• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Sikorsky S-97 Raider Ground Tests Today

Gatordev

Well-Known Member
pilot
Site Admin
Contributor
@Gatordev I think that goes to the fact that the -60 is space limited. A bigger airframe might allow more buoys, sensors, maybe a second AWR, etc.
Yup, and I mentioned that earlier, but nothing is free. More buoys means more weight, along with some version of an ALFS. If you're using a rotary launcher, you now need storage for the "free" buoys not in the launcher. Plus another crewman, like I mentioned (and IKE just said). That's all going to cost cube space, which is going to take a way fuel and rack space (think processors and crew stations). And in this scenario, we're talking about the 280, which isn't huge to begin with, despite it being bigger than a -60.

Again, please understand my earlier post was exactly about embracing new ways to fight a new system, but the reality of existing infrastructure (lots of DDGs and an already overmanned LCS) are also things to consider. Having an extra crewman makes absolute sense operationally, but finding room for them and still able to keep whatever the coverage percentage will be will cost racks. I will say that at least the last two east coast CDREs (and current DCDRE) understand that the future construct isn't defined yet, which is a good thing, as it shows an acceptance for change.
 

SynixMan

Space Cadet
pilot
Contributor
Bigger also means you're not gonna fit two of them in a DDG hangar. DDG-1000 is already having a problem fitting 2× H-60s.

Also, the 60F was crewed by 2 AWs. The 60R only has one because that's how the 60B was built/manned... no other reason that I'm aware of, since we regularly flew dual-crewmen in some AORs.

IMO, if you want an example of what Pags touched on (limited ideas/lack of outside-the-box thinking in acquisitions), look no further than the 60R being basically an updated 60B + dipping sonar.
Good points all. The CH-148 fits in Caunuk Frigates, so I'm sure Top Men can do the measurements. We are stuck with the boats we have for a long time, so it's something to consider. That being said, the -60 is a waste of space in a shipboard hangar. The -60 is shaped as it is due to the limits I mentioned earlier WRT fitting two in a C-130. It significantly limited height and required the tail to be tapered. The Phrog was much taller/wider and fit in small spaces, yet hard a gargantuan cabin in comparison. Also I'd argue the second most important piece of the -R, behind the ASW gear, is the ALQ.

@Gatordev Agreed on most everything. I hope they are good stewards of it, but I'm skeptical. The last few NHAs I went too were a sad exercise in group think.
 

thump

Well-Known Member
pilot
Bigger also means you're not gonna fit two of them in a DDG hangar. DDG-1000 is already having a problem fitting 2× H-60s.

Also, the 60F was crewed by 2 AWs. The 60R only has one because that's how the 60B was built/manned... no other reason that I'm aware of, since we regularly flew dual-crewmen in some AORs.

IMO, if you want an example of what Pags touched on (limited ideas/lack of outside-the-box thinking in acquisitions), look no further than the 60R being basically an updated 60B + dipping sonar.
I think of the Romeo/Bravo evolution as somewhat more like the change from legacy/Rhino Hornet. Lots of change in a similar-looking package. The guys in the transition timeframe who called it a “glass Bravo” always sucked in the Romeo. Maybe I’m biased as a purebred Romeo pilot though.

But, I think there’s a lot of goodness in moving beyond seeing ASW capability as measured by the quantity of humans and buoys a platform can carry. The 60R is not a “poor man’s P-8”, it’s a fundamentally different machine with a different set of caps/lims.

Also I'd argue the second most important piece of the -R, behind the ASW gear, is the ALQ
Amen. Sadly not a discussion for here. An example of emerging capabilities as we find more ways to employ the aircraft.
 

Randy Daytona

Cold War Relic
pilot
Super Moderator
Good article out today on the competition for the new vertical lift replacement.

Defiant Vs. Valor: Inside the Head-to-Head Helo Battle To Replace the Black Hawk
The UH-60 Black Hawk is a helicopter legend, and the battle to replace it is heating up.


25683
 

Austin-Powers

Powers By Name, Powers By Reputation
When you’re flying one you will find it the most beautiful thing ever!
It's just not the same as a Blackhawk though! I understand the limitations of the Blackhawk, retreating blade stall and etc.

But these are ghastly, but I am gonna take a shot in the dark and say Bell is gonna win this contract.
 

Griz882

Livin' On the Right Side of the River From Pags!
pilot
It's just not the same as a Blackhawk though! I understand the limitations of the Blackhawk, retreating blade stall and etc.

But these are ghastly, but I am gonna take a shot in the dark and say Bell is gonna win this contract.
Maybe....Sikorsky has some strength. Both programs have value and capabilities. It will be fun watching who wins...and then the law suits! Maybe Army will take the Boeing and Navy the compound bird because of deck space.
 

Austin-Powers

Powers By Name, Powers By Reputation
Maybe....Sikorsky has some strength. Both programs have value and capabilities. It will be fun watching who wins...and then the law suits! Maybe Army will take the Boeing and Navy the compound bird because of deck space.
A USN S-97 Raider will be interesting actually

Regardless both platforms are unique for the Army's mission
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
Maybe....Sikorsky has some strength. Both programs have value and capabilities. It will be fun watching who wins...and then the law suits! Maybe Army will take the Boeing and Navy the compound bird because of deck space.
Boeing-Sikorsky Defiant is the compound. I think Army will go Bell V-280 because of top speed, hours flown on test vehicles, and proven tech (V-22).

I would love to see the Navy get the Defiant, but I had a chat with someone who said the coaxial makes it a bit tall, and the pusher prop can't be folded... tough to fit in a CRUDES hangar. I think the Navy will end up with a smaller (~40-ft diameter) coax or just an updated single main rotor helo. Too early to say though, as I've also recently heard FVL described as "no more than a collateral job" concern at NAVAIR.
 

Austin-Powers

Powers By Name, Powers By Reputation
Boeing-Sikorsky Defiant is the compound. I think Army will go Bell V-280 because of top speed, hours flown on test vehicles, and proven tech (V-22).

I would love to see the Navy get the Defiant, but I had a chat with someone who said the coaxial makes it a bit tall, and the pusher prop can't be folded... tough to fit in a CRUDES hangar. I think the Navy will end up with a smaller (~40-ft diameter) coax or just an updated single main rotor helo. Too early to say though, as I've also recently heard FVL described as "no more than a collateral job" concern at NAVAIR.
How about in the case of landing on a pitching deck with a pusher? Wouldn't that make things a bit dicey?
 

IKE

Nerd Whirler
pilot
How about in the case of landing on a pitching deck with a pusher? Wouldn't that make things a bit dicey?
Not as far as I can figure. You can idle/feather the pusher prop, and it's not so low that you'd be at risk of striking it like the Sierra's tailwheel or the stabilator.
 
Top