US Next Generation Tiltrotor Aircraft Is Ready For Action
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 เม.ย. 2023
- The future of warfare is becoming the present. The Bell V-280 Valor is a tiltrotor aircraft set to replace the iconic black hawk helicopter as part of the US army’s future vertical lift program. At the back end of 2022 Bell's offering was chosen over rivals to see in a new era in military aviation. So why is this aircraft so special and how does it compare to the similar craft that it beat to become the future of US army assault strategy.
For copyright matters please contact us at: ytproductionvideo@gmail.com
Video and image credit: Bell.
Doc's, thank you .Good Ole Dr. Steve. God Speed; John Glenn 😢
A very good iteration on a design concept. Good Job BELL!
Looks great!
Very impressive presentation 👍
Great analysis 👍. This makes me happy for the tilt wing design programs. Great job Bell. I glad that all the people involved in trying to mess up Osprey for US Marines didn't stop Bell from continuing to improve the tilt wing program and concepts.
Looks really good tbh
It's a GREAT aircraft.
This aircrafts size will dramatically limit the choice of the LZ as others have noted. Prepping an LZ will be a nightmare in hot zone and the aircraft will be more vulnerable and less effective in restricted environments during rescue operations. Insertion under fire will take longer . Good for open flat terrain but I see too many issues replacing Blackhawks in tight urban situations as well. My two cents
You make good points. I don' get the obsession with these expensive high maintenance aircraft. They are vunerable and not good at anything specifically.
the thumbnail doesnt even fuckin exist
false. it fits in the same footprint as a blackhawk helicopter including its hangars
@@nomercyinc6783 I have been looking for this data, have not found any information for this new aircraft. The span of the blades is clearly larger on the V280 compared to a UH60.
I agree with you on the ground footprint, but it seems very manueverable at low speeds.
We need both of them
the defiant has a huge advantage in tight spaces!!!!
the Valor only has a 19% larger total footprint than the Black Hawk... there is barely a difference.
If or when the V-280 becomes an attack platform, what type of weapons would it carry?
It's pretty, clever engineering, very interesting, and full of potential usefulness in a large number of current situations, among which deterrence is not the least. Congratulations to all personnel involved in the conception and project approval.
Prettiness has nothing to do with combat value.
I cant see how youd fire missiles through those chunky rotors in ghe fwd position, additionally, the ah64 has a suit of complex sensors that compliment its deadly weapons. I would love to see the valor vs ah64
It’s just another V22. Disappointing.
I like this powerful helicoptere
Remember the one aircraft that had the emergency land on the island uh short memories uh?
Petition to call these things 'hoppers'. Tiltrotor helicopter is quite a mouthful
seems like a maintenance nightmare
Boeing made the wrong argument when contesting the Army's final decision. Instead of saying their helicopter was better, they needed to argue that the Army clearly stated the new aircraft MUST fit in the Blackhawk's footprint. The Valor is far too wide and Boeing's helicopter complied with this requirement. The Valor may be the right choice, but Boeing built their helicopter to match the Blackhawk's footprint. If the Army wanted a tilt rotor, I would have like to have seen Boeing's offering.
Agree. Bell did not make a helicopter. Also, I do not see how it will replace the Apache.
@@c.san.8751 I'd love to see what the V-280 looks like when decorated with weapons like the apache. Sure there is plenty of space on the wings, but I feel like the missiles or bullets would hit the two giant rotors when forward facing.
@@mrborn1637 Yeah probably like a fully decked out Osprey. Problem is that it is no where close to the agility and maneuverability of the Apache. I don't even think it will be used for that role. Loke always, the military talks wastes tax payor money then realizes it needs an entirely new aircraft, all by design of course to feed the military industrial complex.
There was no requirement that it had to be the exact same footprint.
@@c.san.8751 The Valor passed the same level 1 handling requirements the Black Hawk passed. Currently there is no plans to replace Apaches with it but there is a mock up of an attack variant.
It has the same Problem as the Osprey, and also it takes 1 Bullet to hit something in the Rotor Rotation Motor breaking the whole thing bruh what.
The Valor has two engines connected by a rod. Its engines are strong enough that if one is disabled, the other can power both rotors to continue the mission, although now flying slower. Take out the engine of a traditional chopper....and you have Black Hawk Down.
@@howard6433 can u not read? the Rotor Connectors are literally open 1 good bullet and that rotor is bye bye and that thing comes crashing down and idk if u know but the osprey is the same concept and alot of people think even pilots its not safe.
@@itshaze834 My reading comprehension is fine, which is something I question about you. You do realize that this aircraft has two engines, right? What are the odds that someone can take out both engines, located on opposite sides of the aircraft, with one bullet? One bullet might take down a normal helicopter, but not something like this.
@@howard6433 WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT a Engine but the Rotors 1 bullet hits the hydraulic line that is exposed and that thing goes down
@@itshaze834You are still wrong. First the words you used "Rotor Rotator Motor" implied motor. In the English language the last word is generally the noun, and the preceding words adjectives to describe the noun. Therefore in the name "Rotor Rotator Motor", any English-speaking person would assume you are talking about a Motor, not a Rotor.
Second: OK, so you are not a native English speaker. What you should do when you use words you make up is explain what they mean. There is no such thing as a rotor described as a "Rotor Rotator Motor:" So please clarify what you mean, because your words simply do not make sense.
Finally, there are two engines and two rotors. How can a single bullet destroy one rotor, much less two?
It’s ground foot print is another issue for tighter locations. I can see this with hard points all over it and bristling with mini guns. Spectre IV maybe?
It only has a 19% larger footprint than the Black Hawk.
You say the Black Hawk could only carry 3 combat troops. 5:16
Do you proofread before you upload the video?
What is the transition time from horizontal to vertical? Can't see it as an Apache replacement.
instant as it does it while it accelerates. It had a better time to altitude than the Defiant.
I've seen earlier renditions of this aircraft and was super excited to see how it could be both better and more utilitarian than the Blackhawk! Now I am super Pumped that it was chosen to be the replacement for the Blackhawk. Don't get me wrong, the Blackhawk is an incredible aircraft and is a finely tuned military machine and could still be effective in the military for smaller operations but, like the Bell Team, I think that the original Helicopter rotary wing design is well past it's useful date for mainstream use. the design itself has been around for so long and has not been altered in any significant way up until now. The Tilt rotor design is coming into its own now and we will see than it will not be as demanding on the pilots as the rotary wing design has been. being able to transition between fixed with and rotary wing style hovering is something definitely needed, and Osprey proved that it was a great design. I hope that they solved the issues they were having with the Osprey that caused them to be grounded, I haven't been paying much attention to it since I heard about the grounding.
"I think that the original Helicopter rotary wing design is well past it's useful date for mainstream use" .... WRONG! So wrong in fact, it makes everything else you said very suspect if not moot. And the Osprey? One mechanical failure after another, in fact they are presently grounded, again. With no more to be built. You will not see tilt rotor become more prevalent than rotary wing aircraft in your lifetime.
@@MikeM275 Uh, did you even watch this video? The Blackhawk tilt-rotor aircraft is being put into production and it will replace the old traditional rotor aircraft. the reason for this is because of aerodynamic problems with it design and how it's speed is extremely limited, the Osprey was grounded for a reason that has now been fixed and is being replaced by a newer better design, that is why it is no longer being produced! Honestly your comment is outright absurd and trollish without any data to back it up other than your own personal opinion. I understand how you may feel loyal to the old designs, I too am a traditionalist in many things but not when it comes to equipping our military with the very best equipment and machinery for battle. Loyalty to antiquated designs is what lesser militaries do, not the USA's Military! the performance and overall benefits to the tilt rotor design Vastly outstrips the benefits from a traditional rotary wing design, and not by a little I might add, but by a VAST amount. Watch this video with an open mind and ask yourself honestly would you want our boys going to war in a machine that has all the limits of a standard Helicopter or in the new Blackhawk design? and they haven't even talked bout the ordinance and weaponry that could be mounted on the Blackhawk either!
@@oculusangelicus8978 I stand by my critique of your opinion that... "original Helicopter rotary wing design is well past it's useful date for mainstream use" ... In fact, I deem that opinion absurd. Just because the military is creating one (more) helicopter using tilt design is FAR from banishing the traditional rotary wing concept to the boneyard. In fact, there are many reasons why tilt rotor will NOT be "mainstream" ... the cost and complexity vs traditional rotary wing being reason #1 particularly for civilian operation. As to the Osprey, Oh, did they get the LATEST issue fixed? I think they've been grounded more often than rated flight worthy. BTW I'm a high time pilot which has flown for the DOD (as a civilian), although fixed wing....but did turn down offers from the Army and Coast Guard to fly helicopters. So I do have some pilot's point of view here.
There is a place for this design technology, and that is its speed and transport capability, but don't get it mixed up in a contested and congested area. That is what's going to lead to leaders using this in the wrong way.
@@oculusangelicus8978 That is why I 'Like' The Black Widow,
Blackhawk looks like it might be Fun,
Except the Army has stated that it will not buy any more Osprey tilt rotor aircraft. Maybe this is why?
Army never bought any...
The very best of U.S Army❤
How is it going to replace attack helos?
Not one video of it sling loading an artillery piece
They did a test weight of it lifting 10k pounds which is more than the M777A2 weighs
Former air wing USMC looks nice but how practical. It not possible to replace so many craft with a dream. War is hell. 69 to 76 service with VMO2 & HML267
Are the wings hardened to give it the ability to carry hellfire missiles and other assorted weapons
안됨. 머리에 기관총은 좋은 생각이다.no. A machine gun to the head is a good idea.연막탄이 있어야 한다. 자폭 드론이 있어야 한다. must have a smoke grenade ... must have a self-destruct drone.
미국의 고고도 정찰기가 있다. 고고도 정찰기의 성능으로 미사일보다 값이 저렴하고 확실하게 타켓을 없애야 한다.There is an American high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. With the performance of high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft, it is cheaper than missiles and must eliminate targets reliably.
히트 앤 런 (야구) Hit and Run (Baseball)
대형 수송 헬기 ... 표적을 확인 사살(Kill Confirm)한다. 적의 대한 예우이다.It is a courtesy for the enemy.
"Ready For Action" if it survives the challenge to the contract award.
5:16 wait, so you are just outright lying now. The Blackhawk can carry 14 fully equipped combat troops, not 3. And the CH-53K can carry 38!
Jesus in the video you chose for this segment you can see a whole squad piling into the blackhawk.
Long live America🇺🇸 🌏🐘🦄🦅🦁🐯👌💐✌👈👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
This selection was mistake in my opinion. It’s footprint is to large for one! I don’t see it maneuvering thru skyscrapers in a city or forested areas like those in Europe. Also, what happens when one propeller malfunctions or gets shot with an RPG? And it doesn’t seem maneuverable to make sharp turns for evasive action. I think politics more played a role in its selection than anything else. Unfortunately, that doesn’t win battles!
I’m guessing the same thing that happens when a Blackhawk’s only rotor gets shot?
@@wooden2187 NO, A heliocopter when hit does counter rotate and has a soft landing.
Agree. To cumbersome.
They better have single rotor gunships and/or fixed wing CAS, do they ever learn? These are transports even if mounted with guns and missile pods.
@@pacificrider08 I’ll bet money a possibility of war with China influenced their decision. They’re wanting fast island hopping vehicles. So a small footprint LZ is a nonissue. But I still say the other competing helicopter would still have been a better choice.
These aircraft will have a substantial place in the military but they will never be able to fully replace a Blackhawk. I never understood the military' penchant for doing away with completely good and effective assets because they had another " newer " option. As long as a weapon system is viable and not obsolete to the point of useless it should be utilized. How are you going to land one of those behemoths in a small field under fire? They will need extra armor plating to cover all those exposed hydraulic systems and wires in the tilt rotor. Just saying.I'm sure they will be able to land in some areas close to the front but a Blackhawk will still be a spearhead to that end. My 2 cents.
That is a foolish way to go about weapons acquisitions and will get you left behind by rivals. You think and plan for possible fights and mission you would need in the near future and either upgrade current equipment to meet those needs or replace that equipment if they can't be upgraded for those needs.
Interesting but where are the weapons for it
They also claim it’s the same footprint as a Blackhawk but it’s as wide as the Blackhawk is long, making it miserable in trying to create LZs in forested areas
Yes but it is shorter than the Black Hawk is wide... so it has nearly the same footprint...
It only has a 19% larger footprint in total.
The wingspan is too wide. it seems to me the army will have to adjust a lot of spaces to store this aircraft. They need to work on a foldable wings system that would also be adequate for a aircraft carrier. It will be interesting to see it fit with all weapons. I would love to see an Apache chopper pilot's take on this.
Problem is the stability of these aircraft compared to a helicopter, in flight, take off and landing have a huge risk if anything goes wrong you lose the entire aircraft. With a helicopter, if the engine fails, it will slow descend to land safely.
On the contrary, the Valor has two engines connected by a rod. Its engines are strong enough that if one is disabled, the other can power both rotors to continue the mission, although now flying slower. Take out the engine of a traditional chopper....and you have Black Hawk Down.
@@howard6433 I would be shocked if they got this right. The rotors and control system need to stay operative. This I could believe. This is not using fixed rotors which allows it to work like a helicopter. That is a lot of power for one engine. That shaft would be carrying 3500HP. My guess is they are willing to accept the risk of crash in the case of engine failure. Which is why these could be coffins.
Helicopters lost Calvary roles a long time ago. Most of them are used for logistics today. Which why most of them are huge and slow. They had bigger ones more than likely. Kind of glad those are gone, if they ever existed. These butchers would just blow them up. They are trying to send them back to calvary like Vietnam. Rumors have it the Navy is interested in this. The Navy and Army will keep the existing fleet of helicopters in service.
The Marines are the ones with the big need for this given the Navy recent and unexplained failures. The fact that this being billed under the Army means they have plan for this which will be shift to the Army or Marines as they see fit. They are going to hammer this into reality. Remember to stay home as this is sham and their time will be short. Someone has an axe to grind.
Also it is an internet myth that Tilt rotors can't auto rotate or glide.
India & US joint To Collebration US Next Generation Tiltrotor Aircraft development Indian Navy Want 111 Tiltrotor Aircraft & Airforcce Wants 114 Tiltrotor Aircraft
A great aircraft. I wish the germany would make the same efforts to strenghten her army likr the usa
👍
Gearboxes look very vulnerable to small arms fire.
How in the hell can it replace the Apache helicopter?? It does not have the weapons.
It is a flight test prototype....
I can't see how the Valor beat out the Defiant X.
Faster, longer range, higher maneuverability, improved survivability, proven technology. I don't see how the Defiant had any chance of winning.
Doesn't sound as though it would survive in combat against either Russians or Ukrainians.
It will survive. It's a US military aircraft. And as we know, US military aircraft never go solo into combat. The Valor will be shielded by AWACS aircraft at all times. Nothing and no one will be able to sneak up on it.
In a real fight, there will be losses. Nobody pitches all shutouts.
それよりホバリング出来る空中観覧席を作って。
新しいゲーム作ってそれを見るのに必要なの。
Could you make an aerial bleachers (like a box seats) that can hover instead.
That need it for a new game.
I've often wondered why not tilt jet turbines vs giant propellers, admittedly possibly more down wash, but maybe more practical ❓️❓️ also thanks for U.S. measure & not just metric.
Jet engines are VERY inefficient in low altitudes and at low speeds and you need both for a helicopter role.
Nothing surprising here, standard speeds and range of all the old rotor planes and even more of a target 🎯
Correction - Rolls-Royce NOT GE will provide the engines for production V-280.
aren't they the same osprey that are falling?
The Osprey is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies.
The army needs to bring back the Comanche helicopter
To team : Thank you. Doctor's, I'm A+ blood types please. Relax Nurse's
Well, we'll find out in combat!
Can't the add more blades, reduce tip speed, and gain more airspeed?
I am sure they have tested multiple blade designs before settling on this design.
About or over 50 years of development
The V-280 will not replace the AH-64E......
Jet powered VTOL is the way to go not back in time using propellers
Jets are very inefficient at low speeds and low altitude and both are needed for helicopter like operations.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 different nations have different opinions
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo no my guy... this is physics with current jet engines.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 well the British didn’t have problems using the Pegasus during the Falklands
@@StewartWalker-hy1eo Are you talking about the harrier?
Beautiful machine only one problem our enemies have smart rocket launchers
I’m sure they have thought about that.
Isn't this a problem with all aircraft? And indeed all military vehicles? What is your point?
Few points. First, the Valor will not replace the Apache, I can see the Boeing version doing that if they choose to. You will be amazed how the second place offering does in the future (F-18?). Second, long range artillery is no joke so the further away you are from it the better. The valor will provide that with the range and keep in mind that yes it will be used to take soldiers to the battle but also take wounded out of it so the additional range is needed for all involved. Lastly, as much as I love the Blackhawk, it is a old platform and needs replacing, I think the Valor will fill the utility role of the Blackhawk.
Odd there was absolutely nothing about the Osprey.
6:04 😒😒😒
Dude, although uragan can be dangerous, but it's range is SUPER LOW.
bm-30 and it's versions has a MUCH BIGGER range, but it's still absolutely OUT OF RANGE of such long range helicopters (rocket with the biggest announced range is 160 kilometres or around 100 miles).
Also, I don't know, were they able to PRODUCE (not speaking about MASS PRODUCE) such long range ammo.
Of course, Chinese long range rockets can be MUCH BIGGER thread.
It might be twice as fast and go twice as far but way too big for going into tight spots like the 160th in getting Osambammaboomboom.
it can land in nearly any LZ the Black Hawk can unless it is limited on all 4 sides nearly touching the Blades which you wouldn't want to land there anyway.
Wow this can take 14 marines 940 miles. Guess what, the CH-53K can take 16 marines 1400 miles. but this looks cool so let's waste money on it.
And a C-130 can carry 90 marines 2400 miles. What's your point? Different vehicles for different mission profiles.
Huh blackhawk only can carry 3 battal loaded troop?
No they said the Valor can carry 3 more than the Black Hawk. IE Black Hawk carries 11 and Valor carries 14.
Indian Navy wants 111 US Tiltroter Aircraft & Indian Army wants 114Tiltroter Aircraft Can US Government Joint Partnership Developed This Tiltroter Aircraft
Well don't give away our secrets the "silly-meter" people don't need to know MPH conversions. Let them wonder about it...lol.
I WOULD OF LOVE TO SEE IT ARMED TO THE TEETH....PAYLOAD MODE ....
So it is nearly as bad as the black hawk only more expensive to buy and maintain...
? are you a fool? It has twice the speed, 3 times the range, carries 3 more troops, carries 1-3k more lbs, better time to altitude (climb rate), better deceleration time from cruise speed, and passed the same maneuverability tests the Black Hawk did.
Ok, what's the armament?
For the standard variant i believe plans are for door gunners just like the Black Hawk.
They have an attack variant mock up with a nose gun and internal weapons bays on the sides and bottom of the fuselage.
The thumbnail looks like a Russian hind helicopter modified to tilt rotors
Ready for action? Not so much. How about building the EMD?
How many fit on deck of a carrier? Can they land on small platform Heli-pads? What about vulnerability of such large target area wings and motors?
The osprey was the most cost over-run project in history at the time of it's finale release. This looks like cronyism to me and I don't see it taking the Apache's place in any way.
Sorry tilt wing fans, I just feel like we spent time and money on ' Osprey-2: The under performer.' Less payload, less man transport. Still no guns.
Man you need to do some research... 1. The Osprey has proven itself to be one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies. 2. this is a light utility aircraft not a medium lift aircraft like the Osprey so no shit it carries less... It also carries 3 more troops an 1-3k more pounds than the Black Hawk it is replacing. 3. They have mock ups of where the guns will go and has yet to be armed as this is a flight prototype to get the contract in the first place before a final version is made. 4. Traditional helicopters are way more vulnerable. 5. It only has a 19% larger footprint in total compared to the Black Hawk and will fit in nearly all LZs the Black Hawk could fit on.
This would never mach the maneuverability of the Apache assault chopper.
It has passed the same Level 1 handling the Black Hawk passed.
Itsn't that the we-crash-a-lot Osprey? Yeah they crashed a few out by Marana out of Davis-Monthan
The Osprey is one of the safest aircraft the Navy flies. It crashes less than the CH-53, CH-47, CH-46, C-130, and UH-60.
The Bell V280 will not/cannot replace the AH64 attack helicopter. It also will require larger landing and storage area on land and on an LPH. IMO the Sikorsky was better configured. This vlog omitted its flight speed and cargo weight rating unlike the V280. BELL got the contract for its legacy builds since Korea. The V280 is just too big! The ARMY would buy a tilt-rotor C-130 or C-19 too.
Picture is just clickbaid, Thumb down
Glad to see the Osprey is going to be replaced by the Valor. What an advancement.
One beef though, your thumbnail on this video is a futuristic concept picture.
Why the click bait?
Looks like a big fat moving bullseye😮
I think the United States Army could have saved itself a lot of money if they just went with the V-22 Osprey but call it the v23 Super Blackhawk or they could have called it the V-22 or the a22 for Army they could have called it the a22 or V-22 Blackhawk II or Super Blackhawk and then the Army would have the ability to move 24 troops and they can run right out the back as soon as it lands exit very quickly faster than coming out the side or they could fast rope out the back or they could parachute out the back I understand that the V-22 Osprey has a few interesting cases but don't tell me that the Marines and the Navy have not fixed some of the shortcomings of the past 5 or 10 years and how much money you would save the taxpayer if you just said we like the Osprey we want the most recent version for the Army because the Army needs to go to move 24 people also at a time Angry Birds saved billions of dollars developing a new aircraft is expensive as hell
Defiant for me still I'm not with the tilt rotor tech, too much monkey motion 🤣
The Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric...
Wings are way too wide lop
While I can see a place for this bird in the US Military, it has too large a footprint for all applications. Replacing the blackhawk without some other similar design to the blackhawk, WILL be a huge mistake. This thing has too wide a wingspan, especially for tight woodland insertions or locations requiring slimmer smaller footprint stuff. BTW, the other huge mistake. This bird is NOT able to be used by the US Navy or US Marine corp. It is not capable of folding up for storage in hangars like the blackhawk/seahawk series are for frigates, destroyers, cruiser use and ASW. And replacing the AH-64 Apache with this thing? What the hell? This thing is not an attack bird, no matter how many guns or missiles you hang on it.
"This thing has too wide a wingspan, especially for tight woodland insertions or locations requiring slimmer smaller footprint stuff."
- it can land in nearly any LZ the Black Hawk can unless it is limited on all 4 sides nearly touching the Blades which you wouldn't want to land there anyway.
"This bird is NOT able to be used by the US Navy or US Marine corp."
-It is being purchased by the army... also there are navy variant mock ups with fold-able wings.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I know that.. it is still too wide for use in many locations for insertion.. Having BEEN there and done that most of my life, I am well aware of this stuff. The Navy and Marine Corp versions will be able to fold for storage. HOWEVER, it is still too big for small area insertion which is why the Navy and Marines have other helos for use in those situation.
Additionally, you neglected to mention the other points I said.. ie no way this thing can replace the AH-64, the AH1-Z Cobra, the Sea King or King Stallions, and other birds similar. While it will have its use, the idea this thing, just like Osprey, could be replacing the Blackhawk entirely, is a HUGE mistake. I have been inserted into places a Blackhawk barely fit.. and you think this thing will? NOT a chance in hell.
@@Malakie "The Navy and Marine Corp versions will be able to fold for storage."
- there is yet to be a version for either of them but they have a computer mock up of one that does.
"HOWEVER, it is still too big for small area insertion which is why the Navy and Marines have other helos for use in those situation."
- you can say the same about the Black Hawk... why bring up smaller helicopters it isn't meant to replace.
"Additionally, you neglected to mention the other points I said.. ie no way this thing can replace the AH-64, the AH1-Z Cobra, the Sea King or King Stallions, and other birds similar."
- because that point is moot... it isn't meant to replace any of those for now. also no s*** a light utility aircraft won't be able to replace a heavy lift helicopter like the CH-53.
"I have been inserted into places a Blackhawk barely fit.. and you think this thing will? NOT a chance in hell."
- because you are only focusing on its width.
Valor Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
Black Hawk Width: 53 ft 8 in (16.36 m)
Valor Length: 50.5 ft (15.4 m)
Black Hawk Length: 64 ft 10 in (19.76 m)
So compare its Width to the Black Hawks Length and vise versa. It can land in nearly every LZ a Black Hawk can. It will also have larger doors which will likely mean more fast ropes making it able to deploy more troops even faster than the Black Hawk.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 No way.. It's wingspan is not the only issue, it is the rotor span too. But whatever... You can argue all you want. That bird is too big.
@@Malakie The Width includes the rotors...
Good luck replacing Apache's with these. Not even close to the close-in maneuverability of the Apache.
It has passed the same Level 1 handling the Black Hawk passed.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Blackhawk is not a very maneuverable heli as compared to the Apache.
@@michaelladigo2395 Yes this is the Black Hawk replacement not the Apache replacement. The video gets that wrong as early into the program there were plans for the selected aircraft to do both. They have an attack version mock up but it is not confirmed to be ordered like the utility version is. Also the Level 1 handling tests are a bare minimum as more testing will be done.
What about cost, reliability, maintenance, downtime, teething problems, armament, noise????
Not replacing the blackhawk thats for sure,I'm guessing that what the other
one is for.
America's not going to be able to waste all this money on stuff that looks cool but is actually worse performing than standard technology. Like when the Military decided to buy 800 Ospreys instead of the much more capable and much less dangerous CH-53K King Stallion, like future combat soldier, like designing the F-35 around the needs of the marines, like littoral combat ship, zumwalt, etc etc etc. I could go on for hours. We need cheaper things and more of them. We need tens of thousands of cheap cruise missiles, not a dozen that cost $500 million. The American military procurement program is only tangentially related to nation defense. That's why they make our stuff look like space ships. You can sell dumb congressmen on it.
"Like when the Military decided to buy 800 Ospreys instead of the much more capable and much less dangerous CH-53K King Stallion"
- Yes the CH-53 is more capable when it comes to lifting cargo as it is a heavy lifting platform but it can also travel 1/4 the distance at 100kt slower speed. Also no the Osprey is safer as the stats show.
"We need cheaper things and more of them"
- that would mean less performance and more lives lost.
"The V280 cannot! CANNOT take advantage of the fuel efficiency of a fixed wing aircraft. That's a lie. When you must produce enough thrust to safely hover hundreds of feet in the air you lose that advantage. That's physics"
-... man you need to take physics again it seems. Those wing do generate enough lift past a certain speed.
"When you must produce enough thrust to safely hover hundreds of feet in the air you lose that advantage. That's physics. You can't have your cake and eat it too"
- no when the rotors are forwards they are not expending any energy on lift... unlike a traditional helicopter.
"being faster than a regular helicopter, is incredibly stupid. Pointless in a war."
- and your understanding of war also sucks... speed and mobility are king on a modern battlefield. Longer range helicopters means you can have those helicopters stationed further away reducing the risk of drone and missile attacks. Faster speed means you give the enemy less time to position and prepare for you.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 ch53 can travel 800 miles with troops without refueling but it can refuel. The only advantage of osprey is speed which means nothing
@@posmoo9790 My guy where are you getting those numbers? Also range of the Osprey is 2500 miles if you are talking about total range... also total range is not combat range. So even if your numbers were right (they aren't) the Osprey still has 3 times the range. Also speed and range are king on a modern battlefield.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 ok you're right I had forgotten what teh numbers actually are. the osprey can take 24 marine 2200nm unrefuelled. and a CH-53 can take 38 marines 1200nm unrefuelled. But both can refuel in the air. So whats the point? What'st he point when the CH-53 can land in more places, carry more gear, it can fly lower, it could be the ultimate ASW asset. why are we getting with the osprey but a cool looking thing (which is why they bought it) that is ultimately much less capable. will the marines ever be in a fight where they keep their assault ship more than 1200nm away from the target? because if they do they'll get very very little air support.
@@posmoo9790 Again still wrong... "1200nm" where are you getting this number? Also neither can carry a full load of troops at their max range. They use combat radius for that which for the CH-53K is 130 miles (110 nmi) and 450 miles (390 nmi) for the Osprey.
"What'st he point when the CH-53 can land in more places,"
- Why do you say that?
"carry more gear"
- heavy lift platform compared to a medium lift platform... no shit
"it can fly lower,"
-Why do you say that?
I don't understand the thinking of this bonehead decision from the Army
This design looks unstable.
Leave it to the experts lol
Tilt rotor is a disaster waiting to happen. Pretend all you want they are junk. Lose one engine and die.
So your lack of basic understanding of Tilt rotors makes you think that... both engines turn both rotors at all times.
This is nightmare of. The U S Army is on the way of loosing large number of troops on this aircraft. The battle in Ukraine has shown what middles can do to helicopters in modern combat. A sad time is ahead for the US MILITARY.
Russia doesn't know how to properly use their air assets the US does.
The V-280 as an ATTACK HELICOPTER replacement? Doubtful. It prevents too large a target. Those two huge rotors/props are great targets in themselves. The Sikorsky Raider X type is much better suited for that role. Besides, "spread the love" to more companies.
Boeing and Sikorsky's attack helicopters have no real role anymore. They best they can do is recon Calvary. These are likely to move to drones. This is a 90s concept.
I don't understand 12 vs 24 combat ready troops. Is it because the Chinook is used for bigger troop size in the Army? Ah....GO NAVY beat Army!!!
And this is a mistake the competitor should have won.
The Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric so you want the worse platform to win...
The V280 cannot! CANNOT take advantage of the fuel efficiency of a fixed wing aircraft. That's a lie. When you must produce enough thrust to safely hover hundreds of feet in the air you lose that advantage. That's physics. You can't have your cake and eat it too. And the cake they want here, being faster than a regular helicopter, is incredibly stupid. Pointless in a war. Worse.
Marketing style, talk tooo much.. lets prove in ukraine.... we want to see the real things. okay..??😂😅
ready to be crashed in training by it's LGBT/BIPOC pilot
sorry but... what a mess.
why?
Bad move… American military
Why?
very bad model and design
the enemy can just shoot off any of the engines
you can't miss them