AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10032 times:
I just realized today that Bell offered the Huey 412 with it's two P&W PT6T engines for the US Army's new Light Utility Helicopter, or LUH program, and thought wow, that's a great looking aircraft and it would be awesome to see the USA buy some more modern Huey's!
However, it looks so much better and simpler than the UH-1Y that the Marines have morphed into and so it got me thinking about what the differences were between the two? Other than the obvious comonality between the UH-1Y and the AH-1Z with their shared drivetrains, was it really all that nescessary to build the UH-1Y in the first place and all the more so when Bell will crank out these awesome little LUH 412's to boot? It seems like we have two different Huey's both doing the same thing and to me, the UH-1Y just looks "too busy" if not over-burdened, sort of like the CFT's on a new F-16 where as the 412 LUH looks like what the Huey was designed for!
CX747 From United States, joined May 1999, 4283 posts, RR: 7 Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 10027 times:
Hopefully one of our rotor jocks will help us out with more details. From what I have gathered, the Army LUH is only going to serve stateside and will not see any combat. The reason the Army is purchasing the LUH is to free up UH-60s for more important missions. The LUH will be used in stateside training, humanitarian relief missions and natural disaster tasking. I would assume that the Corps Yankee models have a more sophisticated defense suite along with offensive capabilities.
"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower
MissedApproach From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 710 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 10014 times:
The main problem with the "military" Bell 412 is mainly that it's woefully underpowered (IMO). Compare it to the UH-1Y T700. While both have comparable max power ratings, the T700 has a much higher continuous rating (1546 shp vs. 1110 shp). Our CH-146 Griffons are unfortunately ill-suited to supporting our Army. When fitted with protective armoured seats for the pilots, defensive systems & one measly 7.62mm machine gun they are only capable of lifting 4 soldiers. I shudder to think how they would perform in the hot & high environment in Afghanistan- which is probably why we haven't bothered to send any.
We also lost one on a SAR mission when the tail rotor (which was inspected according to Bell Helicopter's maintenance procedures) suffered a catastrophic failure, caused by a crack that was 0.008 inches deep & 0.060 inches long. The crew identified the problem within 4 seconds but were unable to maintain control. accident report
Uh60ftrucker From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2877 posts, RR: 67 Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 10000 times:
Quoting CX747 (Reply 1): Hopefully one of our rotor jocks will help us out with more details. From what I have gathered, the Army LUH is only going to serve stateside and will not see any combat. The reason the Army is purchasing the LUH is to free up UH-60s for more important missions. The LUH will be used in stateside training, humanitarian relief missions and natural disaster tasking. I would assume that the Corps Yankee models have a more sophisticated defense suite along with offensive capabilities.
Dead on.
As we speak, the Army's LUH trials are being conducted at Cairns Army Airfield at Fort Rucker. The bids are from Bell, Augusta, Eurocopter and MD (Boeing). While personally I would love to see the Army acquire the MD900 (Damn, the NOTAR system is incredible. What a jump forward for the Army) or the EH145 (That re-loading cargo door is an excellent design feature)
The entire purpose for these new helicopters is exactly as CX747 stated: to replace the aging UH-1s in the fleet. Almost all airframes would be going to guard units, and all would be stationed stateside. Currently the few UH-1s remaining are assigned to VIP transport, FlightIron/Dust-Off and the RAID missions currently undertaken by our guard units.
Now who is going to win the contract? The running bet among most of us rotorheads is the Bell 412. Simply because of the airframe familiarity, the vast difference in purchase price, and the Army tends to stick to the moto: KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. We've never been as adept as the USAF when it comes to integrating top of the line technology into our forces... and certainly not as good at convincing congress to fund our expensive toys! But at the same time I think that speaks a good deal about the Army: we know how to squeeze the most out of our equipment and always manage to get the job done.
But anyway, the only sure bet is that the AugustaWestland AB-139 is as dead as a gut shot duck in southern Alabama.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28600 posts, RR: 72 Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9975 times:
The UH-1N that the Marines where operating where for all intensive purposes Bell 212 helicopters. You stick a 4 bladed rotor on it and you have a 412.
The UH-1Y is a rebuilt N model with the new engines and a cabin stretch. So it is a significantly bigger bird.
Quoting Uh60ftrucker (Reply 3): But anyway, the only sure bet is that the AugustaWestland AB-139 is as dead as a gut shot duck in southern Alabama.
I wouldn't be so sure, the USCG picked up the aircraft. You could see a comanality arguement in favor of the Agusta worth of MacNamara.
Tell you the truth since the Y's are rebuilds I can't help but wonder if re-working UH-1's to the Y configuration isn't feasable. I know bell at one time proposed a much less ambitions conversion where the nose and tailboom of the 212 where added to a surplus UH-1 frame which was zero timed.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
DL021 From United States, joined May 2004, 11073 posts, RR: 97 Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 9971 times:
I'd really like to see the MD900 wind that competition. The smaller MD should have won the new LOH competition, but the Army went with cheap and bought Bell.
I think that the only reason the AB is even there is that it's brother the 139 been bought by the Coasties and it appears to be a very solid helo that can be built here by Bell.
We'll see, but the difference between the UH-1Y and the Bell 412 is the difference between a US imported Renault LeCar and a R-5 Turbo. The have the same name, but they aren't the same car
60mech From United States, joined Sep 2005, 29 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9937 times:
The AB139 is dead for the Coast Guard. The new plan for Deepwater is to put new avionics, newer engines and some structural enhancements on the HH60 and keep them flying for another 20 years. The reason for this is the AB139 was to small for conducting SAR and and the new AUF missions.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9930 times:
Quoting 60mech (Reply 6): The AB139 is dead for the Coast Guard. The new plan for Deepwater is to put new avionics, newer engines and some structural enhancements on the HH60 and keep them flying for another 20 years. The reason for this is the AB139 was to small for conducting SAR and and the new AUF missions.
That makes good sense, the USN is now receiving MH-60S's to replace their elderly H-46D's and they are a wonderful platform; I wish the Marines had some.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28600 posts, RR: 72 Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 9886 times:
Quoting 60mech (Reply 6): The AB139 is dead for the Coast Guard. The new plan for Deepwater is to put new avionics, newer engines and some structural enhancements on the HH60 and keep them flying for another 20 years. The reason for this is the AB139 was to small for conducting SAR and and the new AUF missions
Glad to hear that.
Now if they would pick up the S-92 to replace the HH-60 and use the HH-60's in the HH-65 role that would be ideal.
There is just no room to work in those aircraft.
Now if they got a V-22/Bell-609 mix, that wouldn't be bad either.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
JohnM From United States, joined Feb 2001, 266 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9804 times:
The 412 is a decent machine, but as mentioned, not a big lifter.
Yes the T-700 is a great powerplant. Once again (see the V-22 thread), the Marines in my opinion have made things very complicated with the "new" Huey. It now has an APU to provide air to start the T-700 engines. I read somewhere the fusalage was stretched to house additional avionic components. Time will tell how much it can haul once .50 guns are hung, ammo, water, heavy troops, armor, the new APU, and all that busy looking sheet metal, and a nice 130 degree day.
Why didn't they just go out and buy some UH-60s like the rest of the free world? Possibly since the Army brought that project along, it would be an insult to admit the Army did a good thing.
How many years is the UH-1Y behind schedule? What is the cost per aircraft? I bet the UH-60 is cheaper, better, and would have been out in the field YEARS ago.
I have crewed the UH-1H/V before my UH-60 career and I adore the fine Huey. But sometimes it's time to move on and stop beating a dead horse.
L-188 From United States, joined Jul 1999, 28600 posts, RR: 72 Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 9801 times:
Quoting JohnM (Reply 9): Why didn't they just go out and buy some UH-60s like the rest of the free world? Possibly since the Army brought that project along, it would be an insult to admit the Army did a good thing.
Don't know, Didn't the Navy aquire a CH-60 model to take over the Vertrep role. Basicly the UH-60L body with the Army tailwheel and the folding rotor system from the SH-60. Seems to be a system that would fit in perfectly.
OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9749 times:
Quoting JohnM (Reply 9): Why didn't they just go out and buy some UH-60s like the rest of the free world? Possibly since the Army brought that project along, it would be an insult to admit the Army did a good thing.
Tha's what I'd like to know - of all the programs that cancelled or significantly reduced, how in the hell did the Osprey survive?!
Quoting L-188 (Reply 10): Don't know, Didn't the Navy aquire a CH-60 model to take over the Vertrep role. Basicly the UH-60L body with the Army tailwheel and the folding rotor system from the SH-60. Seems to be a system that would fit in perfectly.
CH-60S KnightHawk - it may look like an original Blackhawk but it's far superior in performance. At about $28m per copy, they are far more worth the price than any Osprey for 3-4 times as much.
I might be able to understand why the USMC wanted to rebuild the AH-1W into AH-1Z's if I saw the financial figures, but the UH-1Y is a joke and as alifelong Huey fan, I find it rather insulting. For the price of the UH-1Y's the USMC could have aquired MH-60S's and enjoyed all the commonality with the USN's fleet for parts and such, and they would have been so much better off. The UH-1Y is a taxpayer subsidy for Bell - that's the only logical explanation I can think of.
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9745 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 12): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 11):
might be able to understand why the USMC wanted to rebuild the AH-1W into AH-1Z's if I saw the financial figures,
From what I understand the Apache is ill suited for shipboard operations.
And from standing next to one of those Leggy airplanes it is easy to see why. It is reportedly too top heavy and therefore tippy is rolling seas.
I wasn't suggesting the Apache, I was never very impressed with the old Sea Apache proposals myself and the Cobra may be the only choice for the Marines unless they wanted to develop something from the ground up (which they do - they now want a gunship version of the Osprey; talk about a wholly expensive BB sponge!) but to have to buy the UH-1Y just because the Corps wanted to, no make that had to upgrade the Cobra fleet sounds shady to me. I don't go to a car dealer and pick out the vehicle I want to buy and then get told that I have to buy it's ugly impotent brother, too!
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 9678 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 14): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
I wasn't suggesting the Apache,
It is the only US built choice, I don't see the Marines picking up Tigers or that big Puma based South African job.
The Marines actually are typically the first branch to go outside of the States to field a piece of equipment that catches their attention. While Bell AH-1Z's made great sense, it's ugly brother the UH-1Y is like an unwanted twin sister aquired through marriage. Big deal if the UH-1Y has 70% commonality with the AH-1Z's, MH-60S's would likely have not cost any more if not less and they would have had 100% commonality with the USN's fleet!
JarheadK5 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 9641 times:
Quoting L-188 (Reply 4): The UH-1Y is a rebuilt N model with the new engines and a cabin stretch.
The Y fleet will be new-build airframes. Bell found too many structural problems with the N's they sampled from the current fleet, and it drove the remanufacture cost through the roof. Because of that, new-build Y's come out less than $1m more expensive per-airframe than remanufactured N's.
The Z fleet will be mostly remanufactured airframes. All the new-build W's will be re-man'd; the W's that were re-man'd from T's will be retired, and new-build Z's will be built to replace them and also bring the airframe count back up to where the Corps wants it.
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15): Big deal if the UH-1Y has 70% commonality with the AH-1Z's, MH-60S's would likely have not cost any more if not less and they would have had 100% commonality with the USN's fleet!
Among other things, that commonality allows the Corps to retain the HMLA organization as-is. Replacing the Huey with a totally-different aircraft would force HQMC to split the current combined Light-Attack squadrons into separate Light and Attack squadrons. Too many personnel issues there. Plus the logistics tail for the HMLA will now be smaller, and the training requirements for the maintainers will be a little easier.
IIRC, the H-60 would be considered a "Medium" helicopter in the Corps' hierarchy, therefore it wasn't (and won't be) considered for the "Light" mission. Of course, I'd be perfectly happy to see Tilly push all the Phrogs over the deck edge and get replaced by -60s, but we know that ain't gonna happen. Supposedly, no ramp and being another Sikorsky product makes the -60 a no-go for the HMM mission....
AirRyan From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, RR: 11 Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 9613 times:
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 16): Quoting AirRyan (Reply 15):
Big deal if the UH-1Y has 70% commonality with the AH-1Z's, MH-60S's would likely have not cost any more if not less and they would have had 100% commonality with the USN's fleet!
Among other things, that commonality allows the Corps to retain the HMLA organization as-is. Replacing the Huey with a totally-different aircraft would force HQMC to split the current combined Light-Attack squadrons into separate Light and Attack squadrons. Too many personnel issues there. Plus the logistics tail for the HMLA will now be smaller, and the training requirements for the maintainers will be a little easier.
I don't buy that - the Corps could put an MH-60S right in the UH-1's spot on the ramp and not have to change a thing. The Marines don't need a light anything - take out the L and just call them HMA squads full of Cobras (the Army doesn't seem to have a problem with differentiating Apaches and Kiowas) and let those that need to go over and retain the HMM for the -60's. Ramp space and allocating who parks where has never been a problem at the New River! Skid-Kidz aren't that dense, they'll figure it out. The UH-1Y is nothing more than a Bell subsidy and I'm sure some others out there like Taiwan & Turkey who would be a little more apt to buy Zulu Cobras if they didn't think Bell was going to force them to buy some more Hueys! The only reason the 412 LUH is in the running is because they'll only be used stateside so they can free up the H-60's to go where the mission is!
Quoting JarheadK5 (Reply 16): IIRC, the H-60 would be considered a "Medium" helicopter in the Corps' hierarchy, therefore it wasn't (and won't be) considered for the "Light" mission. Of course, I'd be perfectly happy to see Tilly push all the Phrogs over the deck edge and get replaced by -60s, but we know that ain't gonna happen. Supposedly, no ramp and being another Sikorsky product makes the -60 a no-go for the HMM mission....
There's still time to cut or reduce the Osprey buy - Cheney axed the F-14D program after it was awarded to Grumman by the Navy via full funding by Congress, so there's always hope. I've heard the theories of a Sikorsky monopoly in the Marines but I never put much stock into it - the Marines are supposed to be pinching their pennies and not spending them like the Air Force does when they build Golf Courses - why the Marines should be the only entire Government agency NOT to use the H-60 (other than HMX) is asanine.
JarheadK5 From United States, joined Nov 2005, 199 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 1 week 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 9465 times:
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17): Ramp space and allocating who parks where has never been a problem at the New River! Skid-Kidz aren't that dense, they'll figure it out.
When we got to the River, you wouldn't believe the lengths we had to go to, to get the skidkids to shift one line down and park further out towards the CALA. As much as they bitched about it, you'd think we were asking them to park at Camp Devil Dog and hump back & forth to the aircraft...
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 17): I've heard the theories of a Sikorsky monopoly in the Marines but I never put much stock into it
I never understood it myself; the three (current) Fleet helicopter platforms are/were made by three different companies - Huey & Cobra by Bell, phrog by Boeing/Vertol, and 53 by Sikorsky.
HMX is their own little world unto themselves, so they don't really count IMO.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States, joined Mar 2005, 2287 posts, 
From Canada, joined Oct 2004, 710 posts, 
From Afghanistan, joined Mar 2005, 2877 posts, 
Sponsor Message: 
Printer friendly format
