Here's the New U.S. Army's Helicopter Replacing the Black Hawk

The U.S. Army has selected the Bell V-280 Valor tilt-rotor craft to replace the Army's 2,000 UH-60 Black Hawk utility helicopters and 1,200 AH-64 Apache assault helicopters. They decided that after years of testing and deliberation.
Video by Bell
Support us:
Facebook: / usdn.official
Instagram: / us_defensenews
If you have any problems viewing this Video, please report it here: [e-mail]
‪@USDefenseNews‬

[@io9883]

The v-280 needs to be designed into different models such as micro, small (5 seats), medium (12-24 seats), medium and large (40-60 seats) and heavy (80-150 seats), seaplanes, etc. The speed needs to reach more than 900 kilometers per hour, the steering, acceleration and deceleration actions must be faster and more flexible (the steering action in the current film is still very slow), and it must be able to function in bad weather. Automatic unmanned driving systems and automatic remote-controlled weapon systems need to be installed to cope with various scenarios. It is also hoped that the SB-1 will be put into production after being equipped with an autopilot system to replace some old and slow helicopter models.

[@reezydrips_drips6823]

Black hawks and apaches right: Your just gonna throw us away for this osprey copy right 😂😂😂😂

[@charlesbrightman4237]

I agree. It's a mistake. Probably politics and big money involved to make such stupid decisions.

[@goodday5570]

NO WAY IT REPLACES ALL THOSE CHOPPERS

[@hope121107]

Does nobody remember how many people was killed in that damn osprey?

[@Rotorhead1651]

*THOSE damn OspreyS.....plural. Let's be accurate.

[@samjubilee6593]

Hmmhhh.... Over twice the speed and twice the range of the Blackhawk helicopter? Very Good !

[@johnreynolds1527]

Excuse Me But this Aircraft will Never Replace the AH-64D Longbow Apache .

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

Well said 👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

It isn't intended for this aircraft to replace the Apache. The replacement (for now) for the AH-64D is the AH-64E, also known as the Guardian.

[@imbobbymudda]

I can see numerous crashes and mishaps in the near future.

[@KC_Smooth]

I don’t think so. The Osprey’s design had to have some compromises made so it could land and fold on a narrow aircraft carrier- which in turn makes it more touchy to fly. The Valor here has the optimal design for this kind of craft.

[@howard6433]

There are only two prototypes. So "numerous" is not possible in the near future.

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@howard6433 Way to compare prototypes with production models.... ....you know, 'cause those are exactly the same thing. 🤨🙄😑

[@KalanYore]

Why blur out an area of the turbo lift props? To hide a mechanical component for transition...

[@charlescomly1]

How can this replace the AH60 Apache?

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

They won't replace it in any way because the UH-60 Blackhawk is a beautiful military helicopter.

[@honkytonk4465]

@@gianpaolovillani6321 AH60 Apache!!!

[@benu.5195]

@@honkytonk4465 AH-64.. bdw

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

This isn't to replace the Apache, it's replacing the Black Hawk. However, an attack version could be developed if someone is willing to pay for it.

[@ErkiEntveg]

​@@tararaboomdiay7442 Utility version will be completed first and put into production. Then attack version will be developed.

[@cheeloc]

This replacing Apache and Blackhawks? What they smoking?! Dung!

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

Valor is not intended to replace the Apache. What comes out of the FARA program may do that.

[@wpharrison6767]

There's only one thing to say. Corruption

[@thorstendressler6430]

Look nice. Questions: 1. When it will arrive ( I live in Germany next to US-Army-Airfield in Wiesbaden)? 2. How Loud is it compared to UH-60 Blackhawk? 3. Does it work safe? ...I hope to new Helicoptor is more silent. In Germany the switch from Bo- Helicopter to Eurocopter for Rescueflights was a big Step for Silence.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

1. Operational deliveries are planned for 2030 assuming the budget isn't cut. 2. In wingborne mode, which it'll be in most of the time, it is much quieter than Black Hawk. It'll generate more noise when in rotorborne mode, but how that compares to Black Hawk hasn't yet been determined. We need a production stand ad airframe to determine that.

[@rookiebird9382]

You can expect more noise during take-off and landing due to higher disk loading. And keep in mind this is a military aircraft not a business one.

[@melheinrich5438]

Speed and range can all be shot down. I'm looking at the cost. I can drive a Honda just as well as driving a Cadillac an still accomplished something but cheaper.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@melheinrich5438 Except that is not how military equipment works... it goes 3 times the distance and at 2 times the speed while carrying more people or cargo while doing so.

[@IHATEBO3]

What are the weapons capabilities of these ? They claim its replacing some of the apaches but the only photo I can find of one with weapons is a 3d model

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

That is a concept for an attack version but the army hasn't done anything with that. Likely it will have 2 door gunners like the blackhawk.

[@namename5917]

No real info till 6:00 mark; first 3:30 is a bunch of executives lauding themselves for winning the contract, next 2:30 is about expenditures and competition.

[@karstenprut9867]

It is the Vertibird!

[@frankgardiner5002]

They have the osprey which has more or less the same capability as far as I'm aware and they said at the start it will also replace the apache which in my humble opinion would be a mistake

[@rookiebird9382]

V22 has twice the capacity on paper and foldable wings which army doesn't need. V-280 will have the same power, more agility, cost less and will sell like pancakes.

[@jswjr6001]

It is Future Long Range Assault Aircraft, and this has nothing to do with replacing the Apache, only the Blackhawk. The video is just completely wrong

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@rookiebird9382 Not all the V-22s have folding wings and rotors, only Marine Corps variants. Air Force variants don't.

[@pasqualelamperelli6369]

How in Gods name is that thing supposed to land in tight areas with that enormous wing span?!! This negates the entire purpose of a helicopter.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

It has a 19% larger total footprint and can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk would already land. If you turn it 90 degrees and overlay it with the Profile of a Black Hawk you will see.

[@albertmubatsaart5470]

You wanna assault the ‘bad guys’ in that? Good luck

[@george1bandahzm]

No way I loved the Blackhawk😭

[@jrmh76]

How exactly does this replace Apache?

[@Rotorhead1651]

Just guessing here, but possibly adding weapons pylons to the sides of the fuselage, in close where they won't hazard the rotors, and a chin turret.

[@mark-os9do]

Apt nickname for the V-280 needs to be the Albatross...

[@NoName-jr2eo]

I think it's a mistake to use that contraption to replace the Blackhawk choppers. Appears they require more room for landing and storage among other things. Just have a bad feeling about it although it may well have a place in our military but, I would not eliminate those black hawks just yet to be on safe side.

[@gianpaolovillani6321]

Well said 👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@mark-os9do]

Concur. God Help America....🇺🇸

[@zigbeegooblesnort125]

This "contraption" is a generational leap in technology beyond the Marines Osprey.

[@LarsAgerbk]

so you can't put weapons underneath the wings because of the rotorblades. And you can't put weapons underneath the fuselage because of the landing gear. What about putting weapons on top of the fuselage then?

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

To begin, this is a troop transport and is not intended to fill the Apache's role, so the fact that it doesn't carry all that ordnance is irrelevant. However, if you wanted an attack variant (of which Bell has shown concepts, don't fall into the common misconceptions. An attack variant probably wouldn't use weapons on wing hardpoints because of the drag. However, if they wanted to they don't have to rotate the proprotors all the way up, all they have to do is rotate them far enough up so that they clear the missile's flight path. This would limit top speed, but it would still be way faster than an armed Apache. As far as underneath the fuselage goes, don't forget than when it's launching, , the landing gear has been retracted. Most jet fighters launch their weapons from underneath, after the gear has been retracted. And you cold also mouth weapons close on on the side of the aircraft, or even have them retractable.

[@LarsAgerbk]

@@tararaboomdiay7442 the Soviet Hind was a troop transport too, so I don't see why not. Apparently Bell agrees And wont it have to have those rotor-blades completely flat to take off and land vertically. Most jetfighters launch their weapons from underneath their wings

[@hunterherzog4788]

I liked the sb1 x more

[@00470]

攻撃機バージョンを作る予算が出て来ればなあ、かなり先に進められるんだが、、、。

[@toyinyandinda7090]

USA aviation technology is leading

[@harley9173]

Yeah, let's make another tilt rotor made by the same company as the current crashing tilt rotor. Makes total sense.

[@Rotorhead1651]

Seriously 🙄

[@rogerbuttman-ne6ub]

It would be cool if they put jet engine on it instead of prop !! They pretty much just took the arms from the osprey and put em on a Blackhawk and called it something new

[@Rotorhead1651]

Jet engines wouldn't allow for VTOL in this case. This is not the F-35 or AV-8B Harrier. Jet thrust must be carefully balanced. The rotors provide a much broader lift cushion footprint. And those aren't "arms", they're wings, and the fuselage is completely different from the UH-60.

[@NerveLindsay4187]

This is a JOKE RT 🤔🤣

[@lockheedskunkworks5687]

Bummer! Leave the junk technology to the Airforce and Marines

[@Rotorhead1651]

Bite us, grunt. 🖕

[@APV2013]

Army airfields will have to get much bigger, more and bigger hangers will have to be built, fast roping will be the new normal for inserting troops into a LZ, the 101st will have to dramatically upsize their analysis of where and how many aircraft can fit into a wooded clearing, I mean this list can go on and on.

[@howard6433]

Or you can just stay with the Blackhawk and never get there in the first place....half the range, half the speed.

[@josephpiskac2781]

I think the days of landing in a field of active combat is over. This is a great aircraft for not being shot at.

[@ralph7748]

Looks twice as expensive, and twice as vulnerable to the Blackhawk. Not sure this is the correct path for the Army. Using two big engines (as opposed to one on the Blackhawk), losing just one will cause the aircraft to drop like a rock.

[@gekoloniseerd8191]

Both engines are connected through a driveshaft, so if one engine fails the remaining one can power both propellors.

[@nobodyjustme7481]

​@@gekoloniseerd8191The engines of Osprey V-22 also connected by drive shafts to a common central gearbox. But the rotary position is not capable of hovering on one engine.

[@howard6433]

@@nobodyjustme7481 This is not the V-22. Bell has stated that should one engine fail on the V-280, the other engine has enough power to drive both rotors and complete the mission. What happens when you lose the engine of a Blackhawk? Oh...you get a movie out of it.

[@Rotorhead1651]

@ralph7448 Where did you get the idea that the UH-60 only had one engine, genius?! It has one MAIN ROTOR and TWO engines. Don't comment when you don't know what you're talking about.

[@antonnym214]

I have watched six videos about this remarkable craft and I'm beginning to wonder if it can transition from Vertical to Horizontal flight. So far, NONE of the videos have shown this. Nor the reverse. (ʘ_ʘ)

[@maxsteiner1964]

Well, you can see it here. At 1:45 and 1:49 and 1:50 and 2:25 and ... Ok, its not a total transition but still...

[@melheinrich5438]

By the looks of this you can't.

[@melheinrich5438]

I think that is costing too much of citizens taxes. 🤔 A regular helicopters be cheaper here same purpose except maybe distance. Why is DOD getting 🤔 bigger equipment equals costing more money. DOD needs to be reined in on major purchases.

[@basilo9923]

the rotors are simply too large for it too take off in the forward position. every time you see it in the forward position, it must have taken off in the vertical position and switched mid flight.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

You know if it couldn't , don't you think someone might have noticed? How else would they have videos of it in helicopter and fixed wing mode if it couldn't transition?

[@icare7151]

Too many questions how this will replace the Apache, is this for real? The tilt rotary configuration of the boing system has been a deadly disaster to this day.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

How has it been a disaster, and where has the Army said they want this to replace the Apache?

[@icare7151]

@@tararaboomdiay7442 Do your homework.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

@@icare7151 I have, and for years now the Osprey's Class 1 accident rate is the lowest of all USMC aircraft. And again, where has Army ever said that FLRAA is intended to replace the Apache?

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

Possibly but not quite. The role of the apache will be split into two. Also this thing is quite different from the osprey in some key areas, but we will only know if it is reliable once it is fitted with the new engines.

[@icare7151]

Another one just crashed. Appears defects the clutch systems. Fleet grounded, again. Once the bugs are worked out and defective parts are reengineered, this platform mature into a huge military asset.

[@Honorable_Judge_Mental]

This is a horrifically bad idea that will be remembered historically.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

why?

[@Rotorhead1651]

No doubt

[@Rotorhead1651]

​@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Because no matter what the Office of Army Procurement claims, they went with "OO!! Pretty new toy with bells and whistles!!"

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@Rotorhead1651 Except all public info says otherwise... you can look up the interview they did with the different army pilots that flew both aircraft in the competition. People said the same shit about the F35 but now it is one of the most successful aircraft out there.

[@Honorable_Judge_Mental]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The difference is the F-35 is a surefire guarantee fighter jet with a remarkably powerful jet engine, whereas this is a less stable copter which have a notorious history of messing up catastrophically.

[@English_Lessons_Pre-Int_Interm]

Could you send a couple hundred of those ''old'' helicopters to Ukraine? 🙂 We will paint them with some German enamel.

[@muhammadehtisham3340]

Love US Army🇺🇸❤️

[@thethumper088]

That's a big target to be loitering around dropping off air assault troops.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

It will be in the target zone for half the time... it only has a 19% larger footprint than the blackhawk.

[@Rotorhead1651]

Nothing an RPG can't correct.

[@mr.unknownuser7235]

Nice big wide target

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

It will in the target zone for half the time.

[@RoughNek72]

Does it actually fly, and not kill marines inside. Ya know like the osprey.

[@Rotorhead1651]

I guess we're gonna find out soon enough.

[@randybentley2633]

If its production version can, like the V-22, turn its wing for transport and stowage, then it might be workable, but the added weight and complexion will reduce speed & range. The pods, whilst less complex than the Osprey's and capable of translating power to the opposite rotor, are a sitting target for weapon systems that are not reliant on heat-seeking guidance. It should be a given that Bell has worked out the kinks that lead to so many early tilt-rotor rollover crashes, but the potential for such to happen isn't zero. Even though the competing design is also vulnerable to crashes at low-level due to random factors, (the Black Hawk that crashed during the Osama bin Laden compound raid) it, like the UH-60, is engineered to handle such crashes via crumple zones and points on the airframe and seats. The same cannot be said for the Valor should it roll over. Auto rotation at altitude should, I hope, be an integral capability of the V-280. The dynamics of the design favor it being possible, it's a given on the competing design. All around, the choice of the Bell design just doesn't add up. If the Sikorsky design's means of flight was a brand new concept, then I could see the Army Brass going with the "safer" more proven tilt prop design, but such isn't the case, with the SB-1 being derived from the X-2. If the Army does decide to commit to the horse it's chosen, I can only hope that the other branches opt for the other horse in the stable. The Navy/Marines will absolutely need as much space savings as it can get, so they will probably put for the competing design, it's happened before. The Air Force is, as always, variable. Hopefully, the Defiant's team wins their protest.

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

Defiant lost their protest big time. Inters tingly, they lost not because the V-280 outperformed them, which it dramatically did, but because Team Deffiant's bid didn't comply with all the requirements of the RFP.

[@randybentley2633]

This fumble on Sikorsky's part males no sense. It truly was theirs to lose.

[@user-ol1qm9ey7g]

ไม่งั้นก็ออกแบบใหม่ทั้งหมดเลยเป็นลูกผสมระหว่างเครื่องชีนุกกับกับเครื่องบิน ใช้งานเอาตามสภาวะแวดล้อม

[@honorandintegrityfilms]

Looks like more wasteful spending to line the pockets of a few

[@Texasmilitarydepartmentvid9654]

V-280 Stolen Valor of the V22-Osprey.

[@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 v280 valor.

[@williammclaughlin8205]

Something no one is talking about is how gay this thing looks…! Like this design doesn’t project power like the Blackhawk or the Apache or the osprey or even the venom… it looks like it belong on a cheap movie for the syfy channel!

[@edfast7356]

It's about time military acquisitions pursued greater value for its mission platforms and quit wasting money by throwing it at a Blackhawk manufacturing, and it's oxytocin & weed polluted workforce.

[@Rotorhead1651]

....and you think THIS is it. 🤨🙄😑🤦‍♂️

[@edfast7356]

I know so.

[@rumbaka8185]

abouth them style /one for all and all for us/

[@rumbaka8185]

you perseption are the same "pure and clean " it is no good.What then .... cage of tomorrow?