Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant Takes Flight 

Its 40 years old tech mate. Loo up the ah56 predecessor to the ah64, we should have had it 50 years ago. Its old technology

@@markhuckercelticcrossbows7887 okay cool guy

It seemed quieter than a Blackhawk but it's hard to tell with a video. Definitely not as much heavy and hard thwap thwap which you can hear for miles from the Blackhawk..

Doctor beeeees

i wanna see the girls you’re into 💀

Also the big rotors are a too easy shot for a rpg

It's difficult to win the blackhawk's design tho

@@ColVedo Wrong and wrong. This has been designed to be less vulnerable to anti air missiles than other helicopters (which don't aim for the rotors but the exhaust or tail) and it isn't based on the blackhawk airframe. This is an entirely new aircraft.

@@BeKindToBirds Dont worry hes just been plaiying too much Battlefield

@@ColVedo not really, infact 2 rotors eliminate the need for a tail roter. Ihe problem with helis with 1 tail rotor like the blackbird, is that if the tail roter gets damaged, the heli is done for and will enter an uncontrollable spin. 2 main rotors elimate that problem.

Kexin No, just beating the air into submission.

Russians did that in the 60s itself with their kamovs. Nothing new here, just contrarotating rotors.

@@maximumeffort966 Point me to a Russian compound helicopter with coaxial rotors, or a coaxial in this weight class. You can't, because they don't exist. This is also ignoring the fact that the American XH-44 coaxial flew in 1944.

Thankfully I'm not the only one who sees that

@@maximumeffort966 there is a bit more to this than contrarotating rotors here. Here they use fixed rotors and a pusher prop. All these technologies combined create a powerful combo.

And how is that a bad thing?

The contra spinning rotor blades actually allow for more stability and more efficient lift.

@@evanjones5571 While eliminating the need for a tail rotor to cancel out the main rotor's torque. But if those rotors come out of sync, whether they're coaxial as shown here, tandem like the Ch-47 Chinook, or the K-Max's inter-meshing rotors, once they're out of sync, you're fucked.

@@starrlynn2523 That is true and I hadn't thought of that. But at the same time isn't the likely hood of them actually going out of sync very low due to internal synchronizers and gear boxes which make it so the two rotors have to contra-rotate in sync to move at all? I'm not that knowledgeable in engineering or aircraft.

@@evanjones5571 I believe so, but it's still a possibility.

Your country mastered the contrarotating rotors long time ago with your kamovs. Nothing new here.

To be fair guys, Sikorsky was a russian bloke

@@Nalothisal Nope he was not.

@@thegreatdogzilla5855 how daft do you have to be his name is Russian he was born in the Russian empire now Ukraine

@@kmagentbolo No he is Ukrainian.

I agree. They can probably replace the Apache with this technology.

This is the utility version, the attack variant is going to look like a cross between this and an AH1 cobra.

@@jmdesertadventures803 you're probably thinking of the S-97 Raider.

“Toothless” is who you would be referring to matey.

You're damn right she is and when sikorsky comes out with the attack version it will have an insane parts commonality with this one sorta like the huey and the cobra have now.

ка-27 4000кг go for it compare!

@@NeoSanktum That is a slow helicopter. It does not have a tail prop.

For jet it can be smth like harrier third generation.

So the VTOL from Black Ops 2 ?

G.I. Joe

Yes but you still will have the cyclic, just forward and back are a bit less stress on the twin rotors, going extremely fast, in the opposite direction. Eeks.

They reverse pitch the pusher prop to go backwards.

Stfu. The xh44 flew way before the russians even know that the coxial rotors exist.

It wouldn't be able to meet the cruise speed requirement of >250kn without the push propeller. Not sure what makes you think it only works for dash speed? As for propeller safety, first of all there is a big elevator/rudder blocking and second it doesn't even spin when landing as the clutch for it can be disengaged.

@@Mediiiicc - The elevator/rudder do not block that pusher prop AT ALL. They're in front of it and to the side. The pusher prop is extremely dangerous in its current position, which will inevitably end in fatalities, just like with normal tail rotors. The pusher prop CAN be disengaged, but typically isn't, as there has been a lot of video of it landing and taking off with the pusher prop fully engaged. Had it been ducted, it would have been a bit safer, and probably quieter, but that obviously wasn't a concern.

@@meadmaker4525 Ah yes I see now, the soldiers will disembark the aircraft then duck/crawl under the elevators as normal procedure . Keep trying to make a problem out of something that isn't why don't you.

@@Mediiiicc - You don't know anything about helicopters do you? It isn't the soldiers who are typically injured and killed, it's the ground crew. But they don't matter, right? The biggest cause of death related to helicopters is the tail rotor, which is typically at about head and chest height and is almost invisible when running. The pusher prop is larger and even lower, and ground crew operating around the rear of the helicopter will be able to walk right into it, or if left in pull configuration, will get sucked right into it. So, yeah, keep denying there's a problem while people continue to die from it why don't you. Smh.

@@meadmaker4525 If it was a problem the military would have fixed all their blackhawks already.

Quieter than others

Rumor has it, this is louder than the Bell Valor when the pusher prop is running... Have to wait for the specs though... Just rumor

@@JeffreyMalatesta Honestly I prefer the valor over this, it sounds softer to the ears and there's no added whirring noise during high-speed forward flight

You should hear the 53’s 46’s and blackhawks. That’s really not that far away.

Living near the Stfd plant exposes us to flyovers from Blackhawks, CH-53s, and Ospreys. Only the Osprey rearranges nick-nacks and furniture; it's not a stealthy beast. I think counterrotors can be designed quieter than tiltrotors - IMHO.

Likely, the S-97 is meant to replace the Little Bird, the SB-1 is meant to replace the Blackhawk

It's a helicopter?

So are stealth planes. It's about the radar, not sound dummy

Stealth = can’t hear. Lmao

@ww ww Aren't they busy with trying to find a replacement for the Apache too then? The FARA program or whatever it's called?

@spikedpsycho Putting aside the problems of complexity and cost the insurmountable problem with tiltrotors is the necessary compromise between disk loading and prop drag. Basically they are a poorly performing helicopter that turns into a poorly performing airplane. This is an insurmountable problem because no matter what advancements occur in engine and rotor design those same advancements can also be applied to traditional helicopters. They have their niche applications but they are in no way a replacement for an actual helicopter as they will NEVER be able to match the vertical lift capacity and efficiency and maneuverability in hover of a traditional helicopter.

Bell did coaxial designs first, with the AH-63. The reason why you call it Russian is because the Apache was picked instead for political reasons despite being much less capable.

Yeah we should keep an old design with half the range and half the speed instead of upgrading. Makes sense to me!

2 X the speed and 2 X the range. Lighter, stronger, more stable and can fly at higher altitudes. Besides, China builds a Black Hawk and you can't confuse these two.

I too vote for an upgrade. 70 years was obviously tested true.

Ты не видел наш К 52!!!! Этот при сравнении просто игрушка

Параща Ка52 этот никому ненужный

For speed. Show me a Kamov that can cruise >250kn.

@@Mediiiicc Sure will once they add a pusher prop :P Yea i see good point 👍 Europecopter x3 is faster by a few mph but only because it has dual props on each side

To push speed and acceleration ,,without that rotor,,no advantage like kamov had..

As are all military helicopters.

@@Mediiiicc Plus fighter jets, stealth be darned you'll be going def just from the engines.

Well I think the physics used to allow this and vehicles like it to take flight will always be relatively noisy. However the fact that you can hear the turbine engine whine through the sound of the props punching through the air is a pretty good indication to me that the thing is fairly quiet given my first statement.

This aircraft is not loud compared to conventional helicopters. When I was on recon patrol you could hear the Huey before you see them. On average two mile away. When you hear the SB-1, it’s too late. It’s well within its range to deploy weapons. It’s very quiet.

Yes it is.

вообще сравнивать стоит с ка-27, и тут эта какула проиграет по всем параметрам ,начиная с цены)))

That chopper looks stupid asf and can not replace the black hawk it also it to dam big and would most likely not be able to land in the same place this is abeyyer design for a black hawk type job

Do you know who Igor Sikorsky is? As in Sikorsky helicopters, the people who developed this helicopter. He's from Russia...well, Ukraine specifically, and they've been doing helicopters much better and much longer than the US. The Mi-8, Mi-24, Ka-32 and Ka-52 outperform any other helicopters in their class. Russia has been using coaxial rotor technology for decades because it not only works, it's superior to single rotor helicopters in every single way. As for being a variation on a theme, this is an EVOLUTION of the coaxial rotor concept, with new fly-by-wire control systems and cutting-edge composite rotor blades. Frankly, I'm amazed it took them so long to adopt coaxial design given its superior performance, but I'm glad it's finally here. I wouldn't be surprised if the Defiant and Raider win their respective categories and go into production to replace the Blackhawk and Kiowa/Cobra. Bell's Invictus might give them a run for their money, but it won't out-perform Sikorsky's offerings.

@@missouripatriot6926 So your main arguments are it looks stupid and needs a slightly larger landing space? Show me a Blackhawk landing in a small space, you cant because they would never risk such a thing.

@@meadmaker4525 Sikorsky is Lockheed now.

@@Mediiiicc a blackhawk can land in a small space if it needs to unlike that and it is a bigger target and has more of a chance to hit something m this seems like a better replacement for the osprey

Close. It’s at Sikorsky’s flight test facility in Palm Beach, FL.

@이대환 I'm just Russian) Sikorsky, by the way, too)) Yes, a good helicopter, not a jealous bro.)

@이대환 all good

@@Aert He is not russian.

@@thegreatdogzilla5855 WHOSE? KA-50 russian helicopter

Что?

от руцкого там уже нет нечего... всё организм умер. теперь он Американец !!!

@@hubblespace200 от руцкого только дурь\вопрос то дурацкий вам же хрен что докажешь\как можно доказать лишнехромосомному\это патология\пойми\все в рай?\КТО ТАМ БЫЛ ИЛИ ВЕРНУЛСЯ\\УРЯ\УРЯ И ОПРАВДАНИЯ\естественно всех обвинять\хотя болезнь в ас а лечите всех\ну все тупые\

Nobody understands the diarrhea coming out of your face

No

If the reporting over the last few years has been correct, Sikorsky had been funding this internally. They havent been raiding the DoD coffers to build this.

This is the dumbest design I've ever seen in rotor flight. Sad that this is the best Boeing engineers could come up with.

@@NoPulseForRussians it was a design Sikorsky had in the works for about 10-20 years. Boeing just got in on the project.

Tony Villegas Holy words, because replacing the Blackhawk with a defiant is a useless waste of money, and then the defiant is considered the worst misshapen helicopter in history. Instead of the replacement, they have to focus more on modernizing the Blackhawks.

@@NoPulseForRussians Show me a better design that can fly >250kn. Thanks.