USAF Chooses AW-139 To Replace UH-1H
Thread Starter
Now had they gone to an off the shelf UH--60L/M......interoperability bonuses, commonality of parts, compatible training.....but then the DOD has never let commonsense get in the way of buying things.
I remember from some discussions about this a few years back that USAF felt that it didn't need a 19,000-22,000 pound helicopter for this mission. They wanted/needed a smaller one. So that's what they got.
(Do not disagree with your point on parts commonality, etc)
(Do not disagree with your point on parts commonality, etc)
Thread Starter
When does the taxi service turn into a combat assault aircraft?
One of the missions is to transport Special Reaction Teams in the event of hostile attacks upon a missile site or related facility.
When the bullets start flying....I would much rather be in a Blackhawk than the AW-139.
Likewise....come crashworthiness and redundancy of systems...I bet the UH-60 is far more resilient than the 139.
One of the missions is to transport Special Reaction Teams in the event of hostile attacks upon a missile site or related facility.
When the bullets start flying....I would much rather be in a Blackhawk than the AW-139.
Likewise....come crashworthiness and redundancy of systems...I bet the UH-60 is far more resilient than the 139.
The following users liked this post:
Likewise....come crashworthiness and redundancy of systems...I bet the UH-60 is far more resilient than the 139.
FTU at Maxwell stood up
Maxwell AFB welcomes first active duty flying training unit since end of WW2 with the Detachment 3 of the 58th Special Operations Wing https://www.kirtland.af.mil/News/Art...it-since-1945/
When does the taxi service turn into a combat assault aircraft?
One of the missions is to transport Special Reaction Teams in the event of hostile attacks upon a missile site or related facility.
When the bullets start flying....I would much rather be in a Blackhawk than the AW-139.
Likewise....come crashworthiness and redundancy of systems...I bet the UH-60 is far more resilient than the 139.
One of the missions is to transport Special Reaction Teams in the event of hostile attacks upon a missile site or related facility.
When the bullets start flying....I would much rather be in a Blackhawk than the AW-139.
Likewise....come crashworthiness and redundancy of systems...I bet the UH-60 is far more resilient than the 139.
Administrator
Bell was originally to produce UH-1Ys by rebuilding UH-1Ns, but ultimately built them from scratch instead. In 2008, the UH-1Y entered service with the Marine Corps and also began full-rate production. The aircraft replaced the USMC's UH-1N Twin Huey[color=#202122] light utility helicopters, introduced in the early 1970s. The final UH-1Y was delivered in 2018.
Like to offer a clarification to this phrase quoted from Tottigol:
” however in this case the 139 beat the '60 in just about every check mark of the requirements “
Not close in the Ballistic Survivability and Vulnerability and Crashworthiness areas. ( But I understand-its going to be an admin aircraft etc ).
” however in this case the 139 beat the '60 in just about every check mark of the requirements “
Not close in the Ballistic Survivability and Vulnerability and Crashworthiness areas. ( But I understand-its going to be an admin aircraft etc ).
The whole programme paid lip service to the expression ‘upgrade’ and I think the only components that stayed were the cockpit doors and nameplates! The key point was the funding and overall programme process was administered in a totally different manner to a tender for a new type, so was a quicker and more streamlined “purchase”, with fewer hurdles to jump over.
The whole programme paid lip service to the expression ‘upgrade’ and I think the only components that stayed were the cockpit doors and nameplates! The key point was the funding and overall programme process was administered in a totally different manner to a tender for a new type, so was a quicker and more streamlined “purchase”, with fewer hurdles to jump over.
Thread Starter
This might document might be of interest.
It is a 2022 Acquisition Report for FY 2022 and discusses the 139 Program.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...R_DEC_2022.pdf
It is a 2022 Acquisition Report for FY 2022 and discusses the 139 Program.
https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/D...R_DEC_2022.pdf
Deliveries and Cuts
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...-at-malmstrom/
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/archetype/7XLMPSXGXVC57MU2UOR4UJSFYQ.jpg)
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us...-xifzyzNSq_sK6
so looks like JBA and Yokota won't get theirs
cheers
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us...-xifzyzNSq_sK6
so looks like JBA and Yokota won't get theirs
cheers
The following users liked this post:
The article says the prog of record has been revised. So the total # of H-139s isn't going to be 80-84 airframes, and now will be 30-36. Does this imply the UH-1N (64 copters) will sustain for more years than planned in a mixed fleet alongside the 139?
If so, the Ns will receive upgrades, the same way the Spanish Navy upgraded their N models a few years ago, and as the Canadian Army is upgrading their Bell 412s?
Or will the UH-1N be phased, and maybe the UH-72 or H145 fill up the rest of the fleet?
If so, the Ns will receive upgrades, the same way the Spanish Navy upgraded their N models a few years ago, and as the Canadian Army is upgrading their Bell 412s?
Or will the UH-1N be phased, and maybe the UH-72 or H145 fill up the rest of the fleet?
The following users liked this post:
