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

@verdebusterAP The 160th has nowhere near the money to develop Defiant on its own, even if they wanted to. That's why they adapt existing vehicles.
1
@givemethedaily1052 Regarding rotating the wings, bell has shown how it wold be done. Army doesn't need it, and if someone else wants it they have to be willing to pay for the feature.
1
@verdebusterAP Given the height and nature of the rotor/mast, a "stealth" Defiant is unlikely, even if you could find someone willing to pay for the cost of doing the development work for an operational Defiant. SOCOM has stated what mods it wants provisions for in the V-280 and Army says it will incorporate them.
1
Bell has a much more robust civil backlog than Sikorsky, and Sikorsky was the one that had to look for buyers where their parent company put them up for sale.
1
Defiant is an X2, a much more advanced technology than conventional technologies used by the Kamovs. Notice that even the KA=50/52 is far slower than Defiant, and far, far slower than Valor.
1
I presume you are talking about putting these aircraft in a C-5 or -17. There was no requirement for either of these aircraft to be carried within a cargo aircraft without significant disassembly, and Neither of them do.
1
Sikorsky has never addressed hangaring Defiant on a destroyer. For one thing, you've got that non-collapsible mast to deal with. Bell has shown drawings, animations and models of how a naval V-280 would easily fold up into a space as small as a folded UH-1Y, so it would be doable.
1
@konstellashon1364 actually it won't due to the height
1
@TheBeingReal Regarding Sikorsky and FARA, it isn't certain they would have one. Bell's helicopter weighed less but had more power, and was based on a more mature technology. Sikorsky's technology was ore exotic but didn't promise all that much more performance and probably would have cost more. Also, their technology so far can be best described as "disappointing".
1
@zeuso.1947 They were built for the same role. Buying both doesn't mean the costs would be split, it means you'd be buying two different aircraft to fill the same role. Your development costs would double and you'd have much higher support costs because you'd have two different inventories of supply and maintenance.
1
@zeuso.1947 What differing capabilities for what different roles? They were designed to the same requirement to perform the same mission. the V-280 was just much better.
1
The design is 50 years old. Basically, what is going to be needed in the future can't be done with the Black Hawk, excellent aircraft though it is. For example, "hot and high" wasn't that important when it was design, now it's a big issue. There's no way you could get a Black Hawk to do what Army needs to do in those conditions without a redesign so extensive you might as well start with a clean sheet. .
1
The S-67 Blackhawk of 54 years ago could not lift as much as the V-280, couldn't fly as far, had cruise speed and maximum speed far less than that of the V-280. It did not glide any better than a regular helicopter, the primary function of the wings was to have a place to hang ordnance. Regarding troops, with a modified cabin the maximum number of troops it could carry was six. Regarding a troop/cargo pod, have you seen how close the S-67 sat to the ground? Where would you put it? Or are you talking about a pod filled with troops (well, actually less than what the V-280 carries internally) that would hang from a cable slung under the S-67? Are you kidding?
1
They can't afford by themselves to develop it to the point where it would be operational, and wouldn't buy a sufficient quantity to make it practical.
1
@kingmiller1982 They will be more specific when they answer the protest
1
@Tounguepunchfartbox Or maybe Bell jut outperformed. It also mattered that Sikorsky didn't comply with all the all the required informaton for their bid, while Bell did.
1
@landonmintz4850 The normal operation for a V-22 experiencing total power loss is to glide. Like a lot of large helicopters, it dos not autorotate well from lower altitudes.. This is partly due to external constraints put on the design (rotor diameter, heavier, thirstier engines than promised).
1
@samuelphilip915 One of the reasons almost no one trains to the ground anymore (civil or military) is that even if the autorotation is successful, there is often so much damage that it isn't practical.
1
Except that it doesn't work.
1
Money
1
Defiant can't fit in C-17 without disassembly. In their specifications, the Army never had a requirement to fit into a C-17 or C-5.
1
@Obvsaninternetexpert A naval version would, Army doesn't need that feature.
1
It can sling load more than the Black Hawk can.
1
@damongraham1398 The only figure I have commonly seen is that it can carry a sling load of 10,00 lbs and can do it @ 150 knots.
1
Missed a 0. 10,000 lbs.
1
Valor: six blades Defiant 16 blades
1
Army won't name the aircraft until it's closer to entering service. "Valor" is Bell's name for it.
1
@andrewsuryali8540 Although Army doesn't require extreme folding as a Navy version of either would, I wonder it it would want folding rotor blades (manual fold as in UH/MH-60A/L/Ms and USAF HH/MH-60Gs) on a production model of either?. It wouldn't do anything to reduce height on Deviant, but it would permit Valor to rotate nacelles forward, which should reduce its height and width of both when parked for extended period or when in landbased hangar.
1
@andrewsuryali8540 Your point is well taken, and I imagine Bell must have shown Army how they'd protect the transmission and tilt mechanism parked or in operations because otherwise that would have been a BIG red flag which someone [read: Sikorsky] would have been happy to point out. Maybe we'll learn more as the protest plays out, because in that process Army gets to disclose more than they have so far.
1
The V-280 met or exceeded all Army maneuverability requirements
1