Tank Posted August 16, 2019 Share Posted August 16, 2019 If we make enough noise Scaleworx might be our best option. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Loach Driver Posted August 28, 2022 Share Posted August 28, 2022 It's not often the USAF calls in the Irish Air Corps for advice on operating a new aircraft type but that is what happened recently in relation to the MH-139. https://www.afgsc.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/3139404/irish-air-corps-visits-20th-air-force/ https://www.thejournal.ie/irish-air-corps-us-air-force-visit-grey-wolf-5850550-Aug2022/ Hopefully, if the USAF ever base any of their MH-139s in the UK, they pay a visit to the Irish Air Corp's home base at Baldonnel. Meanwhile, the MH-139A is edging closer to service entry. https://www.aviationtoday.com/2022/08/25/us-air-force-plans-move-forward-mh-139a-developmental-testing/ LD. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnEB Posted August 30, 2022 Share Posted August 30, 2022 Seems like an expensive solution to a simple problem. The USAF used single engine UH-1Fs for Missile site support for years, now it's replacement is a large twin. The service only switched to using UH-1Ns for site support when they became available when SOS units switched to MH-60s. The Survival School at Fairchild has used Ns since they were new, (I got my first helicopter flight in one in 1974). They also do regional rescue duties(39th), but I don't think even they think they need such an extravagant machine for their duties. Why not buy Bell 412s? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Da SWO Posted August 31, 2022 Share Posted August 31, 2022 1 hour ago, JohnEB said: Seems like an expensive solution to a simple problem. The USAF used single engine UH-1Fs for Missile site support for years, now it's replacement is a large twin. The service only switched to using UH-1Ns for site support when they became available when SOS units switched to MH-60s. The Survival School at Fairchild has used Ns since they were new, (I got my first helicopter flight in one in 1974). They also do regional rescue duties(39th), but I don't think even they think they need such an extravagant machine for their duties. Why not buy Bell 412s? 412 is 50 mph slower cruising, with half the range. UH-1F's were really under powered, and space limited. They moved the N's from Rescue and the 20th SOS once Pavehawks came on-line. I thought taking the retiring HH-60's and moving them into missile support, eventually getting new 60's would have been a good deal. I think the Global Strike Com (Force?) logic revolved around the notion that they can't take our helicopters if they are different mind set, but that's just an assumption on my part. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ST0RM Posted September 1, 2022 Share Posted September 1, 2022 Logistically, new H-60s would have been the smarter buy. The AF already has the supply chain available and at a cheaper cost. I'm reading this MH-139 cost between $17.5-25mil per, where as a new Mike Blackhawk is also $25mil. So why dirty up the chain, unnecessarily? As said, even retired G-models would be a simpler solution. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clinstone Posted September 1, 2022 Share Posted September 1, 2022 9 hours ago, ST0RM said: Logistically, new H-60s would have been the smarter buy. The AF already has the supply chain available and at a cheaper cost. I'm reading this MH-139 cost between $17.5-25mil per, where as a new Mike Blackhawk is also $25mil. So why dirty up the chain, unnecessarily? As said, even retired G-models would be a simpler solution. The fixed price contract with Boeing was nearly $2 billion cheaper than Lockheed Martin for the UH-60U. That’s the primary reason it was awarded. The 60Gs are tired and breaking with a poor MC rate. If they still had life left, they wouldn’t be replacing them with the W. There is plenty of logistics on the civil side for the AW139, especially given that all of the maintenance is done by contract personnel (save for Maxwell but that was a political decision for AFRC). Does the 139 have problems? Yes, however most of that is due to Boeing and not the airframe. The HH-60W has a bunch of problems and their total contract was curtailed as well. In the end, if all 80 are delivered, there will be more MH-139s in the AF than HH-60s. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
JohnEB Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 For what it is worth, at our local base, I believe the UH-1N maintenance is also done under contract. I noticed a very shiny green/yellow John Deere tractor tug. In regards to my first pist, I have nothing against the AW, it just seems to me to be more aircraft than the mission requires. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Clinstone Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 9 hours ago, JohnEB said: In regards to my first pist, I have nothing against the AW, it just seems to me to be more aircraft than the mission requires. It’s actually barely big enough for payload and passenger capacity. Boeing is certifying a MGTOW that’s 240kg higher than the base AW139 to meet the KPP. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Da SWO Posted September 4, 2022 Share Posted September 4, 2022 12 hours ago, JohnEB said: For what it is worth, at our local base, I believe the UH-1N maintenance is also done under contract. I noticed a very shiny green/yellow John Deere tractor tug. In regards to my first pist, I have nothing against the AW, it just seems to me to be more aircraft than the mission requires. The Missile Security mission has changed a lot from when the UH-1F first flew it. The number of cops on the response team has increased, their gear is heavier, bulkier, and we have to assume they will be engaged by manpads in an actual attack. Likewise the "get out of DC" mission is also more complex, added comm gear and self defense dictate a larger airframe. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.