Sikorsky develops agile helo on its own dime

Sikorsky is betting its own money on a radical new helicopter design, a gambit some observers say might become more common in austere budgetary times.

The S-97 Raider will have a pusher propeller meant to send it zooming past the roughly 200-mph top speed of conventional rotorcraft — and, the company hopes, win Pentagon contracts. The Connecticut-based company intends to furnish a prototype for testing by U.S. service officials.

“It’ll be a Sikorsky product, but we’ll have our pilots in the seat and we’ll let the military evaluate it,” said Steve Engebretson, Sikorsky’s director for the Armed Aerial Scout program. “We’re picking this size because the most likely replacement aircraft next up will be the Kiowa Warrior.”

Other potential customers could include Air Force Special Operations, Army Special Operations and the Marine Corps, Engebretson said.

The Army, which has yet to complete its Armed Aerial Scout study, said it couldn’t comment on the Sikorsky effort.

The S-97 design will be based on Sikorsky’s revolutionary X-2 demonstrator, which features two counter-rotating rotors on a single axle plus a pusher-prop. Company officials said the craft has flown 253 knots in level test flights, and that was at just 70 percent power. An axle fairing and other tweaks might allow the X-2 to reach 280 knots, said Steve Weiner, the project’s chief engineer.

Its unique design makes it far more maneuverable and quicker to accelerate and decelerate than a conventional helicopter — and better at hovering than the mechanically and aerodynamically more complex Bell/Boeing V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor, Weiner said.

The Raider will be limited to 220 knots, but will be designed to fly real operations, carrying two pilots and six troops. Its wings can hold weapons. Sikorsky plans to start building the first S-97 aircraft in 2013 and hopes to have it in the air by 2014.

The company will spend $50 million on the X-2 effort and more to build the S-97s, Engebretson said.

Company-funded developmental efforts are part of a growing trend, analysts and current and former government officials said.

General Electric, for example, is pouring money into the continued development of the F136 engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter — despite the Pentagon not wanting a second engine.

Another example is General Atomics, which has developed several unmanned aircraft on its own dime.

The expected tightening of acquisition budgets will accelerate the trend because the Defense Department doesn’t have the money to fund new designs or technology, said Byron Callan, an analyst at Capital Alpha Partners in Washington.

“You’ve got to be very forward-leaning, and I think, more aggressive, these days to win market share in a declining budget and not just wait for the customer to write requirements,” Callan said. “At the end of the day, in this kind of environment, that’s how you’re going to get in and win market share.”

But Richard Aboulafia, an analyst at the Teal Group of Fairfax, Va., disagreed.

“It’s pretty unusual for this budget environment. Usually when things turn down, you get real scared about finding customers for new products with bells and whistles,” he said.

Moreover, Aboulafia said, sheer velocity is not necessarily a selling point.

“We really don’t know who will pay for speed in this industry,” he said.

Others said the risks of spending company money to develop defense products would keep it from becoming common.

“I don’t see that as a broad trend across the board in the DoD because all my history has told me that there are times when it makes sense to make your own investments to advance the capability, but whenever you can, getting your partner to make that co-investment, to get that skin in the game, is very important,” said Paul Kaminski, who heads the Pentagon’s Defense Science Board.

Potential civil applications can mitigate the risk of developing military technology, Kaminski said, but he doesn’t immediately see one for Sikorsky.

“I don’t know if they have a commercial companion outlet for the product which helps them justify spending the money to demonstrate this on their own,” he said.

Former Pentagon procurement chief Jacques Gansler agreed.

“In the commercial world, there are lots of different buyers and you have multiple customers; in the case where you have to put up your own money and the only customer is the Department of Defense, that’s really a much higher-risk approach,” Gansler said.

Gansler cited the ill-fated F-20 Tigershark lightweight fighter jet. Northrop developed the plane, but could not persuade the Air Force to buy it — a failure that scared off potential export customers.

“It’s a trend you’re seeing, but not necessarily one that has the likelihood of continuing very long because people are going to lose too much money over it,” Gansler said.

Engebretson said the X-2 technology might well be desired by civil customers, but he said that the company does not yet have specific ones in mind.

Aboulafia said Sikorsky made a similar bet, on its S-92 helicopter, during the downturn of the 1990s. The S-92 lost the competition to become the White House helicopter, and the investment has yet to pay off for the company.