The US Army wanted it larger. If you think this is big, you should see the comparison pictures of the Defiant X and the Blackhawk from the top view and the side view. The fuselage is just ginormous and the height is like 2 to 3 times the height of an average adult.
@@bigfootwalker5399 Every high risk mission is done with blackhawks. Special ops + blackhawks without support and in dangerous areas is the go to for every political dipshit who wants to pussyfoot around about whether he's waging war or not
If and that's a big if ! This is a game changer. Long loiter time near front lines at high speed. Then dash in for quick evacuation. Or fire support no mention is giving of types of door guns mentioned. Cool bird,wing is a little long. Worried about G loading at speed.
The Black Hawk will stick around for another decade or two as it still fills niches the Valor cannot such as storage on navy destroyers and the fact that it can be inserted into tighter landing zones for humanitarian missions. The Valor's flight performance puts it an order of magnitude better than the BH in range, speed and maneuverability. You have military officers salivating at the thought of getting there farther, faster and with a bigger punch.
500 nautical miles to the fight and the crew is magnitudes more rested flying on a fixed-wing instead of a rotary wing. The Defiant X would rattle their fillings out at high speeds!!!
There could be a navy version where the wings fold back to save space, then it'll fit in a destroyer. Or if the wingspan is as wide as a Blackhawk is long they could have the landing gear be able to rotate completely for sideways movement and store it in the hangar sideways. Lots of options there
It's very impressive on paper if it works as well as they're expecting it to do it will be a fine piece of equipment. If we're going to send our young men to fight they deserve the best equipment to fight with.
Yup it has proven some of those things so far but we will have to see how logistics and maintenance holds up as well. Some playbooks will have to be rewritten but this only brings further capabilities.
Look at how exposed the wings are…. Small arms fire and flak are going to knock this bird straight outta the sky….. plus it looks gay and has a lame name
When the replacement for the Blackhawk was proposed one of the main criteria was the it HAD to fit in the foot print of the Black hawk. How they expect the Valor to land in restricted landing zone like the Blackhawk can beats the hell out of me, at 30' wider from rotor tip to rotor tip, the Valor is massively wider, completely failing the Foot Print criteria, this major flaw makes we wonder who's getting the brown paper bag. Transitioning pilots from the Blackhawk to the Valor will require significant additional technical training. The Valor will also require rebuilt maintenance facilities due to it's larger size. The Defiant being a coaxial rotor design, existing pilots can easily transition without significant additional training, existing facilities don't need significant alterations if any, and it can land anywhere a Blackhawk can. What's the point of being able to get to an LZ twice as fast if you can't land? Sikorski have rightfully protested the decision because the Army have ignored their own criteria. The Defiant has done everything required of it. It flies faster, further, carries more, upgradable, and does it all while fitting in the Blackhawks footprint.
This won’t be how the final design looks. Since Bell won the contract, the military will now pick and choose what they want on it. Maybe they’ll add some type of armor and lightweight ballistic glass.
Yes but this design is purely for the Army currently. They have a digital mockup of a version with a folding wing but you would have to make more changes than just that.
I don't know if it is possible...but I would consider putting in a large caliber cannon or a artillery of some sort. Making it akin to an Hercules AC-130. Throw in a 4-6 air to air missiles AND air to surface rockets. Yep that'll do it.
to arrive? When you ask? In 10 years. That’s right the new v-280 will not go into service for another 10 years without delays of course. And we know there are never delays in the military
Uma dúvida: o raio de giro das hélices do V-280 Valor permite que seja colocado sobre a cabine, o radar do E-2 Hawkeye?? Faria com que esse tipo de radar pudesse ser utilizado em porta helicópteros (mesmo que este não seja marítimo, nem pensado para atuar em embarcações por suas hélices e "braços de sustentação" não serem retráteis, entre outros motivos). O mesmo raciocínio valeria para o V-22 Osprey, mas parece financeiramente absurdo.
That is even an issue with normal helicopters and helicopters have shot themselves down before. You can limit the range of the gun to not let it point in those areas.
it is wider but also shorter than the blackhawk. Equates to about a 19% larger footprint total. If 12 blackhawks could fit in a field only 10 valors can but those 10 valors can carry 8 more troops. Valors can also deploy M777A2s where needed.
My initial reaction was that I don’t like it. The design is boring too. After thinking about the SCS, I can see why this heli is the choice. However, choosing a heli based on one part of the world seems short sighted. Why can’t they split it up? A NATO version and a SCS model? The bulky design seems to make this heli a target and difficult if it has to land on ships or tighter spaces. Since my opinion is not as educated as those who picked i hope im proven wrong. In the end, I want what’s best.
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as it's flying forward, this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
I'd love to ask an expert what abuse those blades and designed to take. I hope someone had a fun day at work shooting RPGs at those blades for science 😅
Boeing made the wrong argument when contesting the Army's final decision. Instead of saying their helicopter was better, they needed to argue that the Army clearly stated the new aircraft MUST fit in the Blackhawk's footprint. The Valor is far too wide and Boeing's helicopter complied with this requirement. The Valor may be the right choice, but Boeing built their helicopter to match the Blackhawk's footprint. If the Army wanted a tilt rotor, I would have like to have seen Boeing's offering.
No that wasn't an exact requirement... just same weightclass. Also the required speed was reduced to accommodate the current defiant so it didn't get eliminated right away....
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as it's flying forward, this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
It's like a Fat Chick, Fun to Ride but you wouldn't want your friends to see that.. Too Big for Ship Storage/Transport, Too Big for Urban terrain, Twice as much Rotor Wash, Larger Foot print, but the Army will buy it and then regret it..
- too wide.. won't be able to squize into some situations, both in combat & storage.. maked it a bigger target - won't be able to deploy weapons under the wings, sides of the fuselage while rotors facing forward - something tells me, it would be prone to flipping in strong cross winds in parked position.. - won't replace conventional helicopters
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 - almodt all future recon-attack heli condepts have conventional rotors.. - navy ship hangars will have issues accepting this - the structural weight distrubution will have a toll on navy versions of this.. it will have tendency for leaning to a side.. once it touches the ground.. whether in strong winds or rough seas.. do you 'll need some sort of an device on the landing deck to lock this down immidietly.. so seahawks ain't going no where - some special missions will still require conventional rotors.. you can ferry the rest around with tilt rotors
talking about frigate type ships ofc.. carriers or landing dock ships don't have much issues with these. they lose some amount of hangar & deck space.. but frigates have to operate helcopters in rough seas.. submarine huning, rescue missions & stuff.. & they have limited space by design..
Somebody in Army procurement got a kick back. This thing is a joke. Can you imagine this trying to operate in an urban environment or flying tree top level landing in a jungle environment being contested by enemy small arms fire, beautiful target
Those wings are just a giant target unless it re enforced it’ll get shot to shit by small arms fire from the ground making it crash….. why tf do they always JUST look at numbers
@@shirleycrosner634 that's why the US uses different groups of soldiers to cover from every possible action... It's not like the Blackhawk would be alone like Russian idiots.
Its design was improved to take 1 hit and still be flying. As long as its flying forward this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
Ospreys have been crashing for years. They are not a forgiving aircraft type. The Valor looks like it has more fixed wing. If that is to give it a glide capability in the event of emergency,,,, we'll see.
Because if the Army wants to participate in a possible fight with China it will need the speed and range of a tilt rotor over a traditional helicopter. The Army launches and conducts missions from land.
Bell and Boeing's joint venture produced the V-22 Osprey. Bell's fully entitled to improve upon "their own design" for the V-280 Valor - as they've successfully done. Boeing's the big loser, by walking away from Bell - which opened a window of opportunity for their arch-rival Lockheed Martin to take their place. In September 2013, LM came onboard the project - as a Team Valor partner
@@bl8danjil LM's position is known as an "each-way bet" - they were wise to have done so, insofar as their decision to join Team Valor. Yeah, Bell's better off without Boeing on the V-280 project - it's solely Boeing's loss
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as its flying forward this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
Can you really replace the Black Hawk with something this large? I'm sure it's a great helicopter but it's flipping huge.
According to the video, it's not that much larger than a Black Hawk. While it is a bit wider, it is shorter from front to back.
Yes. I think they're willing to live with its larger footprint when there's such an insane range and speed increase.
With doubles it's speed and range,, it's Eccaptable
The black hawk has been “replaced” 5 times.
The US Army wanted it larger. If you think this is big, you should see the comparison pictures of the Defiant X and the Blackhawk from the top view and the side view. The fuselage is just ginormous and the height is like 2 to 3 times the height of an average adult.
Im literally joining so I can sit inside one of these someday. Even if I'm a 40 yr old man when it happens
Game G. Gamerson?
It's Scandinavian
Greater capabilities and the Blackhawk will still be in use also.
It may replace the Black Hawks entirely at some point (or not because things change), but the BHs as a whole will still remain in service
No one will miss the crashhawk
@@bigfootwalker5399 many will miss the BH, you may not but a lot of people will.
@@guardianoftexas5188 not anyone who's ever been in one
They are getting phased out for the most part. It won't happen overnight, but over a this current decade.
@@bigfootwalker5399 Every high risk mission is done with blackhawks. Special ops + blackhawks without support and in dangerous areas is the go to for every political dipshit who wants to pussyfoot around about whether he's waging war or not
If and that's a big if ! This is a game changer. Long loiter time near front lines at high speed. Then dash in for quick evacuation. Or fire support no mention is giving of types of door guns mentioned. Cool bird,wing is a little long. Worried about G loading at speed.
The Black Hawk will stick around for another decade or two as it still fills niches the Valor cannot such as storage on navy destroyers and the fact that it can be inserted into tighter landing zones for humanitarian missions. The Valor's flight performance puts it an order of magnitude better than the BH in range, speed and maneuverability. You have military officers salivating at the thought of getting there farther, faster and with a bigger punch.
500 nautical miles to the fight and the crew is magnitudes more rested flying on a fixed-wing instead of a rotary wing. The Defiant X would rattle their fillings out at high speeds!!!
There could be a navy version where the wings fold back to save space, then it'll fit in a destroyer. Or if the wingspan is as wide as a Blackhawk is long they could have the landing gear be able to rotate completely for sideways movement and store it in the hangar sideways. Lots of options there
@@lovepcgaming2335 They have a mock up of that design if the navy requests it. Also a mock up of a gunship version if the army wants to go that route.
You could put 64 Hellfires and 4 door gunners on it and even a dorsal turret like an IFV. I was doing some math earlier.
It's very impressive on paper if it works as well as they're expecting it to do it will be a fine piece of equipment. If we're going to send our young men to fight they deserve the best equipment to fight with.
Yup it has proven some of those things so far but we will have to see how logistics and maintenance holds up as well. Some playbooks will have to be rewritten but this only brings further capabilities.
Look at how exposed the wings are…. Small arms fire and flak are going to knock this bird straight outta the sky….. plus it looks gay and has a lame name
Those rotors look like a huge target in a war situation.
But they're going faster and can go quickly in and out of a situation. I think that was the intent.
Yes,... keep improvements ongoing!
When the replacement for the Blackhawk was proposed one of the main criteria was the it HAD to fit in the foot print of the Black hawk. How they expect the Valor to land in restricted landing zone like the Blackhawk can beats the hell out of me, at 30' wider from rotor tip to rotor tip, the Valor is massively wider, completely failing the Foot Print criteria, this major flaw makes we wonder who's getting the brown paper bag.
Transitioning pilots from the Blackhawk to the Valor will require significant additional technical training. The Valor will also require rebuilt maintenance facilities due to it's larger size. The Defiant being a coaxial rotor design, existing pilots can easily transition without significant additional training, existing facilities don't need significant alterations if any, and it can land anywhere a Blackhawk can. What's the point of being able to get to an LZ twice as fast if you can't land? Sikorski have rightfully protested the decision because the Army have ignored their own criteria. The Defiant has done everything required of it. It flies faster, further, carries more, upgradable, and does it all while fitting in the Blackhawks footprint.
We are slowly making our way into making the SA-2 Samson a reality.
Blackhawks arent going away
i like it the design fixes issues i think the v-22 has. i dont want to compaire it to a black hawk seems like two radically different designs.
I want to see it do an auto rotation
Same here.
Price?
BlackHawk is a much cooler name for an aircraft than Valor
Valor is not its final name just the project name...
Nice. Gives the usa far more options. They'll have "normal" helicopters for a long time yet, so nice to have an increase in capabilities and options.
Looks great.
It looks good, I would like to have a ride
Fantastic wow
I would like to know about it's ability to take direct fire. Survive ability is key.
Amazing
This won’t be how the final design looks. Since Bell won the contract, the military will now pick and choose what they want on it. Maybe they’ll add some type of armor and lightweight ballistic glass.
10,000lbs load , and a 14 soldier is not bad, and a 10,000lbs ammunition in the other V280, 2 Squadron of these is a lot of fire power.
Will the inability to swivel it's wing preclude operation on Navy amphibious ships?
Yes but this design is purely for the Army currently. They have a digital mockup of a version with a folding wing but you would have to make more changes than just that.
Love it! Proud.
I don't know if it is possible...but I would consider putting in a large caliber cannon
or a artillery of some sort. Making it akin to
an Hercules AC-130. Throw in a 4-6 air to air
missiles AND air to surface rockets. Yep that'll
do it.
There's already an Osprey, I guess this is it's little brother. Seems quite cumbersome in close combat. Wish they went with the Defiant version.
The osprey keeps killing marines.
@@mustachadon Then you must hate the CH-53, CH-46, C-130... You know the V22 is just as safe as the Blackhawk if not even safer.
My only question is about the size. Won't that increase hurt more than help???
How do you park this thing in a somalian alley?
to arrive? When you ask? In 10 years. That’s right the new v-280 will not go into service for another 10 years without delays of course. And we know there are never delays in the military
Uma dúvida: o raio de giro das hélices do V-280 Valor permite que seja colocado sobre a cabine, o radar do E-2 Hawkeye?? Faria com que esse tipo de radar pudesse ser utilizado em porta helicópteros (mesmo que este não seja marítimo, nem pensado para atuar em embarcações por suas hélices e "braços de sustentação" não serem retráteis, entre outros motivos). O mesmo raciocínio valeria para o V-22 Osprey, mas parece financeiramente absurdo.
Superb
If flying in volatile areas (with props facing forward) can a door gunner hit the props?
That is even an issue with normal helicopters and helicopters have shot themselves down before. You can limit the range of the gun to not let it point in those areas.
I don't think they will have the doors open when they are flying at 500KPH hahahaha.
Same engines as the Skycrane (CH-54).
777 deployment is incredulous !!!👍
so the footprint is like 5m more diameter wise than the blackhawk? Seems like a lot
it is wider but also shorter than the blackhawk. Equates to about a 19% larger footprint total. If 12 blackhawks could fit in a field only 10 valors can but those 10 valors can carry 8 more troops. Valors can also deploy M777A2s where needed.
Add in a a10 warthog gun. On it and missle system. then you got something.
Please don't replace the black hawk with the osprey!
My initial reaction was that I don’t like it. The design is boring too. After thinking about the SCS, I can see why this heli is the choice. However, choosing a heli based on one part of the world seems short sighted. Why can’t they split it up? A NATO version and a SCS model?
The bulky design seems to make this heli a target and difficult if it has to land on ships or tighter spaces.
Since my opinion is not as educated as those who picked i hope im proven wrong. In the end, I want what’s best.
i need the code
The US Army is finally getting its Osprey. 😅
where iz the civilian version hey elvis i found your plane
I'll ditch any helicopter or truck with this one. Please gimme a V-280 that can float on water.
Nice target for rpg
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as it's flying forward, this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
I'd love to ask an expert what abuse those blades and designed to take. I hope someone had a fun day at work shooting RPGs at those blades for science 😅
Boeing made the wrong argument when contesting the Army's final decision. Instead of saying their helicopter was better, they needed to argue that the Army clearly stated the new aircraft MUST fit in the Blackhawk's footprint. The Valor is far too wide and Boeing's helicopter complied with this requirement. The Valor may be the right choice, but Boeing built their helicopter to match the Blackhawk's footprint. If the Army wanted a tilt rotor, I would have like to have seen Boeing's offering.
No that wasn't an exact requirement... just same weightclass. Also the required speed was reduced to accommodate the current defiant so it didn't get eliminated right away....
People need to do some research before making comments. The V-280 is wider at the rotor tips than the Blackhawk, but is 20% SHORTER in length.
30 ft wider right?
A LOT WIDER AT THE ROTOR TIPS YEAH. A LOT.
@@zacherius137 It only has a 19% larger footprint carrying 23% more troops twice as far twice as fast.
The valor's been drinking again....
No, it can't replace MH-60.
I got a feeling that big rounds will break its wings.
Well hey big rounds will take down any troop carrying helicopter. It's all about speed and range with this thing.
Same with the main rotor blades of a traditional helicopter. What's your point?
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as it's flying forward, this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
Avatar?
Looks like a small plane.
Defiant X-you've been screwed!
Its foot print is way to big compared to the black hawk
Only 19% larger...
It's like a Fat Chick, Fun to Ride but you wouldn't want your friends to see that.. Too Big for Ship Storage/Transport, Too Big for Urban terrain, Twice as much Rotor Wash, Larger Foot print, but the Army will buy it and then regret it..
Think they made a mistake
- too wide.. won't be able to squize into some situations, both in combat & storage.. maked it a bigger target
- won't be able to deploy weapons under the wings, sides of the fuselage while rotors facing forward
- something tells me, it would be prone to flipping in strong cross winds in parked position..
- won't replace conventional helicopters
You are wrong on those points except the first point which is a nothing burger. It is twice as fast meaning the window to be hit is much shorter.
it won't replace conventional choppers, here will be conventional choppers serving far into the future.. but it will add new capabilities though
@@Weary_Panda Their plan is to replace 2k UH-60s to start with.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 - almodt all future recon-attack heli condepts have conventional rotors..
- navy ship hangars will have issues accepting this
- the structural weight distrubution will have a toll on navy versions of this.. it will have tendency for leaning to a side.. once it touches the ground.. whether in strong winds or rough seas.. do you 'll need some sort of an device on the landing deck to lock this down immidietly.. so seahawks ain't going no where
- some special missions will still require conventional rotors.. you can ferry the rest around with tilt rotors
talking about frigate type ships ofc.. carriers or landing dock ships don't have much issues with these. they lose some amount of hangar & deck space.. but frigates have to operate helcopters in rough seas.. submarine huning, rescue missions & stuff.. & they have limited space by design..
Don't replace black hawk ..
👍👍👍
They just can't land on an aircraft carrier
Why not? Also this is for the army not navy.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9more like marines
@@halohasawaken6793 no... only the army is looking into this program currently.
@@n3v3rforgott3n9 I meant how marines use aircraft carriers from the Navy, not just the Army.
@@halohasawaken6793 ah ok
THIS is NOT what US Army needs to replace the Black Hark ! Keep in mind the word
That wouldn't have been able to fit in Bin Laden's compound. Quite big indeed. Also appears slow to land and take off. Hmmmm
I suppose there's no way the American military industry would ever not make money. Huge amount of money. But that's great for employment, of course.
The title to this video is illiterate....
Why couldn't the Army got V-22's instead
Difference type of usage, this has more agility than the V-22, also easier/cheaper to maintenance than V-22. Cost effective.
LOOKS bad and unstable
Somebody in Army procurement got a kick back. This thing is a joke. Can you imagine this trying to operate in an urban environment or flying tree top level landing in a jungle environment being contested by enemy small arms fire, beautiful target
You are a fool lol
Black hawk down part 2
Those wings are just a giant target unless it re enforced it’ll get shot to shit by small arms fire from the ground making it crash….. why tf do they always JUST look at numbers
Expensive replacements the tax payers will afford.😅
A simple shoulder launched missle will easily take this bird down !
How is that different than a helicopter?
@@briancelidonia8258 - don't be silly / check out the price difference - helicopters are nothing but slow moving targets in the sky.. !
@@shirleycrosner634 that's why the US uses different groups of soldiers to cover from every possible action... It's not like the Blackhawk would be alone like Russian idiots.
One RPG took down Extortion 17.
Its design was improved to take 1 hit and still be flying. As long as its flying forward this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.
Ospreys have been crashing for years. They are not a forgiving aircraft type. The Valor looks like it has more fixed wing. If that is to give it a glide capability in the event of emergency,,,, we'll see.
~400 H-60 losses and nearly 1000 fatalities, that's why it's called the Crashhawk.
This is not
Nice; but BIG target
Why does the Blackhawk even need to be replaced if it ain't broke don't fix it right.
Because if the Army wants to participate in a possible fight with China it will need the speed and range of a tilt rotor over a traditional helicopter. The Army launches and conducts missions from land.
@@bl8danjil I guess
This is better than the Blackhawk.
@@vevenciomastilero932 ok
Replace the Blackhawk with this Junk,. What are they thinking?. Lol
Helicopter's are obsolete.
BOEING "rip-off" with a modified Blackhawk fuselage...
Bell and Boeing's joint venture produced the V-22 Osprey. Bell's fully entitled to improve upon "their own design" for the V-280 Valor - as they've successfully done. Boeing's the big loser, by walking away from Bell - which opened a window of opportunity for their arch-rival Lockheed Martin to take their place. In September 2013, LM came onboard the project - as a Team Valor partner
@@txtworld LM also bought Sikorsky so they are conflicted. In truth, I'm glad Bell did not partner with Boeing.
@@bl8danjil LM's position is known as an "each-way bet" - they were wise to have done so, insofar as their decision to join Team Valor. Yeah, Bell's better off without Boeing on the V-280 project - it's solely Boeing's loss
Good luck getting that in forest areas
Easy to shoot down. Too big and to much heat.
The Defiant X is no different. It is bigger too.
Every helicopter is easy to shoot down if got direct hit, for V280 at least it can move in and out of combat zone much more quickly than Blackhawk.
Its design was improved to take at least 1 hit and still be flying. As long as its flying forward this will be harder to hit. Its speed is also a factor in its survivability. The V-280 can glide without its propellers. With the invisibility cloak technology, this will be close to being invulnerable. Other helicopters can NOT do one of these feats.