Sikorsky is pitching Polish-built Black Hawk helicopters for the UK’s New Medium Helicopter (NMH) requirement, reported FlightGlobal here.

First reported by Dominic Perry here, the S-70M was proposed in response to a request for information from the Ministry of Defence submitted on the 9th of December.

Lockheed Martin also tweeted about the proposal.

“The Black Hawk helicopter’s defined military design, latest-gen systems, proven combat effectiveness and multi-mission capabilities make it best choice for the UK’s NMH requirement, especially when compared to aircraft originally designed for non-military, civil missions.”

In addition, Australia has formally requested advice from the U.S. government to potentially acquire as many as 40 Black Hawk helicopters amid concerns about its MRH90 Taipan fleet.

It was reported back in 2009 that Defence ministers spurned three separate deals to buy American Black Hawk helicopters which would have helped to plug the dangerous shortage then facing British troops in Afghanistan, you can read more about that here.

The New Medium Helicopter programme

The New Medium Helicopter Programme will see four of the medium-sized helicopters currently in service across the armed forces replaced by one new helicopter, say the British Army.

UK’s ‘New Medium Helicopter Programme’ detailed

It is understood that the helicopters will be operated jointly by the Army and RAF under Joint Helicopter Command.

According to a news release:

“The announcement was made in the Defence Command Paper. It will form part of the Army’s programme of transformation, Future Soldier, which will deliver an Army that is leaner, lighter, faster to respond, and more effectively matched to current and future threats. The New Medium Helicopter Programme will see four of the medium-sized helicopters currently in service across Defence replaced by one new helicopter. This will include the Bell 212 that is used by the Army Air Corps in the jungle areas of Brunei.”

Work on the programme is at an early stage with effort primarily focused on developing and refining key user requirements. Details in relation to the procurement strategy, basing locations, fleet size, delivery schedule and organisational structure are all being assessed, say the Army.

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

213 COMMENTS

  1. So along with the Airbus and Leonardo and now black hawk is this a 3 horse race now?
    I wonder What the pilots and soldiers would prefer to have?

    • Possibly, but even if they chose blackjack, they could be built and assembled on Leonardo’s line in yeovil like they did with the UK build apaches that were built under licence from boeing that way you can also use wastelands as the maintenance centre, it’s also just down the road from Yeovilton so it makes bringing them into service very easy

      • It could but given the small requirement of less than 50 helicopters building in the U.K. will drive up the price. It may make sense to build the 149 in the U.K. if it becomes the only line for the military variant. For the others it’s an on cost, an offset deal would likely be better VFM.

    • There is, Lockheed are hoping that cheap Polish labour and a commitment to producing spare parts/maintenance logistics hub in the UK can offset the lack of direct economic content. They have also bid for a similar Czech requirement with a build in Poland and fit-out in the Czech Republic offer.

      • It should get their offer kicked to the ground. Very bold of them to try that.

        Not that the Blackhawk and tying us even more into the American weapons industry is a good idea anyway.

  5. The only problem I can see with buying Blackhawk is Yeovil closing or being downgraded. If that can be solved then in my opinion Blackhawk is the way to go. If not I just can’t see the UK giving up that capability.

    • Yes. If maintenance and refurbishment is carriedout in the UK, I think it is a sensible option.
      We could even adapt it for British built engines, just like the Phantom.

      • I’m with Blackhawk all the way … It will be far cheaper than the other two options, capable, robust and thoroughly tested and upgraded.

        Leonardo effectively means an Italian designed Helicopter, assembled in an Italian owned factory, Wildcat was the UK’s last gasp at domestic Helicopter design and production….

        The Eurocopter effort will be much the same as Leonardos, not robust enough with extensive composites and over complex.

        The Merlin HC3 was found to be wanting in Afghanistan, battle damage proving tricky to patch in the field, while the Chinook could be simply patched and back into service.

        Blackhawk can take the blows like the Chinook and keep going.

        It’s a no brainer for me.

        • Leonardo have promised to move the whole AW149 production line to the U.K. and make it the primary line for both the U.K. and any foreign orders.

          • Hi Jonathan,

            My problem with the AW149 is that by the time you factor in UK specific modifications (and the massive effort that will be, it always is) then set up the UK line, it will probably be double the unit price of Blackhawk, if not more.

            The AW149 is a modern design, so composite construction and a heavy reliance on sophisticated avionics, this has proven a problem already with the RAF Merlin (before they went to the FAA).

            In the harsh conditions of Afghanistan, the Merlins were found to be rather fragile and maintenance intensive.

            The Chinook on the other hand proved far more robust, as is the Blackhawk, their conventional construction proving easier to maintain.

            While both the Chinook and Blackhawk do benefit from modern avionics, they have the advantage of decades of refinement and upgrades, giving them excellent durability and ruggedness.

            My preference would be UH60M’s direct from US Army production (to reduce unit cost as far as possible and maximise numbers), perhaps with some Pavehawks thrown in for SF use.

          • So operating an asset in harsh conditions is irrelevant you say?

            An interesting take on procurement, you don’t work at Abbey Wood by any chance😉

          • so fond of Uk products your Account photo is of an Eagle, whats the weather like in Lenigrade Comrade. PMSL

          • Are you aware of the problems BIH /AAR had with the 189 – not forgetting UKSAR issues – why do you think Coastguard had to operate the S92?

          • The RAF didn’t want Merlin anyway, so they acted like petulant children with them. They were pleased they offloaded them to the FAA.

            Merlins are great and excel in ASW and SAR

        • What you talking about John?

          Contrary to what you think these Leonardo helicopters are also in use as civilians, Blackhawk could never get that intensity of use.

          This is the civilian version AW 189 from a General Electric PR.

          “We were among the first operators in the world to take delivery of the AW189 and are very proud to maintain our position as the AW189 fleet leader worldwide, offering a diverse range of offshore flights in the North Sea,” said Susanne Hessellund, CEO at Bel Air Aviation. “The fact that we have now flown more than 5,000 hours on the first of our AW189 helicopters without any issues shows the high reliability of both the CT7 engines and the AW189 helicopter itself. We highly appreciate our close cooperation with GE and look forward to continuing our partnership.”

          Bel Air Aviation, based in Denmark, specializes in flights to offshore oil and gas and offshore wind turbine sites. With two CT7-powered AW189 helicopters in its fleet, Bel Air is the world leader in AW189 flight hours.

          • Flying a shuttle service from an airport to a Oil Platform, is one thing, doing it Under fire and under harsh conditions and working beyond extremes is expected. NH90 is failing under these very conditions it passed as a show pony.

          • I take your point Alex, but there’s a world of difference between civilian use and military use, they don’t tend to get shot at for one…

            The main point being, by the time the 149 has been adapted to MOD specs (lets not pretend this will either be cheap or quick) with military grade avionics, communications, Link 16, armour protection etc etc, it will be a very expensive helicopter indeed.

            Then factor in setting up a UK production line. You end up with a hugely expensive helicopter, that can no more than a Blackhawk can do a half its cost, with greater flexibility, thanks to opening the door to a PaveHawk buy.

            I would rather have 60 Blackhawks with deliveries starting in a few years off the shelf, than 30 149’s, with teething problems that will go over budget and be 5-10 years late … You know it will, all these politically derived projects always do.

            The 149 is overly complex and lacks the robust nature of the conventionally constructed Blackhawk.

            Composite construction is fine for fighters, freighters and civilian aircraft, but it can’t be fixed quickly in the field when its got bullet holes in it, that’s a massive negative for a military aircraft that will in all likelihood have to fly into hot LZ’s at some point to do its job.

          • O see changing of goal posts…

            Why AW 149 needs to be “adapted” to MoD specs and Blackhawk do not need to?

            You can build AW 149 in Italy too.

          • Good question Alex, why would the 149 need to be modified and the Blackhawk not?

            Well, for the same reason we are buying AH64E’s in exactly the same spec as the US Army.

            We would buy standard UH60M’s and hook into the enormous savings of large scale US orders, pre written training manuals we can effectively copy and paste into our own training and a huge supply and logistics system.

            The 149 would require considerable work to bring it up to a bespoke MOD spec.

            It would require modified avionics, with all the various bells and whistles, armour etc.

            I hope that answers your question Alex

  7. Blackhawk is a robust and proven design and still used by the US Military. Its payload is impressive and can carry a load out of missiles, rockets and extended range fuel tanks. It was designed to be air transportable is proven to fit inside a C17. is tried and tested In AAR. The Australians have expressed an interest the uk could combine an order with the Aussies, it does not necessarily mean production in Poland that could be negotiated. Yeovil is now part of Leonardo and will end up as a refurb and upgrade facility. Westland was sometimes referred to as Wastelands In the military, a little harsh I know.

  8. Hmm, Blackhawk would either be built in the US or under licence which would bump up the cost and complexity.

    It’s increasingly controversial to see large amounts of potential tax revenue and other economic benefits flow off-shore when UK industry could be supported.

    It has to be either the Leonardo or Airbus offerings, built here and largely as it comes rather than extensively adapted for military use.

    • No, it wouldn’t be

      The RAF don’t need it as they have the CH-47 Chinook The Royal Navy want UAVs for the tanker and AEW roles and the AW101 Merlin HC.4 is suitable for COD The V-22 is too expensive

      • With the recent Failings within the Army Procurement, the MOD is trying to reframe from Purchasing un-proven Platforms.

        V-22 Was considered by the Navy but falls under Transport and was vry expensive and didn’t like seawater.

        AW101 Merlin OUT OF SERVICE is 2030. and cannot carry a F35 ENGINE so not big enough for COD they work around COD as RFU will always be going for fuel.

        AW149 is a large Business platform,
        Airbus H175M as above
        Black Hawk
        Sikorsky S-92

        the concern is that the US future vertical Lift programme which th e UK has signed into as an option.

        AW149 while a good Looking show pony, Army needs a Packhorse.
        H175M is another Show Pony and to much tech hanging off the outside of these.2.

        leaves the 2 Sikorsky Options as proven platforms.

        Now Yeovil is a shadow of its former self, and any procurement that leads with well if we don’t get the contract it will cost local Jobs. is going to deliver a Poor product, Remember Crowsnest.

        • The AW101 Merlin OSD is 2040 and the AW149 is proven

          The S-92 is a death trap of a machine as 31 have been involved in accidents and the S-70 is likely to close to its development limit

          The S-70, B-52, Arleigh-Burkes, C-130, They’re so old that development life is limited

          • The AW149 is in no way proven Knight, it hasn’t been in any shooting wars or operated to its limits under fire with troops on the ground depending on it.

            It stands a very good chance of winning though, as political interference will probably force it through ahead of a common sense, off the shelf, combat proven procurement … AGAIN!

          • Have you considered that the UK doesn’t want an obsolete 50-year-old helicopter that the US is starting to get rid of and working on its replacement

          • Wow – you are so ignorant it is scary. Just praying you are no where near Abbey Wood or have a say in any procurement !
            Jolly Green 2 just being developed (BlackHawk)
            UH60 support to 2070
            CH47, F-16 and F-15 all older than Black Hawk and still
            Lead their field.
            If an AW149 is chosen then you’ll be the only one in the Battle Field – if it gets there!

        • We need a defence industry. Army will go all starry-eyed about Blackhawk having watched a lot of movies and seen them in Afghanistan – but they need to be built in Yeovil. The design is old and will be replaced in US service in he 2030s, and AW149 is brand new. Forget Blackhawk Down, think Yeovil Up. And AW149 is proven and in service and its little brother AW139 saves lives around our shores everyday for the Coastguard and was chosen by the USAF recently to replace their Bell 412s as Grey Wolf.

          The Aussies have already operated UH60 and SH60 for a long time – they have a fleet to add to and experience with the type. Different story, more like us with Chinook,

    • Lockheed are bidding built in Poland and spare parts/maintenance logistics hub in the UK to try and recoup some of those lost economic contribution points.

    • AW149 makes better sense, modern design but an evolution of the AW139, 16 troops vs the 11 of the Black Hawk, longer legs and more modern avionics.

    • Ah OK, so shall we just not bother making anything in the UK anymore? Buy off the shelf and just have a service based economy rather than developing skills, providing high quality jobs and directing tax revenue back into the treasury?

      Something like the AW149 is perfectly adequate as a Puma replacement. There is no clear requirement for Osprey and it’s support costs are ruinous!

      • Yeah frankly overreliance on foreign nations is a dangerous thing as the pandemic has shown

        the AgustaWestland Factory is still around remember

        • Leonardo will have enough to do with UAS, Wildcat, 101 and development work for next gen rotary. Putting all eggs in one basket does not sure-up defence industry. How about if an undated ‘Black Hawk’ aircraft can be made in UK at a fraction of the OEM price so MOD gets the numbers it needs without compromising capability?
          You are aware that neither the AW149 or H175 have progressed very far along the ‘militarisation’ race?. The NMH is required this decade not the next!

      • We can’t make everything ourselves. What we need to do is decide our priorities. If we have a small requirement, better to buy off the shelf than pay twice the price. Yes, we need to support British industry, yes, we should be as self sufficient as possible – but not at the cost of only being able to afford half as much kit as we need.

      • Brexit meant we don’t want to be a vassal state of the EU. But we don’t want to be the 51st state of the US either. We should do the smart thing. The Italians have been reliable partners, they respect themselves and they respect the UK. The Leonardo offer to transfer all AW149 production to Yeovil is generous. HM Coastguard use the AW139, that’s validation enough of reliability. Leonardo are offering an opportunity to create lots of jobs and rebuild longterm UK skills in an industry which ought to be on our strategic list. The Italians have more faith in us than we have in ourselves. Blackhawk is a classic, solid, proven and easy to maintain; but so was my MGB…

          • I don’t see the Airbus offering as a valid competitor. Dark horse. Very low sales. I don’t blame them for making a bid. In fairness they still committed to Broughton after Brexit. The German influence within Airbus might be behind the bid…You never know…

        • . HM Coastguard uses AW 189 which is the civilian variant of AW 149.

          While there are commonalities with AW139 they are different projects since AW 139 was born as civilian and then militarised. AW 149 was born as military project and then “civilianised”

          • Understood. Affordable, reliable, available, endurance, all day in bad weather, over water and proven rescue are not to be ignored. As to resilience under fire….Black Hawk down?

          • Name me a single helicopter that’s survived an RPG hit to the tailrotor!
            There were a number of other Blackhawks that survived numerous hits from small arms fire and that managed to get themselves back to places of safety…now that’s resilience under fire

          • Just playing devils advocate; making the point that any helicopter is by definition a big, slow moving, vulnerable target. In my view adequate levels of redundancy and armour protection against small arms fire can be assessed from what has been learned from the experience of other machines and incorporated in a new design. I wouldn’t see absence of actual battle damage experience as a selection stopper. Modern manpads would be a challenge for any model. I would have thought the selection criteria would need to focus on situational awareness, defensive aids and shock absorption / passenger protection in a crash landing.

    • I know what you are saying Dave, but that thinking has led to ineffective defence spending in the past, instead of asking the military what it wants, the decision is always political, it’s the tail wagging the dog if you will.

      It leads to serious delays and massive programme overspending, we see it over and over again.

      It needs to a decision driven by military requirements, ask them what they want and supply it.

    • As much as it pains to say so, Westland’s future appears little more than as a badge engineer.
      Yet the demand for rotorcraft seems only likely to increase, if Russia & China are our yardstick, such that the cost of unduly complex and potentially unreliable helicopters could not be justified, particularly in the utility role.
      On that basis, I’d prefer to see Leonardo effectively out of the picture, if production of a US replacement could be negotiated at Yeovil. We’ve achieved most of that with Chinook & Apache.

        • Yeh, John, had way earlier capiche(d) and was trying to think beyond moving the pawn. How long will Leonardo want Yeovil if we didn’t chose AW149. Obviously no problem if they’re happy to keep the site whilst we built Black Hawks. Your knowledge on this will be sppreciated, please.
          KRs

    • Trouble is look at their delivery of Crowsnest, and you understand its no longer the production hub it was. and the AW1149 Is a show pony painted Green, the same as the H175, and you have to question why Airbus not pushing the NH90 apart from we know why.

      Sikorsky S-92 is imported and operated by Bristow, but maybe a little on the large side of Medium AKA Merlin size

      • But wasn’t some of that Thales?

        As Leonardo build NH-90 with Airbus, you would think it would have been offered, but I suppose they all know we don’t want to go from bad to worse

      • “Sikorsky S-92 is imported and operated by Bristow, but maybe a little on the large side of Medium AKA Merlin size”

        AW 189(civilian version) are also operated by Bristow, in fact it is their main SAR helicopter. Deployed even in Falklands.
        AW 149 was born as military helicopter.

        Canadians are having troubles with their S-92. One of CH148 went down because autopilot engaged due to a faulty code killing 6 crew of a Canadian frigate.

    • While this is absolutely true, we also need to be vigilant that they don’t overcharge us (more than the increased cost of using UK labour and location) or worse deliver a poor product.

      Of course, that being under our own jurisdiction does curtail the absolute worst.

      • Remember this for the RAF too and you’ve not said what they want nor do you say what the British army prefer?

        its gonna have to do SAR as the Bell 412EP Griffin HAR.2 is one it has to replace

  11. Hi Daniele

    Mate , how peculiar is the timing of this announcement?
    This is the very subject we were discussing 2or 3 days ago. Looks like your wish my come true!

    • Hi K.

      Doubt it, sadly.

      Industry, politics and jobs always takes precedence over affordable OTS kit that works that the military want and need.

      I believe the army has been interested in Blackhawk for years.

      Look at Ajax. Built in a tractor factory in an underdeveloped area with no history of armoured vehicle production from Spanish kits. Made a nice headline for D Cameron though.

      • Hi Daniele, just to be pedantic; the factory on Merthyr Tydfil is an ex fork lift truck (Linde) factory. Whether an area has a history of AFV production is kind of moot nowadays due to the mobility of the workforce. Only the first 100 platforms were pre-assembled in Seville, the rest are built from a bare hull up now.
        cheers
        Ian

        • Morning Ian.

          Thanks, understood. From what I have read here about the quality of the hulls coming over from Spain I guess that is good news that the rest are built here!

  12. Going with Airbus to protect airbus jobs in UK and secure the next generation of Med MultiRole Helicopter. Its probably the choice Number 1.
    (https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/uk-to-develop-new-medium-multi-role-helicopter/)

    The AW149 is a great beast and can be a good choice, but without long terms programs like Airbus.
    Imo its the choice Number 2.

    And the blackhawk is an old horse, its latest version seem to doesnt make much better than a NH90 in availability on field…
    Maybe the less costly at T time, but the jobs involved in UK with Leonardo and Airbus make the Blackhawk choice probably the most costly…

  13. Blackhawk is the best option on the table. Its a tough, battleproven highly adaptable design that can carry additional fuel tanks and multiple weapons fit, and is cost effective to run with superior availability. Roll on a Seaham order for the Navy to replace our ageing Merlins….

    • No

      People clearly ignore the blunt fact that the Black Hawk is ancient as its design is nearly 50 years old, frankly, the UK wants something more modern and let’s not forget it was proposed 3 times to the UK and all 3 times it was rejected as the most infamous attempt was the WS-70 Black Hawk offer in the 1980s and they rejected it after the military and political requirements had changed

      • Australia spent 3 Billion on the NH90, as a replacement for Blackhawk, now Blackhawk is being purchased to replace NH90, what does that tell you?

        • That Clearly, The UK dodged 2 bullets by…

          walking away from the NH90 program and upgrading the Royal Air Force’s Westland Puma to HC Mark 2, upgrading the Royal Navy’s Westland Lynx to HMA Mark 8 and the British Army’s Westland Lynx to AH Mark 9 and keeping the Commando Sea Kings and replacing the Royal Navy’s Westland Sea Kings with AgustaWestland AW101 Merlins

          buying the Boeing AH-64D Apache Longbow as the AgustaWestland WAH-64D Apache AH.1 for the British Army

          The UK was part of the program that built this NH90 disaster of a helicopter

          • Yeah the NH90 is very troublesome…
            But the latest blackhawk seem to not be more brilliant with just 5% more availbility on average, it’s clearly not super…

            I dont know the costs of the H175 nor the AW149.
            But at least with them, you have UK jobs involved so a part of the costs can be “absorbed”, even if not directly.

            They are also more modern and capable.

            Going for some H225M can also be a good option if you want to wait for the next european programs in the coming years.

      • Yes agreed Black Hawk is old but Super Puma is older, Chinook Is an old platform. and AW149 is is 10 years old, So age-old design is not an issue. capability in modern Avionics suite and UK is signed into the Future Vertical Lift Program with the US.

        But cheapest Bid will win, as always and we have another AJAX

        • Yes but puma is older by a handful of years ( around 3 years difference) they are the same 50 year old generation of rotor, so why would you replace your 50 year old design airframes for more 50 year old design airframes.

          • Age is irrelevant with helicopter design, look at Chinook Johnathan, it’s 60 odd years old and still as vital to the armed forces today as it’s always been.

            Helicopters like Chinook and Blackhawk have been refined for decades.

            Until we move to the next generation of rotor craft, that are still only in early demonstrator stage of development at this point and will likely not be in production and fielded until the late 2030’s, it’s a tough proven battlefield hauler is what’s needed.

    • -_- All the Royal Navy warships in service and under construction are designed to use the AW101 Merlins or AW159 Wildcats so bluntly why waste money on the MH-60 Seahawks when we have something that does the job adequately and on the redesign work

      Also the Royal Navy aren’t planning to replace the Merlin until the 2040s

    • Would you like to buy some Centurion Tanks? Tough battleproven, highly adaptable design that can carry additional fuel tanks and multiple weapons fit.

          • You seem to be a little confused here. Nobody is suggesting replacing Merlin, NMH has nothing to do with Merlin. And you assertion that Merlin is reliable is clearly not based on any knowledge of its use in the RN, where availability is and always has been a problem.

            As for Black Hawk being old, so is Chinook – and that is still the best choice for heavy lift. What makes a good battlefield helicopter is good design features that mean it can operate well and survive, which Black Hawk has in spades as evidenced by its success over many decades. Puma was flawed from the start with poor engines, inadequate lift capacity and high CG with narrow undercarriage; Mk2 addressed the first two but left an aircraft that still had a tendency to roll over – not good for a machine supposed to operate in the field.

            The AW149 is not a battlefield helicopter despite Leonardo PR, it is a tricycle undercarriage machine designed for high speed cruise and operation from solid, flat surfaces. It might be new but it will not be a good machine when operating to remote sites in dust or at night, so operational risk will be high. New means very little if the design is wrong from the outset.

          • No, I believe we’re primarily talking of a relacemrnt land utility helicopter i.e. moving stuff cost efficiently, and the merits of US over Europe.
            Merlin is evidently slated for a 2040 replacement program yet to be specified.
            Rgds

      • Why can’t we simply order more Merlins? They are around the same size as Blackhawk, at 19-20m and would simplify operations since they would have commonality with the FAA.

          • They never wanted them. I used to do work with Odiham and they slated them big time! Just wanted Chinooks

        • No they are completely different size cabs, the merlin really stretches the term Medium rotor ( it’s bloody huge) . As Blackhawk fully loaded take of weight is 22,000lbs Merlin is around 33,000lbs, so Blackhawk Carriers around 11 troops or 4 stretchers, Merlin can carry around 30 troops or 12 stretchers.

          • The problem about carrying a platòon (30 combat-laden troops) in a single large helo like a Merlin is that is too big and vulnerable a target in the battle area.

            The US has got it about right. Their staffs have resolutely insisted on a smaller helo able to lift a section of 10 troops, hence the Black Hawk size. Their Divisional Aviation Brigade comprises 3 Black Hawk air assault squadrons, each of 10 helos, so they can move 3 infantry companies in one lift and insert them at a key point on the battlefield.

            The key is a small, fast and well-arned machine, rather than a large transport one.

            The AW149 fits the bill fine but I fear we would buy an unarmed version for economy and because the RAF thinks transport, like the Puma, rather than combat support, like Black Hawk.

            36-42 machines is a pitifully small number for army use, particularly as a dozen will be swiped for SF, Brunei and Cyprus CSAR jobs.

        • The Merlin is nearly twice the size of a Blackhawk. Though it can’t lift twice as much! As a battlefield taxi, they are crap. For starters the ramp is too short making it very steep and when it gets wet it’s a nightmare to walk up, especially when carrying a Bergen etc. Secondly the upper fuselage is made from a composite material. These are a maintenance nightmare when coming to repair after suffering small arms damage. You can’t simply patch it with a plate, you have to cut out all the delaminated material, then use a manufacturer’s approved repair scheme that then takes 24 hours to cure.

          The Army/RAF require a Puma replacement. Therefore, it needs to be relatively small so it land in confined areas. But it must also be robust and capable of being operated from ships, something the Puma is not.

          One advantage the Blackhawk has over the others, is readiness after being delivered by heavy air transport. A Blackhawk can be up and flying after 30 minutes of maintenance once delivered. I’m not sure either the Airbus or Leonardo offerings can do that?

          • These are a maintenance nightmare when coming to repair after suffering small arms damage. You can’t simply patch it with a plate, you have to cut out all the delaminated material, then use a manufacturer’s approved repair scheme that then takes 24 hours to cure.

            Really? And you think fixing a plate somewhere there is a hole is manufactured approved ?

          • Yes!

            What is allowed and not allowed is made through a contracted agreement between the design authority (DE&S engineering authority) and the design organization (manufacturer.) Depending on the size and location of the small arms damage, a simple repair scheme can be authorized by the local engineering officer and carried out by engineers (REME/RAF/Navy).

            If the damage is to tertiary structure on a helicopter, i.e the skin, as it takes no load, a metal patch plate can be riveted over the hole. However, if the bullet strikes primary structure such as a load bearing frame. A procedure will need to be followed as stated in a maintenance publication. This will inevitably need to be shown to the design authority and organization , who will then agree on a repair scheme, which can be done through the Sqn engineering or if it’s bad with a specialist team that is flown to a location. All the repairs are fully documented and normally includes both diagrams and pictures of the damage before and after.

            There are a number of caveats, for example if the aircraft landed at a FOB with damage. It may be authorized for a one flight only back to the MOB after engineering have inspected it. Also depending on where the aircraft landed, in the sticks and the risk/threat level, engineers can carry out expedient repair (battle damage repair). The repair is usually authorized to get the aircraft back to the MOB for a better look and assessment of the damage.

            With metal skinned helicopters, engineers have more latitude on the types of repair that can be carried out without referring back to the design organization. On fixed wing and composite skinned helicopters, the rules and what can be done are a lot more rigid, due to the aircraft’s skin being load bearing. Saying that, a friend and I did a main wing leading edge repair on a Hercules. After it had just trashed a set of pan lights when turning. We were the only engineers available, so we got authorized by the aircraft’s Captain and through Brize.

        • Don’t forget the RAF got shot of its merlin fleet since it found it unsuitable for battlefield support. On that basis, it would hardly buy new ones to replace Puma

  16. Bare in mind the following item, where is the focus on the Uk armed forces currently or likely to be based.

    iF you follow the Line to the Pacific regions and what are Allies will be using in that region.

    Australia is very unhappy with the service downtime on the NH90, Dutch have flagged this also and cut their operation flight hours.

    So if your Allies had service areas and parts in a region, would you not tap into that supply chain.

    Personally never understood why the RAF ditched the Merlin, you have to think they had an end game and a No 1 contender, and its not built in France or assembled in Yeovil.

    MOD procurement is in turmoil AJAX is a worse word than Comincicon as i call it. and dont need another failure in the order books.

    • The RAF were told to hand over the Merlins by the Treasury. As they had refused to release additional funding for additional Merlins to replace the Jungly Sea Kings. It was not a RAF decision.

      • Bravo!

        People forget the SABR programme was cut by the then Labour government when ( I read ) some 3 billion of funding of rotary was removed.

        SABR was to replace the Sea Kings of the CHF.

        Instead, lets rob Peter to pay Paul and use existing helicopters!

        Equals a cut all round.

        Bloody tory cuts!!!

  17. Why oh why would the U.K. choose a helicopter that came from a spec and the Tec level of the late 1960s.The airframe design of the black hawk is 50 years old. The black hawk airframe design is actually a contemporary of the Puma.

    something like the AW149 bests the Blackhawk in every sense. It would also lead to the AW149 production line being moved lock stock and barrel from Italy to the U.K. it would be a huge boost to sovereign capability.

    finally a modern rotor airframe is built to allow crew to survive far higher energy impacts than something first thought about in the late 1960s.

    • Australia still thinks its worth purchasing another 40 Blackhawks – so aging yes but will still get job done ( and recieve upgrades) for decades.

      • Aussie are not necessary the best example for military purchase.

        They also dont have any industrials in this sector in AU.

        Not the case of UK with Airbus and Leonardo.

        • Both the MRH90 Taipan and ARH Tiger were built in Brisbane. Ironically local assembly and developing an Australian aerospace industrial base was one of the key reasons for the selection of the Taipan over the Blackhawk in the first place.

          There was an assumption that the maritime version of the NH90 would also be chosen to replace the first generation Seahawks then in service with the RAN which would have kept the production lines open longer.

          For a number of years there has been a push to develop sovereign Australian defence capabilities. In shipbuilding (submarines, destroyers, OPVs, frigates) armoured vehicles (MRAPs, CRV. SPH, IFV), radars (CEAFAR, JORN), ISR (Wedgetail) etc.

          In hindsight, the MRH was/is a flawed design, plus we were dealing with the French drama queens and their interminable procrastination, subterfuge and inefficiency.

          You’d think this lesson would have been learnt before we signed a sub contract with Naval Group and raised the stakes by an order of magnitude. Those who don’t learn from history are bound to repeat it.

          However, the remarkably rapid development of the RAAF’s loyal wingman program illustrates the benefits of local control of both project design and production.

          Defence procurement is a complex and fraught business. Sitting at the intersection of defence, technology, politics and economics most nations will have procurement failures and underperforming contractors or kit that doesn’t deliver what is says on the tin (*cough* Ajax *cough*). Its a wonder that any military purchase ever is fit for purpose.

      • Maybe because Australia thinks being the 51st US State is the only way they can be saved from Chinese.

        Btw what helicopter the Australian Army leased to make up crew flight hours due to NH90 issues?

        AW 139…

    • The Puma is always on the front with its Caracal version.

      They both 2 very good helicopter able to have a very long life. Its not like its always the same as the first of their family.

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/French_Air_Force_EC725_lift_off.jpg

      Now, depend on the real needs, costs, and willing.

      Going for stop gap and wait for the next europeans programs ? (Hope not a NH90 bis:..)
      The Caracal can be good.

      Or going with more modern heli with H175 or W149, I dont know these two… but clearly the blackhawk is probably the worst to buy…
      Not necessary technically, but for the UK, Airbus and Leonardo are clearly the best choice to work with…

    • Let us compare some of crash worthiness of these two airframes shall we.

      Max vertical speed limit of each landing gear.
      For AW149 it is 300 ft/min.
      For UH-60 it is 2280 ft/min.

      Cabin max G load factors.
      For AW149 it is 16g longitudinally, 20g vertically and 8g laterally.
      For UH-60 it is 20g longitudinally, 20g vertically and 18g laterally.

      The UH-60 design team dedicated a great deal of effort into increasing its survivability. The landing gear layout was chosen in part for its increased crashworthiness, with all landing gear components kept away from fuel tanks so that in the event of a crash they don’t puncture them. The tail wheel arrangement removes the possibility of nose landing gear penetrating into the cockpit and the fuel tanks are not under the floor but instead located behind the cabin.

      Growing a bit tired of the assertion that newer designs ‘must’ have better air crashworthiness for no other reason than that they’re newer. Yes technology has moved on since the Blackhawk was designed, but design priorities still play a role for these aircraft manufacturers. We know the AW149 design was derived from the AW139, which was designed to be a modern and cost effective replacement to a whole host of now aging civilian helicopters at the turn of the century. It succeeded in that task and that’s why we now see it selling so well, but what it (and it’s slightly larger green cousin the AW149) wasn’t was a dedicated combat helicopter designed from the ground up to survive on the battlefield, that is what the Blackhawk was and is.

    • Let us compare the crash worthiness of these two airframes.

      Max vertical speed limit of each landing gear.
      For AW149 it is 300 ft/min.
      For UH-60 it is 2280 ft/min.

      Cabin max G load factors.
      For AW149 it is 16g longitudinally, 20g vertically and 8g laterally.
      For UH-60 it is 20g longitudinally, 20g vertically and 18g laterally.

      The UH-60 design team dedicated a great deal of effort into increasing its survivability. The landing gear layout was chosen in part for its increased crashworthiness, with all landing gear components kept away from fuel tanks so that in the event of a crash they don’t puncture them. The tail wheel arrangement removes the possibility of nose landing gear penetrating into the cockpit and the fuel tanks are not under the floor but instead located behind the cabin.

      Growing a bit tired of the assertion that newer designs ‘must’ have better air crashworthiness for no other reason than that they’re newer. Yes technology has moved on since the Blackhawk was designed, but design priorities still play a role for these aircraft manufacturers. We know the AW149 design was derived from the AW139, which was designed to be a modern and cost effective replacement to a whole host of now aging civilian helicopters at the turn of the century. It succeeded in that task and that’s why we now see it selling so well, but what it (and it’s slightly larger green cousin the AW149) wasn’t was a dedicated combat helicopter designed from the ground up to survive on the battlefield, that is what the Blackhawk was and is.

      • People seem to forget the Blackhawk was designed as the Huey replacement, i.e. a dedicated battlefield taxi. Whilst both the Airbus and Leonardo offerings are first and foremost a commercial helicopter, that can be given a military role.

        The Blackhawk has been designed to be resilient to battlefield damage, including armour along the tail to protect the tail rotor drive; all gearboxes with a minimum of 20 minutes run time without oil. Main rotor blades that can still function missing two foot from the tips, that also include titanium leading edge strips to protect the leading edges when landing too close to a tree.

        They have also been designed to allow unimpeded egress with large opposing sliding doors, that includes a dedicated gunners station in front of the door per side. Perhaps just as importantly they have been designed for easy maintenance. Where items can be removed with minimum amount of common tools. One of the aircraft’s most useful features, is that it can be carried by a Herc without the need to remove the main rotor blades. This means the aircraft can be up and flying in 30 minutes after the a Herc has landed.

        As much as I’d love the Leonardo aircraft to win, purely for them to be built in Yeovil. The Blackhawk is still the better and more flexible battlefield taxi. As the Defence Secretary has stated, these will be an interim purchase, so cost becomes a major factor. Due to the scale of production neither Leonardo nor Airbus can compete against it, I believe. I think the longer term intention is to purchase one of the aircraft competing for the Blackhawk replacement. As either presents a step change in capability, that a standard helicopter just can’t match.

        • Hi davey have you really reviewed all the data on the AW149, is not just a big civil rotor as others seem to think, it was a complete ground up rebuild. So just like the Blackhawk it’s got a ballistic restraint cabin ( small arms), it’s oil free run time is actual twice that of the black hawk at 40 mins ( that’s those extra decades and changes in materials science coming through). It really is in every way as good as or better than a black hawk ( in cabin size, load and range). It will also mean the U.K. will be the worldwide manufacture of a 21 century cost effective battlefield medium rotor, Leonardo are looking to be building up to 500 with all the supply chains being in the U.K.

          • To be honest not really, as I based the judgement on the aircraft being an enlarged AW139. Which in military specs is just a lightly modded civilian aircraft, hence why it is quite cheap by comparison to others.

            I known the main gearbox dry run time was driven by the oil industry with the AW189. It also doesn’t have the flawed engine driveshaft design like the Puma/Super Puma, which has caused a number of fatal crashes. If the aircraft is its own entity, i.e. design to be a battlefield taxi from the ground up, then I’m definitely more interested, especially if it comes with the Aneto engines. It remains to be seen if they can do the same turnaround times as a Blackhawk, i.e. loaded in the back of a Herc, land, push the cab out, reset the blades and in 30 minutes be up and running/flying?

            However, that is a nicety. What is really needed, is an aircraft that is significantly more reliable than the current Puma and therefore less maintenance heavy. The AW149’s footprint is similar to a Puma, which will please the SF community, plus the aircraft is cleared for shipborne ops, as the Egyptians have paid for most of the trials. Though they wouldn’t see the same sea states as the UK or near Norway. If the Blackhawk wasn’t in the running the AW149 would be my preferred option over the Airbus H175, as that really is a modded civilian design.

            I am glad of one thing though, in that we dodged the bullet in purchasing the NH90! It was mooted to be the SABR aircraft that would have replaced both Pumas and Sea Kings. On paper and at Farnborough it looked good, recent history has shown it be an albatross.

          • agree on the NH90. Another interesting fact is the 149 comes with a flotation system, which with the way we are going with intra operability around the carriers would be important.

            im pretty sure the black hawk does not have a flotation device, which has caused loss of life of US personal. I know the findings of a couple of enquires found that lives out Dave been saved if the Blackhawk had flotation, but it was decided against on cost grounds. This may have changed as I don’t really keep up on US rotors.

            I think a lot of people do fall into the trap of thinking that the AW149 is just a stretched 139 painted green. But Leonardo,s put a shed load of work into the 149 to turn it into a competitive battle field taxi at a good price point, it’s not the same rotor at a 139.

            The other serous thing for the U.K. is that Leonardo have promised to move the whole production line and all the secondary supplier contracts to the U.K. With the company’s planning to try and sell 500 of the things world wide, that will be transformative to the U.K. rotor industry and secure it’s future, with effectively the U.K. side of the business becoming the defacto military production centre for the company.

      • I’m sorry but what you have stated is not correct. The max sink rates of the landing gear for the two cabs is as follows

        black hawk 30feet per second ( this is from the manufacturer) which is 9.14 meters per second.

        AW149 is 9.5 Meters per second ( from the manufacturer).

        the AS149 can sustain a hard landing .4 meters per second greater that the black hawk, which is around a 6% improvement

        your figure of 2280 feet per minute sink rate for the black hawk landing sink rate rating is about 8 feet per second higher than the manufacture states, which is the airframe rating not the landing gear rating, which are not to be mixed up ( please don’t compare apples and pear).

        As for the quote of 300feet a minute sink rate for the AW149 is just plan wrong. That would be 91meters a minute or 1.5 meters per second. Which is laughably a load of BS, even the civilian AW139 has a landing gear rated for a sink rate of 2meter per second…..

        I grow a bit tired of the Blackhawk brigade putting down helicopters that could be built in Britain, instead want some 1970s American airframe.

  18. When you set a hawk on a snake…? Very interesting. I would have thought it would make sense for the AUKUS pals to operate the same airframes. Personally, I don’t see Airbus in this so Leonardo vs Lockheed?

  19. flew in these in Afghanistan, very nice machines, just the US Pilots flew them very predictable patterns, the Puma’s threw them about low level, was much more fun

      • I thought Puma was in Bagdhad with the deployed Sqn and only in later years in Afghan?

        Regards helicopters, now the stories of western operated Hips I find really interesting.

        The AAC SDS was training Afghans on them at Boscombe but I believe others were flown by US/UK.

      • A memory jog for me . Brings back some foggy memories of flying about the African bush in Pumas, life at 50 feet at 120 knots. I seem to recall the RAF has a few ex SAAF Pumas still operational?

          • Nice one Davey! It does say something about the robustness of the airframe and it’s adaptability. Good value to the British tax payer, it seems.

          • It really should have been canned, instead of being upgraded to Puma 2, which was at least 10 years too late. The Puma has had a hard life and is a maintenance burden, requiring just as many maintenance hours as a Chinook. It isn’t as robust as a Blackhawk and has a god awful engine to gearbox design, that has caused a number of crashes and fatalities. We had the opportunity of replacing the whole fleet of Puma 1s twenty years ago, when we purchased the now Chinook Mk5s, as part of the deal included Blackhawks kit built by Westlands.

  20. After Army’s latest round of stuffups time to KISS. Blackhawks with logistics & maintaince in UK. Maybe even get some extra to replace Junglies and give those Merlins to RN for ASW conversion…..theyre needed.

    Waiting for Ajax announcement…..my guess is it being binned….

    • Let’s hope the right decision is made for all the right reasons and we get good quality helicopters in the full quantity and on time or even earlier and the UK industry has large input into manufacturing and or assembling.
      I’d like see the Wildcat and Merlin numbers get bolsted and upgraded for the RN even as an offset if AW lose this competition.

          • To do what?
            They were given strategic comms (from the Royal Signals) amongst other things because there was not much for them to do after they got rid of their bombers – the reason for their existance.
            The R Sigs now do tactical sat comms because it was too dirty, and not near a hotel.
            This Joint palaver is a crappy fix because battle field choppers should go Army, they don’t like the F35B because it means getting seasick.

  22. Apparently the UK Special Forces have sometime ago requested Black Hawk Helos to the UK goverment as a replacement not sure if they have any backing but a strong nood battle tested

    • Morning. Problem with that is we might afford 12, for example.

      To replace 40 plus helicopters.

      Leaving the same old complaints about loss of numbers and cuts.

      But hey ho Westland survives and the MP of that constituency, who cares and knows about Defence as far as what jobs are available in his/her patch, is happy.

      Never mind costs, affordability, or perhaps what the military actually require.

      Something gold plated has to give and we need to start getting a better balance between quality and quantity.

      If that means an OTS proven older design, in the numbers needed, great.

      • So true. The needs of the troops and aircrew who will fly them into conflict zones should be paramount. So therefore is it a battle proven ,well equipped OTS design?, or a converted civilian craft painted green, very expensive, low numbers and picked purely to shore up the votes of a local MP. Who will eventually work as a consultant/lobbyist for the company.

    • The newer ones bought by customers have lots of new kit in them, so essentially the airframes are similar but upgraded in many aspects.

      We should buy more for sure

  24. Why is everyone crying about the Blackhawk being 50 years old in design? The Chinnok, C-130, B-52 still fly and are as good on the battlefield as they were when they were first introduce! They’ve been kept in service a there easy to maintain, tough, battle-proven and reliable – You could have 50 of them on time and on budget for the same price of a unreliable, riddled NH90. Turkey was offered 109 of AW149’s for $4 billion, Blackhawk could do that for 2!

  25. The simple true is if you want a nation with a strong industrial base, you have to invest in it. If we buy a British built machine we develop our infrastructure and future security. The simple economic damage of buying abroad is damaging to our nations future.

    As for…its cheaper to buy abroad…..that’s the neoliberal, market comes first political Dogma that has lead to the rise of china and destruction of many of our own industries.

    we left Europe to gain control, that had a cost but sovereignty and our future came first. The same principle should guild on everything, cheaper foreign produces lead to eventual decline and dependence ( I have no issue with joint production like typhoon).

    Also the issue is not the fact that U.K. products are more expensive ( that’s inevitable as we have a high pay small industrial base) That is the problem. It’s the fact that our procurement only looks at the immediate cost ( because it’s neoliberal dogma lead). The fact is For every 1 pound spent in the U.K Almost off of it will stay in the U.K. economy and be recycled into the tax base within a year or two

    1) immediate taxs on workers wages at around 30%-40%
    2) corporate tax
    3) VAT a load employee purchases
    4) tax on share holder income
    5) council tax from employees and familes
    6) investment in pensions which are later taxed

    then there are opportunity costs related to purchasing abroad,

    1) All the employees who were taxpayers become unemployed tax burdens
    2) their children suffer and a cycle of unemployed may begin
    3) communities turn from vibrant creative to ghosh towns
    4) the permanent loss of Skills
    5) if you invest and create an industry you may then get exports that bring in money from other economies ( we would gain the AW149 world wide production, which if played right nationally could be huge).
    6) if we loss that production capability we become dependent on other nations that can then jack up the cost for the next procurement.

    so yes we may get Blackhawk cheap, but we loss massive tax revenue, our own sovereign capability, ability to sell a product abroad, skill sets and high. It’s a tactical move that will cost us in money and strategic strength n the future.

    And finally yes people are still flying around in airframes designed 50 years ago, but if we buy a 50 year old design now, we will have our troops flying around in 90 year old designs before we then reprocure again.

    I will also reiterate a key point for the people who will fly in these, modern airframes are designed to protect passengers from far greater deceleration forces and still walk away from a crash. If your going to Be at risk of a crash you want To be in a AW149 or a wildcat not a Blackhawk. I had a very long discussion over this point with a risk and safety guy in the rotor industry ( we were exchanging risk management process as you do).

  26. Some good points in the comments section for and against the Blackhawk option. Personally I’m for the AW149, and I’ll throw my tuppence in as to why.

    • It fulfils the requirements (as I understand them), that’s fundamental. I know the Blackhawk does too, but see my next points- this is an argument that builds.
    • People on here seem to be using the term show pony very liberally, but not sure why? AW / Leonardo developed this to be a military helicopter- the 189 is the civilian derivative of this, not the other way around. It is based upon the AW139, which is very widely in service and continues to gain additional operators. It therefore has good “pedigree” and is in service already, although admittedly not in great numbers. Not heard any bad (or good) reports of it yet. There is no reason to expect the same problems that have been found with NH90.
    • The Blackhawk is an old platform- doesn’t mean it isn’t good, but I would argue that it doesn’t have much left to give either. AW149 is a newer platform, greater growth potential.
    • Domestic content is one of the biggest for me. The model is already operated/on order with 3 nations and has broad export potential given the success of its little older brother (AW139). Moving all production to the UK has very real value for British industry, even if it is an Italian design.
    • Strategy: We are going to want a future vertical lift option to replace this and probably Merlin in 20ish years. The only non-US company that is developing anything is Leonardo (admittedly under licence from Bell at this point I think). If we want an option that is not US (who knows how our relationship will be in 20 years?), that could potentially be built and designed in the UK, then let’s get Leonardo on board now. In addition, we are working closely with Italy on advanced weapons like CAMM-ER and specifically Leonardo on Tempest and AESA-2 (for Typhoon), makes sense to deepen that relationship.
    • It’s interesting the comments regarding the lack of availability of Merlin due to battle damage in Afghanistan (I didn’t know this), because of the composite materials used in construction. I can understand the preference for materials that can easily and quickly be repaired/replaced in the field. But we have to face the fact that all of our advanced equipment is being filled with composites- our legacy platforms will be heading out the door with their easy repairability. Perhaps we should be focussing on developing thecomposites/components so they can be fixed in the field, or identifying the skills and tools needed to do so and bringing them into our armed forces. Because the composites are only going to become more widespread.

    We shouldn’t turn our backs on all of Europe just because of Brexit and put all of our eggs in the US basket.

  27. I have nothing to add other than Blackhawks look fantastic, and in my head, aesthetics are of vital importance to the capability of any armed force

  28. I take it the four up for replacement are the Puma for the RAF and the AAC Gazelle are the two obvious ones, the SAS AS365s and the Bell Griffin’s/212?
    Seems like quite a mix of requirements. So if the Blackhawk is chosen what’s the odds the Wildcats are transferred to the RN and RAF/AAC get 80-100 in JHF?

      • Has it even been an issue? The US sold trident at cost with no conditions on use. The US has been very generous in generating UK capabilities at cost, and regenerating them again when the UK sells it all off to save money. The also loan assets at no cost at all (VMFA-211).

        You can’t say anything near that about France or Germany.

    • Sold!

      I’d bite the hand off for 50 to be honest.
      And I’m surprised the Dauphin is in this requirement to be honest.

      • I’m just guessing with the Dauphins and Bells but I can’t see what else they might be cause there’s no way the Merlins and Wildcats would be getting replaced.
        Don’t think fifty would be enough honestly. SAR, light attack, transport, utility, maybe recce and some other jobs too. If the Wildcats get shifted to the FAA then that’s close to a hundred helos needing replaced.
        It’s all just wild speculation anyway mate. If the Blackhawks aren’t built here that’s domestic production gone. The AW169 is unlikely to get much in the way of a foothold so it’s no great either way.

        • Well its 23 Puma, 8 Dauphin, 5 or so 212s, 3 Griffin and a handful of Gazelle so I hear, so that is why I mentioned 50. Staying at current, too small size.
          Increases are fine but we need the people to man them,.
          If the Wildcats move to the FAA the crews still need to be found to operate them, or the Blackhawks.
          Dauphin, yes, we are going on the earlier reports when Dauphin was mentioned. As a specialized non deployable helicopter heavily modified already I’d be happy to leave that as is. It’s the Lynx from 657 ACC that DSF need replacing after they were cut a few years back.

          • The number of Gazelles, according to Wikipedia anyway, is 26 in service and 34 total so plus the half dozen or so others then 60 thereabouts. The Wildcats all going to the FAA and the JHF getting a hundred BH is admittedly pie in the sky but if there’s a chance of rolling our order in with the Aussies then maybe.

  29. I’d remove the Airbus out of the equation. Euroland (the French) hate us mostly, maybe hate is too strong a word to use.

    Blackhawk is a good choice. Off the shelf and used throughout the world, its a mature platform. The UK went off the shelf for the AH-64E after all.

    The AW149. New, great range, cargo doesn’t necessarily match the Puma. Still a good choice, especially if it keeps Yeovil up and running.

    I’m all for building and buying British, but the specific industries have been severely reduced or don’t exist anymore.

    Stretched Wildcat anyone?

    • Well there was that Lynx 3 prototype with a foot longer cabin. That extra length should have been part of Wildcat to my thinking.

  30. I am ex United states military former member of 160th Nightstalkers blackhawk helicopter a very good helicopter I was door gunner on model m and model k from Somalia to Afghanistan

  31. I would happily do a swap with the Poles i.e. we buy their Blackhawks to replace Puma& they buy our new upgraded Merlins to replace Mi-8/17.

  32. I’m certain we’re not desperate enough that we would aquire antiquated old crates such as Black Hawk. Western Europe can do infinitely better than decades-old designs such as Black Hawk. Come on.

    • It has been upgraded so much, it’s not really old. It has a higher crash worthiness than anything Airbus or Leonardo build. It also has aftermarket parts and upgrades galore.

  33. What a great discussion this is on the pros and cons of the 149 Vs blackhawk. One other thing to consider is if Leonardo win and build a nice new line in Yeovil when they build a military version of the aw609 tilt rotar we will have a facility here to make them. I’m sure its not that much rocket science to widen the body to a square box with a tailgate for military purposes and there’s our new future lift bird built in UK in 20-30 years.

  34. The LM Sikorsky Black Hawk offer is likely to undercut other bids by a wide margin, and thus be very attractive for the always cash strapped MoD, but would surely result in the end of UK helicopter manufacturing – politically acceptable? Anyone else remember the brutal Westland affair of 1985/86? Two senior ministerial resignations and Thatcher fighting to survive as PM.

    Personally, I consider that the Black Hawk design is too old to take seriously. Admittedly it has had significant updates since, but first flight was in 1974 – just 6 years after the Puma! Assuming first delivery in 2025, effectively the MOD would be replacing a c.57 year old design with a c.51 year old design with an upgraded cockpit, engines and rotors. Mmmm.

  35. Westland built two UH-60 Blackhawks from kits, named WS-70. They were intended to be marketed to a Saudi order for 80 medium lift helicopters. After gulf war 1, the Saudi’s cut their defense budget and the WS-70 black hawks were sold to Bahrain. Now they’re in the US fighting forest fires.

  36. Why anyone would choose anything other than Blackhawk, from the three so far in the race, I do not know. The other two are totally second rate. Blackhawk is competently combat proven.

    This requirement is effectively interim until the US develops their Blackhawk replacement.

    Blackhawk is a no brainer.

  37. I still think Blackhawk (or Battlehawk even better) and ‘X’amount of DAPs for those that need them would be a good move for the ‘now’ and ‘tomorrow’ timeline, (up to 2035 if we re lucky) they are Both the same airframe, still being invested in and it’s pretty much an reincarnation of the UH Hue and it’s longevity. It’ll be around for years to come, even when the next gen helos arrive.
    If both sides (let’s face it that’s how it is now) develop ground breaking future helicopters, then I’m sure the Hawks will show their age quite quickly, but they’ll still be going. The important long term decision is to get the next one right now that there should be no more excuses needed to sort it and look to get onboard with the winner.
    The way in which vertical lift may have radically changed by then, we need to be riding the curve appropriately towards the next gen in order to take the step to the ‘new’ when the time is right and not get bogged down in long delays and teething problems. At the moment ideas for achieving future vertical lift are only just starting to reap the rewards and have examples flying as prototypes. What is not needed is getting something that pleases some, but ultimately not the people who use it.
    if the tech proves to be a little farther away then hoped for then at least your re not stuck with a small number of niche helo’s or a civilian-then-military ‘nearly next gen’ model that we paid through the nose for and become like the puma is now. Not the best choice and looking very, very dated. Concentrate our efforts for sovereign type manufacturing on the ‘next’ helo and in the mean time bite the bullet and buy the best, most developed and supported military option around. The crews love it and its already been proved by another rugged, adaptable and still going strong helicopter, the CH-47👍

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here