FLRAA Programme | the V-280 Valor versus the SB-1 Defiant

The next step in the evolution of the helicopter, We are investigating the FLRAA Programme.
Why was the FLRAA needed? #flraa #V280 #SB1 #Valor #defiant
What are the important developments in the programme?
Could the FLRAA really do what they promised?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the V-280 Valor and the SB-1 Defiant over each other?
Welcome to our channel. All the weapon systems are like books. They tell us their stories. The Weapon Detective investigates these books, reads between the lines, analyse, and tells the untold. At the dawn of the Second Cold War, the fruits of new projects give us clues about the future. But current weapon systems also have their own stories. In our videos, you can find technical information as well as historical backgrounds, what happened during the development processes, combat experience and political projection. While the Second Cold War rising, Let's investigate the weapons together.
© Bell, Sikorsky Aircraft, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, US Army, Airbus Helicopters, AIRBOYD, USAF, AiirSource Military, Global News, US Navy, US Marine Corps, Gung Ho Vids, 145thproduction, U.S. Defense System, PBS Documentaries, Mofet Etzion, General Dynamics, yasso1967, SB1 Defiant, Discovery Channel, jaglavaksoldier, Aviation International News, Smithsonian Channel, sasty73, Eric Grass, armouredpuppy, Damian Kopyciński, Indian Air Force, AA (Anadolu Agency), Turkish Armed Forces, Military Base, Joey Patenaude, euronews, m171562, War News, SuperDuperSpectre, LA MAGRA, AP (Associated Press), Matthew Berdyck, SpartanSix, Al Jazeera
Music: Airwolf (1984-1986) TV Series Original Soundtrack Theme-Extended Version
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos
• Weapon Detective
Please click the link to watch our other US Systems videos
• US Systems
Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos
• Weapon Detective-Air
/ weapondetective
/ weapondetective
[e-mail]

[@WeaponDetective]

Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrdqB-XbqY2LocUVEaG_w7D Please click the link to watch our other US Systems videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LpUxPF6XsG8N3aW4tnMH3v- Please click the link to watch our other Weapon Detective-Air videos kzbin.info/aero/PLEMWqyRZP_LrGyENf3nqsYKC9ZkWH414k

[@bobbywalter5964]

instaBlaster...

[@bens4096]

Thank you for not using a robot voice

[@yolo_burrito]

I wish YT had a filter so I don’t see robot voice videos.

[@njengakim]

Agreed real voices make videos more authentic.

[@stanleynowak9325]

Amen

[@billdude1564]

👍 robot voice filter control

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

Honestly, what they want from the program is best attained by acquiring both systems. The "Valor" is perfect for transporting troops for an air assault, or providing an air bridge between two islands or from a WASP class ship, (or similar), to land. But for support roles, and everything where you need to go into a tight spot, I think the "Defiant" is better suited! The "Valor" is basically a improved and lighter version of the "Osprey", although a lot smaller in troop capacity, but capable of similar transport weight. The "Defiant" is basically everything we want from any helicopter... So well suited for becoming a weapons platform, Submarine Hunter, SARS, and everything where there isn't room for something like the "Valor" that undoubtedly also require higher safety distance between them when landing or taking off at the same time...

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

As far as I know , this is strictly an Army program.

[@user-dd1bb4tw4r]

Let's use both 😎

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@user-dd1bb4tw4r US debt is pushing 30 trillion. Not going to happen.

[@AdornByFire]

This didn’t age well.

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@AdornByFire It seems like you are using the "this didn't age well" phrase a bit different than most other people would use it. Since what I wrote back then was primarily just what each vehicle is best suited for, and nothing has changed that, it is quite clear that it aged perfectly well. We always knew they wanted to focus on just one single system, and that each system has their pros and cons which they had to put up against each other. The Valor is a great choice, especially for air assaults in places where there's room enough to manoeuvre. I wouldn't enjoy making insertion into a urban environment with little room between buildings in one if it was me, and for MedEvac in dense forrest and densely build urban environment I would probably also have preferred something like the Defiant if it was me. But I also get why they want to focus on a single system. It's much easier to deal with, you don't need two types of spare parts etc... So it makes sense on the logistics side of things. Also mechanics can focus on being good at dealing with just one type, so that's easier as well... But please explain what it is exactly that you think "didn't age well"???

[@ER-qx5gg]

Love how they used the Airwolf theme music for this video.

[@DeltaV3]

An excellent video. Using the Airwolf theme music is a great idea. 💪🏻

[@nasserisback488]

airwolf theme tune, damn i feel old

[@damaliamarsi2006]

I immediately recognized it.

[@A.R.77]

The Defiant looks super busy, especially in the butt end. It's got some nice looks. But the Valor looks sleek, agile, and very efficient in comparison.

[@PaulXMann]

The pusher on the defiant seems hilariously similar in theory to the "turbos" on Airwolf... just foward thrust! Either way, the idea of using the Airwolf music in the background of this video was genius. Welll done!

[@psibug565]

It’s a rip off of the AH-56 Cheyenne, Lockheeds Helicopter from 50 years ago.

[@daxkedgx8698]

I really hope that V-280 wins! it's a really gorgeous machine.

[@astatine5781]

It’s also a death trap If the engine fails you fall out the sky, I have tried many ways to make VTOL(in video games ofc) aircraft and a tilt rotor isn’t a good idea, everytime I had an engine issue you basically just fall out the sky, there isn’t enough lift from those little wings to glide and making them bigger is a whole list of issues. Also the systems used in these tilt rotors are extremely complex and I cant think of a way to make them simpler and more reliable. With a coaxial compound heli ( helicopter with 2 counter rotating blades and a push prop at the back to push it forward) it is much smaller, much more reliable and safer, if the engine fails you still got good old autorotation to give you more time to land safely.

[@daxkedgx8698]

@@astatine5781 Interesting stuff. i am sure the army will select the best option. still hoping for technology to get better and more reliable in the future. and as they say "looks don't mean anything when the machine gets the job done". still i find the v280 really great looking.

[@astatine5781]

@@daxkedgx8698 I think the osprey looks cooler, but I personally like coaxials much more and think it’s a tie when it comes to looks between the valor and defiant.

[@cerewaffle900]

@@astatine5781 that’s why it has 2 engines that both power both propellers. So in the event of a single engine out you can still fly but at a slower speed. I’m excited to see how Bell has learned from the entire V-22 program, a significant one is how only the propellers tilt allowing for side loading as opposed to only back ramp loading. Either way I think both should win but sadly there’s not enough money for that

[@tracemitchell2093]

@@astatine5781 except it’s not independent drive you’d have to have dual engine failure for it to stop flying and at that point it can auto rotate if need be

[@GermanGreetings]

A complex decision to make... thank you so much for this deeply detailed comparison !

[@Christoph1888]

Loved the background music. Loved that show as a kid

[@mikejohnson5900]

Very clearly well explained! Also, thank you for not using a robot voice, your spoken English is fine.

[@verdebusterAP]

The AH-64, UH-60 and CH-47 have been operating for decades now. Even though upgrades has addressed many of their shortfalls, Times are changing as its Modern warfare. The USMC investing in the MV-22 has paid major dividends for them. The MV-22 speed ,cargo capacity and in flight refueling greatly exceeds existing medium helicopters The V-280 should be equally as capable

[@atomicskull6405]

Yeah because it's freaking huge it'd be more fair to compare it to a heavy lift helicopter like the CH-47 and there it doesn't compare in vertical lift capability due to disk loading. Proprotors must compromise between prop drag in forward flight and disk loading in hover and there is no engineering around that. A big low RPM larger rotor can carry more weight and generate more lift for a given amount of horsepower. This is why an F-35 can just lift itself vs an Erickson aircrane with the same amount of HP can lift itself and a radio tower on the end of a line. The high RPM small bladed lift fan isn't as efficient as a huge low RPM rotor at turning HP into vertical lift.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@atomicskull6405 Tilt-rotors are future and traditional helicopters are coming to end, kzbin.info/www/bejne/jKGoeWZ5gq6pl7c Here are MV-22s doing aerial refueling with a KC-10. Tilt-rotor aircraft are fast enough to refuel from jet tankers which major leap over the refueling from a C-130 and opens the door many other capabilities www.amc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1509578/travis-kc-10-takes-ospreys-on-alternate-route-across-atlantic/ Here another with MV-22s and one KC-10 make its away across the atlantic non-stop. 15 hour flight. The latest generation of helicopters cannot do that. Tilt-rotor aircraft have to ability to go further and faster which is prized over lift capability. No need for C-17 or C-5 transport or even ship Able to self-deploy which for starters saves a substantial amount of time and resources. A V-280 can fly directly into theater , all it has to do is be refueled, maintenance turned and its ready for action. Unless they travel by ship, helicopters have broken down and then put back together which is time consuming This many and other capabilties is why helicopters days are numbered

[@w8stral]

@@verdebusterAP IS in flight refueling needed for a helicopter for the army? Hell no. Is massive range needed for the Army? Hell no. Does the ARMY need to deploy quickly? Hell No. What is the BIGGEST expense for operations? Fuel. (Efficiency for Lift capacity)/fuel burned IS required. The SB-1 is vastly more efficient Aerodynamically than the V280 for all short/medium ranged missions and more than likely equal at long ranged missions. The rare LONG range mission is special ops territory anyways which frankly should not be considered for this program. V280 is what the V22 SHOULD have been, but the NAVY is not part of FLRAA. Now should the Navy procure a navalized V280 for the marines? Maybe. But this in effect means the Marines will have 3 specialized Helos for logistics... I do not see their budget allowing this to happen and the V280 will die is my opinion as the Marines/spec ops will make do with the V22 for long ranged missions and probably navalize the SB-1 for attack missions. Now they may change the V22 Engine rotation to that of the V280 in the future along with adding a side door or pressurized cabin. I can see that happening.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@w8stral How about no to all of that its called modern warfare longer range, ability to deploy quickly are staples for modern warfare The increase of A2/D2 or Area denial weapons have emphaized need for longer and rapid deployable forces

[@w8stral]

@@verdebusterAP Basics of take/hold territory is no different today than any other period of history and that is the ARMY's job. There is zero reason for range in that scenario. As for "modern" warfare... The whole thing is off the rails since the advent of the ICBM with nuclear missiles. A2D2.... The range of these Helo's does not help that basic reality any. You can't sustain at range in A2D2 scenario with Helo's. World is not about Special ops bud. Drop the Hollywood bullshit.

[@jimramsey8887]

A brilliant synopsis of the new US Helo Requirement. Thanks very much.

[@armyscout19d98]

Holy crap airwolf was my show nice way you did this

[@CPTME90s]

Thank you for choosing this song!

[@daholl8942]

its very interesting watching this later on down the line after the v280 has already won the contract

[@mlougee3172]

Can we have both? I'd like us to have both.

[@416to613]

The SB-1 seems better suited to a proper replacement of the Blackhawk and Seahawk. The V-280 seems better suited to the Marines and their particular long range assault doctrine.

[@ohkabomb917]

@@416to613 I imagine that will be the case. The defiant-x and its attack version will replace the blackhawks and apache while the v-280 will replace the viper and phantom.

[@seherburcebinici8964]

I absolutely adore this video

[@whitewaterkayaker]

The Air Wolf music in the background is on point

[@davipervenom9151]

I don’t think the Army should only choose one. Both have their uses. And in my humble opinion. The Army could use both depending on the mission.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

20 plus trillion in debt says otherwise.

[@angelarch5352]

love the airwolf theme in the backround music:)

[@jimmyboomsemtex9735]

wow 4k new choppers of varied types that will be some huge lucrative contract.

[@joshschneider9766]

I hope the osprey leads to a tradition of bird names for tilt rotors the way tribal names are for normal helicopters.

[@Delgen1951]

Eagle names? or all names like blue jay or Red Bird aka Cardinal, Qual or Whip poor Will?

[@joshschneider9766]

@@Delgen1951 raptors. Although both hawk and eagle are taken as is raptor itself. Now that I think about it there's alot of aircraft named for birds of prey lol

[@Delgen1951]

@@joshschneider9766 yes that was my idea, kind of makes you think, aout it.

[@petermallia558]

Having a rigid two counter rotating lift system also helps to cut out Dissymmetry lift which causes one rotor blade to slow down due to drag ana aerodynamic performance, giving an uneven amount of lift usual on the port side,(left) the rotor 90⁰ at the 9°clock position, which some would think it would be the opposite blade, the one moving in to the wind/airflow, but as I said it's the blade moving backwards towards the tail suffering the most drag when it's at it's 9⁰clock position as straight ahead is 12⁰clock, also it gets rid of the need for a tail rotor for stability and yaw, cancelling out the torque wanting to spin the helicopter fuselage in the opposing direction to the rotors, similar to a tandem rotor like Chinook, or Osprey, always counter rotating the rotors, like aircraft where turboprop rotors always both either rotate inward or outward. YF-23 was awesome, better than F-22 in some cases, and in My opinion, a much more futuristic look to the design, but cigar smoke filled rooms with brandy in hand ana a slush fund sealed the deal for F-22 to beat YF-23.

[@myballsitchsomethingfierce6319]

Army chose the Valor

[@HarpieEagle1]

The V 280 may be wide it’s speed and range alone allow the Army to bypass two major problem; FARP requirements to accomplish the distance requirements of the future, and the speed requirement to get as many troops on the ground and equipment in the shortest time can and should dominate the battle space. I hope the Army is smart enough to make these two airframe load all the combat gear needed for the future fight to determine if either a/c can achieve their desired weight, speed , lethality, and EW capability.

[@user-nx3wg9fg1e]

The Airwolf theme eas a nice touch

[@ScrotusXL]

Ha ha Airwolf background music! I love the 80’s baby

[@thestevecbr]

the US should get BOTH aircraft for specific missions or branch of service’s specific needs…

[@Yuki_Ika7]

both are cool, i am hoping either both go into service or the SB1 wins, i really want to see that air-torpedo helicopter around in service!

[@stug77]

Unfortunately like you said there isn't very good data on the SB-1. I think many of it's strengths like payload capacity and potential armed variants haven't been made public. I think the sb1 is by far the superior choice in replacing the Blackhawk in conflicts like what are found in the middle east. However, I am not sure which one when discussing operations in the pacific.

[@drewrowl]

There is no comparison, one thing is a helicopter and another is tilting rotores. The helicopter still has to be used as a helicóptero for the reduced area it covers when landing. You can't go any smaller than the regular helicopter. For landing in confines spaces, valor is like a chinook better arranged and so every vehicle has it's own unique properties that need more production or less of it for the different reasons needed at the time.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@drewrowl The key is that the Army required that as many aircraft had to fit into a specified sized LZ as the UH-60 with a minimum specified distance between turning rotors. The Valor meets this requirement. The Valor is wider than Defiant, but shorter.

[@jemakrol]

Nice touch with the background music 🤓

[@generalrendar7290]

V280 has the advantage in utility, The SB-1 is more flexible in it's roles and can squeeze into tighter spaces. The V280 is practically ready while the SB-1 isn't done yet.

[@nouatreiunu]

if US don't learn from Russia to develop multiple platforms for multiple missions and longer testing in real situation, over a longer period of time, together (Mi-28 and Ka-52 / Su-27, 33, 34, 35) ...and throw away good and open to improve & develop platforms, like F-14 for example ( kzbin.info/www/bejne/jpfbh6Gbmrusga8 ) ...and many more others in the last 70+ years... communist but efficient China will/ can EAT YOU ALIVE... wake the fuck up and dismember or contain the Lockheed monopoly that is actively destroying US military, independence, defence readiness etc.

[@nouatreiunu]

what I meant (in the longer comment) was... V-280 and SB-1 should probably/ would be better to be both developed further and tested for several years in smaller number in real situations... and maybe both approved for the diverse branches of US military

[@Hexigonic]

@@nouatreiunu they are doing exactly that with the F/A-XX program,instead of awarding one company a single contract they are getting several companies to actually work together

[@Delgen1951]

buy one for the Marines and one for the army. Air Force gets either or both.

[@HarpieEagle1]

Bell has got to find a design that will protect those critical flight controls exposed during landing when a helicopter is most likely to take weapons fire.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That's not really an issue.

[@aceofhearts573]

Air wolf theme. Yes

[@ottovonottsville476]

We need both

[@outforbeer]

I support both. V280 seem more of a utility vehicle while defiant is more combat

[@brothergrimaldus3836]

It is Airwolf's theme. I wasn't crazy.

[@kamilaruby6409]

el bell y el siko esa es la mejor elección

[@andreasleonardo6793]

Too nice video from excellent weapons detective channel about FLRAA Programme V-280 Valor versus SB-1 Defiant... for producing best powerful,manniovirity &too fast-speed helicopters designed..by famous helicopters producing Sukorsky company and Boeing.... it was enjoyable SB-1 Defiant more suitable to replace thanks for sending

[@intorsusvolo7834]

The exposed joints of the 280 tilt rotors in vertical hovering mode look vulnerable to small arms fire. Also the SB-1 can land in smaller areas like Bin Laden’s backyard. I wonder if the V could do that. It’s a tough choice, which is a good thing because whoever wins will be good.

[@gamingrex2930]

i hope both win

[@ariefibrahim8062]

Land in small area...just...using...e-vtol...very stealthier...small footprint......!

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@ariefibrahim8062 e-vvtol? Neither of these birds are stealthy. Neither are small, but both competitors met the Army's requirement for fitting into the UH-60's footprint

[@ariefibrahim8062]

@@tararaboomdiay7442 uh 60 so much loud...everybody can hear....!

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@ariefibrahim8062 I suspect English is not your native tongue so forgive me, I don't understand what you're trying to say. When flying in airplane mode, V-280 is much quieter than UH-60

[@VectorGhost]

SB-1 Defiant would be good as a blackhawk replacement. The 280 is absolutely massive

[@atomicskull6405]

Also tiltrotors cannot match traditional helicopters for lift efficiency for some very basic physics that are impossible to engineer around. Proprotors have to be a compromise between prop drag in forward flight and disk loading in hover. Tiltrotors are useful but they are in no way a replacement for traditional helicopters. A helicopter built with the same amount of hosepower and general size will always have higher vertical lift capacity than an equivalent size and horsepower tiltrotor.

[@NOF4C3]

@@atomicskull6405 SB-1 was reported to be designed at a top speed of 460 km/h with a range of 424 km, while V-280 has a top speed of 519 km/h with a range of 3,889 km.

[@hemlocksalad5383]

@@NOF4C3 Also V-280 probably has a better technology suite as bell partnered with lockheed, who has many years of advanced radar and stealth technology experience.

[@MotoroidARFC]

@@hemlocksalad5383 as of the date of this comment, Lockheed owns Sikorsky. They'll benefit regardless of which aircraft is selected.

[@randomman057]

@@NOF4C3 The V-280 does not have a range of 3900km that is not possible as it does not have the capacity to hold fuel for such a long duration flight.

[@jasons44]

X2 looks to be the best stealth- cannon attack fighter

[@stanleynowak9325]

Oh Hell build them both!

[@Ghoster311]

Airwolf music.

[@njengakim]

Let's be clear v280 is not a helicopter. Its a tiltrotor.

[@predator1409]

In my opinion, the SB-1 Defiant seems more realistic and logical. It has nothing too crazy, the helicopter is very simple yet very unique.

[@maxo.9928]

It's got dead weight hanging off the ass end during landing, the most dangerous part of any flight... IMO Bell has got the right idea on improving on the Osprey's design on the Valor and fixing the engines in place while rotating the prop. It doesn't have any unnecessary or useless drag on it at any point in the flight.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@maxo.9928 Not to mention they aren't limited by size constraints the marine corp had. It allows the Valor to have a larger prop radius for auto rotation and lower prop wash and noise.

[@jeffw.4205]

How about loading the Defiant with weapons and turn it into a ground attack helicopter gunship, sent in first to soften up landing sites. Then load up the Valor with troops and set off after the Defiant, just catching up to the Defiants pounding the landing areas. Off load troops while the Defiant gunships protect the troops on the ground? Valors transporting injured troops to field hospitals?

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Defiant does not have the range... Might as well load up a Valor with weapons.

[@kripler3001]

With troop transport in the pacific islands for future conflict with china as the major consideration, v280 valor wins hands down.

[@jonathanford9774]

Do a what if between airwolf vs blue thunder

[@John-Andersen]

Why does the V-280 have a crew of 4? 2 pilots and 1 Loadmaster/Crew Chief (or the equivalent) would seem to be enough for a standard crew. Unless they are envisioning 2 side or "door" gunners.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

2 door gunners

[@c4tze]

they gonna take both, or all three so to say

[@kamilaruby6409]

Debería comprar los dos

[@ZeroGRacer]

This is one of those times. In which both Programs should be picked up by the Military. Don't do what the Air Force did picking the F-22 alone, Over the YF-23 Grey Ghost.

[@TJ-USMC]

Excellent Video !!!

[@WeaponDetective]

Thank you for your nice comment.

[@LA-ep2nr]

The SB-1 Defiant is the best choice for the Army. And, the V-280 is the better choice for the Marines, especially during over the horizon Ops. The SB-1 can fit into tighter spaces and terrain, and it will have a lot better disc loading than a tiltrotor. The V-280’s dash speed makes it a better choice for long distance Ops. However, in a conflict the better compromise would be a platform with enough speed, maneuverability, survivability, lethality and capacity. In this case, The SB-1 Defiant is the better platform.

[@w8stral]

How the HELL is the V280 better for the marines? It can't go on ships.... AT ALL. It is also a fuel hog compared to SB-1, so my guess is the army does not want the V280 either. Only people who may want the V280 are spec ops missions. Pretending we are talking about a future pacific war is a joke as that will be entirely a navy engagement as the islands are still WAYYYYY too far apart even for the V280.

[@LA-ep2nr]

@@w8stral What?????

[@w8stral]

@@LA-ep2nr Which part of can't go on ships do you not understand?

[@LA-ep2nr]

@@w8stral I don’t get your point. The MV-22 Osprey are on ships, LHD’s, Aircraft Carriers, etc. The V-280 is the same design, therefore I they can be deployed on “Ships.” SMH 🤦‍♂️

[@w8stral]

@@LA-ep2nr V280 does not have 1000's of lbs in folding rotors, rotating wings and it would have to have folding tails... oh wait, not done yet, would have to cut its wings shorter as it will not fit in box V22 does, and still have to navalize everything which will add another ~500lbs and do not forget cost.... In the end you have a V22 with side doors, smaller cargo area and for what?, so WTF would you buy a "v280" instead of a V22?

[@texasranger24]

Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus in the AAS / FARA (armed scout) program. Meanwhile, the Sikorsky+Boeing SB-1 Defiant competes with the Bell+Lockheed V280 Valor for the FVL (long-range lift) program. Given how the US defense industry works, it is likely that both companies get one contract each, to keep every factory running, everybody employed. So if you like both Sikorsky or both Bell designs, get ready for a disappointment. The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why they abandoned that design. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they know it's not very likely they'll get both contracts? The V280 seems to be the more mature design, faster and longer range. But the SB-1 might offer better handling and safety, as it is not a tilt rotor. This might really go both ways.

[@ChazUBCS]

I am hoping Bell's V-280 gets a piece of the deal. Rolls Royce is heavily involved with that program and they need the money.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

It's hard to keep track of all the companies. There is no Bell+Textron, because Bell is a division of Textron. The Sikorsky+Boeing SB-1 is actually the Lockheed+Boeing SB>1 Defiant because Sikorsky is a division of Lockheed. And to make it more confusing, Lockheed is working with Bell for the avionics portion of the V-280 Valor.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

One other note: The Raider-X has room to in the fuselage to carry troops, but that would be a separate variant. They can't just pull the weapons out and load in troops in the same space in the scout/attack version. That's OK, because there is no requirement to be able to carry troops in the specifications.

[@psibug565]

It seems funny that Bell are building a helicopter that looks a lot like Lockheeds AH-56 Cheyenne years after politics and lobbying by competition stopped America from having such an advanced Helicopter. Even the Apache couldn’t match its performance.

[@jona.scholt4362]

Looks like the Valor is the winner. Was really hoping they'd pick the Defiant

[@matveydavchuk]

If you haven’t already, check out the FARA program. Sikorsky is competing with a slightly scaled down version of Defiant, called Raider X. Their X2 tech has serious vibrations issues that are more tamed in a smaller vehicle. I wouldn’t be surprised if the Army gets all the capabilities they need, choosing the speed/range of the V280 with the FLRAA program and Raider X with the FARA program. Their decisions always take into account the bigger picture, and they are going through an extensive modernization effort right now with many different programs.

[@maxo.9928]

Dead weight hanging off your aircraft during landing (the forward thrust prop) doesn't sound like a dream come true.

[@jona.scholt4362]

@@maxo.9928 not much more weight than the normal tail rotor. It's not like the pusher has its own engine or a massive lift fan like in the F-35B.

[@cameronc1509]

Well the defiant is ugly as sin, but looks more practical for landing in smaller spaces and more nimble for quickly getting into and out of the lz. The v280 has been growing on me. I’ve always thought it looked VERY impractical. Like a bad airplane and a worse helicopter, but I’ve been hearing from people who say there is a place where this capability would benefit our military. I dunno. I wish UH60’s would last and be sufficient forever. That is a damn fine looking helicopter.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

I really don't get this love for the uh 60?

[@gorillaguerillaDK]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Me neither, the UH-1 on the other hand, the very sound of the rotors makes me a bit horny! It's the same with the pure "roar" of the Leopard 2 v. the annoying sewing machine sound of the Abrams.

[@wat8437]

Lobbying? You mean legal bribing?

[@user-cy2iq1gl1t]

Getting the SB-1 would be a mistake. It’s trying to squeeze the last ounce of capability out of helicopter technology all based on ridged prop design. The ridged prop blades have been a problem and will likely continue to be. The V-280 offers too many cost and capability multipliers to be ignored. With it in service the entire philosophy of air assault and CSAR can be revolutionized.

[@qwicxs]

US Army should take both programs honestly

[@JZ909]

The V-280 is almost certainly going to have a pretty dramatic speed and range advantage over the SB-1, and it is more developmentally mature (though not by a whole lot). However, in my mind, almost everything else leans in favor of the SB-1. The smaller rotor diameter is huge, both in terms of logistics, like storage on ships, or moving the aircraft over the pond in C-5s and C-17s, and operationally, because there will be more landing zones available. In addition, from available videos, I expect the SB-1 to have much better low speed handling characteristics. Personally, I think the SB-1 is going to be the clear winner, assuming they can get their aircraft to meet minimum requirements. The V-280 has too little weight and troop-carrying capacity for its size to be used on a ship for Marine Corps requirements, especially when the V-22 is already able to use that space more efficiently, and it gives up too much for its speed and range for general purpose Army requirements. I think there is a niche in the Army/Air Force for a helicopter that sacrifices almost everything for speed and range, and the V-280 would be great for that, but I think that's a pretty niche requirement, and the aircraft will have to fill some other role to justify the cost of development. I could see a larger version developed to compete with CH-53s and CH-47s, which have some pretty severe range limitations.

[@astatine5781]

Yeah but it’s super unsafe bro, has anyone told you that the osprey killed more US soldiers than the taliban? Tilt rotors are super unsafe and scary asf. They are hard to make and very fragile too, besides that the defiant is much smaller then a tilt rotor AND if the engine fails in the defiant you still have auto rotation but if it fails in a tilt rotor you just fall out the sky.

[@drewrowl]

@@astatine5781 tilt rotor you can fly it and plane down, both engines are connected by a drive shaft if one engine goes the other one powers both hélixes, the crafting is lighter and can carry more than a helicopter. No fuel or engine parts inside the cabin means you can survive a tilt rotor more than a helicopter, the rumores are a math besides the designed commissioner told the army that the aircraft was to be developed by remote control not to risk a single pilot. All the crashes of any tilt rotor have been blacked boxed as human error 110 % human bad training of the pilot in question. Helicopter pilot and airplane pilot are being converted with .inimal training of an aircraft that there very little experience on combined knowledge of vertical and horizontal land in one single vehicle. So I totally disagreeing with you there. The helicopter is good for it's own peculiar reason a tilt rotor ain't. The configuración of the ddfiant still has room for improvement all around.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@astatine5781 Please explain where you got that statistic. There were 1,928 US personnel killed during the Afghanistan War. Are you saying that more people died in the Osprey during its career? There were problems during development and do keep in mind that the Osprey carries a lot of people so a rash with a full load means ore casualties. Defiant is not "much" smaller than V-280. Its rotor diameter is smaller, but it's longer overall. Tilt-Rotors can autorotate. Osprey does it poorly because of external constraints on the design. Keep in mind that if V-280 loses both engines it can also glide giving it more options in places to set down (either gliding to a landing or entering rotation in the terminal phase). A helicopter has to drop immediately to keep rotor speed up. Keep in mind that autorotations do not always end in a gentle landing. Especially in larger craft, the aircraft may ha to be written off after touchdown. BTW, Defiant has never addressed the question of autorotation in an X2

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

First be aware that there is no requirement for either Valor or Defiant to be carried inside a C-17 or C-5. The Army's intention is that if there's not enough time to send them over by ship, the normal operation would be to fly them over. In a naval variant Valor could self fold into the size of a folded UH-1Y. and could operate from a DDG Defiant has never addressed operating from anything less than a full flat deck ship, nor how they could lower tha mast (Defiant is Really tall). USMC would use V-280 type vehicle for UH-1Y type missions. Defiant has not demonstrated better low speed handling characteristics, even in videos.

[@kamilaruby6409]

Son necesario los dos helicóptero

[@alphacentauri3069]

BRING BACK THE COMANCHE!!!!

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

That makes no sense. This is a uh-60 replacement program.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@WALTERBROADDUS Plus Comanche technology is old

[@kamilaruby6409]

la mejor eleccion es que elijan los dos helicotero

[@N.Biddle]

Please make an update on the defiantX

[@emregungor2986]

[@kamilaruby6409]

Necesitan los dos elicoptero

[@ariefibrahim8062]

FLRAA....Valor...agile...higher...fastest...farther....i like combined with UAM E-Vtol...to manueverablity....!

[@ericlakota1847]

Sb1 seems better of corse whe chose the Valor when we could of just bought more ospray

[@1moderntalking1]

SB defiant for the clear win!

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

The UH-60 Blackhawk is a beautiful helicopter, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the useless defiant x.

[@astatine5781]

But the defiant does a lot of stuff better, sometimes it’s okay to let old things go for better things. Also it looks cooler and can go faster so yeah.

[@michaeljsmith622]

Why no both?? ROTFLMAO... reading the comments. I'm not alone in this thought. We're all shouting at the Generals. GET BOTH!! He's like... shit.. I can only choose ONE!!

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

Two reasons: 1. the loser doesn't offer enough significant advantages over the winner. 2. $$$$$$$

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

You would be doubling many things that would be needed and hampering logistics more then you need to for 2 helicopters that do the same thing.

[@yutakago1736]

SB-1 may have a higher maintenance cost.

[@OCRay1]

Sikorsky all day

[@gamingrex2930]

Uncle Sam, please, fucking buy both airframes. Don't can another Cheyenne helicopter and a good replacement for the chinook.

[@KuDastardly]

Should I be concerned that when the Valor's blades are tilted upwards that it ends up exposing the internal components of its engines? I can literally see wirings and stuff.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

No as they wouldn't be armored enough to stop anything anyway. It is also not the final version.

[@maxo.9928]

SB-1 has deadweight hanging off the tail suring vertical landing. I dont like the sounds of that, and i bet niether does the army. Funny to see Sikorsky nowadays complaining about it, but, like, duh guys, having a massive counterweight on the aircraft not doing anything for you during the most dangerous point of any flight sounds like a horrible idea, genuienly suprised they had the gaul to launch a complaint. Even if it isnt officially the reason it was not chosen i can almost garuntee it played a factor, its just asking for more crashes than nessecery b/c a pilot isn't prepared for the sudden shift of center of mass backwards.

[@clashofplanets3666]

Make a video on Kolkata class destroyer

[@WeaponDetective]

Thanks for your interest. We have included Kolkata-class destroyers on our list. We will prepare it as soon as possible.

[@WeaponDetective]

Here are our Kolkata video kzbin.info/www/bejne/r6PVhZmNatN3prs

[@reptiliangold159]

V280 is gonna smash the sb1

[@wayneyd2]

Neither of these aircraft could replace the CH47 of the CH53.

[@astatine5781]

That’s not the point of this program bro.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

That's because they're intended to eventually replace the UH-60.

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

The V22 Osprey is a beautiful tilt rotor aircraft, I want it to remain operational for many more decades, and never need to be replaced from the useless v280 valor.

[@ChazUBCS]

LOL how is it useless? What a dumb ass comment.

[@ironrussell1]

I believe the fat lady has already sung on this performance, as the V-280 has meet the requirements.

[@ferittuzer4629]

turk musun?

[@santosoabimayu]

Defiant win

[@muratititaniumbicycle1113]

I'm going to be blunt honest. I'm a a retired Army and for me is pretty ridiculous that "the future" is a helicopter that is more aerodynamic. And HAS MORE BLASES. Oh is fast that's nice. Than the updated version of the osprey no go.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

I think that's a typo and you meant blades. An interesting note: The V-280 needs six blades to accomplish all it does. The SB>1 requires 16. Also another misconception...the Valor is no more an updated Osprey than the F-22 is an updated F-15.

[@ivi7017]

26000kg? That’s almost like V-22

[@w8stral]

Bell has never said what the weight is. Everyone is throwing numbers around based on??? Who knows. Welcome to the internet. No one has any actual facts, but everyone repeats without using their brains.

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

v280 valor and sb-1 defiant=👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎👎

[@alankesselring2886]

commentary has too many mispronunced words ????????

[@onyour6621]

V-280 Valo is loud and ugly as all hell

[@Joe-rx7ht]

The US Air Force messed up big time! Air Force should've picked the stealthier, faster, larger airframe, with space for more missiles and more fuel for longer range, Northrop F-23 Black Widow II, as a bomber escort for the B-2 bomber. The Lockheed F-22 should've gone to the Navy for carrier operations, to replace the F-14 Tomcat, as a high speed interceptor and to protect the fleet. And the F-22 should've been named the Lightning II, just like it's predecessor, the twin engine, high speed, air superiority fighter, the P-38 Lightning, that ruled the Pacific during WWII. The "Raptor" name should've gone to the F-35 JSF and remain on course for delivery to the USAF, the USMC and the Navy, with their respective A, B, C, models, as a medium air to air fighter, air to ground attack plane and close air support platform. The F-18 Hornet should've been retired two decades ago! The US Army and the USMC should both get the Bell 360 Invictus to replace their outdated Attack helicopters, for an all stealth, fleet of US military combat aircraft and low observable, first strike capability. And continue to invest in Bell's faster tilt rotor design transportation all the way to a quad tilt rotor V-44 like, large cargo aircraft to replace the C-130 Hercules. A quad tilt rotor aircraft could take off and land vertically from anywhere and roll in wheeled armored personnel carriers at greater distances, with speed and efficiency into contested combat areas without runways, for both the Army and Marine Corps. Not a day goes by that I wish I was running the DOD military hardware procurement program.

[@bl8danjil]

The USMC just got the new 4 bladed Cobra and Huey. They are faster, quieter, and can carry a lot more than their predecessors. They both have a certain percentage of parts commonality between them too. The only thing that could improve upon them is an air refueling probe to increase it's range. The Army may need a low observable helicopter, but the USMC doesn't. They just don't have the budget anyway. Both of these aircraft are great. The exposed part when the rotors tilt up is going to be a problem in desert dusty environments though.

[@Zetler]

The F23 lost the competition because it was clunky. Stealth isn’t everything and Air Force made the right choice, the F22 has both the attributes of a bad ass fighter and stealth.

[@bl8danjil]

@@Zetler 🙄 That's not the reason it lost.

[@WALTERBROADDUS]

@@Zetler we're already looking at retiring some of the f-22s.

[@johnlyons1510]

Not too impressed with the commentary, but satisfied with the shameless use of Sylvester LeVay’s “AirWolf” theme. Copyright infringement is still a thing, dude.

[@izzonesaid3366]

Made in china coming soon

[@usedcarsokinawa]

Your poor English pronunciation makes this video unviewable. Please work on your W and V pronunciation, they are not interchangeable.

[@alexspareonetoo8755]

Isnt it curious how Russia wins wars with very old equipment but USA loses all its wars with the most up to date and expensive equipment.

[@w8stral]

Exactly WHAT? wars would that be? Last I checked, Russia hasn't been in any wars outside its border recently and all of their OLD equipment today used to be new last I checked

[@alexspareonetoo8755]

@@w8stral Georgia Donbass, Syria, where they crushed ISIS.

[@alexspareonetoo8755]

Their tanks are showcase Armatas but actual use T72s 50 years old.

[@mikeguzman8248]

Really? You suggest this as a war? It would be like David vs Goliath. Syria is a small underpriveldged country with roughly 80% living below the poverty line. Is this really your stake in the ground?

[@w8stral]

@@alexspareonetoo8755 Georgia... who doesn't even have an army or airforce? Syria who invited them in and they sat doing nothing?... Crushed "ISIS"... uh in what delusional world do you live? Curious minds want to know.