Talk:Sikorsky S-97 Raider

Proposed merge

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This aircraft proposal is for an the Armed Aerial Scout program - A program that is still in the Request for Information phase. Given that the program has not received any funding and has not been rubberstamped, I suggest that the article be incubated until such time. For example, I didn't plan on writing an article on BAE's contender for the GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle even though development was well underway and I had all the specs I needed. This project was later differed by two months and the requirements were scrapped. Marcus Qwertyus 21:09, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - Sikorsky has made it clear that it is builidng two S-97s with its own money as demonstrators, and that the AAS program is only one of the possible uses for the aircraft. They want the military and other customers to have an aircraft to fly and see what the X2 concept can do, but that is more capable than the X2 itself. As such, this article should stay separate from the AAS. (I'm assuming this is where you wanted it merged to, as your statement was unclear.) - BilCat (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Then it can be incubated until then. Marcus Qwertyus 22:38, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

It's common pratice to have articles for proposed aircraft, even those that weren't built, provided they meet WP's Notability and verifiablity requirements. No need to "incubate" this, as it's verfiable and notable with reliable sources beyond just the company's information. - BilCat (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that Marcus created the AAS page, which is still only 3 sentences long a month aftr its creation. I'm surprised it hasn't been PRODded/AFDed, or nominated for incubation itself. However, it is also a notable topic. The article does needs to be expanded, but this isn't the way to do it. I'll see what I can do to help out, as there are other companies interested in the competition, including AugustaWestland with the AW109 AW119, and probable entrants from Bell (407) and Boeing (AH-6S). - BilCat (talk) 00:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, the AS645 version of the UH-72 Lakota is being offered. To clarify my statemtns above, I'm not criticizing the creation of the AAS article, nor do I support its deltion or incubation. Several editors are already working on expanding it as of today. - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose both merging and incubating here, per Bill's comments. I may see what I can dig up tomorrow morning on this (getting it on DYK would be nice ;) ) - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as per the points made by BilCat, the two aircraft being built are not just contenders for the AAS but sources also mention sales to the Navy and foreign forces. Whatever the status of the AAS the company are still building two demonstrators and meets the WP:AIRCRAFT requirements for an article. Not sure what the suggestion about incubation is all about which is for deleted articles that could be improved out of main space, not really relevant to a live article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Incubation is an alternative to deletion. I don't see anything about a prototype currently being built. They are not contenders yet, just blueprints.Marcus Qwertyus 17:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the sources and external links it is clear that the company is building two helicopters, I have added it to the article. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I still see nothing about the construction of any prototypes. All that's come to fruition is a mockup which can be as small as a matchbox. They haven't even decided if it will be autonomous, remote assisted, or what. Marcus Qwertyus 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed aircraft are notable if they meet WP notability requirements, ie. they have received significant coverage in reliable sources. That requirement has been met, so whether or not they will ever be built is irrelevant. An incubation would most likely have to be achieved through an AFD, not a merge proposal anyway, and an AFD seems unlikely to succeed, as the article is meets notazbility requirements. - BilCat (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Its a bit confusing the proposal is to both merge and delete the article, as this is not the forum for deletion discussion we should stick to Marcus Qwertyus proposal to merge. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Btw, I've added text and cited quotes to show that Sikorlky is intending to build 2 prototypes regardless of what happens with the AAS. - BilCat (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge and incubate. It can be both. Marcus Qwertyus 20:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

As has been noted, there is no reason to incubate. And there are quite a few unbuilt aircraft included in Wikipedia already - some of which have reached GA status. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 20:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you list a few? My guess is that these are unique in that they have reached the Request for Proposal stage and thus notable. Marcus Qwertyus 20:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Grumman XTSF (GA), Douglas XP-48 (B), Interstate XBDR (B), and there's more. And it explicitly says in the Sikorsky release announcing the S-97, that the X2-based concept was pitched to the Army for AAS in March in response to their Request for Propsals. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:06, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

AAS has not done a Request for Proposals. the army requested a Request for Information. It was not "pitched" it was just shown to the acquisition people as an example of present and future possibilities. Marcus Qwertyus 21:11, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. My bad then, and apologies. But the type is still notable and newsworthy as-is, given the news coverage and the fact Sikorsky intends to build it regardless of AAS (see also the various Category:Proposed aircraft entries). - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 21:16, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Marcus, you can start with Category:Proposed aircraft, and go through the various sub-categories. You'll find many aircraft type their that were only company proposals. WP:AIR has no requirement that the a design must had been accepted in an RFP to be notable, or have had a customer. It only needs to be supported by reliables sources. - BilCat (talk) 23:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose merge to Armed Aerial Scout. This article focuses on the S-97, which is planned for other uses. The AAS article should focus on the program, and not the possible aircraft offered. I would have considered a merge to Sikorsky X2, with this listing as a derivative. That's an option if the S-97 plans somehow fall through. -fnlayson (talk) 18:10, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if Sikorsky were to cancel the project before building the prototypes, then covering it in the X2 article makes sense. - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Can snowball closes be done on move proposals? There's no support for it at all to this point. - BilCat (talk) 04:36, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Reading WP:SNOW, it seems it can be applied, yes. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 06:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed.  IMO neither article should be present in the active pages (WP:NOTNEWS), because these articles are only covering the news right now. AAS hasn't even fielded a Request for Proposals (RFP), as they are still figuring out what kind of aircraft they even want with an Analysis of Alternatives (AoA). Regarding the proposed merge, an aircraft is notable enough for its own article apart from a program it is submitted for. Still, they only announced the aircraft a day or two ago. --Born2flie (talk) 09:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Say what on speeds

• Maximum speed: 186 mph (299 km/h; 162 kn)
• Cruising speed: 230 mph; 370 km/h (200 kn)

What? BTW see: http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/04/marine-ultra-fast-helicopter-in-the-works-042311/ Hcobb (talk) 04:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Godanov is a genious, isn't he? :) - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted his changes, as none of the sources he added reveal detailed specs, especially for speed, dimensions, and armament. What has been revealed is likely to change as the design is further developed. The AvLeak source from this month has updated images, so we might look into replacing the existing image. - BilCat (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Name move

I am not sure that moving the article meets the guidelines for naming aircraft articles. Raider is not a DOD-official name. It is the company's marketing name, which is often included in the text, but not in the title of the article. Of course, I may be out of touch on the current naming conventions. I am just bringing it up for discussion. --Born2flie (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

It is not a military aircraft the whole of the title "S-97 Raider" is a company designation nothing to do with the DoD. If it is ordered by the military then we may need to change it but it currently meets the naming convention. MilborneOne (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it does. Look at Bell 206, Cessna CH-1, or Cessna 210. Each of these, and plenty of others, have marketing names that are not included in the title of the article, and rightly so. The precedence is not to include the marketing name in the title, which is how the article was originally named. --Born2flie (talk) 10:29, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of others do Agusta A129 Mangusta, Boeing A160 Hummingbird, Bell 47J Ranger, Bell 207 Sioux Scout are just a few. MilborneOne (talk) 11:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

One major reasons that many of these articles don't have names is that the naming conventions preferred the M-d format over m-d-n in cases where products had company names. No that that m-d-n format is allowed, we've been updating many of the older article titles to include the names. In the case of the Bell 206, it has 2 names: JetRanger and LongRanger, which is why I haven't updated title to include the names, as 2 names would make the title a bit clunky. (However, I would support adding "JetRanger to the title as the base model's name.) The Cessna CH-1 and 210 could both have the names added now, though I'll wait until this discussion is resolved to do those. Many other light aircraft from Cessna, Beech and Piper have had several names for single model numbers, or one name for several model numbers, so this is usually handled on a case-by-case basis. Most reliable published aviation reference works include the company names in article titles, especially if there is only one name, so I see no reason we can't follow that practice here. Companies are entitled to name and designate their products, for whatever reasons, and we should have no qualms about simply reporting that, even in the article titles. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't particularly like it as a guideline or convention, but then things don't happen on Wikipedia because I like them or not. --Born2flie (talk) 03:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

What is the "it" you don't particulary like? The m-d-n format? Using company names in titles? Both? Something else? - BilCat (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't like the m-d-n format. It makes me feel dirty. --Born2flie (talk) 04:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I prefer d-n or m-d formats but I don't care enough about aircraft to try to get it changed. Including all three names is unwieldy and overly conformnist. Marcus Qwertyus 05:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Armament

Are we sure that the .50 Cal only comes with 500 rounds, because that seems rather light for that size weapon? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 14:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I cannot find a reference for the amount of ammunition they are designing the aircraft to carry. 500 rounds is what is carried by the OH-58D, which the S-97 is hoped to replace...especially, now that the OH-58D is retired. --Born2flie (talk) 01:33, 30 August 2016 (UTC)