The US INSANE Helicopters That Never Fly #shorts 

A lot of it has to do with who is behind the company and investors, shareholders if the politicians arnt involved in the company the they won't choose the company to skim as much taxpayer money as they can

​@@kurtasee2314why ya gotta be giving up political secrets?

Dam right it's why we are number one in the world

@@Rick-np9vz right though some people get laid big bucks for this info l00l

@@pofuno that is not always a good thing! Because we got more idiots per capita than any other country in the world! And I for one am not proud of that ranking!

If they don’t spend more their budget will be diminished

Word🤯

Can't have somebody just win a bid saying they'll build it for a $100, but end up charging millions more per airframe once the production starts either

its because obviously it being so much cheaper that it seems a scam or some crazy shit is going on behind the scenes

@@youngsandwich967 When Lockheed and Northrup were competing for the 5th gen fighter, Northrup had a few corruption scandals just a couple years prior, and they were running enormous cost overruns on the B-2 Spirit program, which heavily influence the Pentagon to select Lockheed with their prototype to continue the program. If your last project was running way over budget, then the chances are that your next one will probably be doing the same. Not sure what Sikorsky has done recently (besides few safety issues and grounding of the entire fleet of S-92 helicopters a few years ago), but one would have to look in the last 5-6 orders/programs and see if they are running over budget, or if the fleet ends up staying grounded more time than flying, or it could be that another Sikorsky program (CH-53) carries the infamous US Navy's "crown" of having the highest accident rate. All in all, multiple considerations are going in when the decision is being contemplated, price is just one of them, and if the price seems like it's too low and going to skyrocket later - that project will get canned. Same thing is with previous programs, and their success/ failure will play into the overall decision.

This is much cooler than the Comanche by about 120 m.p.h. !

@@Rick-np9vz I'll take the Comanche anyway 😏

@@SOU6900 actually that 120mph is a gross understatement This thing has been over 350mph which is about twice as fast as the Comanche! But I get you the Comanche looks cooler!

@@Rick-np9vz No, the AH-64 Apache is the king of combat choppers!

@@chrismayer3919 only because! And you're aware of why!

... the Valor was better in nearly everyway...

​@@n3v3rforgott3n9was!!?

​@@n3v3rforgott3n9And it worked

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Nom nom

We need something with more advanced equipment. Its like buying a very cool and fast car that doesn't have ABS, heated seats, and other advanced features. You can install these parts yourself but it would cost you soooo much more than if you just bought one with these features installed by the manufacturer.

...& & & the stable helicopter wouldn't crash 5% as much as the tiltrotor does.

Yeah we already have plenty of helicopters that will do that

Yeah we already have plenty of helicopters that will do that

especially in the tilt rotor craft ​@@shaftomite007

Can they do it over 250 mph

Well so does bell they’re both helicopter manufacturers

@@jackrussellthevrgamer4209 which invented the helicopter first?

CH-53 mishap record says otherwise.

@@chrismayer3919 That is not a good argument, Who invented the airplane? Who invented the car?Also Sikorsky didn't invent the helicopter.

@@Guranga93 the Wright Brothers; Daimler Benz; and Mother Nature invented the first (flower) helicopter!

I get to drive by the Sky Crane factory regularly.

The Burj Khalifa in Dubai is the world's tallest free standing structure

​@@bentonmarcum8924 it wasn't always

@@bentonmarcum8924 He is speaking of when it was built. Not the record today.

​@@bentonmarcum8924: He's referring to that specific time mate. English much?

👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍💯👍!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sir, you are absolutely correct, and what makes it worse is that they don't get the more expensive one because it's a better design, they get it so the generals, admirals, and defense companies can stuff their pockets

​@@jimmyb4728you didn't do any research into the program if you think that...

The Cheyenne had a significant problem with the dynamics of its rigid rotor system, an issue they couldn't resolve within the timeframe of the selection process. The Apache is a fine piece of equipment. The Cheyenne could have been as well, but a failure mode that can decapitate the pilot is pretty problematic.

@@rohlfing63 According to the report, that rigid rotor system was fixed, but just barely in time. This happened again with the Sikorsky helicopter, but maybe they will use the Sikorsky helicopter for Special Military Operations.

Or it stands for, CANCELLED. 😂

thats what the process for selecting aircraft is. dont make stupid comments without understanding how things work.

@@acel2413 Maybe you don't understand how things work! I'm retired navy and I've seen lots of failures, that cost taxpayers lots of money.

@@gcb345 the reason why i said that was under the impression the guy was implying that the military decided to build the helicopter just because and not because they have to shop around and select the better one for their needs.

@@acel2413 It looks like you love having your taxes wasted on defense equipments. People like you love to complain about national debt but you refuse to do the math. Remember Roman empire 😂😂😂😂😂

seen results of the empire making hundrds of rogue criminal events very far from home only to mantain the level of stealing taxpayers money and the criminal behavior of politic demoniac projects

Nah, Sikorsky likely overspent and gets force to merge into one of the Big Two.

Greatstuff 🏁🎖️👏

Y'all do know Boeing AND Sikorsky made the Defiant X right? BOEING!!!!

I feel sorry for the taxpayers who are getting soaked yet again to build stuff we don't need so the big swinging pricks in DC can pretend they matter.

That is sick! Funny AF! But still sick. . .#peopletastelikepork

You got that right!

pork barrelling is one of America most ancient institutions. 🐷👌

Lol. Except sikorsky got a different contract. Let's not be dumb people. In this case, you want all of your military manufacturers to stay in business and maintain production capacity. It's an investment. And both craft are great. Hell, lots of people think the F22 isn't as good as the other plane it beat. And yet you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that means the F22 isn't pretty damn impressive.

I agree. It's not a good idea to keep using an imperfect design that has resulted in dozens of American servicemembers deaths, all from accidents. They need to fix the design or park them forever

@@peterrooney3780 it's not exactly the same

@@thomasvelazquez9789 I know. The tilt rotor design is what I'm seeing they need to perfect or get rid of

@@peterrooney3780 Like it or not, almost every military aviation platform has a painful entry into service. Going through training to be a Marine Corps pilot, the saying was NATOPS is written in blood. Cutting edge aircraft flying in high risk environments on high risk missions.

@@vicariousjohnson9823 these things are crashing on routine missions and training. The platform itself is high risk, without much reward. The clutch sucks and they've never fixed the problem. I've ridden in ospreys in Iraq, they weren't that impressive besides being able to carry some more people. To go down with the aircraft when it crashes because of poor design.

Try mi-24 or mi_24....u should find me

Crazy fast?? 50 knots/hour SLOWER than the V-280.

I also met Ken, the pilot of that flight.

The Defiant was completely outclassed...

Research that especially the latest Osprey which actually differs from the Army 280 it will be fine and extremely capable

The army has had ospreys for quite a while now. I flew in one in the early 2000s

@@thomasvelazquez9789 thats good. My buddy was in the Marines and they were always afraid of them due to all the crashes. Said when to rotors pitch forward it was a sickening feeling like you were dropping.

@@peterrooney3780 nice. I thought only the Marines got paired with them bc thats all i really see

​@@peterrooney3780 The Army doesn't have Osprey.

Yeah, but the Valor was more crappy and expensive making them able to spend more money unnecessary.

It is not replacing the Chinook. The osprey does not crash more than similar platforms.

Osprey is more comple. The 280 valor sampler then osprey. Valor using just tilted enigine. Much less to brake. Osprey whole wing move, along with the enigine.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The Osprey does crash more often...... you really need to look at the reports.

@EzraCannon-xp9is and you need to stop getting all of your info from social media. The osprey brings in clicks, so they report on any incident with it. Meanwhile, 11 black hawks crashed in 2023 alone. The Air Force operates both the osprey and black hawk. Their ospreys sit at 1.02 annual crash rate over the last 10 years. Their black hawks sit at 1.70...

youtube is withholding a lot more than that, free speech is nothing but a dream in today's society

What do you expect from seditious traitors.

​@@B.A.D._MXI didn't hear him asking about Trump supporters 😂😂😂

No rational-minded person would believe you have anything worthy to say. You can't even punctuate "country's" properly.

Wut ?

Maybe it can have a parachute capsule like some sketches shown

​@@saltyfloridaman7163whilst the rest of the passengers pray for a quick death 😂 right.

Wrong

exactly go WOKE go broke

I'm sure every pilot would trust and perfer this helicopter

And their bid was flying several years earlier than Defiant, and bet all speed and range goals, while Sikorsky's bid struggled with vibration

The GAO basically called out sikorsky for trying to low ball the contract trying to secure it and not able to back up their numbers.

You are right.

Why would they cancel when they were this close to perfect this aircraft. It takes a lot of time! Are we all impatient nowadays?

@@jusjetz I'm paraphrasing but the military said they've analyzed the war in Ukraine and determined that drones were better. I was upset too when I found out it was being cancelled

I thought they picked that tilt rotor design, which was not as kick ass as this helicopter.

It was the Sikorsky Raider X that was cancelled in FARA but it shares the push rotor and dual rotor design just as an attack helicopter

Sadly no, because of ITAR and export control issues. Our government has become terminally stupid and corrupt.

Unlikely, I'm pretty sure you need a large order before you can start mass production, they can't afford to set all that up then hope to sell them. Also, it depends if the US gov would let them export it.

If the US Army is already turning it down because of the price, among other things, which country will be able and willing to afford this thing? I don't know of any.

@gerhardma4687 the united states isn't the only country that got money. my point is if you got a superior product if national security don't prevent from being sold. why not produce and sell. don't sound very capitalistic it's corporate welfare prevent it.

Tilt rotors are not more dangerous than other similar platforms...

That's aviation in general.

Not as many as died in the development of the Blackhawk

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The platform is inherently less safe than normal rotorcraft. They cannot auto-rotate, so losing just one engine will cause an unrecoverable crash.

@@nercksrule Tiltrotors have a crash rate of 3.2. Helicopters crash rate of 9.8

It was just worse.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 uh that's not entirely true!

​@Rick-np9vz slower, shorter range, carried less people, worse acceleration and deceleration, along with having multiple technical issues which resulted in 18 months of delays and a crash of one of the prototypes...

The GAO basically accused sikorsky of low balling the bid trying to secure it as they were unable to back up their data on the costs, and with multiple technical issues, they were bound to have cost overruns.

Defiant X would have more maneuverability to get in and out safer directly on a battlefield compared to the Valor.

Could it add to stability of the blades? (Sorry if it’s a dumb question)

​@@voidalcreations3291sounds about right

@@voidalcreations3291 it could thats why I raised the comment about the strap packs? Considering the full housing of the main rotor heads does it relieve stress from them.

The Defiant was just worse than the Valor in nearly every metric...

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I don't know much about it, but the Valor looks like it's got almost twice the speed of Blackhawk helicopter, but it's only an effective troop personnel carrier. Can it carry equipment too?

@@GeoDelGonzo YT keeps not showing my comments... The Valor sling loaded 10k lbs in testing which is enough to sling load an M777A2.

The V-280 is a new design, not the already in service Osprey. If the V-280 doesn't suffer from the issues that grounded the Ospreys, why would this matter?

What! They are flying

​@@YouHaventSeenMeRight The BIG issue w the Osprey design is what to do when an engine loses power while landing... If you have 2 engines mounted far enough away from the centre of gravity, your ride is an accident waiting to happen. So stupid.

@@ericstyles3724 You don't even know the basics of the design yet are so against it...

they solve the problem with osprey so the army is confident to use valor because of faster deployment and cargo

Sounds like someone has their hand in the pot since the tilt rotor is going to cost us tax payers more money. The Osprey plagued with problems and so many died testing it in the first place. It was almost cancelled many times, so why would they think this alternative would be any better? But these representatives have inside information and probably will make a fortune in investments after the Army takes delivery!!!

Sounds like someone has their hand in the pot since the tilt rotor is going to cost us tax payers more money. The Osprey plagued with problems and so many died testing it in the first place. It was almost cancelled many times, so why would they think this alternative would be any better? But these representatives have inside information and probably will make a fortune in investments after the Army takes delivery!!!

​@TheScreaminTiger you sound like someone who has done zero research...

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Not much research needed, the tilt rotor have been and maint headache since day one, you could know that by watching the news. Not to mention the entire fleet has been grounded more then once.

Something something 52 Cant put my finger on it tho

Still safer than many other helicopters...

It lost the competition....

You’re gonna be mad when you realize the Boeing made chinooks 60+ yrs old and they’re producing BLK 2 chinooks now🤣

It is not a shape meant for stealth...

​@@n3v3rforgott3n9 But... it's got stealth shapes

@@vitopannucci2001 Not really. Aerodynamic shapes, yes.

@vitopannucci2001 aerodynamic shape you mean...

@@vitopannucci2001 the hell does a “stealth shape” mean? It looks sleek maybe? Yeah that’s aerodynamics, efficiency & also a tad of cool factor (officers honestly like cool factors, no joke)

Wow said as someone who didn't follow the program at all... They even lowered the range requirements for the Defiant so it didn't get disqualified right away, as it couldn't reach those requirements without the newer engine they had planned in the far long future. The commission basically accused Sikorsky of low balling the bid trying to secure it. They could not prove the reasonings for the costs they proposed and failed to meet other requirements of the program due to multiple delays due to technical issues.

That's why the Vietnam War was dragged out. Johnson was from Texas. Bell Helicopter Texas. Kennedy killed in Texas. Bell sold a LOT of helicopters during Vietnam.

@@nuevision8 what a reach...

Defiant was a monstrosity that never reached its claimed capabilities. Bell's aircraft did everything they said it could.

You didn't do any research at all...

Sounds like the military is striving not to win a war again🤔👎

Design was copy cat from Russian , propulsion 😅😅

@@jambiarbi4073 shows how little you know...

You need to look up the facts and not blindly follow people on social media.

Better every year though. It was kinda rough on me the way it killed operators for way too long. I just don't know if it's still very dangerous. Training accidents really suck. It just breaks my heart to hear we lost men in an accident.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 The Naval Air Command just declared that Ospreys are only allowed to operate within 30 minutes of a divertable airfield.

@nercksrule I'm not finding that anywhere I am only seeing that they cleared them after the recent investigation was finished.

Put down the pipe, that thing looks ridiculous.

You are basing this one what? Some fool from Tiktok claiming the president can't fly on an Osprey?

They chose the crappy more expensive one instead.

@@kallah4999 The Valor outclassed the Defiant HAHA.

The defiant was just worse... also the Valor only has a 19% larger footprint.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 that’s still significantly larger than the Blackhawk witch would now limit the aircraft to fewer landing zones than the black hawk

​@@americanspartan2420 It would be able to carry more troops per football field of space. It can land in any LZ that a Black Hawk would use that isn't up to the blades on all 4 sides of the Black Hawk, which is already a shit LZ. Not to mention it does not have a low tail rotor to worry about hitting low level obstacles with like cars or people... Finally, it opens up many more possible LZs with its range.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 so let’s gist say this valor is as god tier as you say and not based off the currently grounded fleet of osprey, then why the fuck is it replacing a large chunk of the army’s attack helicopters?

@@americanspartan2420 It isn't though... currently it is only slated to replace the Black Hawks. Also, why could the Valor not perform an attack role? The Ospreys are also not grounded anymore, and it is common procedure in the aerospace industry to ground similar airframes if a mechanical issue is suspected. These policies were created by blood... like the Black Hawk crashing 20+ times in the first 6 years of its service... Side note, imagine if someone looked at the very first helicopter and said "nope we can't advance this technology because it is too dangerous"...

The GAO accused sikorsky of low balling the bid trying to get it without being able to prove the costs would be what they were. Not to mention the high likelihood of cost overruns with the issues their aircraft had.

But why!? 💥

@@dansweda712 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

GAO basically accused sikorsky of low balling the bid on purpose, trying to get the contract. They said sikorsky couldn't prove the costs would be what they are and even more so with the high likelihood of cost overruns as their tech was not mature and had multiple delays and issues in testing. Not to mention, because of those delays, they could not provide real data to back up their claims.

@@n3v3rforgott3n9 What Boeing did with the KC-X program to replace the KC-135 Stratotankers. Airbus had a better bid with the A330 MRTT, then Boeing lowballed and their bid was picked of the KC-767 instead of Airbus. Then as usual Boeing fumbled and wasn't able to produce the KC-767 (KC-46 Pegasus) until 2013, while Airbus had their A330 MRTTs happily flying in 2007 without any sort of issues. Today in 2024, the KC-46 Pegasus still has numerous faults and issues and costs about half more than the A330 MRTT. Boeing just needs a complete restructuring and leadership change. All their branches are just faltering left right and center.

@@kurosumomo Yea frankly Sikorsky dropped the ball with this contract. Even without the other aircraft being overall better the airframe they brought into the competition was far from complete and couldn't do half of the stuff they said it would be able to. It had 18 months of delays and multiple technical issues with a not mature design.

So they should have chosen the worse aircraft?

@@n3v3rforgott3n9i wouldn’t trust a tilt rotor craft with my life, would you? If you lose one engine it’s over for everyone one board… no possible autorotation. You’re falling out to the sky for sure

@@Sauce_Sensei What will happen if you lose and engine that will end everyone life? The driveshaft between them will just transfer power from the operating engine.

@@Sauce_Sensei Auto rotation has never been used in combat in the US military so your point is moot.

@Sauce_Sensei no... you don't even understand the basics of the platform. Tilt rotors can fly on a single engine. The rotors are mechanically connected and can't turn without the other one turning, this is the same setup the Chinook has. Also, early tilt rotor prototypes proved they can autorotate and glide. Besides, that is a dumb thing to focus on as autorotation has not saved a large multiengine military helicopter in decades. Finally, if you look at the Air Force stats, you will see their ospreys have a better crash rate than their h60s even.

Sikorsky is an American company started by Igor Sikorsky who was a Russian-American.

​@@OptimusOne which mean whoever cancel it were racist

It was acquired by Lockheed Martin

In the beginning it says, "The Sikorsky Boeing DefiantX."

No

It's likely too tall, but sikorsky hasn't released detailed info on its size.

So you are saying the Russians copied the France first?

The blades spin in opposite directions. That should eliminate retreating blade stall.

@@jeffputman3504 No it won't. It'll just eliminate the torque on the fuselage.

@@jeffputman3504 Instead the retreating blade stall on the blades cause one blade to twist up, and the other to twist down, which causes them to impact each other. This happened on the KA-50 which is why so few were made and they designed the KA-52 which had the blades further apart. This design can have the blades so close together as it uses rigid blades instead of flexible ones like traditional helicopters. Although this causes vibration issues which they have yet to fix.

You don't have a clue what you are talking about...