Posted on 09/28/2017 5:33:15 AM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
The U.S. Army is the biggest operator of military helicopters in the world. However, all of its combat rotorcraft were developed during the Cold War, and despite upgrades are beginning to show their age. In fact, the Army's main reconnaissance ("scout") helicopter, the Kiowa Warrior, grew so decrepit after 16 years of fighting in Southwest Asia that they were retired despite the absence of a dedicated successor.
Apache, the Army's preeminent tank-killer, will do double duty as an armed recon helicopter for the time being, but Army leaders admit lack of a next-generation recon helicopter is the gap in aviation capabilities that most worries them. Armed recon plays a central role in Army plans for securing battlefield intelligence and attacking forward targets, but in today's lethal warfighting environment the mission requires an unusually agile and survivable airframe.
It appears a solution to the Army's needs already exists in the form of the Sikorsky S-97 Raider, a highly maneuverable light helicopter begun in 2010 in response to a solicitation for next-gen scout helicopters that was later canceled due to scarce funding. Raider got some negative media coverage last month when it suffered a hard landing at Sikorsky's West Palm Beach testing facility, but the fact a prototype was undergoing its 15th test flight underscores the fact that this is not just a neat idea. It's a real helicopter.
Lockheed Martin
Sikorsky began developing the S-97 Raider in 2010 as a game-changing replacement for the U.S. Army's scout helicopters. Seven years later, it is poised to revolutionize the performance of light military helicopters
The problem leading to the hard landing can likely be resolved with tweaks to the flight-control software. The test pilots walked away from the incident after setting the helicopter down and shutting off onboard systems. These kinds of incidents are common when advanced airframes are in development. But the larger story here is just how advanced Raider is. Its performance features and technology point to an impending revolution in light helicopter operations.
(Disclosure: Sikorsky is owned by Lockheed Martin, which contributes to my think tank, along with several of its competitors. Lockheed is also a consulting client.)
Compared to legacy helicopters, Raider will offer a 100% increase in speed and endurance, a 50% decrease in turning radius, a 50% decrease in acoustic "signature," and a 40% increase in payload -- all wrapped in a composite airframe that is 15% smaller then the venerable Kiowa. Whereas the current fleet of Army helicopters is only capable of providing coverage to 40% of Afghanistan, Raider will be able to cover 97%.
That is a huge gain in performance, but it is just the beginning of what Sikorsky is developing -- without using any taxpayer money. Raider will incorporate an advanced open-architecture mission equipment package that facilitates rapid upgrades of on-board sensors and electronics without getting locked into particular vendors. It will also host an automated diagnostic system that can detect mechanical issues before they occur.
Perhaps the most important feature of the design, though, is its two counter-rotating main rotors that can be separately adjusted to enable hover and maneuver in "high-hot" environments like Afghanistan. Because the rotors turn in opposite directions, they eliminate the torque that requires other helicopters to have a stabilizing rear propeller. The six-blade propeller at the rear of Raider is used instead for forward propulsion, while the main rotors are dedicated to lift. This division of labor reduces aerodynamic drag, bolstering maneuverability.
The performance differential with the Kiowa Warrior speaks for itself. Whereas the last fielded version of Kiowa had a cruise speed 127 miles per hour and a range of 161 miles, Raider will deliver a cruise speed of 253 miles per hour and a range of 354 miles. That means that if applied to the armed recon mission, Raider can reach key objectives twice as fast, and cover four times as much area around its base of operations. It can also hover for much longer periods, and optimize its orientation to ground objectives to maximize effectiveness.
One striking feature of Raider's "rigid coaxial" design is that because the rear propeller is not required for stabilization, it can be disengaged to minimize noise. Acoustic signatures can alert enemies to an approaching rotorcraft, and rear propellers generate much of the noise. By disengaging the propeller, pilots can enhance the helicopter's survivability. Other onboard defensive features include 360-degree sensor coverage for situational awareness and management of other signatures such as heat emissions.
Another novel feature of Raider is the breadth of its main rotors, which is less than that of Kiowa and much less than the diameter of other Army combat helicopters. What that means in practical terms is that Raider can land in urban settings that would be too confining for other Army rotorcraft. That's important because as a multi-mission system, Raider probably would not be used just for scouting or deep strike. It could also be used to insert half a dozen special operators behind enemy lines; to conduct medical evacuations; and to rescue endangered soldiers.
Since it is designed for easy transport on Air Force airlifters and for shipboard operations, Raider might find users far beyond Sikorsky's primary Army customer. But it is the U.S. Army that needs it most today. In fact Sikorsky parent company Lockheed Martin and Boeing have teamed to offer a bigger helicopter based on Raider technology for the Future Vertical Lift program that will eventually replace most of the rotorcraft in the joint fleet. The larger helicopter is designated the SB-1 Defiant, and is competing against a tilt-rotor design being offered by Bell Helicopter/Textron.
When it comes to finding a long-term solution to the armed recon mission, though, it's hard to imagine how the Army could do better than Raider. No other light rotorcraft in the world will offer its combination of versatility, survivability and affordability. If the Army manages to secure enough money to modernize for fights against near-peer adversaries like Russia, Raider would be an obvious candidate to join the fleet. The fact executives at Sikorsky parent Lockheed Martin has continued developing Raider without federal funding suggests they really believe they have a game-changing rotorcraft.
Lockheed Martin and several of its competitors contribute to my think tank. Lockheed is also a consulting client.
bump
Nice, go Army!
I am very impressed with these features and it would make for an excellent private or commercial helicopter. Now if they can make some heavy lift version & a extra cabin space version to hold 18 soldiers we can gradually get rid of that crazy osprey aircraft.
The coast guard could use it for SAR as well as when you are searching for survivors you need as much airtime as possible.
Looks like a winner.
Smells like victory.
I always say I will never get in a helo...but now I will make an exception. Zoom, zoom!
http://www.heavy-fuel-engines.com/design-of-our-v12-heavy-fuel-engine-complete/
Or a large Version of the Achates Opposed Piston Diesel, talk about low fuel consumption and range, and a built in Supercharger...
Isn’t the latter design, in essence, a Diesel boxer engine?
Gorgeous craft...about the only thing they still make in Connecticut. The Democrats have already pushed out every gun manufacturer.
So, I understand a gun/missile truck like the Apache. But with drones, why do we need a recon helo?
Why am I having mind flickers, of a crazy chopper Pilot, flying one, for a Mad Mexican Drug Lord ?
Yes, I have been watching too many Chuck Norris movies/Walker Texas Ranger TV Series Re Runs.
I’ll take 4,000 units for $5 million a pop.
...
Looks like the projected unit cost is $15 million.
“But with drones, why do we need a recon helo?”
If we can be totally blind with a bit of jamming we might as well just disband the army.
Might be a very nice helicopter, but aren’t most recon duties for the future going to be all sorts of drones, including the really small ones that are backpacked by infantry squads for recon of the immediate area?
I also don’t see any armament capabilities built in and a helicopter on today’s battlefield, especially one that can be used in close for recon, probably ought to have some multi-use other than just recon.
Apparently, my memory is faulty: the "Comanche" that was canceled two decades later had a shrouded tail rotor -- and no "pusher"...
~~~~~~~~~
Does anyone have any idea what that canceled '80s bird might have been?
Now hang some weapons on it and you can also replace the Apache helicopter.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.