Ah-1z

[phrogpilot73]

To hell with being underpowered "making you a better pilot"

I want more power and I want it now!

MORE POWER!!!

Excess power is a crutch for poor piloting skills...

As long as you can sleep at night...

 

[phrogdriver]

That guy in Nigeria with the homemade yellow helicopter must be the BEST PILOT EVER!

 

[phrogpilot73]

That guy in Nigeria with the homemade yellow helicopter must be the BEST PILOT EVER!

Maybe not the best pilot ever, but I'm guessing that his helo only hovers at 7 feet because his balls are just that huge.

 

[HueyCobra8151]

Why have more power, when you can have MAX POWER!

Somebody called for Max Powers?

 

[HeloBubba]

I think it is way too much for way too little improvement in capability, when something like the H-60 could have been bought off the shelf and deployed right now.

Which was kind of my thinking. I mean the Navy is putting just about all of their helo missions in the -60, which was originally developed as the H-1 replacement for the Army. It shouldn't take too big of a leap of imagination to figure it can replace Marine H-1's as well. Are the Y's new-builds or refreshes? If new build, are they that much cheaper than -60's?

 

[phrogpilot73]

I think one of the main reasons was the parts commonality between the UH-1 and the AH-1, it would save them a lot in maintenance costs in the long run.

I think it is way too much for way too little improvement in capability, when something like the H-60 could have been bought off the shelf and deployed right now.

Which was kind of my thinking. I mean the Navy is putting just about all of their helo missions in the -60, which was originally developed as the H-1 replacement for the Army. It shouldn't take too big of a leap of imagination to figure it can replace Marine H-1's as well. Are the Y's new-builds or refreshes? If new build, are they that much cheaper than -60's?

Cost was one factor, parts commonality was another. Start thinking like Marines - the Navy doesn't give us a shitload of space aboard ship, we can get more parts in less space if two of our aircraft use alot of the same parts. Also, when they go "feet dry" for whatever reason, less parts, less maintainers, etc... So while it may be easier/cheaper to deploy the 60, in the long run it may be smarter to go with the Y/Z because of the logistical footprint it comes with.

Disclaimer: These are the thoughts of a former H-46 guy that has never worked in acquisitions, but looks at things like an S-4 Officer (which I was) would.

 

[Flash]

Cost was one factor, parts commonality was another. Start thinking like Marines - the Navy doesn't give us a shitload of space aboard ship, we can get more parts in less space if two of our aircraft use alot of the same parts. Also, when they go "feet dry" for whatever reason, less parts, less maintainers, etc... So while it may be easier/cheaper to deploy the 60, in the long run it may be smarter to go with the Y/Z because of the logistical footprint it comes with.

Disclaimer: These are the thoughts of a former H-46 guy that has never worked in acquisitions, but looks at things like an S-4 Officer (which I was) would.

Well, I said it once......

But I think the UH-1Y has cost so much in the front end that any parts savings in the long run will be pennies on the dollar compared to the test and development costs, on top of the delay getting to the fleet.

....and I will say it again, at what point do you say uncle? I know that it would make it a bit easier for the S-4 folks in the long run but you are getting an aircraft that is years late to the fleet, costs a lot more than originally intended......all for a capability that is only a small part of Marine Aviation. Is it really worth all of that so you can share a few parts? From my distant view, I certainly don't think so.......

 

[HueyCobra8151]

I haven't paid attention to the upgrade program in a couple years, but unless something has changed, the new UH-1Y is supposed to take on more of an active role within Marine aviation.

The new engines will allow it to be pretty functional, especially when you consider the CH-46 is being replaced by the MV-22, presumably meaning that UH-1Y's will be doing more of the light/medium lift stuff (According to Bell, 125% greater payload and 50% greater speed and range).

 

[HeloBubba]

Good points Phrogpilot. I had to zip over to Bell's website to make sure I understood the intentions for the Y and Z. The first thing I noticed was the move to 4-bladed rotor systems. Which in turn means blade folding on an airframe were that wasn't required before. With that added point of complexity, Flash's point of less savings starts to ring true. On the other hand, Bell's marketing claims 84% commonality between the two.

Make no mistake, I loved my time in the UH-1 and it is a fine aircraft (I'd buy one if I had the means), it just seems that the Corps wants to hang on to their UH-1's without regard to the bigger Department of Navy picture (i.e.: H-60). Could their V-22 development/purchase experience be influencing this?