![]() $15 mil for S97), and try to get the program killed. The cheapest option is to show the large scale concept art, demo the S97, make outlandish claims (i.e. But they have to make a presence in the FVL competition either way. Boeing teaming up with Sikorsky is a win-win for them. Their revenue streams exist with UH60 and AH64. I would not be surprised if Sikorsky and Boeing go to FVL and demo with the S97, and then CLAIM that it can be scaled up to FVL medium requirements.īoth Boeing and Sikorsky want FVL dead. Simply put, a large scale X2 concept is a dog and pony show. Do we all forget how Sikorsky suddenly dropped their large scale 737-fuselaged concepts in late 2006? Why was XH59 abandoned in favor of tiltrotors in the late 70s early 80s for JVX? The highest time on any ABC prototype airframe was what? 100 hours?Īs discussed ad nauseum in the X2 threads on here, while the whole aerodynamic concept of a high hinge offset ABC rigid rotor is scalable, the reality of blade construction and subsequent required rotor spacing means drag increases exponentially. ![]() No ABC has ever been even remotely fielded. You have a whole fleet of V22s with over 150k flight hours in operation. Anyone care to guess why that might be?Īnd how is a compound less risky? There is zero precedent in service. To date, no ABC/X2 has been built with a GW greater than what 12,000lb, and about a 35' rotor diameter. Sikorsky and Boeing have already shown their concept art. It's far below FVL medium size requirements. Why do people keep talking about the Raider for FVL? If it doesn't already exist then I am sure it is only a matter of time until this function is completely automated with the role of the weapons officer/second pilot merely being that of confirming that the computer has identified a hostile as opposed to friendly target. except for movie-makers! This function can be far better served by a weapons officer or second pilot using fore and aft mounted turrets through electronic sights. if not through in-flight refueling then by leap-frogging (if the US has sufficient allies in the right places at the right time to accommodate their fuel stores). TukTuk: As Phlying has said, the larger troop-carrying versions are designed to be self-deployable. at what cost? Financial analysts predict that US defence budgeting will come under increasing strain over the next two decades with the role of the Defence Secretary requiring skills more closely associated with that of alchemy than tactical politics and at the moment I simply can't see how titlt-rotor technology can be cost-effective. I understand the advantages of swift troop insertion/extraction but. ![]() Plus, with the tilt-rotor you have two unique heat signatures effectively giving your assailant unnecessary opportunity. Riff Raff: I hear what you're saying and there's no denying that with those massive pylon-wings you should be able to lift some impressive loads - especially if they develop the rolling take-off technique.īut the 'planform' of this contraption is considerably larger (and therefore in my view more vulnerable) than the Raider concept. While a compound would be a bit less risky, the tiltrotor has more potential for future improvements in terms of speed, payload, range, etc. I personally think the Army would be better off with a tiltrotor for FVL. While this approach makes the drivetrain design a bit more complex, it also means that they won't have the added cost and risk involved to develop and certify a new turboshaft engine model that can tilt. By giving their V-280 fuselage a similar appearance to the Blackhawk I think they are trying to create a sense of familiarity with the Army, and thus a reduced perception of development risk.Īnother thing that shows Bell is serious about minimizing development risks, whether perceived or real, is the V-280's use of a non-tilting engine. The FVL medium is intended to replace the US Army Blackhawks, and it's well known that the US Army is very conservative when it comes to adopting new aircraft. While the Bell V-280 fuselage does bear some resemblance externally to the Blackhawk, there actually is a valid reason for Bell doing this. Sikorsky and Bell have the most experience with their respective configurations which gives them a big advantage over their JMR competition in terms of development risk. ![]() Sikorsky and Bell are the two most likely candidates for JMR flight demo contracts (a Sikorsky compound and a Bell tiltrotor). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |