Bell V-280/MV-75 tiltrotor bests Sikorsky/Boeing coaxial/pusher helicopter

Bell’s V-280 Valor Tiltrotor Picked As Army’s Black Hawk Replacement
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/bells-v-280-valor-tiltrotor-picked-as-armys-black-hawk-replacement

Image Unavailable, Please Login

.

 

.

 

Well that is another unforced error by the Army and Department of Defense. The UH-60 has proven itself over and over again. The thought that we would spend $1B on the design and $7B to build out a small squadron of tilt rotors just shows that we have the wrong people making decisions.

I would have thought we had learned enough lessons from the Osprey tilt rotor. These things are death traps if anything happens to either engine.

 

Much faster and longer range than Black Hawk. Osprey 2.0 >>> Different design. Lessons learned.
.

 

Whelp, thats 4 years of my life down the drain :-(

Not at all, they have a cross shaft so either engine can drive both rotors. The V-22 is the most survivable vertical lift aircraft in the fleet.

 

The V-22 Osprey was a radical new design that has resulted in some tragic accidents. I have no doubt that the V-280 will be a better (smaller) V-22.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involving_the_V-22_Osprey

.

 

JD- CV-22 has a much better safety record than equivalent (?) helicopters. Note also on the V-280 the engines do not rotate, just the propeller shafts. So, they indeed learned some lessons from the CV-22.

 

Let me ask you something, INRange. Just how many flight hours do YOU have in a V-22?

 

Thats pretty impressive

 

I hope you guys are right and I am wrong. Spending another $1B to get the design finalized just seems there are a lot of things left to work out.

I’m not a fan of replacing things with more expensive, complex systems that are unproven. That’s how we end up with a carrier that can’t launch planes and new ships that have to be scrapped because their propulsion systems fail. The last thing I want to see as a taxpayer is another F-35 that costs $100m a copy.

Sure I am a fan of our technology but at what point do you ask yourself if this makes any real sense. I use the A-10 as an example…. The Air Force has been trying to kill it for the past 10 years and justify using the F-35 instead.

Eventually this line of thinking will not end well for the military.

 

F-35 is down to something like ~$70M a copy which is a bargain for what it can do


Sent from my iPhone using FerrariChat.com mobile app

 

Affirmative, the F-35A costs way less than the interim F-15EX USAF had to buy to replace worn out F-15C/Ds.

 

I believe the F-15EX is around $115-120M a copy for reference, which is about what an F-22 would have cost per unit if the original production run was completed. F-15 is a great plane but it is no F-22.

 

Everything starts as unproven. You can't ever get anything better if you aren't willing to have some failures. The V-22 was a huge leap in capability compared to the Ch-46 that it replaced, as will the V-280 be compared to the Blackhawk (even if it was the wrong choice).

 

This is the MIC in full glory

5 yrs of flight testing of a prototype, yet they need another $1B (guarantee that will be a lower bound) and 13 more yrs before it enters sevice. Kelly Johnson is rolling over in his grave (for the umpteenth time).

 

Kelly Johnson lived in another time. Loss of aircraft and life was tolerated and even expected on new aircraft at the time. SR-71 lost 9 aircraft, almost a third of the fleet in the first four years. That was after 6 losses of the A-12.

We are far far more conservative now, we do more testing, more analysis and a ton of simulation, which means things go slower, and cost more. As a result, I bet the V-280 becomes operational without ever losing an aircraft. These aircraft are also far more complicated with a ridiculous amount of electronics, sensors, and wiring that all needs to be integrated, which also means things go slower and cost more.

 

Why do you think it was the wrong choice? SB-1 Defiant is good. V-280 is better. OVERALL (btw, I live in CT/Sikorsky's home. After the boom, comes the bust. This is going to hurt. )

Money no object, you build both. (jobs program ) They are 2 completely different designs with different strengths.
But, overall, pick only one, you have to go with the V-280. Speed, range, capacity.



.

 

Doesn't even begin to address what I wrote.

 

The Defiant was way more agile and maneuverable than the V-280. It would be able to get into and out of tight landing zone crazy fast by being able to reverse the prop thrust to brake the aircraft, and could accelerate out again extremely quickly. It would fit in small landing zones, as well as take up less hanger space and be alot easier to maintain.

I will say though, I am extremely biased

 

This is like bench racing and quoting 0-60 times. The difference in top speed is negligible and these aircraft never continuously operate at top speed. These platforms are slow as snails compared to fixed wing aircraft anyway. Neither of them are outrunning SAM systems. However the agility and maneuverability advantage that the SB1 has over V-280 is extreme. It's like comparing a Dodge Charger to a Corvette. Looks like the army bought a product based off of magazine numbers.

 

Obviously written by someone who has never done source selection.

 

Right. Real answer is which competitor has the largest congressional district rating

 

Will be interesting to see how the protest period unfolds. A Forbes article stated the source selection team delayed the initial decision date to take into account a possible protest.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/erictegler/2022/12/06/bells-v-280-valor-just-won-the-most-important-army-helicopter-competition-in-40-years/?sh=670b21184fcc

 

Height of the SB-1. WTF?
Image Unavailable, Please Login