US CSAR. Official announcement
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Aarhus
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Aer
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
Talking of MH-60Ms...
(c/o Hawkwrench @ARCForums)
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 27th Aug 2014 at 18:41.
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.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
Posts: 200
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Holly Beach, Louisiana
Posts: 916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
Posts: 1,797
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
I/C
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.
I/C
Last edited by Ian Corrigible; 28th Jun 2014 at 03:50. Reason: tpyo
