Thanks for watching ! Check out Navy Federal Credit Union: nfcu.me/3xyl5az their services are tailored for the military community. It’s Navy Federal Credit Union’s mission to help members reach their financial goals. They were founded over 85 years go with the mission of helping military members and their families.
excellent video, nice work! Great visuals and commentary. I follow you and i smashed the Like. Just a suggestion, fans of followers of the ongoing Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing FVL competition will be able to find this video, maybe if you put V-280, SB-1, FVL and FLRAA into your keyword terms and title.
Chinas not doing well right now. Their housing economy is close to crashing and causing decades worth of damage. Either way, they will do untold damage if they invade taiwan, but if they do it might be out of desperation which is bad for everyone
@farsiga2899 while the West is obsessed with destroying Russia simply because they are Russians. They are literally sealing the fate of US and EU by provoking WWIII.
@@Taskandpurpose how about the US give their about to be decommissioned black hawks to the closest country to Taiwan along with their Ticonderoga cruisers and if the US navy plans to decommissioned it's flight 2s they might as well split those to countries in indo-pacific that hasn't sided with china completely
Army should get both. Defiant X for low level flights on islands, Bell for longer range larger load room across the sea. Make extra cargo models from Bell version to carry more troops and lighter bulky supplies. Dragging stuff on sling load is slow and reduces range
I think you are right. To demand high top speed and that it's capable of hauling high loads in a sling is wishful thinking. Fast and nimble or a tractor. Chose one!
This might be what they end up doing in a different way. There are 2 competitions going on right now, flraa and fara, with flraa the one covered in this video. Fara is supposed to be for a smaller scout type, and Sikorsky is basically making the same aircraft but smaller, while bell is going with a more traditional helicopter. If bell wins flraa and Sikorsky wins fara, the army will have essentially picked both.
@@johnaltman6671 scout is going to be Invictus aka Comanche 2.0 Scout must have stealth, small footprint, and low cost for recon and take out enemy radars and anti air.
not to mention, counter-engineering against two vehicles is harder than only having to study one. specializing parts and tooling for individual aircraft makes them (on paper) more difficult to maintain, but the nation responsible for design of such also has a lot more time to figure it out. its not too difficult to imagine how a bunch of old blackhawks full of spare parts sitting around could be useful to adversaries with less GDP, especially if they're already privy to reverse engineering most of their hardware.
The way I see it, both these designs are excellent. But they compete in different mission set spaces. The valor is ideal for carrying larger payloads, speed, and range. But the defiant has a much smaller foot print, and looks like it would be a better 1 to 1 replacement for the blackhawk's current mission set. I think ideally in the future, both designs would be used, and they would be utilized for the mission sets they better fit in with.
@Archer Cillian The Chinook airframe just was not designed for that configuration. The Blackhawk maybe, but it would probably cost as much or more than the clean sheet design of the Defiant. That and retrofit avionics etc.
@Archer Cillian I'm performing an educated guess on the differences between the Valor and defiant using data from the blackhawk and osprey. the Chinook is an old airframe, you cannot just retro fit coaxial rotors, aircraft design is more more complicated than that. the advantages of a tilt rotor are speed, range, and capacity. the valor is not a heavy lift aircraft trying to replace the workhorse that is the Chinook, think of it more as a medium weight class with top of class range and speed, while offering good payload capabilities. the defiant would be a much better pure troop transport aircraft with a much smaller footprint, it could land where the Valor could not, think medievac and more.
I think they are relying too much on Afghanistan and Iraq and not enough on Vietnam for dealing with landing zones. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan suffered the same problem that will be even more crucial in the event of a war in this region - limited number of landing zones. In Afghanistan it was mountaintops and the Taliban often posted spotters with a radio to let the others know the Americans are coming. In Vietnam the NVA and VC did the same thing; and with triple canopy jungles there were few LZs big enough to fit any helicopter in - it doesn't take a Washington think tank to guess which landing zones the enemy decided to have troops nearby to respond with; or in the case of China a ship launched guided missile. The difference between this scenario and those two is that like in WW2, it's going to be even more difficult to take an island by surprise as the enemy (China or Chinese supported faction) has technology that allows them to track US military logistical movement as well as anti-thermal sensor equipment now. Just because the drone doesn't pick up a spotter with their eye on the LZ, doesn't mean they're there hiding under a thermal blanket. You don't need stealth detecting radar in place, just a grunt already in place on the ground with good NODs and a radio. However I do think these problems can be overcome with effective jamming equipment that would shut down enemy comms prior to LZ insertion. Can we get a Hooah for all those electronic warfare aircraft in the past, present, and future?
I don't think a 1 to 1 with the BH is the goal. I believe an entirely new mission set is the issue and the goal is supplying the force for that mission.
Navy Federal? Best decision I ever made! Ever increasing Line of credit. Outstanding service. Easy to access funding and advice. 24 hr. Helpline. Never had a situation they didn’t immediately resolve. Worked for me, changed my life.
Let me get this straight: Bell is working with Lockheed Martin on their entry, while Sikorsky... is fully owned by Lockheed Martin. No matter who wins, it seems like a good time to own Lockheed Martin stock!
It's literally not possible for a company to fund research into the level of tech we have now. If we want it, we have to pay a significant fraction of the costs. So by default, defense is welfare, but necessary welfare. And you don't want a company not winning a contract or two to cost you the company. So the money is spread around various ways.
@@omarn6989 Cappy is spot-on - Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.
I had no issue picking who I wanted to win for the NGSW contract, but both of these are really hard choices to me. I'm personally a really big fan of the Tilt-rotor aesthetic and function it has, but I know that the history of the V-22 Ospreys crashes during their testing and such which killed a bunch of Marines on it and then some endeavors later. (RIP Gents.) I feel as if the Osprey would be a lot more useful for Island Hopping, but having to make a much bigger one to carry more would make it a muuuuch bigger target. Sikorsky's Blackhawk did a fine job for how long it's been in service, always thought they looked cool and got the job done; but yes... It's aging. I'm really curious to see what they do in making scout/attack aircraft out of both models and if either is going to truly invest in a more modular approach to things much like how SIG Did with making multiple exceptions as in conversion kits, a platform for LMG, with both in mind to compliment the new sight they want to slap on. This definitely was one of the better videos, thanks Chris. :) 4yr Airman now, been watching you for a while now.
Yeah, but the V-22 was the first iteration of such a craft, so hopefully they have learned the necessary lessons to avoid those issues. The speed added is too useful to ignore.
When Seahawks first came to the fleet they had a bad habit of suddenly diving straight down then crashing. It was so bad we called it the Lawndart for years. Great sponsor! I’ve had everything with Navy Federal forever and I can’t say enough good things about them
You can't tell from the video, but the two sets of rotor blades on the Defiant X rotate in opposite directions (contra-rotate). This prevents the helicopter from spinning, which typically is achieved via a vertical tail rotor. Circa 14:02 the heli is hovering and descending without using the tail rotor, which would be impossible using a conventional design. (The CH-47 "Chinook" also has both rotors rotating in opposite direction, and has no tail rotor at all)
The Bell design will have to have some truly significant advantages over Lockheed's for it to be accepted. This being due to the sheer size of the Bell machine. Due to the design layout of its being a tilt-rotor, the foot print of that machine is immense. It looks like you could almost fit two of the Lockheed helos in the same space as what one Valor would require. That will have a pretty significant impact on its functionality on any battlefield. That pusher prop on the Lockheed machine is nothing new. That sort of layout has been around since the first helicopters took flight. Lockheed's AH-56 Cheyenne of the 1960s featured it and it was a notable feature of that design. The benefit of having a layout like that is that you don't have to trade lift for speed as you do with regular helicopters that must angle their rotors down at the front and / or pitch the nose down as well. Plus, being a coaxial rotor layout, the Lockheed machine dispenses with the counter torque tail rotor of conventional helicopters. On those, they stick a rotor out at the end of the tailboom and have it perpendicular to the main rotor. It takes power from the helicopter engine to generate enough thrust to counter the torque of that big main rotor. With a coaxial rotor design where one rotor spins in the opposite direction of the other, that torque is eliminated and is so without diverting any power from the helicopter's engine. It's a bit more complex, mechanically, but a more efficient use of the power of the machine's engine. On the flip side of all this, it'd be great to see the tilt-rotor getting more production in general. That's a technology the US has the lead on and would be great to see in civilian use as a regional commuter aircraft. Something which a contract this big would enhance the chances of Bell's fielding a passenger version of the Valor.
Leonardo helicopters is currently get a civilian tilt rotor approved by the FAA its been around since the 90's but the project has been bought and sold by a ton of companies but Leonardo is finally making it flight worthy
The tilt rotor is quite a bit faster, even so than the push prop. Typically the push prop gives 50% speed boast, and the tilt rotor gives about 100%. Saftey vice is would prefer the push prop. The tilt rotor sharing of wngines dont help of the gearbox breakes. And that is the more dangerus fault anyway. To my opinion... both aircrafts are lackluster. While yes larger than a blackhawk... they got like twice the complexity. I would rather se a fan lift than a rotor lift... possibly a prop lift. Rotor lift is the worst in case of both maintanance and speed. There have been both fan and prop lift prototypes built in tve 50tys and 60tys. Both worked, but at that time, saftey was not able to be sufficent. Definit X have a speed of 460, the tilt wing, about 560. A prop lift would do about 700, and a fan lift could go pretty much 1000... or possibly more. A fan lift could in theory do 1200km/h at ground level. Both the rotor lift have to be at altotude for top speed, the speed is lowered quote significant at low altitude.
The big misconception is that Sicorsky's submission is tried and true, ab Bell's is a new untried and glitchy tech. In fact on the contrary: Bell has decades of experience of building and flying tiltrotor, and Sikorsky has almost none production experience with coaxials, moreover - rigid coaxials. This was proven by speed with which both contenders developed their vehicles: by the time Sicorsky's submission made it's first flight, V280 was already actively flying and even exceeded their speed goal. The idea that it takes too much space is also wrong, as V280 doesn't require any tailprop, it can get away with a quite short tail, this allows it to have the same footprint as UH1 Huey, just sideways.
@@matsv201 A vertical takeoff craft like that seen on the movie 'Avatar' or the 'Halo' video games would be really cool, potentially safer, and possibly more reliable. I believe that's the type of aircraft you're talking about anyway. 🤔
@@megamanx466 i had to ceck them up. Unsure what type of system they use. There also exist propfan and ducted prop that is sort of inbetween system. The most extreem version of this that was proposed and pre planed, and actually intendent to be built, was pretty much a B737 size jet with lift fans. Removing half the fuel for a bunch of lift fans. That might have been a to large of an aircraft for the army... but.. well, think of a Embraer E2 E-175 jet with lift fans.it would still retain 1800km of range and 23 000lb of load. The saftey of the system would simply be made out of redundant system. There was prototypes made of simual system in the 50tys. But the bypass engines was way to bad at this time to really make the concept workable.
Task & Purpose needs to do a video on Taiwan’s military and how the country has been preparing for a PRC invasion. I would also like his thoughts on if Russia’s struggles in Ukraine have discouraged Beijing from wanting to invade Taiwan.
If anything I think it's bolstered their resolve to take Taiwan. They've also noticed they need to take it quick before other forces get involved and send material and aid
lol, you are watching a military channel, do yourself a favor go do some independent research. Russia is not struggling in Ukraine, and Russia has scored total victory over US on financial war. The current dire economic situation of US and Europe is the result of that total defeat.
@@keith6371 Russia is most definitely struggling. 3 months in and they still don't have air superiority, they're navy is taking hits from land based systems, and their troops are constantly looking to the skies for imminent death from a $1000 drone. When they planned to be done in a week
I would not want to ride into a hot LZ on an Osprey. Those things can get into challenging situations very quickly even when they aren’t being shot at. I might be a tad irrational about them, even their appearance screams “Do Not Trust Me!”
@@chugachuga9242 - I’ll bet you get plenty of the bird variety ospreys too in Delaware. That’s a great location to be a bird watcher… I saw a gigantic flock of snow geese at Bombay Hook State Park once…
You forgot a point. Fixed winged can use run ways to take off with a heavier payload. So put on the 13000 lbs, and then the fuel, and take off. At the LZ, the fuel will have burned off, allowing a vertical landing and take off. A controlled vertical landing.
I am a fancy Sikorsky helicopter engineer. 🇺🇸 For Defiant X, we have 2 main goals: redundancy and capability for size. It's the size of a hawk, more maneuverable than one, way faster, and will carry more. It has redundancy so sophisticated, even I am amazed and I work on it. While it's not as fast as V-280 at the moment, we absolutely refuse to compromise on survivability and "fly-ability" as we like to say. "We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home everywhere … every time"
Hi fancy Sikorsky engineer. I imagine coaxial blades mean some fun extra turbulent fluid dynamics to deal with, affecting both longevity of parts and perhaps noise while operating. Is there anything unclassified you can say on the subject? (Don't get fired.)
This top rotor arrangement makes the aerodynamics better. Some slight additional maintenance challenges compared to hawks but well understand and manageable. Improvements in other areas can potentially keep total maintenance workload about the same or less.
Just wanna mention… originally this started out as a Lockheed joint bell project… the valor that is. Then Lockheed turned around and bought Sikorski and built a competitor for its own bid
You know, I was really confused why Lockheed and Sikorsky were on different sides until you mentioned these. Somewhere in the back of my head I knew Sikorsky was bought out.
@@granatmof It's a similar reason why Northrop bought Orbital/ATK (and why they merged) as well as Lockheed and Martin combining, and Boeing buying out McDonell-Douglas. Theoretically each company has different expertise, so they can compete in different spaces (even if seemingly against themselves) and this makes it so they "always win". Northrop also has Xetron for cyberspace and Scaled Composites for prototyping composites (like the recent stratolaunch), LMA has has ULA, Procerus (for small drones), etc, and boeing has Insitu for small drones - and they all have tons of others for similar reasons. You can get contracts under these companies that don't bring the wide attention and are independent enough to not shock shareholders while at the same time doing something to push the larger company.
Boeing also has a major hand in the Defiant. SB-1 indicated the joint nature of the project between Sikorski and Boeing. Then after Lockheed acquired Sikorski you have 3 of the largest military aviation companies involved.
Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.
The "Apache" part of the program is actually more aimed at replacing the capabilities lost when the OH-58 was retired, and the Apache picked up its mission set.
Not likely the USAF will tolerate the Army having an armed tiltrotor for the same reasons they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56. Key west agreement prohibits the Army from having armed fixed wings and if the USAF went to political war with the Army over the stub wings and high speed on the AH-56 (which was objectively a helicopter) they will certainly oppose a tiltrotor gunship even more vehemently.
""The XVB02 'Vertibird' is a VTOL ('Vertical Take Off and Landing') craft with an extremely durable armored fuselage and can be armed with a variety of offensive weapons and defensive countermeasures. This is the most advanced aircraft of its kind ever developed, and the military hopes to press them into service by 2085.""
and in terms of safety after getting shot at or hit with a missile, the Defiant with it's KA-52 design is a much better option since it can auto-rotate while the tilt-rotors will just fall like rocks especially if the "wings" get clipped or shredded by AA fire
@@oshirockingham9655 most weren't really "downed" but were shot to the point that the pilots needed to land properly. It just goes to show how safe the Kamovs actually are and that's one positive thing about that beast that America or the rest of the world needs to learn from. The sad part is that the Kamovs weren't used properly and the doctrine being used is bad for it's design. Plus you can't just "avoid getting shot". That's a dumbbb statement to make especially since these things are technically war planes and will need to insert itself into hostile territory especially when transporting or dropping off troops. They'll inevitably get into fire in one way or another.
@@dickmelsonlupot7697 helicopters of any flavour are incredibly fragile. Drop a hammer into the rotor disk at flight speed and the helicopter is crashing. The winged craft has the ability to glide which traditional rotorcraft lack. Starting any reliability/survivability argument by picking a type of damage isnt constructive because anyone can just pick some other system to damage and there is no common ground. Personally I think the tilt rotor is going to be more useful and more vulnerable. Physics will give it more load transferred faster than a pure rotorcraft but it is a larger target that needs larger lz unless it does a very risky hover drop. I have the feeling that the added capabilities will sway the selection committees towards that. Perhaps the drone and smart munitions will negate some of the added risk at drop off and the higher speeds might help with risk during transit. Also the tilt rotor looks friggin slick, and we all know that is half the battle.
6:30 well I don't know. It seems like you only need a few hits to one part of the screen and suddenly the whole thing is unusable. Redundancy is key. The dragon spacecraft can have screens for pilot input, but mainly because it won't be shot at
My thoughts exactly. And if it was touch screen what happens when it gets dirty, or wet and would you constantly have to clean it so you would have a clean picture?
@@justinhansen1328 Conductive touch screens and wet hands are a real problem on phones already, indeed! Just imagine the phantom button push potential. Whoops, just shut the rotors off :D
While I don't know what tech will be used here, a few general things: 1) a Screen might looks like it's only one big screen that is easily damaged, but in reality can be build from multiple smaller screens. That way a group of shots can only take out a part of such a larger controll screen. 2) going with a merger of smaller screens together is better than a physical setup, as you can set it up so every aspect can be displayed on any screen. If you physical kobs and dials get shot, they are gone. With a redundant screen setup you loose total screen space, but not functionality.
@@wylnd while they are not often used for civial use due to costs, keep in mind pressure sensitive touchscreens exist. They don't have any of the dirt and moisture problems capacitive touchscreens have. You need to spend a good chunck of money if you want to make them good, but in a multi-million dollar heli a couple hundred dollars extra for a screen won't matter much.
As someone who spent their time on active duty as a Seabee I've got to say all this hating on runways hurts my feelings. Little tropical islands in the Pacific with runways on them are why we exist!
@@currahee No it isn't disrespectful. It's not like we're some elite unit and if anyone were to ask you about it you could just say you love the logo and just wanted to show some love and support. All of us would get a kick out of it and appreciate it, we are such a small community that we always assumed nobody else in the DoD knows about us and we considered ourselves the CNO's red headed step children.
13:38 Hey Cappy just a small tidbit of information here; helicopters go forward by tilting the rotor disk forward, this does make the nose point low in forward flight. So yes, technically they fly forward by pointing the nose down, but it's because that's the effect of tilting the rotor disk.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, to go forward, the rotor hub actually tilts to the right or left depending on rototr rotation direction, and because of gyroscopic procession, the effect is delayed 90degrees of rotation if i recall right Very strange, there are videos on youtube about it.
@@connor3288 Yes, that's correct. The hub and linkage controls (swash plate) do that and are constantly changing the pitch of the blades. Helicopter aerodynamics are crazy black magic. The effect of the pilot inputting forward cyclic (stick) is the swash plate working it's magic and the entire rotor disk tilting forwards to achieve forward flight. Look up footage of wheeled helicopters taxiing, they are level on the ground and you can see the rotor disc tilted forward. This is again to point out that helicopters in level flight have nose down attitudes as an effect of the rotor disc tilting forward, not because the fuselage tilts down.
Yup - I went down in a failed blackhawk just outside of Tikrit in 2005 - engine issues - we landed hard but everyone was okay. Scared shitless, but okay.
I've never commented on a video sponsor, but Navy Federal is far and away the best credit union. Got my mortgage car loan and basically everything else from them. Best rates and customer service.
Here's a tidbit on the Defiant: The pusher prop can go in reverse, and it's powerful enough to lift the whole helicopter (I don't know how much payload, though). So if you want a good view of your LZ...
Except for that pesky fuselage torque that you get from a single rotor design... Probably not the best idea to turn your craft into a spinning top in order to get a glimpse of where you're hoping to crash... err land.
@@atomicskull6405 He was implying using the pusher prop as a main lift rotor to get a great downward view of the LZ. As soon as your pusher prop becomes your main lift rotor it's no longer a coaxial.
@@Taskandpurpose I agree man, I've been watching your videos for a while and while they were always good the quality has drastically Improved since I started watching. Good job man, keep em coming
Hi Cappy, while i like the loadout and capabilities of the tilt rotor are commendable and it certainly has its place; I am inclined more toward the lower observable helicopter with a pusher prop. It has very high speed and is a more nimble and stealthy craft. From a tactical perspective I feel the helicopter should be in the initial lead force, with the tilt rotor being used as a resupply of troops, and associated ammo and food etc. In this way the best of both worlds might be achieved.The forward deployed units would hopefully be in a better position to defend the less stealthy and more vulnerable tilt aircraft, in its ongoing role.
The pusher prop on the Sikorsky can also go in reverse which lets you stop WAY faster than you could with air brakes alone. Very important for the hot infiltration. Less time slowing down less time to get shot down. For the scout/attack model the reverse thrust lets you circle a target with more precision too. In my opinion Bell is more of a plane that has VTOL , where the Sikorsky is more of a true helicopter, so I think they both have a place.
The pusher prop on a helicopter was worked out by lockheed 60 years ago on the AH-56 Chyenne. It was supposed to replace the Cobra but then the USAF objected and lobbied hard against it till the program got killed. In many ways it was a more capable aircraft than the AH-64.
The reversible prop promises to produce fast deceleration in level (although it hasn't been demonstrated), but you can also get fast decel by raising the nose as as conventional helos do. Something overlooked, though is that on the ground either the troops have to wait for that prop to stop so they don't get sliced and diced, which delays their egress, or the prop has to be stopped while still airborne, which negates part of the advantage it's supposed to confer.
That's all talk and bluster - too bad that Sikorsky or Boeing never demonstrated it. That's the whole point of a demonstrator prototype - to actually "demonstrate" your claimed capability. The Bell V-280 Valor clocked up 214 flight hours - it flew for well over 3.5 times the pitiful 60 flight hours of SB1 Defiant. Insofar as speed, the V-280 Valor achieved 305 kts airspeed - well exceeding its namesake goal of 280 kts - and a full 60 kts faster than SB1 Defiant. The Production V-280 variant shall go even faster, with its more powerful R-R engines. Conversely, the SB1 Defiant could only muster 245 kts
As a Army Officer while stationed in DC joined Navy Federal, a great credit union. As an Army Aviator next generation Sikorsky would be better for the scout mission
That last quote about building combat power faster than your opponent made me think. What's that saying? "bullets win battles, but logistics win wars." A Super Apache would be sick, but slinging artillery pieces and supplies around is better.
Imo lockhead prototype seems to be much less complicated to design, ospray design if done right have more advantages (higher speed, more efficient), but certification of ospray design for civil aviation seems to be nearly impossible in contrary to helicopter with pusher prop. Cant wait to see advancement of these two projects.
The Osprey is not whats being offered. The Valor is, which has a different engine tilt design (engine doesn’t tilt) and is safer and therefore easier to get civil certification for. The competition seems mostly a sham, as the reconnaissance one is tailor made for the Defiant and the Valor for long range assault. The Invictus would have been great if it came 20 years ago. As for utility blackhawk replacement...well, thats just stupid to replace it.
Not more efficiency in hover and loiter, tiltrotors are actually worse in vertical lift because of high disk loading compared to helicopters. The whole pusher prop on a helicopter concept was done previously by Lockeed look up the AH-56 Cheyenne. It was set to replace the cobra but then the USAF objected and started lobbying against it. It was arguably a better platform than the AH-64 that would come a decade later.
Seems like while there's some overlap between the two, there's also some things they likely each do better than the other. And with the number of Blackhawks they're looking to replace, there's plenty of room for both machines.
Personally think the Boeing Heli is a better fit, if it can lift the requirements. Smaller landing footprint, maybe faster, again only question will be lift capabilities
The tilt rotor design is faster, but I can see the coaxial rotor design being better at carrying load. There's not one solution that trumps the other in all areas. I'd be interested to hear how that coaxial rotor sounds. It should have a pretty high pitched sound, but that's just me speculating. I could be wrong as they say they are able to spin the rotors slower though. Still coaxial counter rotating props tend to be whiny.
Coaxial is more efficient but it is not better than two rotors, So if you have a fix diameter rotor then the the lift of two rotor is 2x but the lift of coaxial is less than 2x. Coaxial will have somewhere between 1.6x~1.3x lift. But the footprint of 2 rotors is 2x while the footprint of Coaxial is only 1x. Coaxial is a lot more compact but the twin rotor should have higher payload given the same rotor diameter.
What is amazing to me, is I was just looking into this competition this morning and thought, I wish Task and Purpose would put out a video comparing these birds... Great job reading my mind!
I mean the Osprey already proven very useful, it's a combo of a plane and heli. I don't see its size has a massive downside since it can hover pretty well. The only question is how well it will work if one rotor dies.
The tilt rotor aircraft require a substantially larger LZ and have reduced efficiency in hover mode as a good portion of the thrust is opposed by the surface area of the wings.
1st Cav 1965. For those who haven't seen " We were soldiers once... and young ", a must watch movie. Wouldn't it be easier to make an artillery piece that weighs around 8500lbs?
The M777 is much lighter than it's predecessor, and it's still overweight for the Blackhawk. It may be possible to do it for a 155mm cannon, but there will be compromises somewhere.
I can definitely see ups and downs to both. Developing a new lighter artillery piece would almost certainly be cheaper and easier, yes. At least up front. That being said - The new lighter gun would *have* to trade capability for it's lower weight. Some mixture of range, caliber, and reliability would have to go. You can pick how much of which ones, but none of the above isn't really an option. You're also introducing another thing that you need to keep up with on the logistical end and so need a whole parallel supply chain just for this field piece. From what I'm gathering, part of the point of developing a new helicopter is going to be to streamline the logistical end. You get to axe both the blackhawks and chinooks (and maybe the lakota too) and trade them in for a single type. Additionally, the new type is more capable. Being able to transport a bigger artillery piece also means it can transport more guys, more guns and more gear. So, yeah, more expensive up front *but* actually simplifies things in the end. At the end of the day, if it comes down to which option is cheaper, congress is going to say - money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
@@ColonelSandersLite From what you're suggesting, this new project would be along the lines of the F35 and its 3 variants. I believe they will introduce a new heli with Taiwan in mind, but like the T62 in Ukraine... What better way to make room for the new than to send the Uh60L into combat at the start with a field piece that can be transported. If we get involved in Taiwan, it's going to be huge and it might be prudent to send a tried and tested helicopter in first and assess the effectiveness first. Can you imagine losing 100's of these new birds against the Chinese at the start?! Well, let's see how it unfolds 😎
thats awesome no motion sickness too because it won't be leaning as much. That was one of the issues on the hawk was it made us ill. then you'd have to get your bearing after exfil
For me as a pilot they both have different mission sets. With the amount of lateral space the tilt-rotor occupies it would be a problem in tight landing zones in between trees of the tropical jungle environment of the Pacific Islands, for me it's just a too wide footprint. For this purpose I think the Defiant is better suited with its slimmer profile. The V280 Valor is best suited for open areas such as European plains, deserts or places where trees are more spaced from each other.
If you superimpose the v-280 over the Defiant X they are almost the same size. The v-280 is only slightly bigger with its rotor blades sticking a bit further out. The defiants blades go pretty far out. People don't realize how small the v-280 is especially if you compare it to the v-22. It's true that the frame is laterally bigger, but if your rotors hit trees on the way down I don't know how much it matters.
I think the Defiant will get the contract for a few reasons. I know when I was flying Hawks in both the Army and Air Force, profile was important, deck space for shipboard ops as well as when airlifting via C17. And it looks like the Defiant would have the advantage there. Even at 300+ KTS it is a long way from Ft Campbell or Ft Brag to the Pacific. The V22 has proven itself to be a mediocre helicopter and a mediocre fixed wing aircraft. Don’t get me wrong, The V22 is a great aircraft and fulfills an awesome niche that helicopters and fixed wings can’t but I think the Army needs more of a helicopter than a hybrid in terms of vertical lift and ability to worked in confined areas. I think the Defiant has the advantage in that area too.
The problem is people like to think of a tiltrotor as a replacement for traditional helicopters, something it will never be because it's less efficient in vertical lift and loiter and less efficient than an airplane in forward flight due to the necessary compromise between disk loading and prop drag.
@@atomicskull6405 Yes exactly what I was trying to say when talking about the V-22. For the Army I think the Army needs something closer to a traditional helicopter and so I think the Defiant will win out.
If you watch the sikorsky videos about the defiant, it would appear they are planning to replace H-60 Hawk series of helicopters across all the branches. As well as working on a dedicated attack platform version using the compound coaxial design.
The problem with the new designs is and always be how easily can it be maintained and what major design flaws inhibit that, like the ch-53 and all it’s variants that are absolute death traps or the osprey which isn’t exactly easy for your average crew to keep in the air
That's not as relevant as you'd think. America and NATO have been at a full world war footing for decades. And maintenance aside, you can't make the tech of today nearly as fast as the stuff in WW2 was built. We literally keep ourselves fully equipped for an all out no holds barred fight to the death with Russia. In the smaller fights, the inconvenience of harder maintenance is just an inconvenience.
What the Army needs now is a Jumbo Osprey. A chimera b@stard that fits between the C-130 Hercules and CH-47 Chinook. And it needs to be Army Aviation organic. Cut dependency on the Air Force for tactical air lift operations at the longer ranges the Army helo fleet cannot support, and the need to capture and hold air fields, which is a logistical and strategic nightmare. And it wouldn't need the troublesome swing-wing stowage system of the naval Osprey.
Go back and watch that movie, "Live, die, repeat" They basically have D-day that's half jumbo tilt-rotors. (Disregard the actual battle scenes though, pretty sure monty python was the general in charge of that invasion I swear XD) Absolutely awesome flight scenes though. Honestly, someone should already be looking at feasibility studies about those aircraft... I think there was a couple different versions in use as well but I can't remember for sure...
Bell mentioned a while back that Osprey is as big as they plan to go for swing wings. Apparently there are issues at larger scales that make other layouts more attractive.
@@stupidburp Well I'd imagine the power levels needed for the engines on much larger aircraft would put stupid levels of torque on the various supports and wings of the craft whenever they were powered up, and then trying to rotate the fuckers... They might not even have aircraft appropriate hydraulics powerful enough... I did see a tilt-rotor design where they basically had like three or four sets of wings with comparatively smaller engines on each. That might make the torque forces more reasonable on a wing by wing basis.... Although you'd have multiple sets of rotation hydraulics so weight might become an issue... You'd probably end up with diminishing returns... But, pie in the sky idea, throw a small nuclear reactor in the ass end of the thing, fill every spare spot with batteries and capacitors. Tear out the engines and fuel system, replace it with big ass electric motors. All the power you could ever want lol.
@@davidgoodnow269 The largest example of forced plot armor ever witnessed by mankind XD Well.... Except for that amazon movie with the time travel and the spike monsters where everything goes to shit cause we all have to just except the idea that Russia wouldn't nuke the 7 shades of shit out of some area in Siberia even of it meant the whole country would get eaten. Like seriously? Russia has nuked Siberia a couple dozen times already just for shits and giggles. They used a nuke on a gas pipeline fire. The "Tsar Bomba" was tested in Siberia. But innumerable monsters coming to viciously murder and eat everyone we know and love? No, let's not be hasty and break out the nukes or anything... Nah. That's like some anime invulnerability shit level of plot armor right there.
Alright, after watching the video fully now. End thoughts are... both. Both have advantages, it's situational. The tilt rotor design is still faster, and more fuel efficient at cruising long distances, so that obviously is a key advantage in some situations. On the other hand, the twin rotor plus prop aproach is overall a more compact and efficient design for hovering. It's still pretty fast, but not as fast and also not as fuel efficient flying over long distances. On the other hand it's more fuel efficient when hovering in place, and would likely have more lifting capacity for a given cost. It's also got a smaller horizontal footprint so it can more easily get into some smaller areas for landing than the tilt rotor design with its big old wings holdings pinning blades out at a distance to each side. So, you got speed and range while flying, versus power and efficiency while hovering and landing. Of coarse sufficiently better design in details, engine or other part choice on either contractor could flat out push either design overall ahead, but in general this is the breakdown of the two types of designs from an engineering perspective before you get into the specifics of an actual aircraft and all of it's finicky details that vary model to model. Speed is obviously extremely important, moving units and supplies more quickly can save lives and let you outmaneuver the enemy. Greater range also means you can reach out further from existing bases or locations giving you more options on the large scale. No General will have a problem with extra speed and range. Added lift capacity and the ability to land in slightly narrower areas, and hover longer more efficiently on the other hand... is probably less important, as long as both can lift the given amount needed for the hardware we need, the ability to lift a bit extra, or be a bit cheaper for the same lifting amount isn't the biggest deal, it's situationally useful, but not a must and not something useful almost all the time like speed and range can be. Fuel efficiency while hovering... is useful for attack helicopters and gunships on station hovering around an area as eyes in the sky, but most of these are meant to be transports and would fly in and then out over distances. The tilt rotor is more efficient in the initial part so most operations would not really win on fuel efficiency using the dual rotor plus prop design in the end unless acting as a gunship and we'll have dedicated attack helicopters for that more often than not. The ability to land in slightly more narrow environments is sometimes going to be very useful sure... but again it's extremely situational, only benefiting a minority of operations at all, and the tilt rotor even if a bit wider could just use ropes to get people into more cramped spaces most of the time in exchange for being in a slightly more dangerous situation for a period as people rope down or tie on before they get pulled up. So between the two, I'd probably recommend the tilt rotor design if asked my thoughts for the above reasons. For attack helicopters in the future, the twin rotor plus prop approach could win out though since again they will sometimes be hovering around for longer periods, and wanting to carry any extra weight in munitions or defenses is obviously a plus. Still, if an attack helicopter can move with the transports at the same speed and over the same ranges that's a major advantage and simplifies a lot of mission planning so there's clear reason for both arguments here too.
I wonder why they don't try to get the best of all worlds with a tilting tandem aerial crane. I mean, the basic helicopter looks like a tandem rotor with a very narrow body. But actually, the body is a flying wing. It tilts sideways for horizontal flight, turning into a flying wing with twin props. You get the speed and efficiency of a tilt rotor without the complexity. It can act like a gunship with sideways pointed guns (like an AC-130). Or it can hover with its body edge on to the enemy. Either way, it presents a small profile to the enemy, and the rotors don't get in the way of the guns. As an aerial crane, it can carry payloads slung underneath. This can be a troop glider, so it tows horizontally for long fast flight, or it can be a wingless troop pod for landing in very tight spaces. The helicopter can drop off the troop glider/pod quickly, and then provide fire support as a gunship. Since it didn't need to carry the troops internally, it presents a tougher target for the enemy. The point is, one helicopter platform can perform multiple missions from heavy lift to troop transport to attack. It has speed and efficiency like a tilt rotor, yet it can land troops in very tight spaces. And the complexity is less.
Yeah, considering the distances involved and the difficulties in fuel transport, in the case of Island hopping you'd want distance, speed, and fuel efficiency more than anything. We aren't gonna have well-equipped airbases and fuel depots all over the place, certainly not at first. The coaxial is probably a better aircraft for our middle east and general continental-based missions, but the tilt rotor is certainly better for a campaign in the pacific or against china assuming there aren't some kind of glaring design flaw they're hiding...
Chris, Howdy I believe that both helicopters can benefit our military needs. Spec ops we know get what they need. Because they prove they can make it happen.... Let's be smart and give our troops the Advantage!!!!!. From a former Navy guy.
@@doublehelix7880 Soviet autoloader is fucking stupid. This one from Rheinmetall looks better and safer. Also tank has APS that protect him from incoming rockets
@@doublehelix7880 Also it’s not based on a leopard 2 that’s the most important thing so this tank has nothing to do with the Cold War tank design anymore. Also who said it’s immortal?!
@@nobodycares6881 This is what I understand from your "statement" - the tank have APS and its AL is "safer" - not that you have a clue in what it's "safety" is. And the most important - it "looks better" :))) Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the Russian autoloader have a better positioning as it is located low in the hull, while the Panther one is in the turret. It is very common to have just the turret being exposed in a combat situation, while the hull is covered behind an obstacle or terrain. Plus, it would be fair to compare this tank with T-14, where the crew is in an armored compartment with quite higher chance of survival upon ammo detonation.
I for one would like to see the USA stop interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. From Libya to Afghanistan to Chile and Argentina it’s only ended in misery
I’ve been a subscriber since you were around 80k subscribers. I love all your content, and your personality is so open and welcoming I feel like you’re a friend I already know. Hooah from St. Louis!!!
Both had its own purposes.. can only choose one over the others is going to be hard. For long range transport, tilt rotos definitely the best. But hot extraction, tilt rotors is simply too big a foot print. It will had many2 disadvantages
From the description, sounds to me that the new project will be for a heavy lift that exceeds the current Blackhawk which could mean that missions like hot extractions might be performed by other craft like a smaller Osprey.
There are actually 2 competitions the army is holding, flraa which was discussed in this video, and fara which is supposed to be for a lighter scout type. Sikorsky is basically putting the same aircraft but smaller in fara, so the bell v280 might be selected for flraa but the Sikorsky raider for fara.
I think a combination of both air frames might be in order, some times one type doesn't fit all the many different combat scenarios. Back in the 1970's and early 80's the US military was designed to fight the Soviet army and look at who they wound up fighting for the next 35 years. The world changes, globalization dying off, today's allies might turn out to be tomorrows adversaries.
The world spends 1.92 trillion on military. America alone spends 811 billion of that total. The other 29 nations of NATO, spend ~353 billion. I can promise, America's allies won't turn on us. And we're not going to turn on them.
@John Grigg There's no doubt china spends more than they claim, but don't think America doesn't spend more than we're told. But TBH, it can't be vastly more than they claim. China has. Population about 4 times bigger than America, and it's total GDP is just a little over half of what we make. Most of what china makes has to go towards it people.
The Bell Valor differs from the Osprey in that the rotors tilt, but the engines do not. This should make the aircraft much more reliable. It's about 70 mph faster than the Bell, but carries less and the tilt rotors severely limit weapon load-out. It's main point of failure is the linkage between the rotors and the engines, as that joint needs to bend 90 degrees. The Defiant-x, looks like a regular helicopter but it is not. In order to get the rotors so close together, they had to be made out of a much stiffer material. This is unproven and is probably the aircraft's main point of failure. IMHO the Defiant-x fits the role better, but the Valor is the safer choice.
@@kousand9917 Their rotors are farther apart to keep them from self-destructing. The Defiant-x builds upon the "ABC" concept from the 70s. It's got a lot of advantages, but requires very stiff rotor blades that will take a lot of stress. (maybe too much stress)
@@be5718 The engines don't have to tilt. So they don't need to deal with the operational stress of working at 90 degrees. (and twisting the full lines, etc...) This was a big hurtle back in WWII when planes were first taking high g loads and flying upside down. As for landing without power, what does the v-220 do?
Counter rotating top rotors have been around a long time. They are well understood now. Sufficient stiffness to avoid rotor blades slapping each other was part of the design. But already tested and proven on aircraft before Defiant.
Back in the 1960s, wehen the Army was being flown to Vietnam in C-124s. After number of the "Globemasters" disappeared in the Pacific, the Army started calling the Crashmaster."
I like Lockheed's design, though I am biased for coax-helicopters. I'm surprised the US never made their own equivalent of Russia's Kamov series. I think both craft will be useful in their own ways.
What a phenomenal video Cappy! Keep it up man! The Blackhawks we used for air assault seemed like they were always on their last life line. I wasn’t a rotary mechanic by any means as my recruiter made being an 11B sound like the best thing in the universe haha. That being said it always seemed like there was something being replaced or worked on, on any number of our Blackhawks from day to day.
Great vlog on this subject. I was one of the first to get my hands on the Blackhawk back in 1980, as the 101st was gearing up for the new aircraft. I must have been good, as they shipped me to a Korea to , to a forward unit to welcome them there. It was a fine bird, compared to they Huey.
In a side issue, maybe it’s a good time to examine the Navy’s role in future combat. The Navy has trouble retaining pilots. The Marines have trouble getting budget consideration for their equipment. Maybe the Navy should concentrate on captaining ships and leave other functions to the Air Force and Army. For example, Aircraft Carriers would be commanded and staffed by the Navy. The pilots would be commanded by the Air Force as a hardship duty along with being stationed overseas. This would help retain pilots. However, the Air Force commander would be under Navy command by rank while on duty. For the Marines, they would be a special trained forced within Army command. This would take the ceiling off of many senior officers and enlisted men. The Marine part of the Navy budget would be transferred to the Army where are Armor and Mech Infantry equipment would be uniform. For amphibious and large beach landings, new equipment would be developed capable of keeping up with the speed of battle. If this could not be done, new doctrine would be developed to get the right equipment to the right stage of the battle. The Marines should not need a 3 day sand storm to catch up to Army units.
There's a ton of second and third order effects you're not considering. The Air Force has no business commanding pilots in carrier ops, considering that they don't have the experience to run carrier ops - the Navy does.
Your idea isn't bad from a logical point of view. But Marines would rather chew nails than go under army command. They'd never go along with that plan.
Although in every major operation Marines are under Army command because of rank structure. However, I understand your point about tradition. If my idea was executed, preserving as much it not all Marine traditions would be a critical part of the integration.
@@stephensipe5405 Well, yes. But the underlying problem is that you think the marine corps is a military branch with an odd attachment to their traditions. In actuality the Marine corps is basically a cult thats funded by the U.S. goverment. That pretends to be a military branch so it can continue to receive funding, and new sacrifices for its God: Chesty Puller. If you try to touch their traditions then the death cult will cry murder.
While I greatly admire the US for having the vast, actual military action experience they are able to turn into superior hardware capable of winning battles better than just about any adversaries, including China, I wish they also have think tanks that plan ahead to defuse the need for war in the first place. Why does there have to be a war between the United States of America and China? The only reason is political and the reasons behind that are historical. Imagine if both nations decide that working for the same planet is more important than working for two different countries? Humanity can then cross out one existential threat from the list.
the Army think tank pointed out that the army/marines had no real ability to island hop. Keep in mind that the army has plans to deal with the mexican AND the canadian invasion. That island hopping is also in line with the fact that the army has two old helicopter programs.
War is good for business, as they say. The military industrial complex needs wars or little skirmishes so they can sell more weapons or make more for domestic use if the govt. Decided to give a bunch away, e.g. Ukraine.
Because the nature of liberalism is totalitarian, anyone who threatens it must be eliminated. China with her advancing technological sector and manufacturing capabilities provide a illiberal pathway to prosperity and cannot be allowed to expand. Liberalism can only maintain it's stranglehold on the world by keeping its grip on technology and resources. This is its last gasp as it increasingly finds itself unable to answer the challenges and questions of the coming world.
That is what diplomats, politicians, etc. are meant to do. The military is there if all else fails. It's way better to have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Contrasting, on a historical level US and China have mostly been friendly after the Vietnam War.
US Armed Forces need BOTH aircraft. So does the commercial, international and domestic markets. Both fantastic aircraft. With Defiant X, you have the added bonus of a visual aesthetic that achieves 'force multiplier' status.
Honestly, I want both these helicopters to win lol! Just think about it, if the near peer power war is china then both helicopters would make absolute sense, as the war would likely be in Taiwan and up to the entire Pacific ocean. Boeing's helicopters would be ideal in those close combat extract or deploy scenarios in the jungles and cities of the SEA and Taiwan countries, while Bell's tilt rotors would be an absolute need for those long range island to island and city to city campaigns that needs a fast in and out troop carriers of the battle zone scenarios of the same SEA and Taiwan areas. I think this is a huge opportunity for the US armed forces lol
Sikorsky 's is my pick bc it looks like the kind of platform that could be turned into a proper attack helicopter. Also, it's literally the AH-56 with modern parts. Way better design, especially considering the Sikorsky design can land in more places.
Remember to say "farther" when talking about distance, and "further" for matters of degree, as in, "I'll go one step further and put my job on the line for this project."
I think your forgetting the issue that the Navy will play the biggest part in any island hopping campaigns and none of these design look like they could replace a Seahawk in weapon capabilities and ability to be stored in destroyer/cruisers
Navy choppers are more tuned to basic transport or anti-sub warfare. neither both will do the jobs properly especially at a cheap price since they need cheap replaceable assets that won't be a problem if some crashes in accidents or gets shot down.
Defiant naval variant is already planned and designed. It had automatic folding top rotors and has a deck footprint about the same as a Seahawk. Navy is gonna love it. More range, more speed, more payload, more agility.
The way I see it, Bell and Lockheed are both extremely venerable companies in the military sector with some of the most iconic designs in the field. Meanwhile the Sikorsky blackhawk is being investigated for safety issues, and Boeing has literally devolved into a trashfire of a company. On credentials alone, I hope the contract goes to Lockheed and Bell. It'll probably run over budget, but at least it'll work.
don't know if someone mentioned this or not, but the pusher prop on the Defiant is not new. The AH-56 Cheyenne had one. It was in service 1966-69. It had one main rotor, a stabilizer rotor, and the pusher. It was, needless to say, mechanically complex. This was long before computerized digital flight control. It was a Lockheed project, so it is no surprise that they are resurrecting it. The Cheyenne also had stubby little wings and could carry quite a weapons payload. It reached nearly 250 mph in flight, out of this world for a chopper back then. The Air Force had an issue with its plane-like characteristics well. The Army decided it was too complicated and in the end equipped their aviation units with the AH-1G Cobra.
The one thing I just don't like about the V-280, is one small round through the aircraft and you lose the whole primary display. All gauges, flight and mission data it provides, will be gone.
i think that both options look great, and that the army should adopt both for different scenarios: the valor looks better for conventional fast troop transport, and the defiant x looks better for stealth operations
Man because I’m such a futuristic fan I wish I live long enough to see America build the 1st helicopter that can take off and land with the propulsive rocket like way of flight like the Pelican from halo!!
"..you can have an artillery cannon airdropped to a remote location. Something that was never really possible before" We have been able to airlift howitzers with chinooks since 1961...
I'd definitely say the later, sure both are good but the simplicity, straight forward mentality with good, boring enhancements are what is needed (similar to how SIG made their rifle). As a naval aviation guy, we might be seeing a version of one of these ourselves, and we HATED the osprey on the flight deck, it was so unbelievably disruptive to flight schedule. Not only does it knock everyone on their asses, but you have to clear the entire center of the flight deck to land it, requiring a complete respot before and after, while taking up an entire event on its own just for one aircraft.
Thanks for watching ! Check out Navy Federal Credit Union: nfcu.me/3xyl5az their services are tailored for the military community. It’s Navy Federal Credit Union’s mission to help members reach their financial goals. They were founded over 85 years go with the mission of helping military members and their families.
Are we not naming our helicopters after Native American tribes any more? Great episode btw 👍
Sorry USAA is the way to go
So you want to take the navy's osprey and slap the army logo on it and say it's new?
excellent video, nice work! Great visuals and commentary. I follow you and i smashed the Like.
Just a suggestion, fans of followers of the ongoing Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing FVL competition will be able to find this video, maybe if you put V-280, SB-1, FVL and FLRAA into your keyword terms and title.
The new military tactics aren’t for China and Russia but for the USA citizens
The Japanese learned that if you land on a remote island you might not get resupplied for several years.
They also learned not to fight a country with 12X the size of their economy. China will not make that mistake.
@@MichaelSmith-dm2quI'm not sure they _can_ make that mistake. I'm pretty sure China's economy is real (unlike Russia lol).
@@MichaelSmith-dm2quDon't bet on China not making that mistake, China wants Taiwan that badly. China is obsessed with taking Taiwan.
Chinas not doing well right now. Their housing economy is close to crashing and causing decades worth of damage. Either way, they will do untold damage if they invade taiwan, but if they do it might be out of desperation which is bad for everyone
@farsiga2899 while the West is obsessed with destroying Russia simply because they are Russians. They are literally sealing the fate of US and EU by provoking WWIII.
Glad to see it looks like you are feeling better Cappy. Take care of yourself, we love the content!
thanks man I shot a couple of last few videos when I was sick , finally feeling better !
@@Taskandpurpose yah we saw u were sweating a bit. Take care bro!!
@@Taskandpurpose take care man💪🏻💪🏻
@@Taskandpurpose how about the US give their about to be decommissioned black hawks to the closest country to Taiwan along with their Ticonderoga cruisers and if the US navy plans to decommissioned it's flight 2s they might as well split those to countries in indo-pacific that hasn't sided with china completely
@@Taskandpurpose since you've been out of the army your immune system has gone to shit man, you need to start eating those MREs again to boost it!
Army should get both. Defiant X for low level flights on islands, Bell for longer range larger load room across the sea. Make extra cargo models from Bell version to carry more troops and lighter bulky supplies. Dragging stuff on sling load is slow and reduces range
I think you are right. To demand high top speed and that it's capable of hauling high loads in a sling is wishful thinking. Fast and nimble or a tractor. Chose one!
This might be what they end up doing in a different way. There are 2 competitions going on right now, flraa and fara, with flraa the one covered in this video. Fara is supposed to be for a smaller scout type, and Sikorsky is basically making the same aircraft but smaller, while bell is going with a more traditional helicopter. If bell wins flraa and Sikorsky wins fara, the army will have essentially picked both.
@@johnaltman6671 scout is going to be Invictus aka Comanche 2.0 Scout must have stealth, small footprint, and low cost for recon and take out enemy radars and anti air.
not to mention, counter-engineering against two vehicles is harder than only having to study one. specializing parts and tooling for individual aircraft makes them (on paper) more difficult to maintain, but the nation responsible for design of such also has a lot more time to figure it out. its not too difficult to imagine how a bunch of old blackhawks full of spare parts sitting around could be useful to adversaries with less GDP, especially if they're already privy to reverse engineering most of their hardware.
@@johnaltman6671 in my opinion, I think Army will procure Sikorski and Navy will procure Bell.
The way I see it, both these designs are excellent. But they compete in different mission set spaces. The valor is ideal for carrying larger payloads, speed, and range. But the defiant has a much smaller foot print, and looks like it would be a better 1 to 1 replacement for the blackhawk's current mission set. I think ideally in the future, both designs would be used, and they would be utilized for the mission sets they better fit in with.
@Archer Cillian The Chinook airframe just was not designed for that configuration. The Blackhawk maybe, but it would probably cost as much or more than the clean sheet design of the Defiant. That and retrofit avionics etc.
@Archer Cillian I'm performing an educated guess on the differences between the Valor and defiant using data from the blackhawk and osprey. the Chinook is an old airframe, you cannot just retro fit coaxial rotors, aircraft design is more more complicated than that. the advantages of a tilt rotor are speed, range, and capacity. the valor is not a heavy lift aircraft trying to replace the workhorse that is the Chinook, think of it more as a medium weight class with top of class range and speed, while offering good payload capabilities. the defiant would be a much better pure troop transport aircraft with a much smaller footprint, it could land where the Valor could not, think medievac and more.
Yes they both have strengths and i think it merits building both aircraft technology
I think they are relying too much on Afghanistan and Iraq and not enough on Vietnam for dealing with landing zones. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan suffered the same problem that will be even more crucial in the event of a war in this region - limited number of landing zones. In Afghanistan it was mountaintops and the Taliban often posted spotters with a radio to let the others know the Americans are coming. In Vietnam the NVA and VC did the same thing; and with triple canopy jungles there were few LZs big enough to fit any helicopter in - it doesn't take a Washington think tank to guess which landing zones the enemy decided to have troops nearby to respond with; or in the case of China a ship launched guided missile.
The difference between this scenario and those two is that like in WW2, it's going to be even more difficult to take an island by surprise as the enemy (China or Chinese supported faction) has technology that allows them to track US military logistical movement as well as anti-thermal sensor equipment now. Just because the drone doesn't pick up a spotter with their eye on the LZ, doesn't mean they're there hiding under a thermal blanket. You don't need stealth detecting radar in place, just a grunt already in place on the ground with good NODs and a radio.
However I do think these problems can be overcome with effective jamming equipment that would shut down enemy comms prior to LZ insertion. Can we get a Hooah for all those electronic warfare aircraft in the past, present, and future?
I don't think a 1 to 1 with the BH is the goal. I believe an entirely new mission set is the issue and the goal is supplying the force for that mission.
Navy Federal? Best decision I ever made! Ever increasing Line of credit. Outstanding service. Easy to access funding and advice. 24 hr. Helpline. Never had a situation they didn’t immediately resolve. Worked for me, changed my life.
Let me get this straight: Bell is working with Lockheed Martin on their entry, while Sikorsky... is fully owned by Lockheed Martin.
No matter who wins, it seems like a good time to own Lockheed Martin stock!
It is pretty common for several of these companies to be involved. Who wins determines who is the lead contractor and gets a bigger share.
It's literally not possible for a company to fund research into the level of tech we have now.
If we want it, we have to pay a significant fraction of the costs. So by default, defense is welfare, but necessary welfare.
And you don't want a company not winning a contract or two to cost you the company. So the money is spread around various ways.
That is an error by Cappy. Lockheed is not part of the Valor team
I thinking about joining the local lock heed martin logistics and military sales where those contracts at....
@@omarn6989 Cappy is spot-on - Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.
I had no issue picking who I wanted to win for the NGSW contract, but both of these are really hard choices to me. I'm personally a really big fan of the Tilt-rotor aesthetic and function it has, but I know that the history of the V-22 Ospreys crashes during their testing and such which killed a bunch of Marines on it and then some endeavors later. (RIP Gents.) I feel as if the Osprey would be a lot more useful for Island Hopping, but having to make a much bigger one to carry more would make it a muuuuch bigger target. Sikorsky's Blackhawk did a fine job for how long it's been in service, always thought they looked cool and got the job done; but yes... It's aging. I'm really curious to see what they do in making scout/attack aircraft out of both models and if either is going to truly invest in a more modular approach to things much like how SIG Did with making multiple exceptions as in conversion kits, a platform for LMG, with both in mind to compliment the new sight they want to slap on. This definitely was one of the better videos, thanks Chris. :) 4yr Airman now, been watching you for a while now.
Yeah, but the V-22 was the first iteration of such a craft, so hopefully they have learned the necessary lessons to avoid those issues. The speed added is too useful to ignore.
Agree the general dynamics bid was the obvious bid for all of us to choose except the good ole government
What realistically makes the Blackhawk obsolete other than the defense industry needing muh contracts?
Those are two VERY cool Helicopters! Go for both! 😊
@@yeedbottomtext7563 did you watch the video? What makes the Blackhawk obsolescent is a whole section in there
When Seahawks first came to the fleet they had a bad habit of suddenly diving straight down then crashing. It was so bad we called it the Lawndart for years.
Great sponsor! I’ve had everything with Navy Federal forever and I can’t say enough good things about them
You can't tell from the video, but the two sets of rotor blades on the Defiant X rotate in opposite directions (contra-rotate).
This prevents the helicopter from spinning, which typically is achieved via a vertical tail rotor.
Circa 14:02 the heli is hovering and descending without using the tail rotor, which would be impossible using a conventional design.
(The CH-47 "Chinook" also has both rotors rotating in opposite direction, and has no tail rotor at all)
Chinook has rotors on the front and back, very different machine.
It also looke like an absolute maintenance nightmare and fragile to the point of absurdity.
@@GusOfTheDorks you mean like every modern helicopter?
@@bubsnicket Some are better about it then others though.
Glad someone said it
The Bell design will have to have some truly significant advantages over Lockheed's for it to be accepted. This being due to the sheer size of the Bell machine. Due to the design layout of its being a tilt-rotor, the foot print of that machine is immense. It looks like you could almost fit two of the Lockheed helos in the same space as what one Valor would require. That will have a pretty significant impact on its functionality on any battlefield.
That pusher prop on the Lockheed machine is nothing new. That sort of layout has been around since the first helicopters took flight. Lockheed's AH-56 Cheyenne of the 1960s featured it and it was a notable feature of that design. The benefit of having a layout like that is that you don't have to trade lift for speed as you do with regular helicopters that must angle their rotors down at the front and / or pitch the nose down as well. Plus, being a coaxial rotor layout, the Lockheed machine dispenses with the counter torque tail rotor of conventional helicopters. On those, they stick a rotor out at the end of the tailboom and have it perpendicular to the main rotor. It takes power from the helicopter engine to generate enough thrust to counter the torque of that big main rotor. With a coaxial rotor design where one rotor spins in the opposite direction of the other, that torque is eliminated and is so without diverting any power from the helicopter's engine. It's a bit more complex, mechanically, but a more efficient use of the power of the machine's engine.
On the flip side of all this, it'd be great to see the tilt-rotor getting more production in general. That's a technology the US has the lead on and would be great to see in civilian use as a regional commuter aircraft. Something which a contract this big would enhance the chances of Bell's fielding a passenger version of the Valor.
Leonardo helicopters is currently get a civilian tilt rotor approved by the FAA its been around since the 90's but the project has been bought and sold by a ton of companies but Leonardo is finally making it flight worthy
The tilt rotor is quite a bit faster, even so than the push prop. Typically the push prop gives 50% speed boast, and the tilt rotor gives about 100%.
Saftey vice is would prefer the push prop. The tilt rotor sharing of wngines dont help of the gearbox breakes. And that is the more dangerus fault anyway.
To my opinion... both aircrafts are lackluster. While yes larger than a blackhawk... they got like twice the complexity.
I would rather se a fan lift than a rotor lift... possibly a prop lift. Rotor lift is the worst in case of both maintanance and speed.
There have been both fan and prop lift prototypes built in tve 50tys and 60tys. Both worked, but at that time, saftey was not able to be sufficent.
Definit X have a speed of 460, the tilt wing, about 560. A prop lift would do about 700, and a fan lift could go pretty much 1000... or possibly more. A fan lift could in theory do 1200km/h at ground level. Both the rotor lift have to be at altotude for top speed, the speed is lowered quote significant at low altitude.
The big misconception is that Sicorsky's submission is tried and true, ab Bell's is a new untried and glitchy tech. In fact on the contrary: Bell has decades of experience of building and flying tiltrotor, and Sikorsky has almost none production experience with coaxials, moreover - rigid coaxials. This was proven by speed with which both contenders developed their vehicles: by the time Sicorsky's submission made it's first flight, V280 was already actively flying and even exceeded their speed goal. The idea that it takes too much space is also wrong, as V280 doesn't require any tailprop, it can get away with a quite short tail, this allows it to have the same footprint as UH1 Huey, just sideways.
@@matsv201 A vertical takeoff craft like that seen on the movie 'Avatar' or the 'Halo' video games would be really cool, potentially safer, and possibly more reliable. I believe that's the type of aircraft you're talking about anyway. 🤔
@@megamanx466 i had to ceck them up. Unsure what type of system they use. There also exist propfan and ducted prop that is sort of inbetween system.
The most extreem version of this that was proposed and pre planed, and actually intendent to be built, was pretty much a B737 size jet with lift fans. Removing half the fuel for a bunch of lift fans.
That might have been a to large of an aircraft for the army... but.. well, think of a Embraer E2 E-175 jet with lift fans.it would still retain 1800km of range and 23 000lb of load.
The saftey of the system would simply be made out of redundant system.
There was prototypes made of simual system in the 50tys. But the bypass engines was way to bad at this time to really make the concept workable.
Task & Purpose needs to do a video on Taiwan’s military and how the country has been preparing for a PRC invasion. I would also like his thoughts on if Russia’s struggles in Ukraine have discouraged Beijing from wanting to invade Taiwan.
If anything I think it's bolstered their resolve to take Taiwan. They've also noticed they need to take it quick before other forces get involved and send material and aid
lol, you are watching a military channel, do yourself a favor go do some independent research. Russia is not struggling in Ukraine, and Russia has scored total victory over US on financial war. The current dire economic situation of US and Europe is the result of that total defeat.
@@keith6371 Russia is most definitely struggling. 3 months in and they still don't have air superiority, they're navy is taking hits from land based systems, and their troops are constantly looking to the skies for imminent death from a $1000 drone. When they planned to be done in a week
BAM!
yes 100% I'm working on covering Taiwan ASAP ! also working on a video covering China
I saw 2 ospreys flying low over Loch Awe last year, it was an awesome sight! So I would love to see bell’s design being made a reality.
I would not want to ride into a hot LZ on an Osprey. Those things can get into challenging situations very quickly even when they aren’t being shot at. I might be a tad irrational about them, even their appearance screams “Do Not Trust Me!”
@@chugachuga9242 - I’ll bet you get plenty of the bird variety ospreys too in Delaware. That’s a great location to be a bird watcher… I saw a gigantic flock of snow geese at Bombay Hook State Park once…
I need TP for my bunghole !
Can the osprey auto-rotate like a traditional helicopter?
@@mtylerw i think so maybe the rotors rotate up/down on either side which makes it go left/right
You forgot a point. Fixed winged can use run ways to take off with a heavier payload. So put on the 13000 lbs, and then the fuel, and take off. At the LZ, the fuel will have burned off, allowing a vertical landing and take off. A controlled vertical landing.
The renderings looked like the V-280 wouldn't have ground clearance for its rotors to do fixed-wing takeoff and landing. Is this wrong?
Tilt rotors appear to be able to do a rolling takeoff at an angle but not at a completely horizontal wing position.
I am a fancy Sikorsky helicopter engineer. 🇺🇸 For Defiant X, we have 2 main goals: redundancy and capability for size. It's the size of a hawk, more maneuverable than one, way faster, and will carry more. It has redundancy so sophisticated, even I am amazed and I work on it. While it's not as fast as V-280 at the moment, we absolutely refuse to compromise on survivability and "fly-ability" as we like to say. "We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home everywhere … every time"
Hi fancy Sikorsky engineer. I imagine coaxial blades mean some fun extra turbulent fluid dynamics to deal with, affecting both longevity of parts and perhaps noise while operating. Is there anything unclassified you can say on the subject? (Don't get fired.)
This top rotor arrangement makes the aerodynamics better. Some slight additional maintenance challenges compared to hawks but well understand and manageable. Improvements in other areas can potentially keep total maintenance workload about the same or less.
Just wanna mention… originally this started out as a Lockheed joint bell project… the valor that is. Then Lockheed turned around and bought Sikorski and built a competitor for its own bid
You know, I was really confused why Lockheed and Sikorsky were on different sides until you mentioned these. Somewhere in the back of my head I knew Sikorsky was bought out.
@@granatmof It's a similar reason why Northrop bought Orbital/ATK (and why they merged) as well as Lockheed and Martin combining, and Boeing buying out McDonell-Douglas. Theoretically each company has different expertise, so they can compete in different spaces (even if seemingly against themselves) and this makes it so they "always win".
Northrop also has Xetron for cyberspace and Scaled Composites for prototyping composites (like the recent stratolaunch), LMA has has ULA, Procerus (for small drones), etc, and boeing has Insitu for small drones - and they all have tons of others for similar reasons. You can get contracts under these companies that don't bring the wide attention and are independent enough to not shock shareholders while at the same time doing something to push the larger company.
Boeing also has a major hand in the Defiant. SB-1 indicated the joint nature of the project between Sikorski and Boeing. Then after Lockheed acquired Sikorski you have 3 of the largest military aviation companies involved.
Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.
The "Apache" part of the program is actually more aimed at replacing the capabilities lost when the OH-58 was retired, and the Apache picked up its mission set.
surprised he didn't mention this.
Not likely the USAF will tolerate the Army having an armed tiltrotor for the same reasons they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56. Key west agreement prohibits the Army from having armed fixed wings and if the USAF went to political war with the Army over the stub wings and high speed on the AH-56 (which was objectively a helicopter) they will certainly oppose a tiltrotor gunship even more vehemently.
Yeah this is more of a "Kiowa Replacement" than an "Apache Replacement"
""The XVB02 'Vertibird' is a VTOL ('Vertical Take Off and Landing') craft with an extremely durable armored fuselage and can be armed with a variety of offensive weapons and defensive countermeasures. This is the most advanced aircraft of its kind ever developed, and the military hopes to press them into service by 2085.""
just give me a power armor, ok?
So are their crash rates similar to the ospreys?
thank you zero two very cool
2085? 🤣🤣🤣
Poor usa.
The tilt rotor option requires a much larger LZ. For this reason alone I think the Defiant has a huge advantage.
and in terms of safety after getting shot at or hit with a missile, the Defiant with it's KA-52 design is a much better option since it can auto-rotate while the tilt-rotors will just fall like rocks especially if the "wings" get clipped or shredded by AA fire
@@dickmelsonlupot7697, Just avoid the risk of getting shot in the first place. Those downed KA-52s in Ukraine tell you why.
@@oshirockingham9655
most weren't really "downed" but were shot to the point that the pilots needed to land properly. It just goes to show how safe the Kamovs actually are and that's one positive thing about that beast that America or the rest of the world needs to learn from.
The sad part is that the Kamovs weren't used properly and the doctrine being used is bad for it's design.
Plus you can't just "avoid getting shot".
That's a dumbbb statement to make especially since these things are technically war planes and will need to insert itself into hostile territory especially when transporting or dropping off troops.
They'll inevitably get into fire in one way or another.
Defiant also has better fields of fire available, better agility, and downwash with less hot gasses that is safer for tight improvised landing spots.
@@dickmelsonlupot7697 helicopters of any flavour are incredibly fragile. Drop a hammer into the rotor disk at flight speed and the helicopter is crashing.
The winged craft has the ability to glide which traditional rotorcraft lack.
Starting any reliability/survivability argument by picking a type of damage isnt constructive because anyone can just pick some other system to damage and there is no common ground.
Personally I think the tilt rotor is going to be more useful and more vulnerable. Physics will give it more load transferred faster than a pure rotorcraft but it is a larger target that needs larger lz unless it does a very risky hover drop.
I have the feeling that the added capabilities will sway the selection committees towards that. Perhaps the drone and smart munitions will negate some of the added risk at drop off and the higher speeds might help with risk during transit.
Also the tilt rotor looks friggin slick, and we all know that is half the battle.
Ok ngl NFCU is not only properly placed ad, but I use them for pretty much everything. .
Love this channel.
Wait, hang on, has anybody checked to see whether _SIG Sauer_ makes helicopters?
😱
🤣
LOL
XD REALLY?!
Nailed it
This comment wins
I know several former Marine aviation mechanics who worked on the V-22 and they all hated it. They said it was a massive hangar queen.
6:30 well I don't know. It seems like you only need a few hits to one part of the screen and suddenly the whole thing is unusable. Redundancy is key. The dragon spacecraft can have screens for pilot input, but mainly because it won't be shot at
My thoughts exactly. And if it was touch screen what happens when it gets dirty, or wet and would you constantly have to clean it so you would have a clean picture?
@@justinhansen1328 Conductive touch screens and wet hands are a real problem on phones already, indeed! Just imagine the phantom button push potential. Whoops, just shut the rotors off :D
@@wylnd there’s a film you can get that you put over touch screen which stops all of that, we use em for work.
While I don't know what tech will be used here, a few general things:
1) a Screen might looks like it's only one big screen that is easily damaged, but in reality can be build from multiple smaller screens. That way a group of shots can only take out a part of such a larger controll screen.
2) going with a merger of smaller screens together is better than a physical setup, as you can set it up so every aspect can be displayed on any screen. If you physical kobs and dials get shot, they are gone. With a redundant screen setup you loose total screen space, but not functionality.
@@wylnd while they are not often used for civial use due to costs, keep in mind pressure sensitive touchscreens exist. They don't have any of the dirt and moisture problems capacitive touchscreens have. You need to spend a good chunck of money if you want to make them good, but in a multi-million dollar heli a couple hundred dollars extra for a screen won't matter much.
perfect timing.. i just watched blackhawk down like 2 hours ago lol
It’s still amazing to me the Osprey is more than 20 years old and seems like it’s just getting it’s start
"Only 1200 Chinooks" Mate, we had ONE in the Falklands war.
Y’all did so much with so little…
As someone who spent their time on active duty as a Seabee I've got to say all this hating on runways hurts my feelings. Little tropical islands in the Pacific with runways on them are why we exist!
Oh I'm sure the Seabees will get in on the fun after the island is secured. Amphibious assaults is what the Army wants to get away from.
question: if i wear a seabee hat, that i stitched myself, is that disrespectful if i wasn't a seabee? i just love the logo
@@currahee No it isn't disrespectful. It's not like we're some elite unit and if anyone were to ask you about it you could just say you love the logo and just wanted to show some love and support. All of us would get a kick out of it and appreciate it, we are such a small community that we always assumed nobody else in the DoD knows about us and we considered ourselves the CNO's red headed step children.
Isn't that rate being completely eliminated now? My brother was a CM3.
13:38 Hey Cappy just a small tidbit of information here; helicopters go forward by tilting the rotor disk forward, this does make the nose point low in forward flight. So yes, technically they fly forward by pointing the nose down, but it's because that's the effect of tilting the rotor disk.
Actually, to the best of my knowledge, to go forward, the rotor hub actually tilts to the right or left depending on rototr rotation direction, and because of gyroscopic procession, the effect is delayed 90degrees of rotation if i recall right Very strange, there are videos on youtube about it.
@@connor3288 Yes, that's correct. The hub and linkage controls (swash plate) do that and are constantly changing the pitch of the blades. Helicopter aerodynamics are crazy black magic.
The effect of the pilot inputting forward cyclic (stick) is the swash plate working it's magic and the entire rotor disk tilting forwards to achieve forward flight.
Look up footage of wheeled helicopters taxiing, they are level on the ground and you can see the rotor disc tilted forward.
This is again to point out that helicopters in level flight have nose down attitudes as an effect of the rotor disc tilting forward, not because the fuselage tilts down.
Yup - I went down in a failed blackhawk just outside of Tikrit in 2005 - engine issues - we landed hard but everyone was okay. Scared shitless, but okay.
I've never commented on a video sponsor, but Navy Federal is far and away the best credit union. Got my mortgage car loan and basically everything else from them. Best rates and customer service.
Here's a tidbit on the Defiant: The pusher prop can go in reverse, and it's powerful enough to lift the whole helicopter (I don't know how much payload, though). So if you want a good view of your LZ...
Except for that pesky fuselage torque that you get from a single rotor design...
Probably not the best idea to turn your craft into a spinning top in order to get a glimpse of where you're hoping to crash... err land.
@@EngNerdGMN It's not a single rotor it's a coaxial like a Kamov.
@@atomicskull6405 He was implying using the pusher prop as a main lift rotor to get a great downward view of the LZ.
As soon as your pusher prop becomes your main lift rotor it's no longer a coaxial.
I LOVE V-Tols. They are arguably the coolest flying vehicle in existance
What about Ekranoplans?
but the worst to actually work with. Have you ever worked with one? major Hangar Queen.
My man got a Navy Federal sponsorship?????? Best credit union in the entire world, almost worth the IED blasts I've been in!!!
Chris, I find your analysis of stuff really interesting. This one is particularly good.
thanks I put a lot of work into this one!
@@Taskandpurpose I agree man, I've been watching your videos for a while and while they were always good the quality has drastically Improved since I started watching. Good job man, keep em coming
Army and Marines should use both.
Hi Cappy, while i like the loadout and capabilities of the tilt rotor are commendable and it certainly has its place; I am inclined more toward the lower observable helicopter with a pusher prop. It has very high speed and is a more nimble and stealthy craft. From a tactical perspective I feel the helicopter should be in the initial lead force, with the tilt rotor being used as a resupply of troops, and associated ammo and food etc. In this way the best of both worlds might be achieved.The forward deployed units would hopefully be in a better position to defend the less stealthy and more vulnerable tilt aircraft, in its ongoing role.
The pusher prop on the Sikorsky can also go in reverse which lets you stop WAY faster than you could with air brakes alone. Very important for the hot infiltration. Less time slowing down less time to get shot down. For the scout/attack model the reverse thrust lets you circle a target with more precision too.
In my opinion Bell is more of a plane that has VTOL , where the Sikorsky is more of a true helicopter, so I think they both have a place.
The pusher prop on a helicopter was worked out by lockheed 60 years ago on the AH-56 Chyenne. It was supposed to replace the Cobra but then the USAF objected and lobbied hard against it till the program got killed. In many ways it was a more capable aircraft than the AH-64.
Underrated comment. Skill will leverage the abilities of the vehicle creating certain tactical options unforeseen now
The reversible prop promises to produce fast deceleration in level (although it hasn't been demonstrated), but you can also get fast decel by raising the nose as as conventional helos do. Something overlooked, though is that on the ground either the troops have to wait for that prop to stop so they don't get sliced and diced, which delays their egress, or the prop has to be stopped while still airborne, which negates part of the advantage it's supposed to confer.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 What? A blackhawk has a rear prop as well. No need to stop it, just don't walk into it like every other aircraft with a prop.
That's all talk and bluster - too bad that Sikorsky or Boeing never demonstrated it. That's the whole point of a demonstrator prototype - to actually "demonstrate" your claimed capability. The Bell V-280 Valor clocked up 214 flight hours - it flew for well over 3.5 times the pitiful 60 flight hours of SB1 Defiant. Insofar as speed, the V-280 Valor achieved 305 kts airspeed - well exceeding its namesake goal of 280 kts - and a full 60 kts faster than SB1 Defiant. The Production V-280 variant shall go even faster, with its more powerful R-R engines. Conversely, the SB1 Defiant could only muster 245 kts
As a Army Officer while stationed in DC joined Navy Federal, a great credit union. As an Army Aviator next generation Sikorsky would be better for the scout mission
That last quote about building combat power faster than your opponent made me think. What's that saying? "bullets win battles, but logistics win wars." A Super Apache would be sick, but slinging artillery pieces and supplies around is better.
Can you say ..... "CHEYENNE" ? History repeats its's itself !
Imo lockhead prototype seems to be much less complicated to design, ospray design if done right have more advantages (higher speed, more efficient), but certification of ospray design for civil aviation seems to be nearly impossible in contrary to helicopter with pusher prop. Cant wait to see advancement of these two projects.
The Osprey is not whats being offered. The Valor is, which has a different engine tilt design (engine doesn’t tilt) and is safer and therefore easier to get civil certification for. The competition seems mostly a sham, as the reconnaissance one is tailor made for the Defiant and the Valor for long range assault. The Invictus would have been great if it came 20 years ago. As for utility blackhawk replacement...well, thats just stupid to replace it.
Not more efficiency in hover and loiter, tiltrotors are actually worse in vertical lift because of high disk loading compared to helicopters.
The whole pusher prop on a helicopter concept was done previously by Lockeed look up the AH-56 Cheyenne. It was set to replace the cobra but then the USAF objected and started lobbying against it. It was arguably a better platform than the AH-64 that would come a decade later.
Seems like while there's some overlap between the two, there's also some things they likely each do better than the other. And with the number of Blackhawks they're looking to replace, there's plenty of room for both machines.
Personally think the Boeing Heli is a better fit, if it can lift the requirements. Smaller landing footprint, maybe faster, again only question will be lift capabilities
The tilt rotor design is faster, but I can see the coaxial rotor design being better at carrying load. There's not one solution that trumps the other in all areas.
I'd be interested to hear how that coaxial rotor sounds. It should have a pretty high pitched sound, but that's just me speculating. I could be wrong as they say they are able to spin the rotors slower though. Still coaxial counter rotating props tend to be whiny.
Coaxial is more efficient but it is not better than two rotors, So if you have a fix diameter rotor then the the lift of two rotor is 2x but the lift of coaxial is less than 2x. Coaxial will have somewhere between 1.6x~1.3x lift. But the footprint of 2 rotors is 2x while the footprint of Coaxial is only 1x. Coaxial is a lot more compact but the twin rotor should have higher payload given the same rotor diameter.
@@kazedcat A detailed synapses of my comment exactly Lol
This just made remember how moral boosting a hot meal was while in the field, especially breakfast.
Hitting the big time with the NFCU sponsorship. Awesome Cappy!
What is amazing to me, is I was just looking into this competition this morning and thought, I wish Task and Purpose would put out a video comparing these birds... Great job reading my mind!
I mean the Osprey already proven very useful, it's a combo of a plane and heli. I don't see its size has a massive downside since it can hover pretty well. The only question is how well it will work if one rotor dies.
About as well as the defiant will work if one rotor dies, not at all
The tilt rotor aircraft require a substantially larger LZ and have reduced efficiency in hover mode as a good portion of the thrust is opposed by the surface area of the wings.
more moving parts = more things that can go wrong. Variable geometry aircraft tend to have a very high service cost.
1st Cav 1965. For those who haven't seen " We were soldiers once... and young ", a must watch movie. Wouldn't it be easier to make an artillery piece that weighs around 8500lbs?
The M777 is much lighter than it's predecessor, and it's still overweight for the Blackhawk. It may be possible to do it for a 155mm cannon, but there will be compromises somewhere.
Do you mean a lighter m777 or readoption of 'Infantry guns' (both would probably be really effective)
I can definitely see ups and downs to both.
Developing a new lighter artillery piece would almost certainly be cheaper and easier, yes. At least up front. That being said -
The new lighter gun would *have* to trade capability for it's lower weight. Some mixture of range, caliber, and reliability would have to go. You can pick how much of which ones, but none of the above isn't really an option. You're also introducing another thing that you need to keep up with on the logistical end and so need a whole parallel supply chain just for this field piece.
From what I'm gathering, part of the point of developing a new helicopter is going to be to streamline the logistical end. You get to axe both the blackhawks and chinooks (and maybe the lakota too) and trade them in for a single type. Additionally, the new type is more capable. Being able to transport a bigger artillery piece also means it can transport more guys, more guns and more gear. So, yeah, more expensive up front *but* actually simplifies things in the end.
At the end of the day, if it comes down to which option is cheaper, congress is going to say - money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.
105 mm could be moved by UH60's
@@ColonelSandersLite From what you're suggesting, this new project would be along the lines of the F35 and its 3 variants. I believe they will introduce a new heli with Taiwan in mind, but like the T62 in Ukraine... What better way to make room for the new than to send the Uh60L into combat at the start with a field piece that can be transported. If we get involved in Taiwan, it's going to be huge and it might be prudent to send a tried and tested helicopter in first and assess the effectiveness first. Can you imagine losing 100's of these new birds against the Chinese at the start?! Well, let's see how it unfolds 😎
IN EVERY CONFLICT SPEED IN DEPLOYMENT AND SYSTEMNIC RETREAT IS IMPORTANT
THANK GOD FOR THE OSPREY VTOL
thats awesome no motion sickness too because it won't be leaning as much. That was one of the issues on the hawk was it made us ill. then you'd have to get your bearing after exfil
Are used to work at the helicopter terminal in Iraq. Whenever somebody would ask me what the in-flight movie was, I would respond “Black Hawk down.”
For me as a pilot they both have different mission sets. With the amount of lateral space the tilt-rotor occupies it would be a problem in tight landing zones in between trees of the tropical jungle environment of the Pacific Islands, for me it's just a too wide footprint. For this purpose I think the Defiant is better suited with its slimmer profile. The V280 Valor is best suited for open areas such as European plains, deserts or places where trees are more spaced from each other.
If you superimpose the v-280 over the Defiant X they are almost the same size. The v-280 is only slightly bigger with its rotor blades sticking a bit further out. The defiants blades go pretty far out. People don't realize how small the v-280 is especially if you compare it to the v-22. It's true that the frame is laterally bigger, but if your rotors hit trees on the way down I don't know how much it matters.
I think the Defiant will get the contract for a few reasons. I know when I was flying Hawks in both the Army and Air Force, profile was important, deck space for shipboard ops as well as when airlifting via C17. And it looks like the Defiant would have the advantage there. Even at 300+ KTS it is a long way from Ft Campbell or Ft Brag to the Pacific.
The V22 has proven itself to be a mediocre helicopter and a mediocre fixed wing aircraft. Don’t get me wrong, The V22 is a great aircraft and fulfills an awesome niche that helicopters and fixed wings can’t but I think the Army needs more of a helicopter than a hybrid in terms of vertical lift and ability to worked in confined areas. I think the Defiant has the advantage in that area too.
The problem is people like to think of a tiltrotor as a replacement for traditional helicopters, something it will never be because it's less efficient in vertical lift and loiter and less efficient than an airplane in forward flight due to the necessary compromise between disk loading and prop drag.
@@atomicskull6405 Yes exactly what I was trying to say when talking about the V-22. For the Army I think the Army needs something closer to a traditional helicopter and so I think the Defiant will win out.
If you watch the sikorsky videos about the defiant, it would appear they are planning to replace H-60 Hawk series of helicopters across all the branches. As well as working on a dedicated attack platform version using the compound coaxial design.
@@jmdesertadventures803 That would basically be the AH-56 bit with coaxial rotors.
@@atomicskull6405 yea except the coaxial rotors counteract the disymmetry of lift issue the ah56 had at higher speeds.
8:09 this is one of your best videos i've seen so far
I’ve been a member of Navy Fed for years. They Are grate!
The problem with the new designs is and always be how easily can it be maintained and what major design flaws inhibit that, like the ch-53 and all it’s variants that are absolute death traps or the osprey which isn’t exactly easy for your average crew to keep in the air
That's why we need more educated troops.
That's not as relevant as you'd think.
America and NATO have been at a full world war footing for decades.
And maintenance aside, you can't make the tech of today nearly as fast as the stuff in WW2 was built.
We literally keep ourselves fully equipped for an all out no holds barred fight to the death with Russia.
In the smaller fights, the inconvenience of harder maintenance is just an inconvenience.
What the Army needs now is a Jumbo Osprey. A chimera b@stard that fits between the C-130 Hercules and CH-47 Chinook.
And it needs to be Army Aviation organic. Cut dependency on the Air Force for tactical air lift operations at the longer ranges the Army helo fleet cannot support, and the need to capture and hold air fields, which is a logistical and strategic nightmare.
And it wouldn't need the troublesome swing-wing stowage system of the naval Osprey.
Go back and watch that movie, "Live, die, repeat" They basically have D-day that's half jumbo tilt-rotors. (Disregard the actual battle scenes though, pretty sure monty python was the general in charge of that invasion I swear XD)
Absolutely awesome flight scenes though. Honestly, someone should already be looking at feasibility studies about those aircraft... I think there was a couple different versions in use as well but I can't remember for sure...
Bell mentioned a while back that Osprey is as big as they plan to go for swing wings. Apparently there are issues at larger scales that make other layouts more attractive.
@@stupidburp Well I'd imagine the power levels needed for the engines on much larger aircraft would put stupid levels of torque on the various supports and wings of the craft whenever they were powered up, and then trying to rotate the fuckers... They might not even have aircraft appropriate hydraulics powerful enough...
I did see a tilt-rotor design where they basically had like three or four sets of wings with comparatively smaller engines on each. That might make the torque forces more reasonable on a wing by wing basis.... Although you'd have multiple sets of rotation hydraulics so weight might become an issue... You'd probably end up with diminishing returns...
But, pie in the sky idea, throw a small nuclear reactor in the ass end of the thing, fill every spare spot with batteries and capacitors. Tear out the engines and fuel system, replace it with big ass electric motors. All the power you could ever want lol.
@@davidgoodnow269 The largest example of forced plot armor ever witnessed by mankind XD
Well.... Except for that amazon movie with the time travel and the spike monsters where everything goes to shit cause we all have to just except the idea that Russia wouldn't nuke the 7 shades of shit out of some area in Siberia even of it meant the whole country would get eaten.
Like seriously? Russia has nuked Siberia a couple dozen times already just for shits and giggles. They used a nuke on a gas pipeline fire. The "Tsar Bomba" was tested in Siberia.
But innumerable monsters coming to viciously murder and eat everyone we know and love? No, let's not be hasty and break out the nukes or anything...
Nah. That's like some anime invulnerability shit level of plot armor right there.
Alright, after watching the video fully now. End thoughts are... both. Both have advantages, it's situational. The tilt rotor design is still faster, and more fuel efficient at cruising long distances, so that obviously is a key advantage in some situations. On the other hand, the twin rotor plus prop aproach is overall a more compact and efficient design for hovering. It's still pretty fast, but not as fast and also not as fuel efficient flying over long distances. On the other hand it's more fuel efficient when hovering in place, and would likely have more lifting capacity for a given cost. It's also got a smaller horizontal footprint so it can more easily get into some smaller areas for landing than the tilt rotor design with its big old wings holdings pinning blades out at a distance to each side.
So, you got speed and range while flying, versus power and efficiency while hovering and landing. Of coarse sufficiently better design in details, engine or other part choice on either contractor could flat out push either design overall ahead, but in general this is the breakdown of the two types of designs from an engineering perspective before you get into the specifics of an actual aircraft and all of it's finicky details that vary model to model.
Speed is obviously extremely important, moving units and supplies more quickly can save lives and let you outmaneuver the enemy. Greater range also means you can reach out further from existing bases or locations giving you more options on the large scale. No General will have a problem with extra speed and range. Added lift capacity and the ability to land in slightly narrower areas, and hover longer more efficiently on the other hand... is probably less important, as long as both can lift the given amount needed for the hardware we need, the ability to lift a bit extra, or be a bit cheaper for the same lifting amount isn't the biggest deal, it's situationally useful, but not a must and not something useful almost all the time like speed and range can be. Fuel efficiency while hovering... is useful for attack helicopters and gunships on station hovering around an area as eyes in the sky, but most of these are meant to be transports and would fly in and then out over distances. The tilt rotor is more efficient in the initial part so most operations would not really win on fuel efficiency using the dual rotor plus prop design in the end unless acting as a gunship and we'll have dedicated attack helicopters for that more often than not. The ability to land in slightly more narrow environments is sometimes going to be very useful sure... but again it's extremely situational, only benefiting a minority of operations at all, and the tilt rotor even if a bit wider could just use ropes to get people into more cramped spaces most of the time in exchange for being in a slightly more dangerous situation for a period as people rope down or tie on before they get pulled up.
So between the two, I'd probably recommend the tilt rotor design if asked my thoughts for the above reasons. For attack helicopters in the future, the twin rotor plus prop approach could win out though since again they will sometimes be hovering around for longer periods, and wanting to carry any extra weight in munitions or defenses is obviously a plus. Still, if an attack helicopter can move with the transports at the same speed and over the same ranges that's a major advantage and simplifies a lot of mission planning so there's clear reason for both arguments here too.
I wonder why they don't try to get the best of all worlds with a tilting tandem aerial crane. I mean, the basic helicopter looks like a tandem rotor with a very narrow body. But actually, the body is a flying wing. It tilts sideways for horizontal flight, turning into a flying wing with twin props. You get the speed and efficiency of a tilt rotor without the complexity. It can act like a gunship with sideways pointed guns (like an AC-130). Or it can hover with its body edge on to the enemy. Either way, it presents a small profile to the enemy, and the rotors don't get in the way of the guns.
As an aerial crane, it can carry payloads slung underneath. This can be a troop glider, so it tows horizontally for long fast flight, or it can be a wingless troop pod for landing in very tight spaces. The helicopter can drop off the troop glider/pod quickly, and then provide fire support as a gunship. Since it didn't need to carry the troops internally, it presents a tougher target for the enemy.
The point is, one helicopter platform can perform multiple missions from heavy lift to troop transport to attack. It has speed and efficiency like a tilt rotor, yet it can land troops in very tight spaces. And the complexity is less.
They want speed and heavy carry/lift.?? Put more forward thrust on the Chinook.
Yeah, considering the distances involved and the difficulties in fuel transport, in the case of Island hopping you'd want distance, speed, and fuel efficiency more than anything. We aren't gonna have well-equipped airbases and fuel depots all over the place, certainly not at first.
The coaxial is probably a better aircraft for our middle east and general continental-based missions, but the tilt rotor is certainly better for a campaign in the pacific or against china assuming there aren't some kind of glaring design flaw they're hiding...
I bet the army will approve both systems.
Chris, Howdy I believe that both helicopters can benefit our military needs.
Spec ops we know get what they need. Because they prove they can make it happen.... Let's be smart and give our troops the Advantage!!!!!. From a former Navy guy.
We absolutely need a video about the kf51 tank announced by rheinmetall!
A Leopard with a new gun and the "revolutionary" concept of having an autoloader that the Soviets use since the 60s.
@@doublehelix7880 Soviet autoloader is fucking stupid. This one from Rheinmetall looks better and safer. Also tank has APS that protect him from incoming rockets
@@nobodycares6881 Ok dude, ok :) It is indestructible and immortal :) i get it :)
@@doublehelix7880 Also it’s not based on a leopard 2 that’s the most important thing so this tank has nothing to do with the Cold War tank design anymore. Also who said it’s immortal?!
@@nobodycares6881 This is what I understand from your "statement" - the tank have APS and its AL is "safer" - not that you have a clue in what it's "safety" is. And the most important - it "looks better" :)))
Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the Russian autoloader have a better positioning as it is located low in the hull, while the Panther one is in the turret. It is very common to have just the turret being exposed in a combat situation, while the hull is covered behind an obstacle or terrain. Plus, it would be fair to compare this tank with T-14, where the crew is in an armored compartment with quite higher chance of survival upon ammo detonation.
I love on the Osprsy's flight path between Miramar and 29 Palms. An impressive machine flying over my place..... Too many times a day.
🇺🇦🇺🇸
I for one would like to see the USA stop interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. From Libya to Afghanistan to Chile and Argentina it’s only ended in misery
China: *Just levels the entirety of Taiwan and calls it a day*
I’ve been a subscriber since you were around 80k subscribers. I love all your content, and your personality is so open and welcoming I feel like you’re a friend I already know. Hooah from St. Louis!!!
Both had its own purposes.. can only choose one over the others is going to be hard. For long range transport, tilt rotos definitely the best. But hot extraction, tilt rotors is simply too big a foot print. It will had many2 disadvantages
From the description, sounds to me that the new project will be for a heavy lift that exceeds the current Blackhawk which could mean that missions like hot extractions might be performed by other craft like a smaller Osprey.
There are actually 2 competitions the army is holding, flraa which was discussed in this video, and fara which is supposed to be for a lighter scout type. Sikorsky is basically putting the same aircraft but smaller in fara, so the bell v280 might be selected for flraa but the Sikorsky raider for fara.
I think a combination of both air frames might be in order, some times one type doesn't fit all the many different combat scenarios. Back in the 1970's and early 80's the US military was designed to fight the Soviet army and look at who they wound up fighting for the next 35 years. The world changes, globalization dying off, today's allies might turn out to be tomorrows adversaries.
The world spends 1.92 trillion on military.
America alone spends 811 billion of that total.
The other 29 nations of NATO, spend ~353 billion.
I can promise, America's allies won't turn on us. And we're not going to turn on them.
@John Grigg
There's no doubt china spends more than they claim, but don't think America doesn't spend more than we're told.
But TBH, it can't be vastly more than they claim. China has. Population about 4 times bigger than America, and it's total GDP is just a little over half of what we make.
Most of what china makes has to go towards it people.
The Bell Valor differs from the Osprey in that the rotors tilt, but the engines do not. This should make the aircraft much more reliable. It's about 70 mph faster than the Bell, but carries less and the tilt rotors severely limit weapon load-out. It's main point of failure is the linkage between the rotors and the engines, as that joint needs to bend 90 degrees.
The Defiant-x, looks like a regular helicopter but it is not. In order to get the rotors so close together, they had to be made out of a much stiffer material. This is unproven and is probably the aircraft's main point of failure.
IMHO the Defiant-x fits the role better, but the Valor is the safer choice.
what do you mean, have you not seen the KA 29 or KA50/52, they have the twin rotor setup how is it unproven.
@@kousand9917 Their rotors are farther apart to keep them from self-destructing. The Defiant-x builds upon the "ABC" concept from the 70s. It's got a lot of advantages, but requires very stiff rotor blades that will take a lot of stress. (maybe too much stress)
@@be5718 The engines don't have to tilt. So they don't need to deal with the operational stress of working at 90 degrees. (and twisting the full lines, etc...) This was a big hurtle back in WWII when planes were first taking high g loads and flying upside down. As for landing without power, what does the v-220 do?
Counter rotating top rotors have been around a long time. They are well understood now. Sufficient stiffness to avoid rotor blades slapping each other was part of the design. But already tested and proven on aircraft before Defiant.
@@stupidburp Dude, read the comments. The defiant-x is an abc helicopter, the aerodynamics are different.
Back in the 1960s, wehen the Army was being flown to Vietnam in C-124s. After number of the "Globemasters" disappeared in the Pacific, the Army started calling the Crashmaster."
I can’t understand why you where (as you say) a humble private. Everything about you suggests you’d have made a superb officer.
Aaaand...... They just selected the V280 😂
I like Lockheed's design, though I am biased for coax-helicopters. I'm surprised the US never made their own equivalent of Russia's Kamov series.
I think both craft will be useful in their own ways.
What a phenomenal video Cappy! Keep it up man! The Blackhawks we used for air assault seemed like they were always on their last life line. I wasn’t a rotary mechanic by any means as my recruiter made being an 11B sound like the best thing in the universe haha. That being said it always seemed like there was something being replaced or worked on, on any number of our Blackhawks from day to day.
11B is the best thing in the universe you don't want to be a remf
Maaaaaan...Blue screen of death is going to take on a whooooole new meaning in the next 10 years! If we even make it that far...
The V280 is a MASSIVE target profile in a war zone with actual anti air craft fire.
Great vlog on this subject. I was one of the first to get my hands on the Blackhawk back in 1980, as the 101st was gearing up for the new aircraft. I must have been good, as they shipped me to a Korea to , to a forward unit to welcome them there. It was a fine bird, compared to they Huey.
In a side issue, maybe it’s a good time to examine the Navy’s role in future combat. The Navy has trouble retaining pilots. The Marines have trouble getting budget consideration for their equipment. Maybe the Navy should concentrate on captaining ships and leave other functions to the Air Force and Army.
For example, Aircraft Carriers would be commanded and staffed by the Navy. The pilots would be commanded by the Air Force as a hardship duty along with being stationed overseas. This would help retain pilots. However, the Air Force commander would be under Navy command by rank while on duty.
For the Marines, they would be a special trained forced within Army command. This would take the ceiling off of many senior officers and enlisted men. The Marine part of the Navy budget would be transferred to the Army where are Armor and Mech Infantry equipment would be uniform. For amphibious and large beach landings, new equipment would be developed capable of keeping up with the speed of battle. If this could not be done, new doctrine would be developed to get the right equipment to the right stage of the battle. The Marines should not need a 3 day sand storm to catch up to Army units.
There's a ton of second and third order effects you're not considering. The Air Force has no business commanding pilots in carrier ops, considering that they don't have the experience to run carrier ops - the Navy does.
Your idea isn't bad from a logical point of view. But Marines would rather chew nails than go under army command. They'd never go along with that plan.
Although in every major operation Marines are under Army command because of rank structure. However, I understand your point about tradition. If my idea was executed, preserving as much it not all Marine traditions would be a critical part of the integration.
@@stephensipe5405 Well, yes. But the underlying problem is that you think the marine corps is a military branch with an odd attachment to their traditions.
In actuality the Marine corps is basically a cult thats funded by the U.S. goverment. That pretends to be a military branch so it can continue to receive funding, and new sacrifices for its God: Chesty Puller.
If you try to touch their traditions then the death cult will cry murder.
@@neckbeardpig279 U got that right
While I greatly admire the US for having the vast, actual military action experience they are able to turn into superior hardware capable of winning battles better than just about any adversaries, including China, I wish they also have think tanks that plan ahead to defuse the need for war in the first place. Why does there have to be a war between the United States of America and China? The only reason is political and the reasons behind that are historical. Imagine if both nations decide that working for the same planet is more important than working for two different countries? Humanity can then cross out one existential threat from the list.
the Army think tank pointed out that the army/marines had no real ability to island hop.
Keep in mind that the army has plans to deal with the mexican AND the canadian invasion.
That island hopping is also in line with the fact that the army has two old helicopter programs.
War is good for business, as they say. The military industrial complex needs wars or little skirmishes so they can sell more weapons or make more for domestic use if the govt. Decided to give a bunch away, e.g. Ukraine.
Because the nature of liberalism is totalitarian, anyone who threatens it must be eliminated. China with her advancing technological sector and manufacturing capabilities provide a illiberal pathway to prosperity and cannot be allowed to expand.
Liberalism can only maintain it's stranglehold on the world by keeping its grip on technology and resources. This is its last gasp as it increasingly finds itself unable to answer the challenges and questions of the coming world.
That is what diplomats, politicians, etc. are meant to do. The military is there if all else fails. It's way better to have something and not need it, than need it and not have it. Contrasting, on a historical level US and China have mostly been friendly after the Vietnam War.
China is already attacking on the USA, the drugs coming in from mexico come from china, over 20,000 people died from overdose of the crap last year.
"Crashhawk" has been a nickname for the beast since the 80's...maybe it was just an airborne thing.
US Armed Forces need BOTH aircraft. So does the commercial, international and domestic markets. Both fantastic aircraft. With Defiant X, you have the added bonus of a visual aesthetic that achieves 'force multiplier' status.
Cool, it looks like the USMC will get some “new” blackhawks!
Lol ! Good one 👍
Honestly, I want both these helicopters to win lol! Just think about it, if the near peer power war is china then both helicopters would make absolute sense, as the war would likely be in Taiwan and up to the entire Pacific ocean. Boeing's helicopters would be ideal in those close combat extract or deploy scenarios in the jungles and cities of the SEA and Taiwan countries, while Bell's tilt rotors would be an absolute need for those long range island to island and city to city campaigns that needs a fast in and out troop carriers of the battle zone scenarios of the same SEA and Taiwan areas. I think this is a huge opportunity for the US armed forces lol
still got to figure out how to get past that chinese a2ad shield. No helicopter can survive if theres enemy AWACs and fighters in the air nearby.
Helis can be brought down by .50,it's the easiest and lousiest thing on sky.The best thing is to invest in planes and parachuters
Sikorsky 's is my pick bc it looks like the kind of platform that could be turned into a proper attack helicopter. Also, it's literally the AH-56 with modern parts. Way better design, especially considering the Sikorsky design can land in more places.
The thing looks like a sea stallion with more problems
the v 280 is a smaller, more efficient package than the osprey. Also the engines are fixed and the rotors tilt, huge improvement over the osprey
Remember to say "farther" when talking about distance, and "further" for matters of degree, as in, "I'll go one step further and put my job on the line for this project."
I think your forgetting the issue that the Navy will play the biggest part in any island hopping campaigns and none of these design look like they could replace a Seahawk in weapon capabilities and ability to be stored in destroyer/cruisers
Navy choppers are more tuned to basic transport or anti-sub warfare.
neither both will do the jobs properly especially at a cheap price since they need cheap replaceable assets that won't be a problem if some crashes in accidents or gets shot down.
Defiant naval variant is already planned and designed. It had automatic folding top rotors and has a deck footprint about the same as a Seahawk. Navy is gonna love it. More range, more speed, more payload, more agility.
The way I see it, Bell and Lockheed are both extremely venerable companies in the military sector with some of the most iconic designs in the field.
Meanwhile the Sikorsky blackhawk is being investigated for safety issues, and Boeing has literally devolved into a trashfire of a company.
On credentials alone, I hope the contract goes to Lockheed and Bell. It'll probably run over budget, but at least it'll work.
Well bell won the flraa
Good job contributing to the good relations between the US and China with such cautious titles.
don't know if someone mentioned this or not, but the pusher prop on the Defiant is not new. The AH-56 Cheyenne had one. It was in service 1966-69. It had one main rotor, a stabilizer rotor, and the pusher. It was, needless to say, mechanically complex. This was long before computerized digital flight control. It was a Lockheed project, so it is no surprise that they are resurrecting it. The Cheyenne also had stubby little wings and could carry quite a weapons payload. It reached nearly 250 mph in flight, out of this world for a chopper back then. The Air Force had an issue with its plane-like characteristics well. The Army decided it was too complicated and in the end equipped their aviation units with the AH-1G Cobra.
It was never in service!
Why does Chris have like three shirts
I own 2 shirts and I borrow the other two
@@Taskandpurpose bruh
@@Taskandpurpose Where did you get the hedgehog army shirt?
The one thing I just don't like about the V-280, is one small round through the aircraft and you lose the whole primary display. All gauges, flight and mission data it provides, will be gone.
i think that both options look great, and that the army should adopt both for different scenarios: the valor looks better for conventional fast troop transport, and the defiant x looks better for stealth operations
Remembering dad, Sargent, Royal Field Artillery 1942 - 1947
Man because I’m such a futuristic fan I wish I live long enough to see America build the 1st helicopter that can take off and land with the propulsive rocket like way of flight like the Pelican from halo!!
"..you can have an artillery cannon airdropped to a remote location. Something that was never really possible before" We have been able to airlift howitzers with chinooks since 1961...
ive been a member of NFCU since 2009. awesome bank
Yay NFCU! So happy you’re sponsoring Cappy!
I’m gonna miss the Black Hawk.
It’s like the most Iconic military Helicopter to me.
I'd definitely say the later, sure both are good but the simplicity, straight forward mentality with good, boring enhancements are what is needed (similar to how SIG made their rifle). As a naval aviation guy, we might be seeing a version of one of these ourselves, and we HATED the osprey on the flight deck, it was so unbelievably disruptive to flight schedule. Not only does it knock everyone on their asses, but you have to clear the entire center of the flight deck to land it, requiring a complete respot before and after, while taking up an entire event on its own just for one aircraft.