Sikorsky S-97 Raider

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/sikorskys-new-attack-helicopter-is-the-most-badass-helo-1641816294

http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/the-270-mph-sikorsky-s-97-raider-is-the-batmobile-of-th-1641651839/+barrett

That is actually dangerously and funny at the same time using a rigid rotor head and rotorblades in such narrow seperation from the rotor discs, that will stress the entire rotor system at any speedy turns and will reduce the lifespan and will limit co-axial known maneuverability along with some other factors, but it will have higher speed over shorter time i.e. acceleration would be superior. Not really something you want in combat getting hit with high calibre Anti aicraft guns, rotor blades are non composite and will not withstand any ballistical impact, but overall for small aircrafts not the worst design.

interesting design, befor they build it they surly put it trough a couple of thounsend hours of simulator, should be a fine helicopter

Werewolf wrote:That is actually dangerously and funny at the same time using a rigid rotor head and rotorblades in such narrow seperation from the rotor discs, that will stress the entire rotor system at any speedy turns and will reduce the lifespan and will limit co-axial known maneuverability along with some other factors, but it will have higher speed over shorter time i.e. acceleration would be superior. Not really something you want in combat getting hit with high calibre Anti aicraft guns, rotor blades are non composite and will not withstand any ballistical impact, but overall for small aircrafts not the worst design.

But at the same time those western media publications wouldn't recognize the Ka-50/52 for the amazing helicopter that it is, in fact the Ka-52 turned out so amazing that the Pentagon wanted a helicopter similar to it.

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Achieves First Flight

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defense/land/army-aviation/2015/05/22/sikorsky-s97-raider-achieves-first-flight/27777997/

It looks like the 1980's are back with a vengeance.

Personally, I wont be impressed until something revolutionary like the Ka-90 is built. The stowable rotor configuration is the future, and as a bonus it can have a significantly reduced RCS in cruise, something these coax+pusher helicopters will never have.

Meh.... it just looks like a blackhawk with coaxial rotors and a tail rotor that is a pusher... big deal...

Here's some footage of Sikorsky's Ka-50/52 clone, so what's your thoughts Werewolf? I'm going to reserve my judgement for a later post.

The Sikorsky S-97 is a co-axial shemed helicopter with a pusher but much different in the rotor layout from Kamov. The Sikorsky is relative specialized on speed with a rigid rotor which translates good in flight input and response a little bit quicker than Kamov, however it sacrifices maneuverability, since helicopters main maneuverability comes from the rotor swashblade which angles the rotor disc and directs them to create and translate movement in pith and roll.
This effect on rigid rotor designs is greatly reduced which makes it unsuitable for the exact same role as Ka-50/52, however the S-97 is a multipurpose helicopter and will be used for the same roles as UH-60 but will never reach any serious capabilities and certainly not in this layout a certification as a dedicated CAS aircraft (attack helicopter) as some would like to see it. For that Maneuverability is highly important and outweights speed by far. The rigid rotor design in different helicopter tests at Bell and Sikorsky aswell at Kamov have shown that rigid rotors translate much more vibration to the fuselage and cockpit than a normal rotor design with swashblade like Kamov. The intense vibrations in prototype of X-2 can be seen, which do shake the pilot through which can be heared on his voice. Another aspect is that rigid co-axial rotor layout, the rotors of each set can be closer together but that sacrifices the allowed maneuvering limits of yaw and tilt of the helicopter, much lower then what the prototype of V-80 was which today have been lossed and almost lifted. The big problem i see is the rigid rotors itself, they are civilian purposed and have not the appearance of having any kind of structural resistance for any combat involvement despite the helicopter being advertised to have similiar capabilities like UH-60 or Mi-8 as an assault helicopter. That is the only true thing i can critizes, but maybe i am wrong and they found a way to create small rigid rotors with composites light and stiff enough to be resilient to calibres that are prone to be fired against aircrafts 12.7mm+.



It is a good design without yet having seen much off it, but should be a basis for good multirole capable helicopter, with lot of trades but not specialized for anything, like all multipurpose aircrafts sacrifice of some specialized parameters but can do more jobs. We will see similiar helicopters more in civil market then in military, the main concern like the prototype shows is the fuselage design which reminds me very much of civil purposed lightweight, without reinforced body nor appearance of military requirements. Will be interesting if they will shape it to more military fertile designs.

^its swashplate, not swashblade . this new helo looks good, but like Werewolf said would roll like a jack of all trades, master of none kind of helo.

collegeboy16 wrote:^its swashplate, not swashblade . this new helo looks good, but like Werewolf said would roll like a jack of all trades, master of none kind of helo.

English terminology... sue me.

Lockheed in talks to buy Sikorsky: Report

Sikorsky was founded in 1925 in New York by aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky, an aeronautic engineer who left Russia for the United States after the Bolshevik revolution.

max steel wrote: Lockheed in talks to buy Sikorsky: Report

Sikorsky was founded in 1925 in New York by aviation pioneer Igor Sikorsky, an aeronautic engineer who left Russia for the United States after the Bolshevik revolution.  

To bad for sikorsky. It is like Ubisoft or EA buying off game developers and producing Shit money makers without quality and bugs (F-35) or Assassins Creed.

I saw this thread just now ffs

Sikorsky Showcasing S97 Raider Helicopter First Time to the Public AUSA 2015:

And here is the video: http://defensewebtv.com/index.php/component/contushdvideoshare/player/army/sikorsky-showcasing-s-97-raider-helicopter-first-time-to-the-public-ausa-2015-defense-web-tv

Militarov wrote:I saw this thread just now ffs

Sikorsky Showcasing S97 Raider Helicopter First Time to the Public AUSA 2015:

And here is the video: http://defensewebtv.com/index.php/component/contushdvideoshare/player/army/sikorsky-showcasing-s-97-raider-helicopter-first-time-to-the-public-ausa-2015-defense-web-tv

Considering the cost of the Sikorsky CH-53K, expect this helicopter to cost $160 million per piece!

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Militarov wrote:I saw this thread just now ffs

Sikorsky Showcasing S97 Raider Helicopter First Time to the Public AUSA 2015:

And here is the video: http://defensewebtv.com/index.php/component/contushdvideoshare/player/army/sikorsky-showcasing-s-97-raider-helicopter-first-time-to-the-public-ausa-2015-defense-web-tv

Considering the cost of the Sikorsky CH-53K, expect this helicopter to cost $160 million per piece!

Haha, it wont, hopefully they belive serial production will be between 15 and 20 million apiece. Somewhat like Mi17V5s lets say.

I am kind of astonished by US MIC achievements in the past 3 decades.

They have put the RAH-66 helicopter down because it costs 65 mln USD per piece in its prototype phase, now they go with a CH-53K helicopter that costs 100 mln USD per piece and they still have to call russian companies to get their downed helicopters out of hot zones, mostly due their tight, preplanned flight shedules which they are not really capable off changing, despite Chinooks being capable of slinging downed chinooks.

Black Hawk Empty: Unmanned Helicopter Passes Key Test

After drones, now unmanned helos.

This picture apparently shows Kamov's conceptual designs that are not too different to the S-97 Raider. The Russians already had some of these designs before the Sikorsky X2 -- the prototype from which the S-97 was built upon. The Ka-92 will have a ridiculous range of 1200-1400 km without refueling and travel at a maximum speed of 500 km. I wonder if attack helicopters can be given a range boost similar to that of the K-92.  At 800 km the Eurocopter Tiger has the longest range of any attack helicopter, with the Rooivalk following at 700 km.

Cyrus the great wrote:


This picture apparently shows Kamov's conceptual designs that are not too different to the S-97 Raider. The Russians already had some of these designs before the Sikorsky X2 -- the prototype from which the S-97 was built upon. The Ka-92 will have a ridiculous range of 1200-1400 km without refueling and travel at a maximum speed of 500 km. I wonder if attack helicopters can be given a range boost similar to that of the K-92.  At 800 km the Eurocopter Tiger has the longest range of any attack helicopter, with the Rooivalk following at 700 km.

The requirements for Attack helicopter to operate in combined operations close to own army ground forces of armored and mecha/motorized forces have requirements more focused on having parameters and offensive and deffensive capabilities to operate along with those ground forces. There is no layout today that would reach such speeds or ranges and the only one that could achieve such range or speed due its design and aerodynamic shape would be Ka-50 when you strip it of its armor and make it overhaul lighter by 3-4tons you can achieve such speeds, but that is not a requirement for the current generations of attack helicopters.

That picture is funny as hell must be one of the appointed people of Lockheed Martin PR department. 40ton lift with slinged cargo with a co-axial design in such a dimensions...i am gone believe that when i see that because research papers of Kamov state limitations in size and weight of blades and the exponational distance both rotor discs must have to keep a safe flexing zone for both sets of rotors which vary all the time under different speeds, rpm, disc load, maneuvering and altitude.

Werewolf wrote:The requirements for Attack helicopter to operate in combined operations close to own army ground forces of armored and mecha/motorized forces have requirements more focused on having parameters and offensive and deffensive capabilities to operate along with those ground forces. There is no layout today that would reach such speeds or ranges and the only one that could achieve such range or speed due its design and aerodynamic shape would be Ka-50 when you strip it of its armor and make it overhaul lighter by 3-4tons you can achieve such speeds, but that is not a requirement for the current generations of attack helicopters.

That picture is funny as hell must be one of the appointed people of Lockheed Martin PR department. 40ton lift with slinged cargo with a co-axial design in such a dimensions...i am gone believe that when i see that because research papers of Kamov state limitations in size and weight of blades and the exponational distance both rotor discs must have to keep a safe flexing zone for both sets of rotors which vary all the time under different speeds, rpm, disc load, maneuvering and altitude.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... there is simply no way the Russians are going to compromise the armour protection of the Ka-50-2 just to increase range and speed, especially when such a performance would rarely be used, if ever. The Klimov TV7-117 or the VK-3500 engine are significantly more powerful than any helicopter engine and would probably allow the Ka-50-2 to achieve such speed and range without necessitating a reduction in weight and protection.

The 40 t lift conceptual design strikes me as odd, but the Joint Heavy Lift High Speed Lifter looks like a Mi-26 with coaxial rotors and side propellers. Question: Why is it that the Ka-50-2 is limited to carrying 12 Vikhr missiles when it has impressive takeoff weights, second only to the Mi-28? It also has the superior coaxial rotors set up in addition to being lighter than the Mi-28 with slightly more powerful engines and 3 pylons at its disposal.

Thanks, Werewolf.

Cyrus the great wrote:

Werewolf wrote:The requirements for Attack helicopter to operate in combined operations close to own army ground forces of armored and mecha/motorized forces have requirements more focused on having parameters and offensive and deffensive capabilities to operate along with those ground forces. There is no layout today that would reach such speeds or ranges and the only one that could achieve such range or speed due its design and aerodynamic shape would be Ka-50 when you strip it of its armor and make it overhaul lighter by 3-4tons you can achieve such speeds, but that is not a requirement for the current generations of attack helicopters.

That picture is funny as hell must be one of the appointed people of Lockheed Martin PR department. 40ton lift with slinged cargo with a co-axial design in such a dimensions...i am gone believe that when i see that because research papers of Kamov state limitations in size and weight of blades and the exponational distance both rotor discs must have to keep a safe flexing zone for both sets of rotors which vary all the time under different speeds, rpm, disc load, maneuvering and altitude.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying... there is simply no way the Russians are going to compromise the armour protection of the Ka-50-2 just to increase range and speed, especially when such a performance would rarely be used, if ever. The Klimov TV7-117 or the VK-3500 engine are significantly more powerful than any helicopter engine and would probably allow the Ka-50-2 to achieve such speed and range without necessitating a reduction in weight and protection.

The 40 t lift conceptual design strikes me as odd, but the Joint Heavy Lift High Speed Lifter looks like a Mi-26 with coaxial rotors and side propellers. Question: Why is it that the Ka-50-2 is limited to carrying 12 Vikhr missiles when it has impressive takeoff weights, second only to the Mi-28? It also has the superior coaxial rotors set up in addition to being lighter than the Mi-28 with slightly more powerful engines and 3 pylons at its disposal.

Thanks, Werewolf.

Yes the JHLHSL helo looks very much like Mi-26 because it makes very good use of internal volume while keeping a very good aerodynamic shape.

The Ka-50 isn't really limited to just 12 Vikhrs by design but they limited it by layout since what you gonna do with 24 fucking ATGM's? Use ATGM's against every single running guy and waste highly capable weapons isntead you could use unguided rockets. The thing is such helicopters are used against combined arms, you will never see tanks in more numbers than soft targets, that is never going to happen. They will always be accompanied by soft armored and infantry in more masses then you could find tanks on the battlefield. HEAT is not bad against everything but HE-Frag unguided ammunition is still superior against soft armor and infantry that are scattered around or sitt in BTR's/IFV's or are remotley buy. The Vikhr has a HE-Frag warhead aswell but it is just to expensive to waste so many missiles if you have better suited weapons for that.

werful than any helicopter engine and would probably allow the Ka-50-2 to achieve such speed and range without necessitating a reduction in weight and protection.

I seem to remember the US Army had a requirement that the Apache should be able to self deploy to europe in an emergency so it could carry external fuel tanks on its four wing points and its internal magazine for 1200 rounds of 30mm cannon shells could be replaced with an extra fuel tank.

The Russian helos on the other hand have no need for such enormous flight range... extra large normally empty fuel tanks would not be any advantage to the existing designs.

Why is it that the Ka-50-2 is limited to carrying 12 Vikhr missiles when it has impressive takeoff weights, second only to the Mi-28?

The operational design originally called for single seat Ka-50s... so a comparison of 6 Vihkrs and a 30mm cannon and 2 x 20 shot 80mm rocket pods per crewman on the Kamov made the Hokum better in terms of firepower per crewman. In comparison the Havok has 8 ATGMs, 20 rockets and 150 rounds per crew man.

Werewolf wrote:

Yes the JHLHSL helo looks very much like Mi-26 because it makes very good use of internal volume while keeping a very good aerodynamic shape.

The Ka-50 isn't really limited to just 12 Vikhrs by design but they limited it by layout since what you gonna do with 24 fucking ATGM's? Use ATGM's against every single running guy and waste highly capable weapons isntead you could use unguided rockets. The thing is such helicopters are used against combined arms, you will never see tanks in more numbers than soft targets, that is never going to happen. They will always be accompanied by soft armored and infantry in more masses then you could find tanks on the battlefield. HEAT is not bad against everything but HE-Frag unguided ammunition is still superior against soft armor and infantry that are scattered around or sitt in BTR's/IFV's or are remotley buy. The Vikhr has a HE-Frag warhead aswell but it is just to expensive to waste so many missiles if you have better suited weapons for that.

I wonder if Mil would ever team up with Kamov to comprehensively upgrade the Mi-26 with coaxial rotors and side propellers -- possibly giving it greater speed, range and maneuverability. Now, I understand that maneuverability is not really required in a heavy transport helicopter, but it would be a positive [unintentional] byproduct of the coaxial set up.

The Ka-52 is my favourite attack helicopter and I suspected that it could carry more than 12 missiles. I certainly don't think it needs to carry 24 ATGMs, but it certainly should be able to carry 16 missiles -like the Mi-28- if needed. I agree with you about HE-Frag and I look forward to Ugroza rockets being deployed to add precision to the mix, in addition to them being much cheaper than ATGMs.

Thanks for clarifying things for me, mate.

Garry B wrote:I seem to remember the US Army had a requirement that the Apache should be able to self deploy to europe in an emergency so it could carry external fuel tanks on its four wing points and its internal magazine for 1200 rounds of 30mm cannon shells could be replaced with an extra fuel tank.

The Russian helos on the other hand have no need for such enormous flight range... extra large normally empty fuel tanks would not be any advantage to the existing designs.

The funny thing about the Robertson IAFS is that it only gives the AH-64 less than an hour [53 minutes] of extra flight time and it still has less range than the Ka-52 --> 545 km to the Apache's 497 km. I still don't understand how it is that the Apache has greater ferry range. Americans still boast about how their Apaches are armed with 1200 30mm rounds even though they lost that capability starting in 1997.

Garry B wrote:The operational design originally called for single seat Ka-50s... so a comparison of 6 Vihkrs and a 30mm cannon and 2 x 20 shot 80mm rocket pods per crewman on the Kamov made the Hokum better in terms of firepower per crewman. In comparison the Havok has 8 ATGMs, 20 rockets and 150 rounds per crew man.

Have they increased the amount of 30mm rounds the Mi-28 can carry? This might sound like a manifestly bad idea to put forward, but couldn't the Mi-28 and Ka-52 be modified to accommodate a device like the 12-PAK in the old Apache variants - allowing them to carry 1200 30mm 2A42 rounds? It would increase the weight and overall size by a small margin which could be mitigated with the new engines that Russia already has waiting in the wings.

Thanks a bunch, Garry.