeye.
Same with the Tomcat.
Same with the Spruance class destoryers.
Same with the AH-1W (USMC)
The OH-58 served well, and for a good long time.
It was time to retire it and allocate those program resources elsewhere. (Again, remember what was going on politically, in terms of the draw down, in 2013. That's where the money comes from, politicians). Retiring good platforms happens ...
Same with the Phantom.
Same with the T-2C Buckeye.
Same with the Tomcat.
Same with the Spruance class destoryers.
Same with the AH-1W (USMC)
cheers
Chopper, don't try to teach your grandma how to suck eggs. Stick to taking pictures.
The following users liked this post:
Where's the engine, Chopper?
For CTR:
Most of what OH-58 can do drones can do, recon wise.
Shooting wise, the hellfire add on was nice, but it's too slow.
Manpower wise, when it was shelved, the army saved thousands of billets to move elsewhere during a manpower reduction
They also cut an entire logistics tail for a model Bell wasn't being great about supporting any more.
(The Navy ran into similar problems with the TH-57, but different ones at that).
Capability wise, the combined scout and attack mission with Apache and drones/UAVs works well enough.
Your are focusing on an airframe, not on a capability. Sorry, but it was the right choice for the Army.
The OH-58D was a great little aircraft, and the F update was something I once knew a small amount about but have mostly forgotten since.
With NDA's considered, I can say that during some ops - that involved shooting - the whole thing was aided and completed with OH-58D being a part of the op.
Good folks, good job, good bird, not too expensive to operate.
Letting it go was a very sound decision. (Particularly at the time, given the political environment).
For CTR:
Most of what OH-58 can do drones can do, recon wise.
Shooting wise, the hellfire add on was nice, but it's too slow.
Manpower wise, when it was shelved, the army saved thousands of billets to move elsewhere during a manpower reduction
They also cut an entire logistics tail for a model Bell wasn't being great about supporting any more.
(The Navy ran into similar problems with the TH-57, but different ones at that).
Capability wise, the combined scout and attack mission with Apache and drones/UAVs works well enough.
Your are focusing on an airframe, not on a capability. Sorry, but it was the right choice for the Army.
The OH-58D was a great little aircraft, and the F update was something I once knew a small amount about but have mostly forgotten since.
With NDA's considered, I can say that during some ops - that involved shooting - the whole thing was aided and completed with OH-58D being a part of the op.
Good folks, good job, good bird, not too expensive to operate.
Letting it go was a very sound decision. (Particularly at the time, given the political environment).
Not exactly sure why you would specifically address me to this post. I do not disagree that the Kiowa was long past when it should’ve been retired. But retiring an aircraft without an adequate replacement, was incredibly shortsighted. Additionally, thinking the Kiowa could be replaced with Apaches and drones to save cost was a farce from day one.
The poor abused TH-57s were badly in need of replacement from too many student hard landings. Bell product support had nothing to do with their replacement. The reason Bell lost the contract for the aircraft replacement was due primarily bidding too high. Bell corrected this mistake following the contract loss by requesting those individuals in charge to look for employment elsewhere.
Last edited by CTR; 11th Oct 2023 at 09:30.
CTR:
My apologies. That was for The Sultan. Whoops?
I disagree with you that it needed one for one replacement, but that's (1) a bit of an esoteric argument (how the Army folds UAV/Drones into their doctrine and ops) (2) and at the time of its retirement a combination of budget and manpower concerns, and requirements definition, were not ironed out.
See the topic of this thread: FARA (and its cousin, FLARA).
As to the TH-57.
That one's a little too close for me to discuss without deep frustration.
The Navy kicked the can down the road, year after year, on establishing the follow-on aircraft, getting the FAA acceptable instrument cert and simulation piece, and much more. I agree with you, they rode the TH-57 hard and put it away wet.
The various PMAs punted .... OK, I'll get off of my soap box.
Glad Navy finally got a more up to date Orange and White helicopter.
Full disclosure: I am biased - I'd have preferred a Bell product since I live in Texas.
I guess the bidding game didn't pan out for Bell on that one, which is a shame.
My apologies. That was for The Sultan. Whoops?
I disagree with you that it needed one for one replacement, but that's (1) a bit of an esoteric argument (how the Army folds UAV/Drones into their doctrine and ops) (2) and at the time of its retirement a combination of budget and manpower concerns, and requirements definition, were not ironed out.
See the topic of this thread: FARA (and its cousin, FLARA).
As to the TH-57.
That one's a little too close for me to discuss without deep frustration.
The Navy kicked the can down the road, year after year, on establishing the follow-on aircraft, getting the FAA acceptable instrument cert and simulation piece, and much more. I agree with you, they rode the TH-57 hard and put it away wet.
The various PMAs punted .... OK, I'll get off of my soap box.
Glad Navy finally got a more up to date Orange and White helicopter.
Full disclosure: I am biased - I'd have preferred a Bell product since I live in Texas.
I guess the bidding game didn't pan out for Bell on that one, which is a shame.
Thread Starter
Umm, theres quite a few flying leathernecks I know that would like to teach the commandant how to suck eggs in lieu of what has been happening across the corps but that is another story.
Back to target sorry topic, and yours and everybody when sorry oops if the Army pick the Raider X, in a weird form or fashion, forget the X2 technology its the human ergonomics here.
- side-by-side seating -great for CRM, Human factors no different to Kiowa Warrior of past or the armed Huey gunships over SEA
Though I wonder if the weight of the Raider X might be something to contend with as put it another way, was it not one of the factors re the large SB-1 design which the army shook its head and went hell no lets go to V-280 Valor.
cheers
Back to target sorry topic, and yours and everybody when sorry oops if the Army pick the Raider X, in a weird form or fashion, forget the X2 technology its the human ergonomics here. - side-by-side seating -great for CRM, Human factors no different to Kiowa Warrior of past or the armed Huey gunships over SEA
Though I wonder if the weight of the Raider X might be something to contend with
We'll see how that works out.
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Cobras are tandem seating. Were as far back as their early days. Also Apache. Also Comanche. So is Invictus.
I think (and am happy to be corrected by those more in-the-know) that Sikorsky / LM are betting the come on the CT-901 engine solving most of their problems.
We'll see how that works out.
I think (and am happy to be corrected by those more in-the-know) that Sikorsky / LM are betting the come on the CT-901 engine solving most of their problems.
We'll see how that works out.
cheers
Thanks gramps lol
Umm, theres quite a few flying leathernecks I know that would like to teach the commandant how to suck eggs in lieu of what has been happening across the corps but that is another story.
Back to target sorry topic, and yours and everybody when sorry oops if the Army pick the Raider X, in a weird form or fashion, forget the X2 technology its the human ergonomics here.
- side-by-side seating -great for CRM, Human factors no different to Kiowa Warrior of past or the armed Huey gunships over SEA
Though I wonder if the weight of the Raider X might be something to contend with as put it another way, was it not one of the factors re the large SB-1 design which the army shook its head and went hell no lets go to V-280 Valor.
cheers
Umm, theres quite a few flying leathernecks I know that would like to teach the commandant how to suck eggs in lieu of what has been happening across the corps but that is another story.
Back to target sorry topic, and yours and everybody when sorry oops if the Army pick the Raider X, in a weird form or fashion, forget the X2 technology its the human ergonomics here.
- side-by-side seating -great for CRM, Human factors no different to Kiowa Warrior of past or the armed Huey gunships over SEA
Though I wonder if the weight of the Raider X might be something to contend with as put it another way, was it not one of the factors re the large SB-1 design which the army shook its head and went hell no lets go to V-280 Valor.
cheers
Then of course there were factors such as Defiant was a year and a quarter late for the Army's schedule for getting into the air, and then soon had to be grounded. It flew nowhere near the number of hours that Valor did. It kept missing its promised milestone dates. Valor promised significantly higher performance for the production version. Valor met or exceeded everything it promised for the Technology Demonstration when they said it would. Defiant missed a number of times, which gave greater confidence in Valor's claims.
I doubt if weight was much of a factor, there were so many other considerations.
The following users liked this post:
Odds on favorite could be program cancellation, but let's see what the Army AoA says. Both teams will have their engines very soon and it'll be game on to get in the air. Then we'll see if Raider-X can break the tradition of horrifically slow flight test progress the other X-2 ships have experienced.
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jul 2021
Location: Southern United States
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 60 Likes
on
30 Posts
interesting that the FARA gets these engines first, would have expected engines to go to the integration process for the UH-60 and AH-64 but I guess that’s not a pressing need. I can’t wait till I have to learn new acronyms, Nomenclature and maintenance procedures for the new engine.
From the pictures I’ve seen, a lot has changed between 701 vs 901.
FltMech
From the pictures I’ve seen, a lot has changed between 701 vs 901.
FltMech
I can’t wait till I have to learn new acronyms, Nomenclature and maintenance procedures for the new engine.
From the pictures I’ve seen, a lot has changed between 701 vs 901.
Of course it's different.
Also, there's been an incremental upgrade in the YT706...and I'll guess a few lessons learned from that.
For Commander Cody: it's already FY 2024.
For Lonewolf 50: Agree. UH-60 and AH-64 can wait for T901, they can carry out their present duties with the T700. For FARA, though, without the T901 there's no program because that aircraft can't exist without it. I would opine that the biggest reason for FLRAA being late was waiting for Sikorsky.
Yes, it's already FY2024, but it's not CY2024. With only one engine delivered and the second not scheduled before the end of October, I don't consider it very likely both competitors will get in the air before the end of 2023.
Yes, it's already FY2024, but it's not CY2024. With only one engine delivered and the second not scheduled before the end of October, I don't consider it very likely both competitors will get in the air before the end of 2023.
Until this work is completed, the ITEP engines are just very expensive lumps of metal.
CTR, at least they are now lumps of metal rather than 3D printed…..it will be a relief to the Army and to both FARA bidders that they can finally get their aircraft finished.
FARA remains in an awkward space. There is still talk about the Army not being able to afford it, and that both designs are 'too much helicopter' as a direct -58D replacement, as well as encroaching significantly into the AH-64E's space. Assuming that the budget remains there, which will the Army chose? I totally agree with Cody's assessment re FLRAA above. The 'smoking gun' was laid bare in the GAO protest response, and heads should have rolled at LM/Sikorsky for it. However, setting aside the huge lead that the V-280 built up in the JMR-TD program (and Army Aviation desperately needs a low-risk 'win' having failed to field a new platform since the Aviators took over the acquisition process - no the Lakota doesn't count..), the V-280's configuration also answers an awful lot of operational needs in the PTO, and it is wet-built from first principles so it can deploy in the littoral or lily pad off ships if needed. A tilt rotor with significant wing borne lift is always going to have a speed/range/altitude advantage over an X2 thrust compound design. I also suspect, given Sikorsky's admission that X2 Tech does not scale up to 'Large-medium / Heavy', that it barely scaled up to Defiant, and that the vibration and aero interaction were significant issues in the end. Where does this leave FARA? The Army's preference for pure 'Scout' has always been side by side seating, with room in the back for a couple of pax or cargo. Raider nails that brief, Invictus manifestly doesn't (and the external seating patent recently released looks a little desperate on a single engined non-SOCOM platform…it's not a MELB), unless the army want more 'Attack' than 'Recce', in which case the Invictus holds the advantage. Given that the lift-compound design will be barely faster than today's platforms, and Raider much quicker, it also closes the 'escort gap' to V-280 if needed. Ultimately, however, this will come down to politics. Provided Raider doesn't completely blow the assessment, I'm confident that it will win. Putting the medium term future of Army Avn into one company would make Bell too important to fail, and not spread tax-dollars through enough political hinterlands. Plus, can Bell realistically generate enough industrial capacity to manage and deliver both programs?
FARA remains in an awkward space. There is still talk about the Army not being able to afford it, and that both designs are 'too much helicopter' as a direct -58D replacement, as well as encroaching significantly into the AH-64E's space. Assuming that the budget remains there, which will the Army chose? I totally agree with Cody's assessment re FLRAA above. The 'smoking gun' was laid bare in the GAO protest response, and heads should have rolled at LM/Sikorsky for it. However, setting aside the huge lead that the V-280 built up in the JMR-TD program (and Army Aviation desperately needs a low-risk 'win' having failed to field a new platform since the Aviators took over the acquisition process - no the Lakota doesn't count..), the V-280's configuration also answers an awful lot of operational needs in the PTO, and it is wet-built from first principles so it can deploy in the littoral or lily pad off ships if needed. A tilt rotor with significant wing borne lift is always going to have a speed/range/altitude advantage over an X2 thrust compound design. I also suspect, given Sikorsky's admission that X2 Tech does not scale up to 'Large-medium / Heavy', that it barely scaled up to Defiant, and that the vibration and aero interaction were significant issues in the end. Where does this leave FARA? The Army's preference for pure 'Scout' has always been side by side seating, with room in the back for a couple of pax or cargo. Raider nails that brief, Invictus manifestly doesn't (and the external seating patent recently released looks a little desperate on a single engined non-SOCOM platform…it's not a MELB), unless the army want more 'Attack' than 'Recce', in which case the Invictus holds the advantage. Given that the lift-compound design will be barely faster than today's platforms, and Raider much quicker, it also closes the 'escort gap' to V-280 if needed. Ultimately, however, this will come down to politics. Provided Raider doesn't completely blow the assessment, I'm confident that it will win. Putting the medium term future of Army Avn into one company would make Bell too important to fail, and not spread tax-dollars through enough political hinterlands. Plus, can Bell realistically generate enough industrial capacity to manage and deliver both programs?
The following users liked this post: