Originally Posted by
Blackhawk9
I think the MH-139 will be a pretty good replacement for the UH-1N (212), this requirement is a hash and trash role , you don't need a 60 with all its ballistic tolerance and built like a brick ****house airframe, the USAF have the HH-60M's for the war zones which need all the bells and whistles and a strong airframe, I would not take a MH-139 to Afghanistan and operate it like a HH-60 it would be dead in 3 months, simply not rugged enough, the 139 is a good airframe just not the most rugged I have worked on .
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
I know it's off topic, but your post made me think on other civilian/military helicopters, such as some of the now Airbus types. What is your toughts about the military version of the 225, 332, 365, 145, 135, 125...?