Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
i tend to agree with every point you have raised, i think there are couple elements may justified this decision:
1) jealous - Army would like to have their own V22 - and other branches keep them non-informed about maintenance and tactical usage problems with V-22
2) internal cargo load advantage (hard to deny that X-2 configuration is consuming massive amount of internal fuselage space)
3) speed/survivability - at least in Bell's marketing team documents
4) range advantage and self-deployment capability (i think it is only area where tilt rotor advantage is clear)
5) army would like to prove that they are capable to make success in the field where other branches have failed (at least partially)
considering latest combat experiences classic assault role for the transport helicopters is over. Air/land battle theory must be seriously revised... could be this is real source of this selection.
Im not disagree with your disagreement- but this may be task SF operated machines than. Needs of special operations may not be basis for making decision related to core force.
Well you are based your opinion on tactics massive air assaults than - you are in contradiction to your own statement "The days of a hundred helicopters landing into a contested LZ may be over". Survivability of the helicopter (and tiltrotor) on the "last mile" area is none - just easy pray for MANPADS and mobile AAA.
Im fully agree with this opinion... except statement that civilians are willing to fly in autonomous machines - as far this is not fact just wishful thinking of couple companies...I think it likely that SF and SAR operations in contested areas will employ VTOL drones in multiple roles. The V-280 is well set up to serve as a drone controller. If I had been asked to come up with a proposal for the USAF SAR mission that ultimately produced the HH-47 (to many people's horror) I would have recommended multiple helicopters about the size of an OH-58, all but one of which on typical mission would be unmanned. You would add UAV or manned copters to the mission package as required. We are expecting in the near term to see electrically propelled VTOL machines operating autonomously to carry civilian passengers around urban areas. With something more robust than electric motors and batteries for propulsion, those kind of essentially COTS capabilities could be very useful for SAR or SF Ops. If civilians are willing to climb into a UAV to fly across town, military should be willing to use them to insert or extract forces from contested areas with less danger to flight crews and a reduction in the size and vulnerability of the vehicles required.
sorry for my "polglish"- generally i think we have agreed in relation to the facts that tactics have changed and will be subject of continuous evolution as well helicopters will remain part of the inventory for long years to come. In my opinion tiltorotors are not better than helicopters, they are simply different. Factors which will decide if this decision was good one will be different than we have discussed - maintenance, reliability and affordability, I think this ones will decide if Pentagon was right or wrong (they do have long story of doing both kinds of decisions).
No comment other than I don't understand how they came to this decision.
I don't see the Valor being able to perform the role of the Black Hawk because of size. It ain't going to fit in a C-5, and it sure as hell will not be able to land in the same confined spaces as the Black Hawk or Defiant.
I've spoken to several of the Black Hawk pilots I used to fly with in the Army, and none of them are in agreement with this decision.
Note that on the V-280 the enginds tilt but the nacelles do not, unlike the V-22.
Checking the stats on Wiki, the Valor is 81.79ft (24.93m) in width vs 53 ft 8 in (16.36m) rotor diameter for the Blackhawk.
That seems a significant difference.
How tight a space could they fit?
No comment other than I don't understand how they came to this decision.
I don't see the Valor being able to perform the role of the Black Hawk because of size. It ain't going to fit in a C-5, and it sure as hell will not be able to land in the same confined spaces as the Black Hawk or Defiant.
I've spoken to several of the Black Hawk pilots I used to fly with in the Army, and none of them are in agreement with this decision.
i tend to agree with every point you have raised, i think there are couple elements may justified this decision:
1) jealous - Army would like to have their own V22 - and other branches keep them non-informed about maintenance and tactical usage problems with V-22
2) internal cargo load advantage (hard to deny that X-2 configuration is consuming massive amount of internal fuselage space)
3) speed/survivability - at least in Bell's marketing team documents
4) range advantage and self-deployment capability (i think it is only area where tilt rotor advantage is clear)
5) army would like to prove that they are capable to make success in the field where other branches have failed (at least partially)
still slightly better version of english than Polish of most world's populationPolglish… lol
I love it.