Comments by "Tara Raboomdiay" (@tararaboomdiay7442) on "Defense News" channel.

  1. $43 million in 2018 dollars.
    1
  2. Actually, Valor's fuselage is narrower than Defiant, because Defiant can't use all its internal volume for payload as efficiently. The mast and transmission take a large amount of internal space. Overall, Valor is wider than Defiant, but shorter.
    1
  3.  @bartlettdieball2678  As with everything there are tradeoffs. There's no way anyone can pretend V-280 is not wider than SB>1 or Black Hawk, just like there's no way anyone can pretend SB>1isn't taller-than Black Hawk. The choice for the decision makers is which advantages are worth accepting which penalties. One of the reasons the V-280's width over the rotors is close to V-22's is not because its rotors are so big, it's because V-22's are so small. The optimum rotor diameter for V-22 would have been larger, five feet I believe. However when V-22 was designed, USMC wanted it to operate from all spotson smaller amphibs than we use today. Optimally sized rotors would not meet the safety clearance distance when operating from the two spots abeam the island. That's one of the reasons the downwash is as high as it is. The next step is a virtual prototype like you say, bu tit will be followed by real, physical prototypes. This would have happened if SB>! had proved superior. FLRAA, not just Valor, could go the way of the Comanche if someone in an Administration or Congress, decides they want to make some cuts in the US discretionary budget to look good. Remember we won't see FLRAA IOC until after two more Presidential and three to four House elections which makes it vulnerable to the fact that a lot of people in gov't prefer things they can point to for their next election campaign.
    1
  4. The two aircraft were intended for the exact same purpose, FLRAA. Even if Defiant and Valor were to achieve all their promises (and Valor looks more likely to be able to do that based on the demonstrations so far), their performance is not different enough overall to justify developing and operating both even if the Army could afford it, which it can't.
    1
  5. Half the budget wouldn't have be enough to develop either of them,
    1
  6. The V-280 has never crashed
    1
  7. Boeing proposed burying twin engines in the fuselage for the competition for the XV-15, which they lost.
    1
  8. The same way they avoid shooting off the rotors in any conventional helicopter: you limit the travel of the door guns.
    1
  9.  @dianapennepacker6854  You don't have to have the proprotors all the way up to use weapons under the wings, just far enough up so that the weapons would clear, and the aircraft would still be able to move at a good clip. If an attack version was developed, you'd also have the option for internal carriage, which wold eliminate the need for any proprotor position restriction. Regarding door guns, there's always a restriction on any rotorcraft, because you don't want the door gunners to shoot up their own rotor (this has happened!).
    1
  10. I suggest you look at the V-22's actual flight and combat history (none has ever been shot down). V-280 is by design a smaller aircraft and couldn't reparable V-22 even if anyone wanted to. Regarding 30 knot speed difference, Defiant touched2 47 knots on one flight.Valor demonstrated cruise at 305 knots. BTW, Lockheed would make more money if Defiant won, because they own Sikorsky. On Valor, they're just a subcontractor tasked with integrating the avionics.
    1
  11.  @deanfowlkes  OK, fly one of those carrying 14 troops in and out of a 200 ft LZ with 50 foot trees at either end.
    1
  12.  @deanfowlkes  True, but Defiant and Valor are not intended to fit every mission. They're intended to fit the missions Black Hawk (and before that Huey) has been doing for the past few decades in the future. if you always can count on sufficient runway (don't forget to factor in wind) with adequate approach/departure lanes where you need it when you need it, Valor, Defiant, even Black Hawk or any VTOL can't be justified. The thing is, is that a realistic thing to count on?
    1
  13.  @deanfowlkes  They are not intended to fit the mission Profile of the Black Hawk, they are intended to take over the Missions of the Black Hawk. What Army is saying is that the missions presently being done by UH-60 [MH-60s are a special case and even there these vehicles will do that better]. will require a different profile in the future. They will routinely require longer range for regular operations Without AAR becasue we aren't going to have as many vehicles or places from which to operate. Additionally, Army can't count on enough tanker support for routine large scale operations. When you put ESSS on a 'Hawk plus add fuel tanks to get range , you're adding weight. The place that comes out of is payload. What Army wants is greater operational range while carrying the full normal payload. Army has not asked for AAR capability for FLRAA. We are going to need more speed for a variety of reasons including not being able to locate them as clsoe to the objective as we can presently. They are going to have to operate in more hot and high locations. They are going to need greater agility. FLRAA will not be magic. There are always tradeoffs. Hangaring for one. Both designs were require to fit in the operational footprint of the UH-60 and Army says that requirement was met. Not sure what you mean by transport space. Regarding "...limited combat roles in impermissible environments...", doesn't every aircraft have that situation? Thing is, these vehicles should be able to operate in combat environments that would preclude some UH-60 operations.
    1
  14.  @deanfowlkes  Thank you for your kind words. In actuality, when ocean shipping is not available or not timely enough, ferrying these birds across continents and oceans (note necessarily non-stop) is exactly what the Army intends to do. That's why Army specified such a large minimum unrefueled ferry range, which I'm sure could be extended by installing temporary fuel tanks in the cabin, but AFAIK, that ferry range Army specified is on internal fuel only. Remember, there is no requirement for the FLRAA to be air transportable; they intend to fly them there when the need arises. Now before anyone says this wouldn't be practical across the North Atlantic, take a look at how we moved a lot of fighters to England on WWII without the reliable engines and avionics we have today. .
    1
  15.  @orbiradio2465  Defiant team has not publicly addressed this.
    1
  16.  @orbiradio2465  It's too high.
    1
  17. Raider-X (and Bell 360) are designed for a mission that the USMC doesn't have. Defiant isn't fast enough for what the Marines want in their H-1 replacement, and USMC doesn't have the kind of budget to bring Defiant into service on their own even if they wanted to.
    1
  18.  @piloto_loco  Army didn't define FLRAA as a helicopter, they defined the concept as to what the aircraft would be required to do, and let the contractors design an aircraft to do it.
    1
  19. But it's shorter. Land at 90° to the street, although I wouldn't want to land either of these in a place where the opposition could shoot down at you from building.s.
    1
  20.  @1968gadgetyo  That's the FARA program, and it is a smaller rotorcraft. Bell is proposing a n advanced conventional helicopter called Invictus. Both Bell and Sikorsky carry their missiles internally for drag reasons.
    1
  21.  @ameritoast5174  Using Apache's as scouts was the Army's fourth attempt to replace the OH-58 (Comanche was the first), didn't work out as well as they hoped. The FARA program is the fifth attempt. Defiant-X and Valor are too big for what Army wants for this role.
    1
  22.  @andrewanderson3472  If you're talking about an engine going out, noting, except for lowered necromancer. If you're taking about a proprotor actually being physically destroyed, unless they can glide on the wing, pretty much the same as any c'opter with a rotor blown off
    1
  23.  @markbrockman9859  No requirement for FLRAA to fit into a C-17 without disassembly. You either ship them transoceanic distances or fly them, with intermediate stops as necessary. That's Army's announced plan and why they wanted such a great ferry range
    1
  24. Actually according to Army both aircraft fit in the required footprint
    1
  25. We already have the Black Hawk, but then we already had the Huey. The environment and our resources around the world have changed and in the future the technology of this 50 year old design isn't going to be able to keep up.
    1
  26. Sikorsky itself has said they don't see a civil role for X2 technology.
    1
  27.  @FLORATOSOTHON  What happens if the rotor is blown off on a conventional helicopter such as Chinook or evenUH-60?
    1
  28.  @FLORATOSOTHON  Actually the counter-rotating blades hit each other in the S-97 Raider crash.
    1
  29. I don't think they even made 100 hours on Defiant. Even if they had, that's less than half the number of hours they flew Valor before they grounded it since they had nothing left to test or demonstrate.
    1
  30.  @FLORATOSOTHON  You are correct, the blade intermeshing isn't what caused the crash, it was the software issue. which illustrates that X2 control technology is really complex as NTSB noted in their 2019 report on the accident. My point was that in the severe rolls, the blades did intermesh, something Sikorsky didn't believe would happen. The say they have since modified the software to prevent a occurrence.
    1
  31.  @FLORATOSOTHON  Even if you want to include Raider's hours , Valor flew more hours that both of them. In fact, IIRC, Valor flew more hours that all X2s ever built combined. Of course, if you count Raider hours as experience you've also got to count the XV-15, which 40 years ago flew more hours than Raider and Defiant combined. And there are the hundreds of thousands of V-22 hours...
    1
  32.  @michaelreedx6823  No it won't any more than an H-60 or CH-47 drops like a stone if it loses an engine. Both rotors keep turning, but performance takes a significant hit.
    1
  33. Bell is doing quite well in the civila market and is developing new aircraft so they would survive without FLRAA. Sikorsky's Limited presence in the civil market is limited to derivatives of the H-60 (which the S-92 is, BTW).
    1
  34.  @vitordelima  The V-22 had some developmental problems, but in service its record has been good. It's better than the F/A-18. In the case of the Leonardo accident, it was being deliberately flown outside its normal operating envelope for testing, and the flight software did not react as they thought it would (a problem with newer fly-by-computer aircraft that is not unique to the AW609. The first YF-22 was lost for that reason, as was one of the two S-97s). As far as X2s go (Defiant is a coax much more advanced and complex than regular ones), things aren't that . One of the two S-97s was lost due to a software error . The Army's original schedule for the demonstrations was 1st flight in 2017, a year of flying and testing in 2018, review and analysis of those tests by the Army during 2019 and a decision one which concept to go forward with for prototyping and eventual production by 2020. The Valor did in 2017 and met or exceeded all claims in 2018. They couldn't even get Defiant into the air until 2019, and it was grounded not that long afterwards for some redesign before resuming flight tests. its progress since then was much slower than Valor's
    1
  35.  @vitordelima  There haven't really been similar helicopters (except V-22/V-280). There has never been a helicopter like Defiant/S-97, it's not just a conventional coaxial even though the rotors are stacked on top of each other. .
    1
  36.  @vitordelima  Russian coaxials do not have the advanced technology used by X2s. I don't think "bipolar" is a good term for Tilt-Rotors. The "proprotors" do the same thing in whatever mode they're in, provide thrust. The trick is where the thrust is directed.
    1
  37.  @Defender78  That came from an Italian Army official who had been fed disinformation abut Tilt-Rotors, no doubt from organization(s) who have different technologies they're pushing. More recently, at an European rotorcraft conference, Italian Army officials expressed a need for a rotorcraft with a 250 knot cruise speed and specifically were looking at Tilt-Rotor. Italian Air Force officials concurred with a need for such a vehicle for personnel recovery and Search And Rescue
    1
  38.  @danielwhyatt3278  Army wanted first flight in 2017. Valor did that, Defiant was 15 months late, and then had to be grounded soon after that for more work. Army wanted demonstration of top sustained speed. Valor exceeded its promised sustained speed by 9% Defiant came close but never actually dashed to its promised top speed. Army pilots flew Valor 2 months after first flight. That didn't happen for 2 1/2 years with Defiant. When a goal was announced that Valor was to demonstrate it did it when promised. When that was done for Defiant, it missed them a number of times with no explanation. Valor demonstrated high maneuverability in the hover, Defiant demonstrated in forward flight, which is easier. Valor flew 214 hours, Defaint flew 63.9.. Bell showed how if a maritime variant was desired, they would fold up to fit in destroyer hangars. Sikorsky never did. Etc. Valor just inspired more confidence it could achieve its production version goals. X2 is a fascinating concept it's just that right now it seems it's not ready for prime time. Let's hope they do better for FARA, whose performance requirements, and more importantly size, seem better sited to its strengths. Note that Bell is Not proposing a Tilt-Rotor for a number of reasons.
    1
  39.  @gavynhohon2818  Sorry, no. The Navy program, FVL-MS is still in the early stages, Navy is watching to see what happens with Army's program to see if they can leverage off that . After the Navy's order for V-22s for the COD role is finished, the planned production run will be complete. Barring further orders, either above the planned total or more exports, the line will shut down as planned in the next couple of years.
    1
  40. You have to make sure the Rotors don't impact the fuselage when forward.
    1
  41. I don't know if Defiant actually demonstrated rapid decel in level attitude all the way to hover. V-280 demonstrated slowing from 220 knots to hover in 45 seconds. On rapid decel nose om;y lifts ~ 5­°, with rotors aft of vertical.
    1
  42.  @chuckcawthon3370  Then you fly it there, which is faster than trying to get aboard airlifters on sudden notice that might not even be available.
    1
  43.  @irvhh143  I note that Chinook engines are not connected to the rotors, especially in the case of the forward one. In fact in CH-47, if the shaft breaks you lose the aircraft. In Valor, if the crossshaft breaks, nothing happens unless you then lose an engine; in which case you glide. It's interesting that almost everyone thinks the Valor proprotor/engine interface is better than previous generations. it wasn't done before because of the lower metallurgy and manufacturing technology of the past. Tilting just the proprotors back the actually turned out to be heavier than tilting both the proprotor and engine.
    1
  44. No, the Pentagon is stopping production of the Osprey because all the ones they have ordered have been built.
    1
  45. There was no requirement in the specification for the winning aircraft to be air transportable without extensive disassembly; if you're willing to take something apart you can fit a lot of anything inside a C-5/17. The requirement was that if the situation is too urgent to send them by ship (which is how we send 90% of everything), then they had to be able to just fly there.
    1
  46. Although flyoffs are great, they're expensive. What this was was each competitor demonstrating their technology and how well it worked and how likely a production aircraft could meet its promises. . Army then decided which technology to go with.
    1
  47. Uh, the wing on the V-22 doesn't rotate, never has. The requirement is "operational footprint", not just be the size of the Black Hawk (which the Defiant isn't either). Army actually lowered the speed requirement to allow for other technologies than Tilt-Rotor. Even so, Defiant never demonstrated its promised speed while Valor exceeded its by 25 knots. The V-280 is no more a reduced sized V-22 than an F-35 is a reduced sized F-15.
    1
  48. They've only built one V-280 and it flew consistently for 3 1/2 years until the demonstration program was complete. Maiden flight crash??? Huh???
    1
  49. How do you know that?
    1
  50.  @carmelonold1090  You're the one making the claim about expensive and agile. Where in the demonstration did we see this?
    1