REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE I WANT IT TO WIN BROS

It also has less points of catastrophic failure

s-shut up. Defiant-chan will win because lockmart points

I am supporting Op's doubles blade rear prop heli

bruh

>implying you never did

The Valor is better than the defiant. It doubles the deployment range of any base and halves the time needed to fly to drop zones, compared to the blackhawk. The Defiant has no range and still less speed than the Valor.

Attached: v280_75tilt_4_0.jpg (2000x1103, 580K)

>stacked rotors
Looks like Russian tech.

Tilt-rotors are the American way.

enjoy getting shot down in hot landing zones. tiltrotors can't even come close to the maneuverability or transition speed of a coaxial pusher.

I was under the impression that the Valor was a different program

Only russians know how to build double-rotor helos.

same here, I thought they were being considered to fulfill different roles

Have to see how tall it is. If it can't fit in a C17 then no, it's shit.

youtu.be/9fEIRLm-csw
>this kills the valor

How much of a maintenance PITA are the counter-rotating rotors, though? How easy is it to work on overall?

Add moar blades -> kom back.

Attached: 6d900a5367f4a1ea65c884b0542089e1bba6471927947c9a00ff2764ebc80e10_1.jpg (320x316, 24K)

Looks like a Beluga

Helicopters land and exit the hot zone a lot fucking faster.

Stacked rotors have been prototyped in the west for decades, tilt rotors are just reckless
This. Oh sure, tilt rotors can get there quicker, but once there, deployment is much, much slower, and less safe. And extraction is much, much slower as well. For now at least

It would make a great deal of sense for this to be true

Meh

Americans can't into double rotors like the Chinese. They should just stick with the Black Hawk.

Yeah, pretty sure the Defiant is supposed to replace the old Kiowas, and the Valor is to replace the 'Hawks.

>This bait will get 100 replies

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志

>Kiowas
Nah, Kiowas were really small, which was a feature, not a bug

The Defiant will be for 90% of the fleet, while the longer ranged Valor may be heavily favored by the Navy and Marines

Seems like a maintenance nightmare desu

The defiant is meant for fast recon, light fire support, and limited troop deployment, no? The valor has scaled-down expectations of the osprey: fast, long range transportation.

>Valor may be heavily favored by the Navy

No. Look at the Valor's huge footprint. It will never replace the Navy Seahawk.

Same here, bro. It's so pretty. Also likely to handle a lot better than the V-280.

>inb4 both get adopted

Attached: EC5B374A-E0D9-48FA-A7FD-0234D0252D85.jpg (800x615, 115K)

The S-97 Raider was designed to fill the hole that the Kiowa left. The Defiant and the Valor are competing to fill the same missions as one another.

They're not. The V-280 and the SB-1 Defiant are both entries for the FVL program- the replacement of the Blackhawk.

The SB-1 is essentially a larger version of the S-97 Raider, which is now intended for the Future Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft program, or a replacement scout aircraft, in this case replacing the Apaches that were put into scout battalions that don't really fit the role very well.

Based

As long as we replace the FUCKING AH-64 with it. After 2 years of working on this heap of shit and the fiasco with the E models now I can't believe we traded away the Kiowa for more of this big, beautiful hangar queen

Attached: 5a9592caaae60531008b4675-750-375.jpg (750x375, 38K)

That;d be the S-97 that would be for that.

Why do people think this copypasta works vs China shills? If I were in charge of their state propaganda, I'd let them go without the restrictions that plebs get.

>fiasco with the E models
?

Boeing decided to redesign the transmission to provide more power from the engines directly to the main rotor, while also extending the main rotor span out to 50ft
The brainlet engineers didn't think to strengthen any of the parts between the rotor shaft and the blades though. As a result the main rotorhead, the part that holds the thing in the sky, on these things, was always trying to rip itself apart and these things were always getting grounded for wear on parts well beyond specs and safety allowances. I don't remember if there were any actual crashes do to this, but it was enough of a problem on it's own that the Army cancelled all procurement and stopped accepting new Apaches from Boeing last year.

How bad was the Apache?
I know there's a reason not too many countries have enough of it aside from just per unit cost.

What a bad rendering.

It does what it was designed to really, really well but no one has a pressing need to slaughter legions of russian tanks.
Cost per unit and the ridiculous maintenance the thing requires, along with there just not being a need for it when other birds can accomplish the same job for less is my guess.

Seriously, why the hell the army thought an 11 ton attack platform the size of a semi truck and trailer would be good to replace something about the size of a 2 door car I have no idea, especially when plans to finally fix the power issues with the Kiowa were not only in place and almost ready to roll out, but massively cheaper than equipping all the cav units with new, larger helicopters they'd need to retrain on anyways.

>Seriously, why the hell the army thought an 11 ton attack platform the size of a semi truck and trailer would be good to replace something about the size of a 2 door car I have no idea, especially when plans to finally fix the power issues with the Kiowa were not only in place and almost ready to roll out, but massively cheaper than equipping all the cav units with new, larger helicopters they'd need to retrain on anyways.

The Kiowa's role is really just being phased out altogether in favor of drones. The idea of the Apache E was to make it into a drone chopper mothership, the Army likely just wants a shitload of Apache and Apache-trained people in the inventory.to prepare for it.

I'm rooting for Valor-chan so that we Section 9 nao.

Attached: botanachi.jpg (388x250, 13K)

Then Defiant it is, for everything

Tilt Rotors are a silly meme until we successfully marry them to TurboJets, in some sickass hybrid of Harriers and Halo's Pelicans

This. And the Cobra frame and design got enough updates that honestly, the latest Super-Cobra is just plain better for the money

>the hot zone

>hot landing zones

First off, choppers haven't dropped into anything hot ever since those blackhawks went down in Somalia. Secondly, the ability to rapidly reach a destination means the Valor will get its troops where they need to be faster than the Defiant ever could. The Valor can reach places the Defiant cannot because of fuel efficiency. Thirdly, the Valor more agile than you think. The Valor is the logical choice.

Then they would be the ones getting redpilled, though.

Super Cobra was replaced by the Viper.

Attached: Bell_USMC_AH-1_Viper_(cropped).jpg (1193x719, 194K)

Anything requiring a transitional flight period gets agility points docked.
The Valor's large footprint is a disadvantage, and the only reason it is considered for procurement is to replace the poor old Greyhound with something that a) is better than the Osprey; b) can land on and take off from both Navy and Marine carriers without the use of catapult or RATOS.

>Anything requiring a transitional flight period gets agility points docked.

Why? You're just being a retard with some made up points system.

>Blackhawks are only used in entirely safe, sanitized airspace

Get a load of this guy. Like it or not, tiltrotors significantly increase your exposure when approaching or departing the landing zone.

Tiltrotors are great replacements for larger transport helicopters, but coaxial pushers run circles around them when it comes to replacing smaller tactical helicopters.

Me too

Terrible taste

Attached: 1520159546393.jpg (1280x1748, 828K)

The storage footprint can be the same. The Osprey is plenty compact for carrier hangar storage when the wing rotates.

It won't win for medium. A derivative of it might win the scout contest though.

Can i semi hijack this post?

Is Arma3 worth getting mainly for the helicopter piloting? Is it any fun?

There's probably a shit ton to pick from right? I saw a video with a commanche in it

t. actually autistic
No, fuck off to /v/ you faglord

Tilt-rotors are shit for use in the role of tactical transport.

They are ideal for moving supplies, ferrying large amount of troops between safe locations , and replacing heavy air lift helicopters.

They have shit handling characteristics at low speeds (IE landing / taking off), are vulnerable when switch between flight methods, and are more restricted in the locations they can land due to the large "wing span" for lack of a better term.

This isn't taking into account the obvious production, logistics, and maintenance cost of two separate rotors and all of their accompanying systems.

Attached: image-7.jpg (750x806, 282K)

Are they fucking bluring the open parts below the rotor?

>How much of a maintenance PITA are the counter-rotating rotors, though?
More than normal rotors, less than double tiltrotor+wing.

>First off, choppers haven't dropped into anything hot ever since those blackhawks went down in Somalia
My 2 deployments in urban cities in Iraq where we did all fucking kinds of cordon and search or target interdiction via helo beg to differ. We only ever had 1 actually go down to enemy fire but almost every mission the birds would have a few new holes in them.

Related

Got any actual data to support this?

A tilt rotor is hardly more vulnerable when switching modes. If going from hover to forward flight, it's accelerating fasting. Slowing down is something that is done well ahead of time. I'm optimistic about the agility of the Valor in hover mode. I think it can perform adequately enough to make it worth using for its strengths.

Beyond a small amount of hands-on experience (and even then nothing too technical as I'm an aircraft electrician not a drivetrain maintainer so it's mostly gofering and light-holding for them), no I don't. However,
>traditional rotors
1 drivetrain, 1 driveshaft, 1 set of rotors
>contra rotating rotors
1 drivetrain. 2 driveshafts. 2 sets of rotors.
>tiltrotor
2 drivetrains, 4 driveshafts, 2 sets of rotors, mechanism for turning whole wing assembly for storage, controls and drive system for flight controls in wing, controls and drive system for tilt mechanism, about 300% more hydraulic lines

There's simply a lot more moving parts in a tiltrotor than a contra-rotor, and there's more moving parts in a contra-rotor than a single rotor although not by a lot because that's not really accounting for the tail rotor (which while simple compared to a main rotor is still moving parts)

Transition from hover to horizontal flight in a tiltrotor is painfully slow compared to a pusher, where the transition is seamless and instantaneous. As soon as you leave the ground you can engage the pusher and start building speed; there is no transition phase.

>Slowing down is something that is done well ahead of time.

Which makes you vulnerable on your slow-ass approach. With a pusher you can come in hot and use the prop for braking. This has the added benefit of avoiding the nose-up/tail-down flare that a conventional helicopter requires when making a fast approach.