USAF Chooses AW-139 To Replace UH-1H
Thread Starter
I know some OH-6A'S flew with half the blades gone from the rotor head....it was a dire emergency but it worked.
If it were a OH-58A....the crews would have not survived.
If it were a OH-58A....the crews would have not survived.
Good evening PPRUNErs! this is my first ever post on this forum. I served in the Army 96-2000 and am an aviation enthusiast. I like helicopters, looking at them and thinking about them. Kudos to Boeing and Leonardo for the work on the game-changing/new-class-creating (Super Medium) AW139! Yeah I was hoping the Bell (I love Hueys and UH-1s, Bell 412 etc) would have placed the UH-1Y into the game, but it wasn't to be. The advantage of the Aw139 over the competition (the two companies offering UH-60 types) that I see is that the 139 has a portion of the fuselage dedicated to storage, the UH-60 does not. Supplies can be stowed and not take up seating space. The AW139 is a game changer for sure. Of course, Bell did have a super medium four decades ago - the Bell 214ST - which has a similar layout (size, seating, detached cargo compartment) but ended production and never revisited that airframe size again... until now, the Bell 525. However the Bell 525 is about 10 years late to the super medium/Oil & Gas game!
Go Boeing and Leo for their success.
Go Boeing and Leo for their success.
MH-139A Grey Wolf
Welcome MH-139 Grey Wolf the latest USAF helo.
SAS, you are making a mess of several different programs jumbled together.
1) Westland alone was involved in the S-70 program.
2) The Canadian Cormorant has been an expensive yet successful program
3) We all know why the costs escalated in the original VH-71 program, and it was not because of the manufacturer.
4) The 139 does not have CG issues more than any other helicopter in commercial service today.
5) Boeing is the prime contractor in the MH-139 program.
1) Westland alone was involved in the S-70 program.
2) The Canadian Cormorant has been an expensive yet successful program
3) We all know why the costs escalated in the original VH-71 program, and it was not because of the manufacturer.
4) The 139 does not have CG issues more than any other helicopter in commercial service today.
5) Boeing is the prime contractor in the MH-139 program.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Way back, when the US Army started taking deliveries of their (then) new Blackhawks, there was a saying that went something like this, "When the last Blackhawk is flown to the US Army Aviation Museum, the crew will jump into a Huey to fly home." I wonder what they're saying about the AW139 / MH-139?
St Jack,
As we in the RAF said re the Wessex when the 'Plastic Pig' (Puma) was introduced. Guess what? The Wessex has been gone 15+ years and the Puma has at least another 5 (probably 10) to do. As aviators we are rabidly loyal to our steeds, and suspicious of the new as, firstly, it might not work, and, more pertinently, it has the tendency to partially reset the experience pyramid. I flew with several ex-Wessex guys who really struggled flying the CH-47; they just could not adapt to the speed, power and avionics the aircraft had. The UH-1 family is still a nice aircraft to tool around in, but nothing like a UH-60 (I have a passing acquaintance flying both). However, when you don't anticipate putting a machine into a complex threat environment, the sheer economies of a civil based design start to look really appealing. The civil world put cost above everything else (as long as the design meets the FAR/EASA CS) and the -139 I would imagine, over time, is significantly cheaper to fly than a reheated UH-60. I went to the AW line in Philly this year and, to be frank, was very encouraged by all I spoke to. VH-71 is an unfair comparison, brought down by ludicrous LM project 'management' and political expediency, whereas the Cormorant 'had' to be different enough for a normal EH101 to justify the political U-Turn that saw it purchased.
As we in the RAF said re the Wessex when the 'Plastic Pig' (Puma) was introduced. Guess what? The Wessex has been gone 15+ years and the Puma has at least another 5 (probably 10) to do. As aviators we are rabidly loyal to our steeds, and suspicious of the new as, firstly, it might not work, and, more pertinently, it has the tendency to partially reset the experience pyramid. I flew with several ex-Wessex guys who really struggled flying the CH-47; they just could not adapt to the speed, power and avionics the aircraft had. The UH-1 family is still a nice aircraft to tool around in, but nothing like a UH-60 (I have a passing acquaintance flying both). However, when you don't anticipate putting a machine into a complex threat environment, the sheer economies of a civil based design start to look really appealing. The civil world put cost above everything else (as long as the design meets the FAR/EASA CS) and the -139 I would imagine, over time, is significantly cheaper to fly than a reheated UH-60. I went to the AW line in Philly this year and, to be frank, was very encouraged by all I spoke to. VH-71 is an unfair comparison, brought down by ludicrous LM project 'management' and political expediency, whereas the Cormorant 'had' to be different enough for a normal EH101 to justify the political U-Turn that saw it purchased.
I think the MH-139 will be a pretty good replacement for the UH-1N (212), this requirement is a hash and trash role , you don't need a 60 with all its ballistic tolerance and built like a brick ****house airframe, the USAF have the HH-60M's for the war zones which need all the bells and whistles and a strong airframe, I would not take a MH-139 to Afghanistan and operate it like a HH-60 it would be dead in 3 months, simply not rugged enough, the 139 is a good airframe just not the most rugged I have worked on .
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
The following users liked this post:
Evalu8ter - the Wessex didn't have the luxury of a mid-life update as the Puma has and even after the update the 'Plastic Pig' Mk2 has plenty of problems with serviceability -look how long it took to come on line.
Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.
However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.
However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
Thread Starter
All this ignores the USMC's latest version of their UH-1N....that has already been used in combat operations, would have a common parts supply chain in existence, an established training program etc.
That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.
That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.
The following users liked this post:
All this ignores the USMC's latest version of their UH-1N....that has already been used in combat operations, would have a common parts supply chain in existence, an established training program etc.
That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.
That the USAF would also then have a fleet of Combat capable aircraft defending the Nation's primary Nuclear Deterrent should be a factor that trumps pure cost issues.
At a (implied) cost of 26.2 millions a pop is (was in 2014 dollars already) as much as 30% more expensive than a 139 after Boeing adds the "customer specific equipment", and there just is not any performance margin to justify that additional cost, matter of fact the UH-1Y does not even come close to the 139 when it comes to payload/range/speed performance combinations or OEI performance for what it matters.
If anything, the Semper Fi guys should have received H-60s, already available as a navalized aircraft in the MH-60S.
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Evalu8ter - the Wessex didn't have the luxury of a mid-life update as the Puma has and even after the update the 'Plastic Pig' Mk2 has plenty of problems with serviceability -look how long it took to come on line.
Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.
However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
Adapting to new avionics is just a matter of training - I'm ex-Wessex/Lynx/Sea King but the transition to 139 was very straightforward.
However, I completely agree the 139 is not a battlefield helicopter - it is far too precious with it's electrics/avionics even if it has a sh*t ton of power available.
Also given the RAF previously reverse engineered a South African Oryx from Makila back to Turmo power yet have now done the opposite why didn’t they also upgrade the sponsons to the larger type given more grunt? Seems a waste and a half. Where has that £20m gone apart from avionics and engines?
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: South
Age: 62
Posts: 53
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not to go off on a total tangent but re Puma Mk2 cost as a comparison when you consider mid life upgrades. Wasn’t it sold as an upgrade securing U.K. jobs, yet initially at least the work was conducted in Romania? Also at £20 million per airframe, at least what has been quoted, you could have bought the new H215 as the Spanish Air Force have done for SAR. More capability and longevity than any MLU.
Also given the RAF previously reverse engineered a South African Oryx from Makila back to Turmo power yet have now done the opposite why didn’t they also upgrade the sponsons to the larger type given more grunt? Seems a waste and a half. Where has that £20m gone apart from avionics and engines?
As for the RAF/MOD's ex SAAF/SDF aquisitions, they were just redundant (french built) Turmo engined SA330's, not the, still currently in service,Makila engined Oryx 'licence' version.
The RAF HC.2 does seem to have been excessively expensive though.
I think the MH-139 will be a pretty good replacement for the UH-1N (212), this requirement is a hash and trash role , you don't need a 60 with all its ballistic tolerance and built like a brick ****house airframe, the USAF have the HH-60M's for the war zones which need all the bells and whistles and a strong airframe, I would not take a MH-139 to Afghanistan and operate it like a HH-60 it would be dead in 3 months, simply not rugged enough, the 139 is a good airframe just not the most rugged I have worked on .
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
Having worked on UH-1's 212, 412, 60's, 139's amongst others the 139 is definitely the most delicate of the bunch .
the 139 is in no way an equal to a 60 in a combat role but a suitable alternate in a support role.
I laugh when I see military tenders that want a combat assault/CT role machine and the 139 or149 is put up against a version of the 60, just hope the poor buggers that end up with 139/149 never have to go to a war zone.
I know it's off topic, but your post made me think on other civilian/military helicopters, such as some of the now Airbus types. What is your toughts about the military version of the 225, 332, 365, 145, 135, 125...?
I admit I am bias, I generally don't like Eurotrash , but 332's are a great all round aircraft having been on them in UN ops doing mil support work (and offshore for years), never liked the 225 or 365 , 145's (117's) are good utility machines and the 125 (350's) , bit delicate for mill work but good general workhorse.
https://www.airandspaceforces.com/de...ntagon-report/
Problems with the automatic flight control system, sensor display, and intercom system, along with its cabin layout and “restrictions on takeoffs in crosswinds or near obstacles” have raised concerns during ground and flight testing. The DOD Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) 412-page annual report, released Jan. 19, covers more than 240 programs the office reviewed in the past year. Its conclusions and recommendations on the Grey Wolf were not previously widely known.
DOT&E questioned the MH-139 program’s testing regimen, including both the amount of testing leading up to a key milestone and the enduring need for ballistic and electromagnetic testing.
The MH-139 is intended to replace the Air Force’s aging UH-1N Huey helicopters used by security forces to support the service’s missile fields and also to transport government and visiting officials around the Washington, D.C., area. Based on the AgustaWestland AW139 civilian helicopter, it is supposed to offer enhanced performance, which requires testing to prove crews can “operate up to the edge of the allowed operating envelope.”
The concerns in the report emerged only a few months after Air Force officials had voiced optimism that the Grey Wolf was regaining momentum and ready for military utility testing after months of delays.
When a team of Boeing and Leonardo first won the contract for the aircraft, initial operational capability was projected for 2021. Delayed Federal Aviation Administration certification, however, pushed that timeline back.
While DOT&E found that military flight testing has been close to plan, the report said “persistent problems in acquiring technical data and some aircraft components from the contractor are delaying execution of some portions.” Meanwhile, tests conducted so far indicate problems the agency says that “represent a risk to MH-139 meeting operational effectiveness requirements.”
Among the newly identified deficiencies:
The expanded flight envelope may present maintenance issues by straining powertrain components, and testing is still ongoing on the helicopter’s armor and fuel system against ballistic threats.
Yet amidst these issues, the DOT&E report notes that the Air Force is still planning on reaching a Milestone C decision—whether or not to enter production—for this month.
“Due to the limited time between the start of government-led flight testing and the Milestone C decision, there are limited opportunities to collect operationally representative performance data to inform the decision,” the report said. It recommended more time for such testing before committing to production.
The Air Force did not immediately respond to a query from Air & Space Forces Magazine as to whether it it is still planning on a Milestone C decision this month in light of the report.
The report also made recommendations involving the helicopter’s survivability, urging testing for both electromagnetic pulses and ballistic threats.
MH-139, Behind Schedule, Now Risks Failing Requirements, DOD Says
Jan. 23, 2023 | By Greg HadleyThe Air Force’s new MH-139 Grey Wolf helicopter is at risk of not meeting “operational effectiveness requirements,” the Defense Department’s chief weapons tester declared in a new report.Problems with the automatic flight control system, sensor display, and intercom system, along with its cabin layout and “restrictions on takeoffs in crosswinds or near obstacles” have raised concerns during ground and flight testing. The DOD Office of the Director of Operational Test & Evaluation (DOT&E) 412-page annual report, released Jan. 19, covers more than 240 programs the office reviewed in the past year. Its conclusions and recommendations on the Grey Wolf were not previously widely known.
DOT&E questioned the MH-139 program’s testing regimen, including both the amount of testing leading up to a key milestone and the enduring need for ballistic and electromagnetic testing.
The MH-139 is intended to replace the Air Force’s aging UH-1N Huey helicopters used by security forces to support the service’s missile fields and also to transport government and visiting officials around the Washington, D.C., area. Based on the AgustaWestland AW139 civilian helicopter, it is supposed to offer enhanced performance, which requires testing to prove crews can “operate up to the edge of the allowed operating envelope.”
The concerns in the report emerged only a few months after Air Force officials had voiced optimism that the Grey Wolf was regaining momentum and ready for military utility testing after months of delays.
When a team of Boeing and Leonardo first won the contract for the aircraft, initial operational capability was projected for 2021. Delayed Federal Aviation Administration certification, however, pushed that timeline back.
While DOT&E found that military flight testing has been close to plan, the report said “persistent problems in acquiring technical data and some aircraft components from the contractor are delaying execution of some portions.” Meanwhile, tests conducted so far indicate problems the agency says that “represent a risk to MH-139 meeting operational effectiveness requirements.”
Among the newly identified deficiencies:
- The certified envelope of the automatic flight control system does not match the expanded envelope required in the military version
- Issues with sensor display availability to the crew in the cabin
- Problems with the on-board intercom system that enables the crew to communicate
- “The capability of the cabin layout to support employment of armed tactical response forces”
- Changes to the “type of hoist [and] the location of the fast-rope insertion/extraction system bar,” along with other cabin modifications, identified by foreign users.
The expanded flight envelope may present maintenance issues by straining powertrain components, and testing is still ongoing on the helicopter’s armor and fuel system against ballistic threats.
Yet amidst these issues, the DOT&E report notes that the Air Force is still planning on reaching a Milestone C decision—whether or not to enter production—for this month.
“Due to the limited time between the start of government-led flight testing and the Milestone C decision, there are limited opportunities to collect operationally representative performance data to inform the decision,” the report said. It recommended more time for such testing before committing to production.
The Air Force did not immediately respond to a query from Air & Space Forces Magazine as to whether it it is still planning on a Milestone C decision this month in light of the report.
The report also made recommendations involving the helicopter’s survivability, urging testing for both electromagnetic pulses and ballistic threats.