Sikorsky's S-97 Raider Could Be A Revolutionary Light Helicopter

Forbes ^ | September 27, 2017 | Loren Thompson

[sukhoi-30mki]

[piroque]

bump

[BroJoeK]

Nice, go Army!

[ThinkingBuddha]

Now if they put those rotors on this helicopter....

[prophetic]

I'll take 4,000 units for $5 million a pop.

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.

[libertylover]

Looks like a winner.

[MUDDOG]

Smells like victory.

[huldah1776]

I always say I will never get in a helo...but now I will make an exception. Zoom, zoom!

[taildragger]

Hmmm... Love to know Shaft HP / TSFC. I wonder if their is a spot for this Stepped Piston Spark Ignited DI Heavy Fueled 2 stroke ( 4 stroke type lubrication for the crankshaft w/ the Stepped Piston ) Yes, weight, size, CG and all the other offsets come into play, but the dangling carrot of greater range, and w/ a turbo high alt capability, a case might be made...

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...

[Army Air Corps]

Isn’t the latter design, in essence, a Diesel boxer engine?

[montag813]

Gorgeous craft...about the only thing they still make in Connecticut. The Democrats have already pushed out every gun manufacturer.

[RayChuang88]

Interesting that the who project was started as a private venture by Sikorsky--in short, Sikorsky paid for much of the development out of its own funds. As such, little development is needed to turn it into a real operational helicopter, which means unlike the RAH-66 Comanche project, Sikorsky could have it ready for delivery for the US Army within 3-4 years.

[Rinnwald]

Looks a bit like the Vietnam war era CH56 Cheyenne, except the contra-rotating mains eliminate the rear anti-torque rotor. Still has the thrust rotor. The Cheyenne was cancelled for being too complex and costly.

So, I understand a gun/missile truck like the Apache. But with drones, why do we need a recon helo?

[SandRat]

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.

[Moonman62]

I’ll take 4,000 units for $5 million a pop.

...

Looks like the projected unit cost is $15 million.

[TalonDJ]

“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.

[wildbill]

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.

[TXnMA]

in 1986, when my son was 101st Airborne at Ft. Campbell, they had small helicopter on display that was similar to this one (specifically, the "pusher" propeller). I was told that it was the prototype from a then-recently--cancelled program -- and remembered the name as "Comanche" or "Cherokee".

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?

[minnesota_bound]

Now hang some weapons on it and you can also replace the Apache helicopter.

[Paal Gulli]

"Looks a bit like the Vietnam war era CH56 Cheyenne, except the contra-rotating mains eliminate the rear anti-torque rotor."

The elimination of the tail rotor is a third-tier benefit of the contra-rotors. Sikorsky has been refining their Advancing Blade Concept rotor system for nearly 50 years. It's chief operational benefits are more potential speed (higher Vne than possible with a single rotor), better maneuverability, better efficiency, more safety and less noise.

Not a lot of point to the pusher prop unless you can eliminate the airspeed limitations inherent in all single-rotor systems due to Mach tuck and retreating blade stall, which contra-rotors do (and counter-roters can).