Talk:UH-60 Black Hawk

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] WP:RM

Move to UH-60 Black Hawk?

  • They're two completely different helicopters. No.

64.229.255.89 00:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

  • OBJECT, I think the naming convention is manufacturer-model-name for these things... 132.205.45.148 18:33, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Note that there is a late proposed move, and one "Discuss" link goes here while the "Discuss" link from the other page goes to Talk:Sikorsky S-70. Gene Nygaard 21:33, 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 00:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
  • AGREE There may be separate pages for each variant, but they are all still VARIANTS of the Sikorsky S-70 frame. Each of the variant should be a major article in the S-70 page. Rarelibra 1:06 7 FEB 2006 (UTC)
OPPOSE This isn't a "same aircraft" issue. These aren't the "same" aircraft, they are "related" and they are "similar" and they are manufactured from a common design, but neither the UH-60 or the SH-60 are designated the S-70A/B/C or anything, because the Navy has different requirements for the SH-60 than the Army does for the UH-60. I can understand aircraft that are treatised together on the same page, where variants were created just for increased range, more power, more speed, and/or more capacity, but the variation between the Army's and Navy's requirements for aircraft justify a separate treatment. The S-70, a civilian nomenclature for Sikorsky's product, should strictly refer to aircraft that carry that designation. The S-70 references should be removed from this article. And this is not without precedent. Consider the C-47 Skytrain and the DC-3, where such widespread operation would cause confusion in a single article. In helicopters, there is the Bell 206 and the OH-58 Kiowa, and now the Bell 407 and the ARH-70 as well. The George Orwellian argument of "same, but different" doesn't bear out here anymore than it does sociologically. Lastly, this is an encyclopedia; people should be able to find the information they want without wading through a bunch of information that they don't want, no matter how interesting. (Born2flie 00:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC))
I have moved the page from UH-60 Black Hawk to Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, in accordance with the manufacturer-model-name naming convention. I did this inadvertantly, as I am a new user, and have never done a move-page before. I thought I was APPLYING to move the page, and did not expect it to actually be moved at that time. I apologize for not having discussed this move beforehand, as I thought that was what I was doing. I prefer keeping the article at Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, yet will understand if there is a concensus to move it back to just UH-60 Black Hawk. Thanks.
--BillCJ 18:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's naming conventions on aircraft should be adhered to in this case. For more information, visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions (aircraft). I have moved all redirect pages to point to UH-60 Black Hawk.--DeAceShooter 16:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Max Speed?

Maximum speed: 193 knots (222 mph, 357 km/h)!? Can someone confirm this? Isn't this too high? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs)

Born2flie: No, that is straight out of the manual. --12:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Helicopter or rotary-wing aircraft

Born2flie: Rotary-wing aircraft is almost an archaic reference. Seems I only see this in the military anymore. I think helicopter is more recognizable than calling it a rotary-wing aircraft in the lead-in. --03:31, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agree. - BillCJ 03:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I think someone would would be more likely to know what a helicopter is than a rotary-wing aircraft (or rotorcraft). -Fnlayson 03:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Nolo contendere, it's a trivial difference. I can assure you that in the circles I worked in, "rotary wing a/c" is common verbiage (like, say, the military, which is where the UH-60 is used). It's used 4-5 times on helicopter. But WP is for general readers, and so long as we've Wikilinked helicopter a reader can figure it out. David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 14:08, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Born2flie: I'm currently in the military, which is why I am aware how frequently it is used in the military, having crewed on UH-60s and now flying Army helicopters, but I also have a lot of contacts outside of the military and they would have a hard time understanding what rotary-wing aircraft are, however many of them are aware of exactly what a UH-60 Black Hawk is, such is the effectiveness of public relations for the helicopter. The point of the lead-in is to be clear and concise and as much minutiae as you feel this issue is, I think you do the reader a disservice making them read to the second or third sentence to try and decipher that rotary-wing aircraft is the same as a helicopter, when you could simply say helicopter and be done with it. --14:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, in the civilian helicopter world, where I work, rotorcraft and rotary-wing aircraft are very commonly used terms. Akradecki 06:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Australia and the UH-60

Seems that the only reference to Australia being a user of a UH-60 "variant" is the creation of the "AH-60L Battle Hawk" which is a marketing name for the armed S-70 variant for foreign military sales. Australia currently flies S-70 aircraft,[1][2] which is covered under the civilian variant's article, Sikorsky S-70. The AH-60L is actually an S-70 variant[3] (there is no official U.S. DoD designation for an AH-60L) and should be included on that page rather than this one. I don't believe the IP editor is vandalizing this article, rather correcting what he/she sees as a discrepancy since Australia does not operate UH-60s of any variant.[4] --Born2flie 14:31, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for checking. I thought there might be something to the AUS removal and left the last one I saw alone. -Fnlayson 14:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Armament

The article doesn't note that the External Stores Support System (ESSS) can also be used to carry weapons, including up to 16 AGM-114 Hellfire missiles[5]. Though of course since the Blackhawk doesn't have a laser designator it would require either troops on the ground or another helicopter to guide the missiles to targets. — Red XIV (talk) 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferry range 1200 nautical miles!???

I can't find any other authorities to support that claim

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/uh-60.htm

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/specs.html

where's your evidence?

This is all I could find after 3 minutes of searching on google. — BQZip01 — talk 17:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hardly authoritative enough for Wikipedia if you ask me.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Allmedia (talk • contribs)

I going to assume this ferry range is with the external stub-mounted ESSS tanks, which are designed to extend ferry range. This site lists range with max fuel as 2220km (which is over 1200nm, I think). - BillCJ 17:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The author of your reference source: Maksim of Estonia is not exactly the KGB. Seems like a nice enough guy but once again not what I would call authoritative (not enough references). If the manufacturers aren't willing to claim 1200nm in their promotional material then I don't think an Estonian enthusiasts views are enough. As a matter of policy I think Wikipedia Aviation should stick with what either manufacturers or users say. Therefore lets take the figures from either Sikorsky or the US Army.

This is the US Army link: http://www.army.mil/factfiles/equipment/aircraft/blackhawk.html Sorry, bit new to this Allmedia 02:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK. We were all new once! I did find a printed source which states 1,380 miles (2221 km) with maximum internal and external fuel (that would be with the ESSS tanks) for the UH-60A. It's Gunston, Bill (1995). The Encyclopedia of Modern Warplanes. London: Aerospace Publishing Ltd., 254. ISBN 1-56619-908-5.  Maksim listed 2220 km, so he was right on. - BillCJ 03:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Added that to the Ref field in Spec table. Ferry range is an max range without payload (armaments & so forth), right? -Fnlayson 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • As far as I know, yes. - BillCJ 04:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think that some distinction should be made between max range on internal fuel and max range with drop tanks and other range extending devices. I have yet to find a picture of the ESSC module while there are thousands of pictures of Vanilla UH-60s. People using Wikipedia as a reference should be able to see consistency between Wikipedia, US Army and Sikorsky sites without the invocation of obscure technologies and references. I would much prefer to see the reference state:

  • Max range (internal fuel) 320 nautical miles
  • Max range (with ESSS module) 1,200 nautical miles

I would also like to see a Wikipedia entry for the ESSS module. Maybe someone can add more light on it. Allmedia 04:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There's one here ;) -- Thatguy96 13:54, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a useful site which brings all the information together nicely. http://tech.military.com/equipment/view/109343/uh-60a-blackhawk.html. I will add it to the references. Allmedia 22:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unit cost

I think some effort should be made to either keep the unit cost up to date or reference it to something. Last time I looked at Pentagon appropriations they weren't going to get much helicopter for US$5.9 million. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allmedia (talk • contribs)

[edit] Requested merge

Sikorsky S-70 → UH-60 Blackhawk — The only thing specifically about the S-70 is a mention of the Firehawk and a list of Civilian variants. —Born2flie 08:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the merge proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support My reason as stated above. --Born2flie 08:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This page is a good overview page of the entire S-70 series, and covers the civilain varaints. (More in Discussion.) - BillCJ 16:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Cut back on the US military details from the S-70 article. -Fnlayson 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Opppose - As per above what BillCJ and Fnlayson stated. -TabooTikiGod 11:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I've read the discussion above (this merge recommendation was originally located on Talk:Sikorsky S-70 with a previous discussion about merging), but this page continues to be more about the UH-60 variants than the S-70. I don't disagree that the S-70 should be allowed its own page, but that page should be about the S-70 to the exclusion of the UH-60 except in the history. Otherwise, one article can cover both. --Born2flie 08:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I've moved the discussion from the S-70 page per the recommended guidelines, as the UH-60 page is the stated target, and added a merge header to the UH-60 page. - BillCJ 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • One problem here is that some editors don't consider S-70s used by non-US militaries to be UH-60s or SH-60s, and so the variants list has grown. I disagree with this, and wouldn't mind seeing the variants put under the correct articles. However, where do we put the civilian vairants? Are they just UH-60s with civilian equipment and standards? Or are they a hybrid of some of the other types? I honestly don't know. The page does need retooling, and I'd recommend just a basic overview page, plus the civilian variants. - BillCJ 16:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think listing the main US military variants in the S-70 article is enough, like UH-60, SH-60, etc. Also, without the S-70 article where do you redirect the VIP VH-60 to? -Fnlayson 16:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Bill, I didn't use the {{mergeto}} tag, so there was no need to have or move the discussion here. There is no real "guideline" to merging other than to have a discussion about it first. And since I'm pretty sure this merge recommendation will be opposed, I simply choose to WP:IAR about whether it should be here or there. If I were to strip the S-70 article from everything that was about UH or SH-60, I would simply be reverted for removing what somebody feels is a critical piece of the article even though it remains a hodgepodge of H-60 information trying to portray itself as an article about the S-70. --Born2flie 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry, Born. My mind-reading ability doesn't work with people off the continent :) - BillCJ 00:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Everything on the Sikorsky S-70 article was removed from this article in the first place, including all the information about the UH-60 that remains the majority of that article. Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Is the UH-60 a variant of the S-70 or is the S-70 a civilian variant of the UH-60? You know what? They're the same thing. The only difference is what avionics are packaged with the airframe. The Firehawk is the only one that might be considered a true civilian variant because there is serious structural modification for the suppression system, or is there even that? There isn't even that much information about the thing in the article.
And the truth is that the majority of S-70 sales are to foreign governments for military or paramilitary use...so is that a true civilian variant or are they simply sold under the company's model number to differentiate them from aircraft operated by the U.S. military that carry the H-60 designation? We keep portraying this as a clear split and then the articles continue to end up looking more and more similar over time. There are no S-70 pics on the S-70 article except for the Firehawk. Let's see, there is a pic of the SH-60B in the infobox, a UH-60, another SH-60, an HH-60G, an HH-60J, a VH-60N, and finally we see an S-70, the aforementioned Firehawk. Remove all the H-60-centric information and you have:
“ The S-70A Firehawk is a version of the S-70 designed for firefighting, rescue, medical evacuation, and external lift of bulky cargo and equipment. The Oregon National Guard was the first military organization in the world to add the Firehawk to its inventory; the Los Angeles County Fire Department was the first municipal organization...The Maple Hawk was a variant offered by Sikorsky to the Canadian Forces during the tender to replace the military's search and rescue helicopters... ”
...and the list of the S-70 variants. They even state that they are simply civilian versions of the military versions they resemble. The only difference is that they don't contain technology that is not allowed to be sold outside of the U.S. or else those aircraft have been approved for sale to foreign governments. You could probably throw in the UTTAS beginnings, but I would be more than happy if that was all that remained, at least then the article would clearly be about the S-70. What WP editors refuse to do is find the information about S-70s operated by the governments (apparently not companies, except in the case of the Firehawk and a very few S-70 models in the U.S.) that buy them. Draw a line and make it stick between the S-70 and H-60, or else merge the two.
I believe that Sikorsky has even had a problem making the S-70 name stick (which they have trademarked), because there is only one mention of the S-70, and in the same breath with H-60, on the webpage. Even then, when people refer to them, they are S-70 Black Hawks. So, "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet."
Jeff, the VH-60N is apparently a modified UH-60L with SH-60 features, some of which were already included as part of the UH-60L model changes from the UH-60A. Even some of the newer Navy H-60s are more closely related to their Army cousins than to their SH-60 brothers. However, it is easier to separate them to the SH-60 article because they all have a common operator, the U.S. Navy. In the case of the VH-60N, I would link it to the SH-60 page, although Marines might have an issue with that. --Born2flie 20:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
  • There's actually a VH-60N listed in the Variants list on this article. Either way would work, I suppose. There are non-UH-60 variants covered by other articles that don't need to be the list too. I'd rather see subsections on main variants than a long list of variants with incremental changes. -Fnlayson 21:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] service?

its been in a number of wars now so a service section might be a good idea 85.226.15.37 23:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black hawk down movie ?

Does any one know the variant used in the movie ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Max Mayr (talk • contribs) 21:12, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

160 SOAR provided the aircraft for the movie, so I'm guessing there weren't the exact models that were available at the time (which would've been relatively early production variants). They looked like MH-60Ls. -- Thatguy96 17:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vertical Rate of Climb

This website gives specs on climb rate that are very much at odds with the rates given in this article:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/uh-60.htm

I know for a fact that the UH-60 can climb MUCH faster than a paltry 700 feet per minute. I just finished reviewing some flight test data where a 5-second collective pitch of only 85% sent the aircraft up 200 feet. According to the website above, at sea level the UH-60 can climb 3,000 feet per minute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.207.218.196 (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variants help

I've added subsections in the Variants list for the main ones. Some of them I'm not sure on though. I generally went by their popular name (Black Hawk, Seahawk, etc). Any help is appreciated. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Where's the Beef?

Considering the Black Hawk is the most successful helicopter in US Army history, this article sure lacks a lot of meat. There are so many firsts, such as survivability built-in from conception, space for a full squad, rotor blade with a titanium spar, etc..... I'll see what I can do. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 02:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

I see some redundant content in the beginning and history section of the article. I'm not sure the UTTAS competition should be included in the opening paragraph. Maybe it should be confined to the history section. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

  • The Lead is supposed to be somewhat redundant. It summarizes the entire article. Although the part in the lead is more detailed than it needs to be. I'll see what I can do on that. Correct as needed. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
♠ Okay, I didn't think the bit about the winner of UTTAS was important enough to put there, but you may disagree. Maybe some more popularly known facts would work better. I will eventually write something about the unique features designed into the UH-60 that make it special. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I just cut back some details. If I removed all that paragraph, the Lead would look wimpy. Add what all you can. The UH-60 variants developed in the 1980s (before L) is one obvious area lacking in the Development section. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:20, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Name origin

Is the UH-60 named for Black Hawk, the Sauk chief? In any event something about its naming should be mentioned in the article. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Article photos

Seems the photos should be labeled with the variant designation. There are no UH-60's, except in the general sense.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 16:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Looks like the variant is listed for the images where that info is available. Better to just list UH-60 than guess at the variant letter, imo. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)