Talk:Sikorsky S-70

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
AVIATION 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.
Aviation Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Merging

S-70 and UH60 are the same, but only with designation differences. That's why I proposed the merge.

I agree to a certain degree although they are both the same type of helicopter and have the same History they are completly different because one of them has been designed to withstand more bullets and projectiles and overall designed for war. And the S-70 has been designed for search and rescue and surely the interior will have been changed to suit this so Although both are of the same model they have been designed for different jobs which i think means they deserve seperate pages. Verto 12:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Note that the discuss link on UH-60 Black Hawk goes to Talk:UH-60 Black Hawk, and that includes a previous failed merge. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. But if there is a merger, it should be to UH-60 Black Hawk as the most common name in English. Compare "what links here" for the two articles, with only about 20 other than redirects and talk pages to the S-70, and near 100 for the UH-60. Gene Nygaard 21:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose There is a separate page for each major variant of the S-70 (Blackhawk, Pavehawk, Seahawk, Jayhawk and others). --rogerd 00:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason to merge them. The UH-60 is sufficiently different to warrant an article in my opinion. --Falcorian (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Military model variants

I think listing the main models (UH-60 Black Hawk, SH-60 Seahawk, HH-60 Pave Hawk) that linked and not the varinats below them. That works OK except for the VH-60 White Hawk, which does not have its own article. -Fnlayson 16:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, I removed the variants under SH-60 Seahawk, HH-60 Pave Hawk and HH-60 Jayhawk. The UH-60 variants aren't listed in that article. Need to make lists match. -Fnlayson 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
THe UH-60 page has a long variants list, so I'm not sure what you mean. ANyway, I don't think they are identical, so combining them would be a good thing. As to the VH-60N, it is on the UH-60 page. THere's really not enough content on it to justify its own article, but it is covered a little on the Marine One page. - BillCJ 05:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I was thinking of another article or was confused. I'm making sure variants are covered in the other article before removing here. Checking the UH-60 variants lists is not as easy. Yea, I know about the VH-60. -Fnlayson 05:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Jeff, I figured you knew about the VH-60, was just mentioning here for closure. Sorry if I sounded like I was nagging or something! - BillCJ 05:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Naw, in part of that you repeated my words back to me there. I mentioned that about the VH-60 on the UH-60 variant list on merge discussion the other day. ;) -Fnlayson 05:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

♠ Seems we have a convoluted set of articles on each variant. We are mentioning Army variants under Navy birds and vice versa. These aircraft may share similar chassis, but are very different. One example is the landing of the UH-60 Black Hawk is different than the SH-60 Seahawk; and I don't mean the tail gear. The crewseats are different, engines designed for salt environment in Seahawk, and it goes on and on. Each article should be pure without any other variants for other services included. If their are similarities they can be uniquely stated. People not familiar with these aircraft will become confused, hell I'm getting confused and I work for the Army. If you want to add an article on the VIP model VH-60, you can. Then mention how Hillary changed the upholstery and Saudi shieks order gold-plated safety harnesses.  ;) --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

  • The main one that the confusion applies to in the UH-60 article. I started doing some clean-up to its Variants list a few days ago and have forgotten to go back. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UH-60 variants

I removed the UH-60 variants from this article and left the main UH-60 link. Here's some UH-60 variants that I'm not sure about.

  • UH-60B SOTAS: Proposed version, to be equipped with ground surveillance radar.
  • MH-60A Velcro Hawk: Early special operations model for the US Army.
  • YEH-60A Black Hawk: Prototype electronic warfare, radio jamming model for the US Army.
  • YUH-60A Black Hawk: Three prototypes of the UH-60A for the US Army.
  • EH-60A Quick Fix: Electronic warfare version for the US Army.
  • EH-60C Quick Fix: Electronic warfare, radio jamming helicopter for the US Army. Planned but never produced.
  • GUH-60A Black Hawk: Static instructional aircraft. Used for technician training at Fort Eustis, Virginia.
  • JHU-60A Black Hawk: Designated for test purposes.

The designations on some but not the names (SOTAS, Velcro Hawk and Quick Fix) are in the UH-60 article. Those names sound a bit fishy though. The designations on the others aren't in the other article. But the last 2 above don't appear important. -Fnlayson 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Quick Fix and SOTAS are valid. The Army prototyped the SOTAS but rejected it based on testing. Quick Fix was operational in the EH-60A model for several years. --Born2flie 19:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

I see a lot of redundancy here. Something should be done to mitigate that. It doesn't really serve a purpose. The history could merely be linked to the UH-60 article instead of repeating it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see one medium-sized paragraph as being all that redundant - why send the reader elsewhere for so little information? A little clean-up and tightening might be useful, however, but no need to toss out the baby. - BillCJ (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Toss that baby, Bill...I insist! Hahahah  :P --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)