Sikorsky Raider X - FARA contender
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.
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.
The following Hirschberg commentary article reflects the trades and general approach accurately.
https://vtol.org/news/commentary-decision-time-for-fara
For the UTTAS and AAH programs in the 1970's, the Army was very specific in the requirements and capabilities they wanted, which also drove significant convergent evolution on the solutions, the YAH-63 two-bladed main rotor notwithstanding. For these FVL programs, the opposite tack is being taken. A modest number of proposed missions drive the comparative analysis of possible configurations and tradable capabilities inside a defined trade space. The Army then evaluates the results. It's more than a little like comparing apples and oranges and picking one.
The FARA analysis of alternatives that is due later this calendar year, might be the best insight we get into the Army's thinking on FARA.
By running around to multiple sources, it seems that what we know so far is the Army wants is (I relaize some of this may have been stated here earlier):
Maximum speed: at least 180 kt with a hoped for dash of 200 knots, a single 3,000-shp GE T901, 40 ft diameter rotor, max gross weight: 14,000 lb., the ability to carry four-eight (I'm not sure of the number) Hellfire or JAGM or UAVs with the ability to control same, hot and high HOGE performance, a specified (maybe someone knows the precise numbers) range and endurance.
The agility requirement is greater than that wanted for the Armed Aerial Scout program, which was the program that the larger S-97 Raider was designed around, but the speed requirement is lower (note that Sikorsky acknowledged S-97 never would have been capable of reaching its design speed but that wouldn't be as big a problem with the lower FARA requirement). There is no requirement for an internal cabin in FARA as there was in AAS, nor is there a self-deployment requirement as there is in FLRAA.
Possibly someone else here can fill in some of the other requirements. So far no one has addressed the issue that aeronautical engineers and the Program Manager himself has have said that with existing technology a vehicle that meets all theF ARA requirements can't be built.
Maximum speed: at least 180 kt with a hoped for dash of 200 knots, a single 3,000-shp GE T901, 40 ft diameter rotor, max gross weight: 14,000 lb., the ability to carry four-eight (I'm not sure of the number) Hellfire or JAGM or UAVs with the ability to control same, hot and high HOGE performance, a specified (maybe someone knows the precise numbers) range and endurance.
The agility requirement is greater than that wanted for the Armed Aerial Scout program, which was the program that the larger S-97 Raider was designed around, but the speed requirement is lower (note that Sikorsky acknowledged S-97 never would have been capable of reaching its design speed but that wouldn't be as big a problem with the lower FARA requirement). There is no requirement for an internal cabin in FARA as there was in AAS, nor is there a self-deployment requirement as there is in FLRAA.
Possibly someone else here can fill in some of the other requirements. So far no one has addressed the issue that aeronautical engineers and the Program Manager himself has have said that with existing technology a vehicle that meets all theF ARA requirements can't be built.
Last edited by Commando Cody; 31st Oct 2023 at 01:48. Reason: Clarity
After all these years, Sikorsky could have self funded a demonstrator that proved X2 technology works. That they haven't, is evidence that X2 technology has flaws that can't be overcome. This isn't a case of, well Bell won a contract, therefore Sikorsky has to be given one. If the Army selects an unproven design that ultimately fails, Congress will **** on the Army.
After all these years, Sikorsky could have self funded a demonstrator that proved X2 technology works. That they haven't, is evidence that X2 technology has flaws that can't be overcome. This isn't a case of, well Bell won a contract, therefore Sikorsky has to be given one. If the Army selects an unproven design that ultimately fails, Congress will **** on the Army.
The first: "...Sikorsky could have self funded a demonstrator...". Actually, they did two--the X2 demonstrator and the S-97.
The second: "... that proved X2 technology works".
Ah, there's the rub, and they lead to your last two sentences which have the definite ring of truth.
X2 Technology, a Moon Shot?
I praise the truth that Sikorsky has invested heavily in X2 technology.
But Sikorsky has yet to prove the operational viability of X2 technology.
Just like the Apollo program did not lead to colonization of the moon, the commercial or military customer operational viability of Sikorsky’s X2 technology has yet to be proven.
Note: The Bell XV-15s flew over 1,000 flight hours.
But Sikorsky has yet to prove the operational viability of X2 technology.
Just like the Apollo program did not lead to colonization of the moon, the commercial or military customer operational viability of Sikorsky’s X2 technology has yet to be proven.
Note: The Bell XV-15s flew over 1,000 flight hours.
I praise the truth that Sikorsky has invested heavily in X2 technology.
But Sikorsky has yet to prove the operational viability of X2 technology.
Just like the Apollo program did not lead to colonization of the moon, the commercial or military customer operational viability of Sikorsky’s X2 technology has yet to be proven.
Note: The Bell XV-15s flew over 1,000 flight hours.
But Sikorsky has yet to prove the operational viability of X2 technology.
Just like the Apollo program did not lead to colonization of the moon, the commercial or military customer operational viability of Sikorsky’s X2 technology has yet to be proven.
Note: The Bell XV-15s flew over 1,000 flight hours.
I gently disagree... X-2 aircraft do have a commercial application, just not the one Sikorsky intended: they will all make good museum pieces.
The following 3 users liked this post by SplineDrive:
SD, I laughed out loud. 
And it grew from those humble beginnings into a good attack helicopter with various improvements along the way. Almost a case of "better lucky than good" in terms of the Army and the Marines getting an attack helicopter.
Interesting parallel.
I also think that it will be easier to deploy (more per C-17 load) as it will be smaller. But we'll see.
Both the A-12 and the V-22 were in that zone, one lived and one died.
"I'll know it when I see it" may not be the best approach to a major DoD acquisition program. 
T & C: all around nice post. 
Raider X seems to be a riskier approach with lots of unknowns
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
Withholding further judgment until the things have actually flown...
So what happens when these 2 single engine demonstrators get to finally flying (provided FARA funding isn't cut from congressional reaction to the AoA results)?
We know that both were sized on the ragged edge of possibility from an installed-power perspective - Invictus with the SPU and cleaner tandem airframe will likely achieve the 180kt dash. RaiderX sits on a far worse drag standpoint than the slicked S-97, and with the T901 only putting out marginally ~15% more power than the YT706 in addition to a minimum 20% airframe weight gain...one might be inclined to expect suboptimal Vh for S-102 not to mention the historical vibration issues on all X2 designs.
Now the real rub...based upon the "physics busting requirement" public admissions by the US Army, it stands to reason the possibility of a necessary evolution of FARA into a larger twin engine aircraft to achieve any level of actual operability. If this comes to pass, then the 2 demonstrator airframes and any subsequent flyoff with the Army would be pure lame duck action with actual FARA contract submissions having to be paper airplanes with large deviations from the flying hardware. This is all not to mention the almost certain litigation from AVX, Boeing, and Karem since they were ostensibly eliminated before their designs could have incorporated more power and larger airframes. Boeing in particular with their high speed Apache concepts seems especially likely to make a stink.
What a contractual nightmare.
We know that both were sized on the ragged edge of possibility from an installed-power perspective - Invictus with the SPU and cleaner tandem airframe will likely achieve the 180kt dash. RaiderX sits on a far worse drag standpoint than the slicked S-97, and with the T901 only putting out marginally ~15% more power than the YT706 in addition to a minimum 20% airframe weight gain...one might be inclined to expect suboptimal Vh for S-102 not to mention the historical vibration issues on all X2 designs.
Now the real rub...based upon the "physics busting requirement" public admissions by the US Army, it stands to reason the possibility of a necessary evolution of FARA into a larger twin engine aircraft to achieve any level of actual operability. If this comes to pass, then the 2 demonstrator airframes and any subsequent flyoff with the Army would be pure lame duck action with actual FARA contract submissions having to be paper airplanes with large deviations from the flying hardware. This is all not to mention the almost certain litigation from AVX, Boeing, and Karem since they were ostensibly eliminated before their designs could have incorporated more power and larger airframes. Boeing in particular with their high speed Apache concepts seems especially likely to make a stink.
What a contractual nightmare.
So what happens when these 2 single engine demonstrators get to finally flying (provided FARA funding isn't cut from congressional reaction to the AoA results)?
Now the real rub...based upon the "physics busting requirement" public admissions by the US Army, it stands to reason the possibility of a necessary evolution of FARA into a larger twin engine aircraft to achieve any level of actual operability. If this comes to pass, then the 2 demonstrator airframes and any subsequent flyoff with the Army would be pure lame duck action with actual FARA contract submissions having to be paper airplanes with large deviations from the flying hardware. This is all not to mention the almost certain litigation from AVX, Boeing, and Karem since they were ostensibly eliminated before their designs could have incorporated more power and larger airframes. Boeing in particular with their high speed Apache concepts seems especially likely to make a stink.
What a contractual nightmare.
Now the real rub...based upon the "physics busting requirement" public admissions by the US Army, it stands to reason the possibility of a necessary evolution of FARA into a larger twin engine aircraft to achieve any level of actual operability. If this comes to pass, then the 2 demonstrator airframes and any subsequent flyoff with the Army would be pure lame duck action with actual FARA contract submissions having to be paper airplanes with large deviations from the flying hardware. This is all not to mention the almost certain litigation from AVX, Boeing, and Karem since they were ostensibly eliminated before their designs could have incorporated more power and larger airframes. Boeing in particular with their high speed Apache concepts seems especially likely to make a stink.
What a contractual nightmare.
Going back for substantial redesign, especially allowing two main engines would add major complexity, time and cost and would probably kill the program, already on less than totally firm ground. Keep in mind that FARA is the sixth attempt to replace the OH-58. Questions would certainly arise (they already have) as to whether this kind of craft is needed at all.
I Going back for substantial redesign, especially allowing two main engines would add major complexity, time and cost and would probably kill the program, already on less than totally firm ground. Keep in mind that FARA is the sixth attempt to replace the OH-58. Questions would certainly arise (they already have) as to whether this kind of craft is needed at all.
If we go back to the original LHX idea, and add the never ending mission systems growth, you at best end up with a "needs 1.5 pilots to fly" that has to be rounded up to 2, which problem Comanche ran into also.
Maybe the answer is that OH-58D being replaced by drones and attack helicpters handles the attack and scout requirements, but if we look at what Apache has become, an armed scout (something like Comanche, but not as expensive) still fits into the combined arms approach.
If we go back to the original LHX idea, and add the never ending mission systems growth, you at best end up with a "needs 1.5 pilots to fly" that has to be rounded up to 2, which problem Comanche ran into also.
If we go back to the original LHX idea, and add the never ending mission systems growth, you at best end up with a "needs 1.5 pilots to fly" that has to be rounded up to 2, which problem Comanche ran into also.
Originally LHX was supposed to be single seat but it became apparent that the workload, especially at low altitude, would be too much for a single crewmember
The following users liked this post:
As you pointed out, they eventually tried to get LHX right a second time.
(I am being somewhat sarcastic there). If only they could figure out how to make the Invictus a single pilot system, rather than the tandem cockpit...but I don't think that's going to happen.
This is the best cost and weight savings idea I have heard in a long while. I understand the benefit of having two brains in the cockpit. But does one of those brains have to be actually sitting in the cockpit? Versus sitting in a nice safe room someplace.
Now longer term technology? Maybe there may not be a need for anyone to be aboard.
Administrator
The following users liked this post:
And the crew for the FARA will have high workload, so it's best that the crew are drift compatible (like in that movie from 2012 Pacific Rim, where the pilot team for the building-sized mech robots have to be drift compatible, aka minds in synch to operate the machine's movements and weapons)
News hitting the wires that FARA has gotten the chop.
Breaking Defense has a good article up on the topic.
Sad to see another Army attempt at this falter - Comanche, Arapaho, and now FARA before it could even get a name…
Breaking Defense has a good article up on the topic.
Sad to see another Army attempt at this falter - Comanche, Arapaho, and now FARA before it could even get a name…
Last edited by Senior Pilot; 9th Feb 2024 at 00:12. Reason: Remove whinge about not posting links; you’re a Newbie, we know
The following users liked this post: