UH-1Y achieves Initial Operational Capability (IOC) with little fanfare

[ChuckMK23]

Rotor and Wing Magazine is reporting that the UH-1Y if finally reaching some degree of operational caoacity, after years of design and requirements schizophrenia by HQMC and the equally dysfunctional HMLA community.

Hmmmmm... a 20,000 lbs GW class aircraft, with T700's and a glass cockpit - boy that's a new aircraft...

Wait, wait...didn't we do the exact f*cking thing with the H-60?

Ugh.

 

[Alpha_Echo_606]

I almost took a job with Bell Textron to work on that program back in 2005. I passed because they didn't want to help relocate me. Glad I passed; I rather enjoy working on P3s.

 

[scoolbubba]

military procurement...reinventing the wheel since...the wheel

 

[PropStop]

military procurement...reinventing the wheel since...the wheel

I put in a requirement for the P-8 to have square wheels, which will reduce our landing roll considerably. For takeoff there's a device that'll squirt oil in front of the wheel thereby decreasing takeoff roll.

I have all the solutions!

 

[skidkid]

Rotor and Wing Magazine is reporting that the UH-1Y if finally reaching some degree of operational caoacity, after years of design and requirements schizophrenia by HQMC and the equally dysfunctional HMLA community.

Hmmmmm... a 20,000 lbs GW class aircraft, with T700's and a glass cockpit - boy that's a new aircraft...

Wait, wait...didn't we do the exact f*cking thing with the H-60?

Ugh.

Chuck I see that it is time for your bi-annual spout off of ill informed and bitter hearsay, was your Navy experience really that bad? There have been numerous procurement issues with the Y/Z program that are public knowledge. Better men and pilots than you from that "disfunctional" HMLA community have made it work and in less time than some other programs. At the risk of being blunt, STFU.

 

[ChuckMK23]

Hey I had a great experience - has nothing to do with that. I just shake my head at the engineering and requirements decisions that made your senior leadership folks reinvent the wheel with an aircraft that has basically the same footprint and capabilities as the Sikorsky S-70/H-60.

As lean as the Marine Corps is, why insist on evolving an airframe from the 70's - when what came out of the Navair/PMA effort looks in fact like an H-60 on paper!

Are your communities warfighting requirements so unique? Or is it more parochialism at work.

Just frustrating to read about this airframe and my common sense says "huh?"

Now there win't be any re-manufactured airframes - instead bending new aluminum and composites. So much for the economy of reusing 25 year old metal.

I am sure there are tons of detailed PPT decks with mission requiremets, gap analysis, swim lanes, etc. And I'm sure it was all conceived by smat folks with sound decision making capabilities.

But the big picture? You are getting a 20,000 lbs aircraft with a 6-8,000 lb payload, that doesn't do anything different than the one designed by Sikorsky - and no other servive besides USMC will use it!

That's my point Skid Kid, not an attack on anyone - but soap box / rant... absolutely.



Whew!

 

[phrogpilot73]

Are your communities warfighting requirements so unique?

In a word? Yes. I support the CH-53K contract, and if there's one thing I'm getting mighty tired of is engineers and GS's that insist that "well this is how we did it on H-60". The Marine Corps goes ashore. The Navy generally doesn't. We have to design aircraft from not just the engineering perspective - but supportability as well. Having an aircraft that shares parts with another one (which WOULDN'T be the case with Sikorsky) pays dividends.

But the big picture? You are getting a 20,000 lbs aircraft with a 6-8,000 lb payload, that doesn't do anything different than the one designed by Sikorsky - and no other servive besides USMC will use it!

The bigger picture? You get a 20,000 lb aircraft with 6-8,000 lbs of payload that shares commonality of parts & maintenance with the AH-1Z. I guess we should buy those either, since we're the only service to use them. Trying to go with Sikorsky would be like shoving a square peg into a round hole.

 

[bert]

A previous DCA used the threat of looking at the S line to prod Bell, but they were never really serious. The S is really not that great an airplane - its main strengths are the same as the Y in the sense of sharing a lot of the logistics tail with the R. The cockpit is still poor, Armed Helo did very poorly in OT, and OAMCM is flat out not ready. Not to mention the fact that SAC hasn't been able to satisfy their current orders on time. Though our friends in the one-size-too-small green shorts will inevitably chunk the bird out and suck out some of the fun to fly factor, I think the Y should be a better airplane.

 

[IKE]

UH-1Y Begins Initial Operating Capability, The Rest Of The World Couldn't Care Less

Fixed.

 

[NozeMan]

A previous DCA used the threat of looking at the S line to prod Bell, but they were never really serious. The S is really not that great an airplane - its main strengths are the same as the Y in the sense of sharing a lot of the logistics tail with the R. The cockpit is still poor, Armed Helo did very poorly in OT, and OAMCM is flat out not ready. Not to mention the fact that SAC hasn't been able to satisfy their current orders on time. Though our friends in the one-size-too-small green shorts will inevitably chunk the bird out and suck out some of the fun to fly factor, I think the Y should be a better airplane.

Hehe, maybe we should have bought some more Hotels!!!



HS love, while it's still possible!

 

[skidkid]

Hey I had a great experience - has nothing to do with that. I just shake my head at the engineering and requirements decisions that made your senior leadership folks reinvent the wheel with an aircraft that has basically the same footprint and capabilities as the Sikorsky S-70/H-60.

As lean as the Marine Corps is, why insist on evolving an airframe from the 70's - when what came out of the Navair/PMA effort looks in fact like an H-60 on paper!

Are your communities warfighting requirements so unique? Or is it more parochialism at work.

Just frustrating to read about this airframe and my common sense says "huh?"

Now there win't be any re-manufactured airframes - instead bending new aluminum and composites. So much for the economy of reusing 25 year old metal.

I am sure there are tons of detailed PPT decks with mission requiremets, gap analysis, swim lanes, etc. And I'm sure it was all conceived by smat folks with sound decision making capabilities.

But the big picture? You are getting a 20,000 lbs aircraft with a 6-8,000 lb payload, that doesn't do anything different than the one designed by Sikorsky - and no other servive besides USMC will use it!

That's my point Skid Kid, not an attack on anyone - but soap box / rant... absolutely.



Whew!

Chuck you have a bit of a track record with such posts. The Y does offer a few things the 60 does not: you can pull parts from a Y for a Z and vice versa. A dedicated attack helo like the W and the Z are in fact better suited to the attack role than the 60 (yes I know 60s are used in that role but not in a med to high threat environment). The ability of interchangeable parts is a boon to an expeditionary force ashore.
I was willing to let your post go as there are many in the USMC who question the 60/Y issue but the "dysfunctional" comment pissed me off.
Skid

 

[Semper Jump Jet]

I was willing to let your post go as there are many in the USMC who question the 60/Y issue but the "dysfunctional" comment pissed me off.
Skid

Yes, most skid guys I know are VERY normal.... (Smiles, backing out of the room slowly...)

 

[Clux4]

Chuck:
Would you rather the Marine Corps bought UH-72 along with the Army to replace UH-1 or upgrade the an existing UH-1N. As it stands, the UH-72 seems to be having heating problems, who knows how much the Army is going to incur along the way in unforeseeable upgrades. A Huey upgrade might be cost effective in the long run. I personally will not count the Army out of the Super Huey deal.

 

[phrogdriver]

As long as we have Cobras, having a sibling with common parts and characteristics is a good fit.

I would have rather us bought a high-speed V/STOL design, perhaps a Sikorsky X2-type machine, compound helo, or small tiltrotor, but we probably can't wait that long.

 

[Clux4]

I think we should have bought the Apache to replace our Cobra fleet, bought CH-47's to replace 46's for heavy lift, kept the 53, bought 60's to replace the Huey fleet and never had ventured into the tilt rotor business.