Here's The US Army's Next Gen Helicopter to Replace The Blackhawk

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 26 вер 2024
  • To be the best at what you do, you need to regularly reach new heights. The U.S. adheres strictly to this principle, allowing them to create some of the most ambitious and expensive projects in the field of aircraft construction!
    One of these projects is the SB-1 Defiant, the multipurpose helicopter of the future, which was the result of a partnership between the Sikorsky and Boeing aviation companies.

КОМЕНТАРІ • 953

  • @jamesflores4439
    @jamesflores4439 3 роки тому +657

    The chinese is also excited to copy your new military hardware.

  • @ConanTheContrarian1
    @ConanTheContrarian1 3 роки тому +19

    I was a crew chief in Viet Nam. The thrust/braking propeller is huge IMO. If the maneuverability is as advertised, this is far superior.

    • @kdrapertrucker
      @kdrapertrucker 2 роки тому

      During Vietnam Lockheed tested a pusher prop attack helicopter called the AH-56 Cheyenne. The Air Force killed it by claiming it operated more as an armed airplane, which the army is not allowed by law to operate.

    • @johnfalkner8821
      @johnfalkner8821 2 роки тому

      Could you elaborate more on why the army can't use armed planes?

    • @ConanTheContrarian1
      @ConanTheContrarian1 2 роки тому +1

      @@johnfalkner8821 They can't land vertically.

    • @CaptCamel
      @CaptCamel 2 роки тому +1

      they can land vertically once...but back to army and no planes, what about the o1 bird dog, that the army flew til the late 70's, infact they still fly the c-12 huron, so i dont see how its forbidden by law for them to operate fixed wing..

  • @feral4813
    @feral4813 3 роки тому +153

    Putting a "more complicated" piece of equipment into a combat situation doesn't always leave you with good results.

    • @Phil858
      @Phil858 3 роки тому +2

      Yup. It's too big and too heavy. And not fast enough. So Big 1 Deficient.

    • @nick_0
      @nick_0 3 роки тому +1

      @@Phil858 isnt this helicopter in almost every way? even in survival redundancy?

    • @easternperspective0244
      @easternperspective0244 3 роки тому

      still a pice of art

    • @easternperspective0244
      @easternperspective0244 3 роки тому +1

      @@Phil858 does not matter how fast it is sam`s will take it down

    • @archerc3811
      @archerc3811 3 роки тому +1

      @@easternperspective0244 they would take down a blackhawke the same, hell an rpg-7 can bring down a BH

  • @НиколайНиколаевич-у4в

    0:25 "Boeing and Sikorsky"- shows Mil' aircraft factory and Mi-28))))

    • @fredtedstedman
      @fredtedstedman 3 роки тому +2

      Oh dear oh Dear ...................................

  • @Netizen_casio
    @Netizen_casio 3 роки тому +11

    It looks like a Lamborghini with propellors so many sharp angles.

  • @szabowabo91
    @szabowabo91 3 роки тому +144

    Narrator: “US military engineers have produced many legendary helicopters.”
    Video: Shows Robinson Helicopter factory. 😂

    • @akane742
      @akane742 3 роки тому +13

      Ya whoever made this vid had no knowledge of aviation in general

    • @lluvik2450
      @lluvik2450 3 роки тому +11

      Not to mention the russian attack choppers in the factory just before that

    • @natureofparadise2380
      @natureofparadise2380 3 роки тому

      Nope the russian made first wisely and poweful

    • @alexanderschnoder2185
      @alexanderschnoder2185 3 роки тому +1

      And the caption showing the European NH-90...

    • @natureofparadise2380
      @natureofparadise2380 3 роки тому

      @AMERICAAA FreeWorld some russian technology is better than USA. Like elon musk rockets it is made first in russian ICBM.

  • @anjel9988
    @anjel9988 3 роки тому +105

    I'm a 15-T and the first thing about the blackhawk is that it can carry 11 packs 2 pilots and "2" crew chiefs, engineers, not 1. And the rotor system doesn't have a 5 bladed main and tail. It only has 4 for each.

    • @Screaminhelo
      @Screaminhelo 3 роки тому +12

      67T here. Check your -17. H-60 is fielded with 10 troop seats. We all have a fourth seat in row 4 but the original concept only used 3 to make egress for the assault troops to exit and the 11th crunchy served as the gunner on the left side.
      Not trying to be the old guy busting your chops, just sharing the history of a great airframe.

    • @TacticalVodkaOperator69
      @TacticalVodkaOperator69 3 роки тому +7

      First off thanks to you both for serving and getting our guys in and out of harms way , now this contraption in the vid looks like an Good shop hold wall queen in the making, down time waiting on parts and oh yeah ya it's fast all right, running under striped down testing weight; load it up for bear and fully geared out combat troops will for sure drop that tops speed right down to the ole BlackHawks neck of woods for sure👌😎

    • @seansilhan6091
      @seansilhan6091 3 роки тому +7

      Also let's not forget the aircraft weighting 12k lbs and being able to fly at 180 mph and not kias. This narrator clearly got his facts twisted and all info on the defiant lost all credibility with me.

    • @br9028
      @br9028 3 роки тому +2

      @@Screaminhelo What does a -17 have to do with the “history” of the Blackhawk. It comes with 11 seats (per the -17) and can hold 11 passengers when seats are in…

    • @Christfollower89
      @Christfollower89 3 роки тому +2

      Meanwhile H00kers can support 5 crew, 30 pax and haul a M777.

  • @VivekSingh-fb8vp
    @VivekSingh-fb8vp 3 роки тому +18

    MH 60, HH 60, UH 60 Black Hawk all are my favorite helicopter ever

    • @theduckcrispy6596
      @theduckcrispy6596 3 роки тому +1

      SH60 also

    • @gianpaolovillani6321
      @gianpaolovillani6321 3 роки тому +2

      Katora Khan Well said.

    • @Gamerboy-gy1rl
      @Gamerboy-gy1rl 3 роки тому +2

      Don't forget the pave hawk

    • @jojosmiff3417
      @jojosmiff3417 3 роки тому +2

      So many different designs.... don't forget the Battle hawk, Stealth hawk, Speed Hawk, Fire Hawk, and other various designations out there. 30k as a base weight? Wonder where this fuel is coming from and what it's max takeoff is supposed to be.

  • @darrenjones3681
    @darrenjones3681 3 роки тому +16

    Also mention mini guns and shows .50 m2hb then mentioned helfire shows unguided rocket pods

  • @timmason7430
    @timmason7430 3 роки тому +60

    The only way to prove the new helicopter's "superiority is to put both of them in a head-to-head competition.
    Anyone can *_say_* theirs is better.
    Just because it's new, doesn't make it superior.

    • @dagwould
      @dagwould 3 роки тому +4

      and in battle.

    • @Thatstereotypicalstoner
      @Thatstereotypicalstoner 3 роки тому +1

      I completely agree

    • @tc1uscg65
      @tc1uscg65 3 роки тому +1

      Yep, new doesn't always mean better. Look at the Jeep wrangler. It is turning into a puzzy car for posers. Just sayin.

    • @trvman1
      @trvman1 2 роки тому

      Like they want to replace the A-10 with something new that will be less capable of doing the same job.

  • @aardvarkansaw
    @aardvarkansaw 3 роки тому +59

    It would be interesting to cover the previous history of dual coaxial propeller helicopters in other countries.

    • @beerthug
      @beerthug 3 роки тому

      Or in this country. I.e. Cheyenne.

    • @wickedcabinboy
      @wickedcabinboy 2 роки тому +1

      @@beerthug - or the Russian Kamov KA-27

    • @barriewright2857
      @barriewright2857 2 роки тому +1

      That's a good idea, so you get a start of the technology and we're and it's future development, and what's in development now.

    • @cliffterrell4876
      @cliffterrell4876 2 роки тому +1

      @@beerthug the Cheyenne was built before the cobra. The comanche was a stealth design attack helicopter that never went past the test phase.

    • @FlyboyHelosim
      @FlyboyHelosim 2 роки тому

      "Dual coaxial propeller". I think I had a stroke reading this.

  • @Coreyspr89
    @Coreyspr89 3 роки тому +2

    A war helicopter with no weapon systems or defense systems like flares AND a thin skin?
    That's not a helicopter. It's a coffin ⚰

    • @Plausible_Prism2810
      @Plausible_Prism2810 3 роки тому

      There gonna build the frame and engines before the defense systems unless it's included in some secret compartment.

  • @NightStalker83
    @NightStalker83 3 роки тому +11

    They are rotors not propellers, the pusher is a propeller... Does this guy know anything about helicopters? Slip between buildings in mega cities.. haha

    • @pvosoccer1585
      @pvosoccer1585 3 роки тому

      I think what he meant is that it will be adopt by secret agencies for use by spies on conducting paramilitary operations and human intelligence (HUMINT) gathering missions, as their helicopters won't cause any advanced vibrations, on their way to cityscapes and hotspots, and announcing their arrivals unintendedly and undesirably, so they can achieve somewhat an element of 'surprise' to certain extent, and possibly they had avoided some RPG's hitting at them.

    • @jojosmiff3417
      @jojosmiff3417 3 роки тому +2

      This helicopter is not quieter. The vibration system he talks about deals with airframe vibrations, not sound vibrations. The 60M already has this. This video has my eyes twitching

  • @JT-ez6by
    @JT-ez6by 2 роки тому

    Nghe Phúc hát mà nước mắt rơi mãi ....quá nhiều cảm xúc ùa về, quá nhiều kỉ niệm. Cảm ơn Đức Phúc thật nhiều, giọng hát anh ấm tựa nắng mùa Thu vậy.

  • @edwardclark3575
    @edwardclark3575 3 роки тому +10

    This helicopter better be good because I love the Blackhawk.

    • @markhusseymh1
      @markhusseymh1 3 роки тому +3

      So did I when I member of the United states military forces

    • @kennymccormick9973
      @kennymccormick9973 3 роки тому +1

      It's not as sexy as the black hawk in my opinion

  • @skeletonkey6733
    @skeletonkey6733 3 роки тому +8

    The USA requirements and fleet is so vast as well as diverse leaving no margin for error in procurement`! Great to see & much love GB

    • @glbaker5595
      @glbaker5595 3 роки тому

      Now that half of the military weapons were left in Afghanistan the supply people who make those new weapons are going to have a birthday present having to bring all of the new aircraft and down to the bullet done to replace all of the ones left in Afghanistan. I just wonder how much of an inventory they have to replace stuff that got tore up while on the battlefield or on patrol.

  • @rpeirce98
    @rpeirce98 3 роки тому +17

    3:33 *4 Blade Main and “4 blade” tail which is actually two paddles*
    4:13 11 troops, 2 pilots and 2 crew chief/gunner seats
    Not trying to hate. All in all a great video!

    • @29roadking
      @29roadking 3 роки тому +2

      Glad someone put it out there before me lol

    • @LuisGarcia-sr9vs
      @LuisGarcia-sr9vs 3 роки тому +2

      i was getting worried nobody was gonna say something... 😆

    • @LuisQ7492
      @LuisQ7492 3 роки тому

      I was looking to see if anyone called that out.

  • @nomuelmacabenta5179
    @nomuelmacabenta5179 2 роки тому +1

    Cool design!!! Look like a flying submarine

  • @terryakuna66
    @terryakuna66 3 роки тому +3

    LOL! Note: At 8:34 they are talking about the Defiant's engineers, they show a video of a lady in front of her computer showing a building floorplan.

  • @christophertownley9441
    @christophertownley9441 2 роки тому

    Passengers are greatly encouraged by getting into a combat aircraft, where the pilot isn't even coming with them, what a confidence builder!

  • @jesterlead
    @jesterlead 3 роки тому +36

    Just an updated Cheyenne, which Lockheed built in the 60's. Rotory wing aircraft are speed limited due to rotor tip speeds going supersonic so there's a practical limit. Knowing that, helicopters like the Blackhawk or Apache are already at the practical limits of the design concept. Just the take from an old Cobra guy. Cheers!

    • @dianapennepacker6854
      @dianapennepacker6854 3 роки тому

      I only learned about the Cheyenne a few months back, and cannot believe they didn't use it. I know it had teething problems but all do.
      I hope the Valor wins

    • @davidclaudy4822
      @davidclaudy4822 3 роки тому +6

      Yep. Retreating Blade stall. I flew the UH-1, OH-58 and the cream of the crop. The Loach. The famous OH-6. My God was that a fantastic aircraft to fly. I flew that into the early 90’s until Task Force took our birds. At least they went for a good purpose. Good times.

    • @phatboizbackyardkustomz9006
      @phatboizbackyardkustomz9006 3 роки тому +1

      Yup retreating blade stall

    • @nooneyouknowhere6148
      @nooneyouknowhere6148 3 роки тому

      They watched too many episodes of Air Wolf

    • @davidclaudy4822
      @davidclaudy4822 3 роки тому +2

      @@nooneyouknowhere6148 The rocket boost on the helicopter would have caused aerodynamic hell and nose would pitch up violently, roll left and go inverted as any pilot knows happens in retreating blade stall. The blade looses lift and you become and home sick multi thousand pound safe at altitude. Plus, being upside down really ruins the flight envelope and ultimately your day.
      🤔😕

  • @mannyfreeesh5256
    @mannyfreeesh5256 2 роки тому

    I have many long nights and fond memories with the H-60..

  • @AnonGZ
    @AnonGZ 3 роки тому +13

    A question for the more knowledgeable in the area, do you think it's still worth it becoming a heli pilot? It's my dream job but I'm a little scared that it will soon become obsolete with drones and other autonomous tech. (I want to work in the civil market btw)

    • @MrGriak
      @MrGriak 2 роки тому +4

      Pilots will always be needed. Combat pilots, maybe not so much. But adding automation to an already expensive aircraft means companies will have to pay a whole lot for it. At some point it will actually be cheaper to hire a pilot. Plus in the case of emergencies, computerized aircraft can’t land just anywhere. They have to land exactly where they are told to land. A pilot will be able to land at any location available to them. Biggest point to remember is the first one. Companies will always look for the cheapest option and unless pilots are demanding 1mil a year, they’ll be cheaper to hire than millions of dollars of tech added to the aircraft.

    • @milkeylicker8826
      @milkeylicker8826 2 роки тому +1

      Food for thought. Your in the infantry you are getting into a helicopter to go into battle or one that is already happening. You approach the helicopter that is taking you into harms way. When you look in the cockpit and there is no pilot or human there. Would you get in?

    • @cambad9900
      @cambad9900 2 роки тому +1

      Anyone can want to be a pilot. Getting there is very hard and competitive. The question isn’t “is it still worth it?” The question is “will I even be chosen?”
      You really have to have your life together to be trusted with flying a Blackhawk (or any aircraft). The easiest way is to go warrant. You gotta ask yourself, are you the guy people trust to get something done? They look and examine all aspect of your life.

    • @ccengineer5902
      @ccengineer5902 2 роки тому

      You can get your heli license, AND become a drone operator.

    • @ruthnoya8424
      @ruthnoya8424 2 роки тому

      @@ccengineer5902
      No pilot wants to be a drone operator.

  • @ehsaaschaudhary9298
    @ehsaaschaudhary9298 3 роки тому +2

    Sooo.. A helicopter capable of hovering outside a skyscraper's window... Hmm good idea

  • @ccengineer5902
    @ccengineer5902 2 роки тому +3

    It can have all the bells and whistles, but in the end it comes down to cost and maintenance.
    We hesitated to deploy B2's and F-22's in conflict zones because they were expensive. We ended up deploying our crappy A-10's and cobra helicopters not because they were better, but they were cheaper.

    • @OfficialCANVAS
      @OfficialCANVAS 2 роки тому

      you act like you can't collect more taxes from humans having nothing to do with the artificial conflict between 2 men

  • @thetruthii5001
    @thetruthii5001 2 роки тому

    Seems like the attention to missions rather than the safety of the soldiers is the focus. Saying we upgraded speed for less armament is I'm sure very comforting to the men and women that will be on board.

  • @byronmoreira7274
    @byronmoreira7274 3 роки тому +19

    They need to make it look more aggressive

    • @hrishihru
      @hrishihru 3 роки тому +1

      ;p; ;LOOOKS DONT MATTER

    • @byronmoreira7274
      @byronmoreira7274 3 роки тому +8

      @@hrishihru that's what ugly ppl say LOl

    • @miningchip1
      @miningchip1 3 роки тому +2

      @@byronmoreira7274 well not everthing gonna look pretty, as long as it does what it was made for

    • @pvosoccer1585
      @pvosoccer1585 3 роки тому +1

      The 'look' is very important, and now that is not finalized yet. Of course, the 'fan' or the tail pusher propeller is like a disabled 'body part' (as an analogy is the appendages of a person.)
      When the pusher propeller is not actively engaged, it looks like an abnormality in design, and thus need a shroud cover, like that of a propeller-driven boat!

  • @penelopelgoss2520
    @penelopelgoss2520 3 роки тому +1

    00:36 - Who designed the AH-64 Apache Helicopter?
    Hughes Helicopters
    The AH-64 Apache Helicopter has significant systems redundancy to improve combat survivability. The Apache began as the Model 77 developed by Hughes Helicopters for the United States Army's Advanced Attack Helicopter program to replace the AH-1 Cobra.
    I worked on the AH-64 Assembly line at Hughes Aircraft Helicopter Division in San Diego beginning in mid to late 1986.

  • @cylerner
    @cylerner 3 роки тому +4

    Was that clip for a few seconds of the b109 a clip from one of warthunders trailers?

  • @andrewvillanueva3722
    @andrewvillanueva3722 3 роки тому

    If it can keep military people alive better. Build it. It must keep soldiers and airmen alive in combat.

  • @thedoorider
    @thedoorider 3 роки тому +5

    Nice... But how hard / easy is it to fold up and put it in a C-17 / C-5??

  • @joeybags7411
    @joeybags7411 3 роки тому +1

    That Sikorsky property they showed in West Palm Beach is freaking awesome if your ever lucky enough to get on site. It’s a huge property with gators laying all over the place and the best fishing ever 🤙

    • @LuisQ7492
      @LuisQ7492 3 роки тому

      That's Florida for you!

  • @FFDmh2223
    @FFDmh2223 3 роки тому +7

    I think it loses - range being the deciding factor. I can see the army wanting both it and its competition. The osprey inspired competition is impressive - speed range troop capacity. It is a tough choice but I think it will win the day based on that range and speed edge.

    • @HawkSnake23
      @HawkSnake23 2 роки тому

      You also have to look at the size of the aircraft. The Osprey simply can’t land in locations where the Black Hawk and a potential successor might, due to the size of the Osprey. One may argue that troops could simply fast rope from the Osprey (or similar aircraft) at a hover, not requiring it to land. I would argue that hovering for that extended period of time in a non-permissive environment (hot LZ) would not be a sound tactic.

    • @erika_itsumi5141
      @erika_itsumi5141 2 роки тому

      @@HawkSnake23we got a osprey down, we got a osprey down.

  • @pgsw379
    @pgsw379 2 роки тому

    Even the Defensminister of Sweden is trilled will order 45 of them on standing foot!

  • @paulclarke4776
    @paulclarke4776 3 роки тому +6

    With its added manoeuvring and quick direction change, a forward facing pair of 6 barrel cannons would be a better idea than a heavy remotely operated funq system???

    • @blackwoodsecurity531
      @blackwoodsecurity531 3 роки тому +2

      Maybe something minutely adjustable like what the Kamovs have.

  • @Dean341
    @Dean341 3 роки тому

    USA: Designs new tech helicopter
    UA-camr: Spills all the info about new tech helicopter
    USA enemies: thank you thank very much

    • @cliffterrell4876
      @cliffterrell4876 2 роки тому

      UA-camr hell, our generals in the Pentagon like milley and our pro communist politicians gave china the information before the first aircraft was tested.

  • @IPASAustralia
    @IPASAustralia 3 роки тому +8

    Mate, you need to get your figures correct. Also, "equipment" is both singular and plural.

  • @siddharthshekhar909
    @siddharthshekhar909 Рік тому

    Well, I was recommended this video today, an hour after I saw a video about the V 280 winning the competition.

  • @johnsutcliffe3965
    @johnsutcliffe3965 3 роки тому +3

    What i would like to know is, whats the speed of max payload between both heicopters?

  • @UtolJr
    @UtolJr 3 роки тому

    Wow..God bless America

  • @khaleeqmustafa4001
    @khaleeqmustafa4001 3 роки тому +3

    I like when you mention the specifications...please add the components,controls and physical laws to equip your viewers with better orientation and entertainment if possible.Technical descriptions for technical viewers.I am a good well wisher and watch things with good interest.

    • @matthewtaylor9066
      @matthewtaylor9066 3 роки тому +1

      You might have good interest but bad intentions you might even be Chinese

    • @lip124
      @lip124 2 роки тому

      Sus

  • @Jarrzon9758
    @Jarrzon9758 2 роки тому

    i like the design of the Helicopters in Pandora Movie... they should make one of those...

  • @drew65sep
    @drew65sep 3 роки тому +16

    It was called the "Raider" several years ago when it broke the speed record.

    • @omarn6989
      @omarn6989 3 роки тому +1

      No. The Raider is for a different competition - FARA. The Defiant is for FLRAA.

  • @leelawrence3379
    @leelawrence3379 3 роки тому +2

    Bring back the Comanche.

    • @beerthug
      @beerthug 3 роки тому +1

      This is the Comanche, just took em this long to 'perfect' it.

  • @henrylau8122
    @henrylau8122 3 роки тому +7

    So they are making a bunch of Air Wolfs?

    • @vincentpaulvalmoria2297
      @vincentpaulvalmoria2297 3 роки тому +2

      Without any turbo

    • @henrylau8122
      @henrylau8122 3 роки тому

      @@vincentpaulvalmoria2297 they cant even get that right

    • @alastair9446
      @alastair9446 3 роки тому

      No, jet engine. Got to wait another 40 years.

    • @Plausible_Prism2810
      @Plausible_Prism2810 3 роки тому

      @@alastair9446 No jet engine until 30 years *if* humanity doesn't kill itself

  • @melcocha61
    @melcocha61 3 роки тому

    Colombians and the Israelis will sure improve their performance like they did with the Arpia IV.

  • @purplerocket4300
    @purplerocket4300 3 роки тому

    Guarantee this thing is gonna meet the same fate as the Comanche helicopter.

  • @LarryjB53
    @LarryjB53 3 роки тому +5

    What about auto rotation in the event of engine shutdown?

    • @pvosoccer1585
      @pvosoccer1585 3 роки тому +2

      Oh, you are now designing a machine for combat, what is your intent of auto-rotation besides "engine shutdown"? First, it is not a recreation aircraft. Second, it is most likely that when you venture out into the battlefields and your machine got shot down, by a SAM or whatever, then the auto-gyration feature will neither be needed nor it will be desired/practical.

    • @LuisQ7492
      @LuisQ7492 3 роки тому

      @@pvosoccer1585 you must have been shot down a lot to know what works on the battlefield.

  • @numberslettersstuff
    @numberslettersstuff 3 роки тому

    Why do the thumbnails always look better than the subjects in these videos. LoL

  • @4l73rn8
    @4l73rn8 3 роки тому +5

    "Here's the next piece of military equipment that'll accelerate inflation"
    There fixed the headline.

  • @glennsammon4465
    @glennsammon4465 3 роки тому +1

    funny that the video talks about hellfires but shows us a 2.75 inch rocket pod

  • @dougie8010
    @dougie8010 3 роки тому +7

    No tail rotor also means it remains controllable if a projectile takes out the tail of the airframe 👌

  • @kenoashire8883
    @kenoashire8883 2 роки тому

    Sooooo Apache and Blackhawk had a wild night and this was born.

  • @bobmcnelis3648
    @bobmcnelis3648 3 роки тому +3

    You are showing the SB-1, and then the Raider, which are 2 different machines!! The SB-1 is larger than the Raider.

  • @baylee_loves_vollyball3813
    @baylee_loves_vollyball3813 3 роки тому

    in 20 years this will be the real AIRWOLF.

  • @mikesantos5833
    @mikesantos5833 3 роки тому +16

    This helicopter will become the next F35 It will be delays over budget And come short of expected shens 😥

    • @jojosmiff3417
      @jojosmiff3417 3 роки тому +1

      If only they could change out the cabin/transition section in a rapid deployment mode. Wait, it will have to get it's weight under control first

  • @kikupub71
    @kikupub71 3 роки тому +1

    It is nice but can’t measure up to the UH1 c Iroquois in style and sound. Or coolness factor.

  • @brettmclucas5872
    @brettmclucas5872 3 роки тому +3

    Except reality looks nothing like your title picture.

  • @AaronHahnStudios
    @AaronHahnStudios 3 роки тому

    6:50 in. This silencing system was used in the Movie "Blue Thunder". -over 30 years ago.

  • @hk4lyfe59
    @hk4lyfe59 3 роки тому +16

    3:47 I know this doesn't matter for winning wars but its too bad that the new design looks really dumb, lol. Kinda disappointing for what is supposed to be this bad-ass future helicopter haha

    • @Idkidkidk716
      @Idkidkidk716 3 роки тому +4

      I'm sure it has to do with aerodynamics why it looks lame

    • @dustinweaver5040
      @dustinweaver5040 3 роки тому +1

      Ehh it’s kinda futuristic looking in a way. Not quite like the osprey, but still looks futuristic compared to the Blackhawk and Apache.

    • @hk4lyfe59
      @hk4lyfe59 3 роки тому +2

      @@dustinweaver5040 It literally looks like a meme.

    • @dustinweaver5040
      @dustinweaver5040 3 роки тому +3

      @@hk4lyfe59 completely subjective lol

  • @Anti_Everything
    @Anti_Everything 2 роки тому

    Changed the design, added corners like a Lambo. Please, here's a new helicopter.

  • @cp_pdn
    @cp_pdn 3 роки тому +17

    Maintenance issue ? Too many blades ? 16 blades ?
    The Bell v280 -> 6 blades -> Greater range and Greater speed ....
    And can you imagine when with that extended range ( extended loiter time ), the V280 is made into a gunship like the AC-130 GhostRider ? But a mini version..
    Just 1x25mm Gatling Gun, 2x Laser Guided Hydra 70 Missile Pods, to take take out enemy combatants, light armoured vehicles from 1 - 3 miles away with all the necessary cameras and avionics ?
    WOW !!!!

    • @dickmelsonlupot7697
      @dickmelsonlupot7697 3 роки тому +1

      turning the V280 into a gunship is impossible.
      The body is too small and the recoil from any of the big guns will destroy the structure and integrity of the aircraft

    • @cp_pdn
      @cp_pdn 3 роки тому +1

      @@dickmelsonlupot7697 Too small for the 25mm Gau ? Laser Guided Hydra 70 ?
      Nope...

    • @dickmelsonlupot7697
      @dickmelsonlupot7697 3 роки тому +3

      @@cp_pdn
      If you're talking about the GAU-12 Equalizer that fires the 25mm, then yes it is a bad idea.
      You're forgetting that thing is a gun. And all guns have what we call *RECOIL*
      You're forgetting this thing is a troop carrier 1st and not a dedicated attack helicopter so the interior is big, wide and hallow which is a bad idea for any aircraft that wants big guns. In short, it's structure can't cope with such recoil plus the fact that the gun along with the other parts needed to operate it and the ammo would defeat the purpose of the helicopter.
      The only way for it to even house such a huge gun or any cannon for that matter would be to redo the whole design and make a dedicated attack helicopter from it's main design intended for such a role. Much like how the AH-1 Cobra was made specifically to be the "gunship" version of the UH-1 Iriquois (or Huey).
      The only reason the C-130 was chosen and was able to become the AC-130 was because it was big enough to house the guns, it had 4 engines which could cope with the added weight (which had the drawback of the AC-130s being fuel inefficient) plus the structure was already big and strong enough to cope with the recoil of the guns placed on the side.
      But even then, AC-130s are known to have their structures degrade incredibly quickly oftentimes with incredibly severe damage to the overall structure once a certain amount of time and maintenance is given.
      So no, the small frame, body and relatively weak engines (since it only has 2) and even the disadvantage of it's design being unsafe especially when an engine failure might occur (which is why the Osprey was never used as a Marine 1 helicopter) would make the V280 a very very very bad choice to become the next or be a mini version of the AC-130.
      As for the missiles, technically they can but what would be the point?
      There are far cheaper options for that i.e in the form of drones.
      You're not gonna convince any military official with that type of thinking

    • @cp_pdn
      @cp_pdn 3 роки тому +1

      @@dickmelsonlupot7697 - Big Guns ? Whoever said anything about putting a howitzer in the V280 ?
      Also you seem to be forgetting that helicopeters that are much smaller than the V280 are already firing the 20mm chain gun ?
      An Apache is about 5 tons and the V280 is about 15tons and so that kills your 'recoil defense' Upgunning from a 20mm to 25mm is definitely in the realm of possibility !
      As for cost - The Hydra 70's are one the cheapest missiles around and would definitely be cost effective !!!!

    • @dickmelsonlupot7697
      @dickmelsonlupot7697 3 роки тому +2

      @@cp_pdn
      Like I said, the V280 is *NOT* a dedicated gunship, so any thoughts of adding guns larger than a .50 cal would be stupppiddd and unnecessary because, like I said, the aircraft's structure *IS NOT DESIGNED* to carry nor be able to withstand the recoil of such a big weapon.
      And FYI, an Apache *IS NOT THE SAME* as a fcckckin V280.
      The Apache is a *DEDICATED ATTACK HELICOPTER* while a V280 is a fckknnn troop transport for the Army. How the fckkk is that huge difference not getting inside that thick head of yours??
      And no, weight has nothing to do with recoil dampening you dimwit. A helicopter is not a damned tank or armoured carrier like the APC or Stryker where you can just pop any gun at the top. Hell, even if it was there are even still limits to it's design as well.
      For one, recoil dampening has more to do with it's structure than weight and whether or not such fitting can withstand the pressure and recoil from the guns or if the body's structure has proper recoil distribution attributes.
      You can't just slap any gun on a chopper and expect it to work flawlessly.
      And like I said before, even with the AC-130's bigger and stronger frame, there are still limits to the designs and a huge drawback is the pressure placed on the AC-130's main body and the connection between the wings and the fuselage since the fuselage "vibrates" irregularly every time the guns fire because, dduuhhhhh, it was never meant to be a gunship to begin with.
      Though theoretically speaking you can somewhat put 20mms on the V280 since it has been done on the UH-60 before *BUT* it is not advisable since, like I said again ang again and again, the recoil would be too great for the aircraft's body to handle and the UH-60 example I just stated was more of an "experiment" than an actual design or practice.
      You have to take note the difference in the design and stress distribution between a regular troop transport like the Huey, the Black Hawk, the Osprey or the V280 versus a *DESIGNATED* gunship/attack helicopter like the Apache, the KA-50, Mi-28 or even the Mi-24/25/35 (with this being the exception which I will talk about later).
      Transport or those dedicated for it has a huge azzz space inside it to make room for people and other gear. They also have the characteristic of being too slow, too heavy and they're not nimble enough to actually effectively evade enemy fire.
      And to turn such a type of aircraft into a gunship, it would have to loose it's main purpose i.e. being a *TRANSPORT* like what you'd see in the armed version of the UH-60. And like I said, the armed UH-60 is slow, not nimble and is too heavy to actually act like a "gunship"/attack helicopter.
      Attack helicopters are made thinner and have little to zero space at all for passengers or other "unnecessary cargo" in order to operate properly as a "gunship"/attack helicopter. Troop transports have a lot of "extra weight" that could hinder or lessen it's capability to become a "gunship"/attack helicopter. Even the armed UH-60 variant can't carry a lot of equipment where if you wanted a 20mm chain gun you can only fit two at the side and you cannot put missiles because it would be too heavy to do so plus the ammo count for the chain gun would be far less than it would be for say an Apache or whatever. And that's just the armament concern, you'd still have to worry about the stress the chopper's body has to endure from the recoil of such big guns and you also have the fact that an armed troop transport would be akin to having Melissa McCarthy carry a .50 cal around than a legit well trained soldier with an M60. Just because she has a bigger gun doesn't mean she's good at it or she's a better choice.
      And no, low price doesn't always mean it's more cost effective.
      Even if the Hyrda missiles are some of the cheapest missiles around, they're still far more expensive than using guns. Plus the aircraft (i.e. the V280) itself is far more expensive than even a UH-60. So turning an expensive platform such as this into a "gunship"/attack helicopter would make your argument of it being cost effective because "mUh hYdRaZzZz aRe cHeAp" would be invalid and moot because the total price would still be extremely high than using dedicated attack helicopters or drones if you want missiles. Plus the costs if one would be lost due to enemy attack, a malfunction or an accident would be far lower overall if we chose drones over an armed V280.

  • @johnfoster5955
    @johnfoster5955 Рік тому

    Speed is great it’s great there for good for medevac and back on getting soldiers to the destination but safety always good. They have to be provide protection for the aircraft just like the Blackhawk.

  • @automatedshenanigans8230
    @automatedshenanigans8230 3 роки тому +1

    Taliban drooling 🤤 hoping we leave some of these next time

  • @dancox5572
    @dancox5572 3 роки тому +11

    Weight and firepower? Two pretty huge factors. Still looks like an awesome machine. Great work on your videos.

  • @sportsupdatetoday
    @sportsupdatetoday 3 роки тому

    Very good video

  • @danielroos7873
    @danielroos7873 3 роки тому +5

    The moment he called rotors "propellers" I lost all confidence.

  • @jameshernandez9233
    @jameshernandez9233 2 роки тому

    So now they are going back to how the first prototypes of helicopters looked “auto-gyro”

  • @ronbenjamin4351
    @ronbenjamin4351 3 роки тому +6

    Is this the one we just gifted to the Taliban!! They love it.. says it flies like a champ!! Thanks Joe!

  • @danijel124
    @danijel124 3 роки тому +1

    Its interesting that in our modern times we still use rotors and propellers instead of some ion propulsion or other exotic forms of propulsion...

    • @yingnyang2889
      @yingnyang2889 3 роки тому +1

      Ion? I think they only work in space bud. What do you think this is the movies? This is reality with availability of current use of fuels.

    • @ursamajor7320
      @ursamajor7320 2 роки тому

      Yeah, I am surprised we aren't seeing hover craft or jet engines on these frames by now. But whatever works I suppose. Wouldn't doubt an Osprey inspired transporter with jet engines in the future.

  • @Finraen
    @Finraen 3 роки тому +3

    They are gonna need something to replace the Blackhawk really soon since they left all of them in Afghanistan!

  • @Skrenja
    @Skrenja 2 роки тому

    I could see the general design being great for high end civilian helicopters too.

  • @hafeezminhas
    @hafeezminhas 3 роки тому +3

    This would be really helpful to flee an area. Would have been really help to run away from Afghanistan if this model was available early

  • @blissmagick296
    @blissmagick296 2 роки тому

    God Bless The US & it’s Allie’s which could be everyone and it’s time we started loving everyone all over the Globe because we all can start getting along setting a President that makes us one in LOVE in Unitarian Bliss. Love is the answer and all of have Love to give. We just need to support Love and give as much as we can. There are no Limits to giving love.
    It’s also why I love you alll.

    • @blissmagick296
      @blissmagick296 2 роки тому

      I love everyone from this life to the next.

  • @BazIrvine
    @BazIrvine 3 роки тому +3

    Yes but where does all the fuel go?

  • @waynfloyd6245
    @waynfloyd6245 2 роки тому +1

    That's awesome.

  • @thegongoolzler2677
    @thegongoolzler2677 3 роки тому +3

    Me: (Thinking of enlisting as 15T)
    "Darn"

    • @dangerouseducation40
      @dangerouseducation40 3 роки тому +1

      Don't..

    • @crafterisland9949
      @crafterisland9949 3 роки тому +1

      Same, but dont worry the blackhawk wont be replaced anytime soon

    • @nicholas2468
      @nicholas2468 3 роки тому +3

      15T here, its not going anywhere anytime soon, and if you do enlist going aviation is an absolute plus over many other options.

    • @kirillholt2329
      @kirillholt2329 3 роки тому +1

      same

    • @jojosmiff3417
      @jojosmiff3417 3 роки тому +1

      This will be achievable as a Utility Helicopter in Neveruary.

  • @tomteseletec2072
    @tomteseletec2072 2 роки тому

    Great specs, sleek aerodynamic looks.

  • @peterisawesomeplease
    @peterisawesomeplease 3 роки тому +12

    I really wish there were more neutral weapons videos on youtube. I know its difficult but almost every video either sounds like pure cooperate propaganda or assumes no new weapons should ever be created. Like even mentioning cost once would be nice.

    • @enginepy
      @enginepy 2 роки тому

      Cost is tricky. Because they always state a number initially and then so-called cost overruns and delays always happen, whether intentional or not and end up making the actual production variants cost many multiples more than intended. It’s a junk system we have for procurement

  • @gladiator_games
    @gladiator_games 3 роки тому

    Putting crows system on this vehicle would be badass

  • @johnbrock8105
    @johnbrock8105 3 роки тому +4

    I bet the Taliban can't wait til they get these!

  • @TvshkaHumma
    @TvshkaHumma 3 роки тому +1

    The Defiant is awesome and I hope the Mil will see that as well!.

  • @petelosuaniu
    @petelosuaniu 3 роки тому +4

    Beijing approves of their new SP2 Defungshui original future concept helicopter. Xiexie

  • @ADobbin1
    @ADobbin1 3 роки тому +1

    SO they have built a helicopter first then they'll figure out how to arm it. Sounds like they have done it right.

  • @GermanGreetings
    @GermanGreetings 2 роки тому

    Good luck for this giant step !

  • @rodneychavez2855
    @rodneychavez2855 3 роки тому +2

    Where did the name Sikorsky come from 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸

    • @sc1338
      @sc1338 3 роки тому

      America...

  • @IvanDimitrov-nu7ih
    @IvanDimitrov-nu7ih 3 роки тому +2

    Ka 52 Alligator wanna be

  • @joshuamoore24_7
    @joshuamoore24_7 2 роки тому

    I think it's a surprise there is not a full sized quad copter on this video.

  • @yadukrishnakrishna323
    @yadukrishnakrishna323 3 роки тому +2

    Typical America😁❤

  • @Homoprimatesapiens
    @Homoprimatesapiens 2 роки тому +1

    Why not create a similar size chopper but with an X form fuselage such as a drone?? It can also be pushed horizontally either by turbofan or jet for extra speed. It will also provide the capability for the crew to bail out by bail out seats when in a emergency situation.

  • @lualsuw1358
    @lualsuw1358 3 роки тому

    They should call it Toothless

  • @OracleDavis
    @OracleDavis 3 роки тому

    Wow the helicopter with L3-37 embedded in just like Millennium Falcon.

  • @loading..7049
    @loading..7049 2 роки тому

    I love helicopters……
    Only behind the safety of my phone…

  • @Knightmare919
    @Knightmare919 2 роки тому +1

    The Blackhawk is cheaper to maintain especially for third world countries.

  • @lemonade_420
    @lemonade_420 3 роки тому +2

    The picture you have on is different from the actual chopper you are talking about

  • @blackbikelp
    @blackbikelp 3 роки тому

    I love hoe the title photo shows a whole other helicopter 😮‍💨

  • @bigwillmck2
    @bigwillmck2 2 роки тому

    The V-280 Valor wasn't covered in this video? Because it's the one that's going to win the contract

  • @l.ls.8890
    @l.ls.8890 3 роки тому +1

    Both are vulnerable very vulnerable.

  • @cmdrarc1869
    @cmdrarc1869 2 роки тому

    make changing parts out easier and im sold

  • @ViolentKisses87
    @ViolentKisses87 2 роки тому

    V-280 Valor Cruise Speed: 345mph -==Winner Valor==-
    SB-1 Defiant's Cruise Speed: 288mph
    V-280 Valor Range: 1734 nm -==Winner Valor==-
    SB-1 Defiant's Range: < 1000 nm
    I've give the edge to the Defiant on overall agility however both aircraft seem to have quick takeoff and landings.
    If it were my money to speed even if I already had the Defiant would consider upgrading to the Valor for its range alone.
    Imagine being able to Loiter nearby for an extra two hours over a battlefield.