The Army has officially selected the Bell’s V-280 Valor tiltrotor aircraft to replace the beloved UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter that has ferried soldiers into combat for the last half-century. The V-280 Valor beat out the Sikorsky-Boeing SB-1 Defiant compound coaxial helicopter to win the service’s years-long Future Long-Range Assault Aircraft (FLRAA) competition, the service announced on Monday.
Breaking Defense first reported news of the Army’s FLRAA decision.
“The thoughtful and disciplined execution of the FLRAA program strategy will deliver the transformational capabilities we need to support the Joint force, strengthen deterrence and win in multi-domain operations,” Douglas Bush, the assistant secretary of the Army for Acquisition, Logistics and Technology, said in a news release.
When the Osprey came into the Marine Corps inventory, I almost switched services so I could fly that bird. Now that the technology has proven itself, the US Army has finally got on board with the concept. Wishing I was younger and still able to go there. Would do it in a heartbeat.
This will be a combat multiplier, I have no doubt!
I wonder why they didn't just use the Osprey? It's already in inventory and combat proven. Too big?
Can the Valor fly twice as far and twice as fast as the Blackhawk?
The article says this "aircraft" will fly 280 knots and has an 800 mile range. Sorry, I was never UH60 qualified and honestly would have to search out that information.
At some point they will have to come up with a replacement for the A-10 Warthog (Yes, it is the best AC at doing it's job)
Years ago (Approx' 1990), I saw the XV-15 at an airshow at Moffet Field...It was really something (Back then especially)
I let the gears grind and came up with a tilt-rotor ground attack aircraft; The engines would be in the fuselage (Better IR sig coverage AND afterburner ability), the rotors would be scimitar-shaped for high-speeds, and the afterburning engines would allow dashing at over Mach 1.
Another idea I had was a tower/arm that would tilt up from the back of the aircraft and have a camera/radar that would allow the aircraft to hide behind a ridge or trees and peer over to see the enemy- possibly even have small missiles that could be launched from the top of the arm. Here is a quick drawing of it.
Originally posted by blackrams: The article says this "aircraft" will fly 280 knots and has an 800 mile range. Sorry, I was never UH60 qualified and honestly would have to search out that information.
Rams
blackhawk specs are 150kts and 300 nm range., so Valor will go farther and faster but not as fast as the aircraft Sikorsky had in the competition.
The aircraft that lost out :
“Black Hawk pilots love the Black Hawk. The thing about DEFIANT X is it’ll go twice as far, twice as fast, will be twice as maneuverable, twice as survivable and have approximately half of the noise acoustic signature of a Black Hawk. So it’ll do everything the Black Hawk did - better,” Mangum said.
The DEFIANT X operates with more volume, stealthier external configuration, yet it is by design closely aligned with the size and shape of the Black Hawk. The width and height of the Black Hawk and DEFIANT X are marginally different. Designers of the DEFIANT X chose this deliberately to improve affordability so that the Army doesn’t have to rebuild global hangars and maintenance facilities for the new helicopters.
“Wherever you can put a Black Hawk, you can put a DEFIANT X. If you can put three or four Black Hawks in a hangar, you can put three or four DEFIANT X’s in the hangar. You don’t need to spend more time, more money and more energy building additional infrastructure to support what you already have today throughout the globe,” said Ed Fortunato, Vice President, Army Aviation Programs, Lockheed Martin Sikorsky.
blackhawk specs are 150kts and 300 nm range., so Valor will go farther and faster but not as fast as the aircraft Sikorsky had in the competition. ]
The interesting thing about range is that one must assume that range is established in still wind conditions. I don't think I ever flew in still wind conditions. Especially on cross country trips. The winds vary from starting location, during the flight and at the destination, that doesn't even include winds at different altitudes varying in wind speed and direction.
While stationed at Ft. Sill, my unit supported Ft. Hood exercises frequently. We (almost always) stopped to refuel at Mecham Airfield Dallas/Fort Worth but, on occasion would catch favorable winds returning to Ft Sill and would be able to fly right on by Mecham and get home on one fuel load. So, I would suggest that flight time is a more dependable/reliable measurement than distance.
The largest range and speed inhibitor/influencer in any rotorcraft is external load. Totin a 155mm howitzer isn't too bad, but carrying a 13,000lb sling load of 155mm ammo was much much worse because of the shape.
The largest range and speed inhibitor/influencer in any rotorcraft is external load. Totin a 155mm howitzer isn't too bad, but carrying a 13,000lb sling load of 155mm ammo was much much worse because of the shape.
Agreed. Didn't do but a few sling loads and that was just in training. MTPs generally don't do much of that kind of thing. I did get to see the results of a sling load (generator) under a Chinook that got dropped while being transported around the Seoul security zone flight path they required. That generator got to swinging and they let it go. Made one heck of a hole through the roof of a restaurant there. Although, the reason for the drop was blamed on a bad switch.............. Not CH47 qualified so I can't confirm or deny what really happened.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-08-2022).]
I don't know this aircraft very well but wasn't there a high accident rate with these or was that simply pilot error?
The aircraft pictured is new and isn't in the Army inventory yet. Both the Blackhawk and the Osprey had some engineering issues to overcome even after delivery to the Army and Navy/USMC. Can't speak about the Osprey Navy/USMC but the Army Blackhawk has been very reliable when properly employed. None of our (or anyone's) low altitude aircraft do well in sandy/dusty regions. Sand is really hard on the engines. But with proper maintenance have been a workhorse for our military.
With the Ospey, they found that there were a few new things to learn about operating it, so there were some crashes before they figured that out. Kind of like learning how to fly a jet fighter after having flown a prop-job most of your career...
With the Ospey, they found that there were a few new things to learn about operating it, so there were some crashes before they figured that out. Kind of like learning how to fly a jet fighter after having flown a prop-job most of your career...
My understanding is that the problem was centered around the combining transmission but, that's hearsay. There's always a learning curve to overcome.
Not CH47 qualified so I can't confirm or deny what really happened.
