DoD Contracts: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Awarded $387M for UH-60M Helicopters

DoD Contracts: Sikorsky Aircraft Corp. Awarded $387M for UH-60M Helicopters

Came across these contract mod announcements.

Looks like Sikorsky gets to build another 35 Black Hawks for the Army.

Sikorsky Aircraft Corp., Stratford, Connecticut, was awarded a $387,181,200 modification (P00333) to contract W58RGZ-12-C-0008 to exercise the option for 35 UH-60M helicopters. Work will be performed in Stratford, Connecticut, with an estimated completion date of Dec. 31, 2016. Fiscal 2016 other procurement funds in the amount of $387,181,200 were obligated at the time of the award. Army Contracting Command, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama, is the contracting activity.

Along with this one are some other contract news for different branches.

a reply to: grey580

They're also going to get an upgraded -60 for the Air Force UH-1 replacement for the missile fields and CSAR requirement.

a reply to: grey580

Looks like Sikorsky gets to build another 35 Black Hawks for the Army.

They better.

Those Hybrids aren't cutting it.

a reply to: intrptr

The Osprey is doing fine. It handled its first combat deployment better than many established helicopter airframes have. They also have absolutely nothing to do with this contract since the Army doesn't have any.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Bell said no more traditional helicopters for them. They're going all in on the hybrid tech it seems.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: anzha

Helicopter technology is approaching the limits of what they can do.

Speaking of Bell, just saw a beautiful 222 on the back of a truck going down the road. Even had a hoist.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: anzha

Speaking of Bell, just saw a beautiful 222 on the back of a truck going down the road. Even had a hoist.

Like this one?

a reply to: Sammamishman

Remarkably like that one.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Query. Why did NOTAR go nowhere?

a reply to: anzha

Too radical. Operators didn't want to have to pay extra mechanics and for different parts, etc, even though it proved time and again how much better it was.

a reply to: Zaphod58

damnit. Of course.

Aerospace has some of the most brilliantly innovative tech and the most curmudgeonly operators. gah.

Did it reduce the acoustic signature at all? I was under the impression the interaction of the tail and main rotors was a nontrivial part of the noise...

a reply to: anzha

Hugely. A 500D was ten times louder next to a 500 NOTAR.

a reply to: Zaphod58

twere I a billionaire, I'd be asking if the patents had expired yet.

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

Query. Why did NOTAR go nowhere?

Funny, because I just saw a few NOTARs sitting out on the field yesterday. I was trying to explain the novelty to some neophytes, but I think the wonder was lost on them.

a reply to: RadioRobert

There are some out there. The Honolulu Fire Department replaced Air One and added Air Two with NOTARs after One crashed during a rescue. A jacket blew out the door and fouled the tail rotor.

They should have been a hell of a lot more successful though.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There are a lot of drawbacks that rarely get mentioned, but i still would have thought a lot of police departments and fire rescue would have bought in. A local department has a few, but the ones I saw yesterday weren't them which is what surprised me. Funny that a thread mentioned it the same day

a reply to: RadioRobert

The first ones I saw were all police or fire, then they just disappeared.

a reply to: RadioRobert

What are the drawbacks? I don't know choppers as well as the stealthy fast movers.

a reply to: anzha

Basically weight/drag. You need quite a bit more tail to offset the lack of tail-rotor at cruise. That means drag compounded by the need to use it for yaw-stability. It also means structural weight. Both those things are sort of a debbie-downer for performance. It affects payload, range, speed, etc. It's also is said to be slightly less responsive than the tail-rotor with yaw-authority. Having all the workings on the inside reduces noise for the external observer, but makes the cabin louder.

On the otherhand, noone risks running into the tail rotor during entry or egress, you can put that SOB into a tree without any real damage, it's quieter from the ground than the tail-rotor, and the mechanical workings seem to be much less likely to fail in flight.

So it really depends on what you're going to use it for and whether or not you think the advantages outweigh the costs.