@@FoundAndExplained Hopefully Sikorski sees a future for this craft in the civilian market. I'd love to see more of them even if it means I will never be in one.
Already has, we’ve allowed politicians to be bought out, and cater to that for too long. We voted this way, this what we have gotten over the decades. Thank Reagan.
@@Argentvs not entirely correct: Gyrodynes have wings and can take off vertically. Autogyros also have forward propulsion and free rotor, but no wings nor true VTOL.
@@almerindaromeira8352 Gyrodines don't need wings. Wings were put in some models to hold the forward engines. Is just like helos have wings to hang weapons. Gyrodines only need forward propulsion being the main forward force. Helicopters have to tilt for it, Gyrodines use the propeller to lift mainly and forward momentum is given by a separated propulsion. Autogyros don't have vertical lift true, but they are rotorcraft.
@@almerindaromeira8352By "true" VTOL I assume you mean to exclude the ability of some autogyros to take off vertically by locking their broken and using the engine to create a strong enough draft to spin up the rotor and then lift off. If so, agreed. It's more of a party trick than a genuine ability.
1:56 you forgot Anton Flettner's work on the Fl 282 Kolibri predating Kamov, he solved the reactional torque issue with intermeshing rotors back in 1941 and brought that solution to Kaman Aircraft when he joined them after World War II. Kaman made the HH-43 Huskie with Flettner's rotor design and the type went on to be operated by three branches of the US military (USAF, USMC, USN) and made its name as one of the most prominent SAR aircraft in the earlier years of the Vietnam War until its retirement in the early 70s.
Intermeshing rotors was A) terribly shit design (there is a reason why no one after that used this trash afterwards), B) not coaxial rotor, but garbage design combining worst traits of tail rotor and coaxial with none of their strengths (see point A). Kamov actually did something that worked, was mass produced, and beat regular helicopters with ease. The only reason why the west didn't switch to that design as well is the fact their designers couldn't make working gearbox/dual propeller for it, Kamov design was simply lightyears ahead...
@@whyno713 Well they've tried twice now but it seems like somebody keeps deciding to cancel these projects, first with the Comanche and then with FARA project, somebody in the US is really stupid to keep cancelling these objective upgrades to the aging helicopter fleet, the US is already falling behind to Europe with things like the Eurocopter Tiger being more advanced than it.
@@eiite4578 They were looking at the new Lakotas in our fleet but had some issues with overheating IIRC. That's a sexy helicopter though. And sorry, but the Germans just abandoned the Tiger ... for the EU version of the Lakota - EC H145M.
You could have also mentioned the Lockheed ah56 Cheyenne since that predates the s69 in the 60s. They were in competition at the time but since they joined forces, they both would learned from their past mistakes and remedied them with the defiant
Note: This is a comment I made on another video regarding the FARA/FLV project, but fits for this video as well. I am highly concerned with this trend of over reliance on drones, while I do agree that the scout helicopter is kind of a dated concept and drones could better serve this role. However, we do need a more modern attack helicopter desperately as both our current platforms are quite long in the tooth, I mean the AH-64 has been in service for 38 years now and the AH-1 has been in service for 57 years, both of which are really starting to show their age quite badly. The Invictus would have been the perfect replacement for the AH-1's in USMC service given their extremely small proportions and would have easily fit on LPD's, LHD's, LSD's, CVN's and even the new ESB's all which could compensate for the Invictus individual lack of range. While I am a huge opponent of coaxial-rotor aircraft due to the larger vertical rotor profile they present, the Raider and arguably the Defiant would have likely served the Army's attack helicopter needs better than the Invictus would, since presumably they would operating from largely static as opposed to mobile "bases" like the USMC would likely operate from, plus the coaxial-rotor would afford the Raider/Defiant a larger payload capacity due to increased lift relative to its size. One of the other things I really dislike about that particular design aside from the coaxial-rotor is its unshrouded push propeller, I can foresee a lot of accidents be it from people or debris occurring because of that due to its height relative to the ground, thus shrouding it would greatly diminish those occurrences from happening and may (and I stress the may here) have a positive effect on noise production as well, much like how the Fenestron on the Dauphin reduces its noise profile. Suffice to say I think this was a really bad call on the part of the military, especially since I think our over reliance on drones is going to bite us in the ass in the near future in one way or another and especially since anti-drone tech is now rapidly developing as well and we have no idea where that is eventually going to go, in my opinion it is always good to have for lack of a better term a "analog" backup when the digital fails, hell its why we still train personnel on a compass despite GPS being virtually ubiquitous these days. So I'd say a smaller production run of the FARA options and not a 1:1 replacement of the Kiowa fleet with the rest of the fleet being taken up by drones would be the wisest decision. Note: In addition to those statements I think the SB-1 would be a good replacement for the AH-64, if they can get those engines they want on it, namely the Future Affordable Turbine Engine (FATE). The SB-1 design itself would be far more applicable than the Valor and or a derivative of the Valor for the attack role, I do not see a feasible method for mounting munitions on a tiltrotor without heavy risk to the aircraft and my stance on this is not without precedent, as they have struggled to mount even adequate self defense munitions on the Osprey already. Conversely I can see the SB-1 having a internal weapons bay (much like how they showed on the Raider models) and or stub wings affixed to the fuselage much like the AH-64 or AH-1 has, the SB-1 would have better better, speed, range, payload capacity, power to weight ratio and be more applicable for hot and high conditions something which was a issue in Afghanistan for example and would likely be a issue in the Pacific as well. Personally I think Sikorsky and Boeing (with the latter being the manufactures of the AH-64) should really push for the SB-1 being its replacement, as I am sure Boeing would not want to lose that market and I am also sure Sikorsky would likewise not want to have their only US military contract to be the CH-53 either, once the UH-60's are retired.
I'd like to point out that ain't no way that helicopter is nearly invisible to radar when it has not one, not two, but THREE spinning blades just out in the open. :D
You would be surprised how little of a radar return rotors give, especially ones designed to be stealthy. helicopters are actually very difficult to detect by most large/midsized radar setups do to how low they fly. Hell, helicopters already make excellent AA platforms, provided they have air-to-air missiles equipped and are flying low, because of how difficult they are to detect (at least against non-stealth aircraft, so just the F-35, F-22, and that Chinese 22 ripoff). The Apache for example has a very favorable K/D ratio (during combat exercises) against literally every (except the 22 and 35) aircraft sent against it. Mostly because the fighters usually don't realize the helis are there until they are moments from getting blown out of the air.
@@lcfflc3887 Coaxial helicopters are not just a better design all together. Sure they have their advantages, they are objectively more stable. Safer though? They are incredibly more complex then a traditional helicopter, and because of that are more prone to failures, and higher maintenance costs regardless how much you develop them.
It's the infamous "Cheyenne Curse" in US military helicopter history that started with the AH-56 Cheyenne. Basically whenever the US military R&D tries to develop a new helicopter and it has co-axial rotors and a pusher propeller, it is likely destined to fail. It's like those specific features jinx the program or something. The Defiant and Sikorsky Raider both had these features and sure enough both failed, though to be fair to the Raider, that one is more a victim of that *other* curse aka the "Comanche Curse" which is the one where if you take on a US Army proposal to develop a new helicopter, your efforts are bound to be wasted because the Army ALWAYS ends up cancelling the helicopter program eventually.
Cheyenne wasn't coax, it was cancelled because it had wings. Comanche curse doesn't make sense as the Army has adopted more helicopters than any branch. Stop fabricating stories.
Another advantage of coaxial rotor helicopters is that they eliminate the dissymmetry of lift associated with single rotor helicopters when traveling forward. When traveling forward in a single rotor, the blades advancing toward the direction of travel will experience greater lift while the retreating blades will experience less lift, causing the helicopter to roll. This effect worsens as you go faster. Single rotor helicopters get around this by adjusting the angle of attack of each blade depending on their direction of travel but the angle of attack can only be adjust so far before it starts to loose lift. In a coaxial rotor, because there are advancing and retreating blades on both sides of the helicopter, the lift is already symmetrical weather it’s moving forward or not.
It still gets effected by this and if it was a flexible rotor design the blades would end up hitting each other like it was for the KA-50 which is why they had to make the KA-52.
The problem is that while you somewhat fix the lift problem, you aren't reducing the drag of the vertical assembly and the rotor blades producing no lift half the time is a big waste of energy. There were some experiments in the past about slowing the rotors and switching to wing lift to reduce the rotor drag. I don't know if anything came out of it.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 1. They barely made any because they entered production in 1990 and the collapse of the USSR hampered it. 2. Your right coaxial was mastered by the Soviets with the first full production coaxial helicopter the Ka-15 in 1954 with over 300 made, which was followed by Ka-18 with over 100 made, which was followed by the Ka-25 with over 400 made, which was followed by the Ka-26 with over 600 made, which was followed by the Ka-27/32 with over 600 made, which was followed by the Ka-50/52 with over 100 made which was finally followed with the current most advanced version (non attack) the Ka-226 which over 200 have been made. 3. Ironic that you're accusing me of making stuff up when the Ka-52 was made because Air force wanted a dedicated Reconnaissance and anti tank aircraft, which is why the 52 has powerful electro optics and 2nd Gen thermals and 3rd gen night vision (with the 52M having 3rd gen and 4th gen)
somebody would have to make a multi billion dollar order of this and then yes they'll get back to work, you can't just order one lol, they'll laugh at you.
Pity they're going drones for all scouting. Thought the Raider might have been sensible for a little bird replacement. They'll have to market it to alpine theatres. Like Indian borders for instance. Or Coastguard.
My main issue with the V-280 is the huge landing area required with it's twin 35' discs side by side, granted not all landing areas are size compromised but when you are in a tight spot and need a lift, it is. I know the Blackhawk is getting long in the tooth, but it is still a very capable helicopter, and other than speed, there is really no urgent need to replace it. I think that the other issue I take with this program is trying to make a one fits all airframe, we have seen in the past that the Army, Navy and Marines don't play nicely together in the design room, it always leads to design compromises, cost over runs and delays, whilst trying to do the very opposite of that.
It's basically the same area as a Black Hawk or Huey though. They just make it more ovoid than triangle, but otherwise the two rotors have the same width side by side as the tip to tail of a normal helicopter. The Ospray and v280 have roughly the same Landing area on aircraft carriers as the old copter.
@@dannydaw59 Normal helicopter can do most job just fine with lower maintained cost, and if you want to go fast, US already have tilt-rotor like V-22 that is just better than counter rotating helicopter.
@@dannydaw59don’t need to. The little tail rotor does the same thing. Why add on extra huge ones on top for? More expensive, more maintenance. To make it worth it, you should add a pusher propeller.
@@dannydaw59 not sure but if I had to guess, the double top rotors give them more lift and power. Something western helicopters don’t need to do because their engines are better.
somewhere in separate places in the world, a Ukrainian soldier and a jihadist terrorist carrying their portable shoulder fire stinger missile system is LHAO while watching this video on their phone and saying something along the lines of 'obsolete already'.
You would be surprised. The V-280 looks big but it is actually quite small, especially compared to the V-22. Its a bit wider then the Blackhawk due two the rotors sticking out the side, but also shorter tail to nose by around 20%.
@@matthewsylvester9103 the v280 was 20ft wider. A big difference for a urban environment. It's also the same length basically. A better solution would be a Blackhawk esc aircraft. With two main rotors not one slightly smaller. Reducing width, and the trial rotor being replaced by a pushrotor. Now you have a fast transport aircraft that can deliver troops into tight spots.
Helicopters are superior for multiple reasons. First it's still highly maneuverable even when landing. Second it's engine don't have to rotate which reduces failure points and maintenance. Going for the flashy new thing isn't always the best choice.
Sikorsky knew, before they ever started that the co-axial design came with serious driveline complexity issues and more importantly, serious drag issues. Drag increases as the square of speed... all those rotor blades and that huge mast and hub up top were just an anchor, and SB-1 was never able to even come close to the required minumum sustainable speed, much less the desired dash speed. Next, being in rotor-borne flight is way less fuel efficient than wing-borne flight like the V-280 and the combat radius and ferry range of the two designs show that. So, for the Indo Pacific theater, the Sikorsky design offered something that was more complex (more maintenance / support logistics train), was too slow, and was far too short legged. The coaxial pusher helicopter is sort of a solution in search of a problem. Perhaps a normal helicopter with a tail rotor that converted to pusher, like one of the non-selected FARA proposals, or something like Piaseki's Speedhawk, or even Airbus' RACER might have been a simpler solution to offer.
Whenever I get asked why, while a friendly neighbor of our American friends...I'm always slightly nervous when they drop a few million and years of research and they say ... actually this is...too expensive... Not too expensive for us to have already burned through (what we in Canada call our entire military budget for 2 years) but, too expensive for us to put more into it... Thats a scary thing when your neighbor next door can not only afford to just build a tank, but can just scrap it saying...it seemed a bit much...to only then build a battleship because it seemed more practical 😂
I love these videos and a remarkable in depth and accuracy. I just keep getting triggered by blades that go backwards and reverse airfoils on some models
No... it has a 19% larger footprint in total and can fit nearly anywhere a Black Hawk could. Turn it 90 degrees and it can fit on any landing space the Black Hawk can that isn't limited up to the blades on all 4 sides.
If the helicopter is fast enough, then the blade tips go supersonic . Unlike a prop aircraft, you are not leaving the Shockwave behind. If your blades are short enough, you could increase speed and maintain lift with wings. Now you need adjustable blade length, which would require offset blades., and thats an issue , especially with harmonics
**It seems like the thought is: better a drone than a large, expensive aircraft with humans on board.** But from a longer view, FARA’s ignominious end isn’t all that surprising. This is now the fourth failed attempt by the Army to field a new scout helicopter in the last three decades. That the Army even launched FARA in 2018 raised eyebrows-high-risk tactical aerial reconnaissance, target designation, and strikes along frontlines saturated with anti-aircraft weapons are almost exactly the missions that armies are *using drones to perform today*.
A cool idea, but such a liability with all the complexity and difficulty. Ironic, too, that the better HELICOPTER loses to a better hybrid between copter and plane. I'd love to see these Defiants make a play for more pure chopper roles.
Great video, I really liked the graphics. The humor was great too. -- I was wondering about that pusher prop. Pusher props are notorious for overheating which is why we don’t see them much. I wonder if they’ve finally solved that problem efficiently?
Sounds like the intention was to drive the pusher prop off of the rotor gearbox similar to a conventional tail rotor. AFAIK the overheating problem with most pusher aircraft is that the prop wash doesn't cool the engine when the prop is mounted behind the engine.
I'm just wondering why the hell it took the Pentagon and the military so long to understand that helicopters with more rotor blades not only dampens the sound they make but makes the platform more stable.
Speed wasn't the issue. Air Force didn't like that AH-56 could do close air support, which they felt was their role. So they lobbied repeatedly against it.
Range of classical heli will never match a twin-rotor VTOL. The tips of the rotors will always be supersonic on one side. What they should have focused is the redundant safety of 3 propellers.
A coaxial rotor helicopter isn't affected by the dissymetry of lift since the rotors spin in the oppoiste directions and thus all the effects counteract themselves.
@@olekzajac5948 No they are still limited by blade stall. The Defiant tried to get around this with the pusher prop and wings giving 50% of the lift in forward flight. This made the main rotors not have to spin as fast increasing the max speed. Again it is simply not as good as a tilt rotor.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 They are affected by the retreating blade stall since the retreating blades still do stall at higher speeds, but it doesn't create lift dissymetry as the rotors spin in opposing directions so the blade stall occurs at both sides. This means that coaxial rotor compound helicopters don't need wings to maintain lift at higher speeds, unlike their classic counterparts. And that's why the Defiant doesn't have wings btw, contrary to what you said. The only helicopter from the Future Vertical Lift program that has stub wings is the Bell Invictus, and what rotor layout does it have? Classic one, with a single main rotor.
@@olekzajac5948 On coaxial like the Kamovs it causes the upper blade to collide with the lower one. Retreating blade stall brings the right side of the upper set down and the right side of the lower set up and as they move in opposite directions it causes catastrophic failure. That’s why VNE is really NEVER to be exceeded. This is likely why they had to go with a rigid rotor design on the Defiant and Raider with the extra pusher prop adding the needed extra thrust to reach the desired speeds. Still means coaxial helicopters are speed capped.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 Defaint had no wings. The function of the pusher was to provide separate thrust so that the X2 system did not have to provide All the lift and All the thrust. This allowed the rotors to turn slower delaying the point at which the speed of the rotor added to forward velocity of the aircraft added up to supersonic speeds at the rotor tips. This would theoretically permit the vehicle to travel faster before the tips went supersonic. The speeds still wouldn't have been what is achievable by a Tilt-Rotor, because when wingborne the blades don't have to provide any lift at all. In fact, when a Tilt-Rotor converts to wingborne flight, the rotors actually slow down. In any case, Defiant and Raide, never achieved even their own promised speeds.
I think that the Army is making a mistake by canceling FARA. They are trying to use drones because they want range and a smaller logistical tail. In Ukraine, drones did very well against a disorganized Russian advance, and Russian helicopters did very poorly when flying over enemy held territory. This is exactly what happened to the South Vietnamese in Vietnam and the Soviets in Afghanistan, yet people believe that this is some new revelation. FARA was already supposed to be able to deploy and work with drones. FPV drones won't have the range or firepower that FARA can provide. While we expect a fight in the Pacific, we need to be careful about overspecializing. I was hoping that FARA would be an Apache/Kiowa hybrid while FARA would be a Blackhawk/Predator hybrid.
Sad when sitting on anti gravity ufo tech. I've seen a UFO with my Dad in remote West Australia in 2013, not only seen it, it gave me my awakening. Seeing one with your own eyes after not really caring about the subject, is a life changing experience.
The Sikorsky RaiderX is a "near-fully" developed chopper and will be FULLY developed with the new, more powerful GE engine. A "skinny" RaiderX with a tandem seating arrangement like the Apache would make a very good replacement for the Apache attack helicopter - but only IF attack choppers are not obsoleted by advanced drones.
Raider-X was nowhere near being fully developed. There's no need for a skinny fuselage since Defiant and Valor are so fast. Weapons would mostly be carried internally to reduce drag.
Oh course the USMC would want range. They are often launching from ships and the further you can keep the ships from shore or the further you can push inland from the coast the better.
The problem is the cockpit. Especially for tandem seating RWA gunships, which require an equivalent dead weight tailboom as mass balance, hanging off the back. It is worth noting that the original ARTI and later LHX programs did a lot of work, looking at single-cockpit pilotage systems so that the relatively tiny T800 (initially 1,200shp, later 1,500shp) could work on a composite (ACAP) airframe with virtual aided pilotage (SHADOW) and fully automated mission systems based on a simple, finger on glass, 'point at the digital map where you think the bad man might hurt you...' sensor system which pre-cued sensors with mass video memory scanned image field sorting (EOTAS) to look for and ATC classify with TV, FLIR and (Longbow) MMW Radar targets. All without needing a human CPG onboard to scope dope integrate sensor and ELS big picture data on. The automation did it all and the pilot chose from thumbnails, which targets to hand off to what weapons system for ATHS datalink passage. Workload was still very high, with task saturation 'sanity checking' (cross-hemispheric function to catch up and do cognitive house-keeping before reordering active workloads) frequently overwhelming pilot instrumented EEG scans of brain activity. But so was conventional performance thanks to a (NOTAR) ducted tail propulsor, which could jet out a single, aft facing, propulsion stream from the tail as speed came on the airframe and normal AT rotor function was no longer needed. This allowed the hybrid/compound bell LHX to be quite spritely at ~200 knots, for its sleek, sharklike, conventional airframe class. Sadly, tail control was lacking at lower speeds and as signature began to add weight and egos began to treat an ambush scout/escort platform like an airshow stunt airframe, the focus upon SCAT (Scout Attack) began to be lost as platform cost of the then RAH-66 Comanche meant it had to take over Apache as well as Kiowa roles to justify the large airframe buy needed to maintain reasonable per-airframe PAUCs. The real shame being that the _liaison_ roled UTIL (Utility) platform was also cancelled to maintain the Comanche effort overall, and this destroyed Hughes/Boeing and Bell's market position as Eurocopter began to radically upgrade the Ecureil and BK-117 into competitors for the police, aeromedical, aerotaxi, traffic monitoring and offshore markets at price points better than the next increment up, 'luxury' S-76 and A-109 alternatives (which were faster but also heavier and not as economical to per-passenger operate). Conversely, the V-22 is a DANGEROUS airframe to fly, with the small diameter prop rotors generating high velocity thrust posts which are both difficult to work around in and subject to VRS stalls which suck the aircraft into CFIT based on such things as descent rate and even crossing over object/basing mode features like compound walls and hull edges. The Osprey is also enormously expensive for its CH-46 class lift in a CH-53 sized airframe and thus not on the Marine LHA/LHD airwing in sufficient numbers to really do first-wave over the beach air assaults (it is a STOM/SOF platform for Raiders and Recon). It also is too narrow cabined and so completely lacks any vehicle carriage options. Without drive-to-gunfire mode, modern infantry are unable to separate from a fire fight and your 60-100 million dollar vertiplane is at constant risk of catastrophic loss, coming in to grab them off a hot LZ. Risking the huge airframe to loss of power from a shot-out engine, too low and slow to surge the opposite side through the common gear box transfer shaft before the entire aircraft comes crashing to earth, _hard_. whereupon it promptly breaks its spine because it's transversely weak, right behind the cockpit, to sudden vertical loads. What a really great idea in a VTOL airframe! Now, take us out of the Cold War and look at systems like the A.160 and the MQ-8. Which not only replace the conventional pilotage system but ALL of the forward crew cockpit. What this potentially does, for a UAV remoted or cabin-area pilot, is allow the airframe to exit-forwards rather than aft with a smaller, liaison level, (6-8 men, or two litters and a medic/escort). And, in combination with UGV technology, bring the fight to the enemy without having men be involved in an artillery fight ala Ukraine. If the nose is short and split ala CH-37 Mojave, the cargo box is open and easy to enter for either a squad level lift or a utility/transport role with resupply. And because the nose is stubby, the tail can be too. Which keeps the weight down and the performance up, on a compound. The biggest problem with both the Valour and the Defiant is that they are still modeled on the Vietnam era approach of direct vertical envelopment as air assault and that simply does not happen on a modern battlefield where everyone has RPG and autofire and most have the ability to rapidly call RCL/Mortar/Rocket/MPAD/ATGW as well. Contrary to the intended effect of the MBC, Mine usage and production is actually up as the only thing which can protect isolated defensive forces and so just 'walking it in' is not practical. But nobody has considered how relevant a role a small liason (modern LOH equivalent) helicopter could be, if it could undertake dangerous and dull missions like forward area logistics and casevac via an ATV level, 'let the robot go first!' fast ground-scout or ambulance/supply truck could be. Because the Army, as a giant flying-union with an RWA inventory larger than many air forces total orbats, is Dead Set against integrating UAV technology. _Even Though_ one of the primary achievements of ARTI and LHX was demonstrating aided pilotage to include very low level NOE and approach to hover obstacle navigation with LiDAR and MMW systems like ROMEO. If the Army wants to move forward, as the loss of the Ukraine War portends a forthcoming loss of GRC dominant currency value for the Dollar, they are going to need to move to _much cheaper_ systems. With small, dedicated, auto-fly systems packages (few sensors but competent ones) in an overall airframe package which is about half that of current systems. With the switch to drones across the entire field of policing and traffic monitoring systems, you can buy a Eurocopter for about 4-5 million used and 7 million new. At that level, a 200 knot UAV RWA that could enable tiny outposts of 2-3 soldiers to control an 'open battlespace' ground domain with UGVs and be resupplied, casevac'd or even rotated, effectively, via ATV transports, in and out of forward positions without revealing (IR camouflage) their positions via direct overflight, would be a god send to the distributed network enabled battlefield. Since our armies keep getting smaller, thanks to the quadruplets of stupidity known as DIE/LGBTQ 'loyalty testing', inadequate salary, over-deployment and high expectations of lethality thanks to dated hardware and doctrine, the need is to go lighter/smaller, not bigger and more expensive. Something Ukraine is finally showing to be a fatal flaw in the American 'Super Weapon' concept of wunder waffling of hyper expensive, low inventory, weapons platforms. You wait and see: End of the day, the future of military and civilian vertical lift (due to economics alone) will be a Hummingbird light weight shell with a CH-54 equivalent payload box between hybrid-wing landing gear sponsons to offload either an ABC or conventional rotor system and a UAV nose without cockpit extension as mass/CG bloom on a nearly tailless, X-2 or K-Max styled fuselage with vectoring propulsor and small tail effector that functions like a spoiler or ejector. It is the crew space which is driving everything else to cost:size failure threshold on modern helicopters. As soon as we ditch the horses-must-be-ridden idea, helicopters will have a second surge in success as military usage popularity. Because they will save small armies from mass slaughter.
The main thing army aviation should be thinking about is hardening the aircraft to absorb and or repell more small arms fire. Imagine a helicopter coming in with a strike team and the enemy shooting it all Up with small arms and it just keeps coming and operating without missing a beat. That will demoralize an enemy
Can't (or at least shouldn't be allowed to) carry large numbers of troops. And are potentially going to be partly or fully neutralized by (now that everyone has realized their potential) rapidly advancing anti-drone tech.
In regards to the Defiant, you failed to point out the other reason it failed to the v-280 which was maintenance. The V-280 achieved over 300 flight hours and was ready sooner while the Defiant achieved less than 30 flight hours and was constantly breaking down. All things I hope you cover in the V-280 video. Thank you.
The XH-59 was unfortunate in that it came about just before the 1970s energy crisis which meant that the cost of flying it shot through the roof. If the Fairey Rotodyne had received the funding it needed the next planned stage would have seen the rotor being folded way and stowed in the roof once it was travelling fast enough and use the engines on the wings to fly it.
I just started learning about the Valor recently and learned of the FARA the other day. I thought to myself. I bet they’ll cancel the FARA. What can it do that the Valor can’t. I guess I should be getting a call from the US Government any day now with a job offer :). Yes, we used to name helicopters cool names…..but. Side note: At the rate Boeings going with lost contracts and the 737 Max leaving its skid marked underwear all over the globe they may not be around much longer.
With the FARA program dead now, the Sikorsky dream helicopter's prospects do not look good. What they don't mention here is that the Sikorsky prototype is far larger and more complex than the V-280 for a similar payload, much less range, and far lower speed. Not to mention the engines weren't the only problems they were having; the rotor assembly was still having design issues by the time the decision between the two was made. The Sikorsky project was significantly behind schedule whereas Bell was easily keeping on time. So there's no wonder the Army chose an established technology on a lighter, smaller, faster, less expensive craft that gives them better performance.
Stop giving Sikorsky the credit for the X-59. They claim the x-rotor was their idea when it was invented by NASA in the 70s. Sikorsky was their "Development Partner".
I've always wondered why despite the Defiant's similar size and function to the UH-60, that it appears to have much less interior space for transport by comparison. This video claims it has more room, but compared to both the Black Hawk and Valor it looks like less than half the main fuselage is used.
@@luc_8710 Like Predator42ID said, Defiant the engines, mast and transmission take up a large amount of space in the fuselage.. All usable interior space has to be forward of the mast on all X2 vehicles. To be able to fit the required number of troops inside, they had to make Defiant's fuselage wider. There was no requirement for naval use so that's not why it lost, but you are correct height is a problem if ever the Marines for interested.
I do remember the italain defense minister stating he wants the defiant as his new helicopter, but i doubt it will happen. Not willing to sell the design, not enough to make a profit, lost of interest, and foreign companies interference.
A few years back an Italian defense minister didn't like Tilt-Rotors because of bad information he had been given. Since then, the potions has change and now Tilt-Rotor is the favored concept for their potential future high speed needs.
The FLRAA was initiated by the United States Army in 2019 to develop a successor to the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. The U.S. Marine Corps had nothing to do with this program...
