Do you foresee the Bell-V-280 replacing the Blackhawk in the near future, and should I consider that when enlisting?

I think the Army doesn't need a tilt-rotor. I think this is a case of procurers looking at how cool it is and not the practicality. The V-280 is enormous. You could never fit as many Valors as you could Blackhawks into an area. It requires time to rotate the rotors up and down, time that when you're moving rapidly through enemy territory you may not have. I think Sikorskys offering is a much better concept. Roughly the same size as a Blackhawk but with the speed of the Valor and without the complexity of the tilt-rotor. Plus the SB-1 Defiant is a design that can be used for multiple purposes much like the Venom and Viper in the Marine Corps. The Defiant will be much more nimble and able to accomplish the mission better than the V-280. I just worry that everyone is getting caught up in the shiny tilt-rotor craze.

CPT (Join to see) - some good points for sure. But I’m not sure about the size. See the attached picture. Even Overlays of 8 blackhawks and 280s on a soccer field. Also an overlay at a 90 degree angle. It’s overall footprint is only slightly larger. At least one or two more could be squeezed in if necessary.

Also at this point, I think tilt rotor is past the ‘craze’ phase. The V22 has been operational for years. It’s a proven technology, in deployed environments. Refinement of technology is the next logical step. Make it better. Craft it to specific needs. For example, the entire nacelles don’t rotate, as they do on the Osprey. Simplify the process. The time it takes for them to rotate will likely decrease, as the technology advances and refines.

The Defiant is still waiting for test flights for its unproven design. It’s indeed intriguing, but still unproven. But it will be interesting to see how it’s first test flights turn out.
Having taken a flight or three in a Blackhawk, I certainly appreciate the need for swift movements and nimble/rapid abilities in a hostile environment. But the numbers on the 280 actually aren’t that bad right now. I’m sure if the Army were to adopt it, they’d start finding multiple uses for it, just like the Blackhawk.
As for the viper and Venom, those are just H1 airframes that have been around for decades. I’d take apaches and blackhawks over vipers and venoms any day of the week. Honestly, if the Marines had the budget, I think they would too.

It’ll be interesting to see what happens, especially if the Defiant has a successful round of test flights this summer. Thoughts?

They're H1 aiframes that have been heavily modified for modern use, almost completely redesigned from the ground up. The point was less about the old age of the airframes and more about the fact that they have 85% parts commonality between them. While I could see the argument for a tilt-rotor for air assault and troop carriers, I really can't see the use of a tilt-rotor for a gunship. Parts commonality is one of the prime goals of the FVL program.

And I may just be a sucker for the Blackhawk and Sikorsky, but I just don't feel like the V-280 is the right answer, especially since Bell is trying to push it as the end all be all of helicopters (Gunship/Air Support, Troop Carrier/Heavy Lift). I think it's a very specific design that could be used for air assault, but there are better options available that have a more practical purpose across multiple mission sets. Also, their idea for an entirely one piece touchscreen digital cockpit I feel is insanity. But again, I fly steam gauges right now, so maybe I'm just thinking about it wrong.

And Sikorksy SB-1 is not entirely untested. The AH-56 Cheyenne was a fairly similar pusher-prop design (minus co-axial rotors) that showed great promise before it was shuttered not because of design issues, but because the Air Force felt that it infringed on "their" territory.

But then again I'm not the one who makes these decisions, and I'll retire long before I likely ever touch anything that FVL produces.

CPT (Join to see) - first let me say, I’m about a big a Blackhawk fan as you’ll find. But like any piece of hardware, it’s eventually destined to be replaced. I just want them to get it right when the time comes.
As for the Cheyenne, it’s cancellation was part Key West agreement, part design. It was still in the test flight period, and had incurred a fatal test flight. I think it suffered from trying to push the envelope a little too far, too fast (on both fronts).

I’m actually curious to see if the 280 could do as advertised (or will be able to do). Regardless of what the final choice is, it has big shoes to fill. Again, I’m a big Blackhawk fan. Anyway, I appreciate your time. Best of luck to you.

Alright, thank you, my biggest concern was enlisting into an MOS that may not be around for very much longer