• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Boeing-Sikorsky SB>1 Defiant (Model S-100)

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
14,039
Reaction score
2,466
The Verticalmag article states the the SB-1 hit 205 knots after 18 flight hours in 15 months from first flight.

The only points of comparison I have is Eurocopter’s X3, which hit 232 knots after ~15 fight hours in 9 months, and Sikorsky’s own X2, which hit 235 knots after 14 flight hours in 24 months. So the SB-1 progress is still fairly slow.
Interesting analysis, thank you. I have to wonder though how much the change of corporate headquarters has had to do with the lethargic progress. Very soon after Lockheed Martin (with no recent rotorcraft experience) took ownership of Sikorsky, the S-97 Raider hard landing occurred. With F-35 front and center, I doubt the rotorcraft programs are getting anywhere near equal time.

At least from my tiny corner of the big picture LM has been hands off, at least as far as CH-53K goes.
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,106
I think the hands off approach has been okay for CH53K. It is a more mature program with a relatively low threat technology ( compared to S-97 and SB>1.) Also LMCO has had a working relationship with the USMC. I imagine between nervous investors and a notoriously bad business partner in the US Army they might be reluctant to jump into the briar patch.
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
498
The Defiant team has unveiled their official pitch for FLRAA: Defiant-X.

The changes from the SB>1 include an exhaust system configured to reduce the aircraft's IR signature and, perhaps surprisingly, a return to the tricycle landing gear seen in the original X-2 concepts from Sikorsky.
 

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,853
Reaction score
2,962
Two points:
- Landing gear: the CG has probably migrated forward
- exhaust: see point above and IMOHO exploiting the mixing flows effect of the propeller (aggravated by the tail LERX).
 

Moose

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,458
Reaction score
498

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,106

TomcatViP

Hellcat
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
3,853
Reaction score
2,962
T-901 is a 3000shp class range engine planned for installation in Apache and Blackhawks! Not quite as much power as with a doublet of 3000kW T-55s but b/w overall mass and shp, the gap is thin.
 

H_K

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Feb 21, 2010
Messages
216
Reaction score
421
Although similar in size

The Defiant looks bigger... more AW101 sized?

According to this Sikorsky slide only 5-6 Defiants will fit in a soccer field landing area...
76385_sikorskyboeingsb1defiantspacingcsikorsky.jpeg


...vs. 8 Blackhawks/V-280 (according to Bell)
v-280-image10.jpg
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,106
The larger SWaP for either of the FVL contenders of course comes from the requirements to go further and faster, so no surprise there. While the football pitch (soccer field) measure is of note, I do not think it of much accord as it is very unlikely (not impossible) that anyone would risk that many aircraft in a confined space in the future given the availability of a plethora of weapons.
 

VTOLicious

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
750
Reaction score
380
Although similar in size

The Defiant looks bigger... more AW101 sized?
In terms of external dimensions, I would still say Defiant is rather in the magnitude of Blackhawk than Merlin (Excluding height ;) ) Whereby MTOM definitely tends towards Merlin.

Btw, the width of Valor (with two 35ft rotors turning) is most likely equal to a CH-53K's rotor disc diameter.
 

Attachments

  • V-280_rotors_1.png
    V-280_rotors_1.png
    243.1 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,106
@VTOLicious - With a little humor it is often pointed out that the V-280 length is less than the rotor diameter of the H-60 and the width is overall slightly larger than the H-60 length. So the V-20 lands in a small landing zone perpendicular to the the way the H-60 lands. Your point is well taken, but as I have pointed out elsewhere it is the same argument that old H-1 pilots made about the H-60. Ultimately it comes down to does the increased range and speed of this particular aircraft outweigh the need to find small landing zones.
If one wants to argue about landing in streets, I would argue nothing bigger than the current MH-6 or some of the smaller Airbus products, Ka-226, and their Chinese analogue are viable. The range requirements of the U.S. Army and the desire to operate in "urban canyons" are mutually exclusive (currently). eVTOL may be viable in the future, but the weight of a combat capable platform will make it difficult in the immediate future I think.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
271
@VTOLicious - With a little humor it is often pointed out that the V-280 length is less than the rotor diameter of the H-60 and the width is overall slightly larger than the H-60 length. So the V-20 lands in a small landing zone perpendicular to the the way the H-60 lands. Your point is well taken, but as I have pointed out elsewhere it is the same argument that old H-1 pilots made about the H-60. Ultimately it comes down to does the increased range and speed of this particular aircraft outweigh the need to find small landing zones.
If one wants to argue about landing in streets, I would argue nothing bigger than the current MH-6 or some of the smaller Airbus products, Ka-226, and their Chinese analogue are viable. The range requirements of the U.S. Army and the desire to operate in "urban canyons" are mutually exclusive (currently). eVTOL may be viable in the future, but the weight of a combat capable platform will make it difficult in the immediate future I think.

The "urban fight" scenario is the driver behind the FARA requirement that limits the diameter to 40'. The range and speed requirements are lower for FARA than for FLRAA.
 
Last edited:

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,810
Reaction score
271
As discussed elsewhere on another topic, there's a statement in the video ( :011) : "We showed that 230 knots that's what the Army asked for...". Will they be able to do the 250 knots that was at least initially what Army required and which they promised they'd easily be able to do?
 

yasotay

ACCESS: Top Secret
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
1,106
I think they will be able to get to 250. I am not so sure about crusing at 250, which is/was the requirement. Have to see what the requirement is when it comes out, but it sounds like they know it was dropped to 230.
 
Top