Sikorsky challenges US Army's helicopter award 

Its shows US cannot afford anymore.

I think that some of each design are the best result, but the extra cost of two designs may be prohibited buy budget limits. The winning design doesn't seem to fit confined areas very well

Defiant has not resolved issues with coaxial prop stability at high speeds and no one know how many billions and how long it will take to make it functional and safe. V280 is a matured design with decades of experience through the Osprey program. DOD has no time nor money to waste anymore on shiny new toys that take decades to develop when the near future threats they face from near peer adversaries are here and real.

@@williamcole464 The Valor has a 19% larger footprint that is it. This is like saying the Black Hawk can't replace the Huey because it is bigger...

yes was there for that and it was political not performance that was ruling the decisions.

Where did you let Airbus ON THIS????

Hold up, you know how long helicopters been around, a lot long than tilt rotors. Army wants a fix wing platform. When you really and I mean really look at what both have to offer Valor is not the right choice.

I agree. I was rooting for the Sikorsky Defiant to win, but the Valor’s speed and range is undeniably better.

@@KC_Smooth Defiant is likely to get up to those speeds with it's new engine. Honestly I doubt the Army will pivot from Bell b/c it's about suits at this point. Supposedly Sikorsky has some business issues. This isn't about getting our troops the best. Valor can't do a lot of what the Black Hawk can do that it actually needs to do. Such as fly low in tight terrain even if to avoid enemy pursuit or saams radar. That top speed and range they keep bragging about comes down when you factor in an actual load.

Yes, and Sikorsky should never have competed in a competition they had no chance of winning. FLRAA was designed for the Valor to win. Just like FARA is designed for the Raider X to win.

@@dct124 "The right choice" is an aircraft that could do vertical landing/take-off & do it safely with hundreds to thousands of hours of data to back it up.... one able to carry a dozen to 30 or so soldiers, per flight, flying faster & longer in distance than previous aircraft that could do before needing to refuel. Either Sikorsky matches those stats or it doesn't. Other features are secondary in importance. These companies have spent a life time crafting their specialty crafts, so, naturally, when an opponent beat them at the final selection, it hurts psychologically and financially. But as the YF-22 and YF-23 showed, only one could win. Similar to the YF-23, the Sikorsky likely is too complex to work right now, even though it is more traditional than the tilt-rotor V280. There is no question, if Sikorsky could get the speed and range of the Defiant to be the same as the V280, the Army likely would go with it, because of its better agility; but agility is not the most important feature, for a transport aircraft. Rather than protest, Sikorsky should start to work on an ATTACK helicopter, using the Defiant.... so in a few years, it could replace the Apache and Viper.... because an attack helicopter's most important feature WOULD BE agility, yes!

Agree. Clearly they need something that can hop island to island like the Marines in a much faster and longer range Defiant is more for urban warfare.

Believe it or not better the valor actually out performed the defiant on agility. So as long it can clear width or say top of buildings, the valor can more nimbly navigate into the areas and dynamically exfil from those areas. There was also major concerns with faults discovered that weren’t easily addressed right away while valor was racking up a lot of hours for validation and further tests. They were able to demonstrate more capabilities and limits to give the army more of a idea. Sikorsky could do the same which hampered them. The same issue was a major driver in the F-15 replacement contract. When f-22 got into more agility demonstrations and Northrop didn’t do the same it put doubts or abilities. One way to out fox your competition is to do something they can. It expanding capabilities they your platform offers. Obviously they have to closely align intents for the new system to make it even more of a touch point. Agility for dog fights for a air superiority or maneuverability to land and take off quicker. That stuff matters alot to the PM’s and Generals backing the program.

Helicopters have been made obsolete by the Valor and the V-22 osprey

For accuracy, Defiant-X didn't crash, it's never even been built, only the Defiant demonstrator and it didn't crash. Raider crashed due to software error.

You ever been in a V-22?

Technically they're both fast in comparison to a conventional helicopter. But the V-280 is definitely the faster of the two.

If speed alone were the only objective, that would be correct, but It's large wing span would seem to preclude confined areas of operations. Think of The Vietnam conflict, and the ability to operate in that type of terrain.

Serious question here, why does everyone keep saying unproven technology and maintenance nightmare when to me it looks like they just traded a tail rotor for a pusher prop which I’m sure has been done in several helicopters if for nothing other than technology demonstrators. Iirc didn’t the AH-53a cheyenne have a pusher propeller? Wasn’t that designed by Lockheed as well? I know the Defiant was Sikorsky but iirc it’s owned by Lockheed now anyways. It always reminded me of the Cheyenne which is why I was rooting for it even tho I hate Lockheed as I think they overcharge the government, spend to much on lobbyists, and get mad and throw a fit the few times they haven’t gotten chosen. I’ve just really wanted us to field a pusher prop AH and as much as I love Bells design imho it seems like Army is picking it for all the same reasons they stayed away from the Osprey and only to compete with the Air Force for CAS!! If it was me I’d order 100 of each and make a couple units of each or a few mixed units and operate them for five years before committing to one or the other or ordering more of both. Yes there could be some overlap in both systems but I think it’s possible both could find a place!! Never thought I’d be saying anything positive about a Lockheed company but man that Sikorsky is nice!! Cheyenne 2.0

Cost Guard doesn't have the money to take Defaint all the way from a technology demonstrator (not even a prototype) to production, and the relatively small quantity they need would make the unit price astronomical. Coast Guard tends to buy 'copters developed for someone else and then modify them to their needs.

@@tararaboomdiay7442 Exactly. It surprises me how little most posters here understand the time and expense to develope and Flight Test an aircraft.

New 20mm nose cannon?

Yeah because look at how awful that damn F-22 is. Twenty plus years old and still the deadliest air to air fighter in the world.

@@bryanrussell6679 The YF-23 was the better plane and it still is, no wonder that all new airframes resembles this concept.

if anything, the FARA should go to sikorsky, as a helo is better as a gunship than a tiltrotor, but the FLRAA is about speed and capacity, which a titlrotor exceeds in. I somewhat understand the hate the osprey got, but it is a proper reliable aircraft now. people usually site "oh b-but it ant autorotate" as a reason to hate the osprey, but if if your aircraft is going down in a warzone, the engine likely wont be the thing to fail anyways

@@F-14D_Tomcat From what I see, at least a "ejection seat" I also a possibility with Valor. And I'm sure they can compensate for a "gunship mode", with todays technology.

@@millanferende6723 Actually a "gunship" Valor would be able to do a lot of A-10's jobs

@Magamonster That really does not address my point. The V-280 is slated to replace the V-22 Osprey, so yes the concept is proven. But the coaxial helicopter is also a very proven concept, for example the Ka-50 Black Shark is a coaxial from the 80's. And the Defiant has the "push/ pull" prop, which again has great possibilities for inserts the V-280 won't match.

I get the feeling Sikorsky has alot to do with your income.

@@CommentConqueror you should really work on your feelings then.

The V-280 Valor is not and has never been a replacement for the V-22 Osprey. I really don't know where you get such information. None of the predecessors of the Sikorski SB-1 Defiant X has been a long term Commercial or Military success. The SB-1 Defiant X has no more maneuverability in tight situations than the V-280 Valor. It also has a larger operational footprint. You should research both Blackhawk replacement options thoroughly before you make comments you can't support.

Will provide the combat radius needed for possible island hooping in a Pacific conflict with China?

Can the tiltrotor make a vertical takeoff fully loaded? What is max takeoff weight vs coax?

How do you think the V280 Will fair in the SPECOPS Mission??

@@boobtuber06 who knows ask the guy with an rpg

@@sinisterisrandom8537 Who is the guy with rpg?

If you think the V280 is easier to maintain and adapt then you have no clue what you are talking about as coaxial rotors are easier to maintain then the awful tilt rotors.

@@DeathlordSlavik Coaxial rotor is not easy to maintain and above all it also have tail pusher rotor all in all it has 16 blades compare to 6 blades V 280 valor. Defiant X is a nightmare for maintenance.

At least the Valor can fly.

Not to mention it actually works. Sikorsky doesn’t even have a working alternative…

I agree with you. We need something ASAP.

Oh yeah absolutely not until some guy with an RPG shoots the Damn thing out of the sky due to it being a large damn profile.

@@sinisterisrandom8537 What helicopter can not be shot down and how many helicopter have you and your terrorist shot down? Talk is cheap but shooting down a high flying helicopter with RPG is pure luck. By the way defiant is not the size of an ant.

except the Valor met NONE of the requirements given, AND is based off a platform that has killed more us service members in crashes, so much so that it has been fucking grounded.

@@MrWarren1991 Sounds like cope from a fanboy

@@themeddite2935 O.o just look at the size difference the requirements where to be the size of a blackhawk not 2-3 times larger.

@@MrWarren1991 it met the requirements else the US army won't award the contract

@@fumie4996 you my good sir should go look at the requirements and then see that the valor is WAY bigger than intended and based off a platform that has litterally ben grounded more time than it has been able to be used in service since the V-22 Osprey has been grounded more than it is serviceable and has killed more service member due to issues completely out of their control, TYPICALLY in training....You really need to learn the politics behind the decisions that are made for our Military. I hope for our service members and my tax dollars sake, this tilt rotor is better than the last at getting troops from A-B without turning into a kamikaze

And increase cost of development, logistic and maintenance so some sore loser corporation executives don't lose their bonus?

Hugely increases logistics to cover - mostly - the same niche. From the military's perspective, it's probably better to aquire a different platform that has some traits of Defiant but is better optimized - say, light transport, recon and attack.

unproven technology?... The Ka-50 is there proving the technology since 1990 !!

@@robertocampos150 It doesn't use the same coaxial design... least look shit up. Also Russia has lost 50%+ of their entire KA-52 fleet in Ukraine so far so IDK if you should use that example.

But doesn't that happen often? I don't follow modern aircraft development but I would think a prototype will have a lot of bugs

@@tooththrhr It doesn't happen as often as one would think. Yes, they are prototypes, but they are flown within very strict parameters when they do take to the air. That's why you will find a lot of one of a kind prototypes in museums all around the world on display, so many fascinating aircraft of so many shapes and designs. Some look so strange when you see them that you actually have to ask yourself did it really fly. There are so many reasons as to why a prototype aircraft might crash that it would be difficult to accurately state why it happened and I wouldn't even try.

'KA-50 were shot down' That's just because the Russian used a wrong tactical moves. I imagine the US pilot would pop up from behind cover, finds the target, shot, go back down behind cover, and fly to another cover to engage target from different angle. Valor would be more noticeable, because it's two separate rotor. - - - The people & the army lost. I understand, this is to replace Blackhawk, not Apache. Defiant is equal with KA-50 (better because it's designed later) so it'll be a threat for Apache. [Political reason to scrap Defiant] I hope that the Marine would use Defiant. It's just more better at survival. -> Threat indicate of ground to air missile (actual missile or just rpg) - Defiant, simply, immediately, go down on small clearing, between trees. - Valor ? Valor are better develop, right now. Yeah, sure, but to replace Blackhawk, which also a helicopter, capable to land A.S.A.P. , mmmhh really? Is Valor a good aircraft? It is, if military wants to replace cargo plane. I personally would choose Defiant, it's just better, I have no need of range and more space(equipment) when I'm already dead. An army soldier choose Valor, after reading this ↑, I wish you . . good luck.

Because your garbage defiant X still has a problem in gear box, transmission, vibration etc etc.

Although flyoffs are great, they're expensive. What this was was each competitor demonstrating their technology and how well it worked and how likely a production aircraft could meet its promises. . Army then decided which technology to go with.

Because the Defiant had already lost on all parameters, so why waste time with a flyoff. Anyway in the 3+ years since the first flight the Defiant only had a total of 18 hours of flight time over 36 flights, an average of 30 minutes a flight. Pathetic.

Wouldn't be the first time military shit was rigged

As i can think of a lot of reasons to go with the Sikorsky design.

@@AugmentedGravity very true, I’d have ordered 100 of each and made a couple units of each or maybe a couple of combined units and operated them for five years and seen how things progressed before committing to one or the other or more orders of both!! Imho both could have found a place in the Army. The bell just convinced me more the Army is still trying to compete with the Air Force for CAS and seems like the same reasons they chose it was the same reasons they stayed away from the Osprey years ago!! Also ppl say the Sikorsky is unproven tech but the AH-56a Cheyenne had a pusher propeller to iirc and was a beautiful helicopter that never got fielded due to being ahead of its time and we got bogged down in a war at the time, to me it seems like a conventional helicopter with a pusher prop added and being as Sikorsky is owned by Lockheed iirc and Lockheed designed the Cheyenne I think it could have had a lot of influence on this design, sans the tail rotor cause iirc the Cheyenne had a pusher propeller and tail rotor!! All I’m saying is I think both could have found a home and both are better than what any other countries are producing. If I was Sikorsky I’d certainly not drop this design but shop it around Europe and Asia because someone would adopt it!!

I think they train them as helicopter pilots first because that is the flight model they will need to be most familiar with. There are dangers that helicopter pilots must know that fixed wing doesn't have to worry about. They also teach them fixed wing later on.

They had this with the V22. They took fixed wing pilots and trained them to fly helicopters, but they found it was easier to take helicopter pilots and train them to fly fixed wing.

bl8danjil is mostly right. they receive 32 weeks of Helicopter training followed by 20 weeks of Multi-Engine training and finally 20 weeks of Tiltrotor Simulator training before they are allowed to fly a Tiltrotor.

valor has a huge internal payload for cargo or people with the engines on the wings instead of taking up half the inside......

“Proven tech” 😂 the osprey is a nightmare for maintenance not only that but when you get shot down there is going to be no safe landing like in a helicopter

@@Ohhiohh So you came all the way from idiot land to talk about osprey? Sorry mate we are here celebrating V280 Valor victory.

Why no safe place to land in a V-280? Clearly you don’t know what you’re talking about.

This^. One size does not fit all.

Defiant -X is not a scout andr light attack aircraft and was never intended to be one. You are confusing it with Raider-X

@@tararaboomdiay7442 The Raider X is a Modular Platform, they already talk about it how it can change depending on the situation given.

You're talking about a logistical nightmare. All the significant points have been evaluated and the Valor has beat the Defiant on all of them. that's why the Army has chosen the Valor as the replacement for the Blackhawk and the Apache. And yes, in this case, one size does fit all!

Both the XV-15 and test models of the V-22 had ejection seats. You won't see them in the Valor the Army is presently planning to buy because that wouldn't instill a lot of confidence in the two door gunners and 14 troops also inside. If an attack version with just two crew came about, though, off-the-shelf ejection seats would be a good idea and easy to do..

Sikorsky and Boeing designed Defiant before Lockheed ate Sikorsky, and Valor is a pure Bell design. Lockheed was brought on board as a subcontractor to handle avionics integration.

The range is the obvious plus, but where the V-280 is going to fail miserably is in air assault missions. The most dangerous flight mode on those missions is from the release point to final approach and landing. And that's the exact point where the 280 has to be flying a constant, predictable deceleration as it's transitioning from flight to hover. I think it's going to be way too vulnerable to shoot-downs during air assaults.

Vertical lift of coax is an order of magnitude greater than tiltrotors. A victory for lobbyists.

Actually it will be easier to land valor. Any road is longer than it is wide. Valor footprint is longer than it is wide.

@@stephenwilkens3101 Your threat perception is outdated IMHO. In a near peer conflict, you guys will be facing MANPADs, not RPGs. Meaning your LZs will be further away from the objective on average. At least that is my understanding of it.

@@death_parade not entirely inaccurate, but the two points I'll counter with are 1) the counter-intelligence and early-warning systems of near-peer enemies are galaxies more advanced than the ones of the last 20 years so they'll be better equipped to determine and action our LZ's over greater distances. And 2) with specific regard to the MANPADS, speed alone can't defeat them; you need to be able to rapidly change your speed, altitude, and direction. All things that the Defiant does much better than the V-280, while having close to the same top speed as well.

They can't afford by themselves to develop it to the point where it would be operational, and wouldn't buy a sufficient quantity to make it practical.

Valor flew 305 knots (with more reportedly available) Top Speed, and sustained a cruise speed of 280 knots satisfying all test points before getting pulled apart for detailed examination of all components. SB>1 Top Speed demonstrated was only 247 knots, cruise was more like 230 knots. V-280 lifted 12,000 lbs vs SB>1 only 5,300 in testing. The requirements for FLRAA were met or exceeded by only one aircraft in testing and exhaustive examination by the ARMY.

@@irvhh143 are you drunk all those years of testing? Valor carry more troops and also out lift defiant. Go look it up.

@@irvhh143 stay stupid and dumb as long as you want to.

@@irvhh143 You might want to apologize, because Mike Love's right.

@@irvhh143 Again, regarding short takeoff, go look for yourself at what happened in the demonstrations.

Look the EUROPEAN TILT ROTOR no problem at all

They have. The Osprey now has the best operational accident data history of all Tiltrotors and Helicopters in Marine Service.

They will buy both. But a miniaturized version known as the Raider X for FARA. Yeah, Defiant is a better successor to the Blackhawk. Except the Blackhawk doesn’t need replacing and won’t be. Along side the Valor, Raider, it will continue doing what it does best, like utility role which the Defiant is completely expensive over kill for.

They can’t afford both

@@deanwood1338 Yes they can. It's always been their plan. FARA basically replaces the Apache attack helicopters. V280 replaces the UH-60 fleet.

@@ahill209 then it makes even less sense they didn’t pick defiant x as it would have had some commonality with the raider. So guessing bell will win the with invictus too

Valor has far longer range, far faster 1 less rotor, far more developed. Can work with 1 engine. Would be easier to land on roads. Essentially it eliminates need to ferry itself. It looks like no brainer.

They does not look like but they actually need more maintenance than conventional helicopter. They also both get faster, farther and more powerful than a conventional helicopter too so Army favor faster, farther and more powerful than that of less maintenance conventional stuff.

Valor is projected to be lower maintenance than current Blackhawk and Defiant X both.

It is 20% slower and has less than half the range... Not to mention carries less and worse acceleration and deceleration. Bell already proved that the Valor fits in current infrastructure.

It's no bigger than the Defiant so how can that matter?

"How long can the VALOUR hold a stationary hover?" ... Till it runs out of fuel... "It will be a great target if trying to do a hot assault." ... It can be in and out in half the time...

The foot print of the V-280 is almost the same as the Blackhawk.

Even if that's true, that's one point for Defiant and still many, many more points for Valor.

There is NO data that proves it is easier to land a helicopter in an Assault Configuration than it is for tiltrotors. If you can find such data, please provide it. Also the V-22 has provided the US Marines with exceptionally reliable service in conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, & Kuwait. If it were worse than it's predecessor it would have been replaced, instead it has also been adopted by the Navy and the Air Force for Special Operations.

And what happens if one wing tip in a tiltrotor is blown off by a missile hit?

Uh, no, no more danger of that than a CH-47/MH-47 having rotor blades contact each other. Only way that can happen is catastrophic failure of the combining transmission, or battle damage. When that happens the pylons separate from the airframe in short order.. I've seen it with my own eyes...

@@karlchilders5420 I agree, there is no possibility of the counter-rotating blades touching each other due to violent maneuvers of the helicopter, because the G forces will act on both blades so no mater how much they deform they will still be rotating at different levels. Besides, helicopters with counter rotating blades have been around for years. Also having the blades located centrally allows for autorotation should the engines fail. With the blades on the wing tips it would seem that should a wingtip, including the engine and rotor, is blown off by a missile hit, then the tilt-rotor would tend to flip, because of the force generated by the other prop. There was an incident of a Greek CH-47 experiencing a failure in the gear box some years ago and the rotors lost their synchronization and collided. The Chinook crashed into the sea near Mt. Athos killing everybody inside. The military helicopter was carrying the Orthodox Archbishop of Alexandria and all of Africa with his delegation to the monasteries in Mt. Athos in northern Greece. Fishermen who witnessed the crash said the helicopter fell like a rock into the sea.

@@FLORATOSOTHON That greek Chinook failure was exactly what I talked about - catastrophic failure of the combining transmission. That is the most critical part of the Chinook's drivetrain assembly. It syncs and separates those rotors along with balancing torque along the system. You have that thing fail, you're fucked. Period.

@@karlchilders5420 Very true. Best wishes for the new year 2023.

Tiltrotors don't rely on autorotation for survivability. It is very unlikely that both engines on a tiltrotor like the V-22 or the V-280 would go offline at the same time. If an engine on one of these tiltrotors did go out, there is a driveshaft between the two propellers that allows only one engine to operate both rotors to keep the Aircraft flying. I'm not sure of the V-22 but the V-280 has enough lift from it's wings to attempt a landing if both engines stop working.

Autorotation hasn't saved a multiengine military helicopter in decades. People who don't know anything say shit like this. Also a tilt rotor can autorotate and glide so also a moot point.

I believe one plan is to direct deploy them with aerial refueling and at some point AI will be integrated, so that the Helicopter/Plane will fly itself to the destination. At lease that's one of the plans that was mentioned in an interview I saw a couple weeks back. Overall the Valor looks like its closer to being a final product than the Defiant. If the the Defiant didn't have all of the problems in the development it probably would have swung in Sikorsky's direction. However, the undetermined cost to fix the Defiant's problems out weighed the fact that the Valor does a better job meeting the Army's requirements today. Maybe in a couple of years it will be a different conversation, but I don't see the Army changing their stance.

When they had the Kiowas, that was a HUGE value-add that they could have the scout helos deployed IMMEDIATELY when the ranger battalions were boots on the deck. When they gave up the Kiowa they lost that capability: none of the other helos would fit on a C-130 like that OH-58 did. :|

Army wants fast helo, the Valor can travel twice and carry more troops than Defiant. Valor may nor win a beauty contest but it usefulness is the utmost important. IMHO the Valor is very ugly 😁

@@Lewis-jn8ry even with aerial refueling how much fuel will they weigh ferrying those planes over there it would have been cheaper to put them on a C5 and and fly them over that way to a forward airfield plus you would not have the hazzard of in-flight refueling where something could go wrong.

@@karlchilders5420 you are absolutely right on that point

Wrong, Osprey and Valor are two completely different animals. Read up on the details of the V-280 Valor and you will see how it differs, in so many ways from the V-22 Osprey. And why would they be sorry to lose rotary capability? The Valor gives the same capabilities and has a smaller LZ footprint than the SB-1 Defiant. It's faster, flies farther, has greater hover/linger time, has greater load capacity(for troops, medivac, loadouts, ordinance), is easier and cheaper to repair, is more compartmentalized for easier tech upgrades, it's been flight tested for almost 20 times the hours, and if an engine goes out, it can still fly. What more can you want from an Aircraft?

Yes they will, esp given Sirkorsky is the encumbant and have dual contra rotar pushers that look pretty solid, while the tilt engine / rotars are a different beast, the Osprey tilts its engines and swivels its wing to fit better on carriers adding cost, weight & complexity, while the valor only tilts its rotars, still more of a fixed wing than a helo.

@@Stuff-i-Like "given Sirkorsky is the encumbant and have dual contra rotar pushers that look pretty solid" ... You mean it had multiple technical issues that resulted in a crash of a prototype and 18 months of delays...

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 so what, every military program always has issues, look at the f35 overuns for instance, shit even Boeing these days it seems can't build a reliable airliner due to culture of the mighty dollar and as per Elon, if you aint busting stuff you will never know the limiting factors and if they are worth addressing.