Home » Air » Industry Mulls UH-1N Protest

Industry Mulls UH-1N Protest

By John Reed Monday, November 1st, 2010 2:22 pm
Posted in Air

Industry officials are considering filing a protest with the GAO if the U.S. Air Force moves ahead with a rumored plan to purchase 90 choppers to replace its fleet of UH-1N Hueys on a sole source basis.

“We’re hoping to have a competition” but “we haven’t ruled out” the idea of protesting a sole-source buy for the Huey replacement, an industry official close to the matter said. “No company likes protests, our preference is we wouldn’t have to go there.”

Such a move would be the third protest in the last five years of a major Air Force weapons buy.

It has been reported that the Air Force is planning to use the Economic Act of 1932 to justify buying the choppers on a sole source basis from the U.S. Army. The act allows government agencies to buy goods from other government entities as a way of quickly getting ahold of badly needed items.

Industry lawyers have begun looking into previous protests of the legislation, which they claim has never been used buy anything as large as a helicopter fleet, according to the official.

“The idea that you’d buy a 150 percent solution” that costs more than other choppers being prepared by industry would be “outrageous,” said the official, alluding to claims that the service wants buy about 90 Sikorsky-made UH-60Ms to replace the Hueys.

The official went on to say that the helos industry is planning on bidding for the effort would be cheaper to buy and maintain than the venerable Blackhawk.

This may very well be a blatant move by the defense industry to pressure the Air Force into holding a competition, according to Teal Group analyst Richard Aboulafia.

“There might be an element of pre-emption here,” Aboulafia said of the protest threat. “But if the sole source rumor is true, they might have a point. On the other hand, there were plenty of folks who thought CVLSP might migrate upwards in size and capabilities.”

In 2007, a Lockheed Martin filed a GAO-sustained protest of the Air Force’s award of the $15 billion CSAR-X helicopter contract to their rival Boeing. In 2008, Boeing successfully protested the service’s granting of the $35 billion KC-X tanker deal to rival EADS.

In the aftermath of both of those protests, Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancelled the CSAR-X program and temporarily took acquisition authority away from the Air Force on the tanker effort.

The service has not yet settled on an acquisition plan for the UH-1N replacement, Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Wesley Miller said on Monday.

Join the Conversation

	Anonymous November 1st, 2010 at 3:26 pm Hmmmmmm. You mean competition like Gates and Carter put out in their latest Policy Guidance to help reduce acquisition program costs? Why should the Air Force follow what the Sec Def and DoD’s Head Acquisition Official signed into policy?
	BOOMER November 1st, 2010 at 3:34 pm The ARMY is the lead acquisition manager for common equipment used by all miltary branches so if the Air Force wants to use a Army helo — weapon system — small arms– ammo — truck or what ever that is already in the system and GSA supported, there is nothing the contractors can do about it other than whine.
	Anonymous November 1st, 2010 at 3:47 pm You’re right Boomer. What does the SecDef know anyway? He’s only the appointed head of the Department of Defense. By your logic, we should still be operating with WWII jeeps too.
	BOOMER November 1st, 2010 at 4:01 pm I don’t know where I pointed to anything like that in my statement, but now that you brought it up — Heck yeah we would be better off all the way around and billions would have been saved if we had kept the jeep and not bought any HUMVEE’s. They went more places, were easier and cheaper to maintain, easier to transport, got better gas milage, and carried just as many people as the larger 100X more expensive HUMVEE. So I’m kinda glad you brought it up. (and my opinion about the wisdom of the secdef and his level of military knowledge wont fit here).
	Oblat November 1st, 2010 at 4:04 pm As the pie rapidly shrinks the proxy wars for pork are just going to get more intense and deadlocked. In a perverse way it keeps the money from being misspent. Millions of dollars have already been saved because tanker farce.
	Jeff November 1st, 2010 at 4:17 pm I think his point is that if the goal is to maintain a fleet that can take advantage of commonality with Army and the preexisting industrial infrastructure supporting it, we shouldn’t be reinventing the wheel. While other members of the industry maybe able to produce at a lower per helocopter price, that doesn’t take into consideration whether they can support it in the same way that preexisting upgrade packages do, it doesn’t consider any developement costs the Air Force maybe asked to help with, it doesn’t consider the ability to share spare parts or maintainance equipment. That even at 150% of the market price that extra 50% has a higher level of certainty as a fixed cost, while the prices the market are offering are unknown variables. Its between the devil you know and the devil you don’t know.
	mike j November 1st, 2010 at 4:30 pm Sounds like Bell would like to give these Air Force helos the “Yankee makeover.”
	Anonymous November 1st, 2010 at 4:40 pm You make a good point. Maybe the Army should just take that mission from the AF? Then DoD would REALLY benefit from commonality.
	William C. November 1st, 2010 at 4:44 pm Umm no, money has not been saved due to the disastrous previous tanker programs, and we still need new tankers. Of course your going to disagree because you evidently think the United States and the west in general should have no military.
	William C. November 1st, 2010 at 4:51 pm I only see two real options here, the UH-60M or the UH-1Y. The Marines also operate the UH-1Y and it seems to be a successful design. On the other hand the USAF already operates H-60 series helicopters for search and rescue, and the Army has a much larger fleet of Blackhawks than the USMC does Hueys. It seems like the UH-60M would make more sense from a commonality standpoint. It is only 90 helicopters anyway, not enough to warrant a protest that will delay this for God only knows how long.
	William C. November 1st, 2010 at 4:57 pm The HMMWV wasn’t too costly back in the 1980s when it was in full production for a more general purpose role. They could also tackle tougher terrain than the jeep, and could carry more stuff. Today’s up-armored HMMWVs are a different matter due to all of that extra weight. Plus they decided to load many of them with blue force tracker and other rather costly electronic setups. In my opinion they have taken the vehicle far beyond what it was ever intended to do. Still, the jeep would be worse off if they tried to use them the same way. It seems we are at the point where we need something like the original HMMWV or the old jeeps to complement whatever fancy vehicle JLTV is supposed to deliver.
	Aurora November 1st, 2010 at 6:04 pm No, he thinks we should rely on the european aerospace conglomerate, EADS, for all our aviation logistic needs.
	William C. November 1st, 2010 at 6:16 pm Is Bell still offering the UH-1Y as an upgrade of the UH-1N? I thought they decided UH-1Ys would be new builds.
	freefallingbomb November 1st, 2010 at 7:00 pm Is it so hard to find out if they’re cheaper and better than all (same-rôle) U.S. aircraft? Or shouldn’t that count? Not even if they’re 100 % manufactured in the U.S.A., no political strings attached? What more do you want? You already got a budget as big as all the World’s Defense budgets combined and still can’t win wars – maybe it’s indeed the technology and the price of what you’ve got, because the other possible answer… See you in an Eurofighter next to you!
	Doug November 1st, 2010 at 7:05 pm The Economy Act of 1933 31 U.S.C. Sec. 1535. Agency Agreements (a)The head of an agency or major organizational unit within an agency may place an order with a major organizational unit within the same agency or another agency for goods or services if— (1) amounts are available .… . (4) the head of the agency decides ordered goods or services cannot be provided by contract as conveniently or cheaply by a commercial enterprise. Note: To me the key language is Item (4) above.
	CSARmedic November 1st, 2010 at 8:43 pm In my humble opinion (after wearing these stripes for thirty years), The AF is (finally) going the cost-effective route by buying used (Army) 60’s to replace outmoded and obsolete UH-1’s (even if they are N models). The huge benefit is commonality of platforms, resources, training, logistics (parts), and personnel (aircrew and maintainers) to replace a VERY limited fleet and mission (SAR at Fairchild and [I believe] Alaska and personnel transport to and from the missle fields in the Great White North). Not too mention the added benefits of increased cargo space and operating range. Let them bitch, but I think this is a wise desician by the Pentagon which will benefit everyone but the industry. As I’ve told a number of sales reps who have tried to sell me ridiculous medical inventions, Mr Gates is tightning those purse strings and it has to start somewhere (thank God).
	Curt November 2nd, 2010 at 4:02 am Not to mention the proposed savings in time and money for not having to do the whole milspec certification on a new airframe, integration of military radios, etc and all the associated testing of the new helo. One minor note, the USAF is probably looking at new UH-60Ms from the Army which already has an existing contract to cover all purchases for the USA and USN, so tacking on another 12 or 24 more airframes for the Air Force a year will probably save money all around. Of course the same logic applies for the UH-1Y and it would be an easier transition for the current UH-1N guys. The other point to look at is the potential that the mission will be reduced in the future. If the number of Helos is reduced, say because we get rid of half of the existing missile silos, then we can reduce the buy. No problem getting rid of UH-60Ms, just give them back to the Army.
	James November 2nd, 2010 at 9:18 am USAF already flies HH-60 CSAR helos that can be used for any other purpose than picking downed airmen. Problem is those HH-60’s must stay iwth their squadron and be kept in combat mode as wars can pop up at any time. By going through the Economy Act, USAF does not want to start another competition that will end up being screwed through contractor protests. Besides, the Marines and Navy also purchase C-130 Hercules from the USAF — they did not have to go through another competition as they knew the C-130 was the mount they wanted (C-5 too big, C-17 too expensive and A-400M not in construction at the time). USAF has spare parts to manage the UH-60M’s like the HH-60’s. And USAF has already ordered 12 new HH-60M’s to recapitualize its HH-60 CSAR fleet with a requirement to replace all 112 airframes — they can order future HH-60M’s from the Army under the Economy Plan like they wnat to do for the UH-60M.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am Who said anything about USED UH-60’s? These are new aircraft they are proposing and a strategy to circumvent a legitimate competitve process. Nothing more than a contractor “in bed” with a DoD and trying to use a loophole to avoid competing for the $3-5B contract. Why do you think there is so much opposition to the JSF alternate engine? Funny how everyone preaches “free market” and the benefits of competition, but when it comes to actually making it work to the ultimate benefit of the customer.…..that’s a different story. The market works if you let it. There ARE better products out there.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 9:33 am The UH-1Y costs almost as much as a Blackhawk, and is another example of “short circuiting” the acquisition process. They were supposed to be upgrades of existing UH-1N’s so no competition required. Now they are complete “new build” aircraft, which was doing nothing more than trying to make a UH-1 into a UH-60, and doing a crappy job of it. While we are on the commonality arguement, why stop at the UH-60, why not give them 53E’s to replace those Hueys? Plenty of growth margin, if getting more than is required doesn’t appear to be an issue and they are replacing a $2M aircraft with a $20-25M UH-60?
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 9:36 am By your logic of choose only what is currently in the inventory, we should still be flying WWII aircraft.….
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 10:15 am Mr. Reed, this is weak and worthless reporting. You do the bidding of EADS and Agusta Westland without mentioning their name. Here are the facts, the AF needs a helo to carry 9 dudes, loiter over a convoy for 4 hours, and be able to infil them at any time up to 4000 and 95 degrees. What can do that. Not anything those companies make, the UH-1Y can’t do it either and costs $5M more per aircraft than a Blackhawk because they don’t produce very many. So, who loses with this BS threat, only the AF Airman who now have to wait while their cowardly civilian leadership waffles under baseless protest threats. You’re part of the problem. If there was any justice, no military member would ever talk to you again. Thanks for that deep diving, cutting edge reporting, you AW and EADS HACK!!! I hope they pay you alot so you can sleep at night.
	Korey November 2nd, 2010 at 10:18 am No we shouldn’t. The article mentioned a “quickly getting ahold of badly needed items.” When you have time to develop and produce these items, you can do it. Beyond the costs of developing a completely new aircraft, time & money must be put into develop a training program for the new pilots, crew, & mechanics. The UH-60M already has that infrastructure behind it.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 10:39 am Isn’t a competition designed to do just that? Detrermine what can meet the requirements, in the most COST EFFECTIVE manner? You need to look in the mirror about why you are upset this is being exposed in the press. YES, there are other aircraft that can perform the “9 dudes” 4000′ @ 95 degrees, and are doing it today, and cheaper than a UH-60. Interesting that the CSAR performance requirement was just lowered to 80F @ 4000′.….. wonder why?
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 11:10 am You sound like the only one upset around here, do you work for a contractor that is not going to get to bid or something? The fact is that it is perfectly legal for services to by from each other internaly without any competition, this makes the purchase faster and cheaper because they have have to wait a year for the bid and selection process or do any first article acceptance of the products production process. It works out best for all in need of the gear now and why the law was implemented.
	Bernie November 2nd, 2010 at 11:13 am Actually I think the EC-225 would meet those requirements for that money. But it was always going to be a Black Hawk buy.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 11:17 am They have been operating theses Hueys and “looking” at replacing them for almost 10 years.…. So now it’s a “badly needed item” which warrants using a billion dollar loophole? So now you are claiming there isn’t time to do it right. Give me a break. The UH-60M is completely new to the USAF and all HH-60G pilots and maintainers have to go through training .…. just like a new aircraft. It is considered a new aircraft within DoD which requires a surprising amount of training whether you previously flew/maintained an earlier variant of H-60 or not. More information that would be vetted through a competition.
	George Zip November 2nd, 2010 at 11:32 am Flight International reported in February that the USAF was planning to buy 112 Mikes for CSAR-X. That claim was denied by the Air Force days later, but with CVLSP going to the 60 maybe the original common platform idea from the early days of PRV will actually happen.
	Mr. T November 2nd, 2010 at 12:04 pm I thought competition was the American way? The most “efficient” form of government is a dictatorship, so maybe that’s what some of these folks are suggesting. To hell with the US industrial base, free market economics, and let the best man win — let’s compromise, go to the lowest common denominator, and let government do its thing with out any external competitive forces. Genius. No wonder we’re going broke! If the Blackhawk is really the best solution, it will win the competition. What’s to fear Sikorsky? Why push for sole-source … unless … maybe you’re concerned that you can’t win a competition. Nah, couldn’t be that.
	William C. November 2nd, 2010 at 12:07 pm Lets think this through. Are we really going to buy a European helicopter not in the inventory or develop a new design for a mere order of some 90 utility helicopters? It would make no sense.
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm Don’t know where you picked up those “requirements” of 9 troops/ 4 hrs/ 4000ft/ 95F. The notice is listed on the fbo.gov site with the mission profiles, and none of them resemble your numbers.
	William C. November 2nd, 2010 at 12:10 pm The only real competition here seems to be the UH-1Y. Yet in this scenario a competition will delay a purchase, add cost, and will likely end up in favor of the UH-60M. The Blackhawk replaced the Huey throughout the Army, it can certainly do it for the USAF in this case.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 12:14 pm Yes. Lets think this through.….….Hello JSF .….… Doesn’t it seem hypocritical to expect all kinds of support from the Europeans on JSF, and then close the door on what you are calling a mere order of 90 helicopters = $3-5B
	SOFmonkey November 2nd, 2010 at 12:22 pm What does Boomer Esiason know about defense procurement? NOTHING obviously. He’s just another hack for a company that hates to compete. Where would this country be without competition? So sick of this mentality. CSAR is a critical mission and everyone in the community knows that the 60 is woefully inadequate. We analyzed the hell out of alternatives a decade ago and didn’t come up with the Pavehawk as a solution did we? It’s only because our branch struggles to buy anything right the first time that we’d look toward government loopholes from the depression because we’re all too chicken sh#% to go through the damn process. I doubt that Boomer Esiason is actually a mil guy, sounds more like a damn Teamster. How can you argue with the idea of competing? If your Union pavehawk is the best solution it will win. If your Union can’t produce the best solution you lose. You can’t honestly argue this point can you?
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 12:26 pm In your opinion. I flew both the H-60 and UH-1N, and there are very good alternatives that warrant a competition. As a pilot, military member and ultimately tax payer, it deserves a competition and monopolies short circuit the free market system this country was founded on. Happy Election Day.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 12:35 pm Yes. Let’s think this through. We expect the Europeans to through the doors open wide for JSF, but we hypocritically say no when it comes to the “mere order of 90 Utility helicopters” = $3-5B Nice to see we practice what we preach.…..
	William C. November 2nd, 2010 at 12:38 pm But JSF is supposed to produce over 2,500 aircraft (hopefully), this is simply buying 90 helicopters as a UH-1N replacement. Most European designs are rather larger and heavier than the UH-60 and UH-1 anyway. Putting a whole new helicopter in the inventory doesn’t make any sense when we are talking about these numbers. Maybe the AW101 could have been a contender if it became the new presidential helo, but that didn’t happen.
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 12:45 pm I’ve got nothing against competition, that’s beside the point. We aren’t talking about CSAR, this is the CVLSP– different mission, different requirements. The notice for this system specifically says it wants COTS or GOTS. That narrows the choices to the UH-60M, or the UH-1Y, or possibly a rebuild of some older birds. H-47 is too much helo, none of the other options are in the inventory.
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 12:46 pm Well monkey, if you would read what I actualy wrote or joined in on more of these topics you would know that I’m retired active duty and currently work for the Gov in acquisitions. You would also know that I’m always about getting the guys what they want and need rather than what the contractors convince the generals they need to buy instead. No contractor would ever hire me because I have cost the majority of them serious cash in identifying nonconformances during my audits of thier facilities. Every helo out there has some type of short coming — we have learned how to deal with the 60’s — also a competition would put buying the replacements out by at least 1 1/2 to 2 yrs minimum from the date the notice hits the boards and contractors start putting thier proposals together, followed by post contract award meetings to make changes to specs or contract, then mediation, then first articl testing prior to approving production for the contract. They need a replacement now and this is they way to get it to them by piggy backing the Army contract via follow on orders clause in the Stement of Work.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 12:58 pm Agree with GOTS, but what about COTS ??? Lets not forget this mission is similar to what lead to the LUH program, and in fact does even more VIP than LUH.
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 1:18 pm UH-72 looks like it’s too small, maybe that’s not what you meant though. The requirements are listed at the fbo.gov site under CVLSP. They want a pretty robust military helicopter– armor, door guns, high cruise speed, night/ all-weather, etc. Some of the UH-1Ns were over 13,000 hours from a planned 2,500 and into their second tail boom replacement. This may be one of those times we’ve just got to say “good enough.”
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 1:30 pm Not talking about the solution being the UH-72.….. The COTS strategy they executed was the only successful, NEW helicopter acquisition program in the last ???? years. Very similar mission assumptions as CVLSP; Non-deploying, non-combat, support, utility, and VIP.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm In fact the CVSLP requirements are now tougher than the CSAR, since the AF lowered the operational conditions to 4000′ & 80F for CSAR. I guess they don’t plan on deploying to hot climates any more?
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 2:15 pm C’mon man, what do you think EADS is not as corrupt or has problems with thier projects then thier U.S. counter parts? EADS reported a €763 million loss for 2009 as a result of a €1.8 billion charge on the troubled A400M project and a €240 million charge related to the A380. what about In 2003 Tony Yengeni, former chief whip of South Africa’s African National Congress, was convicted of fraud relating to an arms deal with South Africa, in which EADS were major players, worth around $5bn. The BBC reported that EADS had admitted that it had “rendered assistance” to some 30 senior officials to obtain luxury vehicles, including defence force chief General Siphiwe Nyanda. ” You already got a budget as big as all the World’s Defense budgets combined and still can’t win wars.” What kind of comment is that? What country are you from France? They have a great war history. Oh and the Eurofighter is so cheap too. C’mon man
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 2:26 pm Eh, yes and no. Those “HH-60 Recap” birds are doing some really tough flying at high loads over long range. CVLSP is more like one or the other, loads or range. Without more information, I’m guessing they lowered the reqt’s just to get some fresh airframes inbound… but it is frustrating. I’d like to know where that Piasecki SpeedHawk program is at.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 2:28 pm What you “competition zealots” don’t realize is that when the warriors try to run a competition, it gets crushed by Washington DC’s ability to stop any program, no matter how desperately the warriors need it — i.e. CSAR-X. In this current helo market, there are far more companies with something to lose, so they all activate their Congressional backers and protest shops. BL is that nothing more capable than a Blackhawk will be allowed to go through or the SECDEF will kill it. Also, for those who think competition is so great. Look at this example. If the AF just buys H-60s, they cost the USG about $17M under the Army’s MYP. If we buy UH-1Y’s then they cost about $22M and don’t do the job. But, if we compete this, then Sikorsky only has to beat the Chinook and other larger helos needed to do the job. They don’t have to beat their own price on the Army MYP. So, by competing this, the AF’s still will get H-60s but at likely millions more in cost. I don’t make this $%^& up, its your Federal Acquisition Regulations at work. So, for God’s sake, in the interest of the warfighter, let’s just get on with it.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 2:30 pm Dont buy the JSF then. You Europeans sound like a bunch of whinning little girls.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm Good work Doug, and as you point out, this would require Mr. Van Buren to make a Decision. See this months Rotor and Wing for how likely that is.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 2:43 pm What are these better products? Name them please, and what are the cost benefits?
	Incredulous November 2nd, 2010 at 2:47 pm Last price quoted in the Brit press for the eurofighter was 70 million pounds per; the rafale is even more pricey. Airbus, now EADS, has a legacy of bribery and corruption. BAE, that other stalwart, is even worse.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 3:07 pm $17M per is prior to making it a USAF H-60M. It will end up near $25m per to replace UH-1N’s that cost $3M. So, for the sake of acquisition simplicity, (read: so they can prove the acq system isn’t totally broken) they are willing to over-pay. There are alternatives in the 13-16k pound helicopter range that would be $10m cheaper if you look at all the helicopters in the market place.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 3:10 pm Thanks for making the point about the benefit of having a competition.……If you have one, your questions get answered.
	Anonymous November 2nd, 2010 at 3:11 pm DEAL!!!!
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 3:35 pm Its on Defence tech blog http://defensetech.org/2010/10/28/usaf-tweaks-hig…
	arias November 2nd, 2010 at 3:44 pm Your saying the Army is the lead acquisition manager when they can’t even decide what uniform to stick with. No wonder our acquisition programs are so screwed up, the decision for what to acquire is left to a bunch of morons who cant tell their ass from a hole in the ground.
	arias November 2nd, 2010 at 3:46 pm They should just jump on board and fly the uh-1y model, its already in production for the Marines.
	arias November 2nd, 2010 at 3:49 pm They are trying to find a replace for their hueys, They are not looking for heavy lift sh*****.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 3:52 pm OK, Mr. Agusta Westland AW139 Salesman. You don’t know #$%^ about this mission or the requirement. You are only impeding the acquisition to line your own F’ing pockets while good Americans wait for help. Your 14K POS can’t hold 9 guys, and loiter for 4 hours, let alone even get close to the hover requirements. You compare the UH-60M to the UH-1N, I am comparing the UH-60M and anything else to THE MISSION!!!! You’re not even close to being in the right category of aircraft. So, take your obstructionist BS back to Italy and let our warriors get what they need. I swear to God, people like you are more dangerous to our warriors well-being than the Taliban or AQ. At least over their they have the guts to stand up and face us.
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 4:04 pm That reply ROCKS!!!! I’m right with you on that statement.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 4:16 pm 4000 and 80 is enroute Moron. Do your F’in homework or shut it. The hover is 4000 95 for both Recap and CVLSP. I’m all for competition when it will result in a cheaper aircraft. The truth of the matter is that if the AF competes this, we’ll end up paying MORE for the H-60M cause they’ll only have to beat the UH-1Y offer, not the Army’s MYP price. And name one cheaper aircraft that can do this. If you say AW139 or LUH, don’t bother, they don’t even come close, I’ve done the perf charts myself.
	Brick November 2nd, 2010 at 4:17 pm WoW!!! Ratchet down. I am not sure who you are addressing but clearly you have lost composure, and ability to discuss things in any sort of adult manner. This isn’t Jerry Springer. These are serious topics for open discussion, how about some civility?
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm To the poster “praetorian” Part 1 / 3 ——————————- You wrote: “EADS reported a €763 million loss for 2009” What puts you more to shame, oh U.S. American patriot: That E.A.D.S. KNOWS how to make superior planes despite finantial losses in 2009, or that Lockheed Martin CAN’T develop its ONLY future product despite its 45 billion $ of revenues and 3 billion $ of profits, in the same year? ——————————- You wrote: “In 2003 Tony Yengeni, former chief whip of South Africa’s African National Congress, was convicted of fraud relating to an arms deal with South Africa, in which EADS were major players, worth around $5bn.” Congratulations: At least Justice can be found around the smoking Kilimanjaro! I like that! When was the last time a Lockheed Martin executive was locked up in the “civilized” U.S.A. ? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm Part 2 / 3 ——————————- You wrote: “What country are you from France? They have a great war history.” Who’s your Napoleon? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 4:19 pm Part 3 / 3 ——————————- You wrote: “Oh and the Eurofighter is so cheap too.” Yes, at 715 units on order and at 63 million $ each, it costs only 55,7 % of a F-35 (with its allegedly reduced unit price of “only” 113 million $ , according to “D.o.D. Buzz”…), if that’s what you want to know. Have you ever asked E.A.D.S. how cheap its Eurofighter would be at an ADDITIONAL … 2.443 units? I give you a tip: Cheaper than a C-130 Hercules, which, after 2.262 built units, STILL costs 62 million $ = as much as an Eurofighter! LOL, tell you what: R-I-G-H-T N-O-W an Eurofighter already costs LESS than a clumsy V-22 Osprey bird (unit price: 67 million $ !!! Absolutely criminal… You could have almost 3 Sikorsky CH-53E Super Stallions – the strongest U.S. helicopters – or even almost 6 Mil Mi-26 Halos – the BIGGEST production helicopters in the World – for E-A-C-H Osprey!!!), and only 51 % of a 123,2-million-$-“Global Hawk” D-R-O-N-E !!! Keep me laughing!
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 4:20 pm The EC 225 can’t even begin to come close on this due to hover. They have the size and with enough aux fuel, the endurance as well. Hovering is not the Puma’s or any of its derivatives strengths. Get the charts and run them, it can’t do a 4000 95 degree hover with 9 dudes, even if its fuel were made of helium!!!! Come on people, before you throw other aircraft out like about half a dozen have, do the math!!!
	SOFmonkey November 2nd, 2010 at 4:22 pm I’m a bit surprised by how nasty some of these comments are. In terms of Boomer’s service — I don’t question it and think he has good intentions — I was just ribbing him. The rest of this garbage, calling people names and saying horrible things about the poor guy who wrote the article is uncalled for. I think that we all want the same thing: best product for our warfighters and affordably as possible. My point isn’t to delay them from getting anything, rather, hoping that there is a competition so that every option, including an Army 60, gets full and fair consideration. It shouldn’t upset or scare anyone if the competition is fair, transparent and merit based. I don’t know what helicopter they should buy for CSAR, I just know that the 60 isn’t big enough or capable enough. You’re right, I confused the missions, CVLSP is something else. 60’s to replace Hueys without a competition just doesn’t seem American to me. Sorry, I call it like I see it. But, Boomer, I trust you’re a good guy and don’t doubt that you bleed red, white and blue. Keep up the good work my friend.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 4:22 pm OK, Mr. EADS Salesman, Explain how an LUH is going to carry 9 dudes, for four hours and stop and hover at 4000 95 degrees at any point. Wait, only need to answer the “how will it carry 9 dudes question”
	Ron November 2nd, 2010 at 4:26 pm Sounds like you are inside the acquisition maybe?
	Champ November 2nd, 2010 at 4:34 pm It won’t. Like he said.….He wasn’t talking about the the LUH being the solution. Only the strategy.
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 4:36 pm I appreciate the reply and the expansion of your intensions and thought of the mud slinging. Some of us — including myself need to slow down and expand on our post so they are more clear and precise. The facts on this are that the 60 was already chosen as a replacement for the UH1 many years ago so the competition doesnt even need to come into play as long as they choose its approved replacement for all branches. While there are some out there that may come close — they would have to be bidded/ reviewed/ selected/ and so on as I already pointed out, delivery could be as much as 3 yrs out when all is said and done whereas this way, which is legal in all respects, they can get new replacements in a matter of months. It’s not the best design in the world but it is the best one for the variable needs being placed upon it so lets get it to the guys so they can continue doing thier jobs.
	GI Jane November 2nd, 2010 at 4:37 pm So the Army doesn’t have to follow Sec Def guidance either? Is that what you are implying?
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 4:46 pm All those who crave a competition should be telling your bosses that they need to be prototyping a 60 replacement with more capabilities such as better speed — altitude — range — payload, that is the same size or smaller than a 60, easy to maintain, and at a reasonable cost. The military has already mentioned more than once they will be looking for a future replacement but I havent seen anything come down the pipe yet from any contractor. Whats wrong — not confident enough in your products succes to spend your own money.….……
	Blink November 2nd, 2010 at 4:53 pm Done. What’s next?
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 5:01 pm Again, this isn’t the CSAR / HH-60 Recap under discussion.
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 5:03 pm He’s replying to the unknown poster who keeps complaining about Americans not competeing becuase we cant build anything better or cheaper than him.
	mike j November 2nd, 2010 at 5:07 pm CVLSP requirement is HOGE 3000ft PA / 35C/ for 1min 28sec on leg 7 of mission 3. That’s as high as it gets, per fbo.gov. Do you have a better source? - The name calling is excessive.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm Lol, you had to go back to almost 2000 years for that one. Is that all you got ??
	BOOMER November 2nd, 2010 at 5:13 pm No one is not complying to the guidance — the 60 was nominated the replacement for the H1 thus the competition is done — over — end of story. If the Air Force had decided to single source to another bird to replace thier Huey’s then there would be issues to be dealt with. We do it with small arms and ammo daily along with other items — no laws are broken or regs bent in any way. As long as one branch has an open contract for a common item any toher branch can purchase that item through them.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 5:16 pm Brick, I’m irate because my brothers are dying in OEF and can’t do their job here in protecting our Homeland and being calm has failed for 10 years. What we in the community have been forced to do is become the squeaky wheel out of desperation. If that means being more “in your face” and “uncivil” so be it. I’m done going to bury my brothers in Arlington on Monday and being civil on Tuesday. Now, to back up that belicosity with the facts, here is the FBO site where AFMC has written a very overly complicated RFI, but when you write it all out and sketch out the two mission profiles, you will see that none of the “potential protesters” could get close to this requirement. This is what the folks in this post should be comparing the various options to, not to the 42 year old and totally inadequate UH-1N. https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=…
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 5:17 pm 2000 years ago, the last of the Napoleon Dynasty was born.
	Guest November 2nd, 2010 at 5:21 pm No, what you get is the same thing, a UH-60M, but at a much higher price. EA gets them on the Army’s MYP.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 5:41 pm You better check your facts. I dont see where you come up with 715 orders Expected production summary Country Tranche 1 Tranche 2 Tranche 3A[48] Total Austria 15 0 0 15 Germany 33 79 31 143 Italy 28 47 21 96 Saudi Arabia 1 24 48 72 Spain 19 34 20 73 United Kingdom 53 67 40[49] 160 TOTAL 148 299 112[48] 559 ———————– 559 Greece cancelled thier order and instead went to the F-16. Japan and India have not made a choice yet. But heres a quote about a L.M. product On 17 October 2007, Japanese Defence Minister Shigeru Ishiba confirmed that Japan may buy the Typhoon. Although the F-22 Raptor was in his words “exceptional”, it was not “absolutely necessary for Japan”, and the Typhoon was the best alternative. So the Eurofighter is just an alternative to a L.M. product.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 5:42 pm And no I would not ask EADS how cheap a Eurofighter would cost if it had a additional 2443, because that is a pipe dream not reality. And when the marines land behind enemy lines in thier V-22 your 6 MI-26’s will still be in the air about 50 miles away Cmon man lay off the crack pipe.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 5:48 pm So what your saying is that, there is no other product, And you dont have any answers. Right ? You just want to sound like you know what your talking about.
	praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 5:50 pm I know that, but thats where dude got the stats.
	Bernie November 2nd, 2010 at 6:16 pm Okay, I took out my EC 225 FM, and it shows 4K/95 MTOW of 20,950 lb. Equating to 8,900 lb of useful load. So unless your ‘dudes’ are morbidly obese, it’ll do the mission (irrelevant as that is, given the selection of the 60Mike). Your move, genius.
	William C. November 2nd, 2010 at 6:33 pm The Super Puma? That would be a whole new chopper in the inventory requiring the related maintenance facilitates, spare parts, and crew trained in it’s operation. What the USAF is looking for seems to be much like what the Army wanted back in the 1970s and 1980s. A general purpose Huey replacement that isn’t too much larger, has better performance, can haul loads externally, is relatively crash-worthy, and can be adapted to a variety of different roles.
	Brick November 2nd, 2010 at 8:15 pm Great. Get mad at the failed system. I understand your frustration. Its failing the warfighter. Two things we all should remember: 1. The last time I was in a combat zone, bullets and bad guys don’t differentiate between contractors, soldiers, or their children who serve in the military. Many people have buried friends and family. 2. Someday everyone who serves in the military, will be ex-military, and many become contractors.
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 8:21 pm To the poster “praetorian” Part 1 / 2 You wrote: “And no I would not ask EADS how cheap a Eurofighter would cost if it had a additional 2443, because that is a pipe dream not reality.” 2.443 units IS a pipe dream with 113-million-$ F-35s = the most expensive fighter / fighter-bomber ever, that I can assure you! ( IF they even get classified “safe” for normal use) But I think that I already made sufficient presentations here about WHAT ELSE you could buy with the F-35 program’s 276 billion $ – 323 billion $ , for example 1) 2.443 Gripens AND ADDITIONALLY 1.160 F-22s (not kidding), or even 2) 63 “Ford”-class super-carriers (and offer five to the British, for their unscrupulous, fawning participation in your Middle East Blitz), etc. etc. etc. … Sounds bad? (Continued)
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 8:22 pm Part 2 / 2 You wrote: “And when the marines land behind enemy lines in thier V-22 your 6 MI-26’s will still be in the air about 50 miles away” 6 Mil-26 Halos x times 90 troops each = 540 troops = THAT’S TRANSPORTING HALF A REGIMENT FOR THE PRICE OF ONLY O-N-E S-I-N-G-L-E V-22 OSPREY , WHICH CAN CARRY ONLY ONE PLATOON INSIDE = ONE EIGHTEENTH AS MANY SOLDIERS !!! And if you’re really in such a hurry, then parachute everyone and everything from a 780 km/h fast A400M, which can carry 37 tons (note that even a 592 km/h Hercules’ can only lift as much as a Mil-26, 20 tons). And YOU want to teach anyone anything about good weapons acquisitions?!
	GI Jane November 2nd, 2010 at 8:25 pm Someone might think you are Mr. Sikorsky H-60 salesman just as easily.…
	Praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 8:36 pm BOOMER & guest im with you. Unknown guy cant even tell us what helo he wants the Blackhawk to compete against
	Praetorian November 2nd, 2010 at 8:42 pm Good posts SOFmonkey & BOOMER much respect
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 8:54 pm 70 million ₤ = 112,276 million $ , at least right now (on the 4.11.2010, at 01:54). That’s TWICE as much as I sometimes claim (63 million $ ), and almost as much (practically AS MUCH ) as a F-35’s unit price! If this figure is accurate, then I really don’t know how to explain it, for example if this is now the Eurofighter’s new unit price, or if it includes the complete life-cycle costs + weapons, simulators, etc. . But as soon as I hear more about this new figure, I’m willing to change my mind about the Eurofighter’s comparative cheapness. (Still: When mass-produced…)
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 8:55 pm Make that 3.11.2010.
	William C. November 2nd, 2010 at 9:00 pm . you seem to have a perference for the UH-72, but when they say light utility helicopter, they mean light. It won’t do what the Huey or Blackhawk does and is designed for lighter duty stuff. Plus the UH-72 hasn’t quite been trouble free during it’s carrer.
	freefallingbomb November 2nd, 2010 at 9:34 pm To the poster “Brick” You wrote: “Many people have buried friends and family.” I think “Guest” means “brothers” in the figurative sense, as in brothers in arms, or blood brothers, or stuff.
	Johnny November 3rd, 2010 at 7:31 am So you flew the H-60 and UH-1N. Would be interested to know if you think their capabilities are comparable when you talk about lifting capacity, speed and range. Let me help you, they aren’t and the only helo that meets the AF requirements is the HH-60. If you are so concerned about taxpayer dollars, how do you feel about spending millions of taxpayer dollars on a competition that only one helo can win?
	Johnny November 3rd, 2010 at 7:35 am Name the helo that can do 9 dudes at 4000′ and 95 degrees cheaper than an H-60. if you can, then you are more informed than the industry experts providing responses to the original AF queries… because they couldn’t. Educate yourself before you post lame claims that can’t be substantiated.
	Johnny November 3rd, 2010 at 7:38 am There are a lot of policies out there and must be taken in context. This is only one. There are a couple of other minor things out there called laws enacted by Congress…they are kinda important too. The Economy Act is one of those little laws intended to save taxpayer money. But then if you are an industry hack, saving taxpayer money isn’t very high on your agenda.
	George Zip November 3rd, 2010 at 8:55 am I agree the UH-72 isn’t the right choice for CVLSP, but what ‘trouble’? That program, simple as it is (i.e. a flying truck), is one of the best regarded in the Army aviation community. If you’re referring to Rep. Hunter’s claims from 2007 you may want to check your facts — they were disproved years ago.
	Unk November 3rd, 2010 at 9:46 am Bell 412 EP, UH-1Y, NH-90, EC 175(which is in final cert), AW-139, AS-332, and the H-60 take your pick. Does the CVLSP deploy beyond CONUS? Is it a combat mission, or a security/support mission? If it’s primary mission is combat assult support, then an H-60M is the right truck.….. Otherwise they should see what meets the mission in the most cost efficient way.
	HeloPundit November 3rd, 2010 at 12:53 pm Welcome to the world of delay at all costs to keep your boss and stockholders happy.…even when you truly know that you aircraft will not be able to meet all the KPPs based on the published requirements that were approved by the VCJCS. One only has to review closely the RFI specs and it should be clear to all concerned that the AF has a simple, but clear path to replace the Global Strike Commands UN-1 fleet. I have read many of the comments posted regarding this issue, and for the most part, those who are not close to the real community executing this mission, really have no clue as to what the requirements truly are and why they are what they are. Since they now infamous B-52 Nuc incident a few years ago, a DOD Blue Ribbon panel did a painfully detailed review of this former SAC mission area and found many shortcomings. One area was the response capability to incidents, security at the outlying silo locations and many similar items…but most of you get the picture. Now many will think that you just jump in a light weight helo and fly out to the site…and that’s it…taxi service. Well, not true. If you are truly contemplating competing for this mission, then you need to know if you aircraft can meet the performance parameters. In order to meet payload and performance criteria.…take the worst case scenario…supporting an incident in the missile fields N and NW of Malmstrom AFB, MT. Check out the density altitudes, the ranges to the outer silos…etc and you will quickly find out that your father’s Huey will not come close to being able to comply. Lakota…sorry…nada. AW-139, likewise…nada…but a really sweet helo…just not capable of meeting the range, payload and performance requirements. UH-1Y/Z…nada…and one might want to check the publically available info on contract awards for this program, along with the previous congressional budget documents on how much this aircraft actually costs per unit. Shocking! Oh, and add crew served weapons, 9 pax….all in the RFI. It is so easy to sit at your computer and “fire for effect”. What should be done is gather ALL the facts, put they out on the table…and the answer will always be staring at you. Twisting the facts, requirements, etc to disrupt the process with the goal of having the government to “cave in” to changing the requirements is just plain disingenuous. Unfortunately, some in industry think this is just fine. As I have heard in the past…if we aren’t going to win…then we will do everything to have the program delayed or cancelled. Those of you in industry reading this know exactly what I am talking about. If the AF truly is going to use the Economy Act, I would imagine that based on the strenuous protests they have had in the recent past (tanker and CSAR-X)…that they have really done their homework this time. The RFI clearly says they are looking for a “production aircraft” and the recent congressional marks are not approving any DT/OT funding for this program…as the H-60M is already fully tested, vetted and flying in combat right now. Bottom line: The author of this article and others have taken info from one of the contractors whose aircraft in non-compliant with many of the performance parameters.…and truly has created a BUZZ. Too bad that the real losers are the fathers, uncles, cousins, sons, mothers, aunts, daughters of the Air Force in this case, who execute this mission area for the AF 24/7 in an ancient helo that even the US Army has retired. Last, many of you how have served know that periodically we lose aircraft and aircrew due flying faulty, old and antiquated aircraft. The most gut wrenching experience you can ever experience as a military member, is to either be the Commander or have joined the Commander in notifying the spouse and family that their father (or mother, son, etc) died in an aircraft accident. To delay this acquisition over greed is putting these warriors at risk. Perhaps Industry members need to join the unlucky commander who has to make this notification the next time it happens. Been there, done that…and it stays with you forever! One last comment….Mr Reed…highly suggest you learn how to ‘gather all the facts’.
	Brick November 3rd, 2010 at 1:27 pm Pundit, Everyone claims to “know ALL the facts” while discrediting others.……That is just the way the game is played on blogs, but if you look at much of the long entry you wrote, you are making many assumptions about requirements of the mission, and capabilities of aircraft , and intentions of the AF as others on this story. Before anyone criticizes and attacks the reporter for doing his job, which was to put it out there for comment, we all need to look down at the soap box we are standing on.
	Read the RFI November 3rd, 2010 at 2:34 pm No he isn’t making assumptions, for God’s sake Brick, go look at the fbo.gov site, its all right there in black and white and alot more that he isn’t citing. It is a VERY detailed requirement and two complete mission profiles. If you look at what the government and AF have said the aircraft has to do, there is only one choice — all the delay is just the Washington DC Two Step by interested parties or civilians afraid to make a decision — see Rotor and Wing Nov issue.
	Jollygreenpilot November 3rd, 2010 at 3:19 pm Bernie, You’re making some pretty serious (generous) assumptions about the standard configuration and loadout (SCL) if you believe your useful load is 8900 lbs. That would be a slick 225. The calculations in the profiles are done with SCL (including weapons and expendibles at mid mission gross weight, requiring OGE hover at that mid mission GWT. The only way to accomplish that in the 225 is to dump fuel at the mid mission point which denies you the return radius. Makila 2A are nice FADEC motors but just don’t have the SHP to weight ratios that the 701D’s do especially with the bullets closed. Also when you consider exchange rates, your US dollar equivalent is pretty pricey for a EC725 militarized equivalent (required for the survivability features for the nuke surety mission) Sorry for the dump but you seemed to need more detail. Jollygreenpilot “Sprout”
	Jollygreenpilot November 3rd, 2010 at 3:34 pm Brick, “Read the RFI” has it right. As does the loquascious, but accurate, HeloPundit. It seems that the sizeable and righteous soapbox that Guest, HeloPundit and “Read the RFI” are standing upon is the alter of serviceman support. If more defense contractors (foreign and domestic) and their literary media supporters viewed requirements as life-saving essentials instead of trivial details ripe for manipulation to accomodate “fair competition”, I believe the warfighter would benefit. I too tire of watching the political and acquisition brinksmanship trump procurement of deperately needed hardware. For crying out loud, I flew the UH-1N just after I flew the H-3 in Vietnam. I watched with furious dismay, fiscal and acquisition politics kill the HH-60D Nighthawk in 1986, CSAR-X in 2009, and now this debacle for a simple and obvious procurement need. Will everyone just let the USAF helo pilots get what they need for the requirements that they have determined, staffed and received JROC approval? Get a grip… ’Sprout, off cold’
	Brick November 3rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm I have read both the RFI and the R&W OpEd. OpEd writer seemed more upset that he didn’t get to interview VB.…. As I understand it from other articles, only an RFI has been issued by the AF? An RFI is only a cursory look. An RFP yields much more detailed, in depth, BINDING, and actionable information. I believe LUH took this path and had aircraft in service in record time, and at the best cost to the gov’t?
	Read the RFI November 3rd, 2010 at 4:27 pm OMG Dude, listen to yourself. Here’s a little AQ 101, which is clearly needed. The RFI communicates to industry what is in the JROC Validated Requirement. The acquisition community uses it to determine what the appropriate acquisition strategy should be in order to meet the requirement. It allows them to determine whether a full and open competition is required or they may say “oh look, the Army is already buying in bulk just what the requirement specifies, let’s buy some of that for alot less.” The RFI is as valid a communication of the requirement as is an RFP. And the Economy Act says that the government can do that if there isn’t a commercial equivalent that can MEET THE REQUIREMENT cheaper. The RFI is how they get all that data. Also, it is important to note that the LUH specified in its requirement that it was NOT a combat machine. The CVLSP has to fight its way onto a potentially compromised missile sile according to the RFI, again, read the requirement.
	Read the RFI November 3rd, 2010 at 4:29 pm freefallingbomb, much more than the subtlety of language is lost on this one.
	Mike November 3rd, 2010 at 10:06 pm The Huey has been around for a lot of years. I flew on 60’s and H-1’s. The Huey can do everything the 60 can do, except mid-air refueling. Go ahead and try to put 9 people in an Air Force combat ready 60. You can’t do it because of all the crap they have to carry. Neither can a Huey. I am not aware of any major mods on the Huey. It has been pretty much the same helo since Nam, at least the Air Force version. The 60 has so many systems that it is a maintenance nightmare. The Huey is simple, and reliable. I have been stuck in the middle of nowhere one time on a Huey, for an overheated battery. More times than I can recall on a 60. Keep the Huey! When the last 60 flys to the boneyard, the crew will fly home in a Huey!
	Bernie November 3rd, 2010 at 11:53 pm Sprout– Thanks for the response. Not my bird — I only flew 330s and L1s — but I stand by my statement that the EC 225 (or, as you point out, a mission equipped 725) would be able to fly any mission that a 60Mike with 701Ds would be able to, based on the comparative weights, installed power and RFMs. Your equivalents in the FAF are already flying exactly that type of mission in the sandpit. Now a SOF 60Mike with 706s, THAT would be a different matter! It’s all theoretical — the selection’s already been made, and Aerospatiale doesn’t pay my pension — but as someone already stated it’s important to get the facts right.
	Ira Scott November 4th, 2010 at 1:26 am Boomer… Are you retired USAF maybe? Was in W Germany attached to 3rd BDE 1st AD in the late 1970’s perhaps? I knew a USAF Captain at the time whose nickname was Boomer because of an incident in Memphis TN.
	USAF 71-09 Rotorhead November 4th, 2010 at 3:27 am You hit it right on the nail ” viewed requirements as life-saving essentials instead of trivial “. I remember about about the HH-60D Nighthawk, also have a poster of the design from a friend during the 70’s. Did not know if the A.F. still had anymore UH-1N’s, thought those went out with all the Det’s that closed down except for the 1st Heli SQd Pres. Support. I enjoyed working on the H-3’s except for hitting my head on the amour plating in the cabin ceiling under the gearbox as well as the H-43’s Enjoyed working on the HH-53C and UH-1N and last but lease the HH-60G. The technology has came up a long ways compare to back then Jollygreenpilot. You sound like someone i know. Retired USAF
	Oblat November 4th, 2010 at 10:09 am Anyone who has looked through the reports at the end of the late Soviet Union will recognize the familiar logical contortions of the military socialists: 1) Competition is inefficient, our planned programs are far superior. 2) Nobody will do any work if they aren’t guaranteed profits 3) We’re all patriots working for the motherland we wont game the system for our own benefit — we promise 4) Everyone games the system we’d be foolish not to too. 5) Bailing out national champions keeps them strong. 5) Problems are best hidden — fraud and secrecy is necessary not to worry the people 6) Military socialism is the best system, capitalism can only produce better stuff cheaper because it is so corrupt. 7) My family is 3 generations of apparatchiks trust us we know how to work the system. 8) Performance is how our enemies measure success — it is un-American.
	USAF 71-09 Rotorhead November 7th, 2010 at 12:05 am I don’t see any problems with the A.F. replacing there UH-1N’s and most likely they will not use them across the big pond. There probably about 35 years old. I would not exchange them for a 60 tho as much time they sit on the ground waiting for parts. The Huey was always reliable even when it did sit for a couple of days unlike the 60’s. Maybe they will make a predator with rotors to include a hoist and sling for high altitude rescue instead of using a Ch-47 or H-53Pave Low at the war zone since the Osprey did not hack it.
	BOOMER November 8th, 2010 at 11:36 am No sir, Been to germany a number of times but I’m retired navy — got my nickname because I routinely carried a S&W model 29 as a sidearm during deployments and a 12 ga shotgun.
	YNC November 25th, 2010 at 4:53 pm Such cry Babies! Betcha if they are in that situation.. they wouldn’t be threatening and/or whinint aloud!
	joey February 8th, 2011 at 1:25 am the reason why the uh-1y was even built was to have a higher compatability with the needed upgrade for the aw-1w. the ah-1z and uh-1y are ~80% integrated and make the parts and maintenance easier on the field. mission success. n by the way the uh-1y is a hella better chopper than the uh-60 for the corps.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

Industry Mulls UH-1N Protest

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments