Talk:Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (general topics): Military aviation task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force United States military history task force

Operational History

This is a very small snapshot and should be expanded with examples and dates. -Signaleer (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. I added that a few weeks ago as something to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're doing good work, Jeff. It would be nice if you had more help, rather than another topic about what the article lacks! I'll help out as I can, but my WP time is a bit limited by efforts on a non-WP project. - BillCJ (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. Any help is appreciated. This article is thin in the Development and other sections too. There are not too many books out there specifically on utility helicopters, cargo planes and other non-attack aircraft. I mean a book on a particular aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, any definitive sources would be an excellent start, I'll try to dig through previous operations that specifically states the impacts of using the UH-60s. -Signaleer (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.history.army.mil/documents/panama/JCIT/JCIT97Z.htm Only one battalion was equipped with the UH-60 during Operation Just Cause.
• http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Just%20Cause/JustCause.htm Reference to UH-60s a few times in this book.

I haven't found too much information about specific references to the UH-60 during Desert Shield/Storm or Bosnia. -Signaleer (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Operators of S-70A / UH-60s?

Should the export S-70As be listed both under Operators in this article and Sikorsky S-70 or something else? A Black Hawk book I have lists both the UH-60 designation and the S-70A designation for cross reference purposes. Then Flight International's military directory article just lists "S-70A". All the data does not need to be repeated in both places, but I can't see a good way to divide it up now. Any suggestions? Thx -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be confusing. Some operators have aircraft designated "S-70A", but everyone, including the operators, calls them UH-60s. We could split them by user and role rather than by designation, as we have done with the Huey family. In this case, the UH-60 article would cover all military (army/AF) users, SH-60 would cover all naval users, and the S-70 page would cover civil users of the Firehawk and the like, and be an overview article. Alternately, we could have the S-70 page cover all export users (divided by variant), with the UH-60/SH-60/HH-60 pages strictly for US-operated variants. (If the S-70 page were to get to long under this option, we could split it to a "List of Export users" page.) I'd actually prefer the second option, but I think either option would work better than trying to figure out what goes where by designation only, and having duplicate entries. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first option, listing by type would be easier to fix now and require less explaining later. Putting all the export operators on S-70 article would be more likely to have editors adding their nation's S-70As to the UH-60 article every so often. No rush.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a clear distinction and separation between the civilian (S-70A) and the military (UH-60) users globally. -Signaleer (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The S-70 is a Sikorsky designation, while the UH-60 is a US Government designation. Their origins being one and the same, yet official designated by each entity differently. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I think all of us discussing this our aware of that. But the S-70 company designation covers all of the H-60 models and variants along with others not part of the H-60 system, not just the UH-60 army sub-family, yet many users call them UH-60s anyway. The issue under discussion is how best to cover the export variants without duplicating coverage across more than one article. Do you have a preference for one of the mentioned options, or perhaps an option of your own? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion perhaps a combined stand-alone article like Sikorsky Black Hawk operators or Sikorsky S-70 family operators MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Milb1, it's definitely worth considering, though I'm not sure there are enough operators to justify it as yet. Perhaps in the furture. Also, we have a fairly long S-70A and S-70B sub-variants list on the S-70 page. If we go with putting the military operators on the UH-60 and SH-60 pages, then we should probably move the S-70A and B sub-variants lists there to, leaving the S-70 page solely for the civilian and non-military government operators, and as an overview page. Some version of that option seems to be the consensus so far. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The S-70 is already a sort of overview article. I don't think another article is needed for the operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Price and capacity

I read sites with critics to this helicopter. They writes that this helicopter is more expensive and with less capacity of transport than Russian Mi-17 and French Super Puma. Both of these helicopters can transport not 11 soldiers, such as UH-60, but 25 soldiers. And both - Mi-17 and Super Puma - are cheaper than UH-60. Range and velocity of Mi-17 and Super Puma are similar to the UH-60.Agre22 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

T700 engine

Engines are improved and keeping up with the latest installed version is difficult, especially from one UH-60 variant to another. Therefore we should either list each variant with engine or simply refer to the T700 article and update it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I like the former for this article. I think there has been only three T700 engine versions on the UH-60; -700 on the UH-60A, -701C on UH-60L and -701D on UH-60M. Most other variants are based on the UH-60A, but each will need to be checked. I'll work on that... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And you'll notice I added some YT700-GE-700 data to the T700 article. This engine was used on the YUH-60A. Well anyway whatever you think, I just think it gets a bit messed up trying to change the data for a single template or if only one parameter value is shown. The way you stated it (i.e., -700 on the UH-60A, -701C on UH-60L and -701D on UH-60M) could be the way it's broken out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about the pre-production engine version. I suppose it'd be a good to list the engine versions at General Electric T700. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I came across the info in a really old document in our library. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Army uses 701C and 701Ds with complete transparency on L models now, and has upgraded almost every remaining A model with the nicknamed "A+" MWO that incorporates 701D engines as well. Nearly every Army/AF H-60 is running a 701D and 701Cs are being upgraded to D Specs. OEM fitting was A -700, L -701C, K -701C, UH-60M -701D and MH-60M CT7-8 B5. Mike 98.232.33.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Manufacturing location

All built in Stratford, CT until 2010 first UH-70i 'assembled' by PZL Mielec in Poland http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EF3EL80.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.242.37 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the first S-70i and is for international sales. It is mentioned at Sikorsky S-70#S-70. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for UH-60C?

The source only mentions the aircraft and does not support its mission profile. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The DoD doc says for the UH-60C: "UH-60A aircraft modified/equipped with systems for C2 missions." I added another reference that states command and control missions though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a single DoD document that describes this variant....zero on DTIC. ----THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That quoted part came from DoD 4120-15L (ref. 39 now), which is not much. I can't find anything else on .mil sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about A2C2? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky Crash on Aug 1976

Hi I was one of those soldiers in that crash. Our company was chosen to fly in thoses proto types that summer.“”

Who are you? How did the troop seat work? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

MH-60 variant entries

A couple IPers have added info to the MH-60 variant entries without providing references. I am trying to cite the basics with some H-60 books. I can access Jane's through work and may use that for some details and recent info. But assistance from other editors would be great. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty well handled now. The entries should not be too long with every little detail. -fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This was mostly me. I guess I'll have to dig up some references. I've been operating MH-60s with Army SOA for quite a few years, and all the other H-60 models for even longer, so I don't have book references to back up the data on the aircraft sitting outside of my office. Just read Wikipedia's verifiability page, and guess without a book, I'm without a paddle. Very unfortunate as much of the information on this page is incorrect, just wrongly cited and published in the past. Mike 98.232.33.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

You could have invented the Black Hawk and WP would still need sources to support content, just the way it is. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Way too late. It no longer matters. I cited the basics and some details in sources available, then removed other details. A couple entries were getting too long anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

HH60M editing

Sorry, this is my first time editing anything on Wikipedia. Figures I jacked it up! Do you work on Black Hawk Helicopters or just moderate on the wiki site? I'm not asking to be spiteful, I'm just curious. Army Aviation can be a very small community, maybe I've worked with you somewhere. I work on black hawk helicopters and have for a long time. Other than the sikorsky web site, I can only quote my 21 years of experience as a reliable source.

I just went through the "M" model transition course at Ft Eustis Virginia and got back in early December 2010. I can assure you that the HH60M, which my unit is receiving in a couple months, does not have gunners windows, and does in fact have a nose mounted FLIR system.

On the UH60A, UH60L, and UH60M, it was possible to install a rescue hoist, install a patient carousel, paint red crosses on the doors, belly, nose, and top, and remove the guns, and the aircraft became a medevac helicopter.

The HH60M is not just a "UH60M with medical equipment", and any reference that truly states that, is incorrect. It has a modified airframe with no gunner's windows. It has a built in litter system where the crew chief / medic / gunner used to sit. The crew chief and medic sit against the back wall of the cabin in special seats that can swivel, tilt and slide for/aft. It has no provision for having guns installed at all. It can not carry troops into combat. It only has limited pull down seats for ambulatory patients, no V.I.P.. It is basically a better, "m" model version of the HH60L.

Not really sure what else to say. I was just trying to make the page accurate. To include changing the data on that supposed picture of a "UH60Q", on the right side. It's an "A" model medevac aircraft with snow skis on the landing gear. The only UH60Q models ever built went to the Tennessee Army National Guard. As I recall they only made 3 of them. They have FLIR on the nose, which is what gives that photo away, it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawk67t (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you descride to us the arrangement for the stretchers? & the number of pull-down seats? Also, do you know the layout of seats for a basic troop carrying Blackhawk? The specs say there are 14 seats, but numbers online are meaningless.96.238.143.223 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The UH60A and UH60L with 14 seats in the back are arranged as follows: 4 forward facing seats on the back wall, 4 aft facing seats in the middle, 3 forward facing seats in the middle, 2 gunner/crew chief seats facing their respective left or right hand gunner's window, and a troop commander's seat which is an aft facing troop seat between the two crew chief seats.

The seats on the back wall attack to permanently mounted rings on the back wall, and to the floor with quick release connectors.

The 7 seats in the middle all hang from a seat bar that bolts to the ceiling, and attach to the floor with quick release connectors. The crew chief seats and troop commander seat all hang from the "H" bar, a seat support bar that mounts to the forward cabin ceiling, they all attach to the floor the same as the other seats.

The UH60M, I have only seen a few troop seats mounted in the center of the cabin as a demo when we were in school last November. Looks like a comparable layout to the A/L, but with an improved troop seat that can be folded up to make room for cargo, and a new ceiling seat mount sysytem for quickly getting the seats in and out. The crew seats are improved as well and are basically a martin baker style seat with the ability to swivel and ajdust up and down and are mounted on a track system on the floor.

I have not had the opportunity to play with the drop down ambulartory patient seats in an HH60M yet, but have been told there are 6 of them, 3 on each side of the cabin. My understanding is that you lower the litter pans (2 per side) all the way down and then drop the seats down.

The Litters are attached to the cabin walls and run for /aft lengthways in the front of the cabin. They are raised and lowered to allow 4 litter patients in one aircraft with room down the middle for the medic to tend to them, though I have been told that it gets a bit cramped in between with all your flight gear on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawk67t (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible new variant...

It appears as if either the administration wasn't straight forward with exactly what the 160th used to insert the SEALs to get bin Laden, or there is a heavily modified or even a new variant of the MH-60. Of course this could also be a new helicopter altogether, but I'm not one to add new sections to the article if all I seem to have is pics of the tail section, and everyone talking about it are just speculating as to what it is. The most legit article I came across is from the Navy Times: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

just an FYI for those interested. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no real reason for them to be spilling all the beans on stuff like this. Here are articles from Flight Global and Aviation Week on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a comment from Pres. Obama about losing a $60M helicopter reported by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post. I came to this article to compare that number to typical Blackhawks, as it seemed high. The info box says $44M but the text of the article quotes numbers like $6M-10M which is a pretty big discrepancy. I'm wondering if the cost mentioned by the President suggests the helicopter was in fact specially equipped. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/death-of-osama-bin-laden-phone-call-pointed-us-to-compound--and-to-the-pacer/2011/05/06/AFnSVaCG_story_2.html

ThinkDefense article says $14M and this seems roughly consistent with export costs mentioned in their comment thread (though exports don't include the best bits, I'm sure). http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/so-how-much-is-a-blackhawk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.206.212 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how its unit cost is calculated, i.e. average procurement cost vs. flyaway cost, etc. Too little info on the helicopter variant and its cost to try and mention its cost in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This picture is on the Stealth helicopter page.

Artist's concept drawing of a modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

I think it would be useful to add it to this page as a visual aid to go along with the text description of the "Silent Hawk", as I've come to call it (don't worry, I don't intend to insert that name into the page ;) ). I'll give it a week and if no one objects (or puts the image in themselves), I'll add it. Spartan198 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Spartan198 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Probaby best not to - the drawing is just a guess and original research and could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is not an official variant. It would in inappropriate to put this up as a variant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mielec assembly line?

Comments please on whether its worth folding in this, from elsewhere on WP...

S-70i Black Hawk: International military version assembled by Sikorsky subsidiary, PZL Mielec in Poland.

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere - do we get any clues, certainly correctly mentioned on the Sikorsky S-70 page but if a seperate S-70i page exists it should be merged with the S-70 page not here (unless Poland are building them for the US military or FMS). MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere means at PZL Mielec. Is the S-70i Black Hawk an entirely different aircraft to the UH-60 Black Hawk, or just a different type of Black Hawk? Maybe we need a better disambig for "Black Hawk".-Chumchum7 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking the non-us S-70s are not Black Hawks but they are all S-70s just the US military call them H-60s. Some of the ones listed on this page are not actually UH-60s but S-70s, although the ones sold to the US Military and through the US Foreign Military Sales scheme are H-60s and those sold direct are S-70s so it was just decided to keep the military S-70s on one page. So no harm in included a mention of the S-70i at the bottom of the S-70 list on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• S-70i is an international version and has an entry at Sikorsky S-70#S-70. The S-70 article is an overview article for the family and covers civil versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the S-70I has some structural changes from the standard UH-60s. We should be able to find some further explanations in the FLightGlobal archives, and on other sites. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Per MilborneOne, I'll add the line, pending your improvement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, looking to see who they export to I found they shipped the first 3 already, to an "undisclosed customer" [1] . Am guessing its the Polish special forces, GROM. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Hawk or Blackhawk?

I see both variants used, not only on Wikipedia as whole, but in this very article as well. Which one is the prefered? /83.227.130.26 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The UH-60 is the Black Hawk, and the S-67 is the Blackhawk. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a deliberate distinction by Sikorsky? /83.227.130.26 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)