V-280 Valor Helicopter Will Help Defeat China

It’s Navy Federal Credit Union’s mission to help members reach their financial goals. They were founded over 85 years go with the mission of helping military members and their families. That’s why they have products and services tailored to our community at any stage of your financial journey. Visit nfcu.me/3xyl5az to learn more.
The future vertical lift program is a DOD program lead by the U.S. Army, and could be the future of military aviation. Originally there were 5 companies all creating new technology for the FVL helicopter competition, but in March of 2020, the Army narrowed the competition down to only two companies. So what are the requirements for the FVL? What are these two companies offering? How do they compare to the Blackhawk, (aka the crash-hawk?) And how will this new technology help the U.S. Military outwit China? Join us as we dive into the pros and cons of these models, and the future of military aviation.
Edited by: Ian Fitzgerald
#military #army #futureweapon #technology
inquiries: [e-mail]
Follow Chris Cappy: / cappyarmy
Task & Purpose is a military news and culture oriented channel. We want to foster discussion about the defense industry.
Email [e-mail] for inquires.
Want more fun military content and news? Follow Task & Purpose!
Facebook: / taskandpurpose
Instagram: / taskandpurpose
Twitter: / taskandpurpose
taskandpurpose.com/

[@Taskandpurpose]

Thanks for watching ! Check out Navy Federal Credit Union: nfcu.me/3xyl5az their services are tailored for the military community. It’s Navy Federal Credit Union’s mission to help members reach their financial goals. They were founded over 85 years go with the mission of helping military members and their families.

[@holeshotshane5692]

Are we not naming our helicopters after Native American tribes any more? Great episode btw 👍

[@tnickknight]

Sorry USAA is the way to go

[@ytubesuxshite4497]

So you want to take the navy's osprey and slap the army logo on it and say it's new?

[@Defender78]

excellent video, nice work! Great visuals and commentary. I follow you and i smashed the Like. Just a suggestion, fans of followers of the ongoing Bell and Sikorsky/Boeing FVL competition will be able to find this video, maybe if you put V-280, SB-1, FVL and FLRAA into your keyword terms and title.

[@tacomonkey222]

The new military tactics aren’t for China and Russia but for the USA citizens

[@paulbarthol8372]

The Japanese learned that if you land on a remote island you might not get resupplied for several years.

[@MichaelSmith-dm2qu]

They also learned not to fight a country with 12X the size of their economy. China will not make that mistake.

[@NXTangl]

​@@MichaelSmith-dm2quI'm not sure they _can_ make that mistake. I'm pretty sure China's economy is real (unlike Russia lol).

[@farsiga2899]

​​@@MichaelSmith-dm2quDon't bet on China not making that mistake, China wants Taiwan that badly. China is obsessed with taking Taiwan.

[@doesntmatter4477]

Chinas not doing well right now. Their housing economy is close to crashing and causing decades worth of damage. Either way, they will do untold damage if they invade taiwan, but if they do it might be out of desperation which is bad for everyone

[@tyty0071]

​@farsiga2899 while the West is obsessed with destroying Russia simply because they are Russians. They are literally sealing the fate of US and EU by provoking WWIII.

[@realandrewhatfield]

Glad to see it looks like you are feeling better Cappy. Take care of yourself, we love the content!

[@Taskandpurpose]

thanks man I shot a couple of last few videos when I was sick , finally feeling better !

[@LK2166]

@@Taskandpurpose yah we saw u were sweating a bit. Take care bro!!

[@JoshuaC923]

@@Taskandpurpose take care man💪🏻💪🏻

[@jayvhoncalma3458]

@@Taskandpurpose how about the US give their about to be decommissioned black hawks to the closest country to Taiwan along with their Ticonderoga cruisers and if the US navy plans to decommissioned it's flight 2s they might as well split those to countries in indo-pacific that hasn't sided with china completely

[@tyrionas]

@@Taskandpurpose since you've been out of the army your immune system has gone to shit man, you need to start eating those MREs again to boost it!

[@chrxx4327]

The way I see it, both these designs are excellent. But they compete in different mission set spaces. The valor is ideal for carrying larger payloads, speed, and range. But the defiant has a much smaller foot print, and looks like it would be a better 1 to 1 replacement for the blackhawk's current mission set. I think ideally in the future, both designs would be used, and they would be utilized for the mission sets they better fit in with.

[@zonacrs]

@Archer Cillian The Chinook airframe just was not designed for that configuration. The Blackhawk maybe, but it would probably cost as much or more than the clean sheet design of the Defiant. That and retrofit avionics etc.

[@chrxx4327]

@Archer Cillian I'm performing an educated guess on the differences between the Valor and defiant using data from the blackhawk and osprey. the Chinook is an old airframe, you cannot just retro fit coaxial rotors, aircraft design is more more complicated than that. the advantages of a tilt rotor are speed, range, and capacity. the valor is not a heavy lift aircraft trying to replace the workhorse that is the Chinook, think of it more as a medium weight class with top of class range and speed, while offering good payload capabilities. the defiant would be a much better pure troop transport aircraft with a much smaller footprint, it could land where the Valor could not, think medievac and more.

[@jonalmario9835]

Yes they both have strengths and i think it merits building both aircraft technology

[@merikano2985]

I think they are relying too much on Afghanistan and Iraq and not enough on Vietnam for dealing with landing zones. Both Vietnam and Afghanistan suffered the same problem that will be even more crucial in the event of a war in this region - limited number of landing zones. In Afghanistan it was mountaintops and the Taliban often posted spotters with a radio to let the others know the Americans are coming. In Vietnam the NVA and VC did the same thing; and with triple canopy jungles there were few LZs big enough to fit any helicopter in - it doesn't take a Washington think tank to guess which landing zones the enemy decided to have troops nearby to respond with; or in the case of China a ship launched guided missile. The difference between this scenario and those two is that like in WW2, it's going to be even more difficult to take an island by surprise as the enemy (China or Chinese supported faction) has technology that allows them to track US military logistical movement as well as anti-thermal sensor equipment now. Just because the drone doesn't pick up a spotter with their eye on the LZ, doesn't mean they're there hiding under a thermal blanket. You don't need stealth detecting radar in place, just a grunt already in place on the ground with good NODs and a radio. However I do think these problems can be overcome with effective jamming equipment that would shut down enemy comms prior to LZ insertion. Can we get a Hooah for all those electronic warfare aircraft in the past, present, and future?

[@jacobswartz4031]

I don't think a 1 to 1 with the BH is the goal. I believe an entirely new mission set is the issue and the goal is supplying the force for that mission.

[@latinojackson9694]

Thank God for those PS1 graphics to show them in action or else I would have no idea what they would have looked like if they were shown on a SYFY original show a few decades ago.

[@Soravia]

Army should get both. Defiant X for low level flights on islands, Bell for longer range larger load room across the sea. Make extra cargo models from Bell version to carry more troops and lighter bulky supplies. Dragging stuff on sling load is slow and reduces range

[@blahorgaslisk7763]

I think you are right. To demand high top speed and that it's capable of hauling high loads in a sling is wishful thinking. Fast and nimble or a tractor. Chose one!

[@johnaltman6671]

This might be what they end up doing in a different way. There are 2 competitions going on right now, flraa and fara, with flraa the one covered in this video. Fara is supposed to be for a smaller scout type, and Sikorsky is basically making the same aircraft but smaller, while bell is going with a more traditional helicopter. If bell wins flraa and Sikorsky wins fara, the army will have essentially picked both.

[@Soravia]

@@johnaltman6671 scout is going to be Invictus aka Comanche 2.0 Scout must have stealth, small footprint, and low cost for recon and take out enemy radars and anti air.

[@mech____]

not to mention, counter-engineering against two vehicles is harder than only having to study one. specializing parts and tooling for individual aircraft makes them (on paper) more difficult to maintain, but the nation responsible for design of such also has a lot more time to figure it out. its not too difficult to imagine how a bunch of old blackhawks full of spare parts sitting around could be useful to adversaries with less GDP, especially if they're already privy to reverse engineering most of their hardware.

[@werewolverine4906]

@@johnaltman6671 in my opinion, I think Army will procure Sikorski and Navy will procure Bell.

[@mnorth1351]

Let me get this straight: Bell is working with Lockheed Martin on their entry, while Sikorsky... is fully owned by Lockheed Martin. No matter who wins, it seems like a good time to own Lockheed Martin stock!

[@stupidburp]

It is pretty common for several of these companies to be involved. Who wins determines who is the lead contractor and gets a bigger share.

[@lordgarion514]

It's literally not possible for a company to fund research into the level of tech we have now. If we want it, we have to pay a significant fraction of the costs. So by default, defense is welfare, but necessary welfare. And you don't want a company not winning a contract or two to cost you the company. So the money is spread around various ways.

[@omarn6989]

That is an error by Cappy. Lockheed is not part of the Valor team

[@mannymartinez6182]

I thinking about joining the local lock heed martin logistics and military sales where those contracts at....

[@txtworld]

@@omarn6989 Cappy is spot-on - Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.

[@doug4036]

When Seahawks first came to the fleet they had a bad habit of suddenly diving straight down then crashing. It was so bad we called it the Lawndart for years. Great sponsor! I’ve had everything with Navy Federal forever and I can’t say enough good things about them

[@BatCaveOz]

You can't tell from the video, but the two sets of rotor blades on the Defiant X rotate in opposite directions (contra-rotate). This prevents the helicopter from spinning, which typically is achieved via a vertical tail rotor. Circa 14:02 the heli is hovering and descending without using the tail rotor, which would be impossible using a conventional design. (The CH-47 "Chinook" also has both rotors rotating in opposite direction, and has no tail rotor at all)

[@captaron]

Chinook has rotors on the front and back, very different machine.

[@GusOfTheDorks]

It also looke like an absolute maintenance nightmare and fragile to the point of absurdity.

[@bubsnicket]

@@GusOfTheDorks you mean like every modern helicopter?

[@GusOfTheDorks]

@@bubsnicket Some are better about it then others though.

[@kylemc6128]

Glad someone said it

[@gallendugall8913]

What the rep wanted to say is, "The difference between this and an Osprey is that this works."

[@oddshot60]

I kinda remember that the Osprey has had a tendency to go "lawn dart" a LOT over the years.

[@Sir_Godz]

lol

[@zerotwo7319]

""The XVB02 'Vertibird' is a VTOL ('Vertical Take Off and Landing') craft with an extremely durable armored fuselage and can be armed with a variety of offensive weapons and defensive countermeasures. This is the most advanced aircraft of its kind ever developed, and the military hopes to press them into service by 2085.""

[@bullzebub]

just give me a power armor, ok?

[@achaean7615]

So are their crash rates similar to the ospreys?

[@CircaSriYak]

thank you zero two very cool

[@ilijapilipovic]

2085? 🤣🤣🤣

[@ilijapilipovic]

Poor usa.

[@rickraible2475]

Ok ngl NFCU is not only properly placed ad, but I use them for pretty much everything. . Love this channel.

[@HerbCrustedSpam]

Hitting the big time with the NFCU sponsorship. Awesome Cappy!

[@Thorr97]

The Bell design will have to have some truly significant advantages over Lockheed's for it to be accepted. This being due to the sheer size of the Bell machine. Due to the design layout of its being a tilt-rotor, the foot print of that machine is immense. It looks like you could almost fit two of the Lockheed helos in the same space as what one Valor would require. That will have a pretty significant impact on its functionality on any battlefield. That pusher prop on the Lockheed machine is nothing new. That sort of layout has been around since the first helicopters took flight. Lockheed's AH-56 Cheyenne of the 1960s featured it and it was a notable feature of that design. The benefit of having a layout like that is that you don't have to trade lift for speed as you do with regular helicopters that must angle their rotors down at the front and / or pitch the nose down as well. Plus, being a coaxial rotor layout, the Lockheed machine dispenses with the counter torque tail rotor of conventional helicopters. On those, they stick a rotor out at the end of the tailboom and have it perpendicular to the main rotor. It takes power from the helicopter engine to generate enough thrust to counter the torque of that big main rotor. With a coaxial rotor design where one rotor spins in the opposite direction of the other, that torque is eliminated and is so without diverting any power from the helicopter's engine. It's a bit more complex, mechanically, but a more efficient use of the power of the machine's engine. On the flip side of all this, it'd be great to see the tilt-rotor getting more production in general. That's a technology the US has the lead on and would be great to see in civilian use as a regional commuter aircraft. Something which a contract this big would enhance the chances of Bell's fielding a passenger version of the Valor.

[@derekmarshall5957]

Leonardo helicopters is currently get a civilian tilt rotor approved by the FAA its been around since the 90's but the project has been bought and sold by a ton of companies but Leonardo is finally making it flight worthy

[@matsv201]

The tilt rotor is quite a bit faster, even so than the push prop. Typically the push prop gives 50% speed boast, and the tilt rotor gives about 100%. Saftey vice is would prefer the push prop. The tilt rotor sharing of wngines dont help of the gearbox breakes. And that is the more dangerus fault anyway. To my opinion... both aircrafts are lackluster. While yes larger than a blackhawk... they got like twice the complexity. I would rather se a fan lift than a rotor lift... possibly a prop lift. Rotor lift is the worst in case of both maintanance and speed. There have been both fan and prop lift prototypes built in tve 50tys and 60tys. Both worked, but at that time, saftey was not able to be sufficent. Definit X have a speed of 460, the tilt wing, about 560. A prop lift would do about 700, and a fan lift could go pretty much 1000... or possibly more. A fan lift could in theory do 1200km/h at ground level. Both the rotor lift have to be at altotude for top speed, the speed is lowered quote significant at low altitude.

[@solarissv777]

The big misconception is that Sicorsky's submission is tried and true, ab Bell's is a new untried and glitchy tech. In fact on the contrary: Bell has decades of experience of building and flying tiltrotor, and Sikorsky has almost none production experience with coaxials, moreover - rigid coaxials. This was proven by speed with which both contenders developed their vehicles: by the time Sicorsky's submission made it's first flight, V280 was already actively flying and even exceeded their speed goal. The idea that it takes too much space is also wrong, as V280 doesn't require any tailprop, it can get away with a quite short tail, this allows it to have the same footprint as UH1 Huey, just sideways.

[@megamanx466]

@@matsv201 A vertical takeoff craft like that seen on the movie 'Avatar' or the 'Halo' video games would be really cool, potentially safer, and possibly more reliable. I believe that's the type of aircraft you're talking about anyway. 🤔

[@matsv201]

@@megamanx466 i had to ceck them up. Unsure what type of system they use. There also exist propfan and ducted prop that is sort of inbetween system. The most extreem version of this that was proposed and pre planed, and actually intendent to be built, was pretty much a B737 size jet with lift fans. Removing half the fuel for a bunch of lift fans. That might have been a to large of an aircraft for the army... but.. well, think of a Embraer E2 E-175 jet with lift fans.it would still retain 1800km of range and 23 000lb of load. The saftey of the system would simply be made out of redundant system. There was prototypes made of simual system in the 50tys. But the bypass engines was way to bad at this time to really make the concept workable.

[@kylep007]

Task & Purpose needs to do a video on Taiwan’s military and how the country has been preparing for a PRC invasion. I would also like his thoughts on if Russia’s struggles in Ukraine have discouraged Beijing from wanting to invade Taiwan.

[@mikeestvanik]

If anything I think it's bolstered their resolve to take Taiwan. They've also noticed they need to take it quick before other forces get involved and send material and aid

[@keith6371]

lol, you are watching a military channel, do yourself a favor go do some independent research. Russia is not struggling in Ukraine, and Russia has scored total victory over US on financial war. The current dire economic situation of US and Europe is the result of that total defeat.

[@mikeestvanik]

@@keith6371 Russia is most definitely struggling. 3 months in and they still don't have air superiority, they're navy is taking hits from land based systems, and their troops are constantly looking to the skies for imminent death from a $1000 drone. When they planned to be done in a week

[@rumpstatefiasco]

BAM!

[@Taskandpurpose]

yes 100% I'm working on covering Taiwan ASAP ! also working on a video covering China

[@KomradZX1989]

I’ve been a subscriber since you were around 80k subscribers. I love all your content, and your personality is so open and welcoming I feel like you’re a friend I already know. Hooah from St. Louis!!!

[@stephenreese5921]

Navy Federal? Best decision I ever made! Ever increasing Line of credit. Outstanding service. Easy to access funding and advice. 24 hr. Helpline. Never had a situation they didn’t immediately resolve. Worked for me, changed my life.

[@MostlyPennyCat]

Wait, hang on, has anybody checked to see whether _SIG Sauer_ makes helicopters? 😱

[@worldtravel101]

🤣

[@BaritoneMonkey]

LOL

[@delta5-126]

XD REALLY?!

[@sammartin6224]

Nailed it

[@granatmof]

This comment wins

[@Bullhead_JW]

The "Apache" part of the program is actually more aimed at replacing the capabilities lost when the OH-58 was retired, and the Apache picked up its mission set.

[@cshader2488]

surprised he didn't mention this.

[@soonerfrac4611]

These systems are set to be in service by 2030. If so they’re likely to be too late.

[@atomicskull6405]

Not likely the USAF will tolerate the Army having an armed tiltrotor for the same reasons they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56. Key west agreement prohibits the Army from having armed fixed wings and if the USAF went to political war with the Army over the stub wings and high speed on the AH-56 (which was objectively a helicopter) they will certainly oppose a tiltrotor gunship even more vehemently.

[@dmanagable]

Yeah this is more of a "Kiowa Replacement" than an "Apache Replacement"

[@Ai-dz7ys]

Chris, I find your analysis of stuff really interesting. This one is particularly good.

[@Taskandpurpose]

thanks I put a lot of work into this one!

[@georgiafloydsod9644]

@@Taskandpurpose I agree man, I've been watching your videos for a while and while they were always good the quality has drastically Improved since I started watching. Good job man, keep em coming

[@memyself637]

The tilt rotor option requires a much larger LZ. For this reason alone I think the Defiant has a huge advantage.

[@dickmelsonlupot7697]

and in terms of safety after getting shot at or hit with a missile, the Defiant with it's KA-52 design is a much better option since it can auto-rotate while the tilt-rotors will just fall like rocks especially if the "wings" get clipped or shredded by AA fire

[@oshirockingham9655]

@@dickmelsonlupot7697, Just avoid the risk of getting shot in the first place. Those downed KA-52s in Ukraine tell you why.

[@dickmelsonlupot7697]

@@oshirockingham9655 most weren't really "downed" but were shot to the point that the pilots needed to land properly. It just goes to show how safe the Kamovs actually are and that's one positive thing about that beast that America or the rest of the world needs to learn from. The sad part is that the Kamovs weren't used properly and the doctrine being used is bad for it's design. Plus you can't just "avoid getting shot". That's a dumbbb statement to make especially since these things are technically war planes and will need to insert itself into hostile territory especially when transporting or dropping off troops. They'll inevitably get into fire in one way or another.

[@stupidburp]

Defiant also has better fields of fire available, better agility, and downwash with less hot gasses that is safer for tight improvised landing spots.

[@zyeborm]

@@dickmelsonlupot7697 helicopters of any flavour are incredibly fragile. Drop a hammer into the rotor disk at flight speed and the helicopter is crashing. The winged craft has the ability to glide which traditional rotorcraft lack. Starting any reliability/survivability argument by picking a type of damage isnt constructive because anyone can just pick some other system to damage and there is no common ground. Personally I think the tilt rotor is going to be more useful and more vulnerable. Physics will give it more load transferred faster than a pure rotorcraft but it is a larger target that needs larger lz unless it does a very risky hover drop. I have the feeling that the added capabilities will sway the selection committees towards that. Perhaps the drone and smart munitions will negate some of the added risk at drop off and the higher speeds might help with risk during transit. Also the tilt rotor looks friggin slick, and we all know that is half the battle.

[@Raven-vl9vy]

I had no issue picking who I wanted to win for the NGSW contract, but both of these are really hard choices to me. I'm personally a really big fan of the Tilt-rotor aesthetic and function it has, but I know that the history of the V-22 Ospreys crashes during their testing and such which killed a bunch of Marines on it and then some endeavors later. (RIP Gents.) I feel as if the Osprey would be a lot more useful for Island Hopping, but having to make a much bigger one to carry more would make it a muuuuch bigger target. Sikorsky's Blackhawk did a fine job for how long it's been in service, always thought they looked cool and got the job done; but yes... It's aging. I'm really curious to see what they do in making scout/attack aircraft out of both models and if either is going to truly invest in a more modular approach to things much like how SIG Did with making multiple exceptions as in conversion kits, a platform for LMG, with both in mind to compliment the new sight they want to slap on. This definitely was one of the better videos, thanks Chris. :) 4yr Airman now, been watching you for a while now.

[@benjaminbrockway5998]

Yeah, but the V-22 was the first iteration of such a craft, so hopefully they have learned the necessary lessons to avoid those issues. The speed added is too useful to ignore.

[@karatejoe6332]

Agree the general dynamics bid was the obvious bid for all of us to choose except the good ole government

[@yeedbottomtext7563]

What realistically makes the Blackhawk obsolete other than the defense industry needing muh contracts?

[@kiwihame]

Those are two VERY cool Helicopters! Go for both! 😊

[@BaritoneMonkey]

@@yeedbottomtext7563 did you watch the video? What makes the Blackhawk obsolescent is a whole section in there

[@ipolygon1]

Just wanna mention… originally this started out as a Lockheed joint bell project… the valor that is. Then Lockheed turned around and bought Sikorski and built a competitor for its own bid

[@granatmof]

You know, I was really confused why Lockheed and Sikorsky were on different sides until you mentioned these. Somewhere in the back of my head I knew Sikorsky was bought out.

[@ChipNRat]

@@granatmof It's a similar reason why Northrop bought Orbital/ATK (and why they merged) as well as Lockheed and Martin combining, and Boeing buying out McDonell-Douglas. Theoretically each company has different expertise, so they can compete in different spaces (even if seemingly against themselves) and this makes it so they "always win". Northrop also has Xetron for cyberspace and Scaled Composites for prototyping composites (like the recent stratolaunch), LMA has has ULA, Procerus (for small drones), etc, and boeing has Insitu for small drones - and they all have tons of others for similar reasons. You can get contracts under these companies that don't bring the wide attention and are independent enough to not shock shareholders while at the same time doing something to push the larger company.

[@stupidburp]

Boeing also has a major hand in the Defiant. SB-1 indicated the joint nature of the project between Sikorski and Boeing. Then after Lockheed acquired Sikorski you have 3 of the largest military aviation companies involved.

[@txtworld]

Bell wisely signed Lockheed Martin onto Team Valor in September 2013. With LM providing V-280 Valor’s cockpit, integrated avionics and mission systems - utilizing the MOSA (Modular Open System Approach) interoperability doctrine, and their CORE (Common Open Reuse Environment) digital glass cockpit design.

[@harryh5620]

Yup - I went down in a failed blackhawk just outside of Tikrit in 2005 - engine issues - we landed hard but everyone was okay. Scared shitless, but okay.

[@DopetheWind]

I am a fancy Sikorsky helicopter engineer. 🇺🇸 For Defiant X, we have 2 main goals: redundancy and capability for size. It's the size of a hawk, more maneuverable than one, way faster, and will carry more. It has redundancy so sophisticated, even I am amazed and I work on it. While it's not as fast as V-280 at the moment, we absolutely refuse to compromise on survivability and "fly-ability" as we like to say. "We pioneer flight solutions that bring people home everywhere … every time"

[@michaellyons992]

Hi fancy Sikorsky engineer. I imagine coaxial blades mean some fun extra turbulent fluid dynamics to deal with, affecting both longevity of parts and perhaps noise while operating. Is there anything unclassified you can say on the subject? (Don't get fired.)

[@stupidburp]

This top rotor arrangement makes the aerodynamics better. Some slight additional maintenance challenges compared to hawks but well understand and manageable. Improvements in other areas can potentially keep total maintenance workload about the same or less.

[@GreatestCornholio]

I saw 2 ospreys flying low over Loch Awe last year, it was an awesome sight! So I would love to see bell’s design being made a reality.

[@chrisdraughn5941]

I would not want to ride into a hot LZ on an Osprey. Those things can get into challenging situations very quickly even when they aren’t being shot at. I might be a tad irrational about them, even their appearance screams “Do Not Trust Me!”

[@chrisdraughn5941]

@@chugachuga9242 - I’ll bet you get plenty of the bird variety ospreys too in Delaware. That’s a great location to be a bird watcher… I saw a gigantic flock of snow geese at Bombay Hook State Park once…

[@jaredevildog6343]

I need TP for my bunghole !

[@mtylerw]

Can the osprey auto-rotate like a traditional helicopter?

[@ungabunga6283]

@@mtylerw i think so maybe the rotors rotate up/down on either side which makes it go left/right

[@ZantiMisfit198]

I know several former Marine aviation mechanics who worked on the V-22 and they all hated it. They said it was a massive hangar queen.

[@iamcoolerthanconnor]

I love your content, thank you for your insight! You're the man Cappy!

[@Taskandpurpose]

thanks for watching really appreciate the support friend!

[@babu.x990]

Bro, thank you for the update.

[@Daimo83]

"Only 1200 Chinooks" Mate, we had ONE in the Falklands war.

[@CorePathway]

Y’all did so much with so little…

[@wylnd]

6:30 well I don't know. It seems like you only need a few hits to one part of the screen and suddenly the whole thing is unusable. Redundancy is key. The dragon spacecraft can have screens for pilot input, but mainly because it won't be shot at

[@justinhansen1328]

My thoughts exactly. And if it was touch screen what happens when it gets dirty, or wet and would you constantly have to clean it so you would have a clean picture?

[@wylnd]

@@justinhansen1328 Conductive touch screens and wet hands are a real problem on phones already, indeed! Just imagine the phantom button push potential. Whoops, just shut the rotors off :D

[@cs40660]

@@wylnd there’s a film you can get that you put over touch screen which stops all of that, we use em for work.

[@reappermen]

While I don't know what tech will be used here, a few general things: 1) a Screen might looks like it's only one big screen that is easily damaged, but in reality can be build from multiple smaller screens. That way a group of shots can only take out a part of such a larger controll screen. 2) going with a merger of smaller screens together is better than a physical setup, as you can set it up so every aspect can be displayed on any screen. If you physical kobs and dials get shot, they are gone. With a redundant screen setup you loose total screen space, but not functionality.

[@reappermen]

@@wylnd while they are not often used for civial use due to costs, keep in mind pressure sensitive touchscreens exist. They don't have any of the dirt and moisture problems capacitive touchscreens have. You need to spend a good chunck of money if you want to make them good, but in a multi-million dollar heli a couple hundred dollars extra for a screen won't matter much.

[@pugums3433]

I see that youve already found the next military project to talk about, good to see your taking the rifle contest being over well.

[@Krieghandt]

You forgot a point. Fixed winged can use run ways to take off with a heavier payload. So put on the 13000 lbs, and then the fuel, and take off. At the LZ, the fuel will have burned off, allowing a vertical landing and take off. A controlled vertical landing.

[@michaellyons992]

The renderings looked like the V-280 wouldn't have ground clearance for its rotors to do fixed-wing takeoff and landing. Is this wrong?

[@stupidburp]

Tilt rotors appear to be able to do a rolling takeoff at an angle but not at a completely horizontal wing position.

[@burddog0792]

13:38 Hey Cappy just a small tidbit of information here; helicopters go forward by tilting the rotor disk forward, this does make the nose point low in forward flight. So yes, technically they fly forward by pointing the nose down, but it's because that's the effect of tilting the rotor disk.

[@connor3288]

Actually, to the best of my knowledge, to go forward, the rotor hub actually tilts to the right or left depending on rototr rotation direction, and because of gyroscopic procession, the effect is delayed 90degrees of rotation if i recall right Very strange, there are videos on youtube about it.

[@burddog0792]

@@connor3288 Yes, that's correct. The hub and linkage controls (swash plate) do that and are constantly changing the pitch of the blades. Helicopter aerodynamics are crazy black magic. The effect of the pilot inputting forward cyclic (stick) is the swash plate working it's magic and the entire rotor disk tilting forwards to achieve forward flight. Look up footage of wheeled helicopters taxiing, they are level on the ground and you can see the rotor disc tilted forward. This is again to point out that helicopters in level flight have nose down attitudes as an effect of the rotor disc tilting forward, not because the fuselage tilts down.

[@Scott4271]

I’ve been a member of Navy Fed for years. They Are grate!

[@dray7579]

This just made remember how moral boosting a hot meal was while in the field, especially breakfast.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Hi Cappy, while i like the loadout and capabilities of the tilt rotor are commendable and it certainly has its place; I am inclined more toward the lower observable helicopter with a pusher prop. It has very high speed and is a more nimble and stealthy craft. From a tactical perspective I feel the helicopter should be in the initial lead force, with the tilt rotor being used as a resupply of troops, and associated ammo and food etc. In this way the best of both worlds might be achieved.The forward deployed units would hopefully be in a better position to defend the less stealthy and more vulnerable tilt aircraft, in its ongoing role.

[@randomperson8695]

As someone who spent their time on active duty as a Seabee I've got to say all this hating on runways hurts my feelings. Little tropical islands in the Pacific with runways on them are why we exist!

[@ShorterThanYouKnow]

Oh I'm sure the Seabees will get in on the fun after the island is secured. Amphibious assaults is what the Army wants to get away from.

[@currahee]

question: if i wear a seabee hat, that i stitched myself, is that disrespectful if i wasn't a seabee? i just love the logo

[@randomperson8695]

@@currahee No it isn't disrespectful. It's not like we're some elite unit and if anyone were to ask you about it you could just say you love the logo and just wanted to show some love and support. All of us would get a kick out of it and appreciate it, we are such a small community that we always assumed nobody else in the DoD knows about us and we considered ourselves the CNO's red headed step children.

[@Irishcream216]

Isn't that rate being completely eliminated now? My brother was a CM3.

[@vokalboy21]

Cappy!!!! Great Video. You Always make great content!

[@WjB_96792]

Good job on the Navy federal credit union sponsorship chris!!

[@timothypavlick76]

I LOVE V-Tols. They are arguably the coolest flying vehicle in existance

[@tetraxis3011]

What about Ekranoplans?

[@Big_AlMC]

but the worst to actually work with. Have you ever worked with one? major Hangar Queen.

[@jhmartin641]

What is amazing to me, is I was just looking into this competition this morning and thought, I wish Task and Purpose would put out a video comparing these birds... Great job reading my mind!

[@HuckOrris]

That last quote about building combat power faster than your opponent made me think. What's that saying? "bullets win battles, but logistics win wars." A Super Apache would be sick, but slinging artillery pieces and supplies around is better.

[@bradleyl3]

Yay NFCU! So happy you’re sponsoring Cappy!

[@Embassy_of_Jupiter]

I wonder when the first military will adopt "drone taxis" and/or if they will ever be an effective tool. I guess they'd need to be so easy and safe to fly that you don't need a full pilots license first.

[@canis_machina7280]

You do not need a Pilot's License to become a pilot in the Military at all. You must become a commissioned officer by obtaining a four year degree as a Civilian, complete OTS for your specified branch (Officer Training School), Apply for flight school after two years in your given MOS (Military Occupational Specialty), be denied or accepted after waiting for six months to a year, if accepted pass an SSBI (Single Scope Background investigation) in order to obtain a Secret Security Clearance, Pass flight school (As well as a two year Combat flight course to be a Fighter Pilot in the Navy or Airforce) and then wait until you are assigned to an Aerial vehicle type and your assigned unit so that you can begin flight missions as a copilot until your reach 1,200 - 2,500 flight hours. Unmanned Aerial vehicles are heavily in use for Recon, but will never be used for transport since an AI can not be trusted to return fire, avoid incoming fire, release flares, hail command, perform evasive maneuvers, give orders, crash with intent (Purposely crashing as gently as possible instead of plummeting into the ground), send out hourly status reports, or make verbal contact with Unidentified Aerial Vehicles. Even if the vehicle can nearly fly itself, a pilot will still be required for takeoff/landing checks and all other scenarios listed above.

[@Highlyskeptical]

Maybe there will be drone medics to retrieve more expensive downed drone attack/ recon assets, and a pilot license replaced by flight sim game time.

[@Embassy_of_Jupiter]

@@canis_machina7280 @Canis_Machina Interesting thank you. I'm not from the US and neither have I ever been in any military or have I any experience with aviation, so sorry if my wording is confusing to you. I'm just an enthusiast. I very much appreciate the detailed breakdown of what it takes to be a pilot in the US military, it's always I interesting to hear from someone who knows what they are talking about. By "full pilots license" I just meant this process you are describing in general for any military. I assume, that for small (one or two man) flying vehicles to be economical this process would have to be shortened, for that to work they would have to much easier to fly. I'm talking basically idiot proof, like in a videogame, with automatic crash avoidance, auto landing with sensors to make sure the landing area is clear, a fly by wire system that corrects the operator input etc.. As well as simplifying any procedure around the process of flying, like no communication with air traffic control required, maybe artificially limiting where they can fly in space, remove a lot of complexity from operating the aircraft etc.. We'll have to develop a completely new way to do air traffic control anyway, if we want to use millions of drone taxis, delivery drones etc. in our cities in the future. These same systems could be used to make flying easier for these small ultra light aircraft pilots too. You could program any small aircraft to automatically avoid any larger aircraft. That's more what I was talking about. But if this isn't possible, I doubt they would ever be adopted. And I disagree with your view on fully autonomous drones. I study computer science and I'm astonished every day how far AI has come and how fast it's improving. AI development doesn't happen at the speed of normal technological development, you have regular 10x improvements in performance within the span of a few months. We already have AI that is almost indistinguishable from humans in verbal and logic capability, that wasn't the case even just 2 years ago. Given the right training data, AI can do almost anything, aside from a few catastrophic errors. If you look at Teslas Full Self Driving is already driving like a human would, albeit like a 16 year old who just got his license. I promise you in a few years it'll drive like the average driver and a few years after that, like the best drivers in the world. I'm expecting fully functional autonomous combat drones in 5-15 years. And even if they have higher failure rates than humans, they are still useful if they are cheaper overall.

[@Embassy_of_Jupiter]

@@Highlyskeptical That is certainly possible. I think cargo drones will be extremely important in the future. Probably multiple different sizes from transporting kilos to tons. Larger drones can use hybrid engines for much longer flight times, probably around the size of a car delivering all sorts of different assets cheaply and safely.

[@anon_234]

I work as a jet engine electronics designer. I know for a fact that air gas turbine engines do not perform well when they are tilted too far up or down, as it disrupts the lubrication oil and fuel flow. In the documentation we give to the aircraft manufacturer we provide information on the angle of attack restrictions the engine has for safe operation, and it's their job to share that with the pilots. It also affects the air flow through the turbine, which the engines need in order to function. They work best when pointed in the direction the craft is flying. That's one reason why the Osprey tilt-engine turboprop design has so many reliability problems and is also a likely contributor to why the Bell prototype is having trouble meeting the external carry weight requirement. When tilted upwards, it has to actively suck air through the turboprop as opposed to a regular turboshaft design or when the turboprop is facing forward that passively gets air flowing through it as the aircraft moves. For the Blackhawk, I also know that some of the electrical components like the power converter are located in a hot, dirty compartment that clogs their cooling fan filters, causing the capacitors in them to overheat and explode, taking out the converter and unpowering anything is was connected to. That's a problem on the aircraft's side, not the components.

[@CircaSriYak]

People who know what they're talking about deserve a like. Take this.

[@tyrionas]

true but that being saidthere are ways to design engines that can handle tilting. also as far as I understand the new Bell design doesn't actually tilt the engine but just the prop-gearbox assembly which should make it much more reliable.

[@BraveUlysses59]

Tell that to the fighter jets.

[@rustyudder]

thats awesome no motion sickness too because it won't be leaning as much. That was one of the issues on the hawk was it made us ill. then you'd have to get your bearing after exfil

[@stuartkcalvin]

Nice piece mate, thanks.

[@josephfranzen9196]

What a phenomenal video Cappy! Keep it up man! The Blackhawks we used for air assault seemed like they were always on their last life line. I wasn’t a rotary mechanic by any means as my recruiter made being an 11B sound like the best thing in the universe haha. That being said it always seemed like there was something being replaced or worked on, on any number of our Blackhawks from day to day.

[@matthewgibbs6886]

11B is the best thing in the universe you don't want to be a remf

[@dmdeemer]

Here's a tidbit on the Defiant: The pusher prop can go in reverse, and it's powerful enough to lift the whole helicopter (I don't know how much payload, though). So if you want a good view of your LZ...

[@EngNerdGMN]

Except for that pesky fuselage torque that you get from a single rotor design... Probably not the best idea to turn your craft into a spinning top in order to get a glimpse of where you're hoping to crash... err land.

[@atomicskull6405]

@@EngNerdGMN It's not a single rotor it's a coaxial like a Kamov.

[@EngNerdGMN]

@@atomicskull6405 He was implying using the pusher prop as a main lift rotor to get a great downward view of the LZ. As soon as your pusher prop becomes your main lift rotor it's no longer a coaxial.

[@igors2383]

8:09 this is one of your best videos i've seen so far

[@vaporiiz]

perfect timing.. i just watched blackhawk down like 2 hours ago lol

[@hashtagunderscore3173]

Are used to work at the helicopter terminal in Iraq. Whenever somebody would ask me what the in-flight movie was, I would respond “Black Hawk down.”

[@ralphmarkasher]

As a Army Officer while stationed in DC joined Navy Federal, a great credit union. As an Army Aviator next generation Sikorsky would be better for the scout mission

[@mrkitty1367]

always good stuff bro !

[@joenichols3901]

Great video. Both designs are pretty awesome

[@HalferLandPerformance]

Personally think the Boeing Heli is a better fit, if it can lift the requirements. Smaller landing footprint, maybe faster, again only question will be lift capabilities

[@blahorgaslisk7763]

The tilt rotor design is faster, but I can see the coaxial rotor design being better at carrying load. There's not one solution that trumps the other in all areas. I'd be interested to hear how that coaxial rotor sounds. It should have a pretty high pitched sound, but that's just me speculating. I could be wrong as they say they are able to spin the rotors slower though. Still coaxial counter rotating props tend to be whiny.

[@kazedcat]

Coaxial is more efficient but it is not better than two rotors, So if you have a fix diameter rotor then the the lift of two rotor is 2x but the lift of coaxial is less than 2x. Coaxial will have somewhere between 1.6x~1.3x lift. But the footprint of 2 rotors is 2x while the footprint of Coaxial is only 1x. Coaxial is a lot more compact but the twin rotor should have higher payload given the same rotor diameter.

[@HalferLandPerformance]

@@kazedcat A detailed synapses of my comment exactly Lol

[@extraordinaaron]

The pusher prop on the Sikorsky can also go in reverse which lets you stop WAY faster than you could with air brakes alone. Very important for the hot infiltration. Less time slowing down less time to get shot down. For the scout/attack model the reverse thrust lets you circle a target with more precision too. In my opinion Bell is more of a plane that has VTOL , where the Sikorsky is more of a true helicopter, so I think they both have a place.

[@atomicskull6405]

The pusher prop on a helicopter was worked out by lockheed 60 years ago on the AH-56 Chyenne. It was supposed to replace the Cobra but then the USAF objected and lobbied hard against it till the program got killed. In many ways it was a more capable aircraft than the AH-64.

[@jelleegas6852]

Underrated comment. Skill will leverage the abilities of the vehicle creating certain tactical options unforeseen now

[@tararaboomdiay7442]

The reversible prop promises to produce fast deceleration in level (although it hasn't been demonstrated), but you can also get fast decel by raising the nose as as conventional helos do. Something overlooked, though is that on the ground either the troops have to wait for that prop to stop so they don't get sliced and diced, which delays their egress, or the prop has to be stopped while still airborne, which negates part of the advantage it's supposed to confer.

[@extraordinaaron]

@@tararaboomdiay7442 What? A blackhawk has a rear prop as well. No need to stop it, just don't walk into it like every other aircraft with a prop.

[@txtworld]

That's all talk and bluster - too bad that Sikorsky or Boeing never demonstrated it. That's the whole point of a demonstrator prototype - to actually "demonstrate" your claimed capability. The Bell V-280 Valor clocked up 214 flight hours - it flew for well over 3.5 times the pitiful 60 flight hours of SB1 Defiant. Insofar as speed, the V-280 Valor achieved 305 kts airspeed - well exceeding its namesake goal of 280 kts - and a full 60 kts faster than SB1 Defiant. The Production V-280 variant shall go even faster, with its more powerful R-R engines. Conversely, the SB1 Defiant could only muster 245 kts

[@Aothis]

ive been a member of NFCU since 2009. awesome bank

[@TheMitchyb61]

It’s still amazing to me the Osprey is more than 20 years old and seems like it’s just getting it’s start

[@antonleimbach648]

I think they should approve both aircraft. They are creating an entirely new way of fighting an island hopping campaign so they won’t know exactly what they will need until they have actually tried it several times.

[@PaulGuy]

Seems like while there's some overlap between the two, there's also some things they likely each do better than the other. And with the number of Blackhawks they're looking to replace, there's plenty of room for both machines.

[@pilotman9819]

China: *Just levels the entirety of Taiwan and calls it a day*

[@trevorzack61]

IN EVERY CONFLICT SPEED IN DEPLOYMENT AND SYSTEMNIC RETREAT IS IMPORTANT THANK GOD FOR THE OSPREY VTOL

[@steveperyer4850]

Great vlog on this subject. I was one of the first to get my hands on the Blackhawk back in 1980, as the 101st was gearing up for the new aircraft. I must have been good, as they shipped me to a Korea to , to a forward unit to welcome them there. It was a fine bird, compared to they Huey.

[@linuxares]

I mean the Osprey already proven very useful, it's a combo of a plane and heli. I don't see its size has a massive downside since it can hover pretty well. The only question is how well it will work if one rotor dies.

[@johnaltman6671]

About as well as the defiant will work if one rotor dies, not at all

[@EngNerdGMN]

The tilt rotor aircraft require a substantially larger LZ and have reduced efficiency in hover mode as a good portion of the thrust is opposed by the surface area of the wings.

[@hughmungus2760]

more moving parts = more things that can go wrong. Variable geometry aircraft tend to have a very high service cost.

[@slkjvlkfsvnlsdfhgdght5447]

i think that both options look great, and that the army should adopt both for different scenarios: the valor looks better for conventional fast troop transport, and the defiant x looks better for stealth operations

[@-JA-]

Thank you.

[@danielnunez7424]

For me as a pilot they both have different mission sets. With the amount of lateral space the tilt-rotor occupies it would be a problem in tight landing zones in between trees of the tropical jungle environment of the Pacific Islands, for me it's just a too wide footprint. For this purpose I think the Defiant is better suited with its slimmer profile. The V280 Valor is best suited for open areas such as European plains, deserts or places where trees are more spaced from each other.

[@matthewsylvester9103]

If you superimpose the v-280 over the Defiant X they are almost the same size. The v-280 is only slightly bigger with its rotor blades sticking a bit further out. The defiants blades go pretty far out. People don't realize how small the v-280 is especially if you compare it to the v-22. It's true that the frame is laterally bigger, but if your rotors hit trees on the way down I don't know how much it matters.

[@monkmoto1887]

The problem with the new designs is and always be how easily can it be maintained and what major design flaws inhibit that, like the ch-53 and all it’s variants that are absolute death traps or the osprey which isn’t exactly easy for your average crew to keep in the air

[@ls200076]

That's why we need more educated troops.

[@lordgarion514]

That's not as relevant as you'd think. America and NATO have been at a full world war footing for decades. And maintenance aside, you can't make the tech of today nearly as fast as the stuff in WW2 was built. We literally keep ourselves fully equipped for an all out no holds barred fight to the death with Russia. In the smaller fights, the inconvenience of harder maintenance is just an inconvenience.

[@MrStretchification]

Army and Marines should use both.

[@thezombiepotato1]

I'd definitely say the later, sure both are good but the simplicity, straight forward mentality with good, boring enhancements are what is needed (similar to how SIG made their rifle). As a naval aviation guy, we might be seeing a version of one of these ourselves, and we HATED the osprey on the flight deck, it was so unbelievably disruptive to flight schedule. Not only does it knock everyone on their asses, but you have to clear the entire center of the flight deck to land it, requiring a complete respot before and after, while taking up an entire event on its own just for one aircraft.

[@GibRealistic]

Imo lockhead prototype seems to be much less complicated to design, ospray design if done right have more advantages (higher speed, more efficient), but certification of ospray design for civil aviation seems to be nearly impossible in contrary to helicopter with pusher prop. Cant wait to see advancement of these two projects.

[@TheBooban]

The Osprey is not whats being offered. The Valor is, which has a different engine tilt design (engine doesn’t tilt) and is safer and therefore easier to get civil certification for. The competition seems mostly a sham, as the reconnaissance one is tailor made for the Defiant and the Valor for long range assault. The Invictus would have been great if it came 20 years ago. As for utility blackhawk replacement...well, thats just stupid to replace it.

[@atomicskull6405]

Not more efficiency in hover and loiter, tiltrotors are actually worse in vertical lift because of high disk loading compared to helicopters. The whole pusher prop on a helicopter concept was done previously by Lockeed look up the AH-56 Cheyenne. It was set to replace the cobra but then the USAF objected and started lobbying against it. It was arguably a better platform than the AH-64 that would come a decade later.

[@CocoDave37]

1st Cav 1965. For those who haven't seen " We were soldiers once... and young ", a must watch movie. Wouldn't it be easier to make an artillery piece that weighs around 8500lbs?

[@mAtT47739]

The M777 is much lighter than it's predecessor, and it's still overweight for the Blackhawk. It may be possible to do it for a 155mm cannon, but there will be compromises somewhere.

[@annoyedbipolar7424]

Do you mean a lighter m777 or readoption of 'Infantry guns' (both would probably be really effective)

[@ColonelSandersLite]

I can definitely see ups and downs to both. Developing a new lighter artillery piece would almost certainly be cheaper and easier, yes. At least up front. That being said - The new lighter gun would *have* to trade capability for it's lower weight. Some mixture of range, caliber, and reliability would have to go. You can pick how much of which ones, but none of the above isn't really an option. You're also introducing another thing that you need to keep up with on the logistical end and so need a whole parallel supply chain just for this field piece. From what I'm gathering, part of the point of developing a new helicopter is going to be to streamline the logistical end. You get to axe both the blackhawks and chinooks (and maybe the lakota too) and trade them in for a single type. Additionally, the new type is more capable. Being able to transport a bigger artillery piece also means it can transport more guys, more guns and more gear. So, yeah, more expensive up front *but* actually simplifies things in the end. At the end of the day, if it comes down to which option is cheaper, congress is going to say - money printer go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

[@gregbailey1753]

105 mm could be moved by UH60's

[@CocoDave37]

@@ColonelSandersLite From what you're suggesting, this new project would be along the lines of the F35 and its 3 variants. I believe they will introduce a new heli with Taiwan in mind, but like the T62 in Ukraine... What better way to make room for the new than to send the Uh60L into combat at the start with a field piece that can be transported. If we get involved in Taiwan, it's going to be huge and it might be prudent to send a tried and tested helicopter in first and assess the effectiveness first. Can you imagine losing 100's of these new birds against the Chinese at the start?! Well, let's see how it unfolds 😎

[@angelarch5352]

Both of those, tilt rotor and pusher prop, are so awesome I hope we get them both!!! :D

[@johnbarrios1598]

Chris, Howdy I believe that both helicopters can benefit our military needs. Spec ops we know get what they need. Because they prove they can make it happen.... Let's be smart and give our troops the Advantage!!!!!. From a former Navy guy.

[@TheGreatgan]

Both had its own purposes.. can only choose one over the others is going to be hard. For long range transport, tilt rotos definitely the best. But hot extraction, tilt rotors is simply too big a foot print. It will had many2 disadvantages

[@tonysu8860]

From the description, sounds to me that the new project will be for a heavy lift that exceeds the current Blackhawk which could mean that missions like hot extractions might be performed by other craft like a smaller Osprey.

[@johnaltman6671]

There are actually 2 competitions the army is holding, flraa which was discussed in this video, and fara which is supposed to be for a lighter scout type. Sikorsky is basically putting the same aircraft but smaller in fara, so the bell v280 might be selected for flraa but the Sikorsky raider for fara.

[@terricon4]

Alright, after watching the video fully now. End thoughts are... both. Both have advantages, it's situational. The tilt rotor design is still faster, and more fuel efficient at cruising long distances, so that obviously is a key advantage in some situations. On the other hand, the twin rotor plus prop aproach is overall a more compact and efficient design for hovering. It's still pretty fast, but not as fast and also not as fuel efficient flying over long distances. On the other hand it's more fuel efficient when hovering in place, and would likely have more lifting capacity for a given cost. It's also got a smaller horizontal footprint so it can more easily get into some smaller areas for landing than the tilt rotor design with its big old wings holdings pinning blades out at a distance to each side. So, you got speed and range while flying, versus power and efficiency while hovering and landing. Of coarse sufficiently better design in details, engine or other part choice on either contractor could flat out push either design overall ahead, but in general this is the breakdown of the two types of designs from an engineering perspective before you get into the specifics of an actual aircraft and all of it's finicky details that vary model to model. Speed is obviously extremely important, moving units and supplies more quickly can save lives and let you outmaneuver the enemy. Greater range also means you can reach out further from existing bases or locations giving you more options on the large scale. No General will have a problem with extra speed and range. Added lift capacity and the ability to land in slightly narrower areas, and hover longer more efficiently on the other hand... is probably less important, as long as both can lift the given amount needed for the hardware we need, the ability to lift a bit extra, or be a bit cheaper for the same lifting amount isn't the biggest deal, it's situationally useful, but not a must and not something useful almost all the time like speed and range can be. Fuel efficiency while hovering... is useful for attack helicopters and gunships on station hovering around an area as eyes in the sky, but most of these are meant to be transports and would fly in and then out over distances. The tilt rotor is more efficient in the initial part so most operations would not really win on fuel efficiency using the dual rotor plus prop design in the end unless acting as a gunship and we'll have dedicated attack helicopters for that more often than not. The ability to land in slightly more narrow environments is sometimes going to be very useful sure... but again it's extremely situational, only benefiting a minority of operations at all, and the tilt rotor even if a bit wider could just use ropes to get people into more cramped spaces most of the time in exchange for being in a slightly more dangerous situation for a period as people rope down or tie on before they get pulled up. So between the two, I'd probably recommend the tilt rotor design if asked my thoughts for the above reasons. For attack helicopters in the future, the twin rotor plus prop approach could win out though since again they will sometimes be hovering around for longer periods, and wanting to carry any extra weight in munitions or defenses is obviously a plus. Still, if an attack helicopter can move with the transports at the same speed and over the same ranges that's a major advantage and simplifies a lot of mission planning so there's clear reason for both arguments here too.

[@IsaacKuo]

I wonder why they don't try to get the best of all worlds with a tilting tandem aerial crane. I mean, the basic helicopter looks like a tandem rotor with a very narrow body. But actually, the body is a flying wing. It tilts sideways for horizontal flight, turning into a flying wing with twin props. You get the speed and efficiency of a tilt rotor without the complexity. It can act like a gunship with sideways pointed guns (like an AC-130). Or it can hover with its body edge on to the enemy. Either way, it presents a small profile to the enemy, and the rotors don't get in the way of the guns. As an aerial crane, it can carry payloads slung underneath. This can be a troop glider, so it tows horizontally for long fast flight, or it can be a wingless troop pod for landing in very tight spaces. The helicopter can drop off the troop glider/pod quickly, and then provide fire support as a gunship. Since it didn't need to carry the troops internally, it presents a tougher target for the enemy. The point is, one helicopter platform can perform multiple missions from heavy lift to troop transport to attack. It has speed and efficiency like a tilt rotor, yet it can land troops in very tight spaces. And the complexity is less.

[@LuvBorderCollies]

They want speed and heavy carry/lift.?? Put more forward thrust on the Chinook.

[@monkeymonk666]

Yeah, considering the distances involved and the difficulties in fuel transport, in the case of Island hopping you'd want distance, speed, and fuel efficiency more than anything. We aren't gonna have well-equipped airbases and fuel depots all over the place, certainly not at first. The coaxial is probably a better aircraft for our middle east and general continental-based missions, but the tilt rotor is certainly better for a campaign in the pacific or against china assuming there aren't some kind of glaring design flaw they're hiding...

[@carnage237]

Your humour is much appreciated in the video's

[@thomasschofield6633]

the v 280 is a smaller, more efficient package than the osprey. Also the engines are fixed and the rotors tilt, huge improvement over the osprey

[@robertalaverdov8147]

The issue with aircraft like the V-22 Osprey is uncontrollable roll pitch due to the rotors creating a competing vortex and pulling the aircraft in one direction. This has caused a lot of fatal accidents. Most recently there was a crash near Glamis, California. Though an investigation is still underway. The problem has mostly been overcome with fly by wire and computerized autopilot input. But when flying a figurative brick that requires perfect balance between rotors. It's not exactly reassuring to think that you're one defective circuit away from crashing.

[@MASB29]

Triple redundant, means all three flight computer must broke, at the same time, to make the aircraft crash

[@robertalaverdov8147]

@@MASB29 All supplied by the lowest bidder. Redundancies are great and all but the layout is an afront to aerodynamics. Even a standard helicopter can roto glide downward and land with a dead engine. The accident record kind of speaks for itself.

[@Mrcuddlesworth_]

@@robertalaverdov8147 that’s the whole point of great engineering tbh. Most cheapest and effective way to build something

[@alaingabriel1710]

BINGO! You win! You're the only one who understands basic aerodynamics in all the postings here.

[@Userext47]

I think US should go with both helicopters. Now hear me out, this project will replace all blackhawks. V280 seems great for island hopping but imagine that thing on the mountains of another middle eastern country, just no. On the other hand Defiant X seems great for tight spaces of middle east or europe for that matter but I can't imagine defiant island hopping, it's too slow and lacks the range. From what I can find V280 has cruise speed of 280kn and range of 2100nm while Defiant X has claimed cruise speed of 250kn and they completed a flight test 2 months ago of 700nm. I said claimed cruise speed because defiant X's max speed in this flight test was 247kn. It's still better than blackhawk mind you, it's just not as good as V280 for an island hopping objective. Defiant X also does NOT have the lift capacity of V-280. V-280 only looses out on its size and unjustified fears of tilt rotor being troublesome. In every way, it is better than Defiant X.

[@ameritoast5174]

while that would be great, it would defeat the purpose of the program. They want one helicopter to replace the blackhawk not two. having two would balloon the price and budget to support them. Its much cheaper to choose one and service it over its life time. Also we saw how well having two different versions for the same mission worked for LCS. I dont think the army wants to see a repeat of that. Heres what I think should happen. I love both designs but I think the defiant will win this. It can practically match the valor in capabilities. The valor is a little faster and can probably lift more. However the defiant seems to beat it in the other areas. Ease of maintanance, size, combat footprint, etc.. So they go with this design to replace the blackhawk. For the scout program they go with the bell invictus helicopter over the raider. It seems the better option to me. Although bell loses the blackhawk replacement, it gets the scout program. Honestly I would not be against a scaled up version of the valor to replace the chinook. I like the chinook but its showing its age. The V-22 I dont think can replace teh chinook because it cannot carry as much men and equipment inside and outside as the chinook. Maybe They said in the video the valor can be upscaled so maybe once re start replacing the blackhawks and recon helis we can look at the chinook.

[@Userext47]

@@ameritoast5174 Defiant has non of the attributes that'd work for island hopping and no valor isn't just "a little faster". Valor's top speed is 320mph while defiant's top speed is 247. Valor has 2100nm range while defiant has 700nm range. If they want to go with island hopping, slower and shorter ranged helicopter is just not gonna work.

[@BobSaint]

Good job contributing to the good relations between the US and China with such cautious titles.

[@zackeryburgess6816]

I saw the v280 about 4-5 years ago at AUSA in dc, the same one you showed with the window mounted mini gun

[@markmitchell457]

I love on the Osprsy's flight path between Miramar and 29 Palms. An impressive machine flying over my place..... Too many times a day. 🇺🇦🇺🇸

[@christopherspindler6328]

I think the Defiant will get the contract for a few reasons. I know when I was flying Hawks in both the Army and Air Force, profile was important, deck space for shipboard ops as well as when airlifting via C17. And it looks like the Defiant would have the advantage there. Even at 300+ KTS it is a long way from Ft Campbell or Ft Brag to the Pacific. The V22 has proven itself to be a mediocre helicopter and a mediocre fixed wing aircraft. Don’t get me wrong, The V22 is a great aircraft and fulfills an awesome niche that helicopters and fixed wings can’t but I think the Army needs more of a helicopter than a hybrid in terms of vertical lift and ability to worked in confined areas. I think the Defiant has the advantage in that area too.

[@atomicskull6405]

The problem is people like to think of a tiltrotor as a replacement for traditional helicopters, something it will never be because it's less efficient in vertical lift and loiter and less efficient than an airplane in forward flight due to the necessary compromise between disk loading and prop drag.

[@christopherspindler6328]

@@atomicskull6405 Yes exactly what I was trying to say when talking about the V-22. For the Army I think the Army needs something closer to a traditional helicopter and so I think the Defiant will win out.

[@jmdesertadventures803]

If you watch the sikorsky videos about the defiant, it would appear they are planning to replace H-60 Hawk series of helicopters across all the branches. As well as working on a dedicated attack platform version using the compound coaxial design.

[@atomicskull6405]

@@jmdesertadventures803 That would basically be the AH-56 bit with coaxial rotors.

[@jmdesertadventures803]

@@atomicskull6405 yea except the coaxial rotors counteract the disymmetry of lift issue the ah56 had at higher speeds.

[@joeroganjosh9333]

Remembering dad, Sargent, Royal Field Artillery 1942 - 1947

[@antonnym214]

Remember to say "farther" when talking about distance, and "further" for matters of degree, as in, "I'll go one step further and put my job on the line for this project."

[@QasimAli-to5lk]

Aaaand...... They just selected the V280 😂

[@tonysu8860]

I understand the V-22 Osprey is the second most high maintenance aircraft in American inventory after the UH-64 Apache. There would be big questions about the V-22 if it didn't do things that no other STOL/vTOL can do, which among other things can transport an F-35 engine long distances. Keeping the V-22 in the air with a relatively clean accident record is supposedly not because of the aircraft's low maintenance requirement but a sign of the excellence of American aviation maintenance. A lot would have to be upgraded if a new Blackhawk replacement is supposed to be low maintenance. I suspect Blackhawk accidents are probably due more to the age and use than fundamental design eeficiencies... Would that be right? Or, maybe the Blackhawk was designed in an era of limited technology relative to what is possible today.

[@mr_beezlebub3985]

The Blackhawk accidents are because of inexperienced pilots. Hard to get them proficient in their job when flight hours are hard to come by.

[@Pho8os]

Love your channel, you bring so much to the table. It is thoroughly entertaining and I always learn something new.

[@davidduffy9806]

I can’t understand why you where (as you say) a humble private. Everything about you suggests you’d have made a superb officer.

[@georgekostaras]

I for one would like to see the USA stop interfering in the affairs of sovereign states. From Libya to Afghanistan to Chile and Argentina it’s only ended in misery

[@flatlander5054]

Build both!

[@-scgg-gg7938]

thanks

[@JoshuaCalvert80]

We absolutely need a video about the kf51 tank announced by rheinmetall!

[@doublehelix7880]

A Leopard with a new gun and the "revolutionary" concept of having an autoloader that the Soviets use since the 60s.

[@nobodycares6881]

@@doublehelix7880 Soviet autoloader is fucking stupid. This one from Rheinmetall looks better and safer. Also tank has APS that protect him from incoming rockets

[@doublehelix7880]

@@nobodycares6881 Ok dude, ok :) It is indestructible and immortal :) i get it :)

[@nobodycares6881]

@@doublehelix7880 Also it’s not based on a leopard 2 that’s the most important thing so this tank has nothing to do with the Cold War tank design anymore. Also who said it’s immortal?!

[@doublehelix7880]

@@nobodycares6881 This is what I understand from your "statement" - the tank have APS and its AL is "safer" - not that you have a clue in what it's "safety" is. And the most important - it "looks better" :))) Sorry to shatter your illusions, but the Russian autoloader have a better positioning as it is located low in the hull, while the Panther one is in the turret. It is very common to have just the turret being exposed in a combat situation, while the hull is covered behind an obstacle or terrain. Plus, it would be fair to compare this tank with T-14, where the crew is in an armored compartment with quite higher chance of survival upon ammo detonation.

[@oveidasinclair982]

I think a combination of both air frames might be in order, some times one type doesn't fit all the many different combat scenarios. Back in the 1970's and early 80's the US military was designed to fight the Soviet army and look at who they wound up fighting for the next 35 years. The world changes, globalization dying off, today's allies might turn out to be tomorrows adversaries.

[@lordgarion514]

The world spends 1.92 trillion on military. America alone spends 811 billion of that total. The other 29 nations of NATO, spend ~353 billion. I can promise, America's allies won't turn on us. And we're not going to turn on them.

[@lordgarion514]

@John Grigg There's no doubt china spends more than they claim, but don't think America doesn't spend more than we're told. But TBH, it can't be vastly more than they claim. China has. Population about 4 times bigger than America, and it's total GDP is just a little over half of what we make. Most of what china makes has to go towards it people.

[@io9883]

More new designs need to be tested to increase the speed to 1,000 kilometers per hour as soon as possible, be able to slow down and land on the water, and be equipped with automated machine guns and missile systems.

[@danielbarnes7559]

The army just picked the v280 valor as the winner of the contract so moving forward that's the pick

[@thejetace42]

Well bell won the flraa