4 ms·

I ponder this too. Very interesting modern development. And am happy to see the hughly-dogmatic line somewhat slipping. The AH-56 Cheyenne stands out as what c

I ponder this too. Very interesting modern development. And am happy to see the hughly-dogmatic line somewhat slipping. The AH-56 Cheyenne stands out as what could have been an absurdly well equipped very fast helicopter. Speed, and a huge 360 degree underbelly turreted cannon would have been a ridiculous fire support craft. But it had a pusher prop on the back and the Air Force really really really didn't like that at the time (and was also probably hella jealous of the cannon too). I'm not sure what makes me as ok with I am at eroding the air force's role somewhat. Some is probably seeing these great craft (AH-56, V280) & feeling like: if the army is going to have anything in the air, it should be great. It sure feels like the v280 is heralding in a massive shift in policy/what is permitted.

icegreentea2 3y ago
It does help that tilt rotars are totally rotary craft... In any case, V-280 being primarily transport is for sure helpful. While the range might raise some eyebrows, it also means that V-280 can potentially more meaningfully self-deploy. That means less USAF strategic lift assets to spend on the army - USAF is pondering how it can keep forward bases supplied in the Indo-Pacific - strategic lift certainly has a role to play here. I think the reality is that USAF realizes that trying to stonewall the V-280 will NOT meaningfully give it more budget, and that the V-280's capabilities means USAF gets more effective budget.
- jameshart 3y ago
  Might be less of a case of ‘can’ self deploy and more ‘has to’. Not entirely sure one of these will even fit in a C17. (In comparison, you can fit three Blackhawks in a Globemaster)