To be clear, this is not a power-point program but a continuation of a long-standing design work with Bell.

Two articles that cover this in depth are: 1. Revised Fold-Away Rotor Aircraft Concepts Emerge From Special Operations X-Plane Program. December 2024: https://www.twz.com/air/revised-fold-away-rotor-aircraft-con...

2. Bell’s Plan To Finally Realize A Rotorcraft That Flies Like A Jet But Hovers Like A Helicopter. September 2021: https://www.twz.com/41997/bells-plan-to-finally-realize-a-ro...

The second article covers decades of prior wind tunnel testing on the folding rotor concept.

Design remings me of something...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involv...

“Where we’re going, we don’t need roads”.

The Osprey is amazing, can’t wait to see what the X-76 can do.

It looks like a maintenance nightmare with those clutches to decouple the blades and the mechanisms to have them folded during cruising. Does it even improve substantially in anh metric over the V280 to put money into it?

Cool, I guess this should be able to hover in much more "austere" environments than the F-35B STOVL and the Harrier Jet. Tiltrotor with folding rotor blades sounds very mechanically complex and challenging though.

So it's an Osprey with a jet in the back?

It's cool they actually still commission concept paintings like this

From the image it doesn't look balanced for VTOL when the propellors are vertical. Also are the jets enabled during VTOL?

So ... we're going to try even harder to put humans in harm's way?

I don't understand the purpose of the Xenon taillight.

So it has jet engines that blades unfold and attach to during takeoff and landing? Why not always use the blades?

I'm confident with the stellar service and safety record of the V-22 that an even more complex tiltrotor will be a standout success for the military.

Why won't they adopt one of Sikorsky's compound helicopters already? They're beautiful and elegant solutions to this problem.

I’d go for simplicity and do a tail lander.

Isn't this need already met by the Bell V280 that the army already selected for it's Blackhawk replacement? What is the big innovation they are going for here?

“ With SPRINT, we're not just building an X-plane; we're building options”. Found the guy who couldn’t be bothered to write his own press release…

I think the blades are added there for deception, most likely it won’t have blades.

Someone has played the new Deus Ex games

The swedish gripen can do mach2 (2300km/h) and does not need a traditional runway (500 meters of something "flat enough" will do). I assume its way cheaper than something like this.

I wonder is Iran would have gone different if we had captured the Ayatollah instead of killing him. A stealth drop ship like this would have allowed that to happen. The reason why regimes are more likely to negotiate when you capture their leaders is because you might release them. (not a good day for the usurper.)

I can't access darpa.mil. Was it slashdotted because of the article being posted here, or now it is unavailable outside of US?

Hmmm... that just looks like problems. It's a lot of mechanical parts that always have to work correctly.

[flagged]

Different engines for different phases of flight? It has been tried many times and never really works. Such craft can be made to fly, but never well. The answer has to come from using one set to power all phases.

Id be interested in seeing a turboprop that can transition to a turbofan/jet once the prop is folded away. The f-35 was a step in this direction.

that already exists in the form of Saab Gripen :)

I wonder what the motivation behind this is. Tactically, why ever show your latest weapon? What is the strategic purpose of this? It's like if I message my opponent in SC2 and tell them exactly what I'm going to tech to. That's ... insane right? Why would anyone do that?