Sikorsky intends to develop and fly two
S-97 Raider prototypes by 2014, leverag- ing the coaxial-compound rotor-pusher- propeller combination that took Sikorsky’s X2 demonstrator to a speed of 268 mph in 2010, breaking the world’s helicopter speed record. The S-97 is designed to be a 10,000lb-class helicopter while the de- sign gross weight (DGW) of the JMR Phase 1 aims at three times that weight – 30,000 lb. The teaming with Boeing will enable Sikorsky to benefit from the expe- rience Boeing gained with its own plat- forms, such as the Chinook, V-22, AH-6 and AH-64. Boeing has also ‘played’ with more advanced propulsion techniques, in- cluding coaxial counter-rotating rotors. “The Sikorsky and Boeing team brings to- gether exceptional technical expertise,” said Mick Maurer, president of Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. “Our customer can be as-
that could enter the fray, particularly as they have had experience with
tilt-rotor technology in the past.
sured this collaboration will bring together innovative, industry-leading engineering expertise with a deep bench of program leadership talent, and builds upon the combined resources of both companies to deliver a revolutionary capability for the warfighter at an affordable cost for the U.S. taxpayer.” Both companies have established good
working relations with the Army, as they are currently sharing the delivery and sup- port of the majority of vertical lift plat-
38 March 2013
AgustaWestland is another company
Two different designs previously discussed by Boeing and Sikorsky had striking similarity
forms for US military programs of record, including various Chinook platforms, CH- 53, UH-60 and AH-64. “Our teaming agreement is the continuation of a long- standing relationship between Boeing and Sikorsky and reflects a common vision for the future of Army aviation,” said Chris Chadwick, president of Boeing Military Aircraft. “Our combined technical strengths and our collective program man- agement expertise make this partnership an exciting development in meeting the Army’s JMR program objectives.” Another potential competitor for JMR
Phase 1 program was Bell Helicopters, which shared the development, manufac- turing and support of the V-22 Osprey Tilt- Rotor program with Boeing, supporting the US Navy, Marine Corps and Special Operations Forces. The Bell-Boeing team considered to submit a tilt-rotor based pro- posal for JMR Phase 1, but Boeing has not fully committed to this option and has been discussing potential cooperation with a number of local and foreign manufac- turers to team for this program, until the decision to go with Sikorsky was made.
Part of the reason is that Bell has lost
its position with the Army since the hay days in 1960. Since the 1970s Bell has not been successful in selling helicopters to the Army, as competitors replaced Bell helicopters. The Bell AH-1 (Cobra) was succeeded by the Hughes (later Boeing) AH-64. The Bell UH-1 Huey was replaced by Sikorsky’s UH-60 Black Hawk. Boe- ing, on the other hand, managed to main- tain its position with the army, as it continued to supply tandem-rotor based heavy lift helicopters (Chinook) despite growing competition from Sikorsky. Other potential competitors expected to
submit proposals for the JMR Phase 1 are EADS North America, currently manufac- turing the U-72A Lakota. While this heli- copter is based on conventional technology, the Eurocopter subsidiary of the company’s European shareholder has already demonstrated a more advanced, hybrid-propulsion vehicle known as X-3 which could become a potential platform for the JMR. AgustaWestland is another company that could enter the fray, particularly as they
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54
