Comments by "Tara Raboomdiay" (@tararaboomdiay7442) on "Why the SB-1 never had a chance as the new US Army helicopter?" video.

  1. What they are competing for is what best meets the mission needs. May the best technology win!
    3
  2. V-280 demonstrated superior agility at low speeds/hover.
    2
  3.  @cjmanson5692  You're the one making the accusation, what's your proof? Have you noticed the number of Apache crashes in the last year?
    2
  4.  @luc_8710  Like Predator42ID said, Defiant the engines, mast and transmission take up a large amount of space in the fuselage.. All usable interior space has to be forward of the mast on all X2 vehicles. To be able to fit the required number of troops inside, they had to make Defiant's fuselage wider. There was no requirement for naval use so that's not why it lost, but you are correct height is a problem if ever the Marines for interested.
    2
  5.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  Defaint had no wings. The function of the pusher was to provide separate thrust so that the X2 system did not have to provide All the lift and All the thrust. This allowed the rotors to turn slower delaying the point at which the speed of the rotor added to forward velocity of the aircraft added up to supersonic speeds at the rotor tips. This would theoretically permit the vehicle to travel faster before the tips went supersonic. The speeds still wouldn't have been what is achievable by a Tilt-Rotor, because when wingborne the blades don't have to provide any lift at all. In fact, when a Tilt-Rotor converts to wingborne flight, the rotors actually slow down. In any case, Defiant and Raide, never achieved even their own promised speeds.
    1
  6. Army specified the size of the LZ for this program. V-280 fits into it.
    1
  7. So did the SB>1
    1
  8. S-72 was a test aircraft built to test different rotor designs. Although an X-Wing was installed on it, it proved to be too complicated to have practical applications so the X-win rotor never flew.
    1
  9. No, all the Ospreys that were planned to be ordered have been so production is winding down. Of course this really has little to do with Valor.
    1
  10. Two folded Valors would fit in the hangar of a DDG or CG. Because of the height Sikorsky has never addressed the issue of Defiant on ships smaller tahn an amphibious carrier.
    1
  11.  @randybentley2633  Have you seen how tall this is? Sikorsky has never claimed it would fit in a shipboard Seahawk hangar.
    1
  12.  @Ieo9017  I believe Boeing is responsible for the flight control system as well.
    1
  13. Both the XV-15 and te hAW609 have demonstrated autorotation. The V-22 can do it as well, but badly, so it would glide in case of a dual engine out. Sikorsky has never addressed autorotation capabilities of an X2.
    1
  14. Speed wasn't the issue. Air Force didn't like that AH-56 could do close air support, which they felt was their role. So they lobbied repeatedly against it.
    1
  15.  @Condor1970  No country has said they would pay for the cost to do the development, even if the US Gov't would let them (and tthe Goernment would want to be reimbursed for that portion of work so far it has paid fo)r.
    1
  16.  @Condor1970  Raider-X can not meet Marine requirements.
    1
  17. Because of all the Boeing problems, when Boeing said it was going to buy Spirit Aerospace, Bell said it would look for another supplier to build the components Spirit was supposed to build or maybe just build them itself.. Now Boeing has said that it will spin off the portion of Spirit that was building the Valor fuselage. Bell's parent has indicated that it would be willing to buy that portion and bring it in house.
    1
  18.  @hanzzel6086  Exercises and real world experience have shown that helicopters are at a big disadvantage against fixed wings.
    1
  19. Raider-X was nowhere near being fully developed. There's no need for a skinny fuselage since Defiant and Valor are so fast. Weapons would mostly be carried internally to reduce drag.
    1
  20. Sikorsky has said there's no real civil market for this particular technology.
    1
  21.  @Mediiiicc  There are any number of issues,but that basic one is this. There sis a physical limit of how fast conventional rotors that provide lift cab go . Tilt-Rotor gets around this by converting to where the wings provide all the lift and the rotors provide propulsion like a fixed wing aircraft.
    1
  22.  @davidplatenkamp  Actually, DoD budget is one of the organizations that are part of the "discretionary" budget. What that means is that DoD has only so much appropriated money to spend each year. If for whatever reason they look like they're going to spend more than that, they have to ask for supplemental funds for various parts, which they don't always get. If they don't get new money to cover the shortfall, then except for combat operations they have to start parking aircraft squadrons, tying ships up to the dock, sending civilian workers home, etc., until the new fiscal year. This has happened a number of times in the past few decades, and also happens if the DoD budget isn't passed by the start of the new fiscal year. The larger part of the US budget is the "non-discretionary" portion. For that part of the budget, Congress puts in a certain number, but it's an illusion. If the programs are that are part of that side of the budget reach the point where they are going to spend more than that amount of money, they just keep right on spending because spending on those programs is "non-discretionary. You don't have the discretion to Not spend whatever they need. Again, this side is the larger part of the Federal Government's annual "budget".
    1
  23. Different project entirely
    1
  24.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  On Osprey, the mechanical connection only kicks in if one of the engines fail, otherwise it does nothing. In fact, if the confection fails, if both engines are working, nothing happens. On Chinook, her rotors are separated from the engines so mechanical connection must work all the time. If it fails, even if both engines are working, the aircraft is unavoidably lost.
    1
  25. A few years back an Italian defense minister didn't like Tilt-Rotors because of bad information he had been given. Since then, the potions has change and now Tilt-Rotor is the favored concept for their potential future high speed needs.
    1
  26. Sikorsky itself said it didn't see any market for a civilian version.
    1
  27.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  The capability is built in.
    1
  28.  @JeffreyStrader  Still no resemblance
    1
  29.  @lcfflc3887  Then how come no one besides Kamov ever got one into production (the Kaman HH-43 and K-Max were not coaxial helicopters)?
    1
  30. Boeing was not involved with Valor, but it was with Defiant.
    1
  31. This is not a conventional coaxial rotor. It is a much more advanced technology known as X2
    1