US Army is Testing Newly Built $40 Million V-280 Transformer Aircraft

[@ioanbota9397]

They are powerful I like it

[@lil----lil]

To ALL the brave souls who died testing the V-22...SALUT! ('-')7 Without U, the V-280 would not be here today!

[@naga2015kk]

Salute too for those who are about to die. For the V-280 is our money spinner

[@jimward204]

A little off topic, but I saw an Osprey V-22 take off from Huntsville International Airport about a week ago! It was awesome and VERY loud!!

[@Merica1776]

OK! Let me start by saying the Norwegian F-35 sitting in its bunker being filmed from behind with the jet engine covers on and all the lights looked so f_cking sick! Norwegians are bad ass, Vikings in a fighter jet🤘🏻🇳🇴

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

So many misinformed comments. This thing is a beast. Everyone who doesn't have them is going to be jealous. Best air cavalry on the planet. *4 times the payload capacity of an Apache could theoretically fit on that thing according to it's 10,000 pounds (4,536 kilograms) load capacity. (It can lift M777 artillery) *It has a one way, ferry range of 3900km or 2100 nautical miles. Combat range of 500-800 nautical miles or 930-1480km return. *4 crew members and 14 troops. It appears 2 extra ad hoc door gunners over and above the dedicated 2 can be positioned to defend the V280 if the circumstance arises. *It goes faster than any chopper by a good margin achieving 300 knots (345 mph; 556 km/h). *It will have the biggest golden hour rescue range of any chopper on the planet for medevac. The one sole drawback is the target envelope. It has remedied the design problems of the Ospreay without the complicated design limitations of folding short wings and propellers.

[@robertsykes660]

A service ceiling of 6,000 ft? It couldn’t operate in upstate New York or New England.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

​@@robertsykes660 no. That is the hover ceiling which is the same as the Blackhawks.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

I believe that’s max altitude for hovering, not max operational altitude

[@thasageofsixpaths]

This looks so goofy, like a little kid drew it.

[@ChaosKoda]

The Apache isn't a utility helicopter, it's an attack helicopter. I don't know why you would compare it's lift capacity to it, if anything the Chinook would be the closest comparison.

[@HenryJPB]

Looks like a Black Hawk helicopter fuselage.

[@camilleriggan9555]

Wow. Awesome!!!

[@blue6gun]

Great stuff, but how is a straight-wing profile "cutting-edge"?

[@andrewreynolds4949]

When it can hover like a helicopter

[@uchungnguyen7686]

Mỹ Rất Đẳng Cấp 🎉🎉❤❤❤

[@navypowertv]

Wow, the V-280 Transformer aircraft looks like a game-changer for the future of military aviation! $40 million is a huge investment, but the capabilities it promises are mind-blowing. What do you all think? Could this be the next step in revolutionizing aerial warfare?

[@dallasyap3064]

It should have been made into a intra-theater long-range transport rather than a tactical utility aircraft for direct battlefield support. It's not as maneuverable as the UH-60 and it's much larger .

[@Delta-b9z]

Let’s hope it’ll have less crashes & problems than the v-22 osprey‼️

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Already has

[@MagnusUS1776]

Cool! Now build one around a GAU-8 so the army can have a friendly centric CAS platform after the A-10's go away.

[@SM-yd2gg]

what program do yall use to draft the aircraft shown in the beginning ?

[@nyanalytic]

Has counter rotating blades been tested as a way to shorten the propellers?

[@Predator42ID]

They need to be the same length, the advantage they give is you no longer need a tail rotor.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

If you mean like the Russian Ka-52, no. The mechanism would be too complex.

[@olsmokey]

No, but it's a great way to cancel reaction torque from the rotors.

[@dallasyap3064]

The other competitor that lost to this aircraft had a counter-rotating rotor, a co-axial rotor. This allows the tail to be fitted with a push propeller to increase speed.

[@천조개미]

이건 스콜피온 건쉽의 현실 판 아니냐? 쩌네.

[@JosephHolness-u2m]

Hhmmmm.....Very "DRONE-ish Looking" 😂

[@BillyAnderson-pu7ou]

IF V-280 can be stored like the V-22 think about V-280 on Frigates/Destroyers. Range of a 1,000 miles (1,600KM) means the Navy would have a substantial range to protect the fleet and Marines landings.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

I just hope if they make a folding Wing variant they don't make the same mistakes they did with the osprey. They reduced the wingspan and rotor diameter which hurt performance massively.

[@mark_A206]

Watching from china this is very nice

[@azexnewmai3607]

KZbin is banned is china. Your IP ADDRESS HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND SUCCESSFULLY REPORTED TO THE LOCAL BRANCH OF THE ZHENGZHI ANQUAN BAOWEI

[@fylecabagnot5703]

Looks similar to the concept prototype in zero dark thirty but without the tilt rotors... Still looks ok IMHO

[@mikemet1744]

Is this a New Jersey drone?

[@andrewreynolds4949]

No, this is a transport aircraft like the UH-60 Blackhawk

[@mikemet1744]

@@andrewreynolds4949 Thanks. They looked smaller.

[@bachnguyen8503]

☘️🌼./. 🚁🇺🇸🚀✈️✈Thank you Daily Aviation’s with video clip war combat 🌎 01 & 02 from plane 🇺🇸✈️ B - 52 and V- 280 Transformers the best + the best gealy beautiful 😻 in great show good new war combat very good today . Thank you so much . Thank you very good .

[@MichaelSchneiderTexas]

6000ft service ceiling is not very high?

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

That isn't it's service ceiling. Its service ceiling hasn't been released. That is its hover ceiling.

[@toncastanho]

A revolução virá se conseguirem colocar o radar do E-2 Hawkeye no V-280.

[@verdebusterAP]

There are a lot of improvements to be made but biggest should be an aerial refueling probe to greatly extend its range

[@davidlambert1102]

It's range is a lot more than the Blackhawk's already, but more is better. Does the Army have a "tanker" to refuel it? Midflight refueling is an Airforce & Navy domain. Would it have a probe or receptacle?

[@verdebusterAP]

@@davidlambert1102 Tankers are not service limited ,they are shared. The principle advantage of tanking is that the V-280 would be able to travel anywhere The USMC old CH-46E needed 3 days to travel coast to coast, the MV-22 supported by tankers can do it one day The V-280 with aerial refueling capability would be able to do the same

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Word is a refueling probe will be included on the second prototype

[@martinpugh9700]

Refueling probe is already being designed in, per request of Special Forces.

[@verdebusterAP]

@@andrewreynolds4949 There is a lot potential with the V-280 design. The next obvious step is making the design more attractive to the USN, USAF and USCG However the smaller Sikorsky S-97 would be better suited for the USN and USCG as well SOCOM The V-280 is too big for the hangers on the USN Frigates , Destroyers and USCG cutters The S-97 is only slighly better than the MH-6 which makes the more attractive option

[@DuwayneForbes-v2q]

Cool

[@СлаваБубенщиков-д3ц]

Самый лучший вертолётик Мне нужен самолётик уже есть давно

[@ralphbuschman3364]

Yes indeed the Ospreys were a development nightmare. Hopefully these as a next generation are les crash prone.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Overall the osprey does not have a worse crash rate than other aircraft that perform a similar role. It just had more attention as bad accidents happened during the age of the internet.

[@wayneyd2]

The problem with the V-280 replacing the UH-60. V-280 will need a much larger LZ because is much larger rotor disc space.

[@Predator42ID]

It's only 19% larger and can fit in 90% of the area's the UH-60 can, Also it fits into existing hangers.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Because of its greater capability the V-280 can move more troops quicker than the UH-60, even with slightly fewer of them due to the slightly greater landing footprint

[@beadcutter8644]

You have twice as much target area to shoot it down with . Hit one roter and it is going down and going down hard upside down. You can't even auto-rotate with it.

[@abcdef8923]

@beadcutter8644 hit one rotor on uh-60 and...

[@michaelsmith2723]

Pros outweigh the cons . Faster, farther, with 24 troops. This is being built for the Pacific first and foremost. Helos are slow and do not have the range for continously Pacific operations from land bases.

[@paulenirbarros6442]

"CONVERTILPANOS!"🧐☝🏻

[@davidlambert1102]

So many negative bots. Just like the F-35 had/has. Both will prove to be awesome in combat!

[@macwizer]

Fat Amy Musk is right jack of all trades master of none

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

​@@macwizermusk doesn't have a clue about military matters. F35 has already been bombing targets in Syrian and Iran when both of those nations have modern air defenses.

[@jazzmandan7056]

🇨🇦 (?)..🤔.. Thinking the upgraded Blackhawk would be better suited up north here (?) This seems more of a tactical machine, but y’a, new tech, big risks ✈️

[@douglassshephard3732]

I do think they need to have mini guns on them, one man, two unmanned minigun systems.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

They will have door gunners

[@กระบอกข่าวชาวกระบี่]

F35.บังคับเลี้ยวสองชั้น.

[@douglassshephard3732]

This cross between a helicopter and a fixed-wing plane is more useful to the military's throughout the world, I think the helicopter is not over they still need heavy lift helicopters, for all military, but for deployment of troops and other equipment rapidly these new systems are a game changer. They're better than the conventional helicopter and more versatile than fixed-wing planes.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

These would be better for heavy lift as well. It’s small platforms where conventional helos still hold the advantage

[@dallasyap3064]

It's better and more effective for intra-theater and long-range transport, but for tactical battlefield support, it has to be maneuverable enough and not present a lot of surface area to be targeted. The V-280 would have a lot of target area for the enemy to fire at, not a good idea.

[@naga2015kk]

as if One Widow maker is not enough....

[@kennethwalker4701]

Hey look!!...that's one of those UFOS!...their seeing around New Jersey!!😮

[@andrewreynolds4949]

No. There is only one flight-capable prototype of this design, and as far as I can tell it’s still in Texas

[@mariejoseecastelbasquin6604]

$365/ $7000

[@Henryta1995-bu]

Việt năm xin chào

[@akihiko0709]

これって計画中止になったんじゃなかったっけ？

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

No

[@Predator42ID]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Ah good to see you again, The good news is there are more people now who see how much better the Army's new tiltrotor is. The tide is slowly turning.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@Predator42ID This is one of those things that show either how many bots are trying to go against anything American or how little people do research and only get their info from social media. The program was so one-sided that it is a joke to consider the other aircraft. The Defiant was trying for the bare minimum of the program and couldn't even get there. Meanwhile, the Valor crushed nearly all metrics. One was riddled with technical issues and barely had any testing time. The other met all requirements on time.

[@georgekraus9357]

Can the V-280 be disassembled and loaded in the C-17?

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

Doesn't have to, as it can self deploy 3900km ferry range. (2100 nautical miles)

[@Predator42ID]

Won't need to. It has the range of a C-130. This greatly improves logistics.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

If it had to it could be loaded onto one as well. The point is for them to not have to though.

[@twolaneasphalt4459]

Uh, the US Army canceled the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program for which the V-280 Valor was designed. The Army is continuing with its Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft program, but is looking at an airframe being designed by a joint partnership of Anduril and Archer Aviation, as well as a 280 variant by Bell.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

No you got this completely incorrect. Fara was the Invictus vs raider and was cancelled altogether. Flraa was the valor vs defiant and the valor was selected and is now in the final testing process.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Correct

[@corujariousa]

"Transformer Aircraft" is too long of a stretched metaphor... Come on...

[@henrykahr]

V-22 Osprey has a horrendous record of crashes!

[@BillLeonard-c8s]

Actually,the V-22 has one of if not the best safety record of all Naval aircraft. The problems of the development phase were successfully addressed.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@BillLeonard-c8s They just cost more than F22 Raptors and F35's.

[@Predator42ID]

@@knowahnosenothing4862 70m for a V22, same as the F-35. F-22 nearly double that. The cost of a CH-53 is 100m.

[@Ehyeh_Asher_Ehyeh_117]

​​@@BillLeonard-c8s "hard clutch engagement" is stil being reported as an ongoing failure with the v-22 widowmaker

[@銀猫-m1c]

Vトール機は、まだ技術的に難しい アイデアだったら、昔からあるんだけどね

[@Mrayp80]

Another multi-billion boondoggle. They should've went with the Raider, at least it could auto rotate if needed. This thing will fall out of the sky under the same conditions. Not to mention the much larger space needed to land this death trap compared to the Raider.

[@Predator42ID]

It can auto-rotate and glide. Also, both engines are linked so if one fails the other takes over. This level of redundancy is the main reason why the V-22 has a higher safety record than all other aircraft in the Military. Also, the V-280 had 200 hours of flight time and exceeded all expectations including reliability. By contrast, the SB-1 Defiant only had 20 hours, was 18 months late, barely achieved the minimum speed requirement of 250knots, 75% of its airframe was dedicated to engines, drive shafts, and gearboxes, and it kept breaking down. Also, the Defiant is noticeably larger and way taller than the UH-60.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

The Defiant X has vibration problems and isn't ready, it shakes itself apart.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

This shows how little research you have done into the program or aircraft.

[@dhmental]

I agree, these bell designs are shit. Sikorsky with counter rotation and pusher prop was superior in every metric.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@dhmental so the slower, less range, carried less, and worse acceleration and deceleration aircraft was better in every metric?

[@debbachebachir]

DANGER ZONE 10:16

[@gerrycooper56]

For combat wouldnt the engines be safer mounted on top of the fuselage?

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

no... why?

[@gerrycooper56]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9from ground fire

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The engines are best located as close as possible to the propellers to keep drive shafts as simple as possible, just like pretty much any other aircraft ever built

[@gerrycooper56]

@@andrewreynolds4949 ok, but there’s already a cross shaft to allow single engined flight.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

@@gerrycooper56 As a backup, yes. Moving them to the middle would still require much more complicated gearboxes

[@steve2me414]

Why not jet engines

[@al28854]

They are, X2

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The engines on the V-280 are turboshafts, so a jet engine that drives a shaft instead of just making thrust. They’re commonly used on helicopters. Bell is working on a concept for a hybrid, with propellers for VTOL that fold away for faster jet travel. It’s still in very early concept exploration stages, and won’t see any application anytime soon.

[@darthvirgin7157]

because jet engines are inefficient. for the same range, you might as well make the whole aircraft into a flying tank of gas.

[@andrewsteen1427]

The real question is what are they testing over the skies of NJ!!

[@pmode50]

V-22オスプレイはプロペラ直結のエンジン丸ごとが回転する仕様なので、エンジンが不安定になりやすいし、回転部が重い。 新型のV-280はエンジンは回転しないで、回転部にシャフトで動力を伝えてプロペラを回す方式、そこが違う。

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

The rotating engine of the Osprey has never made it unstable.

[@홍진-s5y]

일본도 오스프리 구입하지 않았나요? 사고후 지금은 운행 중단인걸로 아는데...앞으로 일본 정부는 어떻게 한다고 하나요?

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@홍진-s5y Something to do with the material science in a clutch mechanism was failing.

[@jwwebnaut7045]

No voice is very distracting. 👎🏼

[@IgrejaBrasilBendito8193]

IGREJA .BRASIL .BENDITO 🔥

[@K메이져]

우리나라 비밀특수임무 부대(23)와 참수 부대(23)에 최소 46대는 있어야 한다~ 일본은 최신형은 아니지만 V-22(오스프리)를 보유하고 있는데 사실상 필요한 우리나라는 1대도 없다`

[@dannychimo3578]

are they testing them in new jersey by any chance

[@andrewreynolds4949]

No, testing has been in Texas

[@Patrick-yh5yd]

They should build small One man tiltmotors for combat.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

Drones

[@Shadx27]

Still think the Sikorsky option might have been better.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

It was worse in every way and not even a finished design.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

To be fair the Sikorsky design did fly, if not for very long

[@dallasyap3064]

SB Defiant would have been better. This Valor is just too big of a target for tactical battlefield support, it's got a lot more target areas to be hit by enemy fire than the Defiant. And it's not as maneuverable as an actual helo.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@dallasyap3064 1. It only has a 19% larger total footprint. People love to overstate its size and understate the Defiant's size. 2. Transport helicopters are not armored anyway so they could just shoot the pilots in any of them. Besides being in and out of the hot zone in half the time does way more. 3. The Valor passed the same low level maneuverability tests the Back Hawk had to pass. There is no testing showing that the Defiant is more maneuverable.

[@Shadx27]

Several people saying the Sikorsky one barely flew, um, pretty sure I saw several variant prototypes fly very well.

[@Delta-b9z]

If it doesn’t fold up like the osprey how can you deploy it half way around the world??

[@Predator42ID]

The V-280 has a 2500-mile range which is the same as the C-130. It can simply fly.

[@Delta-b9z]

@ that’s wonderful, but it seems like it wear them out faster. I really hope for the program success!

[@mkvv5687]

@@Delta-b9z I considered that, too. But, since it's likely to go halfway round the world only once, it may not be that much of a consideration. Also, lift capacity is limited and it's probably best to use cargo space for materiel, not aircraft.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

It has the range of a C130, it just fly's itself there.

[@FLORIDIANMILLIONAIRE]

Well I do not particularly like this design since my design is better and Army obviously chose a huge company vs my beautiful low part count lighter weight more futuristic and highly durable design.

[@aldocosta1220]

Será mesmo que essa aeronave de 40 milhões pode substituir um UH-60??. Eu já ouvi falar de muitos acidentes com o V-22 Osprey, que eu particularmente acho uma aeronave incrível. Mas, se formos comparar, os serviços que os helicópteros da Marinha já prestou, vai muito além do que podemos imaginar. Será que à Marinha perguntou qual é à opinião dos seus pilotos??. E o que cada um acha ou pode ser melhorado??. Até onde eu sei, à Marinha dos Estados Unidos, só trabalha com o melhor

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

This is an army aircraft not a navy one. The v22 does not have a worse record than other aircraft that perform a similar role. Also this isn't the v22...

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 When they go down they often take a lot of people but they actually have one of the best flight hours to mortality ratings out there.

[@DefenseInnovation]

🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

[@waynearrington6727]

Service ceiling of 6000 ft? ???

[@davidlambert1102]

Did you see how skinny that wing is? I don't know if 6K is right, but that wing is going to need some dense air.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

That might be service ceiling in hover mode

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

That is the hover ceiling which matches the h60. The service ceiling hasn't been released yet but if not pressurized it will match the v22.

[@scruffy7443]

Who are the the crash test dummies when they release this out on the service branches?

[@Hobosurvival]

Why wouldnt you use jet engines imstead of propeller engines?

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Harder to hover I think

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Jet engines are beyond inefficient at low speeds and altitudes which you kinda need for this mission set.

[@rory-red]

why they still using rotars and not jet thrusters seems logical

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Jet thrusters are beyond inefficient at low speeds and altitudes. Both of which you need for the mission set.

[@dallasyap3064]

Black Hawk shouldn't have been replaced by the Valor. UH-60 is a utility and tactical battlefield support aircraft, directly delivering troops and equipment to and from battlefields therefore it needs to be able to maneuver well and be not as big of a target. The Valor isn't as maneuverable as and presents itself as a much larger target than the Black Hawk to enemy fire. The Valor should have had its specs, especially payload, expanded and increased (equal or similar to the Osprey) and serve as an intra-theater long-range transport or behind enemy lines special operations support (perhaps for a MV-280 variant). The other competitor aircraft, Defiant, with its co-axial rotor and a push propeller design would be more suitable to replace the Black Hawk in the tactical battlefield support area.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Ill put this here again. 1. It only has a 19% larger total footprint. People love to overstate its size and understate the Defiant's size. 2. Transport helicopters are not armored anyway so they could just shoot the pilots in any of them. Besides being in and out of the hot zone in half the time does way more. 3. The Valor passed the same low level maneuverability tests the Back Hawk had to pass. There is no testing showing that the Defiant is more maneuverable. 4. The Defiant was FAR from a complete technology demonstrator and had barely any flight time and tons of delays. It would still shake itself apart by the time the choice was selected.

[@colinobrien3806]

rip to all the victims of the buggy v-22

[@Condor1970]

The design has no foldable wing. How could it be used on seagoing vessels or high altitude hovering above 10,000ft, which tilt rotors are known for being problematic? They really should have continued work the Defiant X program.

[@Predator42ID]

The Defiant failed in all metrics and was so behind schedule it wasn't funny. The army's investigation showed that not only did it fail in most regards. They also found Boeing lied about the costs. Boeing deliberately underbid Bell but then the Army saw all cost overrun issues and the fact that the Defiant was and is a Technological dead end. Helo's have reached their limits. Tiltrotors by contrast have proven invaluable at giving the military, options they never had before. As for ships, well if the Navy wants them a new variety will be made since even the UH-60s have to fold in order to fit on a Destroyer.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

I was the same initially then I did my research and found out the V280 shit's all over it while DefiantX still shakes itself to pieces. The Raiders might be good as the smaller scale seems to work better but that would be more as a Little Bird replacement for SF teams.

[@martinpugh9700]

Well, it’s designed for the Army, so putting it on ships weren’t in the design specs 😂 Why would it hover at 10,000 ft? Also, the Defiant was slower, had less range, carry less cargo and was 18 months late and WAY over budget.

[@Condor1970]

@@martinpugh9700 Much of the operations in Afghanistan were at or even above 10,000ft. Also, Valor is supposed to replace the Blackhawk. So far, it can't possibly replace it in the civilian sector when it comes to search and rescue, which is far more in need than just troop transport needs. Also, the Navy needs a Blackhawk replacement for the hundreds of choppers needed for seagoing vessels, ranging from frigates, destroyers to amphibious assault ships, etc. The V-280 is already costing over $30million each, where the Defiant actually was coming in cheaper. The Defiant was also shown to be more overall mechanically reliable and survivable on an active battlefield, where even today the V-22 avoids due to a higher chance of loss from enemy fire. The V-280 is far too narrow of a band of use to justify its cost.

[@Predator42ID]

@@Condor1970 Mechanically reliable? Cheaper? Did you not read the previous comments. 3/4 of the defiant was just the engines. It was 18 months behind and lasted 20 hours vs the Valors 200. As noted before this came up in the Army's investigation. It wasn't cheaper by any stretch. It only met one of the Army's requirements while the Valor exceeded all of them. The Defiant also kept breaking down. The Valor doesn't need to be transported via C-17. The Defiant would.

[@sandronelsonpestana2983]

💫💯💫👍😎🇨🇼🇺🇸🇺🇲

[@JohnJ-p7o]

The usaf took the deadliest to use and most expensive hilo to use and decided that this style is what they need in the furure. What were they thinking ?

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

You are completely incorrect. 1. The osprey doesn't have a worse record than many other aircraft. 2. Multiple helicopters are more expensive.

[@Forevertrue]

Newly built $40 million dollar death trap.

[@Predator42ID]

Cars crash more than planes and helicopters combined. Perhaps you should go back to riding a horse.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

…Which still has yet to crash or any significant mechanical issues at all

[@budisutanto5987]

I prefer 2 engine then one for a plane. But when 1 engine fail, the distance between engine need to be compensate by control, because wirh only one engine, the airplane will turn. 2 engine with lots of distance between them is ...

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

You don't know what you are talking about. Both engines turn both rotors at all times. Mechanically one rotor can't turn without the other turning.

[@budisutanto5987]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 YOU don't know what you talking about. It's a military plane. What happens when 1 system doesn't create lift? Stop trying to fool people.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@budisutanto5987 It can fly on one engine like every other 2 engine aircraft... You need to do even basic research. The rotors are connected via a drive shaft that mechanically links both of them.

[@budisutanto5987]

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 There's no more rotor on one side. Military plane. War. Battle. READ.

[@mikehunt7888]

The shadow resolution is incredible.

[@mysteryY2K]

service ceiling of 6000ft? laughable

[@andrewreynolds4949]

That might be for hover mode only

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

No. That is the hover ceiling which is the same as the h60.

[@yangmeng7820]

Inspired by comic character? Consult Spielberg to avoid being stuck to conventional options !

[@hoppermantis7615]

The plopper. Half plane, half chopper, all 💩

[@LarryWright-sh4oy]

Can we update that rope exit, know has ever seen that one movie with Tom Cruise where they drop at the same time....ijs

[@TheWidebody747]

So, how many young service members will die in this one. This is an unnecessary concept.

[@BillLeonard-c8s]

Totally proven in both peacetime and combat. The growing pains of development testing were addressed successfully. In fact, the V-22 Osprey has a very impressive fleet safety record. No reason to doubt the success of the Army’s version.

[@frank-ko6de]

What's unnecessary is your negativity, but then again, you are a nonsense Bolshevik bot.

[@mysteryY2K]

eh only 500 or so it'll be a tax write off HOORAH

[@Ef554rgcc]

It will be autonomous/unmanned. Sometimes used as transport and sometimes used as drone mothership.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

clueless OP comment.

[@personnelente]

Should've stuck to helos.....

[@Sugbofood]

The engineer look like from Syria or Iran.

[@xjunkxyrdxdog89]

Why do you care where they came from?

[@Sugbofood]

@xjunkxyrdxdog89 google and microsoft is also from India.

[@xjunkxyrdxdog89]

@@Sugbofood you're avoiding the question. Why do you care where americans come from?

[@Sugbofood]

@@xjunkxyrdxdog89 they are americans but not used to be in 1930 where majority two type Americans black and white people. The society becoming like CHOPCHUEY chinese food

[@Ghettodachoppa87-kf6ml]

Too big, I like the Sikorsky better as a replacement for the blackhawk.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

The defiant was trash. This also isn't much bigger. It can fit in 3 sides of any box you can make around a h60.

[@niceyokosuka8956]

何が変圧器だよ！　誰かまともに翻訳しろよ！　できないなら止めなさい！！！

[@そのなか]

変圧器＝トランスフォーマー

[@Predator42ID]

Transformers. Robots in disguise, may I suggest you watch transformers one it is a really good movie.

[@BìnhTrần-h1u]

China copy 😂

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

?

[@andrewreynolds4949]

I’m sure they’d love to

[@toddw6716]

How much money will be wasted before they discover this is not a suitable replacement for a combat helicopter. It has its place but not to replace a Blackhawk. It’s a bullet magnet! How many will die.

[@davidlambert1102]

No more a "bullet magnet" than a Blackhawk. The Valor is faster so it should be harder to hit, right?

[@emanuelusa63]

Please qualify your response, are you a military pilot? Have you been in combat as one? Ty

[@DaveStillson]

@@emanuelusa63 Yeah jackass, were paying for your toys that you people cant seem to operate!

[@DaveStillson]

@@davidlambert1102 Well itss got to hover and when it does even Ray Charles can hit that.

[@davidlambert1102]

@@emanuelusa63 No, but I was in the US Army and qualified expert with an M16 rifle.

[@JehovahSharma]

We have transformer( Proud🏳️‍🌈) helicopter before GTA 6😂😂

[@Agent77X]

This V-280 comes out of the 1960s era aircraft development prototype that was reject by the air force, marine corps. navy!😂

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

This is some backwards logic.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

That was when the concept was first tested, sure. Did available technology allow for a reliable, capable machine at the time? No. Has aerospace engineering advanced enough to build a good design now? Yes.

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

Material science has advanced.

[@timtim9152]

Normal holikopter yap daha iyi

[@JayJay-de5jv]

Instead of worrying about speed maybe think of safety

[@andrewreynolds4949]

…And the project has seen no major mechanical difficulties at all. Already going better than the V-22

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Being in and out of the hot zone in half the time does just that.

[@macwizer]

Who was bribed in this one it was not the best choice. High risk not better performance

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Absolutely better performance, and performed far more reliably in testing than the competition

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Ah yes carrying more people a farther distance at a faster speed is not a better performance...

[@ralffig3297]

Still using masks?

[@Troy-y5g]

Waste of money and won’t work

[@DaveyCrockett1]

What a waste. Its another widow maker variant from the Osprey. The V-22 exposes our corrupt spending and contract agreements.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

The v22 does not have a worse crash record than other aircraft in similar roles.

[@DaveyCrockett1]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 yes it does

[@DaveyCrockett1]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 that doesn't make it okay

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@DaveyCrockett1 It simply does not. You can look this up and see that it has a better record than the CH-53, CH-47, and CH-46. Even the Air Force has theirs at a better record than their UH-60s. You need to stop getting all of your info from social media.

[@DaveyCrockett1]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 i am a retired v22 avionics tech. You can't convince me that I'm wrong.

[@Rodrigo-l9y8s]

I'm currently retired as a SGT in the Army, and while I no longer receive a pension, I feel grateful for the decisions I've made. With the current economic challenges, I'm excited about my investment in the digital market , aiming to reach $800,000 by next year. With a biweekly income of $56,000, I'm optimistic about the future. God bless America! 🇺🇸

[@nonyobussiness3440]

They flying in jersey

[@andrewreynolds4949]

Bell has only done testing in Texas

[@mr.j1381]

Yeah we neede this? V-tol new buzz word whats wrong with chinook? And we dont even need ither attack aircraft or attack helecopters probably attack aircraft, as the alligator has shown near speed of sound ability's, dump the apache and F-35 and this trash money saved or atleast the apache as f-35 can do the same things

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Holy delusions. You are so far off that it is laughable.

[@mr.j1381]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 any context to that or another bot we don't need this aircraft we have many with less moving parts that do the same job or better.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

@@mr.j1381 your information is so far off that it is laughable. The Chinook doesn't have anywhere near the range or speed of this aircraft. The alligator is so far off from the speed of sound that you saying it's even close is LAUGHABLE.

[@mr.j1381]

@n3v3rforgott3n9 it's about the engineering its just a fancier Chinook with more moving parts and maybe the Chinook just needs better engines as the Chinook is super fast as it stands and is easier to maintaine. There are redundancies.

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

​@@mr.j1381 you don't even understand what limits helicopter speeds... You are so far out of your league with this conversation you should just stop. Helicopters are not limited in speed by their engine output...

[@kaymanzz]

จีนจ้องจะเล่น

[@williambrown5966]

Total waste of money. Useless piece of crap . Could probably get shot down by a $ 5,000 misile.

[@NIGHTSTALKER0069]

Love how much money we waste on things like this. Why not just use what we already have

[@andrewreynolds4949]

This can go twice as far and twice as fast. That will be absolutely vital in any Pacific conflict

[@n3v3rforgott3n9]

Almost like the point is to continue to improve... Your backwards logic makes me think you are a Russian or Chinese bot haha.

[@dallasyap3064]

@@andrewreynolds4949 The pacific isn't exactly an Army domain unless the service is planning to undertake amphibious island-hopping operations. It's more of a Navy and Air Force domain. The Korean peninsular would be more of an Army domain.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

@@dallasyap3064 The western Pacific is very much an Army domain, between the landmasses of the Philippines, Japan, Korea, and mainland China. Island hopping is very much a requirement of the strategic situation in the Pacific. And remember, the Marines don't have the troop numbers or equipment to take on China alone, without the Army.

[@MintTree117]

Aesthetics matter. This thing is uglyt af

[@andrewreynolds4949]

The front end will be slightly different on all future prototypes from this first one, particularly the windows

[@mohawkdriver4155]

The Army will never buy that V280. Never.

[@davidlambert1102]

They already did!

[@knowahnosenothing4862]

Do some research. It's actually GOATed.

[@al28854]

sounds similar from a general about the M-16 rifle

[@fatdeluxe5302]

I would never, ever, set foot in one of these tiltrotor things. Has nothing been learned from so many deaths in the goofy V-22? Who exactly is pushing these monsters? "STOP IT"

[@Predator42ID]

Several helicopters crashed last year and again this year. The V-22 has the best safety record in the whole military.

[@andrewreynolds4949]

There are a number of design differences on the V-280 specifically because of learning from V-22 mishaps