SB-1 Defiant - Must go faster! 

try landing one in a standard 4 lane wide intersection to drop off troops. Not gonna fit with a 50ft wingspan + rotors. the V-280 would be great for open terrain, it's an amazing machine with more range and speed, the SB-1 has better footprint and maneuverability.

@@Will-W This is a common misconception. The V-280's landing profile is smaller than a CH-47, and not remarkably larger than a Blackhawk. Roughly the equivalent to the Defiant's. You're just looking at it without rotating it 90 degrees.

@@Will-W The V-280 is shorter in overall length but wider, the landing footprint is only about 20% larger in area. The Army used a measure of an NFL football field (not without precedant, the plan for the Iran hostage rescue involved landing helicopters in the soccer stadium in Tehran which was an even larger area) as to why the 280 was superior. In the available field space, you can land 12 Blackhawks or 10 Valors. At full troop and crew loads, the 10 Valors can carry 8 more total troops than the 12 Blackhawks, to a point further away or in less time. Or put another way, the standard US Army infantry rifle platoon is 42 men. To move them together requires four blackhawks or three valors.

@@Will-W SB-1 can't reach the LZ

On paper maybe but the unspoken dark answer is Bell was much more willing to give away IP, LMCO/SAC/Boeing stood firm on retaining IP. Gov’t wants ownership of all IP.

It would be an incremental improvement but the army was looking for more and the navy/marines had already been using V22 with similar design to the V280 Valor for decades.

Boeing couldn't get it's bid straight. They promised lower acquisition and operating costs but failed to provide details on how it arrived at their promised figures. A failure of paperwork.

@@sfpesq I thought it was also having some trouble meeting the milestones for the program while the Valor hit them all and even smashed them.

😮6yy6yy

There wouldn't be much, if any, parts commonality between FARA and FLRAA if both designs were accepted. However, the Sikorsky design is superior in FARA for exactly the reasons you stated. Particularly, it makes a superior replacement for the little bird, and on par with Bell's design for an Apache replacement.

This seems so well formulated.

In reality the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric and was a more mature platform as the Defiant had multiple technical issues that caused many moths of delays and even a crash.

Don't worry about a V-280 attack version, it won;'t happen because the Air Force will point to the Key West agreement and start complaining that the V-280 is a VTOL fixed wing. If they complained about the AH-56's stub wings (and they actually did manage to get it cancelled) they will for sure complain about the V-280 and they'll have a stronger case here. Everyone including the US Army seems to have forgotten this.

the ridiculously continent sized rotor hub is prohibitive for an "Attack" Helicopter., too vulnerable and too obvious a target. Not that Valor would do much better as it also seems doomed if ever forced to work asymetrically due to one gondola having been sieved by bullets, but Defiant is a no go from the start.

@@Ugly_German_TruthsThe V-280 attack version is doomed because the USAF will claim it's a fixed wing VTOL, and a strong case can be made for that because tiltrotors mostly operate in airplane mode. If they pitched a fit over the Lockheed AH-56 they will for sure do the same about an armed V-280. The USAF have not as far as I know changed their stance that the Key West Agreement prohibits the army from fielding armed fixed wing aircraft.

Well the Raider seems exactly like a smaller Defiant. That still has a chance of winning the other competition versus the Invictus. Wonder why he didn't do a video on an aircraft that will actually might have a chance of becoming a production platform! Traditional rotary aircraft have basically reached theroitical limits without having a slew of issues. Tilt powdered aircraft are the future whether people like it or not. Better to chop your teeth early! So many haters on the V-280 already. Saying it is dangerous like the Osprey when the Osprey has best safety record of any rotary aircraft- and many fixed wing in service! Or that tilt rotors are complex... Oh yeah like a dual rotor, pusher propeller aircraft is any less complex*sarcasm* The transmissions and power train alone a miracle of precision mechanical engineering FFS, and are very complex! Damn ignorant haters! Anyway yeah a video of the Valor is always nice. I want to see what the attack variants will look like as the Army I guess will replace the Apache with the Valor as a base platform.

From memory it was really quite close. The biggest benefit the V280 had was easier maintenance with the engines and rotors being closer to the ground.

@@dianapennepacker6854they should go with the raiderx and bells tilt rotor. They seem to be the better choices

@@ZaphodHarkonneneh? The Valor flies further faster. That’s the main advantage. Which is why the Raider will beat the Invictus.

I was rooting hard for the Defiant, but the V280 Valor had better speed and range.

So steal a prototype and give it internal weapons and jet engines?

Yes that, and a catchy synth heavy theme song and we got a winner!

True, but remember that Airwolf was developed from a Bell design: the Model 222. Sikorsky would have to steal the tech like Stringfellow Hawk.

I was unaware that it lost. I am now sad.

Great job sky!

"..my disappointment was immeasurable and my day was ruined." shout out reviewbrah!

yeah, i was pretty bummed too. both are rad, but i think the v280's larger landing area requirement (or even hover to rope drop) is a big downer. i do have a broner for both though.

The V-280's greater range, endurance and speed will benefit when hauling personnel & cargo.

Or 216 knots so not much slower the the x 2

Also one on the new Wildcat, and why it was chosen while still being slower than the original Lynx. Another cool video would be purely on the original BERP program and how it revolutionised rotor design worldwide.

I have been upside down in a Lynx once, some RN pilots were demonstrating to us during a port visit to Diego Garcia.

Such old things are not qualified to be compared here.

The airwolf got to mach 2. I keed.

I think the video poster confused knots for MPH.

Don't forget less maintenance since the Valor prototype alone was flying way more often than the Defiant.

But they didn't. Going on wiki you can see the idea for counter rotating helicopters was already thought of in *1754* by Mikhail Lomonosov (notably not named Kamov).Then in the 1930s some French guys cooked up a gyro copter using the counter rotating design. Arguably, they were ones who actually pioneered the concept. It wouldn't be until late 1947 when Kamov would actually create the Ka-8 helicopter using counter rotating blades. This makes it the 4th functioning design after the first French one and three other American prototypes. In fairness, of Kamov he helped mature the design until his death and arguably did most of the work to make it a production helicopter but it is not fair to say that _he_ started the design.

@@d0mram-02 Your knowledge is deeper than mine, but Kamov is building helicopters with counter-rotating blades for decades.

from the Smithsonian web site: "In 1944, at the age of 19, Stanley Hiller, Jr. designed, built, and test flew the first helicopter with coaxial rotors to fly successfully in the United States. The XH-44 was also the first helicopter to fly successfully with all-metal blades and a rigid rotor. Hiller used the counter-rotating coaxial configuration to distinguish his designs from Sikorsky's single main rotor designs that dominated the helicopter industry in the mid-1940s." its in the Air and Space museum now

The critical difference between the Sikorsky and Kamov designs is that the latter uses conventional rotor blades which need a lot of vertical separation to prevent them from hitting each other when they are moving slowly and drooping significantly. That means a tall rotor shaft which adds a lot of drag. The Sikorsky designs use much more rigid rotor blades that don't droop as much, and can therefore be mounted closer together.

Yeah, not mentioning Kamov helicopters in the history section is a big blunder, also not explaining the rigid rotors. Pretty weak video.

No, they’re both occupying the same niche, the valor is better.

BS-1 isn’t as bad as BS-2.

Feel the same, but if this is to be a Balckhawk/Seahawk replacement I can't figure out what they are going to do for the Navy. The Bell V280 isn't going to fit in frigates and destroyers.

@@daemonllama78 It will probably replace the Ospreys that the Navy uses. People forget how much of a workhorse it is for the navy.

​@@daemonllama78V-280 would probably just have V-22 folding system. It will fit.

@@aizseeker3622Hmmm I wonder if that’s something they could add to the V280’s design. I don’t think they planned for that kind of folding system initially.

@@KC_Smooth it has the folding system. I've seen pictures of it with the wing rotated.

Except that they were both offered as the solution to the exact same problem, and in the end the V280 was selected because it better fulfilled the requirements that the military was going for. Not to mention the V280 program passed most of its flight tests with flying colors, whereas the SB1 has far less flight hours due to technical issues.

I really think the Raider is going to end up being used as a gunship to replace the Apache. The big drawback with tilt-rotor aircraft is those big rotors make it impossible to mount forward firing weapons on them. Even mounting a door gun on that side door risks shooting off rotor blades. The Marines have been tearing their buzz cut hair out trying to mount weapons on the V-22 and not shoot the blades off or burn them with hot rocket exhaust in the process. Something like the Raider is much easier to integrate with weapons and a rotor mounted sensor system.

Agree. Unless it's common to have a single-copter flying unit, I don't see the reason why the military wants to make a black-and-white single-sided decision. Whenever a military unit has more than two copters, it's always possible to have 1 or more V-280 and 1 or more SB-1 working as a team. The CO can make decisions based on real-time needs. The funding is not a problem. Just split the money half-half between Sikorsky and Bell.

@@AkiraNakamoto As someone who has made a career in the military development world, funding and scheduling are two big problems. To qualify an aircraft as safe for flight requires a certain amount of hard work and that costs money. The amount of money necessary to bring a new aircraft into service is more or less fixed. If you want to develop two aircraft then double the money. No way around it. Every new aircraft has to undergo the same rigorous test regimen to prove it is safe to fly and can do the mission. Each new development test program is a billion dollar or more proposition. Second to hang weapons on an aircraft, fire them safely and hit the desired target requires a certain amount of effort. I am not going to say the number or time period in public but it is a significant effort and each weapon has to be integrated in a separate program to each aircraft that will carry it. You can't assume a missile that works on a Cobra also works on an Apache, or that something you can hang on an F-15 automatically works if you hang it on an F/A-18 because these aircraft pairings have very different flight characteristics and combat systems. The aircraft has to be able to recognize what weapon is on what rail or bomb rack and indicate that to the pilot. The aircraft has to know what target is loaded in the weapons mission plan if the weapon is that kind of weapon and cue the pilot where to launch it according to the mission plan. If the weapon is cued by sensors on the aircraft then the weapon and aircraft have to be able to communicate and give the pilot the right launch cues. You want to make sure the weapon doesn't hit anything when you launch it. You need to know if, for example, you have to fire weapons on the outboard hard points before you can safely fire something inboard. Do aerodynamic forces cause adjacent weapons to rub each other? Or does the buffet created by something on one station vibrate the living daylights out of whatever is on an adjacent station? And then you have a ton of software integration. Each weapon is different and so is each aircraft so the process is iterative. Range time is limited and scheduling all this work requires a lot of coordination across different aircraft programs, weapons programs the range operators and the operational sponsors of these new systems.

@@philsalvatore3902 I think you have seen the problems you listed because US military has NEVER done the double grant before. If you really want it done, then there are tons of ways to make it more efficient. For example, you can define a common installation regulation for all the weapons and softwares and ........., then ask Sikorsky and Bell to comform to the same regulation. Well, if the government is lazy, then it is lazy. What can I say?

@@AkiraNakamoto I can tell you from experience that even if you have a common data bus architecture the underwing environment of every aircraft, buffet and vibration, vary greatly from one aircraft to another. If you have an all aspect low observable aircraft like an F-35 weapons behave differently when launched from the weapons bay than they behave when launched from an underwing station. Find out what bomb bay resonance is. You open the bay doors and a Helmholz resonance starts shaking the daylights out of everything inside the weapons bay. Most missiles slide off a rail, but if the wing tip is shaking like crazy due to perfectly normal aerodynamic forces the missile may or may not slide nicely down the launch rail. Sometimes you get surprises like that. Or the buffet breaks things on the missile, or the load of the missle combined with aerodynamic buffet breaks things on the launch rail. Stuff like that is only revealed by testing. If you have an infrared guided something like a Sidewinder or IRIS-T, it has to be out in the breeze to acquire a target. That makes deploying IR guided weapons from a weapons bay hard to do. It can be done and is done but it's a lot harder than shooting one off an exposed but non stealthy external launch rail. Getting all of that right takes time and money. As for the US not doing two new aircraft at once, that is laughable. The US developed the F-14, F-15 and F-16 pretty much simultaneously. The US Navy and USAF are both developing 6th gen fighter aircraft right now. The Chair Force even has flying prototypes they are calling NGAD, while at the same time the Navy is developing their MQ-25 drone for use on aircraft carriers and the Chair Force is getting ready to fly the first B-21. Meanwhile the Navy is finishing the development of the CH-53K and the Army developing the CH-47F (which is a major upgrade to the old hard working Chinook).

Valor can do same as Defiant with ability to "point" , and in lateral movements it's better due to rotors offset on wings. Defiant needs slightly more reaction time laterally but is simpler to fly, so probably equal in evals by ARMY.

The technology behind it needs to mature more yea. The Raider might be a good option for the scout attack role which will let them further advance the platform.

A combination of generator, controller, inverter, and motor is less efficient than a mechanical driveline transmitting the same continuous power... and much heavier and more expensive.

Invictus is a better design. LM doesnt need anymore contracts.

nah the Raider is better because I said so.@@VectorGhost

More horsepower is good, but only up to the point when the law of diminishing returns becomes a factor.

The Airwolf design wasn't real, and it couldn't be. As for speed, the limiting factor remains the phenomenon of retreating blade stall. That's why they don't just slap on more/more powerful turbine engines. That being said, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to learn that a solution to that problem could soon be worked out.

@@Tom-zs6bb I agree that Air Wolf is fictional, always has been. There has been rumblings that a new series is in the works. And my comment was that it would make a great new platform for the series, especially since congess is not going to fund it as a warfighting aircraft, after the entire ficaso of eastern europe

The Russians have been flying those co-axial Kamovs for 60-70 years now. They are popular logging helos outside the US. I was in Papua New Guinea when the then Soviet Union sent over six Ka-32s and an Mi-26 to work the Kutubu Oil Field project as a demonstration. They shipped the Kamovs over inside an AN-124 with the transmissions and rotors removed. They reassembled them all on the flight line at the international airport in Port Morseby and flew them to the work site in the central highlands. Halfway through their first year there the USSR dissolved and nobody knew what country they belonged to. We kind of felt badly for them. Two of their wrenches were Afghan vets and let's say everyone gave them a wide berth.

I like the KA-32 and Mi-26, but when the bullets start flying, it's all about fixing and getting the bird back in the air fast, the support equipment for the SB-1 will have a large footprint, large enough crane to lift the gearbox, work stands, support equipment. We had for the CH-53 A & D seemed a lot, but compared to what I've read about the SB-1, it's going to be a challenge in the field to fix. This is an aircraft that's replacing light transport, UH-60, but it's the compact dimensions of a CH-53 A or D fuselage wise, and small in internal volume, a lot of fuselage and hardware for a small capacity.@@philsalvatore3902

Good luck landing that fucking hog in vegetated jungle environment and operating in such theater, 2nd the near peer adversary not going to send anything to contest a aerial threat flying around? 3rd what happens to its so call pros when near peer is no longer needed.

@@thh4584 fool... the Valor outperformed the Defiant in nearly every metric. The Valor only has a 19% larger footprint than the Black Hawk and can land nearly everywhere the Black Hawk can.

In reality all 3 aircraft require 50 meters separation from each vehicles center or nearest obstructions per regulations of ARMY Ops

@@michaellove9831 yup people see movies and think that is reality.

there is no RAM coating... these aren't stealth helicopters.