Sikorsky Raider X - FARA contender
What a fine post, Evalu8ter thanks for "thinking out loud", as it were. 
A few comments.
I expect that if it wins there will also be an export market for it. I get the idea that Invictus is more affordable than Raider-X. (But I may be guessing incorrectly). Conceptually, though, it runs the risk of the wrong answer to: "Why do we need an OH-58D replacement when we chose to go Apache plus drones and the future will see more drones, not fewer?" (Also, the Army has a bad habit of not being able to shift paradigms ...but I digress).
I am not sure that it does that. Invictus may meet the "more deployable quickly " metric better than AH-64E. More of them will probably fit into an airlift aircraft like a C-17. I'd need to see the Army Future Concept documents (kind of like what Force XXI looked like in the 90's) but I am not privy to those deliberations.
If Raider-X doesn't score a bunch more own goals, I expect that Raider X will get the nod for some of the reasons you mention, but the most important metric is the political one that you pointed out. That's reality.
Whomever has the IVHUMS project for Raider-X has their work cut out for them.
Almost a farce. If Raider-X gets over some of the hurdles you mention, their speed advantage will probably ice the deal.
They probably can. Textron also owns Beech up in Wichita, and some other aerospace companies.
A few comments.I expect that if it wins there will also be an export market for it. I get the idea that Invictus is more affordable than Raider-X. (But I may be guessing incorrectly). Conceptually, though, it runs the risk of the wrong answer to: "Why do we need an OH-58D replacement when we chose to go Apache plus drones and the future will see more drones, not fewer?" (Also, the Army has a bad habit of not being able to shift paradigms ...but I digress).
Encroaching significantly into the AH-64E's space.
Assuming that the budget remains there, which will the Army chose?
the vibration and aero interaction were significant issues in the end.
external seating patent recently released looks a little desperate
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?
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 24th Oct 2023 at 15:20.
The following users liked this post:
Lockheed Cheyenne vs Bell Cobra déjà vu
Am I the only one getting a feeling of déjà vu?
Lockheed is proposing extremely complex and expensive helicopter with high speed capability.
Bell is offering a low-cost alternative that may not be as fast, but is much lower technical risk.
Will history repeat itself?
Does anyone believe that Sikorsky can truly produce a FARA using X-2 technology cheaper than Bell a conventional helicopter with wings?
If both competitors meet minimum performance requirements, how much will the US Army be willing to pay for the X-2 speed?
Lockheed is proposing extremely complex and expensive helicopter with high speed capability.
Bell is offering a low-cost alternative that may not be as fast, but is much lower technical risk.
Will history repeat itself?
Does anyone believe that Sikorsky can truly produce a FARA using X-2 technology cheaper than Bell a conventional helicopter with wings?
If both competitors meet minimum performance requirements, how much will the US Army be willing to pay for the X-2 speed?
No, I am getting it also.
Yes.
I think so, but I use the F-35, specifically the F-35B, as the point of comparison.
Probably not.
The politicians will find the money, though, if it means keeping the jobs in their districts and keeping the defense industrial base "diversified." (As in "also in my district"). As Oprah might say
"You get a sub contract, and you get a sub contract, and you get a sub contract..."
Also, speaking of expensive yet they survived: F-35 worked out, so yes, history is likely to repeat itself.
So too did Osprey, which was breaking tech barriers as well.
Lockheed is proposing extremely complex and expensive helicopter with high speed capability. Bell is offering a low-cost alternative that may not be as fast,but is much lower technical risk.
Will history repeat itself?
Does anyone believe that Sikorsky can truly produce a FARA using X-2 technology cheaper than Bell a conventional helicopter with wings?
If both competitors meet minimum performance requirements, how much will the US Army be willing to pay for the X-2 speed?
"You get a sub contract, and you get a sub contract, and you get a sub contract..."
Also, speaking of expensive yet they survived: F-35 worked out, so yes, history is likely to repeat itself.
So too did Osprey, which was breaking tech barriers as well.
Several posters here talking about Raider-X having a serious speed advantage over Invictus and Evalu8er mentions closing the gap to a V-280 escort with Raider-X since it will be much faster than the lift compounded Invictus. Sikorsky loves this talk, but find me an official statement where they’re claiming performance substantially over the FARA targets. Raider made 207 knots from a YT-706 and a cleaner/smaller aircraft with no weapons and no mission equipment. FARA has to carry a much heavier weapons load out and probably a thousand+ pounds of mission equipment that Raider didn’t have to. Raider-X is larger in every dimension, draggier, and much heavier than Raider for only modestly more installed power (though better fuel burn). Both of these aircraft are rumored to be well over the original 14,000 lb target with all the past comments about FARA requirements “violating the known laws of physics”, and Raider-X is likely heavier than Invictus.
Raider-X will be slower than Raider. It might even be slower than Invictus which has the advantage of lower drag and more installed power (though less aerodynamic efficiency as speed increases further). Both are probably designed to cruise right around the 180 knot Vh mark. The challenge is nearly every single main rotor helicopter can achieve Vh in flight test without much trouble… and very few ABC/X-2 aircraft have.
Raider-X will be slower than Raider. It might even be slower than Invictus which has the advantage of lower drag and more installed power (though less aerodynamic efficiency as speed increases further). Both are probably designed to cruise right around the 180 knot Vh mark. The challenge is nearly every single main rotor helicopter can achieve Vh in flight test without much trouble… and very few ABC/X-2 aircraft have.
The following 2 users liked this post by SplineDrive:
The odds that Raider-X can keep up with Valor are zero... even if a production version had two T-901 engines. Literally zero. Zip. Nada. Oh hell no. Not going to happen.
Ground Run 2QFY24 and First Flight 4QF24.
So, based on the latest US Army press releases, we will hopefully see FARA competitors rotors turning sometime next summer, and first flights before the end of next year.
https://www.army.mil/article/271051
https://www.army.mil/article/271051
So, based on the latest US Army press releases, we will hopefully see FARA competitors rotors turning sometime next summer, and first flights before the end of next year.
https://www.army.mil/article/271051
https://www.army.mil/article/271051
Good point re requirements LW: Think I posted a query on the subject a while ago, but here goes again. Back to the UTTAS program for a minute. The Army started studies in 1968, while the Vietnam War was still being fought, as to a replacement for the UH-1, which you’ll recall started out as a medevac aircraft, but was then morphed thru multiple models due to the exigencies of that conflict and lessons being learned.
The UH-1 replacement effort was aimed at resolving all the lessons learned in SE Asia and resulted in what was called a Material Need Document, which was actually a very detailed specification covering again, in rather precise detail, flight performance, specific handling qualities requirements, maneuvering requirements ( including the one that became known as “ the UTTAS Maneuver ) maintenance and mobility by USAF aircraft requirements, Crashworhiness requirements, Ballististic survivability and Vulnerability requirements.
Is there a like document precisely defining the FARA requirements-all of them?
What the Army did on UTTAS was take that Material Need Document and essentially incorporated it into their Request For Proposal ( RFP ) so that there was no doubt in contractors minds as to what was required of them. No wiggle room.
The UH-1 replacement effort was aimed at resolving all the lessons learned in SE Asia and resulted in what was called a Material Need Document, which was actually a very detailed specification covering again, in rather precise detail, flight performance, specific handling qualities requirements, maneuvering requirements ( including the one that became known as “ the UTTAS Maneuver ) maintenance and mobility by USAF aircraft requirements, Crashworhiness requirements, Ballististic survivability and Vulnerability requirements.
Is there a like document precisely defining the FARA requirements-all of them?
What the Army did on UTTAS was take that Material Need Document and essentially incorporated it into their Request For Proposal ( RFP ) so that there was no doubt in contractors minds as to what was required of them. No wiggle room.
John... actually essentially the opposite approach was taken. A mission equipment package was defined... somewhat loosely with respect to ALEs. MOSA was defined. A min speed, max rotor diameter, and max GW was defined, and a couple of generic missions... and that's about it. Competitors were asked to do their best at meeting as many requirements as possible and there has been significant trade space. I'm not aware of an overarching document. The Analysis of Alternatives is only being worked on now, after two prototypes have been developed.
Yes, SD and wasn’t that beyond ironic, at least to those of us who vividly recall the oft repeated rule at SA in 1972-3 as we put together the design: “there will be zero exceptions”.*
But to my post: can you point me to the FARA Material Need Doc or whatever the Army called the specific requirements document? I’d like to read it.
* Actually, we found it necessary to take, as I recall the number was 10 exceptions to the spec requirements as stated in the RFP, and that resulted in details where one part of the quoted underlying requirement document was at odds with another requirement and you couldn’t do both. Met with the Army and got that stuff straightened out. Boeing would have had the same difficulty in those areas.
There was one handling requirement that we were unable to perform, and probably flew 20+ hours before giving up.
If you can get a look at the picture of the first flight of the UH-60A first prototype, 650,and direct your attention to the vertical tail fin, you’ll notice it was huge, and also very highly cambered. Those features went back toward the no exceptions rule at SA.
The reason for that tail was that there was a requirement ( at design gross weight ) that at zero tail rotor thrust, the aircraft had to be capable of level flight at best endurance speed with a sideslip angle not to exceed 30 degrees. Our problem was finding a way to prove to ourselves, much less anyone else, that our flight condition was zero thrust. NOW, the old timers among our readers may recall that at one point during the original S-58 development, this very test was accomplished and a report was made public about it. But that group had a tail rotor with a flapping hinge and we did not. Thus we tried all sorts of different tail rotor and structural data to get to a condition of zero tail rotor thrust with that very stiff and strong XBR4 crossbeam tail rotor, but never convinced ourselves that we had it for real. We had an Army Test Pilot assigned to our team by Army Flight Standards in St. Louis and he was in on all the testing, flight reports etc and all that information went to St. Louis, so they knew what was going on in detail. Finally, neither we nor they had any ideas that we hadn’t tried, and at the same time, that huge vertical tail with all that camber was creating problems of its own which resulted in conflict with some other handling requirements, the most obvious one was that the aircraft had to be able to fly from hover speed to either the 145 kt cruise point or 150KIAS-can’t recall, with the directional trim not changing more than 1/2 inch of pedal position. With that cambered tail, you can imagine that speed changes were accompanied by chasing the ball around ad infinitum. In fact, keeping the aircraft in trim doing almost anything was a continual task, and finally the requirement went away and after a few iterations we came up with the vertical tail you’ve seen since.
I have to say that the attempts to find zero TR thrust resulted in some very interesting and ingenious ideas being flown. There were any number of times when we finished a flight and thought we had it, only to look at the data and find the opposite.
But to my post: can you point me to the FARA Material Need Doc or whatever the Army called the specific requirements document? I’d like to read it.
* Actually, we found it necessary to take, as I recall the number was 10 exceptions to the spec requirements as stated in the RFP, and that resulted in details where one part of the quoted underlying requirement document was at odds with another requirement and you couldn’t do both. Met with the Army and got that stuff straightened out. Boeing would have had the same difficulty in those areas.
There was one handling requirement that we were unable to perform, and probably flew 20+ hours before giving up.
If you can get a look at the picture of the first flight of the UH-60A first prototype, 650,and direct your attention to the vertical tail fin, you’ll notice it was huge, and also very highly cambered. Those features went back toward the no exceptions rule at SA.
The reason for that tail was that there was a requirement ( at design gross weight ) that at zero tail rotor thrust, the aircraft had to be capable of level flight at best endurance speed with a sideslip angle not to exceed 30 degrees. Our problem was finding a way to prove to ourselves, much less anyone else, that our flight condition was zero thrust. NOW, the old timers among our readers may recall that at one point during the original S-58 development, this very test was accomplished and a report was made public about it. But that group had a tail rotor with a flapping hinge and we did not. Thus we tried all sorts of different tail rotor and structural data to get to a condition of zero tail rotor thrust with that very stiff and strong XBR4 crossbeam tail rotor, but never convinced ourselves that we had it for real. We had an Army Test Pilot assigned to our team by Army Flight Standards in St. Louis and he was in on all the testing, flight reports etc and all that information went to St. Louis, so they knew what was going on in detail. Finally, neither we nor they had any ideas that we hadn’t tried, and at the same time, that huge vertical tail with all that camber was creating problems of its own which resulted in conflict with some other handling requirements, the most obvious one was that the aircraft had to be able to fly from hover speed to either the 145 kt cruise point or 150KIAS-can’t recall, with the directional trim not changing more than 1/2 inch of pedal position. With that cambered tail, you can imagine that speed changes were accompanied by chasing the ball around ad infinitum. In fact, keeping the aircraft in trim doing almost anything was a continual task, and finally the requirement went away and after a few iterations we came up with the vertical tail you’ve seen since.
I have to say that the attempts to find zero TR thrust resulted in some very interesting and ingenious ideas being flown. There were any number of times when we finished a flight and thought we had it, only to look at the data and find the opposite.
Last edited by JohnDixson; 27th Oct 2023 at 12:40.
The following users liked this post:
Keep in mind that Defiant X couldn't keep up with Valor and it was working to the same speed requirement. FARA requirements don't specify anywhere near that speed and there's no chance Army would pay extra for it even if either competitor would reach it, which they can't.
Am I the only one getting a feeling of déjà vu?
Lockheed is proposing extremely complex and expensive helicopter with high speed capability.
Bell is offering a low-cost alternative that may not be as fast, but is much lower technical risk.
Will history repeat itself?
Does anyone believe that Sikorsky can truly produce a FARA using X-2 technology cheaper than Bell a conventional helicopter with wings?
If both competitors meet minimum performance requirements, how much will the US Army be willing to pay for the X-2 speed?
Lockheed is proposing extremely complex and expensive helicopter with high speed capability.
Bell is offering a low-cost alternative that may not be as fast, but is much lower technical risk.
Will history repeat itself?
Does anyone believe that Sikorsky can truly produce a FARA using X-2 technology cheaper than Bell a conventional helicopter with wings?
If both competitors meet minimum performance requirements, how much will the US Army be willing to pay for the X-2 speed?
Keep in mind that Army specified the speed requirement for AAFSS, which begat Cheyenne. Sikorsky's proposal was also complex with its "Rotoprop" tail rotor.
However Vietnam was going on and AH-56 was taking too long, so Army set up a competition for an "interim" helicopter based on an existing design so that it could be deployed faster. Bell won that with the AH-1. Even so, in order to protect Cheyenne Army restricted and delayed integration of TOW with Cobra so as not to challenge the requirement and funding for Cheyenne.
Last edited by Commando Cody; 28th Oct 2023 at 01:43. Reason: better illustration
My Lockheed versus Bell déjà vu comment was to highlight the irony, not the historical equivalence of this competition match up.
Still, I enjoy reading history regarding the Cheyenne development. A lot of this has been lost overtime.
Still, I enjoy reading history regarding the Cheyenne development. A lot of this has been lost overtime.
The thing I was trying to explain that Cheyenne and Cobra were not a more and less complex proposals to meet the same requirement. They were different craft proposed for different programs with different requirements. For a long time, stories have floated around that the AH-1 was Bell's plan to kill the Cheyenne to meet the Army's requirement. It wasn't. It won a competition to develop something to hold the line in Vietnam until Cheyenne could get there.
Now as to what Bell might be thinking once Cobra was fielded and Cheyenne still wasn't moving along may be another story...
More Irony
One additional bit of historical irony in the FARA competition.
Sikorsky fully funded the Raider X prototype (not the FARA) on their own and teammate funding, absent any government request.
Bell funded the original Cobra prototype using only company funding, again absent, any government request.
Sikorsky fully funded the Raider X prototype (not the FARA) on their own and teammate funding, absent any government request.
Bell funded the original Cobra prototype using only company funding, again absent, any government request.
The following users liked this post:
Invictus seems like a conventional, "safer" alternative, something that will more or less perform as advertised
Raider X seems to be a riskier approach with lots of unknowns, and the previous iterations starting with X2 have not performed as advertised, but potentially better performance if it works
A lot comes down to what the Army wants these aircraft to do, and it appears to this observer that the Army isn't sure what they want until they see what the aircraft can do
Budget probably favors Invictus (or nothing) (like others, I don't see how Raider X can be cheaper to procure and maintain than a more conventional helicopter design)
Politics probably favors Sikorsky (since Bell won FLRAA with Valor)
Withholding further judgment until the things have actually flown...
Raider X seems to be a riskier approach with lots of unknowns, and the previous iterations starting with X2 have not performed as advertised, but potentially better performance if it works
A lot comes down to what the Army wants these aircraft to do, and it appears to this observer that the Army isn't sure what they want until they see what the aircraft can do
Budget probably favors Invictus (or nothing) (like others, I don't see how Raider X can be cheaper to procure and maintain than a more conventional helicopter design)
Politics probably favors Sikorsky (since Bell won FLRAA with Valor)
Withholding further judgment until the things have actually flown...
The following users liked this post: