Why the SB-1 never had a chance as the new US Army helicopter?
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 05. 2024
- Want 10% off your first site/domain and help this channel - Click here!
www.squarespace.com/found
NEW CHANNEL:
• Launched from the bigg...
Discord: / discord
My News Channel: / @aviationstationyt
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @foundandexplained
Patreon:
/ foundandexplained
Ironically, FARA was cancelled today by the US Army. 😂
Yes believe it or not! It’s cancelled 😂 bad timing on my part I must have cursed it!
How in the hell were you able to comment a day before
Granted, I think US army made a right choice, it's still suck for Raider X, 360 Invictus (and SB-1 from FVL). I hope they can find other costumers.
@@FoundAndExplained Hopefully Sikorski sees a future for this craft in the civilian market. I'd love to see more of them even if it means I will never be in one.
@@FoundAndExplained The SOF might still pick it up or the airforce
The USAF and unlimited budget should never be mixed
NGAD has entered the chat.
but the words "unlimited budget" and the military leads to some hilariously cool designs too!
I think giving anyone in the military a blank check could be the most headache-inducing thing to do.
Already has, we’ve allowed politicians to be bought out, and cater to that for too long. We voted this way, this what we have gotten over the decades. Thank Reagan.
Que Palpatine "UMLIMITEEEEEEEED POWAH"
I have this feeling that in 20 years. We're going to look at this helicopter like we looked at the YF-23
Something better will come either way.
@@NineSeptims nope, this is how helicopters were supposed to be from the beginning, coaxial is the way, safer, more solid and rigid.
@@NineSeptims
Me: (Longley looks at a SR71 sitting in a museum, sheading a single tear... )
@@lcfflc3887 Coaxial helicopters are not just a better design all together. Sure they have their advantages, they are objectively more stable. Safer though? They are incredibly more complex then a traditional helicopter, and because of that are more prone to failures, and higher maintenance costs regardless how much you develop them.
Simply not true. Ka52 vs Mi28 case is significant.
That's not only a coaxial but a compound helicopter. Now this terminology is confusing because some compound helicopters have wings.
Compound coaxial is not that hard, just its own category
Not helos, rotor craft. Helos have one powered main rotor or two. If have propulsion forward is a Gyrodine and tilrotors if they move their rotors.
@@Argentvs not entirely correct: Gyrodynes have wings and can take off vertically.
Autogyros also have forward propulsion and free rotor, but no wings nor true VTOL.
@@almerindaromeira8352 Gyrodines don't need wings. Wings were put in some models to hold the forward engines. Is just like helos have wings to hang weapons. Gyrodines only need forward propulsion being the main forward force. Helicopters have to tilt for it, Gyrodines use the propeller to lift mainly and forward momentum is given by a separated propulsion.
Autogyros don't have vertical lift true, but they are rotorcraft.
@@almerindaromeira8352By "true" VTOL I assume you mean to exclude the ability of some autogyros to take off vertically by locking their broken and using the engine to create a strong enough draft to spin up the rotor and then lift off. If so, agreed. It's more of a party trick than a genuine ability.
0:55 Turns out it's B, just another museum piece of a what-if world. So long FARA!
So much for the Bell Invictus
maybe Bell can market the 360 , and maybe Sikorsky with their Raider-X, to foriegn markets?
A suggestion: look into the Sikorski S-72 "X-Wing" programme. The idea was to stop a four-bladed rotor in flight and use it as a wing. In theory this would have allowed much higher speeds. In practise it never flew.
I remember reading about those crazy ideas. A similar idea made it in The 6th Day movie, the Whispercraft.
As I heared FARA is dead. The army wants drones now instead of a manned helicopter
That and the Apache is just too good and has filled the scout/recon role from Kiowas quite nicely.
@@whyno713 If it's so good why has the US been looking for a replacement since the thing started existing.
@@eiite4578 wake me up when that's actually happening, they just cancelled FARA in case you didn't notice
@@whyno713 Well they've tried twice now but it seems like somebody keeps deciding to cancel these projects, first with the Comanche and then with FARA project, somebody in the US is really stupid to keep cancelling these objective upgrades to the aging helicopter fleet, the US is already falling behind to Europe with things like the Eurocopter Tiger being more advanced than it.
@@eiite4578 They were looking at the new Lakotas in our fleet but had some issues with overheating IIRC. That's a sexy helicopter though.
And sorry, but the Germans just abandoned the Tiger ... for the EU version of the Lakota - EC H145M.
1:56 you forgot Anton Flettner's work on the Fl 282 Kolibri predating Kamov, he solved the reactional torque issue with intermeshing rotors back in 1941 and brought that solution to Kaman Aircraft when he joined them after World War II. Kaman made the HH-43 Huskie with Flettner's rotor design and the type went on to be operated by three branches of the US military (USAF, USMC, USN) and made its name as one of the most prominent SAR aircraft in the earlier years of the Vietnam War until its retirement in the early 70s.
Intermeshing rotors was A) terribly shit design (there is a reason why no one after that used this trash afterwards), B) not coaxial rotor, but garbage design combining worst traits of tail rotor and coaxial with none of their strengths (see point A). Kamov actually did something that worked, was mass produced, and beat regular helicopters with ease. The only reason why the west didn't switch to that design as well is the fact their designers couldn't make working gearbox/dual propeller for it, Kamov design was simply lightyears ahead...
Ewww, someone left a pile of Russian Copium here.
@@hanzzel6086when Americans learn that Sirkorsky is russian 🤬😭
You could have also mentioned the Lockheed ah56 Cheyenne since that predates the s69 in the 60s. They were in competition at the time but since they joined forces, they both would learned from their past mistakes and remedied them with the defiant
I was looking for this comment. More research was needed in this department for sure. With that addition this video would have been perfect!
Note: This is a comment I made on another video regarding the FARA/FLV project, but fits for this video as well.
I am highly concerned with this trend of over reliance on drones, while I do agree that the scout helicopter is kind of a dated concept and drones could better serve this role.
However, we do need a more modern attack helicopter desperately as both our current platforms are quite long in the tooth, I mean the AH-64 has been in service for 38 years now and the AH-1 has been in service for 57 years, both of which are really starting to show their age quite badly.
The Invictus would have been the perfect replacement for the AH-1's in USMC service given their extremely small proportions and would have easily fit on LPD's, LHD's, LSD's, CVN's and even the new ESB's all which could compensate for the Invictus individual lack of range.
While I am a huge opponent of coaxial-rotor aircraft due to the larger vertical rotor profile they present, the Raider and arguably the Defiant would have likely served the Army's attack helicopter needs better than the Invictus would, since presumably they would operating from largely static as opposed to mobile "bases" like the USMC would likely operate from, plus the coaxial-rotor would afford the Raider/Defiant a larger payload capacity due to increased lift relative to its size.
One of the other things I really dislike about that particular design aside from the coaxial-rotor is its unshrouded push propeller, I can foresee a lot of accidents be it from people or debris occurring because of that due to its height relative to the ground, thus shrouding it would greatly diminish those occurrences from happening and may (and I stress the may here) have a positive effect on noise production as well, much like how the Fenestron on the Dauphin reduces its noise profile.
Suffice to say I think this was a really bad call on the part of the military, especially since I think our over reliance on drones is going to bite us in the ass in the near future in one way or another and especially since anti-drone tech is now rapidly developing as well and we have no idea where that is eventually going to go, in my opinion it is always good to have for lack of a better term a "analog" backup when the digital fails, hell its why we still train personnel on a compass despite GPS being virtually ubiquitous these days. So I'd say a smaller production run of the FARA options and not a 1:1 replacement of the Kiowa fleet with the rest of the fleet being taken up by drones would be the wisest decision.
Note: In addition to those statements I think the SB-1 would be a good replacement for the AH-64, if they can get those engines they want on it, namely the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE).
The SB-1 design itself would be far more applicable than the Valor and or a derivative of the Valor for the attack role, I do not see a feasible method for mounting munitions on a tiltrotor without heavy risk to the aircraft and my stance on this is not without precedent, as they have struggled to mount even adequate self defense munitions on the Osprey already.
Conversely I can see the SB-1 having a internal weapons bay (much like how they showed on the Raider models) and or stub wings affixed to the fuselage much like the AH-64 or AH-1 has, the SB-1 would have better better, speed, range, payload capacity, power to weight ratio and be more applicable for hot and high conditions something which was a issue in Afghanistan for example and would likely be a issue in the Pacific as well.
Personally I think Sikorsky and Boeing (with the latter being the manufactures of the AH-64) should really push for the SB-1 being its replacement, as I am sure Boeing would not want to lose that market and I am also sure Sikorsky would likewise not want to have their only US military contract to be the CH-53 either, once the UH-60's are retired.
Amazing. I saw this design a while back, and I loved it, despite it's obvious inefficiencies. It is a real shame it didn't go through.
I would love to see more found and explained videos and keep these contents coming they’re entertaining to watch
I'd like to point out that ain't no way that helicopter is nearly invisible to radar when it has not one, not two, but THREE spinning blades just out in the open. :D
You would be surprised how little of a radar return rotors give, especially ones designed to be stealthy. helicopters are actually very difficult to detect by most large/midsized radar setups do to how low they fly. Hell, helicopters already make excellent AA platforms, provided they have air-to-air missiles equipped and are flying low, because of how difficult they are to detect (at least against non-stealth aircraft, so just the F-35, F-22, and that Chinese 22 ripoff). The Apache for example has a very favorable K/D ratio (during combat exercises) against literally every (except the 22 and 35) aircraft sent against it. Mostly because the fighters usually don't realize the helis are there until they are moments from getting blown out of the air.
I think this design would actually be great for small airport hops. Fast, capable of VTOL... I could totally see corporate execs using these.
And you cant forget the AH - 64 Cheyenne that was developed in the early 1960's by Lockheed Martin
AH-56 is the Cheyenne, Apache is the AH-64
can we get a civilian and ems version? i see potential with its speed and low noise and those new engines...
Probably operational costs would be too high for civilian use
@@maciek19882 but this design (x2 based) had a minimal footprint area compared to Osprey-based Valor.
somebody would have to make a multi billion dollar order of this and then yes they'll get back to work, you can't just order one lol, they'll laugh at you.
@@krishnanp5255 If you want excellent transport/ems coaxial heli, nothing can beat Ka-226, far cheaper and easy to use than this trash...
10:58 I was expecting you to tell me they added a touch screen display😂
Hey Nick, can you please do a video on the legendary Tornado?
There are 5 classes of Tornado starting with EFO and ending with EF5. 😆
@aurorajones8481
Bros talking about the locomotive not actual tornadoes
@@randomboi8771 Nein, PANAVIA
@@randomboi8771the plane…
Pity they're going drones for all scouting.
Thought the Raider might have been sensible for a little bird replacement. They'll have to market it to alpine theatres. Like Indian borders for instance. Or Coastguard.
The XH-59 was unfortunate in that it came about just before the 1970s energy crisis which meant that the cost of flying it shot through the roof.
If the Fairey Rotodyne had received the funding it needed the next planned stage would have seen the rotor being folded way and stowed in the roof once it was travelling fast enough and use the engines on the wings to fly it.
Another advantage of coaxial rotor helicopters is that they eliminate the dissymmetry of lift associated with single rotor helicopters when traveling forward. When traveling forward in a single rotor, the blades advancing toward the direction of travel will experience greater lift while the retreating blades will experience less lift, causing the helicopter to roll. This effect worsens as you go faster. Single rotor helicopters get around this by adjusting the angle of attack of each blade depending on their direction of travel but the angle of attack can only be adjust so far before it starts to loose lift. In a coaxial rotor, because there are advancing and retreating blades on both sides of the helicopter, the lift is already symmetrical weather it’s moving forward or not.
It still gets effected by this and if it was a flexible rotor design the blades would end up hitting each other like it was for the KA-50 which is why they had to make the KA-52.
The problem is that while you somewhat fix the lift problem, you aren't reducing the drag of the vertical assembly and the rotor blades producing no lift half the time is a big waste of energy.
There were some experiments in the past about slowing the rotors and switching to wing lift to reduce the rotor drag. I don't know if anything came out of it.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 were did you get that from ? Russia has perfected coaxial by the Ka-25
@@SergyMilitaryRankings... the KA-50 had this happen to it and crashed. Which is why they barely made any and made the KA-52. Stop making shit up.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9
1. They barely made any because they entered production in 1990 and the collapse of the USSR hampered it.
2. Your right coaxial was mastered by the Soviets with the first full production coaxial helicopter the Ka-15 in 1954 with over 300 made, which was followed by Ka-18 with over 100 made, which was followed by the Ka-25 with over 400 made, which was followed by the Ka-26 with over 600 made, which was followed by the Ka-27/32 with over 600 made, which was followed by the Ka-50/52 with over 100 made which was finally followed with the current most advanced version (non attack) the Ka-226 which over 200 have been made.
3. Ironic that you're accusing me of making stuff up when the Ka-52 was made because Air force wanted a dedicated Reconnaissance and anti tank aircraft, which is why the 52 has powerful electro optics and 2nd Gen thermals and 3rd gen night vision (with the 52M having 3rd gen and 4th gen)
It would be nice to have a bit of a deeper dive into survivability etc.
I don’t think the pentagon would release this information
What a beautiful helicopter.😊
They just canceled this project a couple of days ago. (At least the Invictus and Raider X parts of it)
Great video again. The CGI renderings are excellent.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was a SB-1 Defiant variant for anything just as the Blackhawk was.
Love your channel!
Amazing timing, lmao. They just canned FARA
My main issue with the V-280 is the huge landing area required with it's twin 35' discs side by side, granted not all landing areas are size compromised but when you are in a tight spot and need a lift, it is. I know the Blackhawk is getting long in the tooth, but it is still a very capable helicopter, and other than speed, there is really no urgent need to replace it. I think that the other issue I take with this program is trying to make a one fits all airframe, we have seen in the past that the Army, Navy and Marines don't play nicely together in the design room, it always leads to design compromises, cost over runs and delays, whilst trying to do the very opposite of that.
It's basically the same area as a Black Hawk or Huey though. They just make it more ovoid than triangle, but otherwise the two rotors have the same width side by side as the tip to tail of a normal helicopter. The Ospray and v280 have roughly the same Landing area on aircraft carriers as the old copter.
Infact v 280 can land in more tighter spots than black hawk by changing its orientation.. that is it can land sideways where it is much narrower
People love to overstate the size of the V-280.
It's easier to drop payloads with a crane than it is to add 200 km of operational range
They aren't replacing the Blackhawk. They are replacing a certain number of them. There will still be Blackhawks in service for where they are needed.
It's the infamous "Cheyenne Curse" in US military helicopter history that started with the AH-56 Cheyenne. Basically whenever the US military R&D tries to develop a new helicopter and it has co-axial rotors and a pusher propeller, it is likely destined to fail. It's like those specific features jinx the program or something.
The Defiant and Sikorsky Raider both had these features and sure enough both failed, though to be fair to the Raider, that one is more a victim of that *other* curse aka the "Comanche Curse" which is the one where if you take on a US Army proposal to develop a new helicopter, your efforts are bound to be wasted because the Army ALWAYS ends up cancelling the helicopter program eventually.
US Military: "We want a new helicopter"
Manufacturers: "Well, here it is."
US Military: "Now I don't want it!"
Cheyenne wasn't coax, it was cancelled because it had wings. Comanche curse doesn't make sense as the Army has adopted more helicopters than any branch. Stop fabricating stories.
ngl, they should just start marketting it to other countries then.
Doesn't matter how or what, I *want* to see Bell 360 Invictus in service somewhere
@@evo3s75 I agree.
Russia has been using counter rotating helicopter blades for decades.
Why hasn't the US?
@@dannydaw59 Normal helicopter can do most job just fine with lower maintained cost, and if you want to go fast, US already have tilt-rotor like V-22 that is just better than counter rotating helicopter.
@@dannydaw59don’t need to. The little tail rotor does the same thing. Why add on extra huge ones on top for? More expensive, more maintenance. To make it worth it, you should add a pusher propeller.
@@TheBooban Then why didn't the Russians use the tail rotor?
@@dannydaw59 not sure but if I had to guess, the double top rotors give them more lift and power. Something western helicopters don’t need to do because their engines are better.
Great video, I really liked the graphics. The humor was great too.
--
I was wondering about that pusher prop. Pusher props are notorious for overheating which is why we don’t see them much. I wonder if they’ve finally solved that problem efficiently?
And yes I know it was cancelled but seems like it could be a good idea. Maybe they can try again in the near future.
Sounds like the intention was to drive the pusher prop off of the rotor gearbox similar to a conventional tail rotor. AFAIK the overheating problem with most pusher aircraft is that the prop wash doesn't cool the engine when the prop is mounted behind the engine.
they have i think...look at the P180 Avanti...unless its just a heli related issue but it think with todays materials and computers we have...
Tiltrotor will never replace the Blackhawks though. Acess to tight landing conditions is kind of a necessity for them.
You would be surprised. The V-280 looks big but it is actually quite small, especially compared to the V-22. Its a bit wider then the Blackhawk due two the rotors sticking out the side, but also shorter tail to nose by around 20%.
@@matthewsylvester9103 the v280 was 20ft wider. A big difference for a urban environment. It's also the same length basically. A better solution would be a Blackhawk esc aircraft. With two main rotors not one slightly smaller. Reducing width, and the trial rotor being replaced by a pushrotor. Now you have a fast transport aircraft that can deliver troops into tight spots.
Whatchu doing posting at 1am my time? I had to wake up and watch it, and it's all your fault! Worth it.
Helicopters are superior for multiple reasons. First it's still highly maneuverable even when landing. Second it's engine don't have to rotate which reduces failure points and maintenance. Going for the flashy new thing isn't always the best choice.
The assault version of this will perfect and awesome and give it a Gatling cannon
it's cancelled dawg
@@alphaneumerics bugger 😕 it could have had potential
somewhere in separate places in the world, a Ukrainian soldier and a jihadist terrorist carrying their portable shoulder fire stinger missile system is LHAO while watching this video on their phone and saying something along the lines of 'obsolete already'.
I love these videos and a remarkable in depth and accuracy.
I just keep getting triggered by blades that go backwards and reverse airfoils on some models
The saddest moment for helicopter history in my opinion was when the Comanche was cancelled 😢😢 The most beautiful helicopter ever made..😢😢
It seems like the extra width of the one they chose would be an issue.
People love to overstate the size. It can land nearly anywhere a Black Hawk can.
I’d love to see a video on those choppas, as you said they’re neat
Body building supplement names are good. I'd also look at astrological names like Mercury, Venus and Uranus.
Technically, they are Mythological names, but still good ones. Buy Zeus Whey Protein Powder, Get The Body Of A God!
The Sikorsky RaiderX is a "near-fully" developed chopper and will be FULLY developed with the new, more powerful GE engine.
A skinny RaiderX with a tandem seating arrangement like the Apache would make a very good replacement for the Apache attack helicopter - but only IF attack choppers are not obsolete by advanced drones.
As usual best advertising for lockhead martin on CZcams
**It seems like the thought is: better a drone than a large, expensive aircraft with humans on board.**
But from a longer view, FARA’s ignominious end isn’t all that surprising. This is now the fourth failed attempt by the Army to field a new scout helicopter in the last three decades. That the Army even launched FARA in 2018 raised eyebrows-high-risk tactical aerial reconnaissance, target designation, and strikes along frontlines saturated with anti-aircraft weapons are almost exactly the missions that armies are *using drones to perform today*.
I think the S-74 is better one because it looks always cool, no matter the configuration and was a research platform on rotor designs.
I used to be a big fan of coaxial, but now, I prefer tilt rotor. Faster, more fuel efficient.
Whenever I get asked why, while a friendly neighbor of our American friends...I'm always slightly nervous when they drop a few million and years of research and they say
... actually this is...too expensive...
Not too expensive for us to have already burned through (what we in Canada call our entire military budget for 2 years) but, too expensive for us to put more into it...
Thats a scary thing when your neighbor next door can not only afford to just build a tank, but can just scrap it saying...it seemed a bit much...to only then build a battleship because it seemed more practical 😂
“S-69, haha”
Got me too
How do you even fit the Osprey looking VFL in a tight space? It's massive.
No... it has a 19% larger footprint in total and can fit nearly anywhere a Black Hawk could. Turn it 90 degrees and it can fit on any landing space the Black Hawk can that isn't limited up to the blades on all 4 sides.
This video is actually genuinely underated and damm
with the amount of incorrect info, it's actually overrated.
@@Mediiiicc l actually agree with you and finally some one who l found in the comment section that actually has a functioning brain for once and thx
Never Thought Airwolf would be Real
If the helicopter is fast enough, then the blade tips go supersonic . Unlike a prop aircraft, you are not leaving the Shockwave behind.
If your blades are short enough, you could increase speed and maintain lift with wings. Now you need adjustable blade length, which would require offset blades., and thats an issue , especially with harmonics
One of the coolest helicopters to never reach serial production
The AH56A program was canceled in 1966 because it was too fast to suit the air force. Only tilt rotors are allowed to break 220 knots.
Range of classical heli will never match a twin-rotor VTOL.
The tips of the rotors will always be supersonic on one side.
What they should have focused is the redundant safety of 3 propellers.
A coaxial rotor helicopter isn't affected by the dissymetry of lift since the rotors spin in the oppoiste directions and thus all the effects counteract themselves.
@@olekzajac5948 No they are still limited by blade stall. The Defiant tried to get around this with the pusher prop and wings giving 50% of the lift in forward flight. This made the main rotors not have to spin as fast increasing the max speed. Again it is simply not as good as a tilt rotor.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 They are affected by the retreating blade stall since the retreating blades still do stall at higher speeds, but it doesn't create lift dissymetry as the rotors spin in opposing directions so the blade stall occurs at both sides.
This means that coaxial rotor compound helicopters don't need wings to maintain lift at higher speeds, unlike their classic counterparts. And that's why the Defiant doesn't have wings btw, contrary to what you said. The only helicopter from the Future Vertical Lift program that has stub wings is the Bell Invictus, and what rotor layout does it have? Classic one, with a single main rotor.
@@olekzajac5948 On coaxial like the Kamovs it causes the upper blade to collide with the lower one. Retreating blade stall brings the right side of the upper set down and the right side of the lower set up and as they move in opposite directions it causes catastrophic failure. That’s why VNE is really NEVER to be exceeded. This is likely why they had to go with a rigid rotor design on the Defiant and Raider with the extra pusher prop adding the needed extra thrust to reach the desired speeds. Still means coaxial helicopters are speed capped.
I think that the Army is making a mistake by canceling FARA. They are trying to use drones because they want range and a smaller logistical tail. In Ukraine, drones did very well against a disorganized Russian advance, and Russian helicopters did very poorly when flying over enemy held territory. This is exactly what happened to the South Vietnamese in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan, yet people believe that this is some new revelation. FARA was already supposed to be able to deploy and work with drones. FPV drones won't have the range or firepower that FARA can provide. While we expect a fight in the Pacific, we need to be careful about overspecializing. I was hoping that FARA would be an Apache/Kiowa hybrid while FARA would be a Blackhawk/Predator hybrid.
How did the guy commented 1 day before the video was even uploaded
If the video has a scheduled date to be viewed, you can comment under the video. You just can't watch it.
@Ray-The-Way Oh ok
A cool idea, but such a liability with all the complexity and difficulty.
Ironic, too, that the better HELICOPTER loses to a better hybrid between copter and plane.
I'd love to see these Defiants make a play for more pure chopper roles.
Like the V 22 Osprey
I want a piece of taxpayer cake
Sad when sitting on anti gravity ufo tech. I've seen a UFO with my Dad in remote West Australia in 2013, not only seen it, it gave me my awakening. Seeing one with your own eyes after not really caring about the subject, is a life changing experience.
Good image 😊
If you ask me, the big transport version could still be used for civilian purposes. I can easily imagine that as a medical transport.
The upcoming Delta Force: Hawk Ops, is gonna used this helicopter for their Extraction Shooter Mode.
Oh course the USMC would want range. They are often launching from ships and the further you can keep the ships from shore or the further you can push inland from the coast the better.
Also Yes to a V-280 video
It cannot be invisible for radar, because rotor blades will send back electro magnetic waves while rotating.
It’s always those Engine Bureau MOFOs who mess up every Futuristic Aircraft Programs.
Remember the TV show air wolf, back in the 80'S
The problem is the cockpit. Especially for tandem seating RWA gunships, which require an equivalent dead weight tailboom as mass balance, hanging off the back.
It is worth noting that the original ARTI and later LHX programs did a lot of work, looking at single-cockpit pilotage systems so that the relatively tiny T800 (initially 1,200shp, later 1,500shp) could work on a composite (ACAP) airframe with virtual aided pilotage (SHADOW) and fully automated mission systems based on a simple, finger on glass, 'point at the digital map where you think the bad man might hurt you...' sensor system which pre-cued sensors with mass video memory scanned image field sorting (EOTAS) to look for and ATC classify with TV, FLIR and (Longbow) MMW Radar targets.
All without needing a human CPG onboard to scope dope integrate sensor and ELS big picture data on.
The automation did it all and the pilot chose from thumbnails, which targets to hand off to what weapons system for ATHS datalink passage.
Workload was still very high, with task saturation 'sanity checking' (cross-hemispheric function to catch up and do cognitive house-keeping before reordering active workloads) frequently overwhelming pilot instrumented EEG scans of brain activity.
But so was conventional performance thanks to a (NOTAR) ducted tail propulsor, which could jet out a single, aft facing, propulsion stream from the tail as speed came on the airframe and normal AT rotor function was no longer needed.
This allowed the hybrid/compound bell LHX to be quite spritely at ~200 knots, for its sleek, sharklike, conventional airframe class.
Sadly, tail control was lacking at lower speeds and as signature began to add weight and egos began to treat an ambush scout/escort platform like an airshow stunt airframe, the focus upon SCAT (Scout Attack) began to be lost as platform cost of the then RAH-66 Comanche meant it had to take over Apache as well as Kiowa roles to justify the large airframe buy needed to maintain reasonable per-airframe PAUCs.
The real shame being that the _liaison_ roled UTIL (Utility) platform was also cancelled to maintain the Comanche effort overall, and this destroyed Hughes/Boeing and Bell's market position as Eurocopter began to radically upgrade the Ecureil and BK-117 into competitors for the police, aeromedical, aerotaxi, traffic monitoring and offshore markets at price points better than the next increment up, 'luxury' S-76 and A-109 alternatives (which were faster but also heavier and not as economical to per-passenger operate).
Conversely, the V-22 is a DANGEROUS airframe to fly, with the small diameter prop rotors generating high velocity thrust posts which are both difficult to work around in and subject to VRS stalls which suck the aircraft into CFIT based on such things as descent rate and even crossing over object/basing mode features like compound walls and hull edges.
The Osprey is also enormously expensive for its CH-46 class lift in a CH-53 sized airframe and thus not on the Marine LHA/LHD airwing in sufficient numbers to really do first-wave over the beach air assaults (it is a STOM/SOF platform for Raiders and Recon).
It also is too narrow cabined and so completely lacks any vehicle carriage options. Without drive-to-gunfire mode, modern infantry are unable to separate from a fire fight and your 60-100 million dollar vertiplane is at constant risk of catastrophic loss, coming in to grab them off a hot LZ. Risking the huge airframe to loss of power from a shot-out engine, too low and slow to surge the opposite side through the common gear box transfer shaft before the entire aircraft comes crashing to earth, _hard_.
whereupon it promptly breaks its spine because it's transversely weak, right behind the cockpit, to sudden vertical loads. What a really great idea in a VTOL airframe!
Now, take us out of the Cold War and look at systems like the A.160 and the MQ-8. Which not only replace the conventional pilotage system but ALL of the forward crew cockpit. What this potentially does, for a UAV remoted or cabin-area pilot, is allow the airframe to exit-forwards rather than aft with a smaller, liaison level, (6-8 men, or two litters and a medic/escort).
And, in combination with UGV technology, bring the fight to the enemy without having men be involved in an artillery fight ala Ukraine. If the nose is short and split ala CH-37 Mojave, the cargo box is open and easy to enter for either a squad level lift or a utility/transport role with resupply.
And because the nose is stubby, the tail can be too. Which keeps the weight down and the performance up, on a compound.
The biggest problem with both the Valour and the Defiant is that they are still modeled on the Vietnam era approach of direct vertical envelopment as air assault and that simply does not happen on a modern battlefield where everyone has RPG and autofire and most have the ability to rapidly call RCL/Mortar/Rocket/MPAD/ATGW as well. Contrary to the intended effect of the MBC, Mine usage and production is actually up as the only thing which can protect isolated defensive forces and so just 'walking it in' is not practical.
But nobody has considered how relevant a role a small liason (modern LOH equivalent) helicopter could be, if it could undertake dangerous and dull missions like forward area logistics and casevac via an ATV level, 'let the robot go first!' fast ground-scout or ambulance/supply truck could be.
Because the Army, as a giant flying-union with an RWA inventory larger than many air forces total orbats, is Dead Set against integrating UAV technology. _Even Though_ one of the primary achievements of ARTI and LHX was demonstrating aided pilotage to include very low level NOE and approach to hover obstacle navigation with LiDAR and MMW systems like ROMEO.
If the Army wants to move forward, as the loss of the Ukraine War portends a forthcoming loss of GRC dominant currency value for the Dollar, they are going to need to move to _much cheaper_ systems. With small, dedicated, auto-fly systems packages (few sensors but competent ones) in an overall airframe package which is about half that of current systems.
With the switch to drones across the entire field of policing and traffic monitoring systems, you can buy a Eurocopter for about 4-5 million used and 7 million new. At that level, a 200 knot UAV RWA that could enable tiny outposts of 2-3 soldiers to control an 'open battlespace' ground domain with UGVs and be resupplied, casevac'd or even rotated, effectively, via ATV transports, in and out of forward positions without revealing (IR camouflage) their positions via direct overflight, would be a god send to the distributed network enabled battlefield.
Since our armies keep getting smaller, thanks to the quadruplets of stupidity known as DIE/LGBTQ 'loyalty testing', inadequate salary, over-deployment and high expectations of lethality thanks to dated hardware and doctrine, the need is to go lighter/smaller, not bigger and more expensive.
Something Ukraine is finally showing to be a fatal flaw in the American 'Super Weapon' concept of wunder waffling of hyper expensive, low inventory, weapons platforms.
You wait and see: End of the day, the future of military and civilian vertical lift (due to economics alone) will be a Hummingbird light weight shell with a CH-54 equivalent payload box between hybrid-wing landing gear sponsons to offload either an ABC or conventional rotor system and a UAV nose without cockpit extension as mass/CG bloom on a nearly tailless, X-2 or K-Max styled fuselage with vectoring propulsor and small tail effector that functions like a spoiler or ejector.
It is the crew space which is driving everything else to cost:size failure threshold on modern helicopters. As soon as we ditch the horses-must-be-ridden idea, helicopters will have a second surge in success as military usage popularity. Because they will save small armies from mass slaughter.
Would live a video on the v280!
Lets hope the V280 has a much better record than the Osprey, it seems like every couple of months we hear of another one crashing.
Both ur channel n Mustard's make history a joy to watch! I feel like I pay attention better to ur guy's vids over a standard history class lol
This clown get's half the stuff he says completely wrong. Perhaps you pay attention better, but how can you know what's true and useful and what he has misunderstood and will makew you look silly if you repeat it when in the first 90seconds he already gets everything wrong? 😆
Drones, drones and more drones.
Can't (or at least shouldn't be allowed to) carry large numbers of troops. And are potentially going to be partly or fully neutralized by (now that everyone has realized their potential) rapidly advancing anti-drone tech.
2:21 F&E is a poet and didn’t even now it
Hey, we know our submission isn’t as good as theirs. But check this out, we’re gonna put a much bigger engine on ours soon and it’s gonna like blow theirs away man.
Wait? That didn’t work? Maybe they should have hired Larry from Three’s Company to try and sell them.
Even with the newer engine, it would have still been slower, half the range, and carried less. Haha.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 If this keeps up, Boeing executives are gonna be offering free nights with their wives to get contracts.
For a moment i thought this video was sponsored by MW as the thing appeared in that game
I'm just wondering why the hell it took the Pentagon and the military so long to understand that helicopters with more rotor blades not only dampens the sound they make but makes the platform more stable.
I just started learning about the Valor recently and learned of the FARA the other day. I thought to myself. I bet they’ll cancel the FARA. What can it do that the Valor can’t. I guess I should be getting a call from the US Government any day now with a job offer :). Yes, we used to name helicopters cool names…..but. Side note: At the rate Boeings going with lost contracts and the 737 Max leaving its skid marked underwear all over the globe they may not be around much longer.
Nor it’s whistleblowers….
that music that starts around the 2:00 mark.. really groovy, and the bass is insane! What is it?!
12:26 AAA!NNDD it's cancelled.
its pretty amazing what happens when you give smart people an unlimited budget and place a talented cat wrangler over them as project lead.
I'll take one too nick! we can share.
FARA also getting cancelled right now is hilarious/sad
This was for the army
What software is used for the 3d animations?
Blender
@@gabrielb9010l actually agree
I've always wondered why despite the Defiant's similar size and function to the UH-60, that it appears to have much less interior space for transport by comparison. This video claims it has more room, but compared to both the Black Hawk and Valor it looks like less than half the main fuselage is used.
75 percent of the airframe on the Defiant is dedicated to the aircraft's engines, gearboxes, drive shafts, etc.
the defiant is actually much higher. giving it more interior space but also killed it as it wont fit in wasp carriers
Oh it's a planecopter
Another one bites the dust.
I do remember the italain defense minister stating he wants the defiant as his new helicopter, but i doubt it will happen. Not willing to sell the design, not enough to make a profit, lost of interest, and foreign companies interference.
Yea I doubt that would happen.
In regards to the Defiant, you failed to point out the other reason it failed to the v-280 which was maintenance. The V-280 achieved over 300 flight hours and was ready sooner while the Defiant achieved less than 30 flight hours and was constantly breaking down.
All things I hope you cover in the V-280 video.
Thank you.
in 4:12 you see a haircut that is from another planet
Squarespace sponsers all of their videos 💀
God help the Aviation Mechanics and techs that would have to maintain that thing.
It should be used in a reboot of the old AirWolf TV show.
If they did have unlimited budget, they would have just made a flying carrier or the moon into a death star xD
I honestly don’t know why they chose the valor. The SB1 at least would have the counterwash failsafe during an engine failure. It’s the reason why v22 osprey crashes are so fatal.
The reason the body count of deaths from the V22 is high is because it carries 20+ people, not because of the amount of crashes. The Blackhawk actually has a higher crash rate than the V22. And again, the V280 may look similar to the V22 but definitely is NOT the V22. It is a completely different craft that has addressed all the shortcomings of the V22. I wish people would quit using the performance of the V22 as a comparison to how they THINK the V280 will perform. Really? You think the engineers didn't think of everything to fix in the design? Or did you think they just copied the V22? I know, they should look through the comment section of CZcams videos to learn what they need to fix in their designs. We know so much more than those pesky engineers and scientists. Sorry for the rant.
Hey, it would be epic if you would put knots as well as MPH and KPH. It is, after all, the aviation world standard. Pwease?
Completely skipping over the ah-56 is criminal
Sikorsky could modify the SB-1 into an executive helicopter. Or police department use, etc.
By the way the Sikorsky S-97 Raider came before the SB-1 which is simply scaled up from that design.
It would be a completely different helicopter using the same tech.