SB-1 Defiant First Flight

youtube.com/watch?v=Sm-N7trI0sw

That's a fucking beauty. Also surprisingly really quiet.

Attached: SB1 Defiant First Flight.jpg (970x550, 546K)

Other urls found in this thread:

aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=H60
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=V22
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=H47
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

>Not showing off the back prop at full speed

Cockteases

>pushrotor
Fantastic, I hate it!

Attached: Sikorsky MH-60M.jpg (5299x3217, 1.04M)

whats the point of this dumb waste of money

To piss you off. Specifically you. Fuck you.

t. DoD

They totally need a new helicopter bro! Just let us increase taxes already

>helicopter with counter-rotating main rotor
Leave this to the Russians.

Tilt-rotors aircraft are the American way.

How fucking dumb are you? What year so you think it is? 2020 is around the corner and the main helicopter of the US military is this old piece of shit from the 70s that is old, crasjes a lot, can't do shit and is outmatched by it's own chink copy. Why dont you complain about welfare for enlisted instead or actually useful programs?

it looks really cool, but why?

Because it would be bad form to just let the V-280 win even though that's what is going to happen

why this double + push rotor system instead of the proven platforms we have already?

>t. Boeing

Fix your 737's

Higher speed and range than conventional helicopters. Not as efficient as tilt-rotor, but more agile at lower speeds/altitude.

The FVL program is supposed to deliver a more speedful and more rangeful aircraft, and eventually a family of systems will be procured:
>Small OH-58/OH-6 replacement
>Medium UH-60/AH-64 replacement
>Large CH-47 replacement
>Ultralarge C-130 capacity VTOL

Because the shit we have is old and this is a straight improvement in every way?

resting on your laurels is a good way to get fucked in the next war

Cool! Thanks brehs. This is super interesting.

Gotta wonder if anyone else is gonna get into tiltrotors. It's pretty much just Bell that does it. Leonardo is doing it now, but only by bringing Bell in to do all the real work first.

Augusta Westland has a commercially available tiltrotor now.

Sadly I think the army will go with a tilt rotor because the Osprey is a proven platform, and the Army doesn’t like to stray too far from what the other branches are flying (the USAF, USMC, and-soon-USN all fly the V-22)

>>Ultralarge C-130 capacity VTOL

Wow... really?

Which sucks because the Valor is fucking gay, this thing is way cooler.

It looks like a helicopter fucked a submarine.

>from the 70s
So's the Abrams. What's your point?
>crasjes a lot
Do you have statistics on that? From what I find a good number of recorded crashes are either from pilot error or damage to the helicopter from enemy fire. In a lot of cases most, if not all occupants survive. Is there some indestructible, uncrashable helicopter I should be aware of?
>can't do shit
Well every branch of the United States Armed Forces, several other government agencies, and many foreign governments would beg to differ.
>outmatched by it's own chink copy
What, the S-70? Because that's retarded. And the only thing we know about the Z-20 is what Chang tells us; by that logic the Su-57 outmatches the F-22.

Attached: 1550639944107.jpg (1280x1920, 229K)

Once the Marines get their hands on it I'm sure it will be.

you heard right

Attached: e8d2e482-f5d4-45f8-929c-c6d41c7ff195.Full.jpg (874x313, 107K)

Hey man don't shit talk the Valor. It's trying as hard as it can!

Attached: 1537240009144m.jpg (866x1024, 104K)

>So's the Abrams. What's your point?
there haven't been a lot of advanced in the field of making tanks, there's been a lot in helicopters, enough that right now it'd be stupid not to make a new helicopter that would reach all that potential

>Do you have statistics on that? From what I find a good number of recorded crashes are either from pilot error or damage to the helicopter from enemy fire. In a lot of cases most, if not all occupants survive. Is there some indestructible, uncrashable helicopter I should be aware of?

the Blackhawk for the longest time was known as Crashhawk because they were going down so fucking much, the stabilizer had problems for a long time and the chopper is still pretty temperamental. Your main transport should be the most stupid-proof aircraft possible.

>Well every branch of the United States Armed Forces, several other government agencies, and many foreign governments would beg to differ.
Again, compared to what modern technology can provide, old helicopters are extremely limited in speed, range and payload, this isn't a pointless marginal increase, the increase in capability is actually game-changing.

>What, the S-70? Because that's retarded. And the only thing we know about the Z-20 is what Chang tells us; by that logic the Su-57 outmatches the F-22.
Even at the most conservative estimate the Chinese bird is at least equivalent, but most of their inventory isn't as aged as the US's fleet of Blackhawks.

>there haven't been a lot of advanced in the field of making tanks
So thermal imaging, soft and hard kill APS, DU-core composite armor, network integration, and the fuckhuge pile of stuff that separates the XM-1 from the M1A2C is...? You're talking about this as if any given Black Hawk in service today is identical to the first one to ever be produced.
>the Blackhawk for the longest time was known as Crashhawk because they were going down so fucking much
So no; The answer would be "no, I have no statistical evidence, just an anecdote".
>Again, compared to what modern technology can provide...
Ah, I see; It can't do shit based on your arbitrary definition.
>Even at the most conservative estimate the Chinese bird is at least equivalent, but most of their inventory isn't as aged as the US's fleet of Blackhawks.
So in other words the Chinese's newest helicopter is, at best, marginally better than a helicopter that made its first flight 39 years earlier. Seems like a pretty good showing for the Black Hawk if all Chang can come up with is a flashy knockoff.

For the sake of clarity here, I'm not trying to say that the Black Hawk is better than a helicopter that first flew in 2013, or 2019 for that matter. The point I'm making is that it being and old design doesn't make it some rickety, flying deathtrap like you seem to think it is. Do these newer helicopters do neato shit that a UH-60 couldn't? Of fucking course. That hardly makes their predecessor and old, useless piece of shit.

Attached: Sikorsky UH-60.jpg (973x500, 668K)

Every day we inch closer to my dream of dropships. Ever since halo and starwars I've wanted them

Attached: maxresdefault (7).jpg (1280x720, 100K)

Not op and I agree with you however I think the Abrams is near the end of its life. I bet you we will see a new tank proposal in a decade or 2

>So thermal imaging, soft and hard kill APS, DU-core composite armor, network integration, and the fuckhuge pile of stuff that separates the XM-1 from the M1A2C is...? You're talking about this as if any given Black Hawk in service today is identical to the first one to ever be produced.

none of those things are changes to the actual tank's actual design like what putting a different propulsion system, engines and general aerodynamic profile entails for an aircraft, what's even your point?

>So no; The answer would be "no, I have no statistical evidence, just an anecdote".

how about this
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=H60
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=V22
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=H47

The blackhawk during it's starting years had more fatalities than the V-22 did despite the later being known for being unsafe. It stacks poorly against the Chinook, a chopper absolutely despised for being unsafe and difficult too.

>Ah, I see; It can't do shit based on your arbitrary definition.
DUDE. I didn't give these companies billions to develop these fucking choppers, the pentagon decided it was worth it for a fucking reason, look at this pic, look at how much of a difference a faster chopper does. We're talking aircraft capable of covering entire theaters of war at the disposal of the army. Think of all the ferrying and logistics adding up over a whole operation.

>So in other words the Chinese's newest helicopter is, at best, marginally better than a helicopter that made its first flight 39 years earlier. Seems like a pretty good showing for the Black Hawk if all Chang can come up with is a flashy knockoff.

If they can do the same but for far cheaper it means they're winning.

Attached: a9e7794d784636583a277b4e17655d0e.jpg (700x358, 65K)

One can only hope that the Army sees the light and realizes that tilt-rotors simply lack the agility needed for small-to-medium helicopters. Tiltrotor is fine for the Osprey and up, but Sikorsky's coaxial pusher design is vastly superior for smaller tactical aircraft.

Can this type of aircraft be done cheaply? I'm assuming China will have its hands on this design very soon

in truth the price tag for an aircraft is 90% development, if they literally have all the hard work done for them they might end up with a slightly inferior design but it'd be cost effective for them nonetheless.

as for the actual difficulty in manufacture, that's a different area altogether, from what i've picked up China's weakness has always been the ability to build high end, reliable engines for their aircraft. It can be materials-based but also sheer know-how and tooling plays a part.

We've been seeing new tank proposals constantly for almost twenty years now. M1A2C just began mass production, and M1A3 is still in the works. Abrams isn't going anywhere for a long fucking time. Now, you do get into a "grandfather's ax" dilemma in that the M1A3 would have about as much in common with the baseline M1 as the M60 had with an M46.

Makes sense, I'd love to see a new workhorse added to American logistical capabilities.

I mean a radical redesign, which either the the M1A3 will be or the A3 will be the last Abrams. Ukraine has hopefully relit the fire under the ass of armor R&D and technology should be at the point where the old design starts to have limitations.

>suprisingly quiet

ITS VERY QUIET all things considering especially the blade tips would have a lot more noise...

which i bet my ass this is edited by boeing

LAATs are fucking beautiful. If I could get my hands on any small craft out of star wars I'd be torn between a LAAT/i or a slightly modified ARC-170.

Attached: 1399953730941.jpg (3689x1282, 2.72M)

>arguing in favor of the SB-1
>uses image promoting the V-280

>ARC-170
Was trash. LAATs however I could see being a plausible future aircraft (if you get rid of the turret bubbles)

>So no; The answer would be "no, I have no statistical evidence, just an anecdote".
It was widely called Crashhawk in early years of it's service.
aviation-safety.net/wikibase/dblist.php?AcType=H60

>So in other words the Chinese's newest helicopter is, at best, marginally better than a helicopter that made its first flight 39 years earlier.
Harbin Z-20 is quite literally reverse engineered Blackhawk with bit more composites and five bladed main rotor. Early prototypes likely used engines and gear boxes from a Blackhawk prior to Chinks got their own powerplant and drivetrain fully developed. It is replacement for couple dozen Blackhawks Chinks bought in early 80's and that were delivered to them in 1983 and 1984. Chinks wanted more Blackhawks, were in process of getting 'em, but Tiananmen square massacre happened and that led to international weapons embargo on China.

Attached: z20.jpg (600x400, 39K)

>getting rid of the balls of death
Why though? Just rig'em so they're controlled from inside the vehicle rather than by a person in the ball. Basically set them up like the ones on the wings. Those things with a ballsy pilot would be capable of some scary shit.

The ARC needed some modification like central hull mounted blasters rather than just the wingtip cannons but could be great. If you want trash look at vulture droids or TIE fighters, only good in swarms and even in the hands of the best pilots TIEs would regularly get wrecked by a jackass in an X-wing. Also Obi-wan's "let them pass between us" was dumb as shit.

Attached: ARC-170.png (1710x1197, 2.2M)

I wants thisyn!

Attached: 658c7da85c20ed0c8b9301b106e0f992.png (960x398, 459K)

You know that's not how it works, nitwit. The taxes are already spent weather they make giant fighting robots with them or overhaul a long in the tooth helicopter fleet well passed it's shelf life

The Abrams has been the subject of myriad upgrade programs since it's inception. Comparing Abrams of today to the first ones rolling of the assembly line in the 70's is just disingenuous. The point of the defiant is to be better than the Blackhawk in every conceivable way. Every time new hardware comes out you luddites come around saying "well what's wrong with the old stuff". You'd have to be pretty fucking stupid to think one ought to stop once they find the first solution that works.

What makes you think so?

Unless they can mitigate the insane linkage structure and transmission the Sikorsky design wins purely on not having big gearboxes on both wings and being able to go about as far as fast. I it's cheaper and easier to maintain.

Attached: 1544225709674.png (1680x921, 253K)

They stack up pretty close.

>blackhawk
>outdated
pick one retard

Abrams is crap though...

Buttmad turdworlder/Eurovermin detected

60 pilot here... there is not one single helicopter I’d rather take into combat than a UH60 Blackhawk.

Yeah i'm sure you have personal experience with all of them.

Tiltrotors are fucking gay, leave that bullshit for the fags in the muhreens and navy.

If the army gave two shits about the muhreens then they would be flying Cobras still.

Actually vultures seemed fine, they just should be piloted instead of having a shit ai. The arc is just too big and slow for the tech. Jedi star fighters, vultures and a wings all show how ships can still have large payloads be fast, maneuverable works in atmosphere and have very small profiles. The bubbles on the LAAT could be replaced with smaller less vulnerable turrets controlled by the interior.

Good luck valor chan!

Attached: 1548265464905.png (344x393, 183K)

Vultures carry a light payload with no shields or hyperdrive. A-wings carry less powerful blasters than the vultures but at least have rudimentary shields, more missiles, hyperdrives, and are MUCH faster (they're purpose built interceptors).

ARCs are heavy fighters with more powerful weaponry and more of it alongside powerful shields, hyperdrives, rear guns, and a large payload for what they are and are still comparable to vultures in speed and maneuvering. ARCs were meant to be able to hammer captial ships without needing support from one while dealing with enemy fighters effectively, the problem is there's usually a fuckload more vultures (and other droid starfighters) than ARCs (and other republic starfighters) and Jedi are awful commanders. The ARC is usually in the same sort of position numbers wise an X-wing would be in. The problem here is you're seeing big and assuming it means bad when the ARC-170 is more capable than a Vulture. The vultures only saving graces are cost (Under 20k credits, even the Imperial TIE/In was 60k new), they can be used as walking ground forces, and when one explodes you don't lose anyone. An A-wing would still have a hard time against an ARC because of it's very light shields and low payloads (you don't need much against TIEs), that ARC scratches you you're going to have a very bad day. A better match up is the ARC's own direct descendant, the X-wing.

The B-wing would be a role and type match though and I'd put my money on the B-wing without a second thought.

Well isn't Sikorsky Russian?

Sikorsky is like Smirnoff USA

blade tips go near supersonic always if your rpm are above 466 or 479 i cant remember correctly

so the noise alove from the blades should be way more there is no magical way to make then less noisy unless you test it on a day with very low pressure on the everest

ill wait for third party videos on airshows

That looks like a space Hind

>As far
>As fast

I see them having difficulties hitting the 270 knot goal and range is going to be really short wasting fuel on having to turn those two rotors to produce lift.

I will agree that in hover, the SB-1 will be the superior platform, with a smaller area that should be more conducive to operations where it's smaller footprint is an advantage. Rotor tip to tip the Valor is 85 ft wide. The range and extra speed of the Valor however, I believe would be worth it.

I remember when Bell was working on the quad tiltrotor concept. My father was working at Bell at the time, and he thought it was a ridiculous notion having one prop behind the other. Efficiency losses in the horizontal be damned, but it shouldn't be that big a deal in the vertical.

Attached: bell-qU40-tilt-rotor-80584l1.jpg (700x470, 33K)

The US has had a special blade design that keeps them from creating sonic cracking, they used them in the stealth hawks for the Bin Laden mission.

>co-axial rotors are the future of rotary wing aviation and there is absolutely nothing you can do to change that

Attached: 1533961367914.jpg (853x552, 73K)

Sikorsky isn't Russian, although the founder was. He immigrated from russia to the US in the 20s

He was born in kiev, actually. Although at the time they were still part of the Russian empire so it's technically correct to say he was russian

>When questioned regarding his roots, he would answer: "My family is of Russian origin. My grandfather and other ancestors from the time of Peter the Great were Russian Orthodox priests."[5]
There's no such thing as "ukraine".

WOP WOP WOP WOP WOP

Swept blade tips = delayed shockwave wave formation

That's basically what it is. It was inspired by the Hind.

I don't think that's feasible for mass production. My understanding in brainlet terms is that they create a counter frequency vibration in the blades. I don't think it actually has to do with the blade geometry, because it's just a direct result of the fact that they're moving really fucking fast.

GOOD LUCK, VALOR-CHAN!

I HATE IT

Good luck volar-chan

That nobody wants.

trying the AH-56 again, eh