US CSAR. Official announcement

[meanttobe]

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/sikorsky-awarded-u-air-force-211800170.html

[dangermouse]

So the only bidder for a contract gets the contract

no news here

DM

[terminus mos]

Wrong little mouse, lots of news here. True, it's a small contract in $ terms but a Hawk with increased fuel, payload and CSAR capability to replace the Pavehawk is going to be a very capable aircraft. Not made in England though, can't understand why the USAF wouldn't select an AW 149?

[jimf671]

Defence of the American industrial base wins out again of course. No surprises there.

[Boudreaux Bob]

Jim,

You folks in the UK will never be accused of that for sure with your warm embrace of the SeaKing, Bell 212, Bell 412, Apache, and Chinook in current use by the UK Armed Forces.:D

[Ian Corrigible]

This contract is the first step in the eventual production and fielding of up to 112 aircraft with a potential value of approximately $7.9 billion.
Going to be interesting to see exactly how these aircraft are configured. The retention of the UH-60M's T700-701D donks will limit the extent of the missionization possible (as opposed to had the aircraft been based around SOCOM's more powerful MH-60M). Yet the money being spent is significantly above the unit price for vanilla 60Mikes (~$19M, according to the last SAR).

Talking of MH-60Ms...

http://i.imgur.com/32e4T0M.jpg
(c/o Hawkwrench @ARCForums)

I/C

[Lonewolf_50]

Ian, the cost of the original Pave Hawk HH-60H's was significantly above that of a Black Hawk at the time. It is no surprise that the special kit the USAF require adds to cost. Personally, I am not sure why the MH-60M's weren't in the running ... but that's someone elses' problem.

[tottigol]

Another chance to enter the "mighty" S-92 under disguise.:D

[TwinHueyMan]

The Air Force couldn't pick something based on the MH-60M because according to Sikorsky they are just UH-60Ms. Like all of the Army MH's (sans the MH-60K), the MH-60M is a concoction courtesy of the boys at at Ft. Campbell and Bluegrass Army Depot. With the "unique" flight characteristics of the MH-M, I wouldn't recommend anyone flying them except people with the training that Army SOF crews are afforded.

I think it is a good thing they stuck with a medium helicopter, never could fathom a 47 being required to pluck a stranded fighter jock out of the boonies.

Mike

[Boudreaux Bob]

Might be a B-52 Crew that needs picking up....or the Occupants of a C-17 or Osprey at which point the Hawks start getting pretty limited in the numbers of folks they can carry. (And comply with Regulations)

[Ian Corrigible]

Lonewolf,

I appreciate that the gucci kit costs more, but given 1) that most if not all of the systems in question will have already have been integrated onto the HH-60G, UH-60M or MH-60M, 2) that the USAF already has some familiarity with the Mike through its prior op-loss buy, and 3) that the acquisition had previously been described as a relatively simple UH-60M conversion, I'm surprised over the NRE and, especially, the unit price delta vs. a baseline Mike ($59M vs. $19M). No slam on Sikorsky or the Hawk, just genuine surprise. Could be there's a support component in the $7.9 Bn number.

Still, it's a significant saving compared to the original award (http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/251716-boeing-awarded-csar-contact.html).

I/C