The V-280 Valor: Unstoppable Flight

Uplevel your news reading experience with Ground News using our link: ground.news/megaprojects
Got a beard? Good. I've got something for you: beardblaze.com
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
This video is #sponsored by Ground News.
Love content? Check out Simon's other KZbin Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373

[@megaprojects9649]

Uplevel your news reading experience with Ground News using our link: ground.news/megaprojects

[@slcpunk2740]

That ad placement was jarring.

[@texastriguy]

Ground News sounds like something I would totally sign up for - but sure wanted there to be at least a 1-month trial so I can see if it lives up to the hype.

[@marsmotion]

why bother when all western news is from the pentagon whitehouse and cia. really just go there and you wont need all the fake channels if msm is what you want for news.

[@daverichards4195]

great video just one thing, i had noticed you said it was a black hawk heli that went down in pakistan but it was actually a experimental stealth helicopter

[@michaelholman8324]

@@daverichards4195 it was a stealth variant of the black hawk guy…

[@Petriefied0246]

The best description of helicopters I heard was that they were a million parts all orbiting an oil leak.

[@epremeaux]

thats a brilliant description lol

[@davidspiller7977]

They don't fly, they beat the air into submission. They are so ugly they repel the ground. Old Huey/Cobra technician.

[@dianapennepacker6854]

Got that Jesus Nut holding it on a prayer. Seriously I know it is obvious now but learning that piece of metal holds the entire weight of the helicopter blew my little layman mind. I never really thought about it to he honest but still it is amazing. All the weight of the crew, fuel, engine, weapons held together and lifted by these relatively thin small ass rotors that spin hundreds of RPM all joined and held together by a piece of metal.

[@NaughtiusMaximu5]

A million pieces rapidly rotating around an oil leak and waiting for metal fatigue to set in

[@BOK-04]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@JAF30]

I think the thing to remember about the Osprey is it was the first of its kind to be mass produced. Anything that is ever first will always have the bugs and technicalities that no one anticipated. Each of those gets fixed in later and later incarnations.

[@BrapBrapDorito]

Not to mention, the osprey is statistically one of the safest aircraft put into service, the accidents just get a lot of publicity

[@w8stral]

They were anticipated, the brass told them to ignore them and build the V22 anyways. Like the 737Max disaster, the engineers were overruled by the eggs and braid on the V22.

[@KC_Smooth]

Also the Osprey had to fit certain measurements to be able to be stored and operate on a ship. This means there were some sacrifices in flight performance made. Since the Army doesn’t need those things, Bell was able to make the optimal design for this kind of tilt rotor aircraft.

[@w8stral]

@@KC_Smooth Yes, and unlike the V22, the V280 will not crash killing multiple people in a brown out due to lack of sand filters which were PURPOSEFULLY left off the V22 as the A model of the V22 had(uh...has) weight issues in hover. V22 originally was designed to have an extra meter longer rotors/wing... but the Navy decided that crashing and killing lots of people was more important than making their LHA's slightly wider...

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

People don't remember the many, MANY deaths and accidents of not just the OG UH-1 Huey, but also the Blackhawk. And the fact that it wasn't the Internet age made it a time when the DoD could cover up just about anything with impunity. I don't overly blame them mitigating the press going on one of their typical crusades to discredit critical programs just so they can sell more headlines. Edit: I remember doing Medic flight training at Ft Sam in the 90's, and one of the Cadre told me "Don't worry, Specialist. That Huey you're getting on has enjoyed over 30 years of engineers working the bugs out. They're nearly done."

[@Laxbop]

I worked as an intern for the V-22 engineering team this past summer, during my time there I managed to see the design of the V-280 firsthand. I'm blown away on how advanced this aircraft truly is. One thing to note in regards of the video the V-280 is intended to fully replace the Black Hawk not the V-22., so for now it's an Army exclusive aircraft. The V-22 still has about 30ish years left of service time and is still being produced to further aid Marine and now Navy/Air Force needs. I believe the projected program lifespan for the V-22 may keep the V-280 from being a fleetwide aircraft for a while.

[@andrewhamons962]

The v22 is tailored to fold up and stay on ships the v280 does not have any of those folding capabilities, making it lighter faster and longer range. There are a lot of lessons learned from the v22 going into the 280 but the 280 will be replacing the Blackhawk not the v22.

[@jetdigital]

It's a 40 year old design son

[@leeball4]

Completely different missions these aircraft were designed for. The V-280 was and never will be intended to replace the V-22.

[@leeball4]

@@jetdigital And the Chinook is 60 years old and the Army will be flying them for at least another 30. They're gonna keep flying V-22's until it's too expensive to fly.

[@anthonyvenegas8299]

@@leeball4 wen American comes up with a great design,we get our money’s worth

[@gbtriumph3216]

I live across the highway from where the V-22 and the V-280 are tested. Many times the test flights are directly over my house. Once in a while (as with the V-22), changes made to the aircraft's accoutrements are readily evident. The size difference between the 2 vehicles is stunning. The V-280 looks like a sports car compared to the V-22 Chevy Suburban.

[@onebladeprop]

He keeps saying the V-22 isn't fit for combat or in combat use. But it has been used in combat since 2007 with good success. There are even videos of the V-22 being used to drop off and evac troops in combat zones. It has it's flaws but it has been used effectively.

[@petesheppard1709]

Simon, you might need to recheck your researchers. This is the first I’ve heard about the Marine Corps being interested in the V-280. it’s been billed as an Army aircraft, to replace the UH 60. Also the Osprey is the standard assault transport of the Marine Corps. Plus, it is capable of aerial refueling, so that it cannot range the Valor.

[@robertharper3754]

Yeah, this is an Army project not a crayon eater project.

[@JustaPilot1]

Yet Simon keeps mentioning the Marines.

[@usedmaggot]

Yeah research is very poor on this one.

[@jamesmason2228]

Well, Bell is certainly trying to sell it to them. And there seems to be a desire to finally get rid of the current generation of UH-1s. But if you want to complain that a real plan or project hasn't been announced - I guess you can. Even if the Navy treats the USMC like a poor step child? They will like anything that lets the fleet stand out to sea a little further.

[@TheBooban]

Sometimes you have to use your brain snd think of the natural consequences of things. Ofcourse the marines will be interested in something better than the Osprey.

[@WillieWanker8135]

Loved the video Simon, only thing I gotta say is that the more I learn about the UH60 systems the more I realize it’s not as delicate of a machine as you may think, and is a far more capable combat aircraft than it lets on. That being said I am excited for the new V280 valor as I will likely be flying it at some point in my career.

[@dreytucker4464]

That’s crazy good luck with that, be safe and have fun :)

[@adamlesandrini312]

The uh 60 started out as less capable than the super huey, not a very good chopper. The problems he mentioned, however are almost exclusive to the blackhawk.

[@WillieWanker8135]

@@adamlesandrini312 ​ if you’re talking about the UH-1Y then that is false

[@adamlesandrini312]

@@WillieWanker8135 yeah, you're right, the people that worked on and flew both were probably the wrong people for me to ask. I should have definitely gone to the youtube comments section back before youtube was a thing and asked you instead of the army mechanics and pilots I worked with.

[@WillieWanker8135]

@@adamlesandrini312 I’ve literally read the operators manuals

[@bl8danjil]

I know the Marines were at least watching the program, but the FLRAA program is still an Army program. The Marines, Air Force, and Navy all like the Osprey for what it does. The Valor is just slightly smaller. Both the Valor and the Defiant X are bigger than the Blackhawk still and that was on purpose. As far as I know, there has been no mention of the Marines showing interest of buying the Valor.

[@tomamberg5361]

Exactly. A rare mis-step from Simon & Crew.

[@davidhiatt1486]

They were doing maneuvers in Taos with one. I got to see it land and immediately take off from the little airport here. It is amazing.

[@ronclark9724]

I see the Valor flying over Amarillo many, many times the Valor is built there... Not only is the Valor being built to replace the Blackhawk, it will also replace the Apache... Bell anticipates thousands will be built...

[@tHeInEvItAbLePaRtY]

2:48 helicopters certainly don't suck. They're a vital piece of equipment, and certainly not as prone to fail as you make them sound.

[@jollygreensnoopy]

Something got screwy with the research for this vid... as far I've read on this aircraft, which I have quite a bit, there is little or no involvement from the Marine Corps and Air Force. This is part of the Army's Future Vertical Lift program which is intended to replace Army UH-60 Blackhawks

[@RedPillBluePillMyPill]

If it's being tested by JSOC and MARSOC info will likely be very thin...

[@stormycatmink]

The role of the V-22 is very often understated. It was the first of a new breed of aircraft; one with all the complexities and failure modes of both a turboprop AND a helicopter, with the additional issues of combining the two in a single vehicle. It was going to be messy, dangerous and difficult to figure out and make work. But if you didn't start somewhere, you'd never get to iterate on the concept, learn, and develop something like the V-280. The military wanted to cancel it many times, but for once Congress held the high ground and insisted this concept be followed through for future generations to build upon (along with, I'm sure, plenty of encouragement from the big businesses). No one likes to go back and talk about how painful the development of the first helicopters was and how much it cost or how many lives were lost making helicopters work, but all of that was essential to get us where we are today. So to downplay the V-22 is like saying the Ford Model-T was a terrible car. It's missing the entire point.

[@fakshen1973]

It can auto-rotate... that's new to me. I feel better about it. The engines are also fixed mounted and only the transmission tilts. Creating an engine that's designed to run optimally in two different orientations and you're not rotating the weight of an entire engine... that makes things more difficult. I think it will make a big difference in operations, especially since it improves stand-off distance and time-to-target.

[@bjw0007]

You’re going to laugh, but the chief engineer for the Valor told us part of the reason for non-tilting engines was so the President could fly on it from the White House. The V-22 isn’t used because the tilting engines burn the grass. There were other benefits mentioned but that was one of the factors considered.

[@solarissv777]

@@bjw0007 how can it be a Marine one, if it is pitched only to the army?

[@bjw0007]

@@solarissv777 Bell / Textron is expecting there to be Navy / Air Force / Marine versions down the road, much like how there’s the Pavehawk and Seahawk versions of the Blackhawk.

[@jim2lane]

9:30 In reality, the end of an auto-rotation descent is less like a landing, and more like a soft crash 😉

[@BlindIo42]

Any landing you can walk away from...

[@mitchellsahl4555]

If performed properly, an auto-rotation results in zero vertical speed on touchdown. It's often practiced by helo pilots, obviously without damaging their aircraft.

[@jim2lane]

@@mitchellsahl4555 I've experienced it twice, and obviously with pilots who did not perform it "properly" 😉

[@speedingoffence]

@@mitchellsahl4555 In a lot of countries, landing under autorotation is actually a licence test. It's generally done in one of those little bubble ones.

[@williamosborne6866]

@@mitchellsahl4555 During my 1.5 years in Vietnam, I found the need to autorotate twice (both due to turbine failure - one mechanical, the other from ground fire). My early 'B' model gunship suffered bent skids and significant damage to the tail rotor drive shaft and boom, due to main rotor blade flex. The second time came after we had upgraded to 'C' models with the 540 rotor head and blades - the much wider chord held inertia longer coming down, and provided addition lift when feathered, making for a far softer landing.

[@commandowaffle0285]

This is a U.S. Army program whose requirements were developed at the Future Vertical Lift Cross Functional Team (FVL CFT), which is a subordinate command to Army Futures Command (AFC). The Future Long Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) program is an Army program, not a Joint program. If the Navy or the Marine Corps, or even the Air Force become interested in the program, they will have the opportunity to acquire aircraft in the future but, as I wrote above, this is not a Joint program and is an Army requirement.

[@OpenBarn]

I don’t know how they didn’t know this. A simple online search would have told them this. If I don’t know anything about the program I would have thought it was a Marine program just from this video,🤦‍♂️

[@BlairMaynard]

Exactly. This is an Army program. The Marines are quite happy with the V-22 and I am sure they will be interested in the V280 because it has different characteristics which might be useful, but the Valor doesn't have foldable wings so it's usefulness for the Marines is limited.

[@Kitt_the_Katt]

Why would the Marine Corps need another osprey

[@NickSteffen]

@@BlairMaynard why would the marines want a vehicle that is better than the Osprey in every relevant way and cheaper? Hmm I wonder…

[@moodogco]

Who cares lol army or joint?

[@Sacto1654]

One thing that makes the V-280 quite different than the V-22 Osprey is the fact the tiltrotor mechanism is a lot simpler--they just went back to the tiltrotor design used on the XV-3 research plane from the 1950's. That simpler tilting mechanism also meant substantial weight savings, too.

[@pahtar7189]

A few corrections: The V-22's range is 1,000 miles while its ferry range is over 2,200 miles, meaning the V-280 surpasses each of them by less than 10%. Similarly the V-280's speed is just slightly faster than the V-22. And the V-280's cargo capacity is 5 tons, not 10. But they are very different beasts. The Osprey is so much larger and more powerful it could actually carry the Valor as cargo! And the Osprey can fly over twice as high, making it immune to small arms fire while at altitude. That also allows it to deliver troops and equipment in the many mountainous areas of the world that are out of reach of the Valor, or fly over intervening highlands rather than having to fly around them like the Valor. Far from being a boondoggle, the Osprey has proved effective, giving the US Marines capabilities they could only have dreamed of before its arrival.

[@Vsor]

Simon is a good presenter, but not a very good researcher. There are only like 4 points of comparison here and he got 3 of them wrong.

[@The_Lone_Aesir]

I am loving the Airwolf-esque fuselage, giving me some hard core nostalgia, and yes i do know its made by the same company.

[@TeXiCiTy]

I'm still waiting for the first black&white remake with the rocket pods underneath.

[@makennondoran1608]

Love that you’re still keeping this channel going! That said, your writers need to do some more research brother. Several others have mentioned the errors so I won’t rehash that part. One thing to point out though, whomever your writer is, has a slight obsession with SOCOM. This isn’t a special operations venture. It’s predominantly for the regular Army and no other branch. Not to mention the rotary wing assets used for most Spec Op missions are flown by the 160th SOAR which will still fly Little Birds and Chinooks even if they get the Valor. These pilots fly the overwhelming majority of all Spec Op missions, regardless of branch.

[@kurtnelle]

Also, not pointing the engines downwards keeps you from vaporizing every surface it lands on.

[@speedingoffence]

It also has the unfortunate side-effect of not have any non-crash landing option if the servos that move the engines fail.

[@zachv1942]

@@speedingoffence it has auto rotation

[@boomerisadog3899]

@@speedingoffence I'd be shocked if it doesn't have a redundant system for just such an eventuality. Though, I'm not sure how well something like that could be made to would work.

[@speedingoffence]

@@zachv1942 Nothing like a round to the assembly to jam it in place, tho.

[@speedingoffence]

@@boomerisadog3899 Deliberate weak points in the rotors, perhaps. Just put it down away from people, have 'em tear off. Not ideal, but if you could decide where they'd break, you could probably have them just slam into the ground instead of flying off.

[@chaosfenix]

I am very optimistic about the Valor. The range on the thing just can't be overstated. You compared it a lot to the v22 which is a similar design but compared to the blackhawk it is replacing we are going from a combat range of 320 nmi to 920 nmi. Almost 3x the range.

[@danielsnook7362]

Improved reliability compared to the v22 is what sold me

[@Defender78]

​@@danielsnook7362 It's not so much that the combat radius is almost tripled, it's almost 3 and a 1/2 times more fuel-efficient several V less instances of the valor having to stop to refuel , even if it's operating area is less than its maximum range

[@bjw0007]

I spent many a long night helping with the build of the V-Tail. It was quite a learning experience for a young Engineer, and a bit stressful at times. On one of the V-tails, there is a single fastener on the end rib which is larger than the others. That’s where the end rib shifted in the fixture while I was drilling, which made for an oblong hole. The approved repair was to drill as small a hole as possible but would still completely remove the “oblongness”, then use a larger fastener. I spent hours using pins, a make-shift drill fixture, and drill bushings trying to get it right since another messup could delay everything quite a while and cost a ton of money. Thankfully it worked out.

[@HesTNTonPMS]

Love your channel man ! You are so thorough. Thank you for all the work

[@ignitionfrn2223]

0:50 - Chapter 1 - Inception 1:10 - Mid roll ads 2:15 - Back to the video 3:30 - Chapter 2 - Future vertical lift 6:00 - Chapter 3 - The Bell V280 Valor 9:30 - Chapter 4 - Advanced technology 11:15 - Chapter 5 - Wham bam thank you valor - Chapter 6 -

[@ratchet2505]

Hero of the chat

[@stormbringer1876]

V22 was a successful program like the F-35 is. You just need to look close and realize that sometimes, when you do something that has never been done, crap happens.

[@dl6519]

My step-father was a Marine Corps aviator for nearly 30 years, flying both fixed-wing and rotary-wing combat aircraft during five tours in Viet Nam. One of his critiques of the Operation Eagle Claw disaster was that they started out with far too few helicopters to begin with. He told me that the rule of thumb was to start out with twice as many helicopters as are needed to accomplish the mission because you can expect to lose half of them to mechanical failure along the way.

[@robertfrost1683]

This is an awesome aircraft ! great video as always.

[@the_haunted_outhouse]

So far, this one sounds like a winner. It builds upon lessons learned from previous projects and seems to fill the requested general mission requirements. Its range is absolutely insane. That translates to possible extra cargo capacity for shorter missions. I am a bit concerned about the carbon fiber elements in the design. That could very well make maintenance more difficult. So many panels and stringers to have to keep in the supply system for structural or skin repairs. To that point, I once watched one man completely rebuild the #1 chin bubble on a UH-60 in three days in the field using nothing more than hand tools and a brake to make stringers. Try that with carbon fiber parts. I can see it replacing the UH-60 and its variants across the services. The wing design may require modification for carrier service. As for replacing the Chinook for heavy lift, I'm not so sure.

[@michiganengineer8621]

Yeah, those wings don't look foldable.

[@RS-ls7mm]

Carbon fiber may not be field repairable but perhaps aluminum field replacements wouldn't be out of the question. But yes, replacement parts nightmare.

[@fjalics]

Don't forget about fast. That thing can do 300 kts. You can get to trouble, and out fast if it's healthy, and once it's airborne, it only needs one engine to keep flying. I have no idea what landing with one engine would look like but I would want to come in light.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

@@michiganengineer8621 can be done, but there is also a good reason to not do so. It is supposed to weigh half of the Osprey while costing about as much as up-to-date apache.

[@Anonymous______________]

It's like the v-22 osprey, only worse and that's saying something lol

[@gilbertnadeau7181]

You need to check your sources. The Osprey is still in use by the Marines and USAF. The US Navy is deploying another version of it to replace the C2. The Army developed the Valor to replace the Blackhawk and only the Army. The Valor is not suitable for carrier based operations since it's wings do not fold.

[@Flies2FLL]

The MV-22 Osprey has a max takeoff weight of 47,000/55,000/60,500 pounds, depending on method of launch. The V-280 has a max takeoff weight of 30,860 pounds. Great video!

[@w8stral]

Going to kindly disagree. =) That is its empty weight most likely at best or maybe it is combat weight with no PAX/Fuel. If my surmise is correct, that is still +10,000lbs lighter than V22. Biggest reason is fuel weight. Also its a prototype so... any number you/I read is bogus and that number is from 2014... before any design work had been done. We must scale it from V22. Same HP as V22, near identical footprint as V22 where only its fuselage is smaller(smaller internal load) and rotors slightly smaller, yet range goes up = LOTS of fuel like the B version of V22 at minimum = lots and LOTS of fuel as aerodynamically speaking the two are nearly identical. It should have roughly speaking a maximum Take Off weight of probably the very low end of V22 when V280 is maxed out on fuel due to rotor loading when we know that ~V280 rotors are slightly smaller. A TO weight of ~31k under normal operating conditions would lower rotor load giving the maneuverability shown when compared to V22 as that translates directly to lower moment of inertia to overcome allowing better control by the cube root of total weight if everything else is roughly the same as V22(we know its not, but we have to start somewhere) I'll bet a standard load PAX + Fuel will be somewhere around 40,000-->50,000lbs for long range mission. 14 PAX @250lbs/pax + High hot condition buffer ~5000lbs + Fuel. We know V280 slightly better Aero than V22 due to shape, but same HP and only slightly higher speed correlating into slightly higher range. V22b has ~4500 liters of fuel ~ = 13,000lbs + buffer for high hot conditions = over 15,000lbs Add the 5000+ of PAX and the 15,000+ for Fuel obtains my rough guesstimate of ~40,000-->~50,000lbs for standard operations. The HP/fuel number for range is the deal breaker here. Only if we assume newer engines sipping less fuel do we get under 50,000lbs for long range missions.

[@moonasha]

with all these comparisons, I feel like it should be mentioned that the V-280 is NOT replacing the Osprey. Because the army does not use Ospreys!

[@janneaalto3956]

The V-280 and V22 are meant for similar but different roles. Complaining about their differences is like saying that 747 is a shit airplane since it can't bomb ground targets like a B-52.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

@w8stral I remember seeing that the valor is about half as light as the Osprey, mainly because of the smaller fuselage and the introduction of more composites. It was one of the main goals of the project. Disk loading is much less due to that. The v280 is also supposed to get significantly more powerful yet efficient engines than what it's currently being used by the Osprey. Despite that, should be easier to maintain, as this was another of the goals of the project.

[@alexander-mauricemillamlae4567]

@@janneaalto3956 well i mean tbf technically you could strap bombs into a 747s cargo bay and just yeet them out over a target. Would probably be very dangerous for everyone involved depending on how said bombs are actually yeeted out and wether the cargo bay is depressurized during flight or not, but still. Its not technically impossible

[@dylanrreagan18]

Keep it up Simon, by far the best presenter on KZbin!

[@megaprojects9649]

:) :)

[@haldanjacobson2149]

God I love it, every time I look up a vehicle your channel has it! Best and thank you

[@davefellhoelter1343]

Got to see TWO Osprey doing their thing Yesterday! So Cool!! miss the old days when we got to see cool stuff flying around regularly.

[@robertfrost1683]

You need to explore the Sharrow Marine Propeller. It is the first new innovation in marine propulsion since 1833. This has the potential to also change aircraft propellers.

[@ChadWilson]

This is going to be great for search and rescue. It can reach out further and then hover for rescue.

[@torstenmautz195]

I doubt it will be civil available in the at least next 20 years. For that all systems must laid open for public. And that won't happen because the advanced Flight-by-wire and Motor+Rotor technology is national security secret.

[@jonmce1]

Canadair built somewhat similar aircraft between 1964 and 1972. It tilted the wing itself. It flew successfully but could not find a market. The only remaining example is in the Canadian Aviation museum. From wiki : On 8 August 1973, the first CL-84-1 was lost when a catastrophic failure occurred in the left propeller gearbox in a maximum power climb. The US Navy and US Marine pilots aboard ejected safely. Canadair representatives investigated and recorded that the entire propeller and supporting structure of the gearbox had broken away during the climb. The second CL-84-1 (CX8402) was rushed stateside to complete the Phase 2 trials on board USS Guadalcanal. In the face of gale storm conditions, the "84" performed tasks such as ferrying troops and "blind-flight." Phase 3 and 4 trials proceeded immediately after, but, despite positive reviews from over 40 pilots, the CL-84-1 did not win any production contracts.

[@skorea2131]

As someone who has done real world combat operations on the Osprey with both conventional and special operations forces, I really beg to differ. For one, the Marines haven’t looked into the 280, it serves a completely different roll from the Osprey. The Osprey is a medium lift tilt rotor aircraft, designed for assault support for maritime operations. The 280 is a light to medium lift tilt rotor aircraft designed primarily for troop transport. That is a big difference between the two, because the Osprey has greater capability for combat logistics support than the Valor does. Additionally, the Osprey’s fuselage is larger and different shaped than the Valor, that is the primary reason for the weight difference. We have a ribbed structure as well with lightweight materials surrounding the cabin, on the wings, and the nacelle. As for range, we have the ability to install fuel tanks in the back, so our one way range greatly exceeds what wikipedia shows. I’m not sure where your guys found that it can external 10 tons of cargo, because that is not happening with the Valor. For the SOF forces stuff, there is a lot that is wrong as well that I won’t go into, but lets just say that no matter what there will always be an alternate and contingency plan… The Valor isn’t going to change that. I’m not sure who did the research for this one Simon, but they need to check their facts.

[@stop736]

Funniest thing I heard from an air winger in the Marine Corps, he was a crew chief and he used to say that helicopters don’t fly, they’re just so damn ugly that the earth rejects them from its surface which provides lift…😂 I’ve been in plenty of Osprey’s for training mostly and never felt more or less safe compared to a regular helo.

[@cos-9113]

The Bell entrant was selected during the US Army Joint Mult-Role (JMR) Medium. Essentially that means it is intended to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk for the Army. It isn’t intended for the US Marines currently, so far, as the Osprey performs a similar mission for them (and carries more cargo and troops). Even the US Air Force hasn’t said if they will use it to replace their Blackhawks. And in current form it can’t perform the US Navy Seahawk role as it has a much larger footprint. This video seems like it was rushed without doing much research…

[@udp1073]

I live in Arlington (TX) about 25 second in flight from the Bell Test Center.. I have seen the Valor so many time I can ask to become a pilot.. that thing is a sight to behold.. the first time I saw it they were doing the first test flight.. but over time they started to ga a bit faster.. but the best part is, sadly, the one I have not seen.. it is when they fly it at night.. boi oh boi the sound (you can recognize the sound of the thing)...

[@tyho6521]

This is the first video I've seen about the Valor that really explains why this was chosen over its competitor. The sheer flexibility in range, payload, speed and agility is amazing.

[@granatmof]

Any video covering the range and speed requirements of the FLRAA program really indicate the program requirements are really geared toward selecting the V280, which had been in developement for a while before the program was announced. Conventional choppers have an upper limit on speed (no such thing as a supersonic chopper) that tiltrotors can easily trump. Sikorsky's option was designed really after the design parameters were set, and really it was there to say the Army had an open bidding process more than anything. I expect Sikorsky's FARA offering will be selected to compensate them, since Bell's offering just seems bland.

[@eaphantom9214]

0:18 - - Oooh! 😍 Looks epic! Like it belongs in the - Batman Range - Like V22 Ofsprey, only way more evil!

[@DG-jq7il]

It is act a fantastic addition to the Osprey, and will put battle field logistics on another level with the Osprey doing the heavy lifting for forward bases, and the Valor doing the martial arts for raids. I would expect the Osprey to be replaced by a larger version of the Valor, possibly utilizing a mission adaptable cargo pod with the Valor's rotor system.

[@skorea2131]

We don’t do heavy lift in the 22.

[@jamesfulton215]

Best description of a helicopter I heard came from a buddy in SAC was one hour of flight time is equally to a thousand hours of maintenance.

[@tomcharter4127]

I never knew how they inserted to save Captain Phillips thank you Simon and writer.

[@hello--world]

If they somehow fit a smaller version of a radar similar to that of the E2 Hawkeye on the V280 for carrier operations, it'll sell like hot cakes!

[@hollismccray3297]

I can't help but wonder what the result would look like if they went back and rebuilt the Osprey with all the technology that went into the Valor.

[@NicholasMati]

I've spent ~8 years of my career working on electric VTOL aircraft (e.g. Makani, Heaviside, and [redacted]). It has never ceased to amaze me just how much of a cruel mistress the square/cube law can be. I'm not super familiar with the Valor, but even without engine improvements or material improvements, a size reduction on that order is huge and, along with knock on effects, likely accounts for a significant amount of the performance improvements. Big things just don't want to take off vertically and the energy and powertrain mass budgets quickly get out of control.

[@spiritd4ys]

This video has several inaccuracies, I think you've gotten details of the V22 osprey and V280 mixed up, the V280 is exclusively an army program for now, Neither Marines or JSOC are currently involved. The marines would be interested in buying some if there were an attack variant since they like to share components between utility and attack helicopters, but the Army leads the program and is not seeking procurement of an attack variant.

[@MrTmac9k]

You can look at the Valor as incorporating "lessons learned" from the Osprey: (1) Tilting rotors good, tilting engines bad; and (2) Side door good rear door bad.

[@vultureTX001]

field tested engineering, a military tradition for the survivors.

[@johnpearson492]

They also learned a lot from the BA609. There are advantages to tilting or not tilting the engine. The advantage of rotating the engine is a far simplified transmission and much less center if gravity changes in rotation. The advantage of fixing the engines on the wings are a lighter duty wing can be used to support the weight since it's closer to the fuselage, the engine doesn't have to work in two different planes, and it won't leak oil out the tail when parked. All tilt rotors are quite impressive aircraft for their speed and range. Each one has its distinct impressive feat. The V22 is the payload king, the V280 is the fastest, the AW609 is the only helicopter with a full pressurized cabin and can cruise at 25,000ft.

[@bjw0007]

Also, the V-22 had slightly forward swept wings to increase the clearance from the props to the wing leading edge. Bell determined later that the props did not deflect nearly enough for it to be needed, so they made the wing on the V-280 a single straight piece, which not only simplified the wing but also removed the need for a gearbox in the center of the wing and allowed for a single driveshaft between the engines.

[@w8stral]

Uh, no. Entirely different mission. Rotating engines is good as it saves weight and why it was done to begin with. Rear door is also good if you wish to haul cargo as its main objective instead of rapid troop deployment. Side doors are best for rapid troop deployment and they have to be able to shoot out the side door and if there is an engine in the way = very very bad, so + to extra weight complexity of said gearbox to get engine out of the way and - weight for much smaller fuselage/internal load. Win some, lose some in engineering. Nothing is free.

[@skorea2131]

How the hell are you going to get the cargo out of the Osprey then?

[@Brian-bp5pe]

Simon, as I recall the attempted American hostage rescue in Iran, the force that was deployed experienced a number of failures related to overall mission readiness; training, communications, equipment maintenance, etc. There were collisions and fires on the ground, causing more mayhem, confusion and carnage. I don't recall that these failures were directly attributed to the use of helicopters.

[@davidspiller7977]

A Marine CH-53 (helicopter) crashed into an Air Force C-130 killing 8 people. That's why it was called off.

[@B-A-L]

The operation failed because they sent Special Needs Forces by mistake!

[@michaelvanzanten4941]

They needed to refuel in the middle of the desert because the Marine Corps helicopters could not refuel in mid-air. The whole situation could have been avoided if they used the Air Force MH-53's which could refuel in mid-air.

[@ronclark9724]

@@michaelvanzanten4941 However, the Valor can be refueled in mid-air increasing its range even more...

[@marsmotion]

@@michaelvanzanten4941 yea it was a sandstorm that did the damage

[@dantupper1784]

Simon-for your research team, US Army helicopters are named after US Native American Tribes since the 1950's. In the case of Chinook, it is the name of a US Tribe Native to the Pacific North West, A Species of Salmon that live from as far south as Montery Bay, California, and as far North as the Chukchi Sea in Alaska, A powerful East to West Wind thru the passes and river gorges of the PNW, and a river in the US State of Washington.

[@ronclark9724]

The Valor is not a helicopter.... The Valor is being built to not just replace the Blackhawk, but also the Apache too....

[@dantupper1784]

Your reply seems to somebody else's writing, and have nothing to do with what I wrote. The only aircraft I wrote about was the 6-decade old Chinook Helicopter's name. Why?- because presenter Simon's version of 'Chinook' was pure nails on a blackboard. Many wrote about how to say it right, my point was why it's important to say correctly. Like thousands across the US, I made parts for C-17's, Blackhawks, B-2's, Space Shuttle, etc, etc, and the V22 Osprey. And you should check out the air museum in Midlands- there's a lot to view.

[@ekuche8335]

Great video as always.

[@cikame]

I see it as an addition rather than a replacement, it sounds great for the uses outlined in the video, for other uses the Osprey carries more, the Blackhawk requires smaller areas for landing and the Chinook carries more than any of them, if you were to scrap any of them i guess it would be the Osprey but you'd have to replace it with two Valors.

[@cadenbigler]

It is literally going to be a replacement for the Blackhawk, if you watch and read more about it. It doesn't require very much more landing space at all, and the benefits far outweigh the one less you can fit in a football stadium

[@engineeringvision9507]

@@cadenbigler And the Blackhawk is going to need a replacement for sure!

[@stephentorgerson4249]

@@cadenbigler if you look at how long the army plans on maintaining their blackhawks for I don’t think they will be replacing it for some time. Commenter is correct. More of an addition. From a maneuverability and space standpoint it is far inferior.

[@TheBooban]

This is just the first version. Ofcourse it is scalable and can be bigger. There are design pictures of 4 tilting propellers on a huge one! But Blackhawk utility role won’t be replaced. Need something simple for simple flying about.

[@tomshackell]

The difference in landing area is not as big as you might think: about 15%. The Valor is wider, but the Blackhawk is longer. An extra 15% area is pretty good considering it carries 30% extra people at twice the speed and twice the range of the Blackhawk. No doubt the Army will keep Blackhawks around for a while, but fairly sure the V-280 Valor will ultimately be replacing it.

[@martinstallard2742]

0:45 inception 3:28 future vertical lift 5:53 the Bell V-280 Valor 9:24 advanced technology 11:09 wam, bam, thank you Valor

[@rabbiepora5457]

You should do a video on the Valor's competition- The Defiant X.

[@zemog1025]

the operational range of the V280 seems to be the factor that moved it past the Defiant nice report

[@SonOfAB_tch2ndClass]

I knew the V-280 was winner.

[@geoffreyc1027]

It is a beautiful aircraft to see flying. Bell has been flying it around the DFW metro for a few years now

[@chaosXP3RT]

If it's American, it's trash

[@bubpori5105]

Nice Edition to Vertical Envelopment ! Beat all the Competition and lots of it ! Bell Lineup Supreme !

[@lycossurfer8851]

It appears the wings don't fold like the Osprey so that removed a lot of the complexity from the older system.

[@CarletonForsling]

Because, as others have pointed out, it’s for the Army, not the Navy or Marines. At least not yet.

[@Surpriseify]

Unstoppable? I think if you fired a missile at it, it might stop at some point

[@dreytucker4464]

Love the aviation videos

[@kerentolbert5448]

Can be use on escort carries for ASW and airborne warning radar to hide the attack carries, in addition to troop transport for island hooping. Could also be used like a picket ship to scout for sea skimmer missiles.

[@shanecocker9245]

Would like to see what an engine failure looks like or landing on tight LZs like at fobs, jungles, and on the side of mountains. I see a lot of flaws with some of the design verses Sikorsky's counter rotating rotor design.

[@Flies2FLL]

Engine failure is mitigated by driveshafts that connect the engines together. Thus, an engine failure would result in half the power but both rotors would continue to turn. The V-22 has the same system.

[@bl8danjil]

Sikorsky has its own set of problems. Like the blades must be stiff enough to avoid hitting each other. Sikorsky's compound coaxial system is complicated in itself. I am sure they will eventually work it out, but right now it isn't there. As for size, they are both bigger than the Blackhawk and that is due to the requirements to carry more than the Blackhawk. For dimensions, the Valor is wider than the Defiant X length, but the Valor's length is smaller than the Defiant X main rotor diameter, like it fits within the Blackhawk main rotor diameter judging from pictures. So both aircraft have a size problem. It's a rough speculation as Sikorsky only released comparison photos and not numbers. On the tilt rotor, if one engine fails the other engine sends power to that side through a drive shaft. In the event of dual engine failure the procedure is a run on landing.

[@Flies2FLL]

@@bl8danjil Interesting. Though I will point out that physical size is really not so much the issue with these, the max takeoff weight is what matters. MTW determines allowable load, which is what is important. I'm not familiar with the Defiant X, I'll have to look that up.

[@user-pq4by2rq9y]

@Flies2FLL I wouldn't be surprised if the valor can actually hover on a single engine. It is half as heavy as the osprey yet it will get more powerful engines.

[@Flies2FLL]

@@user-pq4by2rq9y I agree, though that would depend entirely on the weight. I flew 727's for a while and with an engine out, you lost some performance but generally you were in good shape. But loose TWO engines and now you are fighting for your life with your flying skills! They taught us that if you have the gear and flaps up with at least 200 knots, you can stay in the air on one engine. But you are really right on the edge, you better do everything right and hope to god that remaining engine stays together. The same thing is true with the 747; Lose one engine? No problem. Lose TWO engines and you are in serious trouble! These multiple-engine airplanes are designed to fly with ONE engine inoperative. The certification rules allow these to fly at heavier weights than a twin engine design of the same weight and total thrust. Basically, lose more than one engine and you are not guaranteed to make it to a suitable runway....

[@deltacx1059]

Carbon fiber, yes it's durable but when it fails it fails hard and violently in many cases. The body of the aircraft I'm not convinced about, but the wings will definitely put the bell engineers to the test.

[@FLJBeliever1776]

The V-280 would carry 18 troops. There are plans to field it as the full replacement for the UH-60 Blackhawk. As in being the Air Asset of Choice and Operations for normal Heliborne forces in general and not just the SOF guys. Which tells you the math outright. Another video I saw included a statement from a Bell Exec that said that 10 Valors could fit within a certain area that could fit 12 Blackhawks. I forget the size he stated, but he referenced the number of units and a sports field, I think Football maybe? Soccer? I forget there, but because he gave exact numbers of units, it really is just a minor tidbit. So, you have 10 Valors with 18 soldiers each and 12 Blackhawks that carry 12 soldiers each. The Valors are dropping off 180 troops in all. The Blackhawks are dropping off 134 troops in all. Fewer units, more combat power in addition to being able to fly longer distances on internal fuel alone, with heavier firepower added on as well. Fewer resources are also being dedicated and the attack force can be launched from a considerable distance, preserving surprise until the point of contact with any defenses, such as Sensors (ie Radar) or guards (ie Sentries). With fewer units crowding the sky, there's more Command and Control over them and the escorts would be better able to cover them. Because let's face it, Vertical Aviation is going nowhere without a Combat Escort, even if it can defend itself or attack. The costs of not doing so are already too high to forget. The Valor will, hopefully, make keeping those losses lower. Though if one crashes carrying a full load of troops, we need to remember that it is a Troop Transport, so any crash involving a Valor will have a high injury and death count. Unlike a couple of guys in a Gunship or a lone Pilot in a Fighter. The latter of who also has an ejection seat.

[@gunbutter830]

I love how he keeps going on and on about the Marines and SPECOPS but this is a general purpose aircraft for the US Army and its "common" Soldiers.

[@lyfandeth]

Without having numbers at hand, I think the need for clearance on dual rotors means a conventional helo landing pad or a tight LZ wouldn't have enough clearance for the V280. Making it less useful than a single rotor chopper for some operations.

[@legallyfree2955]

Yes, it is significantly wider than its competitor (Defiant X). I would have gone with a mix of the two myself. This thing will struggle to fit between buildings in urban areas.

[@hiei5040]

Although it's cool , I would have prefered the Bell Defiant X to win the Contract

[@hiei5040]

@@Predator42ID I don't know where you're getting this information from , but tilt-rotors have been responsible for more deaths than just about any other air platform in history. The American Marines fear riding in Osprey more than they fear the enemy. Like seriously where did you get this info. You seriously think a Tilt Rotor has a low maintenance cost? The V-22 Osprey has had 13 hull loss accidents that have resulted in a total of 51 fatalities. The Valor hoes have the benefit of not having the entire engine rotate like the osprey and thus not as many fluid dynamics issues . Sure for Troop transport purposes the valor could serve a bigger role but it's combat capacity is almost non- existent. The defiant X has the ability to serve a similar role to an IFV for the air. Can bring hellfires AND A/A . The Contra-rotor with pusher proper is a better design, and can even incorporate ejection mechanisms similar to the Ka-50.

[@TheBooban]

@@hiei5040 by “tilt-rotor” you mean Osprey. It should have remained a prototype. But Congress was going to cancel everything so the marines had to take it. Because of that, we have the Valor, which fixes everything. For a Blackhawk replacement, you’re right, Valor is the wrong choice. But it is false to market it as a Blackhawk replacement. It replaces just those used to long range assault. Which is also a lie because Blackhawk cannot do long range. And neither can the defiant. It is the Chinook which does that role. 10:40 And Valor can be armed with all those missiles like a gun ship. They just haven’t mentioned it yet. Google a little, you’ll see pictures. So Defiant is over kill for a utility helicopter. Too short ranged and slow for long range assault. But will live on as the Raider, a more suitable role. Could replace Apache, but there is no need.

[@yewtoob2007]

looks sick!

[@noredcr]

i could see this craft being popular with the coast guard and even in the commercial sphere, while too expensive to replace something like a stol bush plane it could be great for medevac as well.

[@daviddevlogger]

Life is too short to wake up in the morning with regrets. So love the people who treat you right, forget about the ones who don’t. And believe that everything happens for a reason. If you get a chance, take it. If it changes your life, let it. Nobody said it would be easy, just that it would be worth it

[@ElenarMT]

That's not true for me. Not all lives are worth living - I've gotten to the point that I'm just wasting space and contributing a net 0. At least I can take solace that my life will be as missed as when you put your hand in a bucket of water and take it out. The shape of your hand doesn't remain, the water just fills the gap as if your hand was never in the water. Kudos to you though for inspiring and giving others hope. The world needs more people like you David

[@lilesmw]

Yeah you right

[@Ai.And.I]

That there sounds like depresion, so why not go see a psychiatrist with a psychologist and if you’ve done so before not all are bad. Life’s worth living, think of it as an rpg but real, takes time and grinding lots of grinding.

[@ElenarMT]

@@Ai.And.I I tried, they all tried to dissuade me from suicide. The last one was pretty shocked at my take that life is not sacred. Anyway, don't need shrinks anymore. I've used Science, Fluid Mechanics and Maths to formulate my final plan. Pretty excited just waiting for the right date - which I've naturally also planned for minimal disruption. Just wish I were able to give whatever life force I had to someone who could still use it and who wants to live. Seems like a waste. Anyway, peace to you. I hope your lives turn out good

[@ryanhannapel1830]

Hey bravo on that intro 👏🏻. You looked like you enjoy your job.That was really funny.

[@DavidKamps01]

One big feature that I missed about the V-280 that is extremely important is that the engines do not pivot like they do in the Osprey.

[@KC_Smooth]

In other videos people were complaining that this has a larger footprint than a Blackhawk, but they missed the point of how the benefits of increased range/speed outweigh any detriments from its size.

[@andyharman3022]

The simplicity of the Valor will help its performance and reliability. The fixed engine/tilt rotor construction must save weight compared to the V22 tilt engine arrangement. And it doesn't look like the Valor has a folding wing like the V22 because it doesn't have to fit on an aircraft carrier elevator. That also saves weight.

[@zx1100a1]

This is a great video Simon. This aircraft is money well spent as opposed to the oafish Osprey. Thanks 👍

[@niros9667]

This thing looks sick af

[@spdcrzy]

One of my favorite lines in Zero Dark Thirty is when DEVGRU is loading onto the stealthed out choppers: "Who here has been in a helo crash before?" And THE ENTIRE TEAM raises their hands lmao.

[@Justwantahover]

2,400 miles range is a lot of difference to 1,000 miles range. That's a big improvement!

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

also 302 kt max speed in testing vs 158 kt max speed

[@robslade2571]

One thing I noticed. Only the front half of the engine turns up. Compare that the the predecessor where very hot air gets blasted straight at the ground.

[@StarWarsFreak2111]

When referring to the US Military, Special Forces and Special Operations (Forces) are not interchangeable. When referring to other countries "Special Forces" is a catch-all term for what the U.S. calls Special Operations Forces. In the U.S. Special Forces only refers to the U.S. Army Special Forces, i.e. The Green Barets, (and Delta Force, depending on who you ask). Special Operations, on the other hand, is anyone who does "Special Missions" above and beyond what the regular forces do. Special Operations Forces include The Green Barets, Delta Force, Raiders, PJ'S, Rangers, SEALs etc.

[@joecanis484]

Clearly evolutionary out of what was learned from the design, deployment, and application of the Osprey. Will be a tremendous addition to the air inventory, but still a relatively easy target for a Stinger in the near-ground operations area. Other than a cloaking device, it will always be difficult to avoid that risk, which is always part of the definition of combat.

[@BillHimmel]

Pretty cool machine!

[@kingpin7666]

It’s going to take an insanely tough plane to replace the chinook. Those helicopters are beasts.

[@WindFireAllThatKindOfThing]

I still think we need to be looking at a tilt rotor C-130 replacement. Of late, the Osprey has proved to be less costly per flight hour, less risky (surprise), longer ranged and faster than it's Helicopter counterparts in the same capacity class. It's time to go bigger. Squad-size VTOLs are fine for tactical ops, but it's airlift logistics & hauling platoon+ sized elements without fighting for and defending airstrips we need.

[@Derek.Mitchell]

Can’t wait to see the Well There’s Your Problem episode on this death trap

[@michiganengineer8621]

It'll be the transmissions that can be bent more than 90 degrees is my bet.

[@ChaJ67]

What I think the V-280 Valor should have had (maybe for a future variant) are electric motor/generators and some high C rate batteries. The idea goes as follows: 1. When taking off vertically, you need a lot more power than regular horizontal flight. Electric motors attached to batteries could provide this extra power. Getting an extra burst power from electric motors means smaller, more efficient turbines. More efficient turbines means longer range. Efficiency of jet engines drops off dramatically as they are throttled back, so this should far outweigh weight added by the electric motors. 2. Having the drive shaft going between the two sides of the aircraft adds weight, mechanical complexity of components under high stress and wear and tear, and takes up a lot of space. Electric motors these days can be very high performance. You could draw power from one side and transmit the electricity to the other side in the event the turbine on one side fails. As for current auto-rotation capability of the V-280 Valor, I can't imagine it being too great. Probably more like the Super Stallion where the pilots I have talked to say it crashes every time an auto-rotation is attempted. A key point to auto-rotation is disk loading and tilt-rotors tend to have relatively small disks with high loads on them. With electric motors, you could have a smallish motor in the rotating part of the nacelles directly on the drive shaft to the prop and provide some extra power so that it is more of a semi-auto-rotation as opposed to a completely unpowered auto-rotation. The basic understanding of an auto-rotation is air passes through part of the blade as it windmills and this pushes another part of the blade to create lift. The more power you add, the less blade is used to keep the blade spinning and the more that can be used to create lift. You may want to actually have two electric motor / generators per nacelle as high speed electric motors going more turbine speed can be made more compact and powerful while the slower spinning direct drive electric motors are mechanically simple and can be made into a highly reliable emergency power system. The idea being in a jet turbine failure, you have plenty of power from the electric motors to fly and land fairly normally with maybe some reduced power considerations as power is transmitted between the two sides of the aircraft. If there are more mechanical failures of gears and such, you can still have some emergency power on that side from say the slower spinning motor / generator in the rotating part of the nacelle and have some control to set the V-280 down somewhere intact. This kind of goes off of hobby drones and R/C helicopters where the multi-rotor drone uses electric motors optimized to go at propeller speed and it works well overall while the R/C helicopter uses a compact and very high speed electric motor with a gear reduction in order to be as compact as possible for its power output. The multi-rotor drone is not as mass efficient with slower spinning motors, but it is an extremely reliable setup. The gear reduction on the R/C helicopter can lead to stripped gears, but you can also have a crazy amount of power on tap to do extreme 3D maneuvers. The V-280 Valor is not going to do extreme 3D maneuvers, but you just downsize the electric motors so as to be as light as possible for the job that needs to be done.

[@wolf-xf6hf]

Part of the increase in range comes from the fact that the wings can generate significantly more lift than the ospreys when flying in a forward direction and also cause much less drag

[@ivanlam1304]

It's a superb development in aerospace technology, having carbon composite wings, fuselage, propeller blades and inter-engine drive shafts

[@mariadavid8036]

It's a successful project. Nice .

[@jerryvanderwier2310]

The Osprey was a live test bed. The Valor is a 2nd generation VTOL game changer that could be as significant as the hilocopter. Time will tell, but before then, we appear to have an exciting new weapon. Just imagine if president Carter had this tool for operation Eagle Claw in 1980.

[@rickyprasasouk]

The V-280 wasn't made for the Marines, but for the Army.

[@michaelagee848]

40 years of experience and refinement of the technologies, I'm sure it will be a vast improvement.

[@Meower68]

Operation Eagle Claw was the major motivation for the creation of the V-22 Osprey. Helicopters of that era were simply not up to the task. It wasn't just the range; the choppers didn't have to be reliability to do the job. Had the US military of that era had the V-22, they likely could've pulled it off.

[@just_chris1630]

I didn't really understand the comparison to the Osprey. This helicopter will replace the black hawk not the Osprey. The Osprey is great it can carry more than any other helicopter further than any other helicopter. If you need to move light vehicles or artillery then you won't use the valour. I think these 2 helicopters will be incredibly powerful when used together.

[@johnberetta7141]

This certainly appears to be an aircraft with a lot of potential for airborne assaults, especially if the rapid dragon system or an equivalent can be integrated with these, because then you could legitimately launch an assault on an island from 800 miles away with the intent to take it and keep it. The ability to use VTOL is useful for going back to base for supplies to turn the occupied island into an area denial fortress before a runaway can be built for the conventional cargo planes.

[@dwightwilson9629]

"Helicopters kind of suck".....😆 you're funny.

[@vangvan1654]

More than 40 year ago I saw a design of airplane call VTOL in the aviation magazine now the us marine corps using with the named V-22 osprey