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

  1.  @carmelonold1090  Since we wrote these, the results of the protest have been published. Among other things, the Gov't said Sikorsky-Boeing did not provide enough data to be able to trust that their price was realistic.
    1
  2.  @yolo_burrito  Than what?
    1
  3.  @yolo_burrito  The S-97 was a smaller aircraft and couldn't lift anywhere near what the V-280 (or the Black Hawk, for that matter) can.
    1
  4. Defaint won't fit in DDG hangars due to height and wide fuselage. Valor cpu fold up to fit in smaller space than H-60.
    1
  5. But only one team gets to advance.
    1
  6.  @brianmoore1164  It's not a matter of patience, this whole thing is going to take years. It's a matter of they can only afford one, and it would be silly to build both even if they could afford it, and one of the two was more successful in its demonstrations.
    1
  7.  @brianmoore1164  It's not that we won't have any Lockheed helicopters. H-60s and H-53s are going to be around for a while, and if X2 starts fully living up to its potential, they may get FARA. I'm just saying that for FLRAA, the choice has been made and given how the two concepts performed in the demonstration, I don't see how having patience will change that.
    1
  8.  @brianmoore1164  My point is that at this juncture Defaint is pretty much out of the picture. Army's got only enough money to take one into service, and their choice is Valor; IMHO the right choice. Even if they had the money [and it's not at all certain that they'll have the money to even bring Valor into service, this year's DoD budget request isn't even enough to cover inflation], it would be a waste of money to spend what it would take to develop, set up separate production lines, maintenance, training and logistics for both. Not to mention that with less mumbers bought of each would raise the price for both.
    1
  9.  @theofficialmbc  No reason to. That will be years from now, and the Sikorsky didn't do as well in the tests so far and no work would have been done on it since.
    1
  10. Russia needed compact helicopters in the past for their smaller landing decks on thiee destroyers. Coakixial does that and also does away with the need for a tail rotor. US didn't need that. Otherwise there's no big advantage. Kaman built the HH-43 Huskie, with intermeshing, not coaxial, rotors which was used for firefighting and rescue at airbases and was pressed into short range rescue during the Vietnam War, but was phased out by the early 1970s. Kaman later built the K-Max, optimized for external cargo lifts, but it newer sold well, and production was terminated. Basically, there hasn't been much interest because coaxials didn't offer enough advantage to justify the extra complexity. X2 is a very advanced type of coaxial which Sikorsky hopes will provide speed and range advantages over conventional helicopters.
    1
  11.  @CaddyJim  Sikorsky built a craft decades ago called the S-69/XH-59A. It was an older version of what would become X2 technology It flew a bit earlier the XV-15 Tilt-Rotor. After initial testing, they hung two J60 turbojets on it to boost speed, but even with them it was slower than the XV-15, V-22, AW609 or Valor. And it had a Lot of vibration and even without the jets burned a lot of fuel. . At the completion of its test program it was proposed to modify it into a XH-59B configuration in partnership with Sikorsky.that would have more powerful internal engines, new rotors and a ducted pusher propeller hoping for greater speeds and efficiency. Nothing came of this because Sikorsky was unwilling to share expenses. The only other coaxial I can think of (the HH-43 Huskie was not a coaxial) was the QH-50 ASW drone which was not terribly successful. It was built as a coaxial for the same reason the Soviets did: it permitted operations from smaller helidecks.
    1
  12. The longer you are on the wing, the less energy you use relative to a helicopter. One important note: Based on experience of the last 30 or so years, Army put in a very strong hot and high HOGE requirement for FLRAA. As a result both Defaint and Valor carry a lot more power than they would need if they were only held to the much lower standard of Black Hawk. That means higher fuel consumption than they would have if held to the old standard. T
    1
  13. Depends on what's hit just like any aircraft.
    1
  14.  @amramjose  depends on the Tilt-Rotor.
    1
  15.  @iamcyrushawkins  But it can glide, better than a helo.
    1
  16.  @robertjones1729  Sorry, don't understand your question. If it's doing 250+ plus knots it's going to stay in fixed wing mode at best glide speed until it's time to land and then determine what's best. If it's at 60 knots it's going to be in and stay in rotor mode.
    1
  17.  @bitrage.  15 crashes isn't bad, given how long it's been in servie. The actual number of fatalities is 61, but remember A V-22 can fly with up to 28 people aboard, so a single crash can unfortunately kill a lot.
    1
  18.  @bitrage.  No loss of life is "good". My point is simply compare it with other aircraft with similar age and flying hours.
    1
  19. Different missions. Raider can't come close tp meting the requirements Valor and Defaint were designed for.
    1
  20. ...If they're willing to pay the cost, and most aren't.
    1
  21. Actually, it was crazy behind.
    1
  22. Remember, V-280 far outeprformed Defiant in the tests.
    1
  23. It's too big and isn't designed to hover, "hot and high" like the V-280 is.
    1
  24.  @zarthemad8386  Simply not true
    1
  25.  @kennethfharkin  But it still isn't as efficient as a real wing.
    1
  26. It turns ou that because of the layout of the twin proprotors and the wing Tilt-Rotors are less susceptible to crosswinds than single rotor helicopter.
    1
  27. Internally or against the sides. They also can be carried under the wings as log as they are prevented from firing until the proprotors are raised enough. BTW, the role of dropping bombs was given to the Air Force. Army is not allowed have an aircraft that drops bombs.
    1
  28. Black Hawk is superb, but it is a 50 year old design and wasn't built for upcoming environments. Look at it this way...this same argument could by used by those who wanted to use the Huey forever.
    1
  29. One of he big advantages both craft have over Black Hawk is that the Army now has a ;hot and high" requirement. Basically, requires that the FLRAA aircraft must be able to hover out of ground effect at mission weight @ 6000 feet on a 95° day. Black Hawk, great aircraft that it is, can't come c;lose to that. So, either craft, if it meets its specs, will do better in the desert.
    1
  30. And they lost big time
    1
  31.  @edcox1630  Yes it can, but at a lesser weight. This is true of all helos.
    1
  32. One of the Army's requirements is that FLRAA has to fit int the "footprint" of the UH-60 and Army says they both do that. I wish they'd define "footprint" bitter. One of the other requirements is that in a specified LZ, you have to get as many FLRAAs in as Black Hawks maintaining specified separation. Army seems to feel they can both do that.
    1
  33.  @givemethedaily1052  Bad guys are going to shoot at the fuselage more than they'll shoot at the smaller nacelle. There's also another question to consider. Everyone assumes Defiant-X will autorotate better, but has Sikorsky ever even mentioned autorotation? Seems if they thought that would be a big advantage in their favor, yet they are conspicuously silent on this.
    1
  34. Cost Guard doesn't have the money to take Defaint all the way from a technology demonstrator (not even a prototype) to production, and the relatively small quantity they need would make the unit price astronomical. Coast Guard tends to buy 'copters developed for someone else and then modify them to their needs.
    1
  35. Understood. The SPU is basically a full time APU. However, because of the way the system works, Army considers 3the 360 as meeting their requirement that the aircraft be single engine. I imagine because the 360 can't be powered alone by the PW207D1
    1
  36.  @Defender78  What happens if an explosive round hits the hub of any helicopter? Also Valor can land with proprotors forward. It is designed so that the blades break off and are thrown clear of the fuselage,.
    1
  37. Sikorsky and Boeing designed Defiant before Lockheed ate Sikorsky, and Valor is a pure Bell design. Lockheed was brought on board as a subcontractor to handle avionics integration.
    1
  38.  @mshepard2264  Exactly. BTW, how many troops can a B-1 carry?
    1
  39.  @scottstewart5784  And that is exactly what happened, ironically when Coast Guard awarded the contract years ago to the Dauphin (which became the HH-65) instead of to the Bell 222. No one had the nerve to tell the execs that the French had a better 'copter, so they protested got the Coast Guard to tell them! Once you protest, the Gov't is free to disclose the relative performance of the bidders.
    1
  40.  @stephenwilkens3101  All helos are somewhat predictable in the final landing phase. But Tilt-Rotor does not impose any manuring restrictions during transition, either way.
    1
  41.  @stephenwilkens3101  Thing is, Defiant advocates keep promising things while Valor actually does them. For example, Defiant promised breathtaking deceleration, but I don't know if it actually flew the promised profile. Valor's demonstrator, which does not have as high a performance as the production version will, has flew decelerations from 220 knots to a hover in 45 seconds. It has met or exceeded every Army specified agility requirement. It isn't going to be the absolute best at absolutely everything (I don't know if this demonstrator did the maneuver you're talking about). For example. if Defiant-X would had me its promises, although Valor met Army's requirement for testing, Defiant-X would have done hot and high HOGE better than Valor. Everything in aircraft design is a tradeoff.
    1
  42. The key is whether Defaint can do what it promises in the real world. I admit I haven't seem everything, but I haven't seen where Defaint actually flew that super fast level flight decel to a hover/landing. That decel number I gave for Valor came from a real flight. The key is that if they both fulfill their promises, each will have advantages /disadvantages over the other. Thing is, based on the demonstrations, Valor looks a lot more likely that it'll get to what the Army wants, and that risk factor probably paid a big role in-the decision.
    1
  43. Range is much greater than Black Hawk.
    1
  44.  @bartlettdieball2678  The Defiant can't just "drop the top rotor". As you can see, the rotors are already very close together. More importantly, the mast and transmission on Defiant or any X2 are massive. Unlike a conventional helicopter (such as Black Hawk) or Tilt-Rotor, the fuselage below the mast and aft is unusable because of the space required for them. Look at Defiant. The entire troop compartment is forward of the mast., unlike Black Hawk or Valor. Where are you going to "drop" that mast to? Now, if you are willing to accept major disassembly/assembly as part of the procedure, you probably could shoehorn one in, although given Defiant's wider fuselage I'm not sure. But that means you'd have to allow major disassembly/assembly for Valor as well. However, the whole point of the Army's specifications is that they don't want to go through that exercise, which is why there is no requirement for FLRAA to be air transportable in normal operations.
    1
  45.  @johnadams8445  All Tilt-Rotorsan autorotate, the question is how well. In the case of the V-22 it does it poorly, for two reasons. First, ther rotors are smaller than they should be becasue they were artificially limited for required separation between them and the island when using the amidship spots on the smaller amphbis of the time. Second, the gov't failed to deliver the promised advanced engine, so the V-22 uses an engine that is heavier and requires more fuel (which adds weight) than was planned for. Even so, it glides much farther can a helicopter can go if it loses its engines. V-280 does not have these issues Loss of one engine costs performance on a Tilt-Rotorbut does not in and of itself require an emergency landing.
    1
  46.  @givemethedaily1052  Bell has already shown how they'd do it. It would actually fold up smaller than an H-60 does. Army doesn't have requirement to do that, and Navy hasn't bought any [yet]
    1
  47.  @TonkaFire2019  Osprey also will fly on one engine. when one engine goes out, a crosshaft transfers power from eh other side.
    1
  48.  @verdebusterAP  The concept of a "stealth" helicopter in routine service isn't practical. As far as teh 160th goes, they don't have the kind of money it would take to bring Defaint into service, which would require more work than what it'll take with Valor of the regular Army isn't footing the bill, and they'd end up with a craft of lower
    1
  49.  @verdebusterAP  While the 160th's budget is somewhat sectioned off, it simply isn't even remotely big enough to cover what it would cost to bring Defaint to an operational state on its own, let alone the cost of producing it and maintaining and supporting the few airframes they'd require. iAll this to get an aircraft that's main advantage is that its with rotors turning isn't as wide and May decelerate quicker but is slower and with less range? ? it's just not in the realm of feasibility. Don't forget 160th doesn't develop its own aircraft, but modifies or just borrows aircraft that have already been developed under someone else's regular program..
    1
  50.  @verdebusterAP  the 160th is much beloved, but they do not have a blank check. It's inconceivable that they'd be given the hundreds of millions, more likely billions, of $$ necessary to do all the EMD and testing to bring Defiant-X to operational status, set up entirely different logistics, maintenance, support, training and crewing necessary. Just to get a slower aircraft that can land lengthways in a street? And if you're only building six to 12, these hand built jewels are going to cost not just $7 million more apiece, they're each going to cost hundreds of millions of $ more. There was the famous semi-stealth version of the H-60 built that was used in the Bin Laden raid, but even though it was a modification of the H-60 design, reportedly it cost so much that the program was cut in half and less than a dozen were built. That's the key. They'll do what they've done so well in the past: Use an existing aircraft or take an already developed design and modify some to suit their purpose.
    1