Youtube comments of Tara Raboomdiay (@tararaboomdiay7442).

  1. The big thing people are forgetting is that the Valor did much better in the demonstrations. It met or exceeded every goal set for the demonstration. It met every schedule Bell promised. Defaint was constantly late, kept failing to meet promised goals when Sikorsky said they would and had problems during the tests. Examples: Valor met the Army's schedule for first flight, Defiant was 15 months late and then soon had to be grounded for more work, slowing the whole program. Defiant came close, but never actually achieved its promised speed, Valor exceed its (higher) promised speed by 9%,, meaning it was 23% faster than Defiant. The first Army pilot flew the V-280 less than two months after its first flight, Defiant didn't do that until 2 1/2 years after its [delayed] first flight. Valor flew far more hours than Defiant. Simply put, one aircraft did a lot better in the demonstrations and inspired much more confidence that a production version would meet or exceeded all the Army's requirements in reality rather than theory. And that's the one the Army chose.
    96
  2. In my opinion, there's one factor that I suspect played a large part in the decision that only a few people have touched on: The relative achievements of the two technologies in the demonstrations. Bell would announce what they were going to do next and then just go out and do it. In a straightforward manner and didn't parse language when they met or exceeded all the requirements and all of their promises. They did what they said they'd do when they said they would, and except towards the very end thy didn't take snipes at the other guys. The Defaint (and the S-97, for that matter) were late, would announce an upcoming goal and when it would be demonstrated and then when it wasn't achieved they'd just be silent about it. For example, the Army's schedule for JMR-TD was first flight in 2017, a year's flight demonstrations where the technologies would demonstrate their promised capabilities as they related to Army criteria in 2018, after which Army would spend 2019 evaluating the test data before deciding in 202 which technology to take further into development. Valor flew as scheduled in 2019. They couldn't get Defiant into the air until 2019, and then in a relatively short time they had to ground it for more work before resuming demonstrations. Valor flew its first Army pilot two months after first flight. Defiant took nearly 2 1/2 years. Defiant flew far fewer hours than Valor. Sikorsky kept saying it was OK because they were providing lots of data from simulations. The thing is, until you actually go out and do the thing for real, there's no way to validate whether your simulations are accurate. For example, Bell could have said the V-280 could do Mach 2 because they did it in simulations. Valor would show high agility in the hover, Sikorsky would brag about their low altitude banks , but leave out the fact that they were moving forward at a good clip, which makes high bank angles easier. They'd talk about their ability to rapidly accelerate after takeoff in a level attitude thanks to the prop, but the videos would show it heading out nose down just like a regular helo. Or, they would announce a new sustained speed achieved, but leave out that it was achieved in a shallow dive. And so on and so forth. Now my point in this case is not to address the relative performance advantages/disadvantages of the promised capabilities of the two technologies. Defiant, for example, if a production aircraft meets the promises, will HOGE hot and high much better than Bell's promises for Valor (although it will meet the Army's requirement). Valor is faster. What I'm getting at is that if in addition to relative promised performance, they're trying to decide which technology generates more confidence that it'll deliver on its claims, from the demonstrations Valor wins that hands down. Some might say that's because there's less experience with X2 but so what? That's not the taxpayers problem, and it further buttresses the Army's choice. Army is not going to come right out and say that, they're going to wait for the protest to be heard and then use what happened in the demonstrations as further justification for their choice.
    48
  3. It's not the wages, it's a shortage of people who have the skills to perform this work. It's very specialized and takes time and experiencing to master. The previous generations of these types of workers are aging out and their knowledge is being lost. You can't just take a skilled worker on an auto assembly line and say, "Here's a bunch of money. Go build that nuclear carrier". There isn't that much work going around to provide meaningful careers for younger workers. We don't invest enough in our industrial base to keep the skills current. Example?...There is only one drydock in the entire US that can build a CVN. After people work on a carrier (or other warship) for a few years, who pays for them to stay in that field until another ship is started? Keep in mind that in the US, because of costs, outside the US Navy there is virtually no other work going on building larger ships. Who's willing to pay for the training programs?
    23
  4. The thing with V-22s rotors is that here was a acquirement for V-22s to be able to operate abeam the island on the smaller flat deck amphibs. So the rotors are smaller than what would be best for V-22 size aircraft. That makes for higher disk loading. This doesn't apply to the smaller V280
    17
  5.  @Comm0ut  19 nations have either ordered or are already operating the Super Tucano. Sounds pretty stable to me.
    8
  6.  @mountainadventures7346  No, it is a upgraded and militarized version of the AT 802, which is in use worldwide.. It is an independent design by Air Tractor, which has been designing and building agricultural aircraft since the '70s and has produced more turbine agricultural aircraft than anyone else in the world. It is no relation to Grumman's agricultural aircraft, out of production for decades, which incidentally was a biplane.
    8
  7. For accuracy, Defiant-X didn't crash, it's never even been built, only the Defiant demonstrator and it didn't crash. Raider crashed due to software error.
    7
  8.  @liammiddleton3064  Who says it can't? The rotor arc makes it wider than Defiant, but they don't extend as far forward, so it's shorter. It meets the Army's requirement for size and operating in the specified footprint.
    5
  9.  @comfortablynumb5582  It was a helicopter, which can operate safely at lower altitudes and in poorer conditions than a fixed wing. However, he wasn't flying slow. So, even though he probably knew the terrain in that area, he may have given up his helicopter advantages by flying so fast under those condition's. We need to wait and see what the NTSB thinks the cause was.
    4
  10.  @shayker_og  They also delivered or exceeded on everything they promised while Defiant missed a lot. Just two examples: Army wanted to fly by 2017 so they could do comparative testing in 2018. Valor flew in 2017. Defiant couldn't fly until March of 2019. Defaint never achieved its promised speed. Valor not only promised a higher speed, it exceeded its promise by 25 knots.
    4
  11.  @Will-W  Two things to consider: First a Tilt-Rotor is wider than a comparable helo but it's shorter because the rotors don't go as far out in front. When you consider the size of the Army specified LZ and the Army specified distance between rotor tips, you can fit as many V-280s in that LZ as UH-60s. Even if you couldn't get quite as many,it's a tradeoff because you're gaining speed, range and agility , among other things.
    3
  12. OV-10 would cost a lot more to buy and operate ( twice as many engines for one thing). Also, the OV-10 production line no longer exists. Boeing said they would need a minimum order of 100 aircraft for it to be worth rebuilding the line.
    3
  13.  @Kmart4599  Look up the record of VAL-4 with the OV-10
    3
  14. What they are competing for is what best meets the mission needs. May the best technology win!
    3
  15. Regarding the engine, what happened there was that the Army told both bidders to plan on using a new technology engine that the Army would supply. However, the Army's schedule on developing that engine was such that it wouldn't be ready when the contractors would need it. So the Army went back to the bidders and said they should select a currently available engine instead. Bell partnered with Rolls Royce to use an advanced derivative of the engine that powers the V-22. The SB>1 team went with an engine from Honeywell. It's likely Army chose V-280 because it was more successful in its demonstration program so was perceived as lower risk as well as offering higher performance in certain areas.
    3
  16.  @robertjones1729  regular helos are subject to that heat vulnerability. Defiant would be as well. Both Defaint and Valor would have heat reduction technology as well countermeasure. The thing is a Tilt-Rotor can glide further than an engine out helo and if an autorotation is attempted the fact that a Tilt-Rotor's blades never go over the fuselage contributes to crash survival potential. Plus, with that wing out there. it's less likely it'll roll completely over on landing.
    3
  17.  @robertjones1729  If you're in helicopter mode, the spinning blades are on top. Both designs provide for IR suppression. If in airplane mode it can glide. Regarding the LZ, the V-280 meets the Army's requirement. Bell says their pessimistic estimate is an LZ that holds 12 UH-60s will hold 10 V-280s; for all the stuff you get with the latter, that seems an acceptable tradeoff. You could get more UH-1s in an LZ than UH-60s but that didn't seem to stop the Army from glaceing the Huey with the Black Hawk.
    3
  18.  @tydaftpk38  No law was broken. The Special VFR was for air traffic separation through Burbank's airspace. He was well beyond that area when the tragedy occurred, operating under regular (for helicopters) full VFR conditions. If there's going to be Monday-morning quarterbacking, one might want to focus on why he was flying so fast under those visibility conditions. giving little time to see and react to terrain, clouds or other circumstances, and reducing maneuverability.
    3
  19.  @nathan1sixteen  Actually, it is much more efficient When It's Flying On The Wing. That's the whole point. Well over 90% of mission time will be spent on the wing and not hovering.
    3
  20.  @jamescook7713  The big things for this kind of aircraft are that they can operate almost anywhere, are really easy to maintain and fix and are cheap to buy and operate (make sure when you compare costs you're making sure you're not comparing the basic flyaway cost of one with the lifetime cost of another). These guys are to support Special Operations, not do major Close Air Support work against a large, heavily defended target. And they live with the forces they're supposed to support. An OA-1K that is right there or can be there in five minutes beats the hell in theseparticular situations out of an F-35/-10/ etc that has to come from another country or is plugged into a tanker 150 miles away.
    3
  21.  @vanguard9067  Why do LZ have to be a lot larger? Remember, V280 is smaller than V22 and should be able to operate where the Black Hawk dies. It meets Army requirements for LZ size.
    3
  22. Navy realized F100 was having problems and the F400, the engine the F-41 was designed round, that was based on it would have those problems and more and Navy couldn't afford to pay to fix them so they canceled that engine and settled for the TF30. The F-14A was never meant to be the production version, just the developmental version. The B was to be the first production version, but when the P&W F400 died, so did the original B. BTW, there is an original B on the Lexington in NYC. The C was to have been the B but with more powerful electronics. When the B died so did the C . The F-14D was essentially the F-14C but with even more capable avionics. The first F110 equipped F-14s were at first called A+s to avoid confusion since they were basically As with the bigger motors but not the airframe and wiring enhancements planned for the original production model, the original B. Then it was decided this was even more confusing and since the original B never got into production, they changed A+ to B. I'm not sure why they skipped C.
    3
  23.  @MrCateagle  At that time F100 and F401 were being developed in parallel and were being jointly funded. IIRC, part of the agreement was that when USAF accepted the F100, any further improvements to the F401 would have to be paid for by Navy alone. AF accepted the F100 at a certain point because if there was no F100, there would be no F-15 and they felt it could become a good engine. . Navy looked at its budget in the early '70s and said they just couldn't afford the fixes on their own, and they did nave an "interim" engine in the TF30, so they canceled the F401.
    3
  24.  @snmr1318  The more applicable term would be "resurrected", and no it's not possible. For none thing, even if any were left, no one works on those old big radials anymore.
    2
  25.  @petesheppard1709  The laser guided Hydras are known as the APKWS. Look up what was done with a pair of OV-10G+ aircraft with APKWS accomplished against ISIS
    2
  26.  @piloto_loco  No, design on SB>1 was ongoing along with other X2 work before Lockheed came in as a White Knight and saved Sikorsky. There's a a reason it was named "SB>1"; that's short for Sikorsky Boeing >1
    2
  27. V-280 demonstrated superior agility at low speeds/hover.
    2
  28. The Cheyenne did not use an X-Wing and it never reached its promised speed. In fact, the world speed record has been held since 1986 by a British conventional helicopter.
    2
  29.  @njengakim  V-22 autorotates poorly because of external compromises. Rotor diameter is smaller than optimum due to size restriction on smaller amphibs in use at the time. Engine Gov't supplied was heavier and burned more fuel than gov't said to expect, which increased weight. XV-15, AW609 and Valor don't have these constraints.
    2
  30. Bell will do fine without FLRAA, but they'll do butte with. They have a large civil base.
    2
  31.  @richarde.6750  No, the proposed Defiant-X competed against V-280 and lost for many reasons. Raider-X was competing against the Bell 360 and that program was canceled.
    2
  32.  @kiabtoomlauj6249  Again, Defiant demonstrated no great agility advantage over Valor, and in some areas Valor demonstrated more agility. As regarding an attack version, if Army wanted one, Valor could easily offer an option in their version which the attack crews would love that would be Very hard to do on Defiant; off-the-shelf ejection seats. This is because on a Tilt-Rotor, the blades never go over the fuselage. Before anyone gets incredulous, the XV-15 had off-the-shelf ejection seats, and the first few V-22 test aircraft had them as well. Obviously the production Ospreys didn't have them--not exactly confidence building in the troops knowing the flight crews could punch out, leaving them behind.
    2
  33.  @dct124  First time I've ever heard that Defiant had greater range. Sikorsky certainly doesn't tout it. What do you mean third prop? They've already got a pusher and they only hoped to get to 288 mph, and didn't quite make it (I believe for the production version they were talking 270 mph). Bell promised 322 mph and deceiver 351.
    2
  34.  @dct124  The survivability of either getting hit depends on how much damage is done. What they are accurately pointing out is that they don't have the problem that a loss of a tail rotor causes in a conventional helicopter. In the article you refer to they say, "...fly home at speeds higher than helicopters fly today" they don't say, "faster than any helicopter today ". In a February 2020 article, Sikorsky said without the pusher, they can do 150 knots. There's a re quite a few helos that can do that including even the giants CH-53 and CH-47. Both aircraft can run off one engine, but it doesn't necessarily mean it's more efficient, given the load that one engine has to shoulder and what you have to give up. . How many twins do you know that routinely shut down one engine in normal operations?
    2
  35.  @dct124  Sikorsky has said the they could potentially get 280 knots with a new engine in an X2. Not all Sikorsky flights have been done under combat loads, simply because these are demonstrators and have limits on what they can do compared to production versions. Bell didn't hide that it's flight was empty. It's a demonstrator too. When has a Defiantt "currently" flown 700nm? Don't forget Valor gets new engines too...
    2
  36.  @dct124  The Bell demonstrator has shown more in tests at the hover whereas SB>1 hows its agility at 60 knots. When you're moving it's easier to get agility.
    2
  37.  @dct124  If I recall, int hose articles Sikorsky talked about what happens if the pusher got shot off, unlike a conventional helicopter, it can still function. Now if you're hit hard enough to blow a major portion of the tail off, pretty much anything is going down. Carrying an external load will slow anyone down, including Defiant. Yes, although Valor can lift an external load operatic in rotorborne configuration (mighty handy for takeoff and landing), it will probably operate in intermediate configuration if they want max speed while carrying a load faster. BTW, the V-22 hold's the world's record for speed when carrying an external load. Frankly, though moving a decent external load at speeds above 100 knots is not that operationally useful because of the loads placed o the cargo and effects the hanging cargo place onthe carrier. Well, another reason was lower risk. Valor just got out there and did whatever was asked of it whenever it was asked of it while Defiant had a troublesome t demonstration record, and kept missing achieving datapoints on their announced schedules.. Here's just one example: the original JMR-TD for FLRAA called for first flight in 2017, a year of flight test/demonstrator in 2018, a year of data reduction and analysis in 2019, with selection of who would proceed to the next phase, viruatl and real world prototypes [remember, these were demonstrators.not prototypes) in late 2019/early 2020. 2020. Valor flew in 2017, did the demonstrations on time and the flew beyond what was required. Defiant not only didn't fly in 2017, they couldn't even get it into the air until March of 2019. And then it had to be grounded for problems a few flights after that. Its demonstration program was troubled and caused the whole program to slip. So it's not too surprising that they'd lean towards for Valor even on just perception of lower risk, even discouraging the performance differences
    2
  38.  @dct124  Remember, Valor and Defiant are both technology demonstrators, not even prototypes. Their purpose is to demonstrate the probability that EMD and production versions will fully meet or exceed Army's requirements. From the results of the demonstration, Army would pick who they'd fund for prototyping and development. Valor demonstrated more and had far less problems than Defiant, which was probably why it was chosen: greater potential performance and higher likelihood it would meet or exceed requirements in the production version. I suspect that's why it was chosen.
    2
  39. The OH-6 was indeed better. IIRC, on the initial award it looked Hughes bid below cost in order to get in for follow-on buys. Then, when the initial buy was completed Hughes price for follow-ons was dramatically higher. This embarrassed the customer, and if there's one thing you Never do is embarrass the gov't; it's memory is long. Even though it would result in pries higher than what Hughes was asking then no matter who won, a new competition was ordered. Bell had redesigned their buttt-ugly YOH-4 into the Model 206A JetRanger, one of the most beautiful helicopters ever built. They bid a military derivative of what was now essentially a civil design,, Faichild-Hiller declined to rebid their OH-5, which had come in second the previous time around and concentrated on their civil derivative the FH-1100. Bell's design was selected quite posibly because teh gov't wasn't mad at them. The Cheyenne would have more capable than the Cobra, but it kept having development problems and its schedule was continually slipping. With Vietnam going hot and heavy Army just couldn't wait until the uncertain date when it could be fielded. . Air Force lobbying against it didn't help either. So a new competition was held for an interim gunship that could be fielded quickly until Cheyenne could eventually show up, and Bell's model 209 was the clear winner. If Cheyenne had met its schedule there would have been no Cobra, and if it hadn't been canceled there wouldn't have been so many Cobras The reason they didn't give out ll the details of the decision is that they were preparing for the inevitable protest. .
    2
  40.  @gabrieljoseph6310  The Lavi was cancelled because Israel couldn't afford to develop the plane on their own. Israel received a lot of aid from the US for this and other projects. However the death knell came when General Dynamics and Northrop (who were fighting tooth and nail to sell their F-16 and F-20 [another story]) abroad made common cause and asked one question to the US Gov't that was very telling: "Why is the American taxpayer being asked to fund development of a foreign aircraft that will compete with US aircraft in the international marketplace"? There was no really good answer to that and the funding dried up.
    2
  41.  @gabrieljoseph6310  Kfir first entered service 47 years ago. It is remarkably economical, but short-ranged, not that big a deal in the environment for which it was designed. Block 60 is a KFIR with an AESA radar. Not sure how many , if any, ever entered service. The last variant was the Kfir NG announced three years ago for Colombia, Ecuador and Sri Lanka. Don't think any have actually been ordered or built. Kfir is impressive as hell for its tie and role, but there's no way it had the capabilities of the F-15I of F-35 (although the latest proposals have a cockpit that resembles the latter)
    2
  42. IIRC, the ATF requirement was for F-16-level agility (which both designs exceeded). The big advances desired were elsewhere. This was probably a smart realization that the limits of human tolerance were being reached and an acknowledgement of the necromancer of the forthcoming generators of A2A missiles would preclude manned aircraft outmanuevering them within their "no escape zone".
    2
  43.  @legallyfree2955  $$$, both for development and operational costs prevent adopting both. Basically what you've got to do is decide which-one overall gives eh Army the best voice for its mission and money.
    2
  44. At the time the decision was made I'm not sure the OV-10 had flown. Certainly there was far more flight time on the Charger. The most likely explanation is that the OV-10 used the "home team" engine, while Charger used another, fr more successful, engine the was "Not Invented Here".
    2
  45.  @22steve5150  Spae is a premium, which is why Bell showed how a naval variant could fold up without disassembly into a space the size of a folded UH-1Y. The Defiant team has never discussed being based on any ship smaller than a CVN or LH_.
    2
  46.  @22steve5150  Bell has illustrations how two folded naval V-280s would fit in a DDG hangar. Don't know what they'd do with mast of a Defiant to fit in the hangar.
    2
  47.  @Ohhiohh  If you mean engine you're completely wrong. If you mean proprotor, what helo won't crash if you blow the rotor off?
    2
  48.  @yolo_burrito  Better do more research. Raider wasn't in this competition. Valor dramatically outperformed Defiant in actual flight test.
    2
  49.  @yolo_burrito  They never give out all the details until after they see what's in the protest. However it might have been something like, "Valor did better in demonstrations, was more reliable and delivered on its promises better and so we have greater confidence Bell will actually be able to deliver more of what they promised"..
    2
  50.  @robertgregory6778  From what we've seen so far, there's nothing to indicate that Raider and Defiant launch or accelerate faster. Where do you get the idea that any of these aircraft, including Valor, are "stealthy", or that the downwash from the V-280, which has been measured, is as bad as you say?
    2
  51.  @markbrockman9859  There was no requirement for Valor or Defiant to fit in a C-17. The plan is that either they go ovoer by ship or fly themselves over. That was one of the reasons for the ferry range requirement.
    2
  52.  @bendeleted9155  USAF (who really didn't want the A-10, they developed it to try and kill the AH-56) put so many conditions on the Army getting the A-10 they'd have been fools to take it.
    2
  53. There was no requirement for either aircraft to fit in a C-5. They would either be shipped over or flown using a route that did not require AAR (Army never asked for that capability, although I'm sure both aircraft could add it if someone specified that.
    2
  54.  @kathrynck  Interestingly enough, the driver for the power level on the V-280 was the hot and high HOGE requirement.
    2
  55. ​ @bl8danjil  Although a naval Defiant would have folding rotor blades, its fuselage is wider than Valor's (and Black Hawk's). More importantly, it is too tall to fit in destroyer and cruiser hangars, and Sikorsky hasn't even tried to show any illustrations of it operating from anything than a carrier or large flat deck assault ship. . Bell has shown how a naval Valor would routinely fold into a space of a folded UH-1Y so as many could fit in a surface warship's hangar as Sea Hawks do now .
    2
  56.  @irvhh143  You might want to apologize, because Mike Love's right.
    2
  57.  @irvhh143  Again, regarding short takeoff, go look for yourself at what happened in the demonstrations.
    2
  58.  @irvhh143  The driveshaft is normally unloaded. When an engine fail, the difference in power mechanically loads up the shaft to power both proprotors. It's designed for that purpose and has the necessary strength. As far as the rest of your post, everything in it is simply wrong. Remember, it was demonstrated in flight for over three years, and if anything you said was true, someone would have noticed.
    2
  59.  @irvhh143  still uses the crosshaft for engine out.
    2
  60.  @irvhh143  Hmm, twice the speed, far greater range, faster accel/decel, larger payload, much greater ability to HOGE in hot and high conditions, etc. Sounds like more than a "minor" increase in performance to me. Actually, the Chinook is a surprisingly good autorotator, especially given its size. I should point out that every autorotation does not necessarily mean you end up with a soft, gentle landing. How much autorotation capability is one of the tradeoffs in design. For example, the UH-1 reportedly autorotated better than the UH-60, but no one says we should have stayed with the Huey. As to what's Valor's autorotational performance, all we know for sure at this point is that Bell says it has the capability. We'll have to wait for a prototype to see. The aircraft flown so far was just a technology demonstrator,. Come to think of it, what's Defiant's performance? AFAIK, Sikorsky has never even addressed the issue. The statement that FLRAAi is the selling point for Valor is self-evident. FLRAA is the whole reason for Valor's existence. In fact, it's the whole reason for Defiant's existence as well.
    2
  61.  @irvhh143  As the Army has repeatedly made clear, neither the Valor nor the Defiant that have flown are prototypes. They are Technology Demonstrators, hence the name of their program Joint Multi-Role Technology Demonstrator. Their purpose was to demonstrate their respective advanced technologies and the Army would evaluate the results to decide which concept offers greater potential not only for meeting or exceeding the Army's requirements but also greater potential for achieving its promises. Army only has enough money to operationally develop one of them for the FLRAA (there are actually two "A"s in the program name) program. The next step involves actual prototype(s). Of course the seller is talking about expected performance. That's wast everyone talks about until you actually build the thing. Both bidders gave their expected performance estimates for production models. That's what was being demonstrated, how likely it was that their concepts could achieve their promises. On that basis, Valor clearly demonstrated more and inspired more confidence than Defiant. I wouldn't be surprised if that was the pivotal factor in the decision. What is your basis that a production Valor cannot take off vertically at operational weight? Even Sikorsky has never claimed that! Regarding hover capability, I would estimate that it could hover for as long as required. Not as efficiently as a regular helicopter, but Bell has always acknowledged that. However, it should hover for as long as the Army has specified (otherwise it would have been rejected). For one thing, it is required to HOGE at mission weight at 6000'/95°, which strikes me as somewhat more than "limited" hover capability. Is the whole aircraft armored like an A-10? No. One good hit on a Chinook's driveshaft and down she goes. All aircraft are vulnerable to enough hits in the right place a the right time. That's just the cost of doing business. But I would opine an aircraft doing 250 kn is less likely to be hit than one traveling at 125. Your objection to FLRAA is an objection to the UH-60, UH-1, H-35,H-19, etc. [not to mention CH-47 and H-53], or any transport helo. What is your alternative? Have the troops walk or ride in trucks? Last time I checked, no helo in flight has been knocked out by an underground mine or IED. One other thing about FLRAA. Personally, I am not sure that as things stands neither a production Valor or Defaint can meet their original range estimate. The reason is that Army told both contractors to base their production aircraft estimates on the Army delivering the advanced FATE engine. It's become apparent in the past year or so that Army will not be able to deliver that engine to meet the FLRAA schedule, so the contractors were told that for the production aircraft they should select a more current techcnology engine. If the engine(s) chosen turn b out to be heavier or burn more fuel than what Army promised for FATE, the designs are going to take a hit there and Army won't be able to hold them to their original estimates. For the record, the exact same thing happened to Osprey
    2
  62.  @kennethfharkin  One of the advantages of X2 technology over conventional rotor systems (including conventional coaxials) is that as froward speed increases, the whole rotor system slows down so that the advancing blade tips do not exceed Mach 1. This allows an X2 to cruise faster than a regular helicopter, but even Sikorsky acknowledges that it won't go as fast as a Tilt-rotor. They tout other advantages they say they have.
    2
  63.  @bistromathics6  Although advancing blades on both sides work to mitigate the problem of retreating blade stall, but they don't help with what happens if the blade tips go supersonic. The clever trick X2 does is to slow rotor rotation speed as forward speed increases, thus postponing when the tips would go supersonic. This is why an X2 could cruise faster than a regular helicopter, but even Sikorsky acknowledges not as fast as a Tilt-Rotor, partly because tips going supersonic is to something that doesn't concerns a Tilt-Rotor because at high speed sthe rotors are perpendicular to the direction of flight. Regarding VRS,, Tilt-Rotors are subject to this like any rotorcraft. Quite frankly, in V-22 testing insufficient work was initially done in testing the onset of this phenomena, how a Tilt-Rotor (and its software) would react, with tragic results. Once the proper test flying was done, it was found that a Tilt-Rotor is actually somewhat more resistant to VRS that conventional rotors (don't know about X2s, it's newer been tested). More importantly, it was found that it was easier to recover. No special maneuver had to be flown, the procedure is to blip the rotors forward changing their angle to the airflow and the plane flies out of VRS. Its criminal that it took to long to test this.
    2
  64.  @dianapennepacker6854  V-280 has sustained 351 mph which is faster than the cruising speed, though not max speed, of most WWII fighters. To go faster requires more money, and as yet there's no need in a transport. All rotorcraft are subject to Vortex Ring State. The question is how do they react? I've got another comment on this video that talks about this.
    2
  65. It would have a different fuselage.
    2
  66. Actually, a naval Valor could operate from a DDG as well as flat deck ships. Such a variant would fold up for going into the hangar to a size smaller than that of a UH-60. No one has said how a Defiant could fold and reduce its mast height to go on a DDG. Sikorsky hasn't even discussed it.
    2
  67.  @fabiena1787  For close in fight exercises, F-22s usually mount a luneberg lens or other kind of device to enhance their radar return. Otherwise there isn't much training value for either side because the result often is simply that the opponents don't even know the Raptors are around until they are informed they have been killed. But when the other fighters can "see" the F-22s to a certain extent, both sides get a good workout in tactics and techniques. Rafale in these situations is a tough opponent and F-22 teams are quire complimentary and have said it turns very well.
    2
  68. Air Force on its own went out and bought their own version, eh CV-22. They wanted to get more, but other programs had higher priority for the $$.
    2
  69.  @christophmahler  The B/D also finally had the kind of engine it was designed for. The Super Hornet also benefited from industrial policy. It was more important to keep a more versatile company in business, than a more limited one that primarily built naval aircraft.
    2
  70.  @JAnx01  Defiant-X has nowhere the lift capacity of Chinook. Valor and Defiant-X were both designed to meet the same specified requirements under the same program, FLRAA, they're different technologies to reach the same goal.
    2
  71.  @robertjones1729  The crosshaft comes on line when there is loss of power in one engine, so lift/thrust remains symmetrical.
    2
  72.  @iamcyrushawkins  Actually it does work like that. With a wing, it can glide farther than a helicopter can travel power out because helo has to keep rotot speed up to store energy to be used in the flare for touchdown. As a result it doesn't glide, it falls until just the very end, and even then i a lot of cased the aircraft is so damaged it's a loss.
    2
  73.  @iamcyrushawkins  If you're talking about a hit so catastrophic that it blows the entire engine off, then yes, unless the Valor can disengage other engine down really quickly, in which case it'd glide, realistically it would be going down. This would be true wingborne (at which point a glide is theoretically possible) or if rotorborne would crash . Same thing if you blow off one of the rotors of a Chinook. More than likely the bad guys would be shooting at the fuselage, which is a bigger target and has all the soft stuff inside.
    2
  74. If the rotor itself fails on any helicopter you're probably going down. If one engine fails, the normally unloaded crosshaft instantly loads up and power from the good engine goes to both rotors.
    2
  75. Defiant -X is not a scout andr light attack aircraft and was never intended to be one. You are confusing it with Raider-X
    2
  76. Look at pictures of Defiant parked next to Black Hawk. it's a good deal larger. Also, when has Defaint actually demonstrated that it's nimbler?
    2
  77.  @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
  78.  @scottstewart5784  During the protest all the non-propriety data was disclosed and it showed Valor was the better performer and Sikorsky Boeing didn't even submit a bid that complied with requirements.
    2
  79. Valor also flew on time, accumulated many more flight hours and demonstrated the ability to meet or exceed all the Army's requirements for this portion of the process. It even demonstrated speed that was 9% greater than promised (which was already 12% higher than Defiant's promise),, while Defiant never quite reached its promised speed in level flight.
    2
  80.  @TheBooban  Not true. Defiant and Valor were competing to replace the Black Hawk. There was a second contract that Invictus and Raider are competing for, to replace the OH-58 and part of the AH-64 fleet. Totally separate vehicles for totally separate requirements.
    2
  81.  @vanguard9067  Why would LZs have to be larger? V280 is smaller than V22 and meets Army requirements to use same LZ's as Black Hawk
    2
  82.  @NuclearSavety  Defiant also has two rotors, they're just stacked on top of each other. . If a rotor (as opposed to an engine) fails on any rotorcraft, it will fall out of the sky.
    2
  83.  @TyrannoJoris_Rex  The Spey wouldn't have given the overall performance desired for VFX-2
    2
  84.  @TyrannoJoris_Rex  Because the TF30 would allow the program to continue. After the dropping of the F401, unless Navy could keep F-14 development going, Congress would have probably killed it. Also, Navy just didn't have the money then. If they were going to try and fund a new engine, they'd want something that would do for the Tomcat everything the F401 was supposed to do. They didn't get that until the F110.
    2
  85.  @TyrannoJoris_Rex  Tomcat #2 was dedicated to low speed handling tests and wouldn't be suitable for full envelope testing. It would also require time to fit a new engine, which the Navy didn't have. Also, both it and the F-15 were under scrutiny by Congress, which was not fully behind development of either fighter ("Why can't you just use F-4s forever"?), and adding the complication of putting in the Spey ("What? You want us to pay for a Foreign engine ??!!") could give its enemies the club they needed. Besides, if they somehow got the amount of money it would take to integrate Spey, maybe they'd just have wanted to use it to try and fix F401.
    2
  86. With respect, to add to what bl8danjii wrote, Boeing has never put a helicopter of its own design into production. In fact, of all its own designs, only four airframes of one design ever even flew. Also, Bell designed the V-22, Boeing did the flight control system. This was the same relationship Boeing has with Sikorsky. Boeing's Tilt-Rotor designs (it competed with Bell for the XV-15), did not have the engines in nacelles, but in the fuselage with always powered shafts running to the wingtips. Think how CH-46/47 power their rotors.
    2
  87.  @Fish1701A  Bell has shown how Naval Valor would fold up to fit in DDG type ships' hangars. Defiant doesn't even address the issue.
    2
  88. actually, the EA-6 required more. Also, a lot of people use the A in comparisons as opposed to the D. During the years when it was getting full support, it required 17 mmh/fh and that was trending down.
    2
  89. Two things here: There was no requirement in the FLRAA program for the craft to be able to fit in a C-17 without major disassembly. . The idea is that if they didn't get ferried on ships they'd be flown where. Bell has shown how a folding mechanism could be added to the V-280 so that it would fold up into the size of a folded UH-1Y. This isn't required for the Army mission, but in a Navy model this would permit them to be based on DDGs. Sikorsky has notaddressed what it would do about mast height to operate them from ships.
    2
  90.  @DeathlordSlavik  1. How do we know this with the current technology V-280? 2. Defiant is not a conventional coaxial rotor. It is a much more advanced, but also more complex technology.
    2
  91.  @DeathlordSlavik  Defiant is an X2, not a coaxial, and how do you know that thr V-280 will be harder to martian than an old technology coaxial (which agian Defiant is not)?
    2
  92.  @DeathlordSlavik  I was actually giving credit to Sikorsky for their in technology through X2. Maybe it would have been more accurate to say the X2 is not a conventional coaxial, since any stacked rotors wold be coaxial. Sikorsky's are advances are using rigid rotors for more flexibility in maneuver, reducing the distance between the rotors which reduces drag (although Defiant is still pretty tall) the ability to synchronize and use the opposing blades to offset the problem of asymmetric lift, slowing the rotors at higher speed to avoid retreating blade stall and to keep the tips from going supersonic. These are all significant advances over conventional coaxial rotors such as Kamov uses. Note that Kamov, who has more experience with conventional coaxial than anyone, doesn't produce any craft that go faster or farther than regular helicopters. Sikorsky deserves credit for working on advancing the technology, but as of now it looks like they're not there yet.
    2
  93.  @DeathlordSlavik  Sorry,it was a semantics thing, I was trying to differentiate between Sikorsky's more advanced concept and regular coaxials , so technically I was wrong and should have said X2 was a very advanced subset of the overall concept of coaxials/stacked rotors. Look at Kamov's masts, distance between rotors, shape of blades, hub thickness of mast, etc. Those are not intended for high speeds. Kamov was designing craft that were compact and avoided tail rotor issues. Even the KA-50/52 stays well under 200 knots They've been doing coaxial designs since the early '50s. It's their signature concept, just like tandem rotor technology was Piasecki's. you can see the ultimate expression of Piasecki's concept in the CH-46 and-47, which were designed by Piasecki and were acquired when Boeing bought the corporation (which was called Vertol) in 1960. The S-69 was a research aircraft designed to test and demonstrate Sikorsky's Advancing Blade Concept, which was not a conventional coaxial and was the precursor the the X2 technology. This also was the time of the XV-15 Tilt-Rotor demonstrator. Without going into too much detail, it was half the speed of the XV-15. They eventually hung two turbojets on it, which raised the weight to the point it could no longer HOGE, but even with those blasting away and the aircraft in a shallow dive, its top speed was still 69 knots slower than the XV-15. Sikorsky is already where? Just look at how many of their self set schedules and goals they missed on both S-97 and SB>1. They are higher risk
    2
  94.  @MrCateagle  The afterburning TF41 would have required more time and money than the TF30 which was already in the F-14A, neither one of which the Navy had. I don't remember the afterburning thrust but I believe the afterburning TF41 had 18,000 lbs dry thrust. The key was it didn't offer enough improvement over the TF30 to "sell" itself to teh Navy. Regarding the F401, the agreement between USAF and Navy is that development costs would be shared on a percentage basis between teh two. However, one USAF accepted F100 in whatever state it was in at the time, USN would have to cover 100% of the costs to continue development and increases in reliability 100% on its own . USAF accepted the F100 arguably prematurely because it HAD to have it and Navy just didn't have the money to do a lot more work on the F401 on its own, and it Did have a working engine already in the F-14.
    2
  95.  @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
  96.  @petesheppard1709  some of those birds flew with the Black Ponies (VAL-4) in Vietnam. Their history is fascinating.
    2
  97. There's no requirement for Valor or Defiant to be transported in a C-17, and can you transport a Black Hawk in a C-130 without massively taking it apart? ?
    2
  98. Both the XV-15 and test models of the V-22 had ejection seats. You won't see them in the Valor the Army is presently planning to buy because that wouldn't instill a lot of confidence in the two door gunners and 14 troops also inside. If an attack version with just two crew came about, though, off-the-shelf ejection seats would be a good idea and easy to do..
    2
  99. There was no requirement to fit in a C-17/5. Army's plan is if in a hurry, fly it there. This applied to both competitors. Army has not asked for an attack version although USMC might be interested if they bought the transport version in the same way they have the UH-1Y and AH-1Z. Lots of commonality.
    2
  100. When you lose power to one engine, the crosshaft loads up and the good engine powers both rotors.
    2
  101. Assuming the rotors work the same as in the V-22, and videos indicate they do, there is a large "twist" to the blades and they will be operating at a high pitch angle. Unlike a regular prop plane, the roots will be nearly edge on and the tips will have a quite significant angle relative to the direction of flight. In other words it won't appear to a radar as a flat spinning disc, but more of a "faceted" type of surface, sort of like what was done on the F-117. I'm not saying it will be a stealth aircraft, like the F-117, just that the return isn't going to be the big thing people worry about at first glance. Bell has demonstrated nose down backwards flight, possibly not as much as Defiant is theoretically capable of (although Defaint will have the limit of how far "back" you can tilt the disc, whereas Valor does not have to worry about the blades coming too close to the fuselage). Frankly, enemies are going to be shooting at the fuselage because it's an easier target, so the question applies to both craft:. how vulnerable are the engines/transmission,/blades, etc.
    2
  102. No relation to Osprey, and since X-Wing never flew (that's not an X-Wing on the in flight shots), not surprising it would be safer!
    1
  103.  @kokofan50  No, it's because the Army specified side doors for quicker entry/exit.
    1
  104. The height is a big factor for a naval version, since there appears to be no way to lower it for storage on surface warships such as a DDG. Whenever Sikorsky shows animation of a naval Defiant, it is always operating from a CVN or a large full flat deck amphib. Bell has shown in illustrations and models how a naval Valor would fold up into a space the size of a folded UH-1Y. They will be able to fit as many V-280s in the hangar of, say, a DDG as SH-60s. Before any one asks why they didn't build it into their demonstrator, the Army doesn't need it and didn't ask for it.
    1
  105.  @rileybriggs4731  I don't think Sikorsky has ever actually demonstrated their promised rapid level deck deceleration. Bell has demonstrated slowing from 220 knots to hover in 45 seconds. One of the V-280 techniques is to tilt the proprotors 5 degrees aft of vertical and raise the nose just 4 to 5 degrees nose up, which really doesn't affect visibility of the LZ. Like you say, raising the nose also really helps in decel.
    1
  106.  @BlueTrane2028  It absolutely can be trusted (in this case).
    1
  107. Army originally wanted 250 knots, and then for some reason lowered the requirement to 235 knots. I suspect this was because a certain someone didn't think they'd be able to cruise at 250 knots and started making back channel complaints. Army, anxious to say they had a "competition' lowered the requirement. In any case, Defaint came close but never actually achieved their 250 knots in level flight, whereas, like you said, V-280 did 305 knots.
    1
  108. Valor demonstrated that it met or exceeded all Army agility requirements in the hover/ low speed. In fact, it's arguably more agile than Black Hawk in some at low speeds and much more agile at high speeds. Regarding being "vastly inferior" to Defiant, I suggest you look at the actual results from the demonstration. How can a craft that missed the Army's first flight date by a 1 1/4 years and flew less than 1/3 the hours of Valor be vastly superior?
    1
  109. Defiant never demonstrated its so-called level fuselage quick stops (and if you raise the nose like a helicopter or Valor would, you can stop very quickly). Acceleration wise, as soon as he proprotors start coming forward (which can happen early on) a Tilt-Rotor can accelerate real fast, faster than the smaller prop on Defiant can push it.
    1
  110.  @njengakim  Raider -X was much smaller. for a different role, competed with Bell 360 helicopter.
    1
  111.  @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
  112. Lockheed bought Sikorsky
    1
  113. ​ @n3v3rforgott3n9  In the 1950s the XV-3, the first flying Tilt-Rotor, had the powerplant in the fuselage, but it was single engined so in the fuselage was the only way to do it. . When Bell and Boeing competed for the NASA contract that led to the XV-15, Boeing proposed mounting both engines in the fuselage, but Bell's wingtip design was judged superior and it's been that way ever since. Additionally, mounting both engines in the fuselage would require a much more complicated transmission, exacerbated by a much more complicated method required to keep both proprotors turning in the case of engine failure.
    1
  114.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  True
    1
  115. Lockheed bought Sikorsky, after they had designed the Defiant. They are a subcontractor to Bell, who designed the Valor, for avionics and sensors. V-280 has optical sensors very much like those on the F-35, a plane Lockheed knows a thing or two about.
    1
  116. ​ @piloto_loco  Sikorsky was a division of Untied Technologies, Sikorsky had not been a totally independent company for years. similarly bell is a division of Textron. United T. looked at Sikorsky's prospects and decided they were going to divest it., So Sikorsky needed a new "parent" because it probably couldn't survive on its own. ". There wasn't a lot of beating down the doors to take them aboard. Bell/Textron showed some interest, but the US Gov't frowned on that because they thought that might turn into something monopolistic in the helicopter business. The helicopter companies that did show interest were the Europeans. The gov't realized that by frowning on the Bell option they had created a situation that could mean that a major defense supplier would be owned by companies in foreign countries. Oops! Enter Lockheed. Their tender could resolve the ownership issue and Sikorsky could stay in business. A white knight indeed.
    1
  117.  @piloto_loco  Sikorsky is pretty much out of the large scale civil market. The only thing they have to offer is the S-70, which is basically the H-60, and the S-92, which is based on the S-70/H-60. They will sell for a while, but the newer technology of the Europeans is going to make sales harder and harder. Sikorsky has stated that they don't see a civil market for X2 technology. FARA is critical for them. As long as Raider-X can perform anywhere close to what they claim and isn't ridiculously more expensive than Invictus, I can see them getting the contract for industrial policy reasons regardless of the actual relative performance demonstrated in the flyoff. Clearly they will also bid on the Navy's FVL-Maritime Strike program, but that program's further out there, and whether they can stick it out without a FARA win is uncertain. Of course, now they have Lockheed's deep pockets. Just my opinion.
    1
  118.  @piloto_loco  United Aircraft wanted to sell off Sikorsky. US Gov't told Textron/Bel lthey couldn't buy it for antitrust reasons. For a scary period we were afraid that European company might buy a major US defense contractor. Then Lockheed rode in and saved the day.
    1
  119.  @MrGeforcerFX  Lockheed came on the SB>1 because they bought Sikorsky, originally they weren't involved. Where is it said that Defiant is going to have DAS aboard? I'm not sure that Horsy had disclosed much of their planned avionics.
    1
  120. Unlike an autogyro, for higher speeds the rotor is stopped.
    1
  121. It's range is far greater than a Black Hawk's. Its hover ceiling is far higher than most traditional helicopters (including the Black Hawk) and it carries more troops than a Black Hawk. As far as the Army needing something between a H-53 (which the army does not use, they use the CH-47), they are moving forward on that. It's called the Valor (or Definat if it had done a lot better during the demonstrations).
    1
  122. They tried that with the A2D Skyshark. Just didn't work then, and would be fr more expensive today.
    1
  123. X-Wing was blades as wings. S-72 had wings because it was supposed to test mutiple rotors.
    1
  124. Even if it were possible, would cost a lot more to do (and who builds those kind of engines anymore?).
    1
  125.  @txtworld  Bell 360 also has just one engine. One engine is an Army requirement. In fact, Invictus and Raider-X use the same, Army specified, engine.
    1
  126.  @pihermoso11  No, Raider-X has one engine.
    1
  127.  @quakethedoombringer  With the rotors facing forward, if they're stopped at the 8-12-4 o'clock position, they wouldn't touch the ground. If they're turning, they each rotate outward so that blades that hit the ground are thrown away from the aircraft rather than the fuselage.
    1
  128.  @txtworld  That's right, it's a supplemental power unit. I didn't count it as a second engine, and neither does the Army [which said that FARA has to be single engined], because it's the 360''s APU. What's Bell's innovation was to design a way use its 610 shp to boost available power to supplement the T901's 3,000 shp when needed to met the Army's dash speed requirement and as you said to improve autorotational capability. I look at it as functioning like an afterburner., So I concede that it's a matter of interpretation. Now what's interesting is that if 360 wins and Sikorsky protests, would one of their arguments be that Bell-didn't meet the specs because thy have "two" engines? I don't know if that would prevail because Army might say they should have protested at the beginning because they knew what Bell was doing all along.
    1
  129.  @ninjalectualx  Hard to tell since neither aircraft exits.
    1
  130.  @lokisgodhi  You do realize that 12 incidents and 42 fatalities over 26 years, especially in an aircraft that carries 26-28 people is a pretty good record for a military aircraft, don't you?
    1
  131. Why can't you fight fires or do disaster response? It meets the Army's requirement for sling load, and should be able to do it as well as Black Hawk (as an aside, V-22 holds world speed record for carrying external load). If you look at Army bases, most helos aren't stored in hangars all the time. V-280 is wider than Defiant (H-60, BTW, is wider than the H-1 it replaced), but so what? It's shorter. More importantly, even acknowledging the greater width, nothing is better than everyone at everything. The choice is, weighing up the pluses and minuses, what gives you the most overall?
    1
  132.  @daniellarge9784  Different mission entirely.
    1
  133.  @neilturner6749  UK compared F-14, F-15 and Tornado ADV. One particular issue with the comparison was that in the study, F-15 and Tornado were evaluated with Sparrow and what would become Skyflash, which was basically a much improved Sparrow. Tomcat was evaluated just with Phoenix, which gave it an aerodynamic performance hit. When the strategy became to take the existing order to build 165 of the 385 Tornados that were already being ordered for the UK anyway as ADVs, the extra cost was much less than what would would be spent on buying a foreign aircraft.
    1
  134.  @AlanToon-fy4hg  As it aged (essentially the F-14A of 1995 was mostly the same as the one of 1975), it became harder to support and parts became harder to get. The D was much easier to support.
    1
  135.  @heatloss  The F-14 was designed to take different engines. F-14 B & D both were initially as fast as the A. What happened was that USN found that fighters rarely went above Mach 2, and by locking the intake ramps in a fixed position they could save a bunch of money on maintenance. Locking the ramps restricted the speed to Mach1.88, a tradeoff the Navy happily made.
    1
  136.  @Matt_The_Hugenot  Actually hd a substantial air to ground potential designed in but it was not exploited until the :"Bombcat" primarily for two reasons: 1 the Fighter jocks wanted "Not a pound for air to ground". 2. The air to ground mission was needed to help justify the development of the F/A-18.
    1
  137.  @the_Carthaginian1  Some figures for the slow F-14... At 10,000 ft. 150 knots to 610 knots 9.7 seconds. 400knots to M2.34 ~ 50 seconds, not sure of the altitude in this case.. Of course these are with clean aircraft fully maintained.
    1
  138.  @neilturner6749  This is going to shake a lot of people up. When the records were reviewed after the Vietnam War, it was found that while missiles didn't do anywhere as well as was promised they did better than guns. It was the way the records were originally kept. If you took a shot with a missile and missed it counted. But if in that same situation you didn't take a gun shot because you could never get in position for the shot (even though you were in missile envelope) it didn't count. Also, if the missile malfunctioned, it counted. If you squeezed the trigger on the gun and it jammed, it didn't
    1
  139.  @elphi4321  XV-15 and AW609 have demonstrated autorotation. Not all the way to the ground, because all too often, especially the larger you get, even with a successful auto it results in major damage to the aircraft. V-22's requirement was to glide to a Survivable landing because of external constraints gov't put on the design. Since this was the only V-280 in existence, it wasn't worth doing it. I've never heard of the question even being addressed in an X2 design such as Defiant.
    1
  140.  @Matt-yg8ub  Everything is more vulnerable in a hover. Actually, the bulk of what you use this class of helicopter for is getting from one place to another. Takeoff, landing and hover only consume a small portion of total operations, and a Tilt-Rotor can hover just as long as a helicopter, just not as efficiently. Like everything, it's a tradeoff for all the other things you get.
    1
  141.  @Matt-yg8ub  The press and support staff use Ospreys, but no Osprey is tricked out with the special commo gear the President requires.
    1
  142.  @patrickcamp5885  The Army had no requirement for either aircraft to fit in a C-5 or 17. Although jets are faster, first they have to be available on short notice. Then you/they have to get to where the other is. Then you've got to dissassemble and load and fly to another field equipped to take the C-5. Then you've got to unload and reassemble. then you've got to fly a FCF. And to move more than a few rotorcraft you have to have enough transports. For FLRAA, Army wanted enough range to fly overseas via island hopping as necessary or the way it was done in WWII. Bell has shown a folding version of Valor for naval use, but Army hasn't asked for that.. AAR would be easy on a Valor and probably quite doable on Defiant, although whether it could do it from a jet tanker hasn't been addressed. But really, if you've got enough time the preferred method to send a bunch overseas is by ship.
    1
  143.  @hawk7825  Actually, Sikorsky has been silent about Defiant autorotation.
    1
  144. As you are probably aware that all the reasons weren't initially given because of the protest which has now been denied. During the examination it was shown the V-280 performed far better. But their relative performance didn't even have to be disclosed. Sikorsky Boeing didn't provide all the information required for their bid and didn't provide data to validate their price was realistic.
    1
  145.  @Michael02703  What whining? Their demonstration spoke for itself, and it was Much better.
    1
  146.  @Michael02703  This isn't a V-22. Sadly, the lager the aircraft, the more casualties can happen in a single flight. For example, 155 people perished in a single C-5 accident.
    1
  147.  @Michael02703  Here's the thing. In one of my other posts I covered this in detail, so I'll be brief. V-22 can autorotate, but like other large helicopters it does it badly. This is due to a restriction imposed on the size of the rotors and the fact that the gov't supplied an engine that was heavier and burned more fuel than what they told Bell-Boeing to design for, which makes the craft heavier than planned. This is also what causes the downwash, because of the higher disc loading. Both V-22 and V-280 are Tilt-Rotors, but projecting one on the other just because they both use Tilt-Rotor technology would be the same as saying back in the day we shouldn't develop the F-16 because it is a single engined jet like the F-8 and the F-8 had an appalling safety record (it did, even ignoring combat losses). The XV-15 and AW609 have both demonstrated much better autorotation. AFAIK V-280 hasn't because it wasn't required for JMR-TD and it's the only one Bell had and you don't want to do anything too far out if you've only got one. If all you want to do is go normal helicopter speeds for normal helicopter ranges with normal ,helicopter performance, a Tilt-Rotor will lose every time. There are always tradeoffs. A Tilt-Rotor can do a helicopter's job, but not as efficiently, but a helicopter can't do a Tilt-Rotor's job. The question is, what do you need?
    1
  148. Compare the speed of an Osprey after transition to rotorborne flight with that of a helicopter. Because it looks like an aircraft it seems to be going slower than it actually is. BTW V-280 demonstrated slowing (I can't remember if these numbers are exact, but they're very close) from 220 knots to a hover in 45 seconds.
    1
  149.  @almorris171  The F-14 got that %#**!!! engine to save money. Surprisingly, though, the much more powerful and better F110 they finally got used less fuel on a mission.
    1
  150.  @shawnmiller4781  Which is why USAF took it away from the Army
    1
  151. Army specified the size of the LZ for this program. V-280 fits into it.
    1
  152. So did the SB>1
    1
  153. Even if that's true, that's one point for Defiant and still many, many more points for Valor.
    1
  154. All rotorcraft are subject to Vortex Ring State (VRS). After they properly tested the craft (something they should have done sooner), they found a Tilt-Rotor is somewhat less susceptible to VRS than a conventional helicopter and easier to recover. Sikorsky's approach couldn't even demonstrate all the things they claimed for it.
    1
  155.  @TheRezro  In defense of Sikorsky, X2 technology is completely different from conventional coaxial design.
    1
  156. All of those except the Super Tucano and Wolverine are long out of production and the tooling to build them no longer exists. Super Tucano is operated around the world by many countries. No one has bought the Wolverine except Thailand.
    1
  157. Yes
    1
  158. The other reason POTUS doesn't fly in a V-280 is that so far they've only built one of them. You probably mean the V-22 and President Obama did fly it abroad.
    1
  159. Did President Obama realize he was not allowed to fly in the Osprey he flew in in Iraq?
    1
  160.  @dct124  Defiant promised certain speeds and agility with the engine they have now, but didn't demonstrate them. Bell achieved its promises with the engine it has now. Both craft were to get new engines in their production version. Valor is probably more agile at speed at any altitude. The speed and range figures the Army wants in production aircraft and the performance promises made are at loaded weights. I don't get where people keep saying that the figures are only without load. Even if that were true, the Valor still demonstrated more.
    1
  161.  @Matt-yg8ub  It's interesting that Sikorsky has remained conspicuously silent on the autorotation capabilities of Defiant. Regarding hits, you put some heavy rounds into Defian'ts mast, which being in the fuselage is an easier target, and it's going to undergo serious hurt.
    1
  162.  @Matt-yg8ub  Exactly
    1
  163.  @Matt-yg8ub  Defiant is narrower, but longer. As far as being the "more nimble" design, the sources for that claim are Sikorsky press releases. In actual flight, it has failed to demonstrate this and in the hover has not demonstrated the agility that Valor did. I'm not sure where you got the idea Valor is less stable in the hove. Hit a Valor in an engine and the damage is away from the fuselage. Hit a Defiant in an engine and you could also mess up the fuselage and rotor mast.
    1
  164. F-14D required much less maintenance than the A, but it wouldn't have been as low as the Hornet E/F. Capability costs.
    1
  165. Defiant didn't even meet all the claims made for it, let alone "overwhelm" anything.
    1
  166.  @txtworld  the KA-52 is a ocnventional helicopter. Defiant is much more advanced.
    1
  167.  @mrbloodmuffins  Another reason is that the connections to the proprotor and the engine out cross shaft is much easier to do if the engines are by the proprotors and those have to be at the tip.
    1
  168. It's twice as fast as what we have now, and more maneuverable.
    1
  169.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  But Bell sold a lot more civil JetRangers than Hughes/MD sold Model 500s. One of the other early OH-58 "unlikables" was the tendency of the tail boom to come over the top of the aircraft in certain kinds of hard landings. BTW, I'm a fan too (more of the TV show than the movies), so as a purist nerd I've got to point out his name was Frank DreBin 😁
    1
  170.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  Wow! Apparently they're going to start production this summer on a Naked Gun reboot with Liam Neeson starring.
    1
  171.  @frankdrevinpolicesquad2930  Hey! I'm not the one making the new movie, yell at Seth MacFarlane!
    1
  172. Not an issue. There is a crosshaft in the wing that is normally unloaded. If an engine fail, it mechanically loads and transfers power from the good engine to both rotors maintaining symmetrical thrust on both sides. engine to the prop
    1
  173. Remember Defiant is pretty big itself and it's really tall.
    1
  174.  @mpetersen6  Except for the FJ-2 Fury which was a derivative of the F-86, which itself might be argued was a derivative of the Navy FJ-1 Fury, all tactical airframes used by both the USAF and USN were derivatives of naval aircraft (A-1. A-3/B-66).
    1
  175. It's very hard to do ejection seats for helicopters, Kamov is the only one who thought it was worth the effort for production. For helicopters, first they'd have to blow off the rotors. OTOH, it's easy to do on a Tilt-Rotor since the blades never go over the fuselage.
    1
  176. $43 million in 2018 dollars.
    1
  177. 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
  178. In the case of the Crusader III vs Phantom II, the Crusader was somewhat faster and accelerated better. It also had greater range when both were flown without tanks. However, that Phantom was twin engined, which while not as big a factor in Navy's as has been thought, was still a factor given the Navy's previous experience with the reliability of jet engines. It had more room for a better radar and a larger antenna. Also it had a Radar Intercept Officer which meant lower workload and higher effectiveness than a single crewed fighter. It could carry more armament, both missiles and air to ground ordnance. Those last three factors were probably the deciding ones. No way to tell if the Crusader III would have had as appalling a safety record as its predecessor. The Navy could only afford one so they picked the one they thought would give them the most bang for the buck. The original VFAX designation was for a program that was canceled, and replaced with VFX, which resulted in the F-14. The acronym VFAX was reutilized for a later program that resulted in the F/A-18. By the way, there is an urban legend that's been going around saying that after it wasn't selected, the existing Crusader IIIs would bounce Phantoms during the development process and consistently wax hem. This never happened. There are a number of reasons that confirm this, but the easiest one is that the Crusader IIIs and Phantom IIs were never in the same place at the same time for said mock combats to occur.
    1
  179.  @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
  180. 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
  181.  @jeffreyskoritowski4114  It wasn't that easy and you have to allow for who was flying each plane. In first Gulf War USAF had tough time with Foxbats at unless they caught them near their home airfields. Same thing happened win WWII with the ME-262
    1
  182.  @TyrannoJoris_Rex  Roth countries didn't "pull out". At the time it was too tenuous a program for most countries to take a risk on. Also Iran offered something no one else did: cash.
    1
  183. That's what FARA is about
    1
  184. If we aren't willing to fund enough ships to support the workforce, how are we goon to train and maintain them?
    1
  185. 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
  186. Half the budget wouldn't have be enough to develop either of them,
    1
  187. 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
  188. The V-280 has never crashed
    1
  189. Boeing proposed burying twin engines in the fuselage for the competition for the XV-15, which they lost.
    1
  190. The same way they avoid shooting off the rotors in any conventional helicopter: you limit the travel of the door guns.
    1
  191.  @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
  192.  @zackthebongripper7274  Sikorsky has only flown six X2 design airframes in forever. Forget the hundreds of thousands of flight hours on the Osprey, at the time they stopped flying the V-280 because thre was nothing left demonstrate, it alone probably had more flight hours than ALL X2s combined.
    1
  193.  @timgosling3076  How could it tip the balance when the Navy awarded the contract before either of them had flown?
    1
  194. Actually, although there were many hinky things about that contract before and since, it was the other way around. USAF said it wanted one thing and told the competitors how it was going to evaluate, then decided it wanted another and without re-soliciting with the new criteria simply changed the way they evaluated the bids so the plane they now wanted would win. That's why the award collapsed The reason it can't refuel the A-10 is because USAF specified that the receiver aircraft would push onto the boom with a certain amount of force to start fuel flow. Unfortunately, the Air Force has left the A-10 so under-powered, that when loaded at altitude it doesn't have enough power to push onto the boom with that force. Air Force has acknowledged that the problem is their fault, and is paying to correct that particular deficiency.
    1
  195. 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
  196.  @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
  197.  @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
  198.  @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
  199.  @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
  200. A Tilt-Rotor will loiter around just as long as a helo, but it'll burn more fuel. Of course, it your requirement is primarily to just operate in the slow speed regime, you're better off with a conventional helicopter than you'd be with either of these concepts.
    1
  201.  @blahorgaslisk7763  Valor demonstrated high speeds an Black Hawk or larger sling loads.
    1
  202.  @mech____  Regarding efficiency,he Valor has six blades, Defiant has 16. For the type of roles these aircraft will play, stealth is just an expensive distraction. Defiant doesn't have contradictions in its goals, it hasn't been able to acheive many of them.
    1
  203.  @orbiradio2465  Defiant team has not publicly addressed this.
    1
  204.  @orbiradio2465  It's too high.
    1
  205. 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
  206. Money and no need
    1
  207.  @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
  208. 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
  209. Mohawk was for a different mission and couldn't have performed what this one was designed for.
    1
  210.  @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
  211.  @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
  212. Air Force got it established decades ago as DoD policy that U. S. Army is forbidden to operate armed fixed wing aircraft; they must leave that to Air Force. .
    1
  213. yes
    1
  214.  @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
  215.  @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
  216. Actually according to Army both aircraft fit in the required footprint
    1
  217. 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
  218. Valor is Bell's in house name just like Defiant is Sikorsky's. Army will name it what it will when it enters service.
    1
  219. Sikorsky itself has said they don't see a civil role for X2 technology.
    1
  220.  @FLORATOSOTHON  What happens if the rotor is blown off on a conventional helicopter such as Chinook or evenUH-60?
    1
  221.  @FLORATOSOTHON  Actually the counter-rotating blades hit each other in the S-97 Raider crash.
    1
  222. 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
  223.  @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
  224.  @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
  225.  @kathrynck  The problem with the X family is that they've continually not met their promises. If you look at the comparative performance of the two craft in the recent technology demonstration, the V-280 did FAR better. it met or exceeded every one of its promises and what Army wanted demonstrated in this phase. Defiant continually missed its goals. It didn't even fly until 15 months after the date Army specified. V-280 flew an Army pilot two months after first flight. It took 2 1/2 years after its first flight for Defiant to do that. Valor flew over three times a many hours as Defiant. Defiant never reached its promised top speed [neither did S-97], Valor exceeded its [higher] promised speed by 25 knots, etc. As such X2's a much more risky technology. A conventional helicopter will hover more efficiently that a Tilt-Rotor, but whether an X2 does is not yet known. Regarding the pusher propeller for speed, it's worthy of note that when Defiant or Raider demonstrated their takeoff acceleration they tilted down must like a conventional helo, because-there's a lot more thrust from the rotor. For most missions, 90% or move of the time you're in forward flight, and that's what Tilt-Rotor is pitching. No doubt they'll both hover 'till fuel exhaustion, but a Tilt-Rotor would burn more fuel doing it, whihc is why you don't see Tilt-rotor being pitched for crane duties. If you're going to be mostly hovering or moving at very low speeds, neither of these technologies is the way you want to go.
    1
  226.  @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
  227.  @neilturner6749  The F-11B was not equipped to be able to do the A mission just like the A couldn't do the B's. Also USN couldn't afford the weight.
    1
  228. There has never been a supersonic helicopter
    1
  229. Take a look at Turbo Mustang III/PA-48 Enforcer from decades ago. This would actually cost much more than what they're doing here.
    1
  230. 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
  231. 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
  232.  @randybentley2633  Have you seen how tall this is? Sikorsky has never claimed it would fit in a shipboard Seahawk hangar.
    1
  233.  @arbysandtehchief5494  Complexity and cost killed it.
    1
  234.  @carlosandleon  The only problem so far is that they repeatedly just don't seem to do what is promised. Oh and the control system of that X@ technology you're referring to is more complex than that of Tilt-Rotor.
    1
  235.  @fredygump5578  The wings on the S-72 are there so that it can be flown if the rotor is stopped or not present. Remember that S-72 was an aircraft whose sole mission was to test rotors. An X-Wing would not have wings, because the whole point is for the rotor blades to be the "wing" when rotation is stopped. And no, an X-Wing can't autorotate because if you lose the power source that blows air over the blades, you lose all the lift.
    1
  236.  @Maddog-xc2zv  It is a program of record and is in development. No "other players" can take its place because there aren't any. It soundly defeated its rival in the competition.
    1
  237.  @Maddog-xc2zv  Your reply to me makes no sense. You said the program has been "closed"(?) which means that has already happened. As of now, that is simply not true, it is proceeding according to plan.
    1
  238.  @Maddog-xc2zv  You can't get to operating regularly until you first go through testing.
    1
  239.  @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
  240.  @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
  241.  @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
  242.  @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
  243. Actually Convair's propeller driven planes were all pistons. Later some were converted to turboprops by various companies.
    1
  244.  @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
  245.  @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
  246. You have to make sure the Rotors don't impact the fuselage when forward.
    1
  247.  @dickmelsonlupot7697  Sikorsky hasn't addressed autorotation, while Tilt-Rotors can and have autorotated. Of course, if Defiant's Rotors get clipped or shredded, it's not going to have a nice day either.
    1
  248.  @titfortat5727  Lockheed is working with Bell on avionics.
    1
  249. 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
  250.  @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
  251.  @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
  252. No, the Pentagon is stopping production of the Osprey because all the ones they have ordered have been built.
    1
  253.  @damongraham1398  Bell has stated that the V-280 will fold into cubic space the size of a folded UH-1Y. Since this is smaller than a folded H-60, it' can be assumed that everywhere a Sea Hawk could go a naval Valor could. They have shown numerous illustrations and models of such a craft.
    1
  254.  @Gemini-b4g  The primary reason is that it is a replacement for the smaller H-60 rather than the CH-46 so it doesn't need to be as big.
    1
  255.  @Gemini-b4g  One thing they can trade off is that a naval variant wouldn't have the requirement to HOGE at the high altitudes and temperatures the Army is requiring. By trading off that unneeded capability a naval variant has the power to absorb the weight increase.
    1
  256. 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
  257. You can fold a maritime Valor up to fit in DDG hangars. You can't lower the mast on Defiant.
    1
  258. Quite impressive! The control system needed for X-Wing, though, was far more complex than what is needed for the F-35B. Just take a look at how the blowing over the blades would have worked.
    1
  259.  @ronaldschoolcraft8654  Yes it did. But it wouldn't have mattered how well it worked, that wasn't the flaw in the concept. It was what was involved in the blowing over the blades and lift generation. As a thought experiment, consider what would be going on drying transition either way.
    1
  260. That was supposed to be "DURING" transition! Curse you spell check!
    1
  261. Oh, and I left out, consider the implications to the process if the blades got dirty.
    1
  262. This is a bit misleading. The S-72 was an aircraft intended to be used to test various types of rotor blades . One of the concepts it was supposed to test was the X-wing. The videos you see here are of he S-72 flying with a conventional rotor. Although an X-wing was mounted on the S-72, it NEVER flew with it. In fact, the only time an X-wing ever flew was on an earlier testbed and it was tethered at the time. X-wing never made a transition to or from stopped rotor flight. Work on the X-wing concept was dropped when it became apparent that it would require a hideously complex control system ("...an order of magnitude more complex than the Space Shuttle...", according to some sources). Transition might not be possible in level flight. It was counting on using an engine that hadn't yet been invented. Although it would have a somewhat faster dash speed, it's expected cruise speed would actually be lower than that of a Tilt-Rotor. Basically what you'd get (even with today's technology) would be nowhere near worth what it could require to get it. The S-72 itself was grounded not that long after that because it was found there just wasn't that much demand for a dedicated rotor test aircraft to test multiple different rotors. It was simpler and easier to just test the new rotor on a regular helicopter of the desired size.
    1
  263. 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
  264. In that case you land like a conventional aircraft. The spinning proprotors are designed to break off and be thrown away from the fuselage.
    1
  265. I always thought it was, "...even a barn...".
    1
  266.  @CAP198462  Well, they're actually both true 😊
    1
  267. 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
  268. 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
  269. USAF will Never voluntarily give up a "role and mission" it considers its own.
    1
  270.  @donswearingen9805  Not exactly. There weer a number of restrictions. First, Army could not develop new airfields or extend runways to accommodate the A-10s. Second, no major upgrades, especially engines. Third, Army could not develop a successor to the A-10, etc. USAF as an institution has never been a fan of the A-10, BTW.
    1
  271.  @Ieo9017  I believe Boeing is responsible for the flight control system as well.
    1
  272. Although some OV-1s were modified with armament in the field, as soon as USAF got wind of this they got DoD to order all armament removed.
    1
  273.  @gort8203  The bigger engines were needed to overcome its weight growth that affected climbout and acceleration as well as operations around the boat. You are correct that the Navy changed its mind about what it really needed. So did the Air Force. But that was because of Vietnam, but also the July 9, 1967 Domodedovo Air Show where the Soviets publicly displayed 12 new types of aircraft, including fighters with performance well beyond what we thought they were capable of. That shocked the US into giving major priority to get new high performance fighters, which resulted in the F-14 and F-15.
    1
  274.  @gort8203  The F-111Bs used in the trials on the Coral Sea were operated at lighter weights without armament or even full fuel. The purpose of the exercise was to evaluate variable sweep wings on deck and in launch/recovery operations. F-111A was planned to replace the F-105 (not the B-58) and to operate as USAF's next fighter, maybe eventually replacing the F-4 (Vietnam had something to say about that) and in reconnaissance roles. As it turned out, it only fulfilled the first role and did a good job, although it never achieved all the performance desired for that role (primarily range in certain profiles).
    1
  275.  @gort8203  You are 100% right about the F-111A always being intended to be a strike aircraft (To USAF, if it's not a Bomber, then no matter what else it does, it's a Fighter). The only AF aircraft that was ever designated from the start as an "A- " was the A-10 as part of its campaign against the AH-56. Where I screwed up was not paying attention and looking at the early, early missions for the original TFX program, which would have been impractical to actually build. Minor point: the version that was to fulfill the B-58 mission was the later FB-111. Again, the F-111Bs that flew from the Coral Sea were operated at reduced weight and the purpose was not to do full carrier compatibility tests. IIRC, one of the requirements for an operational bird was that if an engine was lost on approach in landing configuration at operational landing weight the aircraft had to be able to climb at 500 fpm in case of waveoff. It was estimated that an operational F-111B would not be able to come close to that. Carrier suitability was one of, but by no means the only, reasons fort he Navy wanting out. Another one was that given limited deck space, they couldn't afford to have it plus another fighter to handle all the rest of the fighter mission.
    1
  276.  @christophmahler  Two things: The F-111F of Desert Storm fame was a fr cry from the F-111A/B of Connolly's time. It also had 35% more thrust. Also [not to sound snarky but...] it was not one of their most capable supersonic deep strike platforms, it was the Only one, a tribute to its excellence. B-1Bs were assigned the nuclear strike mission at that time.
    1
  277. 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
  278. How do you know that?
    1
  279.  @carmelonold1090  You're the one making the claim about expensive and agile. Where in the demonstration did we see this?
    1
  280.  @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
  281.  @yolo_burrito  Than what?
    1
  282.  @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
  283. In its report, Army said Sikorsky didn't provide he information required for the bid , so even though Sikorsky' price was lower, Army said Sikorsky didn't provide the backup data necessary to have confidence in their price.
    1
  284. Heavy lift is the province of CH-53 and CH-47. Smaller V280 is for troop insertion.
    1
  285. I saw it at NASA Ames a number of times during the '80s. I believe it is now resident at the Moffett Field Museum.
    1
  286. 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
  287. The concepts involve blowing the rotors off before teh seats eject, making it a slower process than on a conventional aircraft. Teh exception is Tilt-Rotor since the rotors never go over the fuselage or cockpit, so regualr ejection seats can be used without modificatipon.
    1
  288.  @shadowopsairman1583  Yeah, that'll work real well with a helo flying, say 100 feet off the ground.
    1
  289. 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
  290.  @christophmahler  It hasn't done it to mine or many others Maybe the gods of Google do not look upon you with favor.
    1
  291. But only one team gets to advance.
    1
  292.  @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
  293.  @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
  294.  @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
  295.  @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
  296. 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
  297.  @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
  298. Short Tucano is a license built version in Britain of the EMB-312 Tucano from Brazil. The EMB-314 Super Tucano, also known as the A-29, which is an upgraded attack oriented derivative, won two competitions here, which were then promptly canceled.
    1
  299. 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
  300. Depends on what's hit just like any aircraft.
    1
  301.  @amramjose  depends on the Tilt-Rotor.
    1
  302.  @iamcyrushawkins  But it can glide, better than a helo.
    1
  303.  @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
  304. Propeller strikes where? The blades never go over the fuselage, and if the V-280 is ever forced to land with the rotors fully forward, they rotate outward away from the fuselage and are designed to break away in a manner that throws them away from the aircraft.
    1
  305.  @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
  306.  @bitrage.  No loss of life is "good". My point is simply compare it with other aircraft with similar age and flying hours.
    1
  307.  @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
  308.  @Condor1970  Raider-X can not meet Marine requirements.
    1
  309. 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
  310. There's not much point in stealth for this kind of mission...you can just look up and see the thing.
    1
  311.  @IsaacKuo  The reason AMRAMM wasn't on tomcat was a conscious decision to use the money that was planned for its integration to instead integrate LANTIRN. it was felt that there would be a greater demand for more strike capability than air-to-air for the remainder of the Tomcat's life.
    1
  312.  @hanzzel6086  Exercises and real world experience have shown that helicopters are at a big disadvantage against fixed wings.
    1
  313. 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
  314. Army did not require Valor or Defiant to be able to fit into C-%/17. for rapid deployment they'll fly them there. A naval V-280 will fold, Bell has already shown how. Army doesn't need that capability, and its a/c won't have it. .
    1
  315.  @jackdbur  The ferry range the Army specified will permit them to cross the pond by island hopping without need of a tanker. During WWII fighters flew from US to Europe without tankers.
    1
  316. Different missions. Raider can't come close tp meting the requirements Valor and Defaint were designed for.
    1
  317. The missions and environment have changed so much that a 50 year old design can't keep up,much greater range and speed are needed, so that was the point of the competition.. Huey was cheaper, so maybe we shouldn't have developed the Black Hawk?
    1
  318. ...If they're willing to pay the cost, and most aren't.
    1
  319. Jaguar originally had a naval version for France, but after a few were built, France decided not to pursue the program.
    1
  320.  @TheBooban  defiant is not entered in FARA. It. like Valor, is too large.
    1
  321.  @jonalmario9835  There's not enough money for both, and Valor far outperformed Defiant
    1
  322. Defiant does not have a "much smaller footprint". Both competitors met eh Army's footprint requirement'
    1
  323.  @nobodyimportant72  It fits in the space the Army required.
    1
  324.  @imperialinquisition6006  Actually, there were numerous later reports on both the F-111 and F-35 that indicate that if the services had been allowed to have their own aircraft with just some common subcomponents it would have been cheaper. For one thing, you wouldn't have to gt two services' clearance on almost everything you wanted to do. Hindsight being 20/20.
    1
  325. Lifetime maintenance, training and spares included in the cost figure
    1
  326. Actually, it was crazy behind.
    1
  327. Remember, V-280 far outeprformed Defiant in the tests.
    1
  328. USAF's main impetus in doing the A-10 was to kill the army's AH-56. When Army did that on its own, USAF didn't know what to do with the plane, although the ground troops loved it. They kept trying to get it out of service, and if not for Desert Storm it would have been gone 30 years ago.
    1
  329. It's too big and isn't designed to hover, "hot and high" like the V-280 is.
    1
  330. Sikorsky has said there's no real civil market for this particular technology.
    1
  331.  @zarthemad8386  Simply not true
    1
  332.  @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
  333. The $35-$40K/fh came from two things thrown into the equation. First, F-14A costs wee rolled in there whereas the proper comparison would be with the F-14D which because of sustainability improvements built in (the wiring system is just one example) was less expensive than the A to operate, although it never would be able to match the Bug's numbers. Second, once the decision was made to kioll the F-14, part and containment personnel became harder to get and support was lower priority since the plane was going away, which drove up costs.
    1
  334.  @kennethfharkin  But it still isn't as efficient as a real wing.
    1
  335.  @neilturner6749  Actually in limited profiles AIM-120D can almost reach AIM-54 range AIM-260 is supposed to have longer range and the limited use AIM-174 has loner range than Phoenix.
    1
  336.  @WhiteWolf65  It would also be MUCH more expensive (seriously, it would) ;)
    1
  337. 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
  338. You can get at least 10 into a soccer field
    1
  339. Neither Valor nor Defiant will fit in a C-5/C-17 without major. It wasn't a requirement. the idea is if you don't have time to ship them somewhere fr away, you fly them there. That's where the large ferry range requirement came in.
    1
  340. Bell has a long history of building military helicopters as well. Ever watched "MASH"? Ever heard of the Huey? This time Bell had the better technology. They're going to need to hire workers to build a lot of these.
    1
  341. 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
  342. 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
  343. X-Wing technology is Far more complex than Tilt-Rotor
    1
  344.  @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
  345. 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
  346. And they lost big time
    1
  347. Different project entirely
    1
  348. FWIW, both competitors were required to be able to fit at least as many of their craft in the same sized specified LZ as the UH-60. Compared to SB>1 its wider but shorter, so you may see them sitting at 90° relative. Th concern about size originally by Sikorsky because they didn't have that many other demonstrated superiorities to brag about.
    1
  349.  @edcox1630  Yes it can, but at a lesser weight. This is true of all helos.
    1
  350. 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
  351.  @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
  352.  @Kakarot64.  that would actually cost more.
    1
  353.  @simonhenry7867  China has THREE with the latest undergoing sea trials, and more building
    1
  354. 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
  355. In that one case, there was a slow burning fire in the nacelle that weakened the crosshaft which is normally unloaded when both engines are operating It only takes up the load if there is an engine failure to distribute power evenly to both rotors. . Crosshaft was designed to take a large hit or explosion, but-no one anticipated a situation whne it would be subjected to a lengthy and sustained fire. So when the nacelles rotated for landing, leaking fuel/oil flowed to the hot exhaust and there was an explosion, the weakened crosshaft failed and so you got asymmetric lift. Thing is, the Osprey had given the crew multiple warnings about a failure situation, and normal procedure would be to land as soon as possible, which be easy to do along the way in a VTOL. Crew chose to press on instead which led to the lengthy stress on the crosshaft.
    1
  356. 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
  357.  @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
  358. The most expensive of both worlds. That's why we didn't get both the F-22 and F-23
    1
  359. 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
  360.  @ernestjorda2777  In an X-Wing, the pitch of the blades is never altered. The amount of lift is controlled by how much air is flowing from the slots in the blade.
    1
  361.  @Danger_mouse  The blades aren't flipped. The air coming out of the slots has to be re routed to blow over the aft edge.
    1
  362.  @mshepard2264  Exactly. BTW, how many troops can a B-1 carry?
    1
  363.  @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
  364.  @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
  365.  @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
  366. 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
  367. Range is much greater than Black Hawk.
    1
  368.  @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
  369.  @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
  370.  @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
  371.  @TonkaFire2019  Osprey also will fly on one engine. when one engine goes out, a crosshaft transfers power from eh other side.
    1
  372.  @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
  373.  @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
  374.  @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
  375.  @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
  376.  @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
  377.  @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
  378.  @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
  379.  @NuclearSavety  If you lose one engine, the normally unloaded crosshaft powers both rotors. If you lose two engines, you glide with an optional auto rotation at the end, if you have suffice height to begin with. If one retro is completely destroyed, well what do you think happens when the rotor is destroyed on a conventional helo?
    1
  380. Because the V-22 carries a lot of people.
    1
  381. 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
  382. 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
  383. Turboprop. Thee is just no market for large radials today, even if you had access to the special fuel they need and could afford the maintenance. They offer no advantages over turboprops and have lots of disadvantages.
    1
  384.  @douglee2438  It autorotates badly, just as many large helicopters do. It would use the wing to glide, something that's not an option in regular helicopters. BTW, autorotations on even conventional helicopters often end badly. That's one of the reasons that in training practice autorotations do not go all the way to the ground.
    1
  385. 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
  386. 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
  387. The trubofans were to provide propulsion during testing of various rotors and also for use when no rotor was fitted.
    1
  388.  @alan-sk7ky  RA-5C was 8eight feet longer than F-111B, but wingspan was 17 feet less. A-3 was eight feet longer and wingspan was two feet wider.
    1
  389.  MilitaryInsights12  Keep in mind that in the USN, the pilot is not always the aircraft commander. The RIO/WSO can be, depending on rank and mission .
    1
  390. When USN and USAF were forced by DoD to acquire a "common" aircraft for their diverse missions, USN insisted on the capsule, in anticipation of ejections taking place far from the fleet with the crews having to spend protracted times in the water prior to rescue. The downsides were weight, cost, complexity and that although it was a very small amount of time, it did take a full capsule longer to separate from the rest of the aircraft than a regular ejection seat. That's probably why no other operational aircraft used the capsule. In fact, the B-1A, which was also capable of sustained speed well above Mach 1, went from using an escape capsule on the first three B-1As to conventional ejection seats on the fourth and would have continued on into production. Even the Lockheed Blackbirds used conventional ejection seats. The B-58 and B-70 sort of split the difference by using encapsulated ejection seats.
    1
  391. 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
  392. Sikorsky itself said it didn't see any market for a civilian version.
    1
  393.  @konstellashon1364  actually it won't due to the height
    1
  394.  @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
  395.  @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
  396.  @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
  397.  @n3v3rforgott3n9  The capability is built in.
    1
  398.  @JeffreyStrader  Still no resemblance
    1
  399. 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
  400.  @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
  401. 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
  402.  @gort8203  Also didn't have the maneuverability, visibility, maintainability, ability to carry the necessary avionics and turnaround capability. For what it was designed for, it was very good at. In fact, a three engined version was proposed to USAF as an interceptor.
    1
  403.  @damongraham1398  Also C-141, C/K/M/V/(etc) -135. Besides V-280 is Bell's model number. In Army service it will have a different official number.
    1
  404.  @scenicdepictionsofchicagolife  Carrier On-board Delivery
    1
  405. 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
  406.  @scoldeddogproduction  There were two built. The second is at Moffett Field in California
    1
  407.  @kingmiller1982  They will be more specific when they answer the protest
    1
  408.  @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
  409. For (1), we can only have predictions s until the thing actually gets in service. For (2) ditto For (3) We do know, and Bell has produced numerous arttists' concepts and models of attack versions. Modifications wouldn't be that dramatic since you're already starting with a really fast airframe .
    1
  410.  @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
  411.  @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
  412. Except that it doesn't work.
    1
  413. Money
    1
  414. Both Charger and Bronco were high wing. While Convair put the canopy above the wing, the the fuselage hung from the wing, which is what defines high wing. Also, if the two are compared, the Charger can be seen as the one with the bubble canopy.
    1
  415.  @rayceeya8659  If you have sufficient runway at both ends when and where you need it, no VTOL makes sense. And of course you have to hope your C-130 and Black Hawk can get together simultaneously where and when you need them.
    1
  416. The F6D was canceled in 1961, six years before the US became aware of what it thought were M3 MiGs. Regarding getting close to M3 bombers, remember the bombers would be coming toward the carriers. It was canceled because the concept of a slow long endurance plane designed to do nothing but loiter around and hurl missiles at Soviet bombers simply wasn't viable. It would take a while to get back and rearm and was of no use against fighters and other craft. There really wasn't going to be enough deck space for the luxury of such a limited craft. As far as a cheap day fighter went, what if you encountered the enemy at nought or IFR weather? Again, there's only so much deck space. F-111B's speed was a byproduct of USAF requirements since McNamara directed a "one size fits all" approach.
    1
  417. 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
  418.  @Obvsaninternetexpert  A naval version would, Army doesn't need that feature.
    1
  419. It can sling load more than the Black Hawk can.
    1
  420.  @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
  421. Missed a 0. 10,000 lbs.
    1
  422. Valor: six blades Defiant 16 blades
    1
  423. The S-72 test aircraft used the same engines as th S-3.
    1
  424.  @dbeelee8564  There's not enough money to develop, procure and support both.
    1
  425. Army won't name the aircraft until it's closer to entering service. "Valor" is Bell's name for it.
    1
  426. S-71 was proposed for the competition for what became the Apache 50 years ago. It actually never flew.
    1
  427.  @redlindholm8451  no relation
    1
  428.  @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
  429.  @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
  430. Both the charger and OV-10 had ejection seats. Because of its configuration, you could also climb out of the Charger and bail out like they did in WWII. this was not possible in the OV-10.
    1
  431. Boeing was not involved with Valor, but it was with Defiant.
    1
  432. The X-wing concept was that teh rotor wold be stopped and would act like a wing via air being ducted through the blades. Operational X-Wings would not use conventional wings, because that would defeat the whole purpose of the concept.
    1
  433. The V-280 met or exceeded all Army maneuverability requirements
    1
  434.  @Matt_The_Hugenot  F-14D (which was the version Cheney killed) met or exceeded everything that was asked of it and for which DoD provided support. Its avionics were the most advanced in US service APG-71 was essentially the F-15E;s APG-70 with or air-to-air capability, a more powerful transmitter and a bigger antenna. . It carried the same missiles as other US fighters except for Phoenix, which is only now being superseded. It was the first fighter to fire AMRAAM,but it was decided to use the money to integrate LANTIRN instead.
    1
  435. This is not a conventional coaxial rotor. It is a much more advanced technology known as X2
    1
  436. The reversible prop promises to produce fast deceleration in level (although it hasn't been demonstrated), but you can also get fast decel by raising the nose as as conventional helos do. Something overlooked, though is that on the ground either the troops have to wait for that prop to stop so they don't get sliced and diced, which delays their egress, or the prop has to be stopped while still airborne, which negates part of the advantage it's supposed to confer.
    1