Bell MV-75 Cheyenne II (aka V-280 Valor)

Sferrin said:
So your "evidence" is to point me to someone who is not Trump? Got it. Also, refusing to rule something out is not the same thing as saying you're going to do it.
Click to expand...

here you go buddy:

KRISTEN WELKER:

But you are not ruling out military force to take Greenland one day?

PRES. DONALD TRUMP:

I don't rule it out.

NBC Meet the Press, May 4, 2025

Refusing to rule out military force against NATO allies is destabilizing, destructive to America's standing in the world, insane, and evil. Attached: Danish soldiers returning in coffins from Afghanistan in 2007, where they died supporting the United States in our war.

Shameful.
 

Attachments

  • 1781639611663.png
    1781639611663.png
    2.6 MB · Views: 29
I can't say that I'm against funding more testing before starting procurement. We've been burned on concurrent procurement on many programs before and at worst it's just a one year delay in procurement.
 
Philosophically the idea is to break the 20 year acquisition cycle. It seems like all of the services are trying to figure out how to do that with little guidance from the Department of War/Defense. It will take some time it seems to figure out what the best practices are. All the while Congress has it's own ideas.

Interesting times.
 
Sferrin said:
He offered to BUY Greenland, and he's not the first President to do so. TDS just made Euros lose their shit.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree with any of this. In fact, his trolling of Canada (51st state etc...) is trolling of a pair of PMs that are no friends of his - or America's.
I apologize to all for allowing this to become political.
My bad.
 
yasotay said:
Philosophically the idea is to break the 20 year acquisition cycle. It seems like all of the services are trying to figure out how to do that with little guidance from the Department of War/Defense. It will take some time it seems to figure out what the best practices are. All the while Congress has it's own ideas.

Interesting times.
Click to expand...
The way to break the cycle is actually pretty simple:
1) Release a set of requirements - get your back and forth in with industry early
2) Have a competition, pick a winner
3) Sign a contract with the winner
4) Don't change the performance requirements or change the contract
5) Shut up and wait while the contractor performs the work
6) Review the final reports and test the product
7) Take deliver and work on entry into service
8) Then iterate on the design for future blocks

Something like that... the important steps are 4 and 5.
 
e-Graphite said:
The way to break the cycle is actually pretty simple:
1) Release a set of requirements - get your back and forth in with industry early
2) Have a competition, pick a winner
3) Sign a contract with the winner
4) Don't change the performance requirements or change the contract
5) Shut up and wait while the contractor performs the work
6) Review the final reports and test the product
7) Take deliver and work on entry into service
8) Then iterate on the design for future blocks

Something like that... the important steps are 4 and 5.
Click to expand...
You forgot a step.

Get Congress to KEEP THE WALLET OPEN AND NOT CUT THE BUDGET FORCING CHANGES TO KEEP IT GOING.

Which is the hardest bit imo.
 
Desertfox said:
Presidents shouldnt be trolling people they dont like. This isnt high school.
Click to expand...
I agree with you on this but the voters elected Shrek for a reason. He has done some great things (the southern border, USAID and Nato funding among them) and some idiotic things (the way he is running the conflict with iran is top of my list).
His trolling/arrogance and rudeness to allies I place in the second list. No excuse for that. I did not vote for him but I wish him and his administration well, just like I dis all the previous ones.
Again, I apologize for going off-topic. I hate it when others do it. My bad.
 
Firefinder said:
You forgot a step.

Get Congress to KEEP THE WALLET OPEN AND NOT CUT THE BUDGET FORCING CHANGES TO KEEP IT GOING.

Which is the hardest bit imo.
Click to expand...
You're right, of course.

How about:
The way to break the cycle is actually pretty simple:
1) Release a set of requirements - get your back and forth in with industry early
2) Have a competition, pick a winner
3) Sign a contract with the winner
4) Allocate a multiyear budget allocation to get the project through qualification
5) Don't change the performance requirements or change the contract
6) Shut up and wait while the contractor performs the work
7) Review the final reports and test the product
8) Take deliver and work on entry into service
9) Then iterate on the design for future blocks

Something like that... the important steps are 4, 5, and 6.
 
e-Graphite said:
5) Don't change the performance requirements or change the contract
Click to expand...
Change orders prior to IOC need to start "just short of painful" and get exponentially more expensive from there, to convince the services to minimize the change orders.

With an exception for safety-of-life items, as separately determined by service Occupational Safety and Health.
 
There should also be a step in there where Congress stops treating defense procurement as a jobs and corporate welfare program and ends the practice of consistently adding funds for continued procurement of legacy platforms at the expense of fully funding their developmental replacements.

I'm sorry, but what is the point of downselecting a single FLRAA vendor if Congress just decides it would be unacceptable for the losing competitor to have to stop building UH-60s, so let's just plow hundreds of millions of dollars into Sikorsky that the Army did not ask for...
 
HaveVoid said:
There should also be a step in there where Congress stops treating defense procurement as a jobs and corporate welfare program and ends the practice of consistently adding funds for continued procurement of legacy platforms at the expense of fully funding their developmental replacements.
Click to expand...
As long as it's the government buying items from a company, all defense programs are also jobs programs. Congress needs to be reminded that defense programs are defense programs first that also happen to provide jobs as a side benefit.

Life would be a lot better for the defense contractors if the USGov could manage multiple projects again.

I don't mean 1950s pace of technology, where your brand new planes are obsolete before they reach FOC (if not IOC), but a new plane of type every other decade would be good.

20 year planned service life, so that the program to replace the type starts more or less as soon as it reaches FOC.

And you alternate heavy plane one decade, light plane the next. Arguably there should have been an "F-22C" program (with F-22B as the trainer, Eagle pattern) but that was delayed due to GWOT and Peace Dividend(tm) so we're only seeing it now, 20 years past FOC.
 
Scott Kenny said:
As long as it's the government buying items from a company, all defense programs are also jobs programs. Congress needs to be reminded that defense programs are defense programs first that also happen to provide jobs as a side benefit.

Life would be a lot better for the defense contractors if the USGov could manage multiple projects again.

I don't mean 1950s pace of technology, where your brand new planes are obsolete before they reach FOC (if not IOC), but a new plane of type every other decade would be good.

20 year planned service life, so that the program to replace the type starts more or less as soon as it reaches FOC.

And you alternate heavy plane one decade, light plane the next. Arguably there should have been an "F-22C" program (with F-22B as the trainer, Eagle pattern) but that was delayed due to GWOT and Peace Dividend(tm) so we're only seeing it now, 20 years past FOC.
Click to expand...
Agreed. The only way to stay good at developing aircraft is to develop aircraft. Really need to be launching a new product or substantial mod every 7 years or so otherwise the skillsets wither or walk out the door.
 
Tangential but perhaps it's time to remove the 'M' modifier from the MDS system. It has become too tacticool and everyone wants it, to the point it has become meaningless.

Why's this aircraft not UV-75 like its predecessors? The platform will be flying utility, assault and medevac just like the UH-19, UH-21, UH-34, UH-1 and UH-60 before it.
 
Kiltonge said:
Tangential but perhaps it's time to remove the 'M' modifier from the MDS system. It has become too tacticool and everyone wants it, to the point it has become meaningless.

Why's this aircraft not UV-75 like its predecessors? The platform will be flying utility, assault and medevac just like the UH-19, UH-21, UH-34, UH-1 and UH-60 before it.
Click to expand...
And we need to actually start following the number sequence again. Right now the numbers are basically random, and the sequence is completely dead. The "75" is actually almost in sequence for Helicopters if you ignore the VH-92 and MH-139 (more examples of out of sequence aircraft), as the helicopter sequence got up to TH-73 but the Cheyenne isn't a helicopter and should instead probably be the UV-26.
 
NCQ said:
Cheyenne isn't a helicopter and should instead probably be the UV-26.
Click to expand...

I make it V-25 (UV-23 was the Grizzly Hunter, aka Skytrader; XV-24 was the Lighting Strike experimental design)
 
I could be wrong, but I think the vehicle nomenclature have international treaty ramifications.
 
yasotay said:
I could be wrong, but I think the vehicle nomenclature have international treaty ramifications.
Click to expand...
Certainly did in Europe with arming H-60s. Conventional Forces In Europe treaty, I think? Door guns were okay, but anything with an installed fire control system counted as if it was an Apache or Hind.

Though I still think that the V-75 got the M prefix because the Navy/Marine Ospreys got an M prefix.
 
"M" is also used by the Special Operations Aviation forces for their rotorcraft. There is already a special operations version of MV-75 in the works, where as there does not appear.to be any USN variants officially noted.
I believe the decision to use "M" was made because the U.S. Army intends to do more than troop movement with the platform.
 
yasotay said:
I believe the decision to use "M" was made because the U.S. Army intends to do more than troop movement with the platform.
Click to expand...

Like every utility helicopter before it.

I think the real reason is that they wanted to grab the M-for-Macho ( I like that description ) before the the other services had a chance to. It's associated with SOF and the mystique of special warfare, even if you're just hauling grunts or beer.

Nowadays we have MC-12, MV-75, MH-47, MV-22, MH-60, MH-6. It has become a meaningless and pointless suffix that indicates nothing.
 
Last edited:
It's funny how the Marines got the MV-22 and AFSOC got CV-22 lol

As for the MC-12, they gave it that designation as the RC-12 already existed and filled a very specific, isolated collection mission.
 
Air Superior said:
It's funny how the Marines got the MV-22 and AFSOC got CV-22 lol
Click to expand...
Marines got MV because they operate in a place where CV means one thing and one thing only.


Air Superior said:
As for the MC-12, they gave it that designation as the RC-12 already existed and filled a very specific, isolated collection mission.
Click to expand...
MC-12 should still be an RC-12 series, but the RC-12s were nearly out of suffix letters! The last RC-12s were RC-12X+.

I suspect that the EMARSS system got the M-for-Multirole designation instead of R-for-Recon because it was supposed to be used sorta as a flying C&C unit in addition to gathering intel.
 
Scott Kenny said:
I suspect that the EMARSS system got the M-for-Multirole designation instead of R-for-Recon because it was supposed to be used sorta as a flying C&C unit in addition to gathering intel.
Click to expand...
EMARSS was never used for that. We had–and still have–dedicated aircraft for that role. Carving out the already-small EMARSS fleet to play quarterback would be stupid. It was given the M designation as it collected numerous types of intelligence rather than just one like the RC-12.
 
Air Superior said:
EMARSS was never used for that. We had–and still have–dedicated aircraft for that role. Carving out the already-small EMARSS fleet to play quarterback would be stupid. It was given the M designation as it collected numerous types of intelligence rather than just one like the RC-12.
Click to expand...
Thus M for MULTI-MISSION meaning more than Utility that cannot by treaty definition have more than defensive armament. I am sure that when the U.S. Army deides to modify UH-60M to "Z" or buy new there will be consideration that they may use "M" vice "U" as they will likely want to launch drones and other weapons off of them.
 
yasotay said:
Thus M for MULTI-MISSION meaning more than Utility that cannot by treaty definition have more than defensive armament. I am sure that when the U.S. Army deides to modify UH-60M to "Z" or buy new there will be consideration that they may use "M" vice "U" as they will likely want to launch drones and other weapons off of them.
Click to expand...
Where in my message did I say anything about carrying weapons?
 
yasotay said:
Thus M for MULTI-MISSION meaning more than Utility that cannot by treaty definition have more than defensive armament. I am sure that when the U.S. Army deides to modify UH-60M to "Z" or buy new there will be consideration that they may use "M" vice "U" as they will likely want to launch drones and other weapons off of them.
Click to expand...
The UH-1Y carries rockets so I'm not sure you're correct here.
 
yasotay said:
Thus M for MULTI-MISSION meaning more than Utility that cannot by treaty definition have more than defensive armament. I am sure that when the U.S. Army deides to modify UH-60M to "Z" or buy new there will be consideration that they may use "M" vice "U" as they will likely want to launch drones and other weapons off of them.
Click to expand...
Which treaty are you referring to?

Cause as is the UH60 ALREADY CAN LAUNCH DRONES AND MISSILE. Saw that in 2019 in Lewis with hydras.

That been a thing for well over a decade with no change of the designator from U to M in sight on any of the usual and unusual channels.
 
The treaty I am referring to is the now defunct Conventional Forces Europe Treaty that was very much in effect when the nomenclature for the U.S. Army H-60 was codified. The H-60 has demonstrated an ability to launch missiles and rockets from inception. Because carrying other than self defense machine guns would have caused the utility helicopter to count against the number of attack helicopters that could be stationed in Europe it was defined as a UH-60. The SOF MH-60 and MH-47 were classified as able to carry other than self defense weapons because while they could deploy to Europe they were not officially counted against the treaty. I cannot speak to the rational for why the U.S. Navy did not follow this, but would expect that because the USMC did not station aircraft permanently in Europe it was not of major concern.
MV-75 is likely more a notice to other services and political concerns that the U.S. Army plans to use the platform for more than just utility missions.
It is a moot point.
In other MV-75 news - https://verticalmag.com/press-relea...r-stage-at-farnborough-international-airshow/

https://sldinfo.com/2026/07/the-coming-of-the-mv-75-envisaging-operational-impacts-2/
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Bell being a manufacturer of commercial rotorcraft means they have existing contracts with many commercial component manufacturers already. Many of these suppliers have been working with Bell four decades or more.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom