US CSAR. Official announcement
Thread Starter
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 131
Likes: 0
From: Aarhus
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 431
Likes: 0
From: Aer
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?
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
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 August 2014 at 18:41.
Joined: Aug 2009
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 9,328
Likes: 2,175
From: Texas
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.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 221
Likes: 18
From: Somewhere, Over the Rainbow
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
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 909
Likes: 0
From: Holly Beach, Louisiana
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)
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,796
Likes: 1
From: 1 Dunghill Mansions, Putney
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 June 2014 at 03:50. Reason: tpyo
