At the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition, Lockheed Martin unveiled its proposal to offer its Sikorsky Black Hawk helicopter as the replacement for the UK’s ageing medium helicopter fleet.

According to Lockheed Martin, this proposal will yield significant benefits for the UK.

The company states that nearly 40% of the entire Black Hawk production and assembly would be based in the UK, potentially supporting an average of 660 UK jobs annually from 2025 to 2030.

Additionally, Lockheed Martin plans to work closely with UK partners, creating what they estimate to be a £470 million export window over the next decade for UK-manufactured subsystems and components. The company also claims that ongoing fleet maintenance might sustain around 320 jobs annually once the UK Black Hawk fleet is commissioned.

Paul Livingston, Chief Executive of Lockheed Martin UK, commented on the proposal, saying: “The newest generation of the Black Hawk is proven, versatile and ready now. It’s not only the right choice for UK Defence, it’s the right choice for UK industry and it will create a generation of high-skilled jobs here in Britain.”

The company further suggests that this collaboration could open doors for the UK industry, hinting that engagement in the Black Hawk programme might lead to the UK playing a part in the creation of Lockheed Martin’s future rotorcraft solutions, a move they believe could set up a 45-year work and export flow for UK firms.

In their announcement, Lockheed Martin confirmed a teaming agreement with Gosport-based StandardAero, who, the company says, will handle the assembly, testing, delivery, and maintenance of the Black Hawk, adapted to meet UK-specific demands. They anticipate this partnership will generate many skilled job opportunities in regions facing economic challenges.

Simon Jones, Group Managing Director, Europe at StandardAero, shared his perspective: “For StandardAero UK it will mean upwards of 175 new, highly skilled, jobs in one of the more economically deprived local areas of the UK, with many more throughout our UK-based supply chain.”

Promoting the Black Hawk’s capabilities, Lockheed Martin emphasises its suitability for extreme conditions, its operation in 35 nations, and an impressive 15 million flight hour record. The company points to the Black Hawk’s 90% average availability rate to operators and suggests that ongoing upgrades should see the Black Hawk in service into the 2070s.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

121 COMMENTS

    • The Black Hawk had problems in Mogadishu. It was vulnerable to RPG ground fire. I think there’s a film about it on Netflix, or there used to be

    • It has been delayed multiple times. Last date was September which clearly isn’t happening. I suspect it will be pushed back to after the election and then quietly cut as no funds are available.

  2. Its a bit old now isnt it? Seem to recall the Black Hawk being proposed in the 80’s and lots of political arguing about whether the US or Europe were better bedfellows for the sole British Helicopter manufacturer. Whilst Hesletine’s pro EU stance became annoying during Brexit he was correct about Agusta being a better partner.

    • The Black Hawk has been systematically upgraded throughout it’s life, while it is an old design, current models bear no resemblance (apart from physically) to the current models. It’s a very capable platform.

      • Also helicopter tech hasn’t changed much over the years. Main problem with most of the UK fleet is it was done on the cheap and so didn’t include armor. Now most of them have been upgraded, it’s more about too many air hours and lack of investment in weapon systems to support the ground forces.

    • Indeed: a terrifying sub clause in any MOD related sentence.

      The point of buying a proven platform evaporated in front of our eyes.

  4. Mature. Available now. Proven. Teething troubles are ancient history and long resolved.

    Ticks all the boxes for being rejected in favour of another cash drain.

      • I couldn’t care less about domestic production. The military isn’t there to be used to prop up industry, it’s part of the reason UK procurement has been so shambolic

        • Unfortunately mate, many don’t share that view. It’s one of the reasons we spent 50 billion a year on defence, but have sod all to show for it…..

        • If Yeovil goes that’s goodbye to domestic helicopter R&D. It’s goodbye to participating in European helicopter programmes and in the long term may even be goodbye to domestic helicopter assembly.
          That 3 tonne unmanned helicopter Yeovil is developing will disappear or shift back to Italy.
          All because the MOD bought 44 slightly more suitable helicopters that shouldn’t be in service longer than 10 years. Not saying it will happen, just saying Merlin orders are drying up, and Wildcat orders are small, so Yeovil needs something to sustain itself.

          • The H160M Gepard is more like the Wildcat in capability, ie its a “6 tonne’ helicopter

            The NH90 is 10 tonne, the Merlin is 18 tonne, and the UH-60M being offered by Lockheed is also 10 tonnes – but a very low cabin height
            The Leonardo AW139 – also USAF MH139 Grey Wolf is a 7 tonne much the same as HC2 Puma

          • That doesnt make sense , its the same old ‘bigger, faster, more guns, more everything’ brigade who say that. Even here some dont even seem to know the different capabilities – and prices at all.
            It was designed for specific jobs, the Gazelle was even smaller and very useful too.
            Britain has the small -Wildcat , medium- Puma and very large Chinook.
            While the RN has the merlin both as a cargo and HMA version which is between the Puma and Chinook

          • It does seem logical that a larger number of smaller quicker helicopters might be useful, especially in an environment with MANPADs and the like, and with 169 the unit cost must be quite decent

          • We need to obviously monitor the production costs of helicopters but varies models need to have the relevant components,capabilites for there various purposes and future upgrade options. Also taking into account maintenance & running costs into the packages

          • So we have to go with an incompetent Italian company just to keep funding yeovil. Nothing about defence capabilities . Go with the best not lynx mk10 designer who purely sucks tax payer cash with no output. I would have shut the place down years ago

          • you must live in Yeovil, as they don’t produce anything there is a assembly hall for parts sourced from 3rd world countries, made of poor quality and flogging a show pony that falls from the sky. no one wants it, only the desperate people in yeovil, why should the rest of the uk need to prop up a failed factory

        • Ah, Bravo Marked. We agree on this at least.

          That is exactly what much of the “defence” budget is for, politics, industry.

          So why cannot Yeovil build this under licence like the WA Black Hawk plan in the 80s, until its own rotor UAV mature for production?

          I want whatever helicopter that A – the military actually prefer, not their political masters, and B – that can be bought in the numbers needed for the costs available.

          So a balance between the two. If that turns out to be this or the AW offering then fine, just get the right one.

          • Hi DM. I imagine the AW149 pitch will have the edge, more UK jobs and all. interesting to see the Blackhawk emphasis on local assembly jobs. Unsure if that will be enough to influence the political mood in the room, with a general election looming.

            I’m agnostics re the choices, but please let’s get enough not just 25 ish! I seem to recall that is the proposed number, but I may be wrong.

          • Dirty rumour was that it may be as low as that. Means another drop with 24 Puma, 6 Dauphin, and several Bells to be replaced. I’d bite the hand off for 35, no need for the “up to 44”

        • Its only the way we do procurement means it props up industry. If we actually used UK spending to develop products which could be sold elsewhere our cost of UK made equipment would plummet. But instead we develop bespoke and expensive equipment that no one else wants. Classic example was MRA4 (Nimrod). There actually turned out to be a reasonable market for MPAs but we waste billions on a dead platform that ,even if it had made into service, we couldn’t have sold it to anyone else due to the obsolete airframe choice.

        • We do have to maintain sovereign capabilities else we don’t have sovereign defence. This means for high end stuff in particular we have to maintain capability: as in Submarine’s, warships, combat aircraft. Logically it means we should continue to invest in capabilities where we currently have or wish to have a qualitative advantage both for military and commercial regions.

          Its worth saying military R&D has a return on Investment of 3:1 in the UK (which suggests if we spent 100bn on kit rather than HS2, we’d be significantly richer).

          We should certainly be building more Merlins (expensive, and rubbish as a transport helicopter, but the best ASW helicopter there is, and we should add some more to our meagre fleet of 23 and replace the hard used ones we have) and if we did that alongside ordering a sizeable fleet of AW149s that would likely make those more affordable and generate interest in that airframe. There are a large number of Puma’s that need replacing, people who no longer want their troublesome NH90s and the Blackhawk – whilst an excellent aircraft, is long in the tooth. And tilt rotors are very expensive and not really needed for most roles (CSAR and amphibious assault to put a big distance between the ship and the land being the obvious cases)

          • The thing about this approach is the MoD never gets the credit – The Return on Investment goes to the manufacturers and their shareholders, while the MoD budget never sees any of that investment back – not even the nominal increase in tax revenues from those domestic profits

            When we develop ‘sovereign capability’ – we end up with Nimrod, Chinook HC3, and Ajax – When we buy off the shelf we get C-17, Poseidon, F-35, Rivet Joint… where the only drama is deciding what colour we want them painted….

            It’s so obvious how every MoD press release talks about jobs first, with actual capability a poor second further down the page. It demonstrates a real disinterest in defence as anything beyond its role as a replacement for an actual industrial policy.

            I’m sure we won’t select Blackhawk for all these non-defence reasons, even though we’d get something that will deliver on time, benefit from a worldwide spares and support network, and will ‘just work’ on day 1.

            Hey ho.

          • I completely agree it should be considered when ‘buying British’, not least so the true cost is understood, but the key consideration should be a). does it do what is needed and b). do we have to build this here else we won’t be able to build any more of these and as such our ability to defend ourselves will be impaired (which is why Typhoon was important and being a tier 1 partner for F35 was important and why building the SAMPSON radars was important). The problem is when we build something which is really good, we don’t build enough, don’t build enough spares, or don’t continually invest. Great examples are the Merlin and SAMPSON/T45 (look how the Blackhawk has been invested in vs. Merlin, or SAMPSON vs. AEGIS)

            I take your examples above, but I wouldn’t say buying off the shelf is all roses either: look at how slowly weapons integration is going on the F35 for example. Poseidon has gone well, but bloomin’ expensive: equally for such a small fleet, we probably had to buy.

            The worst always seems to be buy foreign product and modify it in the UK (see Ajax!), which is just a political sop anyway: the tough piece is being able to design the thing which is more important then creating 600 assembly jobs in a former forklift factory…..

        • Domestic production of anything maintains a capability and Stops foreign manufacturers over charging you. If I have something I know the customer wants but can’t make himself I charge TOP dollar.

        • You seem particularly misinformed. That was an AW169 not an AW149. That said the report cleared any wrong doing.
          Now you want to check how many Blackhawks recently crashed and how many suits were made against Sikorski?
          Example:

          A firm representing the victims of an April 2017 Army Black Hawk UH-60L helicopter crash has filed a lawsuit against Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, alleging that the tail rotor was improperly manufactured and caused the death of the crew chief and serious injuries to both pilots.

        • Other case:

          Buriak’s widow, Tucker’s mother and Burns’ widower filed the lawsuit against Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation, which is owned by aerospace company Lockheed Martin, on Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2023.
          The Navy announced on May 3, 2022, its command investigation revealed a damper hose failed on the helicopter, causing “severe vibrations” as the aircraft was landing on the Lincoln. According to Navy officials, the rotor hit the deck and the helicopter fell into the sea and sank.
          Based on the investigation, the Navy says there was neither evidence of pilot error nor weather conditions contributing to the crash.
          The lawsuit expands on the exact nature of the mechanical problems, pointing out the differences between Sikorsky’s original UH-60 Blackhawk Helicopter versus the version of the helicopter it provided the Navy.

  6. LMUKs track record isn’t very impressive- failed to deliver Warrior upgrade, failed to get a grip on the Crowsnest programme. We should steer well clear especially as there is a viable alternative that will preserve sovereign capability.P

    • Hi Peter,

      Blackhawk is the perfect solution, developed, available quickly and does exactly what it says on the tin, as a totally understood and thoroughly battle tested solution.

      Oh, the Army and RAF want it too, but let’s not worry about that.

      I have to give Leonardo top marks, their PR team have even managed to add company advertising to the Yeovil town signs!

      For the record, there is absolutely nothing British about the AW149.

      It’s an Italian Designed helicopter, built by a wholly Italian owned company and would be assembled in the UK, exactly the same as Blackhawk.

      There is zero sovereign capability here, absolutely none …

      Yes, they have Westland in their name, the PR bit again, but they are no more British than Chinese electric cars that drive about with MG badges on them …

      The AW149 has not been battle tested, it’s a relitivly unknown quantity that’s only seen ‘service’ with Egypt. I believe it has seen no combat use with them?

      If it turns out to be as fragile as battlefield Merlin, or any of the other tardy European helicopters that the rest of the world is getting rid of, then we better not hope it actually gets shot at by angry men…

      • Yeah the time to worry about UK sovereign capability was when it was Westland helicopters. Leonardo helicopter UK is pretty much a shadow of what Westland was,

        • Most Westland did was making licensed helicopters so? Sea King was a Sikorsky copy. The only relevant house design was Lynx.
          Merlin was designed with evil Italians 50-50.

          Without Italians there would not be Westland at all and Merlin production would have moved to Italy only.

          • Westlands had a pretty good history developing its own airframes, it was in existence before Sikorsky by 6 years and nearly 20 years before Leonardo, so to say it owes its existence to the any other manufacturer is not the case.

          • Most of Westland products were American designs, the successful Westland designs were only Scout/Wasp, WG30 – small numbers, Lynx and Merlin 50/50 with Italians.

            Westland Dragonfly was Sikorski
            Same as Whirlwind, Wessex, Sioux, Sea King. These were the main production.

            Note that it was the same for Agusta that most designs were American licenses, but Agusta had a seminal success with the civilian A-109 at beginning of 1970 and it is series production from 1976 until today, it made the company to be all over the world and build the civilian arm.

        • Poland has bought everything 😂😂😂
          It’s a good helicopter, good range, carry ability etc.
          Just wish the U.K. would hurry up and get medium helicopters done.
          Paying £330m for 2025-28 puma support wouldn’t be needed.

          • I think the interesting tidbit is why they armed the AW 149 it with Hellfires but not their Blackhawk. Hellfire is already certfied for Blackhawk, at least i have seen long ago a prototype with it,.

        • Poland brought everything it could get quick and compared to what they had a anything is a upgrade, and they are shoving all there shite as quick as they can to ukraine and get paid to do it.,

      • Some issues had been fixed. Loads more would of cropped up as the upgrade progressed. Not all the warriors were built to the exact standards and have taken a lot of knocks over the years.
        Contract prices would of increased I imagine unfortunately. Under bidding for work and then adding capabilities during contract always cause issues.
        Personally they should of bought new vehicles and run warrior as is

    • Sikorsky were bought by Lockheed, so not sure we should be apply the same logic, I doubt LMUK will have much to do with the project.

    • There crowsnest pod, was seen as the best option and is still in development, the baggie was seen as the quickest short term fix and Leo failed to look after 3 airframes. The LMUK pod will replace the baggies as when the pod reaches its potential.

  8. Haven’t Poland gone for both the AW149 and the Blackhawk? Wonder why both for them? Hope the UK chooses the helo with the best performance and benefits for UK industry over its life, but it mayn’t be the cheapest option.
    I think Sweden and Norway(?) have chosen the Blackhawk too.

  9. Blackhawk is mature but of all the named helicopters, it has the shortest range 460km (lowe than PUMA HC2) and the lowest number of passengers at 11.
    As for Australia, they have chosen the S-70M as it is comparable to the Seahawk and Blackhawk operated by other Pacific area operators like the USA and Philippines. Norway will use for Maritime operations too off their frigates.
    The Grey Wolf MH-139 has greatest range 1300km but only 15 passengers. AW149 has most capacity at 19 passengers but middle range of 849km and H175M has 18 passengers but 2nd highest range at 1083km.
    I think the Leonardo AW149 would be the best fit especially if Poland – who are growing in importance with NATO – are building and buying them. Leonardo have established workforce and expertise in UK so are able to adapt the design to MOD requirements quickly.
    Failing that the H175M is looking good technically but is the most expensive option I believe.

    • Those passenger numbers are reduced for fully equipped troops- more space and more weight.
      HC.2 is 12 troops or 2 tonnes freight
      AW139 seems best fit and one of the reasons it won the USAF competition over the Blackhawk is the smoothness of the ride – USAF uses it for VVIP travel around Washington as well as the nuclear missiles security
      The capability and the ride- important even for soldiers on longish trips- align with the industrial politics for the AW139

      • Despite being employed by armed forces all over world AW139 is not a military helicopter per se.
        AW 149 instead is and have better shock resistance and other capacities, it is also has a larger capacity than AW 139.

  10. I can’t see the point in spending billions on developing a new helicopter only then to buy a few dozen . That money would be better spent buying more of a proven design

  12. Stear clear of any further Lockheed purchases. The blackhawk will be overpriced, has a short range and can’t carry many passengers. The Airbus H175M is by far the better option, double the range of the blackhawk and nearly double the passengers too. No brainer.

  13. Given it’s a mature platform that has been steadily upgraded over the years, wouldn’t it make more sense to get more airframes for the money rather than a few gold-plated helicopters? I read somewhere before that the Blackhawk is the cheapest option available for the requirement (willing to be corrected if this is not accurate).

    The point is, we need more of everything these days and this would be a great opportunity to add some additional mass and relieve pressure on an already way over-stretched helicopter fleet.

      • Very much doubt that is the case. US army procurement of basic UH-60M is roughly US$17 mill each
        Bigger and more sophisticated equipment MH-139 Grey Wolf is around US$22 mill in latest production batch contract
        Dont see how RAF will be wanting the smaller Black hawk ( pictures show 8 combat seats) when they have 12 fully equipped soldiers in Puma HC.2.

        Maybe the Blackhawk has a better underslung load

      • Polish Defence Minister Mariusz Blaszczak has signed a deal to acquire four S-70i Black Hawk helos from Lockheed Martin’s offshoot Sikorsky.
        (…)
        The contract for aircraft with related logistics, equipment and training packages is worth a total of 683.4 million zloty (US $180.7 million), the ministry said in a statement.

        That puts Blackhawk at 45M$ . Of course we don’t know what means logistics, training, equipment.

         Poland has signed a contract worth 8.25 billion zlotys ($1.83 billion) to buy 32 AW149  In addition, the contract includes logistics, training and simulator packages. The logistics package includes a stock of spares and consumable parts, as well as equipment for the ground handling of the helicopters. The training and simulator package includes comprehensive training of pilots and technical personnel and the delivery of a set of advanced simulators and training equipment  

        That means 57M$ each. AW 149 will have Hellfire missiles so it will be more capable.

        So i would say the prices should be roughly comparable.

    • I have no belief that the forces would get more airframes going for the cheaper option.
      By the time the U.K. specific kit is added in price points may change for each company.
      We will never find out what each company bids.

  14. Good for inter-operability, and proven in Combat. Updated and upgraded many times. Plus it looks better than the Leonardo thing… which looks like a typical tourists helicopter.

    • Thats a good thing for the AW and AH designs . The Blackhawk has a very low cabin height , I think it was for the days they could fit inside a hercules fuselage.
      Guess what

      • Yep, low cabin equals low center of gravity, that means excellent deployed at sea capability, guess what AW and AH helos haven’t got and guess how capable they will be in the maritime environment?

        Only in emergency use and in the most permissable sea state conditions is the answer…

        I’m sure AW will have crossed enough palms with gold to get their Italian offering over the line, so it really doesn’t matter….

        • Puma replacements are for army requirements. The Merlin is the naval one and even bigger again.
          Your claim about centre of gravity doesnt hold up, these things are known and designed for at the time of development. Stability is a real thing as the engines at gearboxes are high up. Where does it say AW and AH have a problem in this area ?
          The UH-60 was designed around Hercules cargo hold , not an especially low centre of gravity

          • Do your research Dunker, Blackhawk / Seahawk.

            It’s not a claim, a simple fact.

            The Blackhawk has a lower center of gravity by virtue of its Seahawk stablemate.

            We only have 25 Merlin HC4’s, quite frankly obtaining a medium helicopter that isn’t fully capable of maritime deployment when needed is simply bloody short sighted.

            As said Dunker, not to worry, this is all lip service anyway and the 149 will win out, it’s all about protecting Italian sovereign capability apparently….

          • What about the anti sub version of the Merlin. Thats another 30 or so
            Specifically built as a Sea King replacement , now thats a big helicopter too.
            I repeat the Blackhawk was designed low cabin to fit in a C-130 hercules.
            That was the primary driver for the width and height .

            Any source for stability claims, or was that just Sikorsky puffery to cover the lack of internal space ?

          • What’s your point Dunker….. Merlin isn’t in the running??

            I’ll go through it again, Blackhawk and Seahawk, a common airframe design, capable of maritime deployment in high sea states.

            Specifically designed from the ground up with bitter Vietnam experience, to be a rugged battlefield helicopter, perfected and modified over decades, ready right now with no mods needed and an oven baked Spec ops version if also required.

            The AW149, derived from a civilian helicopter….

            If you don’t get that, then nothing more to say really, have a lovely day 👍

          • Merlin is also capable of maritime deployment is high sea states so? Do you have the necessary COG values to know the margin of Merlin vs Blackhawk?

            Blackhawk was an Army only project that win the competition in 1976 it was only later in 1978 chosen by USN for the Lamps III project..

            False. AW 149 is not derived from a civilian helicopter.

          • I’m not following you Alex,what has Merlin got to do with it??

            Designed primarily as a Maritime Helicopter, with a utility help as an afterthought….

            Playing facts or false are we, ok, I’ll bite…

            Fact: Sikorski always developed the Blackhawk with a Maritime US Navy version in mind, obviously they did as they certainly weren’t a stupid company and (it was a no brainer) with so many Sea Sprite and Sea Kings coming to the end of their lives in the 1980’s.

            They designed in a low center of gravity, excellent gust response and a really tough airframe to cope with pitching flight decks right off the drawing board, as so many of these Naval requirments dovetailed nicely with US Army survivability requirments anyway.

            Fact: The AW149 is basically a stretched and
            re-engined AW139. That is a civilian helicopter, designed with the possibility of military sales.

            There’s a world of difference between the UH-60 and AW149, one is a true military helicopter, designed from the ground up to take serious punishment and come back home.

            The other is a civilian helicopter, certainly not designed to take the same degree of punishment. Lots to break and unnecessary complexity….

            Like I said, it’s all academic, AW149 is a done deal, the other applicants are purely going through the motions for the sake of appearance, the political tail wags the dog as ever…..

          • Merlin is a naval helicopter propose build is not it? So what is your bizarre COG argument about that one since it is higher than Blackhawk ?

            And maybe you want to check the problems Blackhawk have with its lower tail design dropping.

            AW149 is not a stretched AW 139, it was propose build as military. being same appearance do not mean it is the same.

          • The RAF isnt looking for sending its new helicopters to sea, RN has Merlin and Wildcat for that.

            So now you spruiking Lockheeds design because a version they arent offering is claimed by you to be ‘stable on pitching decks.
            Lockheed isnt offering the Seahawk , just the small cabin Blackhawk

          • Baseless claim which you just say without evidence
            produce the evidence- you cant of course as its not there to be provided.

  15. Funny isn’t it the but it’s old argument surfaces when in fact they would be totally new and up to date in avionics etc! No one would bat an eyelid if we said we were purchasing Chinooks after all their design is eons old!

    • Yes. helicopters are uniquely able to be completely refurbished and back in service ‘almost new’ with zero hours
      This is what is happening to the AAC Apaches, replacing the French engine with US and all new sensors and avionics
      Puma went through similar 10 years back, to become HC.2 with new digital cockpits and major airframe rebuilds. Time expired parts like rotors and gearboxes can be replaced , engines have deep overhaul

  16. Black Hawk or 149 has to be the choice? Don’t mind which personally. Both have plus and minus points but mostly to do with who builds which parts. If we could just try to get on with it for a change, though, it would be nice.

  17. As usual the MOD is broke, hence the continual delays to the order. Short-term savings resulting in higher long-term costs increases, e.g. the Puma sustainment contract. LM seems to have the lowest cost bid with its elderly (mature!) but hugely popular Black Hawk, whilst political considerations favour the Leonardo AW149 in order to keep the ex-Westland Yeovil site busy with much needed new work.

  18. All defence deals with the US should be put on hold and other partners sought until our ‘ally’ unblocks a trade deal. These purchases are an exhorbitantly expensive one-way pipeline with bread crumb benefits aimed more at US security and defence interests than our own. EU, Japan and others are out there.

  19. UK Special Forces has asked for these proven in Battle 12seats and two crew just hurry up and buy them we are short of aircraft Poland has increased spending far above UK We need to buy more fighters why we cannot get the F15EX and more tanks from south Koren K2 and the 155mm K9A2 to replace AS90 war is coming China to invade Taiwan soon we need to replace Uk Defence soon after everything we have given to Ukraine

  20. Blackhawks were rejected initially by aircrew because they couldn’t stand up in the airframe. Best alternative to the puma and off the shelf ready.

  21. Westland had a licence to build Blackhawks at one stage. Wonder if it could be dusted off by Leonardo thus allowing a proper military helicopter to be built for in the UK for the UK requirement. However, that wouldn’t do the AW149 any favours.

  22. So everyone is touting the Leonardo AW149, as a modern up to date replacement, for Puma.

    Leonardo will or has been chosen, on the back of bribery and corruption. Just one question however… if its that good, why is it only currently used by Egypt, Poland and Thailand?

    Based on those stark realities, I’d go with the proven, ‘off the shelf’ Blackhawk.

    • Maybe because the AW 139( civilian version and mil) arrived first with more than +1100 sold until January 2021. AW149 arrived almost a decade later. The civilian version AW189 have got success for SAR and Offshore work because they got range and size for that work and it is a bigger market than military. The Italian Army have the NH90 and AW139’s, basically AW 149 arrived late.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here