Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 3 years later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...