Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Even Eurocoptor's website doesn't advertise it as a military platform.

How are you defining "better"? That's such a generic term that without any context to base it on, is at best subjective and at worst intentionally misleading. What makes it "better"?

In this case, the only context that is important is in meeting the requirements in the LUH RFP. I don't know the details of the requirements for this program, but I assume the UH-72A met them or it wouldn't have been able to win. Probably there was no "future combat capability" requirement, or if there was if may not have been weighted very high. So doesn't this mean that the 412 was over-qualified, too expensive and therefore not "better"?

Phil

Link to post
Share on other sites
Even Eurocoptor's website doesn't advertise it as a military platform.

How are you defining "better"? That's such a generic term that without any context to base it on, is at best subjective and at worst intentionally misleading. What makes it "better"?

Airframe technology wise it's light years ahead of the 412, things like the extensive use of composites, the rotor head etc. It can carry the load the 412 but has lower operating costs. For the 4 aircraft in the competition it was certainly offered the best capability for the cost.

It's not (supposed) to be operated in areas where there's a threat. If the US Army wanted a helicopter to operate in areas where there is a threat then they should have specified that in the requirements.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Erd,

And as far as "someone having cocked up", tell that to the Chinook crews currently overseas, who get shot at so often they primarily have to fly at night! Sure, someone will have cocked up royally if the LUH gets deployed, but I've been in the Army just long enough to know that it's bound to happen.

Can't comment on the Chooks. Why are the Chinooks not capable of operating safely in a high threat environment?

And I agree that it's possible that the LUH could be deployed. But to be fair, the requirements for the LUH specified that it would not be operated in a threat exists. All the companies supplied basically the same type of aircraft . (Aircraft with a civill type certificate painted OD).

The LUH concept as I see understand it is designed to release aircraft like the UH-60's, (which are significantly more expensive to operate) to carry out pure military roles they are designed for, and to let the cheaper LUH carry out those jobs (primarily in the US) that don't require an aircraft with the capability of a UH-60.

Your issue as I see it is the concept of the LUH?

The EC145 isn't a better helicopter than the Bell 412 by a long shot. Its just a lot cheaper.

Bang for buck it's significantly better IMHO. The airframe is much more advanced but has significantly less maintenance demands/issues. It has roughly the same internal capacity as a 412 but is significantly cheaper to operate. The 412 can carry more weight (from memory about 500kg) but it's also a 6 tonne helicopters, whereas the EC145 is only 4 tonne aircraft.

Eurocopter pitch this helicopter as 412 replacement to a lot of operators

Link to post
Share on other sites

So what about future Growth Potential for the airframe? If the US Army decides the designed MAX GROSS WEIGHT for the type (Lakota) is marginal with any future armor add ons/ a pair of LMG's? Can the UC's be upgraded (power and airframe) to allow for high/hot or extended mission times? And if so how much do these things add to the cost of just buying a more suitable aircraft from the start? Im not saying the Lakota wont be suitable, and it cetainly wasnt bought with the idea of doing troop insertions etc. but, it will end up in combat areas to be sure. Most probably not doing anything deliberate to get itself in harms way but there none the less. Personally Id be a little reluctant to fly around without RWR/chaff/flare launcher and nothing really to help protect me but two pair of Mk 1 eyeballs scanning and flying and body armor. I'm no expert but I know if you shoot thin composites with anything like an AK or larger they shatter, and aircraft aluminum isnt much better at stopping bullets. How easy is it to repair damage to something made of composites compared to something made of aircraft aluminum?

As for the Lakotas primary function stateside (presumably).....

Blackhawks in Guard and Reserve Units proved many times the BIG helicopter WAS needed to winch people off of thier roofs and transport large numbers of civillians to safety. How many trips would a UC 72 have to make, and how long could they stay on station doing the same mission?

I guess time will tell if this was money well spent. I know as a civilian medevac helo they do very well, my best friend flew one for an air ambulance company and they were very reliable mechanically he said.

Thats my two cents

Paul

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who cares.

As long the Army got what they wanted then fine.

If the UH-72 is so small then, how come the Chinnok wasn't bought then? It's bigger and faster so why wouldnt they go for it? That seems to be the rationale of those against the UH-72 that its too small and the 412 is better. The Chinook is better so why not buy more of those????

Link to post
Share on other sites
Airframe technology wise it's light years ahead of the 412, things like the extensive use of composites, the rotor head etc. It can carry the load the 412 but has lower operating costs. For the 4 aircraft in the competition it was certainly offered the best capability for the cost.

It's not (supposed) to be operated in areas where there's a threat. If the US Army wanted a helicopter to operate in areas where there is a threat then they should have specified that in the requirements.

Where are you getting your figures from? I've looked at the data and I've spoken to guys who have flown them both. The 145 cannot carry the load the 412 can and it doesn't have the range the 412 has either. In one statement, you say it can carry the 412's load and in the next you say it can carry "only" 500kg less. That's a thousand pounds people! I'm not sure what your background is, but a thousand pounds is a lot of difference for a LIGHT HELICOPTER. In fact, looking at the data, the 412 has it beaten in every area except cost. Heck the 412 pulls more power on ONE engine than the 145 does with two! (970shp single engine in the 412 as compared to 850shp dual engine in the 145). The 412 pulls 1800shp max continuous power dual engine.

My concept of the LUH is just fine, problem is, my understanding of the US Army is a tad better. Plus, the fact that my PhD dissertation focuses on the evolution of US Army Aviation Doctrine from 1968 to the present gives me a tad bit of insight as well. As an Army Aviator, I know rather well exactly where the LUH is supposed to fit in. You are correct in your statement that the LUH is intended to "free up" those National Guard aircraft in the "pure military" roles. The problem is, as United States Army assets, they will not just be kept stateside. If the Army has an asset, they are going to use it to fill whatever role they can pound it into. Remember, especially in the helicopter world, Murphy's Law is the primary one.

As for Chinooks overseas, they are very survivable aircraft, but when you're shooting everything you have up in the sky at an airborne schoolbus that you can see, some of those rounds are going to make contact. I have yet to see countermeasures that can fool a 7.62mm round. They have gone to primarily night flying because we fly at night routinely and it is much harder to hit an airborne schoolbus that you can't SEE.

In terms of maintenance, I'm wondering how much we're really saving. Unfortunately EADS doesn't publish their average per-hour operating cost for the 145. But with Contract Maintenance (yes boys and girls, civilian contract maintainers. No crew chiefs or Army mechs working on these birds) the cost per man hour will be significantly higher than Army maintenance. The 412 gives a cost of $896 per flight hour and that' would be with Army ground crews working on them. That's pretty cool. My Apache costs about ten times that per hour.

Your last comment about the 145 being pitched as a 412 replacement to many operators looks great at face value. Of course, those operators are most likely civilian organizations with significantly lower budgets that are looking for one or two new helicopters. Of course they're gonna go with a less expensive helicopter! But the US Army has the funding, the experience and prior knowledge of the airframe that can more than make up for that. Hueys started off with some armor on em and were intended for combat.

I think the big punch line here is even Eurocopter doesn't have the 145 listed as one of their military products.

SuperHornet88 - keep up with the thread dude, no one was saying it was too small. The Army just bought a butt-load of brand new Chinooks. What I'm saying is the Army didn't get what it wanted. It got a cost-effective, lesser performing helicopter that will be severely limited if it gets deployed overseas, where it will have no passive or active defensive capabilities.

Phil- Sure the Apache's had upgrades over the years, as has every aircraft out there. My complaint is with the tunnel vision that current planners see this helicopter's role as. Were this aircraft purchased for DHS or one of its sub-departments, I wouldn't have batted an eyelash. Problem is, we're talking the Army here and for the Army to have an aviation asset that isn't a combat capable helicopter is just a waste of money.

Paul's post brings up several other good points, but I don't need to beat a dead horse on those.

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I read in the new issue of Combat Aircraft that the Army may not be able to get all of the UH-72's it wants, due to $$$. If the 412 was bought would it [LUH] have been cancelled all together?

I'm not much of a rotor head, so excuse me if I dont know some stuff about the Army and helicopters. (I'm trying to learn!)

;)

Edited by Super Hornet 88
Link to post
Share on other sites
So what about future Growth Potential for the airframe? If the US Army decides the designed MAX GROSS WEIGHT for the type (Lakota) is marginal with any future armor add ons/ a pair of LMG's? Can the UC's be upgraded (power and airframe) to allow for high/hot or extended mission times? And if so how much do these things add to the cost of just buying a more suitable aircraft from the start?

Can't answer that

Im not saying the Lakota wont be suitable, and it cetainly wasnt bought with the idea of doing troop insertions etc. but, it will end up in combat areas to be sure. Most probably not doing anything deliberate to get itself in harms way but there none the less. Personally Id be a little reluctant to fly around without RWR/chaff/flare launcher and nothing really to help protect me but two pair of Mk 1 eyeballs scanning and flying and body armor.

The point of the LUH was for a Helicopter that won't be deployed. That's what every company put forward, none of the contenders had RWR Armour plating. 90% of these are for guard/Reserve units based in the US. the rest are going to units in Germany. Unless you expect them to take fire from US citizens they should be OK doing what they are ordered for.

IF (and you're probably right, when ) they are deployed you'd like to think the Army will invest in these sort of things. But but the Army is buying the Bell 407 for ARH mission. It has all the bells and whistles for combat.

I'm no expert but I know if you shoot thin composites with anything like an AK or larger they shatter, and aircraft aluminum isnt much better at stopping bullets. How easy is it to repair damage to something made of composites compared to something made of aircraft aluminum?

Well most modern helicopters (and aircraft) are mode of composites, repair of composites is easier (generally) than ally. As for bulletproofness ;) well Kevllar is a composite

As for the Lakotas primary function stateside (presumably).....

Blackhawks in Guard and Reserve Units proved many times the BIG helicopter WAS needed to winch people off of thier roofs and transport large numbers of civillians to safety. How many trips would a UC 72 have to make, and how long could they stay on station doing the same mission?

Obviously the scenario above a bigger Helicopter is better, but then why not just buy EH-101,CH-53K,or CH-47's? That mission is but one of the multitude of missions the LUH is intended for. Many of these missions require a smaller, faster and cheaper to operate aircraft

Interesting discussion though, from a technical point of view it wasn't a surprise that the EC145 won. Although I thought the NIH syndrome may have counted against it. MD helicopters pushed that barrow in their appeal against the decision.

of course they neglected that fact that most of the EC-145's are being built in the US, and that the real money that will eb made is actually going to Sikorsky. IIRC they are the prime for logistical support for the aircraft over the next 10-20 yrs

Link to post
Share on other sites
The LUH concept as I see understand it is designed to release aircraft like the UH-60's, (which are significantly more expensive to operate) to carry out pure military roles they are designed for, and to let the cheaper LUH carry out those jobs (primarily in the US) that don't require an aircraft with the capability of a UH-60.

I must throw in a few words here. When the Army first acquired the Blackhawk, it's goal was to replace all the Huey's with them. It never happened.

And, Jon is right, one day the Army in all it's wisdom will deploy the UH-72 into an area it was never intended to go.

In addition, acquiring new equipment has become more about politic's then what the service really needs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What I'm saying is the Army didn't get what it wanted. It got a cost-effective, lesser performing helicopter that will be severely limited if it gets deployed overseas, where it will have no passive or active defensive capabilities.

Jon-

I'm not sure why you say the Army didn't get what they wanted. Didn't the Army write the performance spec? Didn't the Army send out the RFP, conduct the review of the proposals and select the winner? Or are you saying that they couldn't afford what they wanted?

I have been involved in plenty of aquisitions for the Navy/Marines, does the Army do things differently? I thought part of aquisition reform was to get everyone doing things the same way.

grandadjohn-

In my opinion, the aquisition of new equipment is more about money than politics. We simply can't afford everything we want.

Phil

Edited by Par429
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Jon, I’m enjoying the discussion, nice way to spend a rainy summers day.

As I see it there are 2 separate but related issues here

1. The EC-145 is better choice than the 412 for the LUH as specified by the US Army

2. The Army’s LUH concept is a crock and will fail sooner rather than later

Most of my points are directed at issue 1. The concept of the LUH sounds fine in theory, whether it remains so in practice is debatable and I don’t have a strong view on that.

Where are you getting your figures from? I've looked at the data and I've spoken to guys who have flown them both. The 145 cannot carry the load the 412 can and it doesn't have the range the 412 has either.

Spec’s I’ve have are

Ranges (max internal fuel)

412 659km

EC1145 670km (with 2700kg gross weight, which is about 75% of MAUW)

Cabin Volume

412 220 cubic ft

EC-145 210 cubic ft

Standard loads

412 2300 kg

EC-145 1700Kg

MAUW

412 5300kg

EC-145 3500Kg

So for a significantly smaller aircraft the EC-145 is quite capable

In one statement, you say it can carry the 412's load and in the next you say it can carry "only" 500kg less. That's a thousand pounds people! but a thousand pounds is a lot of difference for a LIGHT HELICOPTER.

Indeed it is, but really the Bell 412 is hardly a “Light Helicopterâ€. It’s significantly bigger and heavier than all the other contenders, and 1800 kg heavier than the EC-145.

In fact, looking at the data, the 412 has it beaten in every area except cost. Heck the 412 pulls more power on ONE engine than the 145 does with two! (970shp single engine in the 412 as compared to 850shp dual engine in the 145). The 412 pulls 1800shp max continuous power dual engine.

Not surprising considering the 412 is a 5-6 tonne helicopter whilst the 145 is a 3-4 tonne machine.

I'm not sure what your background is,

Not sure why that’s relevant, but I’m an avionics tech, with about 20 yrs experience, last 12 on helicopters, both on the tools and doing logistics engineering work.

Snipped

The problem is, as United States Army assets, they will not just be kept stateside. If the Army has an asset, they are going to use it to fill whatever role they can pound it into. Remember, especially in the helicopter world, Murphy's Law is the primary one.

Then the problem isn’t with the aircraft chosen. Neither the 412 nor the EC-145 as bid in this RFT were meant to be deployed.

That’s the whole point of my argument. The best aircraft for the requirements specified by the US army was judged to be the EC-145. I happen to think they got it right, but really it doesn’t affect me at all, other than it’s interesting.

All the competitors bid on the RFT released by the US army, to bid on what is not in the RFT can be fatal.

In terms of maintenance, I'm wondering how much we're really saving. Unfortunately EADS doesn't publish their average per-hour operating cost for the 145. But with Contract Maintenance (yes boys and girls, civilian contract maintainers. No crew chiefs or Army mechs working on these birds) the cost per man hour will be significantly higher than Army maintenance. The 412 gives a cost of $896 per flight hour and that' would be with Army ground crews working on them. That's pretty cool. My Apache costs about ten times that per hour.

In my experience the cost of maintenance per flight hour will fall with contract maintenance. Regardless of who won there would have been no army maintenance staff on any of the aircraft. Not sure that’s good or bad. I’ve seen the plusses and minuses of both in my time. I agree though $896 is good. For what it’s worth MD helicopters had the 412 at about $1300 and the 145 at about $900.

I think the big punch line here is even Eurocopter doesn't have the 145 listed as one of their military products.

Don’t see why that’s relevant considering the requirement was for a FAA certified COTS aircraft that is required it to retain the civil certification throughout it’s life.

Problem is, we're talking the Army here and for the Army to have an aviation asset that isn't a combat capable helicopter is just a waste of money.

Good point Jon, but the opposing argument is that the Army should (isn’t it already) contract out all non core roles/repsonsibilties and concentrate all it’s energies on the combat arms.

Going by this theory the roles of the LUH could be done by a civy company on a power by the hour contract. But that could be a whole new thread. :-)

Now what about CSAR – X, another interesting competition with a surprise (to industry at least) winner. Any thoughts there

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Army beofre issuing the spec's for the LHX program surveyed the pilots, chiefs and maint personal to see what they thought was needed in a new scout helo. After getting all that info, the drcision makers promptly disregarfed it all and issued the spec's they wanted. After much research and testing by the manufacturing companies and the costs that had been run up, they canceled it and started the Comanche program and we know what happened to it. In the meantime the troops ended up with the OH-58D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Jon, I’m enjoying the discussion, nice way to spend a rainy summers day.

Calum, as am I!

As I see it there are 2 separate but related issues here

1. The EC-145 is better choice than the 412 for the LUH as specified by the US Army

2. The Army’s LUH concept is a crock and will fail sooner rather than later

Most of my points are directed at issue 1. The concept of the LUH sounds fine in theory, whether it remains so in practice is debatable and I don’t have a strong view on that.

I think we've found the root of the problem here. I have never knocked the 145 as a helicopter. In fact, I realize and have commented several times on its capability as a civil helicopter. The problem is what they want it to do vs. what it will inevitably be drafted into doing.

The specs I've pulled have been directly from each helicopter's product cards (.pdf format, available online)

and I've seen a lot of similarities in speed and range but always with an advantage to the 412 (be it slight or significant)

Indeed it is, but really the Bell 412 is hardly a “Light Helicopterâ€. It’s significantly bigger and heavier than all the other contenders, and 1800 kg heavier than the EC-145.

Not surprising considering the 412 is a 5-6 tonne helicopter whilst the 145 is a 3-4 tonne machine.

You're absolutely right. All I was saying was with the necessary add-ons to make it a viable combat helicopter, you're going to have to add on a significant amount of weight with the resultant loss in performance.

Not sure why that’s relevant, but I’m an avionics tech, with about 20 yrs experience, last 12 on helicopters, both on the tools and doing logistics engineering work.

Relevant because you have a great deal more practical experience than I do! Unfortunately there are numbers of people who come on the forum as 'experts' and they've never been in a helicopter (or jet, or airplane for that matter). I've worked on airplanes in some manner or another (mainly flying and non-flying museum types) for about ten years and have been flying in the Army for just over a year now. I started flying fixed wing in 1997. Been a historian focused on Army Aviation for the past decade or so.

That’s the whole point of my argument. The best aircraft for the requirements specified by the US army was judged to be the EC-145. I happen to think they got it right, but really it doesn’t affect me at all, other than it’s interesting.

I hear what you're saying. My problem from the beginning hasn't been the requirements for the RFP, it has been that the Army in its infinite wisdom WILL deploy the UH-72A at some point in the not so distant future and it is not a viable combat helicopter. A situation like that is a recipe for disaster and I know too many good people who will probably be flying those helicopters. That's all I've said from the start. The 412 is a viable combat helicopter, although not a true "light" helicopter when you look at the RFP.

As far as the LUH role going to civilian contract, heck, that'd be great! Give it to DHS and leave the Army out of it!

whew!

Ok, I've gotta call it a night. The wife's waiting for me!

Later,

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have to agree with Jon, too many "Monday Morning Quarterbacks" deciding what the Army needs, instead of the trrops the use them and god forbid have to take them "in harm's way." And I spent alot more time in the Army then Jon has(so far)

Has for money driving equipment procerment, it is the politician who decide where the money goes

Edited by grandadjohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as the CSAR-X goes, I can't say I was disappointed with the decision, but I think that the 101 definitely has technological advantages that bear further looking into. I think its rather odd that we're adopting the H-71 simply for VIP transport, but our guys who could use the helicopter to its fullest aren't going to get them. Perhaps a CH-46 replacement?

The HH-47 is an incredible platform. Heck, the Chinook has been in production for nearly fifty years now and shows no signs of slowing.

It has the capability, carrying capacity, power and range to complete the CSAR to far exceed the mission requirements.

The EH-101 is an incredible helicopter to be sure, and I'd definitely like to see more of them in US service.

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites
As far as the CSAR-X goes, I can't say I was disappointed with the decision, but I think that the 101 definitely has technological advantages that bear further looking into. I think its rather odd that we're adopting the H-71 simply for VIP transport, but our guys who could use the helicopter to its fullest aren't going to get them. Perhaps a CH-46 replacement?

The HH-47 is an incredible platform. Heck, the Chinook has been in production for nearly fifty years now and shows no signs of slowing.

It has the capability, carrying capacity, power and range to complete the CSAR to far exceed the mission requirements.

The EH-101 is an incredible helicopter to be sure, and I'd definitely like to see more of them in US service.

Jon

Hi Jon

Yeah the Chinook is certainly an incredible design. IMHO it ranks as a classic along side the Huey.

To me it looks like the USAF has gone with the conservative (nothing wrong with that) approach and taking a well proven helicopter that shouldn't offer to many surprises. (Unlike the RAF's Mk-3s). I guess they will have a lot of similar systems to the Armies MH-47Gs. Now that's a mean looking machine.

As for the 101, It's a nice machine although I've heard they more expensive to operate than the CH-47.

The CH-46 replacement is the MV-22. Now that is a machine that will IMHO revolutionise rotary wing operations, bother combat and civilian inn the next 10 years. Truely a quantum leap in capability for the USMC. I'm glad the USMC stuck with it.

Merry Christmas

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cob., the 412 won't do what Bell would like you to believe, I've been flying it for over 15 years.

1800SHP are the twin pac power on the bench, the xmsn won't take that much, not even at 100% TQ for take off.

Expect a max load cruise of 115 to 125 knots and a range of 250NM with reserves on the SP fuel configuration.

Normal FF in cruise can go from 760 to 820 lbs/hr, roughly 110 to 120 GpH.

The reason why Bell pushed the 412 into the contract was that they were caught red handed with some confidential information pre contract and though that their "210" was going to get the green light.

Trying to sell the NG a helicopter not even certificated for IFR flight, talk about shortchanging your troops.

Well, finally DOD saw through the BS that Bell gives away for free.

While the 145 may be on the light side of light, the only other viable alternative was the AW-139 but Ma' Bell decided not to support that product, and that's mainly why it is now AW-139 and not AB-139 any longer.

Cheers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

AHA! Thanks for that bit of info, I wasn't aware of that.

I knew the 210 was originally intended for the competition, and since it was adopted by the USAF, I (along with everyone else, I guess!) thought it would be a shoe in.

From what I saw of the 139 it looked good on paper (just too corporate in real life!) I'm just not very familiar with it. I got to see all of the entrants fly at Cairns AAF while I was in Instruments, so that was pretty cool.

Again, my argument wasn't with the 145 itself, just the role that its being pigeonholed into as a "military" helicopter.

:cheers:

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know about some of the aruments here but I know in euope there have been some major problems with this airframe operating at altitude.

Found the following;

Following two fatal helicopter accidents in the Pyrenees rescue workers belonging to specialist units of the fire service, the police and doctors have vowed to boycott the Eurocopter EC145, the workhorse of French mountain rescue. The most recent incident was a crash on the 5th of June in the Hautes-Pyrénées during a training exercise. One senior helicopter pilot and instructor has said that “although the EC145 is a superb allround helicopter it is not suitable for use in the high-mountainsâ€.

Hope the Army does not have to operate them in any mountains, say alaska, or Afghanistan say :cheers:

Julien

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they're not supposed to be* deployed to Afghanistan and I seriously doubt the National Guard CH-47 units will give up their Chinooks (which are great for rescues on mountains such as Mt. Hood, Oregon or Denali, Alaska) for Lakotas without a fight.

*Emphasis due to the difference between reality perceived and reality achieved; they say they won't be deployed, but only time will tell

Edited by Trigger
Link to post
Share on other sites
AHA! Thanks for that bit of info, I wasn't aware of that.

I knew the 210 was originally intended for the competition, and since it was adopted by the USAF, I (along with everyone else, I guess!) thought it would be a shoe in.

From what I saw of the 139 it looked good on paper (just too corporate in real life!) I'm just not very familiar with it. I got to see all of the entrants fly at Cairns AAF while I was in Instruments, so that was pretty cool.

Again, my argument wasn't with the 145 itself, just the role that its being pigeonholed into as a "military" helicopter.

:D

Jon

The TH-1H and the 210 are not exactly the same a/c. The TH-1H is an advanced trainer, and can go IFR I believe.

Like you said, the 145 is the least possible compromise but the Brass has no idea what they are really going to do with it.

I believe that HS had a big hand in this and they were really thinking Disaster Relief as a knee jerk reaction to the Katrina debacle, after all the BK 117 IS the most widely used EMS helicopter and the EC-145 is an improvement (huge) over it.

Also, EC has almost completed work on a five bladed starflex main rotor system designed for EC-145 that is going to take care of those performance problems the Gendarmerie and REGA experienced at high altitude.

Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

They just put another contract through on top of that 96 remanufactured A models. We're getting 12 brand new ones with that batch, plus an additional 24 brand new ones in a follow-on batch!

Its looking like there may be 5 National Guard Longbow battalions instead of four!

Jon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...