First S-97 Raider begins final assembly

Sikorsky has begun final assembly of the first S-97 Raider prototype. It's based on the X-2 helicopter, but has grown. The X-2 demonstrator was a single seat, 5,000 pound aircraft. The S-97 is 11,000 pounds, and in one configuration can carry 6 troops.

Non-negotiables, according to Sikorsky include a 220 knot cruising speed, a 3G+ turn at speed, hover at 10,000 feet and 95 degrees. They've already tested a composite airframe to withstand bird strikes at 230 mph.

Even if the Armed Scout Program falls through Sikorsky is confident that the technologies developed for the Raider will make them money. The entire design and build has been funded by Sikorsky, with no government money involved.

They've also been involved in talks with several "close allies of the US" about potential sales. They say that the numbers they are talking about are similar to what the US would end up buying.

WASHINGTON — Sikorsky will begin final assembly of its S-97 Raider helicopter prototype this week, according to company officials.

That puts the helicopter manufacturer — which is competing for the US Army’s Armed Aerial Scout program — on track for a first flight at the end of 2014.

“It’s just a really exciting foundational milestone for us, and it’s great to be leaving the design phase of Raider and getting into the build phase,” Chris Van Buiten, Sikorsky Innovations vice president, said.

The Raider is based on the X-2 technology developed by Sikorsky in the late 2000s, but grows the size and weight significantly. Where the X-2 demonstrator was a one-person, 5,000-pound platform, the Raider will be roughly 11,000 pounds with room for six troops in its combat assault mode. In reconnaissance mode, that space could be used for extra equipment or ammunition.

www.defensenews.com...

I tell you what that almost looks like the kind of design the black hawk may of been during the bin laden op. Looks like it will be a nice aircraft didn't realise it would have a twin rotor blade system

So they scrap the Commanche and build this even though it isn't as capable?
Go team.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


Commanche was more capable but was out of control cost wise.

cavtrooper7
So they scrap the Commanche and build this even though it isn't as capable?
Go team.

Depending on how we're defining "capable", I think you're a bit off base.
The X-2 demonstrator just set a rotorary-wing speed record. Faster cruising speed, longer legs, sensors should be at least as capable. Better hot and high capability than the Commanche. The ability to carry a small number of combat troops or other high-value cargo in the cabin. It's much more akin to the Kiowa.
If you ignore "stealth" (which is largely an unrealistic requirement of a helicopter by nature, and not particularly useful in most helicopter engagements of the last few decades), then it will be more capable (and cheaper by far) than the Commanche on almost any real metric.
The Commanche was designed for a high-threat environment for missions that have more or less been taken on by UAV's now. Noone is looking to send $30M rotor-craft into heavily-defended airspace these days --doctrine/need is much less focused on a Fulda Gap scenario against former WP-members, and much more focused on brushfire conflicts (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, etc).

It was supposed to network as well with the Apaches and forward of the FEBA there is nothing but hostile airspace.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


In 2002 program costs were projected at $26.9B for 650 aircraft. That was up to $32M per aircraft, with a lot of testing left to go. It was a forerunner to the Marine One program that was cancelled recently. DOT&E identified a number of challenges to the program as well.

cavtrooper7
It was supposed to network as well with the Apaches and forward of the FEBA there is nothing but hostile airspace.

The hostile-airspace in the hills of Afghanistan are a far cry from the threat-environment in Eastern Europe. I see no reason why we would expect the networking ability to be less than a three-decade old platform, do you?

When Comanche costs skyrocketed the program was cancelled and the funds diverted for more and better Kiowas and Blackhawks and the earlly UAV programs (Predator, etc). I think you'd be hard pressed to find a field commander who doesn't think they are better equipped for today's environment with those investments than they would be with a comparable dollar-figure's worth of Comanches.

reply to post by _Del_


On the cost factor I think you are correct.However you are mistaken to limit your perception of hostile airspace to a bush fight.There WILL be more conventional scurmishes in the future and we won't tangling with an undeveloped country from the middle east.

reply to post by cavtrooper7


And in such a conflict we'll be using UAV's for scouting missions in high-risk environments and not manned rotor-craft, in the same way we restrict the use of A-10's in high-threat areas until those threats are at least partially suppressed by less vulnerable assets.