Talk:Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST 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 assessment scale.
WikiProject Aviation / Rotorcraft (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 
 
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the rotorcraft project.

HH-60M info[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away so long, busy with real life. Here is a link to a picture of one of my unit's HH-60M aircraft that shows the modified airframe (no crew cheif winodws).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjlebel/7742402868/

Blackhawk67t (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a picture I took on our flightline of my assigned HH-60M helicopter. You can use it on the page if you wish. It clearly shows the airframe differences.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4853634504788&set=a.4853633824771.1073741825.1414824938&type=1&theater

Blackhawk67t (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Philippine Black Hawk versions[edit]

Folks,

This is confusing as H*ll. Sources show that one UH-60A is with the Philippine Army and another source shows none with the Philippine Army. Another source shows the Philippine AF with one S-70 vesion (?) with the Presidential Flight operated by the PAF (mostly fixed wing civilian aircraft and that one S-70). Most sources say that the Philippine military operates very few new aircraft and instead buys or is given second hand aircraft that refurnished (the PAF has almost all the helicopters with 67 UH-1Hs being the majority - see note). And the Sikorsky S-70/UH-60s are way out of their league to finance. No good for an article, but most probable is that the Philippine Army has that one UH-60A for the defence minister and chief of staff and the Philippine AF operates that one S-70 for transporting the president and his staff. Both probably have contract pilots and ground crews. What a mess to figure out. I got my extensive references out and after two hours gave up. The worst thing is that because of corruption, the Philippine AF and Army have a hodge pod of equipment with no standardization of training or spares possile. Best of luck to you all figuring it out!!!!!!

Note> Most UH-1H are none flyable, but ten are being refurnished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackehammond (talkcontribs) 22:14, 23 March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Operational history section[edit]

Quite frankly I think it's getting ridiculously out of hand with the minutiae that's being included in this section for each country. Many of the references are not only questionable, but dead. I've been tracking down new references that were marked, and just found another that wasn't. Trying to eliminate link rot for information that is generally useless to what a Black Hawk is, in my view is over the top. Why not let the people over on the Turkish version of this page keep up with it (and for that matter the other countries)? Someone explain the value of knowing the precise date some country ordered X number of Black Hawks. Then X number of years later they order X more Black Hawks. So what? And then sometimes you follow a wikilink to another article also citing how many aircraft with an accompanying citation. Then you have to wonder the condition of that citation. I think this is spiraling out of control. There's enough work out there to maintain the links to the pertinent stuff. Furthermore it's not even operational history, it's procurement history. Beam me up! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 12:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to me now. But if it gets bad it will be. Go ahead and remove non-notable/minor events if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
The non-US sections mainly cover how they came to get UH-60s and some operational use. After another quick look, I did not see any of these sections with a lot of excess or minor details. But I'll read through the sections some more and tighten wording where possible. Or point us to something in particular. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure where this Utility variant belongs, but seems notable as a civil variant. TGCP (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Civil variants and usage info should go in the Sikorsky S-70 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

UH-60M request by Tunisia[edit]

This edit was refused and deleted several times, so i wanted to make things clear and add sources confirming the Sale (Not Possible but Confirmed Order) of 12 UH-60M Improved & Armed Utility Helicopters for Tunisia. –Tunisia places requests for US$700 million sale of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from US [1] –FMS proposed to Bolster Tunisian security capabilities [2] I will be Adding Tunisia as a future operator again, based on these sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouath14 (talkcontribs) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mouath14: And it will be removed again until the proposed sale has passed all hurdles. As the sources you provided say: "The United States may supply Tunisia with UH-60 helicopters and weaponry to help bolster the country's security capabilities" and "The Tunisian Ministry of the National Defense (MND) has requested a US$700 million sale of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters and associated equipment from the US Government under a foreign military sale (FMS) programme. This possible FMS contract involves ...". It is a proposed sale that may lead to an order, but it is NOT an order yet. As I have already pointed out to you on your own talk page. Thomas.W talk 17:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The Tunisia 'order' was removed twice, not several times. The first post was moved to the proper place in the 'Other and potential users' section and reworded. The 2nd addition was removed. Also, the Operators section is only for current users and ones with aircraft on firm order per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. The section is not for possible/potential orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: And i will keep posting sources and references of this Official Order,
Here's the letter of acceptance from the Federal Register[3]
Plenty of Trusted Sources: [4] [5] [6]
Maybe we just wait for the Signature of Mr. President so we can finally call it an order ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouath14 (talkcontribs) 22:28, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Federal Register and other sources only say it is a request or proposed sale. This request is already mentioned in the article text. Hopefully this deal will get resolved before too long... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
This article says the US "will soon make available" to Tunisia. So still no completed deal (contract/agreement) yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

References[edit]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal[edit]

MH-60CZ Multi-Role HelicopterSikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

Why have two articles? I propose a merge.--Petebutt (talk) 07:33, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Which ones? The article being merged should be clearly stated in the merger proposal. -Fnlayson (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I added the link above to be match the merge tag in the article now. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Survey[edit]

This article should not be merged with Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk because all variants on that site have been developed by the Sikorsky helicopter company. It is unique and unprecedented that a private company (Pinnacle) developed a program to purchase U.S. Army helicopters through an online auction and develop a unique aircraft configuration for export. This program is unique to Pinnacle Solutions Inc. and not Sikorsky helicopters. (Highlands47 (talk) 07:56, 17 September 2015 (UTC))

There's not really anything worth merging here. There are no reliable sources in the article that show the project exists, much less is notable. Probably better to send to AFD. The article is written more like a proposal and advertisement, and without verifiable sources, shouldn't be in WP at all. - BilCat (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with BillCat, but let us see if the author can discuss the issue properly before nominating for AfD (I have replaced the merge tag).--Petebutt (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Merge: This CZ variant is not significant enough for a separate article. It can be covered here like the MH-60 DAP that seems to be similar. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • AfD/Merge: - Overrated variant, and seems odd a "new editor's" first edit(s) is to create an article that's displays Pinnacle Solutions Inc product WP:NOTADVOCATE - FOX 52 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Firstly, a merge notice has not been placed in the MH-60CZ Multi-Role Helicopter article. Until then, this discussion will not be very effective. Secondly, I can find nothing worth merging - just a marketing spiel that has no place on Wikipedia. I'd suggest it be put up for AfD. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:34, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Pete removed the merge tag after adding it there. He's been quite sloppy lately, and made several merge discussions in which he neglects to state what articles are proposed. - BilCat (talk) 18:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose nothing to merge as the article should be deleted as I am not convinced that it actually exists, no references or sources and looks like a hoax, google has zero hits except the wikipedia article and one mirror. MilborneOne (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Just tagged it with a proposed deletion - FOX 52 (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. I have put discussion notices on the article creator's and the Aircraft WikiProject's talk pages: any further discussion should go on the page linked to in all these notices.— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:28, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Picture taken of Stealth variant of MH-60 Black Hawk stealth helicopter in Mosul[edit]

A Picture was taken of the Stealth variant of the MH-60 Black Hawk helicopter in Mosul. Please someone who is a bit more advanced than me, add it to the section of Special purpose variants in the article :

http://defence-blog.com/news/mysterious-black-hawk-helicopter-spotted-near-mosul-in-iraq.html

We need a reliable source on what the variant is but the main problem is we cant use non-free copyrighted images anyhow. MilborneOne (talk) 10:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)