Bell V-280 Valor - What's the big deal anyway? | BLACKHAWK REPLACEMENT 

Never ceases to amaze me how many people trash the osprey without knowing the facts. If you compare the V22 to any other new air craft it's actually better than average (if the public knew about the teething issues of an F117 while that was under development...). The V22 just had some idiots heading the program that made some really bad decisions (like a public display with a problem that should have grounded the aircraft).

@@fire304 corporations understand marketing, both positive and negative, and the lasting impact it can have. The Osprey issues were handled horrendously from a public perception & optics perspective. It will forever be seen as a piece of junk, regardless of how it performs.

@@c1ph3rpunk you think of how many aircraft have had initial problems going to service it’s common place. Unfortunately people flare up and fail to think whilst the people who manufacture service and fly the aircraft quietly work it up to its full potential.

@@fire304 you're the public.

@@williamforbes6291 actually I'm a Marine, so I have a slightly different perspective.

The Valor's footprint is the same as the Blackhawk, just turn it 90 degrees.

Frontal aspect target is larger for the V-280

I believe this could replace both Apache and the A10 for CAS, especially with the new developments of the missile interceptors. With basically best of both worlds: speed, range, ammunition capacity and the ability to operate from small bases.

@@solarissv777 Eh, I don't know about replacing the A-10. I mean, just watching this video suggests the complex mechanics of the rotor-tilt mechanism would be very susceptible to enemy fire. And considering how far from the centerline the props are, even if they had a common drive shaft so losing one engine's power wouldn't completely cut that prop thrust, I suspect it would have a hard time making it back to base, even in forward flight mode. I guess we'll see.

@@Ughmahedhurtz Isn't F35 replacing the A10?

@@davidty2006 it is

@@davidty2006 That might be some bean-counter's plan but I challenge what looks like a fragile, single-engine, relatively low glide-rate wing jet to survive the kind of abuse the A-10 did in the last major conflict it served. I'm still trying to figure out how stealth plays any role in CAS missions. Further, from what I've read about the F-35, it was designed as a multi-role fighter/bomber but it has less fuel capacity than any of the airframes it is supposed to replace.

I could see an Osprey block upgrade going to fixed engines and operate similar to the V280

V280 valor will be power by GE T901 nextgen turbine engine.

@Totoi te Kelcha No it wont....that engine will power FARA. The T901 is a 3000 hp engine. The Valor has 7500hp rolls royces

@@jswjr6001 You're wrong. GE T901 is the Army nextgen engine that will power both Valor and FARA replacement engine. Right now Valor will be power by other engine but after it went into production for the Army the Valor will be power by GE T901 engine thats why the Army run a programme for nextgen engine in which GET901 beat ATEC engine. Go and study first about the program and come back.

An Osprey with V-280 tech would be far better than V-280.

It doesn’t help that the Army is lying. It’s obvious this thing replaces the Chinook. Not the Blackhawk! The whole program is a lie. This started from a general program for new helicopter tech. Then they discovered they have two great ones and created two separate programs for them to “win”.

There are claims of selection bias that are part of an official protest to the US GAO. It may result in delays or a restart of the selection process.

The DefiantX is way more complex and being built by Boeing nuff said

The Army wants an aircraft capable of deploying and operating in the Pacific. Sadly, the Defiant is just not that aircraft.

Along with every turboshaft driven vehicle ever produced.

@@forrest225 well.. not pure fans.. also most other turboshaft vihicle have a safe failure mode. Helicopters don't.

@@matsv201 that would be a turbofan not turboshaft. Yeah every helicopter has a high speed gearbox, that’s my point. It’s not like an exclusive weakness to the valor.

Unique hazard for this with tilt rotors is the potential for power not being distributed perfectly resulting in asymmetric lift. This tends to be uncontrollable and lead to a flip over. If near the ground or power isn’t evened out quickly it can and has led to crashes.

I reckon in the grey this'll look great, as you say sleeker Osprey!

There was another tilt-rotor design in the program I believe it was by karem aviation looking at the program it was always shortlisted between bell and Lockheed

The Valor does fit within the Blackhawk footprint. Rotate 90 degrees and it fits.

@@bl8danjil Incorrect UH-60M - Length: 64 ft 10 in (19.76 m) including rotors Main rotor diameter: 53 ft 8 in (16.36 m) V-280 - Width: 81.79 ft (24.93 m) Length: 50.5 ft (15.4 m)

@@Kingdoms.Kobolds_81 You must be new to military logic. 🙃 For the military, that is what fits within the footprint of the Blackhawk. Even the SB-1 Defiant is a little bigger than the Blackhawk and certainly taller...way taller. Jokes aside the Army wanted speed, distance, and capability in their requirements especially since their potential enemy might be China and they would be launching from South Korea, Japan or Guam. The Valor demonstrated that it could do that and be faster over the Defiant. The Valor was farther along in development than the Defiant too. It's a refinement of the tilt rotor technology Bell has worked on. The footprint thing must have been something the Army was flexible with. They probably said something along the line of "something the size of a Blackhawk" because I can't find where it says they required it to fit within the footprint. It may have been a pure marketing talking point on Sikorsky part.

Being a Blackhawk pilot both Army and Civilian now This bird isnt a good replacement for the Hawk. It's 30ft wider than the Hawk almost the same as a V-22. The footprint is a giant problem. Its good to get there fast but if you cant put the troops down on target it defeats the purpose. For Urban, Mountain, and assault operations its going to fail miserably.

Not a good alternative to V-22 either. Shorter range, lower capacity, lower volume, no rear ramp. The V-280 tech seems cool but would be put to better use as a V-22 upgrade.

Exactly....you wouldn't have a guy hanging out with a 240 at 300 kias. By the time you slow down enough for effective engagement, the props will be up out of the way, and I am sure there will be travel locks just like the 60 uses when CEFS are installed

No. Even remote operated, all weapon systems will require gimbles to restrict ANY range in the Propellers direction. That is easily a massive 45 deg frontal aspect blindspot, both sides. You cant even point countermeasures towards it! The CH-47s have better weapon systems, still shot down from massive size like the V-280.

@@jimmay1988 Remote weapon systems wouldn't have any issues. We figured out how to shoot through rotor blades back in 1915, so it's not going to cause any issues now

V-22 has a better weapons option with the rear ramp door gunner at least. No ramp on V-280. V-22 also has an optional pop down turret variant but it sucked because of poor accuracy and huge internal volume required for it. Turret would suck worse on V-280 that has less volume available. Other weapons are nose mounted small rocket pods, maybe an option for V-280, and side door gunners. The props do get in the way of side gunners field of fire in some cases.

@@stupidburp the props aren't going to limit door gunners because door gunners funny get used when the props are forward and it's going at north of 200 knots. Door gunners would only be in play when it's going slower and the rotors are tilted up and out of the way

An 2017 article by Aerossurance says "engine power is transmitted through a spiral bevel gearbox that transfers power to the proprotor gearbox. This rotates on two spherical bearings."

It has a 19% larger footprint and carries 23% more troops.

That would reduce the roll moment that the engine can exert on the airframe, actually reducing agility in a hover. In forward flight it has big control surfaces to use, I'm sure it's plenty manuverable.

A 2017 article by Aerossurance says "engine power is transmitted through a spiral bevel gearbox that transfers power to the proprotor gearbox. This rotates on two spherical bearings."

You're the one who is uniformed about thr programme. Bell 360 Invictus and Sikorsky Raider is intended to replace Kiowa warrior helicopter whereas Bell V280 valor and Sikorsky Defiant helicopter is intended to replace both Blackhawak and Apache helicopter. First study the programme goal and comment.

@@totoitekelcha7628 Nobody is replacing Apaches with FLRAA airframes, and the only Apaches being replaced by FARA are the ones that replaced OH-58Ds because the Army retired them without a suitable alternative in place.

@@vmpgsc US army will replace Apache with FLRAA

A Harrier is not called a helicopter because it isn't lifted by rotors. Tiltrotors like this are helicopters, because they are lifted by rotors, with cyclic control. They're just like a tandem-rotor helicopter (such as a Chinook) until they tilt the rotors.

Mounting the engines inboard comes with a very high weight penalty. The shaft needs to be twice as strong, 2 gearboxes per side rather than one. The V-280 also has a shaft linking the two sides. Structurally, having the engines at the end of the wings is also better, it has less force and torque where the wings attach to the fuselage.

@@toolazy4340 I don't see why the shaft would need to be stronger as it's already a cross link assembly, as you say. The force on it is identical. I disagree on the structural aspect but that's why you rather have to test it, to confirm which is correct. As far as I can see all anyone has done is follow the established trend. I did run it past a retired aero engineer the first time I saw it and his thoughts were very much along the lines of mine but with the proviso that it would need to be tested.

@@MrGrimsmith The shaft would have to take all of the power with inboard engines. With outboard, it only may see half of the power.

You have that backward: putting the engine weight with the fuselage weight would increase structural load on the wings, not decrease it.

Yep.

Was just gonna leave a similar message. It just that the accidents gets more coverage, since it generates more clicks.

As a Swede i see the osprey in video games and whenever one crashes in Norway. I think 2 gone down in Norway during exercise right? I wouldn't use that as a basis on opinion on how safe it is though - Norway has some immensely unique and challenging topography that would be hardcore for any helicopter

Could argue a troop transport requires a higher level of saftey for that reason.

And, it had a specific problem earlier in its history which has been solved.

Defiant is far better at avoiding MANPADS because of much better low speed agility and rapid changes in velocity. It would be a more evasive target to try to hit and spend less time at a hover.

Valor on the other hand can be based slightly further away which provides slightly better protection against long range missiles and drones.

It seems pretty damn agile for a tiltrotor still. as missiles advanced it's going to be harder and harder to avoid them to sheer agility so honestly x defiant without flares could be just as much of a death trap you look at today's missiles they are becoming more agile and far more precise then old gen missiles

Hmmm Blackhawk won't really go anywhere anytime soon. Even if decomissioned they'd probs be picked up by SAR services.

The Blackhawk WILL be retained by the Army. The Valors primary role will be long range assault, the Blackhawks will still be used for more ordinary utility roles.

@@MaxwellAerialPhotography and when did Blackhawks have a long range assault role? They don’t have long range. Army is lying.

@@davidty2006 Military SAR (search and rescue) would likely want the Valor over a regular helicopter. Faster response time to get to the last known location and shorter flight time to a medical facility with advanced life saving care and equipment. Civilian SAR already has them so purchasing the older frames for spare parts is likely though.

Correct. I think it's very cool that the USMC are still doing this. The UH-60 isn't going anywhere for a long, long time.

this seems tailor made for high speed, long distance flights in the western pacific to offload troops and then do it again. I have no doubt it *can* perform all the roles of a blackhawk, but it certainly has different strengths and those seem to be the focus of what the army wants from it.

The Blackhawk is going to be in the Army for some time. The Valor is not even finalized in its design. It's last prototype was ahead of the Sikorsky competitor and did complete all of its tests and was basically flying for extra research before finally being retired.

The Valor is a second generation tilt rotor, the Defiant is a first generation coaxial. By choosing the Valor this will lower the teething issues significantly. Also the Army is building out for a potential Pacific conflict, in that theater range and speed are king and the Valor just has so much more of both over the Defiant. Lastly the Valor has had a very smooth prototype cycle that is already complete where as the Defiant had a major incident where it cut off it's own rotor blades and is still being developed. The Valor is ready the Defiant just isn't.

I was also thinking the Defiant was a better choice til I learned it's makers never got it to work.

Troops can fast rope out of the Valor. It can also carry a hoist for medevac or search and rescue.

It will be easily tracked by anti-air IR missiles, since they MUST fly higher. V-280 is a stupid choice for Medium aircraft replacement. Should've replaced CH-46s instead.

@@jimmay1988 The height difference is waaaaaay overblown. If you are flying nap of the earth to avoid MANPADs you are already in a bad situation. You would be much better flying faster a bit higher up. Basically anything that can hover is going to be an easy MANPAD target. It doesn't make sense to heavily base an acquisition decision based on it.

@@jimmay1988 Why would the V-280 need to fly higher? It's not like the Blackhawk flies with its wheels to the floor, and if you're pushed into an impossible situation where that's the ideal tactical choice then you have far worse problems to take care of.

@@jimmay1988 Why can't the valor fly NOE...

The defiant crashed after 60 hours of test flights

@@jameson1239 survivabiluty is a factor of battle damage not a crash due to airworthiness or poor maintanance

@@markpengell23 If you crash without damage, you will crash worse WITH damage.

@@theneef174 As it turns out, planes crash without damage all the time, even the very survivable A-10 has had crashes with no damage at all. The fact that what is still an experimental design crashed during development does not mean it is not survivable.

@@pdxmarine1430 my brother in christ the transmission does not work

Unless you're the MI-24, then you can just be one of the best of it's class at the time it was made.

@@Destroyer_V0 True, those things still look cool today too. Although the stinger did end up making short work of it in Afghan but that is just the natural progression of war as they were supplied in response to that helicopter out of necessity .

There is a heli scout program whose bids resemble more the capabilities of the apache, so both aircraft should complement each other while the valor should be more focused on transport (as requested by the army, as I have heard).

@@user-pq4by2rq9y Ah so its still going then nice, yeah having a highly mobile stealth chopper spot for you and relay target data does seem to be the way for the future so glad to hear.

With those massive propeller systems on the side, good luck even having any door gunners protecting the aircraft.

@@jimmay1988 Firing guns through props was figured out back in WWI, it's not going to be an issue. Plus with the rotors forward, they aren't going to have those side doors open for the door gunners to be doing anything when it's going along at 280 knots or more. Door gunners would only be in play when the rotors are swiveled up and the craft is moving a lot more slowly

There are mockups that have foldout racks for missiles and rockets.

Program has been described wrongly. Blackhawks will remain in utility role. Did they really have long range assault mission? No, because they don’t have long range. Long range assault are for Chinooks! Look at them. Valor replaces Chinook for long range assault.

Yes. A 2017 article by Aerossurance says "engine power is transmitted through a spiral bevel gearbox that transfers power to the proprotor gearbox. This rotates on two spherical bearings."

May I ask what's the FARA Program, is it seperate to the current program and what would it Replace? I personally also really want the Raider X since I really like the Mix of Co-axial + PushProp Idea, it looks a bit more like a Helicopter and less of a plane unlike the Valor. Seems a little more versatile too, Push-Prop being it's own, seperate thing on the craft.

@@Sire.English I'm a different person, but anyway, the FARA Program is to replace the OH-58 Kiowa (which was the Army's version of the Jet Ranger) which has already been retired without a replacement. I think it might also replace some of the Apaches, but that's not official. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Attack_Reconnaissance_Aircraft

From a maintainer perspective, I just want a simple flexible dust boot at least.

@@2genders Probably another Valor. There is a version where they replace the cabin area with a hellfire rack. That and probably fixed wing. The Army is thinking ahead and figuring out what it needs against China and where they might need to launch from on land. While the army can launch from carriers and ships, they won't unless it is to offload onto another base. Salt water maintenance for aircraft is a pain and the Marines are already on board those ships anyway. If the Army doesn't want to be sidelined until a base can be established then the Valor is the better choice over the Sikorsky. It is the same problem the Navy Seahawks and Marine Hueys had and why they weren't really used, their range was limited and they couldn't be air refueled. Plus that tilt rotor can save a lot more lives by using it's speed to get to a hospital with life saving equipment that is usually far away from the frontlines. Additionally, the Sikorsky is still unproven and just got a full scale prototype up and running while the Valor prototype was either finishing up or flying for additional research. The Sikorsky team had trouble with making the blades stiff enough when upscaling so that the blades won't flex and hit each other. The Army is just more comfortable with a tilt rotor.

I too favor the Raider X for FARA while supporting V-280 for FVL. It seems to me that the relatively compact size of the coax design is more suited to lingering at tree top level and the rear propeller would allow for quick dashes. The tilt rotor favors flying higher at sustained speed and extending the range of assault missions.

I wonder if it's possible to accidentally shoot through the rotors when it's in a tight orbit putting fire down from door gunners

The downwash is also pretty strong and hot which is a potential hazard for anyone below or roping down

Agreed. It's a fine aircraft to work with the blackhawk but I'm not sure as a replacement. We'll see I guess, it might be a good idea 🤷‍♂️

@@Mewithabeard yes. It doesn’t make sense because the army is lying. Look at the Chinook. Shouldn’t take much to realize that the Valor is actually replacing the Chinook.

@@TheBooban That would make a lot more sense for it to replace the chinook. Again, it's clearly a great aircraft, but it really seems like it would be difficult for it be a proper blackhawk replacement. I hope we're all wrong and it does a great job for the guys who work with it, I just really don't think it's the right tool for the job

@@Mewithabeard Blackhawk will remain. Valor will only replace those for long range assault which was what this competition was about. The lie is that Blackhawk doesn’t do long range assault, since it doesn’t have long range, duh. The Chinook is used for those missions. So, no, this won’t replace the Blackhawk.

Defiant has been waiting on the engine for mass production. Interim engine is a lot different. Still managed to make a 700 mile test flight on half power even with the lower power interim engine.