USAF UH-1N replacement - HH-60U Ghost Hawk & MH-139
Thread Starter
USAF UH-1N replacement - HH-60U Ghost Hawk & MH-139
Old CVLSP competition revived -and I remember 6 years ago at HAI 2011 when then AW had their AW139 decked out as HH139 demonstrator for the USAF...
cheers
Lockheed Pitches HH-60U ?Ghost Hawk? As Huey Replacement | Defense content from Aviation Week
Boeing and Leonardo debut the MH-139, their bid for the Huey replacement
cheers
Lockheed Pitches HH-60U ?Ghost Hawk? As Huey Replacement | Defense content from Aviation Week
Boeing and Leonardo debut the MH-139, their bid for the Huey replacement
Yep. 'Make America Great Again' will likely ensure a recognisably 100% good ol' American winner, rather than some Socialist European aircraft flying a 'brand of convenience'....
That all said, given the huge infra that the -60 has across the DoD, unless there's a compelling capability or cost delta, why on earth would you look elsewhere else anyway? The competition is likely a 'stalking horse' to keep LM/Sikorsky honest.
That all said, given the huge infra that the -60 has across the DoD, unless there's a compelling capability or cost delta, why on earth would you look elsewhere else anyway? The competition is likely a 'stalking horse' to keep LM/Sikorsky honest.
Agree the H-60 seems to fit the bill.
What's in a name? Perhaps everything.
I can't help but think that all the name shuffles in the helo industry have ended up hurting things, and could taint marketing- regardless of where it is assembled. A few thoughts from an admittedly US centered view:
- Eurocopter- gone now, but really made it seem Euro-centric, and I think hurt potential sales in the USA and in other regions.
- Airbus Helicopter. Not much better than Eurocopter for marketing in the US. Airbus in the title always seems to make it an easy target/threat by US labor and politicians.
- Lockheed- now touting the H-60- I think the Lockheed moniker is actually a hindrance as Lockheed has gained a huge black eye in meeting cost and schedule- especially due to the F-35. The bloated company seems a far cry from their skunk works and prior glory days. They should stick with Sikorsky for marketing. Everyone knows Sikorsky as a helicopter focused company with a mostly solid, reliable reputation.
- Boeing. Despite years in the helo business, many in the general public see them as an airliner company.
- Leonardo. What the heck is a Leonardo?
What's in a name? Perhaps everything.
I can't help but think that all the name shuffles in the helo industry have ended up hurting things, and could taint marketing- regardless of where it is assembled. A few thoughts from an admittedly US centered view:
- Eurocopter- gone now, but really made it seem Euro-centric, and I think hurt potential sales in the USA and in other regions.
- Airbus Helicopter. Not much better than Eurocopter for marketing in the US. Airbus in the title always seems to make it an easy target/threat by US labor and politicians.
- Lockheed- now touting the H-60- I think the Lockheed moniker is actually a hindrance as Lockheed has gained a huge black eye in meeting cost and schedule- especially due to the F-35. The bloated company seems a far cry from their skunk works and prior glory days. They should stick with Sikorsky for marketing. Everyone knows Sikorsky as a helicopter focused company with a mostly solid, reliable reputation.
- Boeing. Despite years in the helo business, many in the general public see them as an airliner company.
- Leonardo. What the heck is a Leonardo?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Boeing produce the AW-129 in the USA, out of around 900 in the world they have built over 250 in Philadelphia.
Don't write off their chances. Here's an ex-USMC Good Old Boy on the subject.
SNAFU!: Boeing Launches MH-139 in USAF Helicopter Competition
Don't write off their chances. Here's an ex-USMC Good Old Boy on the subject.
SNAFU!: Boeing Launches MH-139 in USAF Helicopter Competition
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://hosted.ap.org/specials/interactives/_documents/lakota_report.pdf
I would hesitate to call carrying five passengers in a utility, non-combat setting, a "similar requirement" to what the USAF is seeking here.
Still looks pretty similar to me and both services used the Huey as the immediate predecessor. The USAF specifics calls for up to 9 pax though, hence the larger aircraft being put forward. The USAF requirement is not demanding in any way but is very focused on price and reduced operating costs.
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You're right - the UH-1 was the preceding aircraft for some US Army missions (Flat Iron), but not others (primary flight trainer - TH-67, thought the TH-67 had, itself, replaced the UH-1 in that role).
As the HH-60U is already in USAF service, I'd guess that the MH-139 may be merely being used as a stalking horse: intentionally or otherwise.
As the HH-60U is already in USAF service, I'd guess that the MH-139 may be merely being used as a stalking horse: intentionally or otherwise.
Perhaps, but if this really is a cost-focused acquisition then the Black Hawk may struggle. It is a big tough and heavy battlefield helicopter that can carry around 20 pax, with operating costs to match its commendable performance. It may be seen as overkill for ferrying people around USAF missile sites and providing nuclear convoy security duties.
JTO,
As with all Cost Benefit Analyses, it depends how they rack 'n stack the numbers. The -60 unit price will likely be competitive given the numbers produced, and the sheer scale of the existing -60 support network will have a large impact in reducing support costs. The -139 may well burn less gas and use less spares, but to instigate and run a new support network is very expensive. All the Operational Analysis for RW platforms I ever saw said, outside some very niche cases, you buy the biggest aircraft you can afford as it confers flexibility and the times it doesn't fly full tends to get lost in the noise, and saves you money against sending two less capable platforms on other occasions. All that said, I still think it will come down to politics and perception. The -60 is perceived as 100% American (regardless of how much might be built abroad...). What is quite stark though is the clear atrophy in US medium helicopter design; the 'Hawk is now an old design - the fact that to hold a competition a European design is being imported is quite telling.....
As with all Cost Benefit Analyses, it depends how they rack 'n stack the numbers. The -60 unit price will likely be competitive given the numbers produced, and the sheer scale of the existing -60 support network will have a large impact in reducing support costs. The -139 may well burn less gas and use less spares, but to instigate and run a new support network is very expensive. All the Operational Analysis for RW platforms I ever saw said, outside some very niche cases, you buy the biggest aircraft you can afford as it confers flexibility and the times it doesn't fly full tends to get lost in the noise, and saves you money against sending two less capable platforms on other occasions. All that said, I still think it will come down to politics and perception. The -60 is perceived as 100% American (regardless of how much might be built abroad...). What is quite stark though is the clear atrophy in US medium helicopter design; the 'Hawk is now an old design - the fact that to hold a competition a European design is being imported is quite telling.....
