Army maps path to FVL

The future of Army aviation lies in the Future Vertical Lift and improved turbine engine program. But both are on track to be expensive and delayed, so the Army has had to come up with a careful path to walk that allows them to fund both programs, without screwing existing aviation.

To do that, Redstone Defense Systems and Northrop Grumman will upgrade 110 UH-60A and 140 UH-60L airframes to UH-60Vs b by 2021, and 760 by 2034. The UH-60V will replace the cockpit of the existing aircraft with a digital cockpit that will allow data to be displayed on MFDs instead of the current analog displays.

The upgrade is expected to add 10 years to the life of each aircraft. The upgrade will add a moving map display and BFT2 to the aircraft. The first upgrades are underway, and the last A model will be done by third quarter of next year, after which only L models will be upgraded.

www.flightglobal.com...

a reply to: Zaphod58

One of my buddies is currently testing the V model conversions.

It's the army's attempt at making the M model less expensive. The problem is that most of the L models are old and beat up. With most having north of 8k flt hours.

Before 2-1 GSAB got their Mikes they had a 20% OR rate because the vast majority of their aircraft were so worn down that not even sending it to reset would have sufficed.

The Victor conversion program is a band-aid on a gunshot wound. It's a waste of money to convert beat up old Limas with several combat deployments flown over the last 20 years.

a reply to: projectvxn

We're at that point with most of our equipment. They're spending $1M an aircraft to replace longerons in F-15s, to keep them flying long enough to decide if they need and will go through with a possible $30-40M per aircraft wing/wing box replacement.

Making drones bigger?

a reply to: Blackfinger

This is the same conclusion I've came in, too.
Think about connection F-35(with newest tech), QF-16 and almost autonomous UH-60...

a reply to: projectvxn

I wouldn't trust the army to choose any new equipment anyway. At least the old stuff won't be constantly deadlined for some simple fault that gets maintainers or operators killed.

originally posted by: Caughtlurking
a reply to: projectvxn

I wouldn't trust the army to choose any new equipment anyway. At least the old stuff won't be constantly deadlined for some simple fault that gets maintainers or operators killed.

Aircraft aren't maintained the way ground vehicles are.

If it is a red X fault it won't fly.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

With a few exceptions the Army record for their aviation is as good as any other service.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I'd honestly be more afraid of flying in a USN/USMC rotorcraft. Incredibly complex airframes, sea salt, and the brutal shipboard duty cycle is not a good mix *COUGH* any of the stallions *COUGH*.

The only US army helo that goes down with any real frequency is the Blackhawk, but that's probably just Blackhawks being Blackhawks (we just had one lawn-dart into a golf course in Anne Arundel County, it barely made the news). The Chinooks, the Apaches, and all of the smaller helos they have all seem to have pretty stellar safety records.

The pattern here seems to be "Don't trust a Sikorsky".

I cant wait to see Sikorsky's warmed-over 1960's compound helicopter square off against Bell's Gerry Anderson-looking bastard spawn of a Blackhawk and the XV-3. Either way, US Army aviation is about to get REEALL weird.

a reply to: Barnalby

Speaking of which, an SH-60R deployed of the USS Dewey went down off Guam today. Everyone was picked up.

a reply to: Zaphod58

At least there was a happy ending there. I'll never get how the company that invented the helicopter (and built such great aircraft as the Sea King, the Tarhe, etc) managed to nerf something as simple as an updated huey replacement and produce such a lemon.

I can at least understand the Stallion family's troubles because my head hurts just trying to think of how they managed to get the gearboxes on those flying Rube Goldberg devices to work for more than 10 minutes without spontaneously self-destructing, but it's unfathomable how they were able to mess up the lowly Blackhawk so badly.

a reply to: Barnalby

At least they can fly around radio towers now. I remember the early days when they banned them from flying near them because the signals off the tower would screw with the flight control system.

a reply to: Barnalby

The only US army helo that goes down with any real frequency is the Blackhawk, but that's probably just Blackhawks being Blackhawks (we just had one lawn-dart into a golf course in Anne Arundel County, it barely made the news). The Chinooks, the Apaches, and all of the smaller helos they have all seem to have pretty stellar safety records.

Blackhawks fly more than any other army airframe. So it is natural that the Hawk would have the most mishaps. As a 60 crew chief I can tell you the Blackhawk is a fine piece of machinery. When they crash it's usually due to pilot error and not maintenance related.

Yesterday's MH-60R crash at Guam