Is the V-280 Valor the right choice for the Army?
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 12. 2022
- On Monday, the Army announced that Bell’s V-280 Valor has won the Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition aimed at fielding a modern replacement for the legendary UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. The contract award, potentially worth as much as $1.2 billion, will fund ongoing development of the platform heading toward a production contract worth tens of billions of dollars.
But many have voiced concerns about the Valor's ability to do the job... So we set out to find answers to your most pressing questions.
📱 Follow Sandboxx News on social
Twitter: / sandboxxnews
Instagram: / sandboxxnews
Facebook: / sandboxxnews
TikTok: / sandboxxnews
📱 Follow Alex Hollings on social
Twitter: / alexhollings52
Instagram: / alexhollingswrites
Facebook: / alexhollingswrites
TikTok: / alexhollings52
Further Reading:
Contract announcement: www.sandboxx.us/blog/breaking...
Citations:
Keith Flail quotes: www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone...
Mishap Report: www.pogo.org/analysis/2020/12...
Maj. Hernandez quote: www.marinecorpstimes.com/news....
UH-60 deaths: www.armyaircrews.com/blackhawk...
37 deaths: www.nytimes.com/1985/04/20/us...
"Safest helicopter" www.upi.com/Archives/1988/03/...
Mishap rates: breakingdefense.com/2017/09/m...
"Golden Hour" www.airmedandrescue.com/lates...
There was a nickname for BlackHawks, from both maintainers, pilots and soldiers when it first rolled out. Lawn dart. They all have teething problems when things are new, and this bad boy is no exception.
Crash Hawk
Same with the T-11 parachute. There’s at least one fatal parachuting accident Army-wide per year, statistically speaking. The T-11 had a few within the first years of adoption and people were shouting “higer accident rate!” like the millions or billions of successful T-10 jumps didn’t create an unequal sample size.
That was actually the nickname of the F16 when it was being developed
@@zemog1025 that one too
Hell, the prototype Blackhawk crashed on a demo flight for the Army but ended up being a good thing as everyone walked away from the crash and the bird wasn’t destroyed.
I’m an army aviation mechanic been in the field for 8 years I served as a technical inspector in addition to being a squad leader for what is essentially hydraulic technicians. I will say our maintenance is very technical, and much of our doctrine is unfortunately written in blood. It is changed and typically updated after the deaths of others and lessons we learned through unfortunate events. Great video
The PTB's don't listen to those who can think a problem all the way through, so it only gets through to the deaths, before the follow on thought process commences!
That's the same as all aviation rules... technical or operational, civilian or military.
the new B737 is a blood soaked version of the B737 series...
My brother in law is an officer in USMC infantry. He does NOT, repeat NOT trust the Osprey at all. As a fixed wing pilot I agree. I hate helicopters especially US Army ones with a lot of hours. But old helicopters are more survival if a vital part breaks than an Osprey. If the military wants more capacity or lift more weight, and wants 2 rotors.... just make more Chinooks. End of discussion.
Another thing......I would NOT want to be on an Osprey flying low and triple not at night. Those big rotors put utter disaster far closer to happening than a helo with its rotors way up higher. Its amazing more don't crash for all kinds of reasons.
@@jameshickok2349 Osprey is safer, longer range, and WAY faster than a chinook. There is nothing that can replace it yet. Your brother in law's "trust" does not trump facts.
I worked armed security for Bell-Amarillo and watched them build the V-280. I watched it take its first flight and was on standby in case something went wrong. I’m very proud of this accomplishment and hope it delivers the results that are expected.
I volunteer at the Texas Air and Space Museum next door. We watched the V-280 tied down on the yellow test stand, and on it's first flight. What an awesome machine. I wish it could have stayed longer. Whenever we are outside with a tour group and a V-22 flies by, we tell our guests that we had a fly-by arranged just for them. I don't think they believe that, and they shouldn't.
That's awesome
I saw what looked to be a v280 the other night on Santa Monica beach in LA. Two rotors, green strip leds on the rotors, do you know if it had lights on the rotors? Looked like a drone, but VERY large.
@@chadr76 I know that they all have lights on the rotors for safety but I haven’t worked at Bell for three years so I’m not sure whether any of them are stationed or fly that far west. I would think they are all still in the Amarillo and Ft. Worth, Texas areas as it is still under the development and flight testing phases of production.
Must have been a V-22, To demonstrate to ARMY the V-280's worth, after all flight objectives were met, the demonstrator was disassembled under inspection by ARMY reps.... Don't know if it was reassembled, but doubt it was what you observed.
There is one important difference between the V-22 Osprey and the V-280 Valor that often gets missed. But it's the reason why the Valor has such a broad wing compared to the Osprey. Why the Valor is almost wider than it is long. One of the issues with teh Osprey, from what I understand (and I'm far from an expert) is "Disk Loading". The Osprey's Propellers really aren't big enough for it when in vertical helicopter mode. The radius of the disk or lifting surface of the blades is less than ideal. This forces the blades to be spinning faster to generate the needed lift, and means the Osprey is working much much harder in that mode of flight than is really ideal. But there was a hard size limitation on the V-22. The whole thing needed to compact to fit on a Carrier or LHD/LHA's Elevators. And to take up minimal hanger space. So the blades could not be longer than the fuselages footprint. And the fuselage was limited by the elevator. With the V-280, since it is intended for Army service, They had the freedom to increase the rotor disk size, allowing for a more efficient and safer design than the Osprey. When the Valor is in vertical flight mode it isn't working as hard or putting as much strain on systems. It has much more reserve power at that moment as a result. Plus at 900+ Miles range before accounting for refueling or extra transit fuel stores the Valor may turn out to be Self Deployable to most theaters of operation. Which are 2 of the Air Forces favorite words to hear.
The thing with V-22s rotors is that here was a acquirement for V-22s to be able to operate abeam the island on the smaller flat deck amphibs. So the rotors are smaller than what would be best for V-22 size aircraft. That makes for higher disk loading. This doesn't apply to the smaller V280
Considering Marines tagged on their own set of requirements to the FLRAA program, I would expect Bell made some design decisions to accommodate ship size limitations. Of course the body being much smaller than V22 helps a lot with fuselage to rotor size ratio.
This is probably the best explanation I've read so far in trying to understand why v-280 might be a better choice than v-22.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 Thank you, that was the other piece I forgot. I knew the rotor size limitations was due to LHA/LHD restrictions. I forgot about it being abreast of the island.
Well, in addition to what Tara brought up (which is a great point), tilt rotors also have unique geometry. Their angle of attack as a lifting blade is a compromise. typical helicopters don't fly with the blades dropped to 'forward facing', which while flying at speed is going to change the fluid dynamics for the rotors. Ultimately a lifting rotor pulling up in hover will prefer different geometry than a propeller seeking 400+ mph in forward flight. Tilt-rotors have to pick a compromise point between the two. Obviously you'll have pitch control, but with the way the rotors have changing angles of attack as they extend from the hub, that twist isn't easily something one can adjust. It's going to use a lot of raw power for the landings & takeoffs to compensate, even with more appropriate rotor length.
I think the general was actually quite clear about why they chose the valor. The valor had the best combination of cost, performance, schedule, capabilities, and utility compared to other options. They compare all these factors comprehensively to arrive at the choice they made.
I was just about to say that. he didn't say "nothing". he answered the question as well as you could expect.
Exactly, he basically said the valor was the best out of all of them, bar none
People who use the extra maintenance cost of the V-22 to detract the valor are ignoring that the delays due to transmission and rotor issues hints that the SB-1 would have been a worse choice in terms of maintenance, you don't want something always breaking down on you
@@SmoochyRooThe intermeshing/dual rotors would be a b*tch to work on. Also, look at photos of how tall it is… yikes.
Cost and schedule were paramount. Sikorsky better get their act together.
Army definitely made the right choice here. Should be interesting as to what they choose between the Invictus and the Raider.
I fly on the Osprey. It’s a very safe aircraft now, and is a great aircraft. It seems like some of the issues we have with the Osprey has been fixed with the Valor. I’m jealous the Army is getting these.
I notice you never said you WORKED on the Osprey. Your story would be vastly different. It is a hanger queen where it is not allowed to land anywhere even remotely dangerous or close together with another V22 or other Helos... Why would anyone expect the V280 to be much different with nearly identical size, weight?
@@w8stralactually, they’re the most active transport aircraft in the Marine Corps. The most operational squadron in the Corps is an Osprey squadron. I’ve flown into deserts, forests, and onto ships. I in fact do work on them. The V280 is smaller than the V22, and also has a different role.
@@skorea2131 .... Are you for real? Do the marines have anything other than V22's? No. Does it matter? No, that is the marines, not the ARMY. The two services do not overlap. And... 53's are not being used to move troops. By definition V22's are the most "active". Still means jack as the V22 requires MASSIVE numbers of manhours to keep them flying and their readiness rates still are nothing to write home about and one could say they actually stink.
@@w8stral all aircraft require tons of maintenance hours.
@@mr_beezlebub3985 Not on a 2:1 ratio they don't. DoD publishes the numbers for Osprey compared to all other rotor craft.
Just an FYI... V280 prototype did not have sand particulate filters, but finished version will as this is one of the BIG problems with V22. To save weight during OPEVA by about 400lbs, this critical piece of hardware ALL other helo's have was omitted. This led to a couple crashes as silicate builds up on turbine blades leading to lowered power, or in the case of the V22, unbalanced power between turbines leading to tilt over events. The most famous crash was the Libya crash. DoD to combat this deficiency tried upping man hours on turbines, but gave up and simply increased power on said turbines anyways as their life expectancy was horrifically shortened. This led to B version. Higher power rating on said turbines, but lower life. T
he swashplate wear in VERY few hours of operation produced gargantuan deficiency, was NEVER solved in Osprey. Well it was, but it required a hub diameter several TIMES larger = MASSIVE Aero drag, weight penalty, and therefore lowered top speed. This led to Osprey having to have its entire rotor removed regularly. To my knowledge, as someone who was paid along an entire engineering design team, spent several days trying to figure out a new design to overcome this deficiency. Never solved. Last I checked, by visual inspection of V280, its hub diameter has not been MASSIVELY increased to combat this man hour chugging problem the V22 had.
The cross linked shaft man hour chugging problem of the V22 was never solved and I see zero reason to believe the V280 will be any different. Ch47 partially gets away with this due to fact it is so much more rigid but even IT has a BIG problem this way. A flexing wing is even worse. V280 wing is longer and thinner = more flexing so I see zero reason to believe this aspect will have gotten any better. I haven't seen any engineering trophies handed out to people at Bell who have created new magical telescoping high power shaft transmissions. If they had, they sure as Heck would have gotten several awards as this is literally one of the longest standing problems in mechanical engineering no one has solved.
But at least there are not folding mechanisms requiring more man hours as well. So in that respect, v280 will have fewer.
So yea, as someone who has their fingers in the pie in design and who has been consulted on said problems, I am not impressed with v280 other than as a manhour maintenance nightmare like the V22.
I spent 20 years supporting the V-22 Osprey, mostly at Patuxent River Naval Air Station and MCAS New River from Flight Test thru Operational Deployment 1996 thru 2016. Really liked this video and learned some new things - Thank You
Proud to be a part of this wonderful time with Bell. Can't wait to start production parts for the drive systems.
Congratulations! You earned it. 👍
My take on this as a light infantry guy from the 101st that flew in UH-60s.
I love the fact it is so much faster. I love the fact it can carry 25% more weight for the same squad size (sling load heaven). We never touched our UH-60s down on the ground to unload. A stationary helicopter is a very juicy target. It came in at 10-15mph about 4-5 feet off the ground and we chucked our rucksacks out and jumped. (Really sucked at Camp Lejeune where we had a carpet of plants on a tidal flat and it looked like solid ground at 4 feet, but there was 5 feet of water under that.) With the side doors, that looks possible.
With the UH-60, we could land in very tight LZs in the woods that were technically tighter than the diameter of the rotor. It can take off branches 4in diameter just fine and we did on a regular basis. With the larger V-280, some smaller but closer LZs are not available and you may be landing light infantry 5km further back. That is a long fucking walk with a full combat load and a 80lb pack. 30 minutes to 1 hour away. Also medivacs may have to land farther away. Goodbye golden hour in some situations.
There are trade offs, just like every other military system.
If we are really fighting in the South China Sea, this system will be a godsend and really be useful. If we are fighting in tight jungles, it could be a huge pain in the ass and more trouble than it is worth. I would argue to keep some UH-60 like capability for the jungle type scenario while making the V-280s.
Best of both worlds.
The engineers of the original V-22 had redesigned the air intakes to deal with the dust of Iraq. I the case of the V-280 the will need a rigorous flexivl covering over the front on the nacelles that is ballistic and heat resistant.
I bet those chonky blades on the 280 will trim some trees. But yeah, if I have to hump an extra couple of klicks because we couldn't land closer, I will be complaining.
My thinking on the smaller landing zones is that they should keep a fleet of helicopters to deal with those situations. It sounds like the likely winner of the scout helicopter may be able to do that. So then it becomes a question of how often is that capability needed? 50% of the time? 5%? I wasn't in the army so I have no idea. But that would give you the best of both worlds, albeit at a higher cost.
meanwhile in simulators if you touch branches you die.
My best assumption is even if the army went with a smaller footprint of a heli that you would still not be landing closer to the action considering what we see in Ukraine with manpads.
The V-280 certainly does look promising. They undoubtedly learned a lot of lessons from the V-22. The performance of the prototype was exceptional. It will be interesting to see its development over the coming years.
Yeah, Bell's prototype knocked it out of the park. Bell would’ve been happy to push 280 knots out of their prototype, to live up to its name (V-280). The fact they were able to safely crank it up to 305 knots is incredible. Plus, that's with the prototype's smaller GE engines. With the more powerful R-R engines for the Production variant - the V-280 will the catalyst for the Army to rewrite their doctrine
@@txtworld so it's faster than loaded a10?
@@hphp31416 The A10 is formidable for CAS. But it can’t deploy 14 fully equipped troops anywhere within an 800 nautical mile radius
Sure is wide. Less places it can fit
@@txtworld it's range is 800 miles so if your keeping some extra in the tank lets say 100 miles worth, we're talking 350 miles out and 350 miles back before having to pump it full of fuel
The fact that it can land safely with one engine out is great
Absolutely loving the coverage from AirPower. No other channel does this kind of in depth analysis of western military power and our adversaries.
Greeting from Norway 🇳🇴
The fact of the matter is that the Army has to upgrade sooner or later, and it should be a tilt-rotor. The V-280 faster, more efficient, and can carry more than the Blackhawk, but the Blackhawk isn't going to be replaced so easily. The Blackhawk is one of those military platforms that is absolutely perfect at what it does, not to mention they are cheap and modular. Also like you mentioned, since the Blackhawk is smaller it will be ideal in urban and mountainous terrain over the Valor. I expect these two to work in tandem for a long time.
I've never heard anyone describe the Blackhawk as perfect, not even Blackhawk pilots
Yeah I was thinking why not keep some Blackhawk's in the inventory for missions that favor them?
The Blackhawk is absolutely not perfect. Look at what pilots say about the Blackhawk, it has many unreliable issues associated with it. I hate when people say “oh I talked to blah blah blah-“, but I’m gonna do it here because I actually did. I’ve talked to a (former) black Hawk pilot who literally said he was glad he got out alive because of the unreliability of blackhawks; which he said had costed many pilots their lives.
Edit: who to which.
@@treycotter Good for him, but I've played lots of Battlefield so I know what I'm talking about.
@@whiskeycorridor90 My apologies, sir. Thank you for your service🫡 We wouldn’t be here without you
I was on a LPD and we had a CASREP on our way to Japan from San Diego. We were almost 7 days out doing 10 to 12 knots. I was shocked to see an Osprey. The two of them brought are repairs parts and food. After that everyday two or more would come and bring food and people out to us. Never saw this when I first joined. A lot better ride also!
This is a sober, balanced, and well-researched commentary on, not only the V-280, but on the other aircraft mentioned as well.
Good Job! 👍🏻 and subbed.
Funny thing is when I first read about the competition, I thought it was Boeing and Bell came up with V-280 since they did the V-22, and I had to reread the article to find out whos making what
Bell had a working prototype that could fly around and VSTOL when Boeing and Sikorsky had a concept. The prototype also didn't crash (if it did it's probably classified and they replaced it with another one). True with all those lessons learned from the V-22 go into the V-280. The V-22 is a game changer as it's a V/STOL with fixed wing aircraft capability and they keep "working on it", so I guess the military saw that, because all the branches field the V-22 (wouldn't be surprised if space force had one). The Defiant X is another helicopter, albeit a fast one, whilst the Valor is a V/STOL semi-fixed wing airplane , and being an airplane, faster and longer ranging than a helo. No brainer for the Army.
Very professional and objective video. No platform is perfect for every mission. Time will tell how Army Aviation adapts and finds ways to use this platform to best advantage.
I appreciate your reasoned analysis, and a neutral stance, free of judgment, so that the viewers can decide for themselves. I’ve seen many of your posts. Yours is probably the best military information platform that I have seen.
As a Vietnam vet who occasionally hitched rides on Huey's and other choppers, I'm sold on the V-280. Speed and range are awesome! I especially love how the engines remain in place and only the prop assembly rotates -- that's a big advance. 👍
what about not being able to go in tight spaces?
Your comment makes no sense. It’s actually a ton more complex having the engines not move compared to tilting the engines. Fuel lines and wires and such are all really flexible and easy to rotate. Driveshafts are an easy point of failure. More moving parts equals more points of failure.
Add to that the larger overall size, and I guess you liked long hikes while in the military
@@liammiddleton3064 Who says it can't? The rotor arc makes it wider than Defiant, but they don't extend as far forward, so it's shorter. It meets the Army's requirement for size and operating in the specified footprint.
@@liammiddleton3064 So we should have never upgraded from the Huey to the Black Hawk if that logic ever made sense...
@@nathan1sixteen So we should have never upgraded from the Huey to the Black Hawk if that logic ever made sense...
I flew in an Osprey one time. I was waiting at Leatherneck to transfer to a smaller FOB. It was well past midnight, I was dead tired, and there were two craft waiting on takeoff. I somehow got led onto the Osprey further away from me without realizing it, and I literally didn't realize what I'd flown in until I got out after landing. I was actually pretty disappointed with myself. I'd always wanted to ride in one.
You just wrote a really deep comment without even noticing it .. damn..
Once i was so high in bogota Colombia I rode a train for an hour until it stopped and I realized it was actually just an elongated bus.
It was 100% the right choice. V280 has higher speed, more range, and is more fuel efficient. It also carries more troops than Defiant (14 vs 12) and was way further along in development which reduces risk in the platform, always good when talking about enormous acquisition projects like this. The U.S. military has thousands of hours of flight experience with tiltrotors (safest rotorcraft in the USMC by flighthour) and has none with rigid compound rotors and pusher props.
The only downsides are a slightly larger width to its footprint than the Defiant when landing, however the V280 being shorter in length and not having to worry about a tail rotor mitigates this to a point that it's a wash between the two.
I liked both designs and could get on board with either one but seeing that the Army wants a platform relevant to the Pacific theater fight, Valor had a leg up on Defiant. Considering its advantages it was the right decision for the Army.
They both look cool in their own way but the Defiant X looker meaner which I liked. Gonna be cool watching these in the future.
Good and interesting assessment. What i am interested in is how this will affect the FARA scout/combat chopper.
Given how the US defense industry works, it is likely that both companies get one contract each, to keep every factory running, everybody employed.
So now with Bell winning the transport, it seems very likely Sikorsky will get the Raider scout/attack chopper contract.
The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky they abandoned that design, as they came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they know it's not very likely they'll get both contracts? Which is now official?
@THEKINGOFMETROPOLIS Cattledog
The Osprey has killed a lot of service members, nearly always because of malfunction, maybe they should look in a different direction.
@@rooh5825 watch the video…
Sikorsky has the S-97 Raider compete with the Bell+Textron 360 Invictus in the AAS / FARA (armed scout) program.
Meanwhile, the Sikorsky+Boeing SB-1 Defiant lost to the Bell+Lockheed V280 Valor for the FVL / FLRAA (long-range lift) program.
Given how the US defense industry works, it is likely that both companies get one contract each, to keep every factory running, everybody employed.
So now with Bell winning the transport, it seems very likely Sikorsky will get the Raider scout/attack chopper contract.
The Raider has troop capacity while the Invictus does not, but that gives the Invictus better stealth properties, just like the Boeing-Sikorsky RAH-66 Comanche had. Not sure why Sikorsky they abandoned that design, as they came up with it. Just to push a common scout and transport design when they know it's not very likely they'll get both contracts? Which is now official?
The V280 seems to be the more mature design, faster and longer range. But the SB-1 might offer better handling and safety, as it is not a tilt rotor. And it's smaller, closer to the Blackhawk size.
The SB-1 might be smaller horizontally, but it's something like twice the height. God help any poor maintenence tech who has to maintain those rotors, they'd probably need a cherry picker.
honestly i dont like the design of the Raider and Defiant the compound helicopter design seems like a lot of extra maintenance from having to deal with 3 different rotor sets compared to the average 2
does it have troop carry capacity? I saw the video for the raider and it had troop area but I believe the guy said that is the location where the weapons bay will go. So does the weapons replace the troop section or does it have both? If it has both then I would go with the raider over the invictus for sure.
Raider should have more speed and range than the Invictus, so it would be able to offer armed escort for Valor missions. It could offerFARA and FLRAA missions. I would have preferred Defiant for FLRAA due to its end point agility and lower footprint for endpoint and basing. Maybe have two versions of Raider; one for armed rec/escort, and another for light troop transport/support where long range agility and narrow rotor footprint is needed.
@@davidneufeld26 This is the problem, by definition, the program isn't about armed escort in and of itself. That's what Apaches are for. As well as the armed variant of the 280. It's about finding a suitable replacement for the OH-58D program. And in that, the army wants to be able to put 2 aircraft onto a C-130 and deploy out the back in the same amount of time than the OH58 did. In that particular mission speed isn't as necessary, something rugged, small, efficient, and easy to maintain is.
I fell in love with the valor when I first saw it. It flew over my school last year in California and I must say it is one of the most beautiful aircraft I’ve ever seen. I have much enthusiasm and hope for is success in the future. When I eventually serve, as I want to get through university, first, I hope to fly alongside them.
A thing to remember about news is that only unusual events receive broad coverage. If you see a report about a crash, rest assured that they don’t happen very often. As a former air assault troop in H1, H60, and H47 platforms, and with two decades in aviation after my service, I’m excited to see the V-280.
My wife and I were sailing in the lower Chesapeake years ago and saw them apparently testing a V-22. Flying chase was a small jet with straight wings, I believe a P-80. As the Osprey climbed, the plane did lazy circles around it. When the rotors swung forward, the Osprey accelerated smartly and the plane seemed hard-pressed to keep up. Impressive. The Osprey seems such an elegant, efficient design where 90% of the power is not used for staying in the sky, but for going fast relatively quietly. It's a shame that there were a few casualties as they worked out the kinks of the new airframe, but what new flying machine didn't have some early problems? I see it as an evolution in flight, giving us the best of both VTOL and high-speed transit.
Quite a bunch of aircraft have had excellent safety records from the first day.
Dozens of marines died in Osprey crashes.
@@dynestis2875 And far more of them will die in their Ford trucks when driving home
@@dynestis2875 and far more have died in Hueys and Blackhawks
It's kinda ironic how the tilt rotor aircaft now looks like the less gimmicky of the options... but it really does, just has a kind of no nonsense, practical feel to it, and those shots of it's meneuverability in-flight look amazing, bet those pilots are having a lot of fun lol.
I suspect that poor performance of Kamov Ka-50 could also impact the decision. This rotor type suffer on rotation issue and doesn't offer really that much above conventional solution. Valor is plain better craft (on paper).
@@TheRezro In defense of Sikorsky, X2 technology is completely different from conventional coaxial design.
the huge increase in speed and range over the blackhawk is very impressive
When comparing the number of Valors able to land in a footprint area versus a Blackhawk, something else to consider is the total number of troops landed for that mission for each aircraft type, in addition to the speed and range.
Oh this comment section will be cordial with folks speaking on only the things they are experts at 😂
I know that’s been my experience with the internet.
everyone is a expert on everything in the Internet
Well some of us may not be pilots and stuff but we are aviation Enthusiasts who can make informed observations. But there WILL be knuckleheads who DNS who'll be making up their own facts. The V280 is faster, but wider, but look, the Army will adjust tactics as needed.
@@Defender78 I think one of the reasons why many were shocked at this decision, was because the SB-1 Defiant was designed from the beginning to have a very similar footprint as the UH-60 Blackhawk, so the Army wouldn’t need to adjust tactics. The SB-1 Defiant could have entered service with very little change to doctrine and causing little to no disruptions. The V-280 is also significantly more expensive than the UH-60 Blackhawk. I’ve seen estimates as high as $45 million per aircraft (not unreasonable when you consider the V-22 Osprey is $72 million per aircraft). I’ll admit I’m not 100% sure on this, but I don’t think the Army is intending for the FLRAA program to replace the UH-60 Blackhawk on a 1-1 basis. Although all US Army Assault Aircraft are Blackhawks, not all Blackhawks are assault aircraft. The majority of the Blackhawks in US Army service are used in a general utility role. It wouldn’t surprise me if, in the end, both the V-280 AND the SB-1 Defiant find there way into service. Regardless, the UH-60 Blackhawk still has decades of service life ahead of it.
Ok i will be the first. Based on nothing technical I would have chosen the Defiant X. It looks better. Correct I know nothing.
I love this machine, it's so cool and innovative! It's a marvelous feat of engineering.
Huh. The chart you showed with the two aircraft overlaid with the rotor.. circles.. definitely put the size in perspective. Closer than I expected for sure. Especially if you draw the entire box out (though, in some situations, perhaps you would risk cutting it closer in real life) around the rotors and everything. Doesn't seem nearly as big as it looks just from footage, as you mentioned. Appreciate the great work as always!
One thing to remember when you are considering the size of the aircraft is that for the blackhawk to operate it needs its rotors which change the dimensions by a lot.
Blackhawk
64 feet 10 inches(rotor turning)
53 feet 8 inches (rotor turning)
V-280
81.79 feet rotors included
50.5 feet rotors included
The math works out to the valor's foot print being only 1.185 time larger or about 19 percent bigger
And given the V-280's downwash, you'll want more room than that.
Just because you can theoretically, physically, fit a helo in that space doesn't mean that you can actually realize that.
Good math cranking. But the difference more or less disappears once you realize combat landings aren't done with rotors barely touching, but instead with say 30 feet between craft. Suddenly the BlackHawk is 125*114, Valor is 142x111. Now only 10% more BlackHawks landing in a given field. Then factor in that the Valors carry 25-50% more troops.
The vid mentions at one point "even if only 10 Valors can land where 12 Blackhawks could," which echoes your "20% bigger" calculation.
I think a more pertinent question is what size clearing they can land in: are there many clearings that are BlackHawk friendly but not Valor? I frankly don't know. I'm positive there are some. But twice the speed and twice the range are huge advantages.
I would think that there will always be situations where you need the smallest radius possible. While a little bird may be too little, the Blackhawk would seem to still be a good option for some jobs/insertions, given the 280's larger radius.
@@marksasahara1115 > I would think that there will always be situations where you need the smallest radius possible.
I think there would be some situations where the Osprey or Valor wouldn't fit. But equally, there are other situations the Blackhawk doesn't fit. However small your transport there will be cases you cannot use it.
On the other hand, though, how often do we have such situations where there's not an alternative? How many missions in history were aborted due to the craft being too big to land, but where a smaller craft could have done the job?
Just as examples, take a forest or jungle landing. Some forests have ZERO clearings, or only small ones, and no helicopter ever made could land. Are there any that have Blackhawk-sized clearings so common there's one close to any given objective, but do NOT have Valor-sized clearings so common? Maybe you want to attack a training center, and the nearest Blackhawk-sized clearing is 200m away while the nearest Valor-sized clearing is 300m away? So we really need to ask: how much does that extra 100m cost you, vs., how much does maintaining an entire reserve helicopter force cost you when you consider pilot and maintenance personnel training, spare parts, upgrading the 40-year-old avionics, and so on? And the solution might be as simple as to hover above the tree tops and have soldiers rappel down...
Turning the valor 90 degrees really convinced me. It's about as wide as the Blackhawk is long and you don't have to pay attention to the rear rotor.
Given Bell based the Valor's fuselage shape on the blackhawk probably will make transition training to the new type easier for the people being carried around in it. Also, notwithstanding the crossdrive failures the Marines have done very well with the V-22, as has the air force and now the Navy also. And as far as the size goes...the Valor may be a bit larger, but it also carries 25% more troops per sortie, so with their soccer field analogy, 12 blackhawks = 132 troops while 10 valors = 140 troops. And its cargo lift limits are higher. The Valor can take a M777 155mm howitzer as a slung load and haul it at 150 knots. The blackhawk can't lift the howitzer at all.
That’s good to know.
That’s what I was thinking about that silly soccer field analogy too. You’ll get more out of the 10 Valors than 12 Blackhawks bc they can carry more
Lol but it’s too big to fit on any aircraft carrier! What hasn’t been mentioned is everything has to be retrofitted or upgraded to fit these aircraft! The v-22 works because the wings rotate were the valors don’t! That is why the decision is being protested!
@@e.c.mracing7478 fitting on an aircraft carrier is not a concern to the US Army as it doesn't deploy it's forces using US Navy combat ships. All they care about is whether it can fit inside a C-5 or C-17 should it need to be strategic airlifted in a short time. And the V-280 technology demonstrator that won the contract isn't the final version going into production. Think of it like the X-35 which competed against the X-32 for the JSF contact.
@@e.c.mracing7478 And criminally more expensive.
The defiant X would have been what the Blackhawk was to the Huey, a minor improvement. The valor radically redefines the entire function of medium lift assets.
1.5X lift capacity and 2X the speed + 2X faster landing time is minor... v22 Can't land close together and if we go by v22 landing times, is abysmally SLOW... Why does anyone believe the v280 will be any different with its nearly identical MTOW? Battle field will be MIGHTY lonely with only one or two loads of my friends instead of a dozen. Well, Army still has the Ch47 to bail its ass out of the fire I suppose.
@@w8stral if having literally half the MTOW (60,000lb - 30,000lb) which is lighter than the empty weight of the osprey, is nearly identical then yes those are all minor improvements.
@@andrewmoore7022 See my previous post on diff topic why your MTOW comment is pure fantasy. Same engines as V22, slightly smaller fuselage, barely any faster. Tells anyone who can do basic Aerodynamics exactly what the weight is or very very close.
@@w8stral Russian KA-52's are being downed in a modern battlefield. They can be detected and then missiles can find them due to the slow nature of said helicopters, even though they are coaxial rotors and fairly fast. Helicopters are basically modern horses for Cavalry, which is offensive and lightening strike. They can exist only in a theatre with secured air dominance, otherwise they are easy to down with smart missiles and manpads. In the old days, if you had a long range rifle, you could have stopped a Cavalry charge cold by shooting the horse. Russia's organs of war, the artillery barrage, and A2AD are making Western planners do a rethink on air dominance and offensive cavalry. Russia actually doesn't even need to field scout helicopters for targeting artillery, they are using drones for that job. In other words, the battlefield is changing rapidly, and old ways of thinking have to be ejected, especially in light of recent facts on the ground. The marines or army will be able to insert, but there will be no heavy mechanized army to back them up, as the ships will be sunk, or heavy lift aircraft will be shot down. This is the dawn of drones, smart missiles, hypersonic, and outer space domain.
@@w8stral , the engines are similar but not the same and "tilt" mechanism is entirely different than the V22's. On the V22's the engine transitions with the rotor, on the 280 it does not. I'm sure that factors immensely in faster transition times.
Many of the tried and true planforms we hold dear started out badly and took years to iron out.
This is true of the Black Hawk the F15, F16, and many other aircraft we believe to be the best in the business.
The Black Hawk is old, no matter how you look at it. Its been upgraded numerous times but there comes a point where a platform reaches its limit and a new design is needed.
Im excited for the V-280 valor, its a huge potential and in the coming years it will become even better as upgrades and changes are made, heck they have already announced an engine upgrade which provides 25% more power, i believe its a rolls royce engine.
The original F-14A was a perfect example of that.
When the F-14D came out it unlocked the true potential of the aircraft.
Great non-biased story! I have had an opportunity to watch this aircraft from its beginnings, and if you haven't been able to see one in flight, I can tell you that it is fast and quiet, you can't hear it coming in airplane mode and it is gone before you know it was there! As a retired Army aviator, I would like to point out, that in my opinion, the biggest game changer for the Valor is, that when you put an inflight refueling probe on it, it can self-deploy anywhere in the world at record speeds! That puts a dozen Army Rangers in the rear area of your operation before you even know you're in a fight! The 160th will love the capabilities of these things. The Navy, Marines, and Airforce will also have them for Special Operation units before the run is over. I can't wait to see them at Fort Campbell and Fort Bragg!
This is by far the best video on the V280 I've seen! Good work.
I have to admit I was surprised that the US Army choose the V-280 as the replacement for the venerable Black Hawk. Sikorsky's compound rotor helicopter seemed a more reasonable and safer choice, at least at the first glance. But when you see the gains the Army is getting with the V-280 over the Black Hawk, a decision seems more reasonable. It would be as if the 6th gen fighter jet intended to replace the Raptor had the 3000 mile range with the speed exceeding Mach 3.. Great job Bell. I'm sad I didn't buy their stocks a couple of weeks ago. They must have soared with the news that they've scored a massive contract that will pay for the bills for the next 30 years...
Ya I thought the defiant would win but I guess the valor is hitting and beating all of the program milestones while the defiant is lagging behind. They might see the valor as the better bet and the the option that will cause the least amount of production/maintenance problems.
it took a dip today back down to $71. keep an eye on it. Anywhere in 60 is a good buy
The main issue with the Defiant program is simple: they simply haven't delivered. Despite the seeming "simplicity" in the design of the Defiant, it's proven to be a rather finicky platform that's suffered a raft of technical delays, and have yet to achieve the kind of performances they claim they can give. Meanwhile the Valor's been kicking ass in the flight tests, which obviously makes it the more attractive option to procure right now.
Yea V280 can be fixed with regular tools and mabby a stand or two. The other designs require special tooling to even think about changing props.
@@jameslynn7271 Well, unfortunately it was more of a talking point/joke than a real sorrow for missing an opportunity on Bell stocks.. I don't have the money nor inclination to make my money on the stock market.. I guess I'm the kind of guy that will earn every penny till the rest of my life by working for them..
Oh, I've said a lie.. I did buy a few 1500 or 2000$ worth of stocks maybe 15 years ago.. My friend talked me into it and he did all the paper/computer work.. I remember following it it 3 times a day. It was killing me and I didn't have the nerves for it.. I've sold them with some minor profit (a few hundred bucks)... Not for me...
The Valor was built from the ground up using lessons learned from the V-22 Marine's tilt router. So it has to be better than that. Also by this time the tilt rosters are a known quantity.
The Sikorsky+Boeing SB-1 Defiant had all kind of problems that they just could not fix. Something about the shaft driving the propeller. The Valor V-280 is flying with smaller GE engines. The more powerful rolls-Royce jet engines will have a higher top speed and more lift when they integrate that engine into the Valor.
This exactly. Bell would’ve been happy to push 280 knots out of their prototype, to live up to its name (V-280). The fact they were able to safely crank it up to 305 knots is incredible. And as you say, that's with the smaller GE engines. With the more powerful R-R engines for the Production variant - the V-280 will the catalyst for the Army to rewrite their doctrine
Love your content Alex! Your content is always so informative yet feels so personal such a rare skill of yours!
One of the main advantages of the Valor as opposed to the other is that fact that it can selfdeploy overseas as it is faster, and can use the boom tube to refuel as opposed to the hose and drogue.
As a tanker guy, this is true. Refueling helicopters is doable, but a massive struggle. It requires the tanker to fly near its minimum speed, and the helicopter to lean forwad and get near its maximum speed. Leaning forward with that rotor sticking way out forward causes clearance issues. It also requires slow feeding drogues since booms tend to be too vertical where the rotors would be.
I dont think the navy is going to boom use anytime soon (except on certain aircraft like the P-8), but it is worth noting that even with drogue use, some tankers simply cant fly slow enough to refuel helicopters. My own tanker, the KC-135, could refuel Ospreys, and Navy fighters using a drogue attachment (which we made heavy use of in Okinawa), but generally couldnt refuel helicopters because its stall speed was too high.
I'd also imagine that self deploying helicopters is a pain no matter what way you slice it. They just dont fly fast, and they dont fly nearly as efficiently as fixed wing aircraft at their cruise speeds. Even if you could keep one fueled across, say, the pacific... Would you want to deploy one that way? you'd probably break the pilots' crew rest limits.
By contrast, the Osprey and this tilt rotor dont fly much slower than the C-130, and for as slow as the C-130 is, I know those make trans atlantic/pacific journeys all the time.
It also makes the footprint less of an issue. Folding rotors and a small folded footprint is necessary on HH-60s so they can be airlifted around. With tilt rotors being at least reasonably fast and efficient, with better aerial refueling abilities, there isnt much reason to airlift one.
@@hatman4818 hey man, I just wanted to ask would it be possible for Chinook to act as a refueling tanker for naval fighter jets like Super Hornet or F-35C since the theoretical stall speeds of Super Hornet and F-35C are below the maximum speed of Chinook?
@@dieyproductions4403 Well....theoretically.
as a 22 year Marine veteran i thank you for talking about the safety of the Osprey verses other airframes. helicopters crash all the time, no matter what type they are. they are pushed hard and from time-to-time things break. the only reason the osprey and F-35s get so much negative attention compared to other platforms, is because they were born in the internet age and 24/7 news media that needs something to drone on about. to many sheeple are quick to jump on the hate bandwagon without doing any research on their own. for every fatal crash the news actually reports on, there are many times more of emergency landings and countless numbers of canceled flight ops due to problems found before/slightly after takeoff. there is an old joke about getting on helicopters and looking for leaking hydraulic fluids, if it is leaking you are good to go, if the floor is dry that means trouble as the bird has already run out of hydraulic fluid to keep it operating properly. the osprey went into combat service just as i retired so i never got to ride in one, but if given a chance i would without any fears. the Marines i have talked with that have ridden in them say they have no worries either and prefer the ride over the other helo's in the fleet.
I have a family member that works for bell and does structural testing on the air frames. I got to tour the plant years ago. It was neat to walk in the same buildings that I saw on documentaries.
2 rotors was no issue for the chinook, one of most respected platforms to ever exist. Further, all helicopters have two rotors, one is just smaller. The P 38 had detractors over it's tendency to torque roll into the ground in the early post takeoff regime, but a trained pilot put that fear into the background noise. The 280 looks to me to be a future winner, I like the common shaft drive system. Must a thought.
The chinook a much different animal for one thing, both rotors are the same size, unlike most with an anti-torque rotor. For another, the rotor mast/shaft doesn’t have the extra complication of rotating around another axis.
@@johnnunn8688 yeah, it's much different, of course. My point was that this machine is not so technologically complicated to not even consider building it. Replacing the Harrier...complex. But arguably done. Thanks for the comment!
@@gdlonborg, well f35 seems to work but there seems to be an awful lot of space taken up with the lift fan, gearbox, ducting and the barn door that pops up: leaving little room for internal weapons. Maybe the Harrier was a simpler and more elegant system but it had no internal weapons bay. It’s all about compromise 🤷♂️.
@@johnnunn8688 yeah, I hear ya. Also, the f35 has the benefit of more modern avionics, stealthy, big engine, and years of materials dev. The fact that it can go from stol to supercruise in just minutes is just next level.
@@gdlonborg, the Peggy was a pretty big engine for the day but the F135 cheats by using reheat! 🤣😂 The Peggy was supposed to get plenum chamber burning but that never happened; stoopid Govt. Imagine a supersonic Harrier?
Another great video. I remember that the Blackhawks early nickname was Lawn Dart. The Seahawk was the Sea Dart. People wanted the Huey back. No one has memories that far back.
We called it the crash hawk back in my day
Thank you for covering this!
Great work you have a very
Welcome method of putting out your information with a minimal amount of bias. It is very refreshing to hearing more facts and much less opinion which is why I don’t even turn on the tv media news.
MV-22's uses are endless. One of which is COD for both supercarriers and the F-35B carriers/amphibs
It is a brilliant platform.
What is "COD?"
@@scenicdepictionsofchicagolife Carrier On-Board Delivery (COD).
Critical for fleet resupply at sea.
USN has ordered 48 CMV-22Bs.
I guess it is better than the C-2, because of its quicker speed in launch and recovery?
@@totalnerd5674 C-2s have to be trapped on a supercarrier, their cargo unloaded and transferred to escort ships. A time-consuming laborious process.
CMV-22Bs, by contrast, don't need to be trapped, being able to land like a helicopter. And the biggest time saver is that they can land on any of the escort ships able to accommodate helicopters and offload cargo directly at each stop.
Same for the F-35B carriers/amphibs which could never handle C-2s anyway
@@Chuck_Hooks Ah, ok.
Say, do you think that the V-280 could replace the SeaHawk in the menial tasks of a Destroyer helicopter (As in, ASW, patrol, search and rescue)? I imagine fitting one in a hangar would be a challenge, but perhaps it could be folded up similar to the V-22.
YES! The Valor Won! I was rooting for that one!
The thoroughness of your research and the careful quality of your argumentation are most impressive.
In 79 i was stationed at Fligerhorst Hanau Germany. It was a base that had cobras, hueys, one day while on the airfield i heard a different sound. I knew the sound of the hueys and cobras well but that sound was different. It was a Blackhawk, it was being flown to all the airfields to introduce it to the troops. They were giving rides to anyone and of course i got a 15 minute ride. It was beautiful and quiet, compared to the others that is.
That's really cool, I was station at North Island San Diego 2012-2016 as an aviation structural mechanic working on H60s, very different time period, But same sorta situation, Because I was standing around the hanger bay doors and a whole different "sound" came flying over, pretty low too, and a jet was banking overhead of us, totally washed out being able to hear talk, and I motioned over to a chief and was like "IS THAT A F 35(made a 3 and 5 with my hands)" and the chief motioned YEEEES Lol First time I had seen one in person. Both of us was like WHOOOOAH. We wasn't in the same working party or shop, I just noticed him standing in awe like I was at the same thing overhead out of nowhere. Did NOT get a sweet ride in it tho 😆 Did get rides in the Seahawks we used, that had parts on them with warranty stickers on hydraulic parts dated 1988.
Excellent analysis on the V-22’s service life and analysis of what all went into the Valor’s selection.
Every aircraft ever invented had teething issues in its lifetime. Some had more than others, but all had many problems that had to be worked through before that aircraft became the historic aircraft, we all know. The osprey is amazing! The Valor will be even better.
As a UH-60 mechanic myself, I'm really hoping they brought ease of access to components in mind when they drew this up. It's a smart looking craft, but I also hope it's easy to maintain and access.
It will be more easily accessed for (preventive) maintenance, checks and inspection than any other *_tilt-rotor._*
It will still be much more labor intensive than any conventional helo. I guarantee you'd have to work more to do the same job on the V-280. It's more complex, with more moving and working parts. It's just math that it will be more intensive.
I would, personally, be absolutely shocked if in the real world when this enters service that actual ground crew maintenance would be less than twice the time for every flight hour than the '60.
It will depend on how many transformer/fold up mechanisms they incorporate vs V-22's... Most of Osprey's problems stem from that requirement... Digital modeling with technicians was heavily stressed as well in design of prototype.
You are TRULY the Fair and Balanced "go to guy" for info about military platforms. Thanks for doing the research for all us working stiffs.
I hope the current crop of military recruits are even close to your standard of excellence. If so, I will always sleep soundly and not worry about our country's security.
Operation Eagle Claw is a good example of what range and speed (or lack thereof) can mean for the people working an operation.
My personal opinion on Eagle Claw was that it was keeping the 53s under wraps and unflown in the Nimitz's hangar bay for nine months for "security" that was the biggest contributor to their failure. Airplanes, and particularly helicopters, don't like to sit. They break when they sit. Seals dry out, things start to stick...
I was a participant in Eagle Claw in one of the fighter squadrons on the Coral Sea. You may remember we were out there with the Nimitz, even though the news always referred to us as "another carrier" as in, "The brand, new USS Nimitz and another carrier".
@@Mishn0 53s are just inherently less reliable than comparable heavy lift aircraft. If they had sent chinooks on Eagle Claw it would not have failed.
Excellent point.
Getting closer to the halo pelican.
Haha nice!
Your videos are very detailed and entertaining.
Your videos are very objectively thought-out & analyzed in an unbiased manner; professionally narrated; well-researched & interesting!
In the V-22 the early crashes were related to the engine changing position horizontal to vertical and oil leakge let to a fire. The vortex ring state ehere not well understood anf the was no varning. Now it is.
In that one case, there was a slow burning fire in the nacelle that weakened the crosshaft which is normally unloaded when both engines are operating It only takes up the load if there is an engine failure to distribute power evenly to both rotors. . Crosshaft was designed to take a large hit or explosion, but-no one anticipated a situation whne it would be subjected to a lengthy and sustained fire. So when the nacelles rotated for landing, leaking fuel/oil flowed to the hot exhaust and there was an explosion, the weakened crosshaft failed and so you got asymmetric lift. Thing is, the Osprey had given the crew multiple warnings about a failure situation, and normal procedure would be to land as soon as possible, which be easy to do along the way in a VTOL. Crew chose to press on instead which led to the lengthy stress on the crosshaft.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 I worked for Bell at the time. the oil fire in the report was defined as a 'flash fire' investigation. There may have been a slow-burning fire in other residences. I can only speak to the crash of the prototype in the fire.
Well done. This is a great video. Well produced with superior content. I didn’t find your audio distracting. I thought it was a purposed audio effect. Keep up the good work. Liked and subscribed.
Thank you Alex .
As always highly informative.
If a spot is too tight to land in, you can rope out of it instead. And the Coast Guard has been rescuing wounded by hauling gurneys up a rope with a crane while hovering for like 50 years. Might not be as ideal as landing, but there's defiantly work arounds for those relatively rare cases.
Not all units are fast rope qualified. I think, not certain, you can only fast rope from about 50ft max. If you have 75ft trees or higher, you can't get this things in there even if there's an LZ that used to be perfect for a -60.
Don't discount for landing footprint, only 10 Valors where 12 Blackhawks fit BUT Valors carry more. More importantly, I've moved in waves of Blackhawks, they wait for everyone to depart slowed and hunched over ensuring the blades don't dip danger close before dust off. I'm betting the higher rotars make quicker deployment and troop recovery times, quicker safety margin for dustoff. Also betting 5 foot tall vegetation in the edges is not the hazard it used to be. Might have more not fewer viable LZs.
Such a well put together video
i remember seeing this beast fly over Arlington with it's loud rotor engines years ago.
it was awesome...
Great video, and touched on a lot of my own thoughts and concerns. Ultimately, though, I'm excited about this program. And we have to remember, it isn't as if the Blackhawk is just going to go *poof* in the middle of the night, naer to be seen again; The replacement process will unfold in stages over the course of years. It will probably still be flying decades from now. But there's no doubt the Valor will be adding a signfiicant amount of speed and capability that the Blackhawk just can't match, and that's pretty dang cool.
I had expected 2 helicopters to be chosen for their differing capacities. 1. For the heavy lift and long range advantage for troop insertion and 2. For its additional smaller footprint, lower visibility insertion and near battle advantages. A Truck and a taxi role.
Heavy lift is the province of CH-53 and CH-47. Smaller V280 is for troop insertion.
@@tararaboomdiay7442 I guess I meant an intermediate, as the V280. The extra capacity it has makes it an excellent taxi for food or ammo resupply for near front line support.
I'm so pleasantly surprised. What an objective, realistic, well worded and informed analysis. Subscribed.
Great informative video. You addressed some of the misconceptions about this aircraft, the Osprey and the Blackhawk. Surprisingly most of the correct information you mentioned is easily available with the click of a few keys. I’m always shocked by how many people keep regurgitating the various incorrect things about the V-280’s size and the safety record of the V-22.
Above The Best. Hooah!
I think you nailed it with the generational knowledge observation. There have been no coaxial rotor helicopters in US military service, where as the Valor will be a second generation tilt rotor. Better for the mainstay army platform to be built on such system. They can let the scout crews figure out the teething issues with coaxial rotors with their lower rate production air-frames.
Sikorsky think they’ll be gifted the FARA award on a silver platter, as a consolation prize - but they’ve a tough challenge against Bell’s 360 Invictus. The Invictus looks incredibly lethal and agile, plus it’s by far the safest and most reliable option. Sikorsky has questions looming over their technology - they lost an S-97 Raider that crashed in August 2017 - with fire trucks sent to the rescue, and the airframe written off. Coaxial bladed technology in general, hasn't met expectations. Look at the Russian Ka-52 Alligator - which has suffered heavy losses in Ukraine. Then there’s the engines. The Invictus has a secondary P&W engine (the SPU) to supplement the main GE engine - that provides additional speed when needed, and also allows for a safe, controlled landing in the event of main engine failure. Unlike the Raider X, which only has a single engine - if it stalls, then sadly the crew are toast
Tiltrotor aircraft are largely a solved problem now. Problem was the osprey had to consume the souls of many marines to get there. Now, the technology is well proven and well understood. The coaxial rotor system is definitely just as risky as the tiltrotor, from a safety perspective, and likely MORE risky from the perspective of surviving combat damage.
The Valor is probably a good bet, no worse than the Defiant at the very least. I assume it will be safe enough, and provide enough of a capability boost to be worthwhile.
Pretty much every new innovation in military aviation is not just standing on the shoulders of what's come before, but paid for in the blood of people lost while learning those lessons.
Carrier aviation in general took a lot of fatal lessons to get right.
What I read was that the Osprey had hydraulic lines fail after too much rubbing against the tilting engines. Once they detected the cause, the Osprey was much safer.
I recall hearing that a mistake made during development/deployment was the lack of helicopter trained pilots, since heli pilots are more likely to recognize and survive a vortex ring stall. TLDR, if a heli descends too quickly, it flies into its own turbulence and loses lift. You must counterintuitively reduce lift then try to fall out of the turbulence. In a panic people try increasing power, worsening the stall.
This video is incredible. Thank you for breaking it down and being very interesting. At face value, I like V-280 a lot. Lets see what the next steps bring.
The Osprey accidents also got a lot of press because of the radical new design of the aircraft. Everyone was watching the Concept. Just as Tesla automobiles getting huge press when a few of them caught fire in accidents. Electric cars, however, have less fire per accident than gasoline cars.
The thing I'd be most worried about is how easy or difficult it will be to harden the are around the tilt mechanisms against sand.
It looks like a pretty competent platform. I wouldn't be too worried about safety, since a lot of progress has been made in aerodynamic stability modeling and testing in the past few decades. Also, flight computers (as in the F-22, f-35, etc.) are far more advanced now than when the Osprey was developed, and can help a lot with control at the edge of stability.
And how does it operate in Arctic conditions like Alaska
Okay, wait, wait, stay calm...
IT IS THE VIDEO I HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR! FINALLY! YEEEEHAWWWWWWWWWWWW!
I saw the BlackHawks fly over the GEORGE WASHINGTON BRIDGE! The sun was out, I'm in remission, so happy to be in the USA and GRATEFUL to have been born here!
Balanced and well-done analysis! Congratulations to Bell Flight and the US Army! Good luck moving forward!
Regarding the safety...there have been four significant UH-60 Blackhawk incidents in the past 2 years resulting in 5 helicopters lost and 28 killed. In the same time period there have only been 2 MV-22s crashes and 9 lives lost and one of those was clearly pilot error.
And what are the hours flown for each? I read that the Toyota Camry, by sheer numbers, has more deaths than a Bugatti. Obviously you never took a class in statistics.
@@NCCOOLJ98 per 100,000 flight hours the V-22 has a lower Class A accident rate than the UH-60.
@@DeeEight Source?
400 V22s vs. 5,000+ Blackhawks produced. Were the crashes due to mechanical error vs. Improper Maintainance vs. Pilot error? The Blackhawk has been flown more in harsher and more dangerous situations. Try again. Again statistics is very important when comparing apples to oranges. Extrapolate all the various data sets before speaking falsities. Math harder, Deez Nuts. Furthermore, if you had done your research, you will find direct quotes from the Army stating the UH60 is the safest helicopter flown. Done.
"Lower Class A", there you go skewing the data again. You can't take a small subset of date and generalize it to an entire platform.
I believe the Major General was keeping his cards close to his chest, pending a protest from Sikorsky. They have learned from the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle after Lockheed protested the Oshkosh win. The Army gave no information until after the protest was made and then made a "Data Dump" and Lockheed promptly withdrew their protest.
This. Sikorsky was in denial about how much more development their submission required. They were years behind Bell.
Why was the oskosh picked over the lockheed one?
I think Glock did a similar thing after M17 went to SIG
@@ameritoast5174 The Oshkosh JLTV drove 5.5 times further before breaking down than did the Lockheed. There were a few more factors as well.
@@erod19969 thanks for the info
Excellent, realistic, analysis, Alex. I truly hope for the -280s success.
Happy birthday ma boy! Nice vid too!
As an old retired Aviator, the most impressive thing about the V280 is the range, now compared to any helicopter it's impressive. But not yet sold on it this program has a way to go..
Although the deaths are a tragedy. I would always think in terms of incidents per air hour. That's what's going to tell you about the reliability of the platform. I was in college when the osprey was introduced. And I can remember some of the early incidents. But if you look at the data over the years they greatly improved the safety of the aircraft. And by now it's probably on par or seating the reliability of a blackhawk. When I work for an oilfield services company, I had to fly frequently on helicopters to Riggs and remote locations. I hate helicopters. I would much rather fly on anything that's got wings. I would be very interested in how they handle total engine failure. Can you eject the rotors because as big as those things are I imagine they would cause a lot of drag. The wing is small so your Glide is probably very limited and at much higher speed, but at least with a wing you've got a good chance of being able to Glide it in. I've heard about auto rotation on my life but I've only seen it successfully implemented once after an accident. I've seen it demonstrated through training but I've only ever seen one helicopter that successfully Auto rotated
Ejecting the rotors is an interesting thought, but I don't know how you would do it without probably damaging some of the rest of the airframe. Even so, without the rotors this thing is not a glider. "Gliding in" to an emergency landing is probably a fantasy with that little airfoil to depend on. That said, this thing does in fact have variable pitch props/rotors so they could be feathered like any prop propelled aircraft with variable pitch propellers. This might improve your glide ratio a bit. The problem is you have to raise those rotors in order to land.
That said, that isn't my biggest concern over this aircraft. Two engines is great, and having a cross-vehicle drive shaft is also great in order for both engines being able to run both prop-rotors. My problem is, why put _the engines_ way out on the wing tips? It would be smarter and more secure to put them inboard on the airframe driving a pair of cross shafts to each gearbox on the wing tips. This protects both the engines more from ground fire, and makes the gearboxes simpler (hence more reliable.) I know they had their reasons, but until I hear refutation I think they chose poorly.
a lot of issues that cause crashes don't really allow the pilot to attempt to auto rotate. Engine failure is one of the main uses for auto rotation, but isn't a common occurrence unless it happens in combat where sometimes auto rotation can be confused with crashing as the helicopter might impact the ground fairly hard. Normally malfunctions occur in other places where auto rotation won't help with anything or isn't possible like rotor blade failure. All in all, its down to the situation and nothing can go as expected or as planned
Regarding the rotor blade ejection, the Russian military operates the only helicopters in the world that eject their rotors and have ejection seats (that being the KA-50s and KA-52s) other helicopters dont use ejection seats as helicopter crashes are deemed more survivable than plane crashes
@@tarmaque my concern is that if the rotors don't feather, they're so huge that they would really present a drag problem. And no it's not a glider, but neither is a helicopter. And given my experience I would much rather try to Glide that thing in than auto rotate helicopter.
@@thebarkingmouse Well, since I'm unlikely to ever fly in one it really isn't my problem. 😏
@@tarmaque I don't think I've heard of any aircraft built yet that has an inboard mounted engine with driveshafts to the wingtips. Maybe something hybrid-electric will do that in the future, but not for the V280.
Thank you for the subject to review where all along I’ve been thinking the Osprey was a selling point for the [ineptly named] Valor. 👍
I love your channel. Good jcb... again.
I believe that when landing, the Twin Rotors sit higher from the ground than that of the Blackhawk. This can play a factor as to where it land safetly versus the Blackhawk.
I have worked on and flown a V22, it's far better than the CH46 it replaced, if you want to look at a dismal record, look at the 46 when it came out...I'm amazed at those who continue to bad mouth the V22, obviously, they have no real experience with the aircraft...I also think the V280 will be an excellent addition to the army's fleet..Just remember, with all new technologies come problems that will always be worked out, that's why they call it development...
Excellent, Alex. Thanks !
It's excellent reporting like this that got you 5 nominations! Well done!
Hold your horses, the keyboard experts will give their excellent opinions in the comment section
Yes that’s what’s next for this comment section. Everyone knows the public knows more about military needs than the leaders of the military.
Very informative video. Well done 👍🇺🇸
🙂Fairly new to Sandbox content and found it through another great resource @Hasard Lee - but, have to say, I commend Alex's presentation from his solid foundation of non-biased judgement and I can tell he carefully considers all the points shared, especially in this tilt-rotor video. It's refreshing to have a military analysis and news channel that doesn't use click-bait thumbnails or sensational claims that a lot of others display on CZcams. The points made about the V-22 Osprey safety rate is an excellent point about having all the information about a platform's safety reputation. Just like the media-spun controversy about the F-35 and how it wasn't as capable as our older fighters in a dogfight. So let me praise @Sandboxx for maintaining a level of professionalism, seldom seen in such content on the web. Thanks~Juice
I think The Bell V-280 will be a revolution in capability for the Army and it will also certainly overcome the V22 gearbox issues. However it probably will present its own new technical issues.
Just came here to say the new intro song got me fired up🤘🏽thanks for all you do Alex.
…I’m Chris A, and THIS was a comment.
Great I really appreciate the update on the Osprey performance. A few years ago I read a high level analysis of combat in Syria. It confidently presented that copters are no longer survivable on the modern battlefield. This change will compensate for that observation.
Very good analysis!
A very impressive, reassuring discussion. Warmest compliments. :)
excellent video. I was a Marine avionics technician on Hueys and Cobras.