V-280 Valor - The future Black Hawk
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 13 มิ.ย. 2024
- The Bell V-280 Valor is a tiltrotor aircraft, developed by Bell Helicopter for the United States Armed Forces. The new aircraft is a future replacement for UH-60 Black Hawk helicopters. The V-280 has close capacity and cabin layout to the UH-60, but has significantly higher speeds and flight ranges: cruising speed 280 knots (520 km/h), range 500-800 nmi (930-1480 km). The V-280 participated in the US Armed Forces tender and was a competitor to the high-speed Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant helicopter, defeating it.
Thank you for watching!
If you want to support Skyships and our work, welcome to our Patreon. We will create some special content for you there: / skyships
Our Facebook: / skyshipscom
Our Instagram: / skyships_world
00:00 - A new generation
00:33 - Replacing the old ones
01:57 - The Bell project
03:52 - Birth of the V-280
05:45 - Design
12:37 - Winning the tender - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
The #1 thing holding the V-280 back are delays in the new turbine GE has been working on for years. The V-280 needs that engine to get beyond prototype phase.
It's always the engines lol
@@S1baarTrue. It makes sense lol.
I thought the narrator indicated the production aircraft was going with the Rolls Royce engines in use by the Osprey?
GE Sucks
@@BernieGolgo13 Why does GE suck?
Been waiting for a Skyships video on the Bell V-280 Valor and it's well worth the wait!^^
Also, I'm looking forward to the development of this tilt-rotor craft.
The V-22's tilted engines essentially create a jet blast downward that it is a danger to personnel. Hence, no sliding doors on the sides of the V-22. The Valor solves that problem, making it more like a helicopter, with doors on both sides. Bell hit a home run imho.
The navy also wanted the rear loading doors as it was a cargo platform mainly.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9Exactly. The Navy wanted it for among other things Carrier Onboard Delivery. It needed to be able to fit an F-35 Engine. The V-280 only tilting the rotors using a mechanical linkage also greatly simplifies a lot of the mechanisms and systems needed. The Osprey needs to tilt all of the control wiring, the fuel and hydraulic lines. Plus it makes that power take off shaft that allows one engine to power both blades much more complicated with complex finicky clutches at both ends. It’s suspected a clutch failure is what caused the recent crash off Japan. But that same shaft system is much simpler on the V-280. Because the engines don’t move.
@@andrewtaylor940 this is all true yea and those design choices were to meet marine corp and navy requirements. The engine has been improved from the begining as early on it had to be taken off the aircraft very often
@@andrewtaylor940 Don't forget the the same electrical and mechanical systems also need to twist at the wing root for storage. That must have been a nightmare to engineer.
@@andrewtaylor940 I heard it was pilot error with the last Osprey Crash. But you’re right about the simplification of the Tit Rotor Design from the Osprey to the new Valor. Fewer moving parts is always better. It’s the evolution of a game changing and brilliant design. The Navy, Marines and the Army really do need these aircraft for whole host of reasons. Helos aren’t going to be able to cross the vast distances in the Pacific. Especially as things become busier in that part of the world.
I can't imagine anyone producing a tilt rotor at the same price range as a traditional single rotor heli like the UH-60.
The V-280 is SIGNIFICANTLY more expensive than the UH-60.
I need numbers
@drummerdoingstuff5020 $43M for the V-280 vs. $25M for HH-60M, not to mention the cost of maintaining or blueprint.
Maybe some day
@@NCCOOLJ98costs will likely drop with such a large production amount planned.
A very capable looking aircraft, and a great video. My only comment is that while Osprey accidents are always in the news, the actual rate of accidents, according to the USMC is equal to, or slightly less than their other assets. It is in fact, not as bad as we are lead to believe
Yup it just got into a few high profile crashes and bring in clicks for any crash at all now. So they are plastered all over the news anytime they do happen. It had real issues but what new piece of hardware doesn't.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 doesn’t? But what about:
1. Autorotation? 2. Gliding? 3. Efficiency? 4. VRS? 5. Price?
No chance
@@antonkirov1923 it can auto rotate and glide... Tilt rotors also have a better time with VRS... Finally it goes twice the distance at a faster speed while carrying more people so yea it can be more expensive. Hell the defiant designers couldn't give a good reason for their costs even while being less expensive lmao. You really need to look up the public information of the testing.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Of course it can. Even my penis can autorotate. The question is, can Tiltrotor autorotation rescues the crew? No. Because the rotors are too small.
Can gliding be safe? No. Because the wings are too small also. Even if people will survive, the machine will be lost. Very expensive machine.
Flight with one proprotor stopped? For planes it is normal situation. For tiltrotors it is catastrophe.
Broken synchronous shaft - catastrophe.
Is it effective? No. Because now the rotors are too big and the blades are too thick. And also two engines has crazy power. With same MTOW, Dr328 has engines with max power 3 times less than V-280. It is interesting to compare these two aircrafts.
VRS. Yes, small diameter helicopter rotors are more safe for VRS. But proprotors can more easy generate secondary vortex. Because the blades twist is too big.
Defiant is almost same wrong concept. The difference is that Tiltrotor has universal propeller-rotor, but Gyrodyne (Defiant) has universal wing-rotor.
People who take decision to build these aircrafts, did not understand basic things.
@@antonkirov1923 I think I'll stick with what the actual data and statistics say rather than preconceived notions people have that aren't based in reality
Thanks buddy! We in Canada love to watch our southern neighbors make...things like this...and then get sad knowing we can't afford it ... find beer ... made in America, and slowly get over it.
😅😂😅
Cheers mate!
Canadians could use bush planes. They can take off and land in VERY short distances with a turbo prop, cruise at high speed at altitude over long distances, and cost a fraction of the price of the Bell. A better solution in my opinion.
That'd be one in the eye for the Yanks.
For what it's worth, I think the Canadian armed forces also get a lot of neat equipment. Leopard tanks for the army, F-35's for the air force, plus I remember hearing a while back you guys have a program going to produce smart guns for infantry. I hope we can share future tech like this with our northern neighbors in the future and vice-versa.
Truth be told we'd rather have health insurance like you do.
We can’t afford it either but our extremely corrupt congress continues to commit fraud by going over on the budget so unnecessary things such as them overpaying themselves along with necessary expenses such as military can be covered.
The V22 didn’t actually crash that much in the grand scheme of things. The only reason it has such a bad rep is because when it does crash it usually has many people on board causing large casualty incidents and so it’s reported on much more then another vehicle crashing more often but only taking 1 pilots life
Eh. It ain’t as rosy as you might think, but you’re right, fair and reasonable in saying it’s not as bad as most people think.
It’s above average in incidents per hours flown (so not casualties), but not so extreme as sometimes painted, and only when compared to other aircraft in active service. If I recall correctly.
It’s a “first gen”-design. As in, the next gen will have had the childhood diseases fixed. The problem is that some people try to use the design of the Osprey as an argument that the concept is flawed, which is wholly unreasonable.
Also an investigation found that most crashes were because they had airplane pilots trying to work, essentially, a helicopter. They didn't have any crashes with pilots that were trained on helis
@@ChangeEvery14Days how high are rates with other airframes divided by total hours of use? Simply going by number of airframes divided by failures without taking into account usage isn't fair
@@ChangeEvery14Days "unknown mechanical defect"
So how do you know it's a mechanical defect?
What if they had set a couple of jet vertical propulsion to the V22 just to be used at landing only? Wouldn't it make more stable to land and reduce crashing? Just an ignorance comment, you tell
The Apache isn't being replaced. The Apache is currently filling a role to replace the gap in capability that the Army currently doesn't have, a light reconnaissance heli. I think Bell's Invictus will probably win that contract as well.
I think the Apache replacement is a longer-term part of the overall program, but yes the Invictus is aiming for the light attack/recon role currently split between Huey derivatives and Apache backfilling
an attack helicopter isnt used for a recon role. thats for the 0h-6 little bird. small and quiet. no attack aircraft is a recon platform
@nomercyinc6783 little bird is almost exclusively used by special forces. The 360 invictus will most likely replace it tho. But the apache was being used in reconnaissance roles in the middle east which was proving to be far too uneconomical.
@@nomercyinc6783 The Apache has been used to fill a gap between the very light recon helicopters like OH-6, and the full attack helicopters. It's very uneconomical in the role. The FARA aircraft will keep the Apache relegated to its attack role, and will almost certainly be replacing the UH-1Y and/or AH-1Z in service
@@nomercyinc6783 The main function of attack helis is recon, you're mixing up different types of recon. An attack helicopter will have more advanced sensors and the ability to defend itself and is thus ideal for recon against heavy enemy formations or reconissance in force.
Minor note. I find it funny people always use the Apache as a speed benchmark for military helicopters. The CH-47 Chinook heavy lift helicopter is 10 knots faster and damn near just as maneuverable when unloaded.
Massive note. You called the Sea Stallion's rotors propellers.
I remember plenty of flights in the Chinook. You could see where it was patched from the bullet holes it had received in Vietnam.
very sweet video Mister Sky! i always look forward to your next work of art. thank you Sir.
I LOVE THIS AIRCRAFT!
Great video as usual! Thank you for your efforts and fantastic work.
Another perfect video! Thank you, Sky.
The gunship version is gorgeous.
They remind me of futuristic vehicles from 1960's TV shows The Thunderbirds and Speed Racer. :) Thanks again Sky!
That's what I was thinking! Especially when he showed the clip of the 3d attack version. It felt like something straight out of scifi. Just wait until ion thrusters become a thing.
Another Excellent Video !!! - Crewed CH-53A & D's
Happy new year to you my friend all the best for the new year ahead
I worked drive systems test in Arlington and Hurst during the 90s. They were also testing a stealth cobra.
Excellent stuff bro
Thank you, Sky!
Well done. Thanks
Great video...👍
Thanks Sky!!
Thanks for your videos, love your channel.
its a beauty 😍😍
I love the defiant and hopefully it has a future but it couldn't compete with the speed and range of the V280
I thought that they will be used for Special Forces so they're making small numbers of it
If Sikorsky can find a practicable way to fold up those rotor blades, the Navy might be interested for their Seahawk replacement project. But I do think the Raider (smaller version of Defiant) will win the army's FLRAA competition.
@@anwartaylor6096 I'd have thought the navy would prefer the longer operational range and higher speed of the V-280. If they did a dedicated naval variant with osprey style folding wings and rotors that would probably take up less space than the defiant even with folding rotors
@@poprocket2342Yeah, u very well may be right about that. Although, I would say the way that the engines and props are configured with the wing on the Valor makes it much more difficult to fold up those wings up. Or at the very least, the space u save wouldn't amount to the space savings that the Osprey's engine/prop configuration allows for. Also, the Navy might also be interested in the superior hovering capability and agility that the Defiant would provide, given the unique nature of sea-based operations and mission sets.
@@anwartaylor6096tilt rotors are not inherently less maneuverable. You not only have the same control surfaces a helicopter has but increased range of movement thanks to the entire rotor being able to be rotated forward and backwards. You can't judge an entire platform based on the first of it's kind built for a completely different role and had multiple design compromises to meet requirements.
I think that Sikorskey has the win the next FARA competition, yet I believe that the Army made the right choice with the V-280. The speed and range are wildly superior, and it wasn't that inferior to the Defiant in the hover regime. I'm looking forward to the V-280 deployment.
I disagree. The tilt rotor concept has too many moving parts which is a maintenance nightmare. Many have died to prove this.
@victorstern3341 There are many who have died in Blackhawks as well. Helicopters are a particularly dangerous vehicles with many moving parts. The coaxial rotor from Sikorskey kept having a myriad of control and vibration issues throughout testing while the V280 sailed through its testing regime. This one is far simpler than the Osprey after they discovered that some complex design features were unnecessary.
The comparison of deaths per 100,000 flight hours tells a different story.
@victorstern3341 it's a larger aircraft with higher capacity, so it only makes sense that it would have a higher death rate.
The incidents per flight hour are much higher as well.
The Pacific war will demand the V280 because island hooping requires it.
This is what the Army is thinking with this program. Simply put the Black Hawk can no longer be upgraded for the mission they think they will need to do. Also longer distance lets heli bases be pushed further back decreasing risk from arty, rocket, and drone strikes.
good video, unlike alot of aerospace garbage out there. Cheers, thanks mate
Cool vid.
like the trans port idea
The real question is what tribe or chief the Army is going to name it after once it's officially accepted. No way they are going to stay with "Valor."
If it is fully accepted and commissioned yes. V-280 Valor is its prototype name.
Fairly sure they're sticking with Valor
MY SON FLIES HELICOPTERS, NICE, GLAD TO SEE BUILDING ON A SUCCESS. I HAVE LOOKED AT ALOT OF OUR WEAPONRY, NOT A FAR DEPARTURE FROM WEAPONS WE KNOW WORK. I AM GLAD TO SEE TAKING OUR MOST SUCCESSFUL MILITARY PLANES, TANKS, SHIPS, UPDATED AND IMPROVED. NEW AND IMPROVED, VASTLY IMPROVED. WORKS FOR ME. THIS CAN TAKE OFF AND LAND IN VERY SMALL SPACES, HAS IT'S PLACE IN MODERN WARFARE.
An AV-280 does sound fun. It could hold a ton of ordnance
The Air Force is unlikely to like it. They have a history of getting Army aircraft cancelled.
both looks great and may have its own place in military and civilian use, valor looks very promising on a practical point of view due to its simplicity of design and yet faster
I always favor the The Ling-Temco-Vought (LTV) XC-142 is a tri-service tiltwing experimental aircraft designed to investigate the operational suitability of vertical/short takeoff and landing (V/STOL) transports. An XC-142A first flew conventionally on 29 September 1964
Nice overview of the project. Note the blur on the left nacelle at 3:29. Other shots blur the front of both nacelles. 🤔
older photos and videos blurred them before the patients were done I think.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 - I suspect you meant patents rather than patients.
@@wickedcabinboy Damn auto correct yea.
That little civilian VTOL look well sized as a platform for a light attack Helicopter replacement.. if they wanted something like that in Europe.. that looks like a good choice to build upon for very light transport too perhaps (like supply drops).
The US navy has they cute little autonomous Helicopter though that does that rather nicely too though.
This looks like a superb piece of engineering to me. In many ways it has the Osprey outclassed.
It isn't replacing the osprey and can not do the missions the osprey can
Many of you are missing the point. I’m a helicopter guy, however, the V-280 is ideal for the Pacific (long distance Island hopping) at twice the speed of any helicopter. For example you can lift a battalion of troops and move them 300 miles in an hour. No helicopter can accomplish that. Finally, the interconnecting shaft on the V-280 will drive both rotors in the advent of an engine failure. This aircraft will be as ubiquitous as the Huey. Good job Bell.
The advantage of traditional rotorcraft is that it is faster than helicopters, but not as flexible as helicopters.
But the speed of the V-280 needs to be increased to at least 800 kilometers per hour, and the current speed of 560 kilometers per hour is still not ideal.
the V280 wins because of range and speed. It has is drawbacks but potential future war need to be staged from greater distances due to missile/fighter tech.
Right On Go Army!
This is great, but I like my beefy boy the V-22 more.
Honestly the Army should've awarded a double contract. The Valor is good for range and speed but it is wide. While that could be the frontline machine the Defiant should really have been contracted under the idea of cramped locations like inner city flights/landings etc... The defiant could be used for many other things the Valor cant do and the Valor can do many things the defiant cant.
So we should have never upgrade to the Black Hawk from the Huey? The Valor can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk could and greatly outclassed the Defiant in nearly every metric...
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 They really need to buy Defiant and install a driverless system as soon as possible.
The V-280 replaces the Black Hawk, and the Defiant can replace an old Apache or Chinook.
All helicopters with a speed of less than 500 kilometers per hour need to be eliminated as soon as possible and replaced by innovative models that are faster, more flexible, and more automated. They need to be developed and mass-produced as soon as possible.
The innovation and manufacturing department also needs to refer to the V-280 to develop a new seaplane (with a speed of at least 800 kilometers per hour, can carry 70 people, and is equipped with an unmanned pilot system) to meet more future needs.
@io9883 you don't seem to understand what limits helicopter speeds... also, the defiant could never replace the Chinook, haha.
They now appear to be experimenting with improved high-voltage electric hybrid engines or high-voltage battery systems that have the potential to push the speed limits of traditional helicopters and traditional rotorcraft.
Defiant's speed is close to 460 kilometers per hour, exceeding the 250-350 kilometers of traditional helicopters, showing the need to continue these experiments.
It looks right. I know that's feelings based nonsense, but you can just tell it has lessons and thinking behind it.
Anyone know time and distance, from flat out (305 knots?) to hover? And vice versa.
That exact info is still not public. According to what was released it had a faster time to altitude than the Defiant which was also faster than the Black Hawk. It also had a faster cruise speed to stop than the Defiant. Again whatever those real numbers are is unknown.
Thank you for a very informative video. I think the Sikorsky/Boeing helicopter would be better used as a model to replace the AH-64.
The Defiant was outclassed in nearly every way. It also had multiple technical issues that even resulted in a crash during testing of 1 of the only 2 functioning prototypes.
Making a a multiple of a problem but running for props and then constructing the shock waves
I think the V-280 is badass. I also think that the V-22 has a similar incident rate as many other service craft. I think the stigma is simply a matter of perception perpetuated by upper level brass who resent the craft from the beginning.
I might be wrong but I think it might have an incident rate lower than the average. I could be wrong though as I only heard about it and never looked into it.
Ok explain this to the families who had Airmen in Japan lose their lives because of the V-22 turd bucket!
@@shadowopsairman1583 By that logic you should never get into any car model because at least one of them has been crashed at some point in time.
@@shadowopsairman1583 Do you say the same about the 5 or 6 Black Hawk crashes a year? The crash rate of the Osprey is similar to the Black Hawk and better than other medium left platforms.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The crash rate of the V-22 is higher than the Black Hawk, but it's comparable to or less than the more equivalent CH-47 and CH-53; the CH-53 in particular has a rather poor record
I doubt they will be able to use a tilt rotor for attack roles. The USAF has a history of complaining to Congress if the Army starts developing combat aircraft that are too fast. Makes a certain amount of sense, since the Air Force mission is to support the troops from the air, and if the Army starts doing that, then the Air Force looks redundant.
I was still holding out hope to one day see a V-44 aircraft. V-480 anyone?
Why did it took you so long to make this video? Thanks for bringing the balnce
Hopefully this won’t have the hard clutch engagement issue that of the v22.
Likely not, since the Valor's engines are fixed and the force is transferred to the props through a spiral bevel gearbox.
It also has a differential that will share power from one engine to both props should an engine be lost.
That's not to say that it won't have issues of its own with a power train so complex, but they will be different problems than the Osprey.
Will there be a corrosion resistant naval variant of this machine?
it's hull is mostly composite making it corrosion resistant by default.
Currently no plans for a naval version atm.
Naval variants are still in early planning, no indication of if and when they could be adopted
The V-280 also had over 200 hours of unmanned flight before the official military trials even began. That was probably a huge factor in it being chosen over the defiant.
Unmanned? Where do you see that?
Global skylove and power❤❤
How do these things emergency land? They can't glider or autorotate. I know the engines are linked but what if...
Tilt rotors can do both. In general auto rotation rarely saves military aircraft as they do not normally fly at lower altitudes in the first place. Either way dual engine failures on helicopters are few and far between.
11:17 "In vertical flight, the rotors are directed upward, slightly exposing the mechanisms"
Which is apparently highly indecent, hence why they have to keep blurring it out.
Early photos and videos did as much because of the patents.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I mean I kinda figured that was the case, but I was attempting to make a joke.
Can they install a fuel bladder in the cabin to allow extra long distance ferry flights.
I doubt that would be needed. It can already fly without a pilot to where it is needed to save on weight and fly at higher altitudes to save on fuel. I imagine some wing mounted fuel pods would be easy to do, but again, they are not too needed as it can already get to Hawaii from California.
10:29 The right rotor looks like it is tilting forward and the left is tilting backward. Am I seeing this correctly?
Edit: is this what you meant when you said it acts like the main rotor of a helicopter? Also, does the Osprey do this or can it only change the blade pitch?
The Osprey can do similar yes but is not as maneuverable given its weight and smaller rotor diameter for said weight because of restrictions for ships.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 the Osprey has a rotor hub that can move independently of from the engine?
@@bl8danjil It is a swashplate like you see on normal helicopters. Yes but the movement is not as drastic. The main thing holding back the Osprey is the rotor diameter which is smaller than what was originally planned so it could fit on ships when folded.
The rotor masts (shafts) are both vertical, as you can see from the cones ("propeller spinners"). The rotor disks are tilted as the blades "flap", in typical helicopter fashion. Helicopters with two widely spaced rotors (both tandems such as the Chinook and designs with rotors out at the sides like this) yaw (rotate left or right) by tilting the cyclic control forward on one side and backward on the other.
Yes, the Osprey and Valor both have typical helicopter cyclic control by swashplate on each rotor.
Feels like it'd be better to have the engines mounted over the fuselage with a driveshaft going out to the tilting prop-rotors. Getting all that weight off the wingtips would have to improve a whole bunch of performance metrics. Would be good for scaling the concept down to a single engine light helicopter too.
No they tested those configurations early on into tilt rotors and have not used them since so there much be issues with that. Also this way there is no heavy machinery or fuel over the crew compartment making a fire or crash more survivable.
That would just increase the load on the wings in flight, since the rotor lift would still be at the tips.
What metrics would be improved? Roll rate is the obvious answer, but horizontal mode roll rate is unlikely to be an issue and VTOL mode roll rate with differential thrust from the rotors will be excellent.
The V-280 was always going to be the choice. The MV-22 operationally has proven to be quantum leap over existing helicopters
Secondly the Valor is only for US Army to replace its Black Hawk. The USMC, USAF and USN are already operating the V-22s
SH-60s uses by the USN are far more compact allowing for operation on small ships
V-280 is too big
With the swivel wing configuration itll only take up about the same amount of space as a huey
It's not that much bigger than the H-60.
@@Gridlocked
Ship borne operations wasnt considered
@@spazmonkey2131
if they are serious about it then they need to make scale model to show the USN and USCG that it can be done
The USCG benefits from USAF, USN and US Army operating the UH-60
its droves cost down
they would get in V-280s as well
Because it is an Army project. The V-280 gives the Army greater flexibility for indopacific operations.
Its like Airwolf on steroids
Okay, let's see the attack variant. We turned a crop duster into an attack platform, so don't even try to deny it.
They have a digital mockup on one. Nose gun and weapon bays on the sides and bottom.
the speed is 280 knots?
That is the cruise speed for it yes. Max speed for far has been said to be 305 kts.
Can it autorotate safely or is that capability not needed ?
It can't autorotate but there is a shaft connecting the two engines and rotors together so if one engine fails the other can power both rotors
@@bluemountain4181 So basically the same as the osprey, i thought they couldn't do that on it couse of the need for a foldable wing and rotor blades that made the design heavier and with smaller overall rotors. This one is smaller, lighter, doesn't have all the foldable parts and still can't autorotate in a hover, even close to the ground using the remaining rotor inertia ? i know there is a small chance that both engines would be hit but still. Can it glide well enough to put it down safely tho ? I think the agusta westland can autorotate yes ?
Tilt rotors can auto rotate and glide so many people are wrong about this. You are also over stating auto rotation as it has rarely saved heavier military helicopters.
Will it have a switch for fortunate son?
I like it a lot; the rotation of the motors looks far better than Osprey's concept. I wish they could add Kevlar type armor which could be easily replaced after battle if there are hits from ground fire. Maybe an armadillo type armor which when going into contact could rotate to a different shape which deflects gun fire mor effectively. And maybe a non-troop transport version could be developed as an attack aircraft for supporting infantry including the A-10's gatling gun cannon. Use much of the cabin space for weapons, additional fuel and ammo for its weapons systems.
Someone please answer me: Can the V-280 change the PITCH of its rotors like a helicopter to move side to side and forward and back?
Yes. It has a swashplate like a normal helicopter on each rotor. It can also move the entire rotor back a bit beyond 90 degrees and of course forward as well.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9okay, then it’s awesome, imo
Skyships or Airboats ?
seen this bird in flight in CA
Rotating wing and folding blades = weight... Ask the Bell-Boeing Osprey engineers.
what will be a realistic time scope to see the valor get into service?
We will see the first active unit testing them in 2025 with a full unit supplied with them by 2030 which is the current timeframe which can change.
curious how and whether other branches will be able to adapt from this base model which is concepted for the army only obviously. the blackhawk at the time has served all branches, including naval, with a respective variant, but i don't see this possible with that tilt concept, especially when it comes to external storages. what is your oppinion? @@n3v3rforgott3n9
@@piloto_loco Just because something has been a certain way doesn't mean it has to continue that way. Although I would say it would help the other branches on costs as any program the army fully uses would have the production numbers to fully drop prices down as much as possible. They do have a mockup of a naval version for ships although since it has yet to be built or tested you wouldn't know how those changes would effect it or if they would be enough to meet requirements. Also what do you mean by internal storage? It carries more people than the Black Hawk and can carry a larger load.
agree. exciting times, can't wait to see all the new stuff coming up, including fixed wing stuff like the FXX. my guess is the navy will seek its own solution, but they won't rush to replace the romeos.@@n3v3rforgott3n9
nice video
If they use it like the 160th SOAR DAP it would be necessary to lose speed. To fire weapons the propplears would need to be raised. The amount of space to fire weapons at full speed is limited. But if it were altered to have a bay and pylons going out the bottom would work. Keep the pylons up until needed and be at full speed with gins and or 1-2 misses in the space that could carry weapons without interference form the propellers.
A tilt rotor can raise the rotors up to nearly 30 degrees while keeping an airplane flight profile and the majority of its speed.
This will be guaranteed successful just like the Osprey.
I hope they can work out the issues presented by the Osprey.
They won’t because they continued on the tiltrotor path.
That's specifically what they've done, with for example the fixed engines rather than rotating. Some of the Osprey's issues were also training related
👍
As a vtol tilt rotor, it's a major disadvantage that the wings don't fold. They have to also cater for the navy if they want to be successful.
They have a migital mock up of a naval version if the Navy gets interested. Currently the program is only for the Army.
That will not be a problem. All the drive shafts are in the wing. Look at how Ospreys fold up. Same thing applies here. www.google.com/search?q=Ospreys+fold+up&rlz=1C1ONGR_enUS1036US1036&oq=Ospreys+fold+up&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQABgWGB4yCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yDQgFEAAYhgMYgAQYigUyDQgGEAAYhgMYgAQYigXSAQc5NDFqMGo0qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:061fd8d6,vid:_45aUrES-j0,st:0
That's too complicated, too heavy and too expensive! You armchair engineers need to get real
@@shadetreemech290The design has yet to mature. The first helicopter wasn't exactly perfect either.
Few aircraft types are used by both the US Army and the US Navy (or the US Marines, or the USAF). They try, but as the three different versions of the F-35 Lightning prove, they typically don't succeed, ad aircraft types succeed based on sales to only one service. The Sikorsky S-70 is the Army's choice, and sees limited specialized use by the other forces, but it's a basically a generic helicopter - the more specialized the design, the narrower the applications.
"Valor" is the name of a supermarket chain.
This is all very interesting but why was he watching a Techmoan video while recording this?
I do not have faith in this concept. I feel the Defiant was the better option. Good luck
Defiant was outclassed in nearly every metric and had multiple technical issues that even resulted in a crash of 1 of 2 working prototypes.
I wanted the v280 to win, but now I think the US military can use both the v280 and the defiant x, the defiant can probably land in more of a confined space and the valor is faster. I know the Army had problems with the defiant, but I think if the Army worked with Sikorsky those problems could be solved. As for using both designs the defiant can be paired with the v280 as if there is a space to small for valor the defiant x can most likely land. Anyways that I think and hope the US military could utilize both designs, I really think the military can benefit from both, I know it will cost money but I think it would be worth it
It's looking like the SOF might get the other model and or airforce
@@VectorGhost ?
@@beltgirl Defiant was completely outclassed and had numerous technical issues which even resulted in a crash... You are just asking for more logistics issues.
I still wish it was the SB-1 instead of the valor
Defiant was worse in nearly every way...
❤❤
I think the Army is shying away from variant attack helicopters because of what it learned in Vietnam (namely that big slow-moving targets with lots of guns draw lots of fire) , and what it eventually got out of the programs that led to the Apache. But the Comanche program has never went into production beyond experimental, and because it's a stealth-recon-attack copter, it's not really as capable as the Apache when it comes to muscle, nor does it innovate in terms of speed because it is a traditional helicopter, nor can it compete with the costs and supply of swarm of scout drones with its sweet sensor array that was state of the art in yesteryears of development. (So the 'helicopter of the future' when I was a boy, doesn't seem to be fated for success because of the pace of innovation, and changes in warfare. I think currently it's the Invictus program which may or may not give up the traditional helicopter design, and either way, that thing is going to replace light scout helicopters if it ever goes into production, (a role that was had by another retired helicopter in order to keep the Apachee going, I think,) and that's if it doesn't get outpaced and outpriced by drone development--which is likely. And Congressional committee meetings can be like CHOOSE TO KEEP THIS PROGRAM, or THAT PROGRAM, you can't have BOTH! Especially during periods of rapid innovations.)
So when it comes to pure muscle, the Army shouldn't be so quick to discount variants of the v-280 when it comes to potential capabilities. 1) Not only does that make it easier to service via mass production of most parts, it 2) allows you to replace 12 troops with a massive weapons bay for gunship, missile truck, mini-bomber, e-war, surveillance, or even less conventional roles (drone carrier, psyops, etc.) It might step on the air forces toes, or it might necessarily free them up for more air-dominance and strategic attrition warfare if the ARMY can master its own close air-to-ground-support roles with FAB capable weaponry especially if they get outside the nearly umbrella of NAVY or AIRFORCE support, or if either force has to prioritize its engagements along a vast front, or multiple fronts which can happen in peer 2 peer attrition style warfare. Joint command is one the areas where the USA is strongest, but in a big fight, that could go either way here or there, parts of the army could be cut off and isolated from the main force. Having something close by that can make a hole where you need a hole can be the difference between getting the troops you sent in to do a job back, or not. 3) Mass production means Congress (and the Military) gets more bang for the buck, especially over the long term. It means you can stock up when Congress is feeling generous, and strip birds for parts and keep the program going if/when they are making essential cutbacks. That's budgetary flexibility. 3) Having multi-role functionality means you can show your hand without necessarily revealing anything more than the back of your cards to your enemy. Even if they can see it, they don't know what its mission is, or what it is capable of, and there's essential fear-factor to that, especially as the numbers of the fleet increase.
We should be thinking of this kind of bird as a platform, and not just a troop carrier. Like the Humvee, Bradley, or the more modern Striker. Don't just make it mission-capable, make it mission-essential, make it iconic, make it lethal & beloved by vets. That's what keeps Congress writing the checks for anything that gets to stay in service for decades.
it'll happen but not for long!
Almost....almost....the aircraft in Avatar.
Avatar had dual rotors and ducted.
Not fully sold on the need to have max speed in a chopper. That is the biggest selling point for this configuration.
But how many missions, battles have been lost for the difference in speed. It's only one variable and i wouldn't trade it for reliability. But they are doing exactly that, IMO
The 280 nacelles are game-changers, and address' 2 major drawbacks for the tilt-rotor concept. I would like to see the 22's adopt the design. But, there is still 1 glaring issue, in my opinion. Mishap survivability...no glide and no auto-rotation.
Tilt rotors can do both... that is a common misconception online.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Yes, in addition, I understand from an interview with the chief engineer at Bell that the two rotors are connected by a shaft. If one engine goes out, the other engine powers both rotors. One engine has enough power to fly the aircraft. So loss of one engine means that the mission can still be completed, albeit at a lower speed.
@@howard6433 Of course it depends on the situation like any aircraft but yea. Dual engine failures are beyond rare. Even current military helicopters can only auto rotate under ideal circumstances which are different for each platform.
Bell V280 + 360 invictus for 🇨🇦 mixed fleet
FARA was canceled so Invictus won't go into service.
K thanks N3V3! 😎👍That explains a few things..Cheers ☕️
I think they shld put a jet inbetween the v tale
Why dont they have a central generator and electrically powered wingtip rotors ?
It causes many balance issues with centrally placed engines. They tried this early on in tilt rotor designs. Also only electric powered aircraft just don't have the range or load capacity needed for combat aircraft.
Direct drive is more efficient, fewer energy phase changes
High weight, high cost, low efficiency, and low reliability. but it would be cool...
I have to comment on the repairability of the carbon fiber. In general, carbon fiber and other composites are perfectly repairable. It requires different techniques than with sheet metal, but it is common to do in the field. You isolate the damaged area, “scarf” the damaged and surrounding area (sand down so you expose the bottom ply nearest the defect, and then only expose the 2nd most bottom ply further from the damaged area, and so on). You then place a backer on the inside of the panel, like a piece of sheet metal, under the damaged area. You then either do a wet layup or use prepreg with a heating blanket over the scarfed plies and against the backer. Viola, repaired panel.
Also, the main wing of the V-280 consists of a thin skin over large cell honeycomb, with a thick structural “underskin” underneath. This is done so the outer part of the wing can take damage and be easily repairable, and partially protect the inner structural part of the wing.
Psh. Composites are new and different. Therefore, they're awful.
We should go back to doped canvas for skinning aircraft. The liquid coating over the fibrous cloth hardens & makes the whole thing stronger than either constituent component. Way better than 'composite' materials.
That all sounds reasonable. Now, can you see someone doing that in a desert sandstorm, a dripping wet jungle, or a high mountain snowstorm?
@@brianb-p6586 I mean, other than the wet jungle, it’d be hard to do *any* repairs in those conditions. As long as you have an enclosed hanger, you have the conditions needed to do the repair.
@bjw0007 bolts and rivets work in any temperature or humidity. Aluminum can be formed in any temperature or humidity that a person can stand.
My guess is that any more than minor damage to a non-removable composite part will likely take the airframe out of service.
Two words - Fairey Rotodyne
😄
Rotodyne was always the right Ticket - Simple Tech Upgraded by New Robust Materials
The Osprey is controversial for political reasons. Yes it had a shaky elopement and testing period and was delayed and even cancelled several times, but the end product is within mishap rate of other aircraft at 3.28 per 100,000 hours average for the last 10 years.. The F-16 is 3.55 and the F-15 is 1.99. The Chinook is better at 1.59 and the AH-64E Apache is 2.66. The cost is not that bad at $80 million. The Chinook is $65 million average but can cost $60 to $90 million. The latest Apache is $52 million. It is a little expensive, but not that bad and the safety record is also not perfect, but not horrible either. Considering how new and complex the Osprey is I think it is doing a great job.
Not to mention mishap rate is not a full view on safety either as a more expensive platform will reach the dollar amount for a Class A mishap easier. Besides when you are talking about the massive performance increases the cost can simply be worth it. After full testing we will see if everything checks out.
How do you load one on a C-5?
The point of them is that they can fly to where ever they are needed in the world without having to rely on Stratair to transport them. If needed you can remove the wing section to fit them into planes though.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 having performed those types of operations with other aircraft varieties as a helicopter mechanic in the army. It certainly was something I was wondering and Thinking about intervals between maintenance and self deploying and aircraft that can barely do 300 knots. Inquiring minds want to know.
@@nobodyspecial7185 Even going 280kts it would greatly save on stratair let alone being able to do the trip with no pilot at all which is also the goal.
I think the V-22 got a bad reputation for something that even helicopters deal with. Helicopters crash all the time in the military. If a tail rotor goes out in a helicopter you’re gonna crash. Both have a single point failure.
I could see a CAS version of the Valor replacing the AH-1 soon and maybe the AH-64 later.
AH-1 and Huey derivatives will be replaced by the FARA program, with the Bell Invictus or Sikorsky Raider X
V-280 Valor looks like it will be a very good aircraft, in flight and maint. requirements. The same does not apply to the V22. Which was an over priced, under performing, maint. nightmare.