David Bushnell would be one candidate...

You're discounting Mr. Murphy... and you're also discounting current ECM systems combined with combat tactics. It's not as simple as "I have AAA so I don't have to worry about planes". If you'd like a relatively current real world example I invite you to look into the Falklands conflict in the early 80's. Defense fighters were on station and actively engaging when the Argentinians put UNGUIDED bombs on target.

Cute platitudes...

We all know china gets their ships from Temu… so I’m not worried about it. But don’t forget that we have the F22, and B2. Both of which have a radar cross section of a single nickle or bumble bee. Both of which are more than capable of delivery, without detection. Good luck with your Chinese propaganda!

Foolish comment

Wow! Getting 'sneaked up on' by an Apache must have been unforgettable! Thanks for sharing!

The helmet is a Suith African development. Copied for Apache. The South African Red Hawk outperformed the Apache in a 1:1 test. All heavily suppressed by US. Interesting.

Licensed from GE, manufactured in SK. Yes.

Lockheed Martin was brought in as a designer consultant.

Why do you think so? Can you mention the ground of that?

@@yeoulman If you do your research you’ll know LM was a design consultant.

F22 랩터 제작 개발총괄연구팀장이 한국계 미국인이였음 그는 한국으로 귀화해 kf21을 설계하고 만들었다 미국정부는 그가 랩터의 기술을 탈취했다고 그를 고소해 1년6개월동안 그는 감옥에 있다 풀려났다 미국당국은 그를 전투기 개발의 공과 한국정부와의 갈등을 이유로 선처한것으로 보인다 그의 이름은 한국인 박시몽 박사다

Consulting for the South Korean FA-50 was also provided from Lockheed.

😂😂😂😢

Chinese troll!!! Better than Chinese widow-maker planes 🤣🤣🤣

V-280 might be the official designation, at least for the prototypes. For the production aircraft it’s likely to be something like UV-280. For strike variants I think it’s more likely they would adopt a similar unmanned aircraft, which there has already been some early work on

@@andrewreynolds4949 I saw that one called the Vigilante

@@andrewreynolds4949 I hope they choose Comanche as the production name. I think the unmanned version is call Vigilante

If there is one thing you are wrong about it's that. The V-280 and the V-22 can fly on one engine since both are connected to each other so that if one fails the other can compensate.

@@Predator42ID You point is well taken, thank you; by the by, "I looked it up", and you are correct, this time. 🤣🤣🤣

If you want the "one thing" that these tiltrotors can't do that a classic rotor aircraft can: autorotate. Total engine failure in a Blackhawk still comes with the hope of a controlled landing, even if it's still a hard one. A tiltrotor in hover mode with no forward speed? forget it. You fall out of the sky.

@@jadefalcon001 Cracks knuckles. Lady's and Gentlemen I give you the most overuse used term in the aviation media. Created by those who know nothing of what they are talking about but instead of being mean I'll be teaching. Allow me to explain. Auto rotation works by using rotors like a parachute this can be done with either helicopters or Tiltrotors. However in order for Auto rotation to work you need two things. Altitude of at least 100Feet and speed. Now according to pilots and engineers Auto rotation only works if all the parts like the gearbox, rotor shaft and even tail rotor are still functional. Loose those and your odds of survival drop. Now according to a US Naval aviator. Autor rotation has never once been used in combat by the US since it's use of helicopters. The reason being is said pilots often operate at high speed at an altitude of around 50FT or less to avoid radar. Also bullets, cannons, missiles, rockets. All these things tend to hit the airframe causing damage making Auto rotation a further problem as well as the larger the chopper the harder for said system to work in general. Now is Auto rotation train and used, yes, but pilots still call it a controlled crash. Hence why helicopters in general have a crash rate of 9.85. While Tiltrotors have a crash rate of 3.45 making tiltrotors more reliable and safer then even fixed wing planes which are at 5.3. Source USAF and USMC. Thank you and have a good Sunday.

@Predator42ID Thanks a lot for providing those details!

It's a lot safer than the osprey since it doesn't have the center gear box, which caused most crashes. They actually have a civilian version of this that is going through type certification now.

You need to watch the part at 8:01 again.

What are you talking about? All the new technological breakthroughs have a checkered past. Even the Black Hawk before it reached full maturity was known as the “Crash Hawk” In the process of real world training and pilot error things are going to happen.

Huh?!

they are 4 years ahead than powerpoint "conceptual phase" proposed actually by GCAP, would you compare Bea systems to Airbus and Dassault about building top notch aircraft? or leonardo to Thales about electronics? lol