Originally Posted by
60FltMech
Lonewolf,
sorry I missed your question somewhere along the lines re: UH-60V.
I’m not personally disappointed in the program in itself, on its face it seemed like a good plan: Providing a cost effective aircraft with a modern cockpit configuration that is similar to UH-60M(notice I say “Similar”, the actual displays/processors are not the same as 60M, I haven’t read where they are interchangeable) the the National Guard and Medical Services Corps.
Initially this was going to be 300-400 or so aircraft, now it’s ballooned to 600-700.
I have a modest familiarity with the T-45A to T-45C mod that made that training aircraft a glass cockpit. Won't comment further.
Having spoken to someone who was associated with the organization who is doing the “Upgrade” (CCAD) and has flown the 60V it is fully transparent that this program has a sole purpose of keeping people busy at CCAD until UH-60M Recapitalization starts (think of Recap as a service life extension) near term.
The M transmission is the same as the L transmission, but is put under heavier loads in certain flight configs thanks to the wide chord blade. (I suspect you are familiar with the Hontek disaster). I am not sure what a SLEP would look like for a UH-60M. You had mentioned in the Invictus thread an interest in how much more the M can take (transmission wise) than the L.
If you compare the two TMs (237 versus 280) you'll see the difference in fatigue life for selected parts.
Now, if you throw the -901 engine onto the M or L, and the boost in horsepower, would you need to upgrade the input module and some of the gears in the Main Module?
Good question, that answer is doubtless being sorted out by a few of the ten pound brains up in Stratford. (Back in the 70s one of the guys I knew put a 327 into a Chevy Vega. Yeah, it had more power, but that car needed a few more mods to handle it ... )
Consider the following: the recapitalization effort for converting 60A to 60L
That's basically done.
and then life cycle extension for UH-60L have been completed,
Yeah, that's the V as far as I can tell
the battle damage/crash damage lines are slowing due to the drawdown of Iraq and Afghanistan,
Yes, the surge for that was met in some cases by hiring on contractor teams, not by boosting the GS/WG work force. (A decade or so ago IIRC Sikorsky had an airframes recap team in Beeville, TX that isn't there any more)
HH-60G overhaul for the US Air Force will draw down as new build HH-60W aircraft enter service.
That's the way to bet.
How else will you keep the H-60 line going in the interim?
I see your point about "keep the industrial base warm" by doing the upgrade, but there is also a training piece to that.
Training was a thing I was involved in quite a bit in the Navy, pilot training.
If your Blackhawk crews are all on steam gages, or all on glass cockpits, your training requirements for you total force will be different. Getting everyone on glass cockpits is a worthwhile goal.
As to cost, I am pretty sure that the burdened hour is still less in South Texas than it is in Connecticut. That may be another reason why they single site it.
CCAD doesn’t have the capacity they claim to produce the amount of UH-60V aircraft being talked about. They are simply buying time and the politicians are more than happy to help by throwing them a bone, instead of negotiating with Sikorsky over a new multi year contract to get more new UH-60M airframes that, while more expensive, are way more capable.
I can recall a funny horror story about the US Navy wanting to remanufacture a bunch of SH-60's , B and F, into the SH-60R rather than buy new (China Copy, as it were) back in the 90's when there was no money for APN-1 programs.
A few years later ... that remanufacture project went the way of the plains buffalo and the 'buy new' was the way ahead.
Call me biased if you like: I'd prefer more new M's. However, someone crunching the numbers in the Pentagon money office may have shown a substantial benefit to the remanufacture program. Not privy to that info. You still have to deal with annual caps on new procurement (Acquisition rules and such) and the color of money for remanufacture is different than new procurement. Not all that easy to change colors of money.
The additional expense could possibly even be reduced doing this when combined with Foreign Military Sales aircraft.
Depends on FMS levels, yeah.
I recall the CH-60S piggy backing on the UH-60L multi year in the 90's back when there was no/sparse money for anything new. That worked out in the end.
The Army would also end up with a more common configuration in the fleet across the Active Army and National Guard/Reserves, thereby driving support costs down.
Long term, yes. Not going to argue. But when you look at the time horizons involved, someone will usually show up with "in the near term our budget dollars are less" and make a sound case for the Conversion/SLEP. Again, there are caps to budgeting and programming dollars in each fiscal year, and in the 2, 5, and 12 year time horizons.
FWIW, I think there are a dozen or so A models still hanging around, somewhere. I wonder if they are just too old to remanufacture into L's.