7t TOM gets it right to a sea level platform... that's it. If it's not too warm.

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)

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.

It may be, but I don’t think the 139 has any issues. There have been several crashes where it has demonstrated admirable crashworthiness. The Kenyan Police one comes to mind, but there have been others.

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/

Hope they have plenty of hangar space!

May want to explain that to those who spent taxpayers' money in converting UH-1Ns to UH-1Ys rather than getting "pret-a-porter" MH-60S, however in this case the 139 beat the '60 in just about every check mark of the requirements.

And the Air Farce initially pushed for 7,200Kg.

Wasn't a conversion, in the end. (I had to look that up, though).

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 ).

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.

As was the F-18 E/F. ;)

of course. Why invent the wheel?

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

Deliveries and Cuts
 

https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/y...-at-malmstrom/

https://www.airforcetimes.com/resize...UOR4UJSFYQ.jpg



https://www.airandspaceforces.com/us...-xifzyzNSq_sK6

so looks like JBA and Yokota won't get theirs

cheers

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?

Another 7
 

Another seven on order

https://boeing.mediaroom.com/news-re...sX43W40WurHKeU

cheers

Heard a rumor that the UH-1N is getting extended yet again, not that they are getting upgrades. (Why USAF didn't replace them with Blackhawks remains a mystery to me, but I guess the USAF has their reasons).