Why the Army chose Bell’s tiltrotor over Sikorsky’s pusher-compound-rotor design derived 

not giving a real reason why this design over the other program and saying bell has long history supporting military, gives me a bad taste in mouth.

In my opinion, there's one factor that I suspect played a large part in the decision that only a few people have touched on: The relative achievements of the two technologies in the demonstrations. Bell would announce what they were going to do next and then just go out and do it. In a straightforward manner and didn't parse language when they met or exceeded all the requirements and all of their promises. They did what they said they'd do when they said they would, and except towards the very end thy didn't take snipes at the other guys. The Defaint (and the S-97, for that matter) were late, would announce an upcoming goal and when it would be demonstrated and then when it wasn't achieved they'd just be silent about it. For example, the Army's schedule for JMR-TD was first flight in 2017, a year's flight demonstrations where the technologies would demonstrate their promised capabilities as they related to Army criteria in 2018, after which Army would spend 2019 evaluating the test data before deciding in 202 which technology to take further into development. Valor flew as scheduled in 2019. They couldn't get Defiant into the air until 2019, and then in a relatively short time they had to ground it for more work before resuming demonstrations. Valor flew its first Army pilot two months after first flight. Defiant took nearly 2 1/2 years. Defiant flew far fewer hours than Valor. Sikorsky kept saying it was OK because they were providing lots of data from simulations. The thing is, until you actually go out and do the thing for real, there's no way to validate whether your simulations are accurate. For example, Bell could have said the V-280 could do Mach 2 because they did it in simulations. Valor would show high agility in the hover, Sikorsky would brag about their low altitude banks , but leave out the fact that they were moving forward at a good clip, which makes high bank angles easier. They'd talk about their ability to rapidly accelerate after takeoff in a level attitude thanks to the prop, but the videos would show it heading out nose down just like a regular helo. Or, they would announce a new sustained speed achieved, but leave out that it was achieved in a shallow dive. And so on and so forth. Now my point in this case is not to address the relative performance advantages/disadvantages of the promised capabilities of the two technologies. Defiant, for example, if a production aircraft meets the promises, will HOGE hot and high much better than Bell's promises for Valor (although it will meet the Army's requirement). Valor is faster. What I'm getting at is that if in addition to relative promised performance, they're trying to decide which technology generates more confidence that it'll deliver on its claims, from the demonstrations Valor wins that hands down. Some might say that's because there's less experience with X2 but so what? That's not the taxpayers problem, and it further buttresses the Army's choice. Army is not going to come right out and say that, they're going to wait for the protest to be heard and then use what happened in the demonstrations as further justification for their choice.

The only thing I'd be concerned about is the footprint for an LZ. If anyone has studied Vietnam you'd know that in a jungle environment it is important to fit as many landing zones in a field as possible. This thing is so wide that I can see this being a problem. But I guess it was chosen because the pros outweighed the cons.

One thing Bell smartly did was to get rid of the full-tilting engine nacelle, which proved to cause no end of trouble with the V-22 in terms of both aerodynamics and mechanical reliability. In essence, it went back to the design from the original XV-3 experimental helicopter from the 1950's.

The speed of the aircraft gets the attention but two other factors helped the V-280 win. The range, which is a major increase over the UH-60 and better than the SB-1, gives air assault planners all sorts of possibilities in future conflicts. The other selling point is bell and rolls Royce offered the engine on the V-22 to power the aircraft if the engine the army is developing for these aircraft runs into problems or delays (program risk). It was the safer bet for army aviation. I’d still like to see the army acquire the S-97 so they could get the best of both designs.

I am very surprised Bell won. I thought the defiant would take it. However the idea of having this escorted by Bell V-247 UAV's, seems amazing.

The army needs both Valor and Defiant.

A bonus for the Army is that this decision can piss off both the Air Force and the Navy. The Air Force as this now lets the Army stick their foot across the line of operating armed fixed wing aircraft, and the Navy as they would probably prefer the Defiant-X (this was a joint evaluation program) due to the horrible experience they are having with the constructive interference downdraft between the rotors of Ospreys making it a nightmare to land tilt rotor aircraft on ships at sea. In the end, both models will likely go to production with the Valor for the Army and the Defiant-X for the Navy.

The V-280 kicked butt! Exceeded almost every criteria the Army set well before the Defiant was even airborne. The Bell team did an outstanding job! Wish I could be at Rucker when the V-280s arrive in number to inaugurate this leap forward in Army aviation.

How is this going to work in Urban warfare with tight buildings It's really wide

The 280 is based on a proven design the Osprey. The Defiant X is new and unproven. However I believe the coaxial pusher prop may be the future of reconnaissance and attack helicopter.

It's political, the armed services alternate suppliers to keep at least two independent manufacturers working continuously, Blackhawk was Sikorsky/Boeing, they will have work maintaining the Blackhawk into the future, Bell won because if they didn't they would struggle for a future. Politically keeping both suppliers working and keeping voters employed is what counts most, not which is superior when they are both this close.

This is the right choice Bell makes a great helicopter they're also very good at Budget on time no over costs and proven technology over the last decade faster farther easier transport for troops sliding doors fly bye wire plus with new tilt when troops land no wind blowing everything around the air shoots out the back don't have to cover eye's this is all very important for troops to get in the fight much quicker without stress this aircraft is the right choice by far Bell deserves this it must be a great price for to beat out a company like Lockheed with all there connection tells me a whole lot this aircraft is very good 😊👍

A very sensible decision. The Tiltrotor has so much longer range, because it is more like an airplane. It has less inside the cabin, because it doesn't need a shaft going to the back. There will be applications where the other design would be superior, but the speed and range is awesome, and the Osprey design has been proven to work. That they would protest the decision is stupid; the mission requirements made the tiltrotor design the obvious choice.

I’m sure when the Army kills as many soldiers as Marines in Osprey’s they will figure out its a bad design, especially when one engine looses power.

How to award a no bid contract while making it look like a "contest" The V-280 definitely does not fit inside the same footprint area or less of a Blackhawk so they just ignored that particular stipulation of the competition for Bell Textron while other competitors abided by it. Aside from that the V-280 isn't even a new platform, it's just a reduced sized V-22 that only angles the propellers instead of the whole wing along with the props and engine nacelles. Another case of a misleading military contract "contest" favoring a pre-existing design because it's already "proven". A tilt-rotor design inherently has major advantages in speed and range over a helicopter. So why did the Army mislead the competitors into thinking they were "replacing" the Blackhawk when clearly they wanted the specific speed and range advantages of a tilt-rotor?

While "best value" is not the same as most capable, the Army's risk averse position saw potential to build upon Osprey near-commonality and familiarity for maintainers and flight crew. With such a hard Osprey learning curve -and phenomena still struggling to understand- the Army is sensitive to even more unproven tech. It didn't help that Defiant had rotor dev issues while Valor racked-up significant flight time. Also, The Valor also fits better with long range assault payload. There were just so many points to juggle. But, don't cry: The Defiant may yet find some love; the game is not over.

The Valor can go twice as far in half the time, and will be the best thing the Army has ever bought

This new V-280 ‘s safety is better than old V-22 …….❤❤🎉🎉

The Army's need for speed and range is easily the top reason why Bell's Valor beat Sikorsky's Defiant. While I'm no tilt-rotor fan, the Osprey has given the services some hard lessons learned in operating this type of aircraft.

US military needs both.

The wing gives valor the edge in efficiency over long range flight

When I served in the armed forces, we were always told to remember, your weapons and equipment were made by the lowest bidder. 😁

We need a replacement for the black hawk because we left all of them in Afghanistan.

Sikorsky filed a protest.

It is clearly the right choice for the army, an airplane is what they need, an airplane with VTOL capabilities and that is that a tilt-rotor aircraft is, a VTOL airplane. Why? because they need to transport troops and equipment, as much and as fast as possible and a Helicopter is just not up for that task, even if it can reach speeds close to that of a subsonic airplane, it will always lack range compared to a tilt-rotor. Why? Because the helicopter uses fuel to stay aloft in addition to the fuel it uses to produce forward motion. An aircraft only needs to use fuel to provide forward motion, the lift part is taken care of by the wind resistance that forward motions causes, by means of its wings. Now there are many use cases where a helicopter is better suited, in some, much better, yet as an army personell and equipment transporter, often needing to fly large distances, fast and non stop, that's where the tilt-rotor shines. What surprises me though is that this hasn't been done a long time ago, for this use-case, the advantages of a tilt-rotor should be obvious for anyone with basic understanding of flight. Cause it is not like Tiltrotors where just invented yesterday, they have been around for quite some time.

USA , ты лучшая ❗❗❗ Спасибо за помощь Украине ❤

If the Army was smart they would buy both Bell and Sikorsky systems. The Bell for SF, Rangers and other special force units and Sikorsky for everyone else.

Normal for Army. Buy the more complex machine. Buy one that can not run on one rotor. Push rotor looks like better design.

Lousy maneuvering, horrible downwash, poor hydraulics, large footprint, high failure rate, useless in close combat. All it has is dash speed because it’s an airplane at its core. The Army will regret this lousy decision. The only reason Bell won this is that they threatened to go out of business if they didn’t get the bid. Epic FAIL!

Answer... Bell paid more for the win

Bad choice in my opinion. The Defiant X is a better platform.

its amazing since valor looks wider with it wing but have the similar footprint with blackhawk. how about defiant?

They chose it cos it's a whopping 100 mph faster, and more range. Both are essential characteristics for the military.

i live near an army aviation field... i just hope the damn thing is quieter. plus... the reason bell got it is because boeing/sikorsky is getting the attack helicopter. got to spread the money around.

This design looks to be an eventual regional transport vehicle that will be capable of serving a wider area and carry cargo perfect for areas like Alaska/Yukon.

I have a question. How will the Army deploy its divisions while using the Valor. It can’t be easily placed into an aircraft, boat, nor even placed on to a lowboy to be moved In order to do so you would have to first, box the blades and the wings. This is a difficult and long process., measured in days. With the Defiant you just fold the blades back and tie them off; a process which takes just a few minutes. For the Defiant, deploying is a matter of a few minutes work on either end. I have heard say that the Valor is a tilt-rotor, just like the Osprey, a “proven concept”. I reject this thought out of hand. What the Osprey is: is a Hanger-Queen. It is a very maintenance intensive aircraft. For the Navy this can be made to work. They bring their maintenance assets with them. The Army can’t. The Army works in a very diffferent world from the Navy. The Navy’s world requires crossing vast stretches of water, where speed is king, and you have all maintenance assets a ship can carry. The Army on the other hand can never break contact with the enemy. Their aviation assets are just a few dozen miles outside of artillery range. They hide under trees and cammo nets, and move their support assets by trucks on unimproved road networks. And then maintain their birds with a few cases of oil, a hand full of tools, and a shockingly small set of spare parts. It surprises me that the Army would choose an aircraft the will cost them several days more on their deployment time tables, and then will overtax their maintenance capabilities when finally make contact with the enemy.

All cooperating manufacturers and civil servants need to be required to improve their efficiency across the board! Speed ​​up the contracting process and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy and lengthy litigation. This plan was proposed in 2009, tested in 2017, and signed for mass production in 2022. It has been delayed for too long. The entire project, from proposal to full-speed mass production, requires manufacturers to comply with the timeline, which cannot exceed 7 years. If SB-1 adopts fully autonomous driving and corrects the problems, it will also need to be adopted and mass-produced at the same time. With fully autonomous driving, the design architecture can prioritize performance-based innovation over safety.

Doesn’t make sense you cannot fight fires or do any disaster response It merely moves soldiers faster longer. What about the other missions that the Blackhawk does? You are not sling loading long distances with the rotors in the vertical position. So the Army also has to rebuild all their hangers also because it is a much bigger footprint. This just doesn’t make sense I think the Army needs both platforms.

As a former army aviator I kind of like it better than the Defiant. That thing would have real problems landing in unimproved areas due to the low clearance of the prop on the back. The Bell product on the other hand is going to struggle with crosswinds due to the HUGE sails on the back. Just an arm chair analysis but overall I like the Bell better.

Because the fix was in! Kick backs anyone?

It is hard for me to just look at the and say one is better than the other. I do think the delays in the Defiant X to the competition are a red flag. I think the speed and range of the V-280 came into play plus the lessons learned in the tiltrotor technology for the Osprey. That counter-rotating mechanism on top seemed oversized and over-engineered. The Russians have had the tech fielded for years and we do not see them with any advantage that is a game changer.

He got a fat under the table check. The army will have to trash the bell eventually and go right back to the Sikorsky

Love the concept, BUT. At least you won't have to worry about leaving a man behind. If this gets shot down, any shootdown by hitting one engine, everyone on board is going down QUICK. There is no auto-rotating, correct? Defiant X may not be revolutionary, but I suggest that is what you want in the field. And yes, arm chair general with nothing but common sense to work off of..... Transport, great. Sea duty, awesome! Front line?

When your aircraft is based on new technology and you are having development problems its no surprise your offering wasn't selected for a major project.

Choose BOTH...Sikorsky can access smaller area of landing (shown by the clip in the jungle/everglades) and the Bell for speed. Both are going to be useful for different, as well as overlapping, missions. Yes, I understand duplication of support teams, but there is room for both. We certainly already have multiple helicopters for various missions (the Huey, the Apache, the Scout, etc). Just saying...:) ...signed--from a wanabe warrior, but too old at 69!!

My son is a Blackhawk pilot in the Army and is glad he will be retired before the tilt rotor goes operational (if it actually ever does). He’d like to live to enjoy his retirement

the pentagon released the report of the decision. basically sikorsky said it would be $6 billion cheaper than the v280 but provided 0 evidence to support that claim. in basic terms sikorsky disqualified itself because its proposal was incomplete and/or inaccurate

The tilt rotor has less rotating parts and has fewer points of failure seems to me.

It the old days a plane that was drafted on paper but never put into production was referred to as a, "paper airplane." Way cooler name than "digital airplane."

The more I see the bell the more I like it over the competitors. It travels further and faster, it can support more weight and thus more armour. It is more reliable in combat situations, one engine rota failing can be supported by the other, where as the other copter looks like a maintenance nightmare, snd has all the same weaknesses as the black hawk. It has its drawback I.e. landing diameter and reduced carry space inside. But the positives outweigh..

Why not buy both... The traditional tilt rotor design is better for in close tight situations that the bell solution will not be able to support whereas situations requiring more speed and distance of travel would be well suited to Bell... Different horses for different courses...

As a former active duty serviceman I am wonderig about the survivability of the crew and men on board the aircraft. I have been in several helo crashes and walked away with every one else on board. That happened because the rotor still turned and allowed for a"softer" landing. If the Valor is hit on one of it's ncells won't it just spiral in outting everyone on board at risk? I guess only time will tell but i am abit concerened on that.. I would love to be proven wrong because it IS an amazing aircraft but safety of my men is paramount in my mind. They have enough to deal with in combat with out concern over mode of transport

The compound helicopter is a far better design than any tilt-rotor. They are going to regret this.

A big target! I’d prefer the Defiant from Sikorsky.

Bell is making a revolution again, just as Bell did in the mid-20th century with the UH-1.

I would be surprised to see the selection contested, lockheed is a lead on the defiant and is partnered on the V-280, they are making money either way and they will prob get the armed scout award now. Honestly this selection went backwards from what I thought was going to happen I figured Sikorsky would win the uh-60 replacement and bell was going to win the armed scout program, if bell wins both then Sikorsky (lockmart) will have a meltdown.

The Marines have proven the utility of the design. The Army took note.

this smells a lot like the decision mechanics between the YF-23 and 22, the wrong one was chosen and was operated a few years only. today everyone goes back to the YF-23 concept. see the f-a/xx concepts. whatever made them decide for the tilt, it was not what was asked for and it is not the aircraft that made the difference.

The Army chose Bell's product as it is simply better. Does everything better. More complicated, yes. But better. Faster, farther, stronger. On an non important point, they both look cool.

You have massively jumped the gun. It was cleared for further development. A standard hurtle that happens several times before a system is actually adopted. In the recent new rifle acquisition, there were several rounds of cleared for further development. The Comanche was cleared for further development too, but you don't see them anywhere. Be patient. It might win, it might not. In layman's terms all that has happened is to announce that the game will advance to the second half.

Defiant X is more refine and modern looking, more sophistacared in look and design, but the only thing I was rooting for is this because simply of the tilt rotors

Seems to me that any battle damage to one the Valor’s engines will result in a catastrophic total loss of the aircraft.

Defiant X looks like a superior design. Lets hope the V-280 doesn't end up killing like the Osprey.

Crazy thing is that Boeing(Sikorsky) actually pioneered the valor's prop moving instead of the whole nacelle when tiltrotors were first being tested. Bell originally had the whole nacelle moving which is what the v22 went with.

well now i know who has the best lobbying strength

The capabilities of the Defiant were so overwhelming, the Army did not have anyone qualified to evaluate it.

"best value" is creative word for Bribe money. that's why its sooooo difficult to give an example without getting arrested.

One of the other services should go with the Sikorski helo to have both capabilities in the DoD inventory.

The only certainty is that it will take twice as long to come into service and cost 4 times more than originally promised.

Seems like the V-280 would present a huge radar and acoustic target vs. the smaller, nimbler Defiant, but who knows... The X2 tech in the Defiant is clearly the future, which is why it wasn't as far ahead in development. Hopefully X2 will have a better shot as a scout helicopter.

Seems to include a transmission to be able to tilt the rotor while leaving the power plant stationary. The more complex a machine, the higher the probability of failure.

to me it's easy to see why...the DOD needed to diversify its major projects amongst the defense companies Northrup(B21), Boeing(KC46), Lockheed(F35/others), and Textron(V-280)....Textron also lost out on the small arms contract that the Army just decided on so this probably helped soften the blow

I think we should have both, they complement each other.

the gunship variant of v280 would be able to carry a lot of ammunition inside that body, maybe one opening in the body releasing missiles and under or beside the body a machine gun

No auto-rotate, less nimble (obviously turns slowly and can not move directly left or right), if damaged it seems as if it will not be repairable, It seems to have a bigger footprint on the ground. It seems the army just wants the speed. Not saying that is bad, but they are giving up a lot.

Good luck transporting this monstrosity inside c-130 or c-17 aircraft.

Huge blow to Connecticut and sikorsky heard rumors day of this announcement many people started to look for new jobs with nearly a 7billion dollar missed opportunity i think there'll be some lay offs

Not sure how much disassembly is required for the Sikorsky Defiant but for transport in a cargo plane,its static vertical height looks like a problem.

It might partly be that the Bell represents a known technology; it's an improved version of the Osprey, with various of its problems addressed. Whereas the Defiant is new and untried, or at least not tried here: There's one military having extensive experience with stacked contra-rotors - and it ain't ours. Rather the opposite, in fact.

They will spend additional billions to make sure the Bell works for them and no mistake was made. It will be hilarious.

So let's just say Ford & Dodge built the Defiant X and Honda & Toyota built the Valor. 😉

Can the tilt mechanism every fail?? If it does, then how can it land? The propeller goes far below the bottom of the aircraft. If it tries to land without tilting the propellers up, they will strike the ground and cause a crash, I think. What could the crew do to survive??

I believe this is a good choice, although somewhat ironic. The Army did not want anything to do with the Marine Corps' Osprey program.

Boeing should not receive another penny from taxpayers. As a matter of fact let’s look at the numbers follow the money reimbursed the taxpayers and prosecute all politicians who are on the take

It looks to me that the mechanical complexity of the 280 is much greater than the alternative.

The Bell should awarded 100%

since the Bell also uses rotors it's wrong to say it would be more capable than a copter.

It’ll never be fielded. It’s worthless to the army. It has the same combat range as the Blackhawk. It’s hover ceiling is significantly lower than any traditional helicopter and it’s troop payload is slightly less. It may be faster but that comes with a cost, fuel. The army needs an helicopter that’s in between the ch53 and uh60.

Good day thanks for the support and help 🙂

This choice doesn't make any sense. The footprint for the Valor is over 30 ft wider than the UH-60. The Army also forgot how many people died getting the Osprey into service. Lastly, NO AUTOROTATION capability. A lot of soldiers are going to die in this flying coffin.

Valor will be twice as expensive to operate. I’d like to see both landing full of troops in the desert

waste of money , Lives, and military strength, but congratulatons on the success of the scam

Weird that they went with such a bulky design that's basically a poor man's Osprey.

There's a good deal of assuming that the LZ will be wide enough for this aircraft. Saw a guy with an OH58 put a skid on an NVA bunker and then toss grenades through the MG slit.

The Marine Corps proved the concept as a force multiplier considering we have less troops now, more complicated alliances & base arrangements, and need to get them farther faster now. And in todays battlefield, speed means safety compared to the helicopter that can be a sitting duck for man portables and AA systems. Bell has already proved they can deliver the concept with the Osprey, but also that they have learned the limitations & improved on it. They deserved the contract.

The best and right choice

it offers more almost in every aspect, the ctritic about the safety of this design is not based on data, in real case scenario speed , range and capacity will safe more lives and do every mission that traditional Helikopters can do better.

Needless to say it won’t be on a flight deck. So Bell and the Army can have at it

Thinking they need to go back to Area 51 and beg for some new technology.