Originally Posted by
Lonewolf_50
Many thanks for the link, good article.
For Julie Andrews: OK, wasn't sure if the Saudis had made unhappy noises about the M regarding service life.
While I would, being massively biased from having flown the SH-60 and the UH-60 (L's), of course recommend the Blackhawk, I can appreciate the desire to keep the defense industrial base warm and thus the urge to "make it somewhere domestic" informing the ultimate decision. John D I am sure knows a few details that I don't, but I recall an issue with CH-53E swashplate bearings (which ended in tears) that could have been sourced from a German company (the name escapes me, over two decades ago) but a "buy Domestic" imperative was involved and Kaydon supplied them. (They also built/supplied the bearings for the 5" gun mounts on various USN surface ships).
Granted, that's a sub system, or a component, and not the whole aircraft but when large amounts of the tax payers funds are being spent, the pressure to "spend it at home" can be profound.
As this is an interim step to the longer term medium lift requirement, and NGR, the arguments made for 'off the shelf' seem to be pretty strong. (Ned's linked article covers them pretty well).
PS: if you know anyone in the business, please don't let anyone convince the program manager to put the Hontek coating on the M blades if the M is chosen. The US Army ended up with a case of buyer's remorse on that one.
As a matter of curiosity: is the VL-60 related to the US Army's UH-60V (putting the M style glass cockpit into L's) or is it a separate thing entirely?)
no link - the V’s cockpit is dated even though a recent introduction!
The VL-60 cockpit is streets ahead again.
Coupling the 4-axis ap and using DVE is not the key - it’s the ability to link ‘everything’ and update ‘everything’ through the mission system which keeps the workload and cost down