Next Level Helicopters Unveiled 

You dont need sneak anything. You need to smart long range missiles like as RAFAEL SPİKE or LOCKHEED SWİTCHBLADE against all (Air, Ground, Sea) Maybe Space if you can develope mini tr3b engine for missiles.

SAS and SEMA systems , new avionics and auto pilot makes every new model of aircraft the easiest fly . Fly a helicopter with out all that your workload will rise

I've watched this several times ⏲️ America 🇺🇸 is the best 👌

@@conrads_corner I watch several time nothing great is great than great ☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻☻

Indian 111 Neval Utilty Helicopter Deal Bell Next Generation HELICOPTERS Best Choice US Government Pressure Created Indian Government

Just build Airwolf and quit screwing around.

Pred growl.

Get down!

@@krisfrederick5001 *80's metal music plays*

@@krisfrederick5001 Airwolf is an old piece of garbage!

❤

It was gorgeous.

go look up the rah-66

@@soup31314 what about it? It was too expensive and used a lot of new tech which made it too much for the military. The bell invictus uses off the shelf tech and proven tech. If you want a cheap lightweight scout invictus would probably fill that role well, also these machines will be able to be remotely piloted, so losing an invictus might not bee too much of a concern fot he military.

Why not the V-280 for light transport? It's faster and has double the range.

ALL EQUITY STOCKS WILL FALL..BY SELLING OPTIONS IN STOCK MARKET WE GET MORE MONEY .SO MANY COMPANIES ARE GONE TO BANKRUPT

You sound knowledgeable in choppers!

Easily the best looking one Looking cool is half the battle

To be fair, most of these designs are built on proven, prototyped, and tested platforms, so yeah, they fly well enough.

Don't put all your eggs in one basket. I see advantages to BOTH designs. So why can't the Army order X amount of each and see how they perform over time. They may decide they like both and will/can use each one for different missions. Not like we seem to want to move everything towards the F-35 which may/can be a huge mistake down the road.

@@trvman1 Not sure what you mean by "don't put all your eggs in one basket"? I specifically said that I think the military will give contracts to BOTH Bell AND Sikorsky. Bell's 360 Invictus for the armed scout chopper FARA program and Sikorsky's "SB-1 Defiant" for the FVL program to replace the Black Hawk. Both manufacturers entered a prototype into each program (FARA and FVL). Unless...are you trying to say that the military should select BOTH the Bell 360 Invictus AND the Sikorsky Raider X for the SAME scout helicopter (FARA) program?!?! Because I can assure you that something like that would NEVER happen. With all due respect, if that is what you are suggesting then you don't seem to understand how a military works. Selecting two TOTALLY DIFFERENT platforms for the exact same mission/program would be absolutely insane. It would cost an unbelievable amount of our taxpayers' dollars. First of all, you would have to train different crews to fly two totally different aircraft that are DRAMATICALLY different from each other. The Bell FARA entry is a traditional helicopter with a single main rotor and a normal tail rotor. The Sikorsky FARA entry has a pair of coaxial main rotors and a pusher prop out back. EVERYTHING about how they fly and operate is different. So you would have to train half of your pilots on one of the helicopters and half of your pilots on the other and they would not be able to fly the helicopter that they weren't trained on, even though they are both used as the military's armed scout helicopters. That would be absolutely ridiculous to do. In addition to the training costs, you would also have dramatically higher maintenance costs because you have two totally different helicopters where NOTHING between the two is interchangeable (except the engine, which both prototypes are using because that is part of the contract requirement), so you have one set of parts for one helicopter and a totally different set of parts for the other. You ALSO would have to train the maintenance guys (and gals) to work on two totally different helicopters and become proficient in maintaining BOTH of them. So you are either training ALL of the maintenance crews to work on two totally different helicopters, which could be extremely dangerous, or you would again have to train HALF of your maintenance crews to work on ONE of the helicopters and HALF of your maintenance crews to work on the OTHER scout helicopter. Hopefully you understand just how insane your suggestion is now.

Personally i think your hunch is wrong!!

Thats what I have been thinking as well. I dont see them picking sikorsky for both designs. I think the bell invictus has an advantage with it being cheaper and using proven design. Where the Defiant has a number of advantages over the valor. TBH, I would like to see the valor be used by the navy and marines, I think it would be better for them.

@@trvman1 The military is probably skiddish over this because of the LCS ships. It caused more problems.

Might as well finish the Comanche program. Or upgrade it. that way less money spend seeing it already had test flights hours

Everything about it in the video looked great honestly, loved the ammo bay it can retract into itself as well and other cool things.

.'. Bcb

SAME

I thought Sikorsky's model was best. I like the co-axial rotor, and pusher propeller. Also, it seemed very quiet in flight.

@@craigkdillon I can agree with the fact that it looks cool, but it's probably my love for the Apache that led me to my decision.

airforce as well. Withe the F-35, B-21 raider, and the new NGAD planes, its going to be an interesting time.

there is a problem, thanks to the spread of "democracy" in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, even drug traffickers today have a large number of ATGMs and MANPADS. Will this helicopter be fast enough to outrun the Stinger?

The Air Force told lies to get the EX. Its not much more lethal than anything we already fly.

@@danielh1708 this is new to me and disappointing.

DUDE but look at that invictus 360. You don't wanna see that thang flyin around and make apache look like a baby.

@@vafreozorn6036 I can agree with that. I was looking at it from a budget stand point. I would also, and I forgot, to have brought the Comanche back on line and upgrade it also. We do have some amazing tech pieces out there.

@@orgeebaharvin6284 Yea i like comanche

The retracting weapon mounts and 3 barrel cannon were on the Comanche.

The guts of the Comanche went into the Longbow program.

The Comanche was such a badass looking platform. Ended up building a go-kart with a roll cage and frame designed after the cockpit of the RAH-66. Obsolete now or not, I wish that program had come to fruition.

The Cheyenne has some love on the youtubes - find a profile on why it was canceled and see that the tech from THEN is now the BEST tech NOW. It was WAY ahead of its time. Killed by politics!

To be fair, they probably would have been on a 3rd or 4th variant by now with modern tech. I'm definitely biased because I loved the RAH-66, but I often wonder if it would have been better to continue the project with the hopes of retiring the Apache in the future after a future interation of the Comanche. Now, it feels like we fell behind the curve a bit instead of being prepared for today's changing battlefield. Just a thought, really.

The Blackhawk (not Black Hawk) S-67 was a beast as well. Amazing what's old is new again and not any better either.

Yeah, and didn't it have a top speed above 250 mph?

@@analogkid4557 who cares what the speed was, it's old news, try 1967, get with the program, dummy!

They do it's called defiant x.

They have FLRAA program to replace the Blackhawk. It’s Bell’s tilt rotor V280 vs Sikorsky’s Defiant X!

I think Bell’s tilt rotor V280 would be a better fit to replace the Blackhawk 😉

@@Surprisedsinglee I don't know, I like the Defiant more.

@@juanzepeda2102 tilt rotors look super cool plus crazy range and speed. What do you like about the Defiant X?

a. The coaxial rotors on some of these aircraft means that they don't take up much space compared to a traditional single rotor aircraft. b. Do you really need a very high probability of contact if you have 30 drones and each drone costs just a few thousand USD (in addition to a battery of about 4-10 bigger drones featuring either AT or HE warheads)? Overall the payload would cost less than a single Hellfire. c. I honestly think the US army is limiting the capability of a helicopter by specifying specific launcher and gun. For one thing if you focused on drones you could probably save a lot of space/weight by having tubes that spit them out sideways instead of being able to deploy an entire rack (in a more missile-like fashion).

If Boeing/Sikorsky could just give us the actual Comanche 2.0, since they made the original, i would want that one to win. But they seem to have given up on that very sleek design to push their bulky pusher propeller in a small and large helicopter.

I was going to say many of these seem quite large for a reconnaissance aircraft. The 360 Invictus was the only one I saw that actually looks like a scout.

The game has changed. There's a reason Comanche was never built as cool as it sounded, helicopters are far too vulnerable to MPAD and SAM systems. These helicopters are taking a different approach entirely. Longer range so they can be stationed further away, stealth and larger internal payload capacity to launch drones, so that the helicopter can stay away.

The next war might be a near peer hopefully not, but its completely different from the middle east where there is barely any SAMs.

For a moment it seemed to me that you mixed up a gas turbine engine and a jet engine. One must take the maximum amount of force from the air flow, and the second must give the maximum force to the air flow.

This is a turboshaft, not a turbojet. All immediate usable energy has been used, you'd get negligible thrust from the exhaust.

I thought any rotor was limited by supersonic tip speed. How does that change here?

Speed is less important than maneuverability for a helicopter though and from those test clips in this video the turn rate is NOT impressive. It cant really be since there is no side thrust from the tail only from its center. I also dont get why the rudder is on the bottom where wind will likely not pass as much as the top of its fuselage. All in all I think I personally prefer the 360 it seems like a good design pushed to the next level

This is incorrect. The Raider X is not linke the hind because it does not have transport capabilities as well. it would strictly be scouting and no crew capacity over the 2 pilots. I think a play it safe is exactly what the army needs. Which is why I think the bell heli is the right choice. AA and manpads are getting better and better. Having a cheaper heli with proven tech will be beneficial. Also these are designed to be remotely piloted so they could risk these things in more dangerous missions.

I think keyboard warriors shouldn't bother spouting what they think the military needs. Think the people that fly these things, the people who's lives will depend on these things should be doing that and we should just sit back and see who wins.

@@Grisbane Oh boy we got one of these people. No-one is telling the military how to pick/do their jobs. We are just discussing which ones we like and why we think they should be chosen instead. No one is claiming to be an expert. Maybe you should stop trying to tell people what they can and cant talk about on the internet and ignore the comment section if it bothers you.

@@Grisbane You're one of those keyboard warriors. You're the first person I've met that was triggered over a comment regarding future helicopters. You have some issues that you need to sort out.

@@ameritoast5174 There is a variant that does have transport capabilities, I'm saying that the Raider X should have those capabilities in addition to an attack capability, similar to the Hind.

i think whats going to happen with the invictus, is that theyre going to launch drones that can laser targets for the heli for indirect fire.

Like someone said above it will just be the oldest models of the Apache being replaced.

Probably

Countries anyone no buy China attack helicopters Meat deadly.. countries really like buy American high quality attack helicopters..

Why not?? China is not stupids to waste billion of money just to design and Test only the outlines of the helicopter 😂😂

Yooo xD I'm playing rn

What's funny is the bf2042 stealth helicopter looks like a hybrid mishmash of the 360 Invictus and Raider X.

Lockheed stooge.🍭

The additional redundancy system in the A-10 Wort-Hogs. Should be in all War Birds 🦅. All day long Yahoo

Nope, not at all.