Sikorsky Raider X - FARA contender
Thread Starter
Sikorsky Raider X - FARA contender
Today Sikorsky announced the Raider X for FARA competition ..
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...-raider-x.html
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...-raider-x.html
Sikorsky AUSA FARA Press Release
Here it is:
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019...380.1545920007
This has X2 all over it and barely mentions the S-97. So this is basically Sikorsky saying forget the 97 with its high drag/low max speed, brutal vibration, and rotors that might chew themselves up in an abrupt maneuver and return to the promise of the (one step above a toy) X-2 for the FARA. Since the picture looks like a 97 but bigger, how is it not going to be even worse in all aspects?
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019...380.1545920007
This has X2 all over it and barely mentions the S-97. So this is basically Sikorsky saying forget the 97 with its high drag/low max speed, brutal vibration, and rotors that might chew themselves up in an abrupt maneuver and return to the promise of the (one step above a toy) X-2 for the FARA. Since the picture looks like a 97 but bigger, how is it not going to be even worse in all aspects?
Here it is:
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019...380.1545920007
This has X2 all over it and barely mentions the S-97. So this is basically Sikorsky saying forget the 97 with its high drag/low max speed, brutal vibration, and rotors that might chew themselves up in an abrupt maneuver and return to the promise of the (one step above a toy) X-2 for the FARA. Since the picture looks like a 97 but bigger, how is it not going to be even worse in all aspects?
https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2019...380.1545920007
This has X2 all over it and barely mentions the S-97. So this is basically Sikorsky saying forget the 97 with its high drag/low max speed, brutal vibration, and rotors that might chew themselves up in an abrupt maneuver and return to the promise of the (one step above a toy) X-2 for the FARA. Since the picture looks like a 97 but bigger, how is it not going to be even worse in all aspects?
SD
I didn’t right the press release. If they weren’t distancing they would have written 97 instead of X2. You of all should know that when battling excessive drag adding more power is a losing proposition relative to fuel consumption/range and in this case significantly higher vibratory levels/loads.
I didn’t right the press release. If they weren’t distancing they would have written 97 instead of X2. You of all should know that when battling excessive drag adding more power is a losing proposition relative to fuel consumption/range and in this case significantly higher vibratory levels/loads.
The mass and cost penalty of a lift sharing wing and SPU is likely far less than an entire additional main rotor and controls, a high power clutched propellor, and the additional structure/systems required to sustain and mitigate the loads from the rigid rotors. In other words, the empty weight of Raider-X is bound to be higher than Model 360. Since the Army has requested a max gross weight and limited the rotor diameter, Sikorsky’s ship likely has less payload/fuel than the Model 360 at the customer requested max gross weight. To carry the full payload at the desired range, they’ll have to fly Raider-X at higher gross weights and disk loading which then incurs additional structural penalties unless they choose to have lower maneuver margins at those gross weights. Adding more power just compounds those issues.
Seems like a lot of downside for a little more speed.
As stated elsewhere Bell took a two blade conventional Huey main an tail rotor compound to 274 knots. Shook like hell and had no range or payload. Sucks for S that physics doesn’t doesn’t change.
https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...rcraft_id=1931
https://www.militaryfactory.com/airc...rcraft_id=1931
Philosophies, Bell vs. Sikorsky
This is interesting.
It looks like Bell believes the Army will go for low risk and cost )and not give a ton of credit for performance much beyond the threshold and objective levels. They design for the cruise requirement and use the SPU to boost speed for the short dashes.
Sikorsky apparently believes the opposite.
It looks like Bell believes the Army will go for low risk and cost )and not give a ton of credit for performance much beyond the threshold and objective levels. They design for the cruise requirement and use the SPU to boost speed for the short dashes.
Sikorsky apparently believes the opposite.
This is interesting.
It looks like Bell believes the Army will go for low risk and cost )and not give a ton of credit for performance much beyond the threshold and objective levels. They design for the cruise requirement and use the SPU to boost speed for the short dashes.
Sikorsky apparently believes the opposite.
It looks like Bell believes the Army will go for low risk and cost )and not give a ton of credit for performance much beyond the threshold and objective levels. They design for the cruise requirement and use the SPU to boost speed for the short dashes.
Sikorsky apparently believes the opposite.
CC
The FARA radius of action is only 125 miles so the tactical benefits of the Raider going 10% faster than the 360 are insignificant and not worth the complexity of an ABC over a conventional helicopter.
The FARA radius of action is only 125 miles so the tactical benefits of the Raider going 10% faster than the 360 are insignificant and not worth the complexity of an ABC over a conventional helicopter.
Understood. I just used speed as an example of how these two contractors were looking at it differently. Bell going for low cost by not trying to do 205 knots for the entire flight. The basic question is overall how much credit will be given for how much performance. A bid could have better performance promises than another less expensive one, but if the extra credit given is not enough to overcome the difference in cost, it'll still lose. We've seen this happen in contracts awarded of the last decade or so.
Yes, there are more requirements than can all be met by a real aircraft, so the Army will have to evaluate each competitors performance and capability trade offs. Also, I doubt Raider-X can cruise at 205 knots... they only stated they think they can beat 205. Bet that’s a dash speed and not sustained MCP cruise speed.
Thanks for the input on speed requirements.
Can you weigh in on the FARA life cycle cost requirements?
I have never seen a calculation, but I imagine LCC increase exponentially with speed. You raise the point that increased speed means little when applied over a short radius of action. So if you stack these two factors together, it indicates that the speed requirement is very costly... (nothing new here). Taking your point one step further, will the FARA increased speed requirement compared to conventional helicopters be similarly insignificant, i.e. will any operational benefit be realized given the complexities and uncertainties of the real world?
Increased speed incurs weight and/or fatigue life penalties, higher maintenance, lower Time Between Overhaul and others that don't come to mind immediately. Compared to current generation aircraft, these penalties will be somewhat ameliorated by health and usage monitoring and prediction.
Fuel consumption will also be increased, and this also presents at least a geometric if not exponential increased cost versus speed as you track it backwards in the supply chain (fuel burn by various modes of transportation from source to user). The fuel burn penalty due to speed is only there when you go fast, but the attendant fuel consumption due to increased weight is always present.
Fuel cost is one thing, but availability in a critical time of need is more important.
And of course none of the above touches on development and production cost deltas derived solely from speed.
Thanks,
DS
One thing the Bell 360 does not have going for it is the fact it can't carry anyone. Neither could the OH-58 (well in a pinch). The Karem, AVX, and Sikorsky Raider (and possibly the Boeing XX-XX) all have what seem to be a 3-4 person cabin, but then again they use more advanced/expensive/intricate propulsion methods than the conventional-like tandem-seat B360. It makes you wonder if there will be a program to replace the MH-6 troop lifter... since FARA is to (more or less) replace the OH-58D.
And it's a good thing too, given how atrocious your writing skills are.
Thankfully, your paycheck is not governed by your communication skills, but rather your technical skills.As to your points/criticisms on this PR release-I share most of them. (Bell Ringer's post made me chuckle).
This press release reminds me of the guy who thinks that foreplay is telling her how great of a time she's about to have.
For Spline Drive:
In other words, the empty weight of Raider-X is bound to be higher than Model 360. Since the Army has requested a max gross weight and limited the rotor diameter, Sikorsky’s ship likely has less payload/fuel than the Model 360 at the customer requested max gross weight. To carry the full payload at the desired range, they’ll have to fly Raider-X at higher gross weights and disk loading which then incurs additional structural penalties unless they choose to have lower maneuver margins at those gross weights. Adding more power just compounds those issues.
Seems like a lot of downside for a little more speed.
Seems like a lot of downside for a little more speed.
As to the Acquisition angle on this:
I am reminded of something from about 40 years ago, the infamous 'Hi-Low" mix for a Fighter program, which ended up with F-15 and F-16. And a by product of that was the F-18. Maybe, someone will finally accept a low risk, truly "low cost" for the Low in a proposal like this.
Not everything one buys needs to be bleeding edge. Cost is a variable in any acquisition decision.
But let's look at how deployable the FARA candidates are.
How many 360's fit into a C-17? How many Raiders?
What is the notional "self deployment" capability. (See V-280 for a comparison)
As one of you above said, Speed isn't the only metric.
Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 25th Jan 2020 at 22:26.
You know,LW,going down that road has just a few former SA folks asking why then didn’t SA simply ( airframe/drivetrain/rotors/power plant -wise ), simply update the RAH-66. Bell has to do development testing whereas the Comanche, aircraft wise, was developed.
The RAH-66 was a joint Sikorsky/Boeing program
I'm not sure being seated on a bench externally at FARA speeds would be appreciated by the bench-riders!
500 Fan.
I agree and I have heard the same comments. RAH-66 was a ~165 knot (cruise) machine and certainly with some more modern aerodynamics in the rotor, a drag clean up, small wing, etc. could be pushed to 180+ as Bell has done. Yes, it would be a clean sheet design and not a resubmission of RAH-66 due to the Boeing-Sikorsky teaming, but the knowledge base inside SAC to do so is still there, for now. Assuming an analysis of options was performed, I deeply suspect a strong X-2 "thumb" was placed on the scale. I think the company leadership is "all in" on the X-2 platform, even if it isn't the best match for the customer requirements.