Talk:Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

As I recall one of my books called that a dive or not to exceed speed. Does that seem right? -Fnlayson (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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. p. 254. ISBN 1-56619-908-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) 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)

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)

• Looks like that comes from H-60 page on globalsecurity.org. See what you can find in its references. -Fnlayson 05:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

True. Trying to add info where I can... -Fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

I'm checking on this. It's very possible, but Leoni in his book on Page 10 leaves it ambiguous by merely restating the Army tradition of using Native American names for it's helicopters. Page 69 near the bottom doesn't do much better, but merely states that Sikorsky had already used the name Blackhawk for its S-67 attack helicopter, it's hard to say. Somewhere I believe I read something about a copyright issue with the Blackhawk name, but can't find where I read it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 13:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

Operational History

This is a very small snapshot and should be expanded with examples and dates. -Signaleer (talk) 21:21, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously. I added that a few weeks ago as something to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And you're doing good work, Jeff. It would be nice if you had more help, rather than another topic about what the article lacks! I'll help out as I can, but my WP time is a bit limited by efforts on a non-WP project. - BillCJ (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• Sure. Any help is appreciated. This article is thin in the Development and other sections too. There are not too many books out there specifically on utility helicopters, cargo planes and other non-attack aircraft. I mean a book on a particular aircraft type. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

• I agree, any definitive sources would be an excellent start, I'll try to dig through previous operations that specifically states the impacts of using the UH-60s. -Signaleer (talk) 15:34, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
• http://www.history.army.mil/documents/panama/JCIT/JCIT97Z.htm Only one battalion was equipped with the UH-60 during Operation Just Cause.
• http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Just%20Cause/JustCause.htm Reference to UH-60s a few times in this book.

I haven't found too much information about specific references to the UH-60 during Desert Shield/Storm or Bosnia. -Signaleer (talk) 17:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Operators of S-70A / UH-60s?

Should the export S-70As be listed both under Operators in this article and Sikorsky S-70 or something else? A Black Hawk book I have lists both the UH-60 designation and the S-70A designation for cross reference purposes. Then Flight International's military directory article just lists "S-70A". All the data does not need to be repeated in both places, but I can't see a good way to divide it up now. Any suggestions? Thx -Fnlayson (talk) 17:31, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

It can be confusing. Some operators have aircraft designated "S-70A", but everyone, including the operators, calls them UH-60s. We could split them by user and role rather than by designation, as we have done with the Huey family. In this case, the UH-60 article would cover all military (army/AF) users, SH-60 would cover all naval users, and the S-70 page would cover civil users of the Firehawk and the like, and be an overview article. Alternately, we could have the S-70 page cover all export users (divided by variant), with the UH-60/SH-60/HH-60 pages strictly for US-operated variants. (If the S-70 page were to get to long under this option, we could split it to a "List of Export users" page.) I'd actually prefer the second option, but I think either option would work better than trying to figure out what goes where by designation only, and having duplicate entries. - BillCJ (talk) 18:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the first option, listing by type would be easier to fix now and require less explaining later. Putting all the export operators on S-70 article would be more likely to have editors adding their nation's S-70As to the UH-60 article every so often. No rush.. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, there should be a clear distinction and separation between the civilian (S-70A) and the military (UH-60) users globally. -Signaleer (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The S-70 is a Sikorsky designation, while the UH-60 is a US Government designation. Their origins being one and the same, yet official designated by each entity differently. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:21, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh, yes, I think all of us discussing this our aware of that. But the S-70 company designation covers all of the H-60 models and variants along with others not part of the H-60 system, not just the UH-60 army sub-family, yet many users call them UH-60s anyway. The issue under discussion is how best to cover the export variants without duplicating coverage across more than one article. Do you have a preference for one of the mentioned options, or perhaps an option of your own? Thanks. - BillCJ (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion perhaps a combined stand-alone article like Sikorsky Black Hawk operators or Sikorsky S-70 family operators MilborneOne (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Milb1, it's definitely worth considering, though I'm not sure there are enough operators to justify it as yet. Perhaps in the furture. Also, we have a fairly long S-70A and S-70B sub-variants list on the S-70 page. If we go with putting the military operators on the UH-60 and SH-60 pages, then we should probably move the S-70A and B sub-variants lists there to, leaving the S-70 page solely for the civilian and non-military government operators, and as an overview page. Some version of that option seems to be the consensus so far. - BillCJ (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The S-70 is already a sort of overview article. I don't think another article is needed for the operators. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Price and capacity

I read sites with critics to this helicopter. They writes that this helicopter is more expensive and with less capacity of transport than Russian Mi-17 and French Super Puma. Both of these helicopters can transport not 11 soldiers, such as UH-60, but 25 soldiers. And both - Mi-17 and Super Puma - are cheaper than UH-60. Range and velocity of Mi-17 and Super Puma are similar to the UH-60.Agre22 (talk) 16:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)agre22

T700 engine

Engines are improved and keeping up with the latest installed version is difficult, especially from one UH-60 variant to another. Therefore we should either list each variant with engine or simply refer to the T700 article and update it. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 17:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I like the former for this article. I think there has been only three T700 engine versions on the UH-60; -700 on the UH-60A, -701C on UH-60L and -701D on UH-60M. Most other variants are based on the UH-60A, but each will need to be checked. I'll work on that... -Fnlayson (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And you'll notice I added some YT700-GE-700 data to the T700 article. This engine was used on the YUH-60A. Well anyway whatever you think, I just think it gets a bit messed up trying to change the data for a single template or if only one parameter value is shown. The way you stated it (i.e., -700 on the UH-60A, -701C on UH-60L and -701D on UH-60M) could be the way it's broken out. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I forgot about the pre-production engine version. I suppose it'd be a good to list the engine versions at General Electric T700. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I came across the info in a really old document in our library. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 20:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, the Army uses 701C and 701Ds with complete transparency on L models now, and has upgraded almost every remaining A model with the nicknamed "A+" MWO that incorporates 701D engines as well. Nearly every Army/AF H-60 is running a 701D and 701Cs are being upgraded to D Specs. OEM fitting was A -700, L -701C, K -701C, UH-60M -701D and MH-60M CT7-8 B5. Mike 98.232.33.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

Manufacturing location

All built in Stratford, CT until 2010 first UH-70i 'assembled' by PZL Mielec in Poland http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9EF3EL80.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.242.37 (talk) 01:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's the first S-70i and is for international sales. It is mentioned at Sikorsky S-70#S-70. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Source for UH-60C?

The source only mentions the aircraft and does not support its mission profile. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

The DoD doc says for the UH-60C: "UH-60A aircraft modified/equipped with systems for C2 missions." I added another reference that states command and control missions though. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not been able to find a single DoD document that describes this variant....zero on DTIC. ----THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

That quoted part came from DoD 4120-15L (ref. 39 now), which is not much. I can't find anything else on .mil sites. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about A2C2? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sikorsky Crash on Aug 1976

Hi I was one of those soldiers in that crash. Our company was chosen to fly in thoses proto types that summer.“”

Who are you? How did the troop seat work? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 11:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

MH-60 variant entries

A couple IPers have added info to the MH-60 variant entries without providing references. I am trying to cite the basics with some H-60 books. I can access Jane's through work and may use that for some details and recent info. But assistance from other editors would be great. Thanks. -fnlayson (talk) 02:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is pretty well handled now. The entries should not be too long with every little detail. -fnlayson (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

This was mostly me. I guess I'll have to dig up some references. I've been operating MH-60s with Army SOA for quite a few years, and all the other H-60 models for even longer, so I don't have book references to back up the data on the aircraft sitting outside of my office. Just read Wikipedia's verifiability page, and guess without a book, I'm without a paddle. Very unfortunate as much of the information on this page is incorrect, just wrongly cited and published in the past. Mike 98.232.33.59 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC).

You could have invented the Black Hawk and WP would still need sources to support content, just the way it is. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

• Way too late. It no longer matters. I cited the basics and some details in sources available, then removed other details. A couple entries were getting too long anyway. -Fnlayson (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:59, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Possible new variant...

It appears as if either the administration wasn't straight forward with exactly what the 160th used to insert the SEALs to get bin Laden, or there is a heavily modified or even a new variant of the MH-60. Of course this could also be a new helicopter altogether, but I'm not one to add new sections to the article if all I seem to have is pics of the tail section, and everyone talking about it are just speculating as to what it is. The most legit article I came across is from the Navy Times: http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/05/army-mission-helocopter-was-secret-stealth-black-hawk-050411/

just an FYI for those interested. --Ryanyomomma (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's no real reason for them to be spilling all the beans on stuff like this. Here are articles from Flight Global and Aviation Week on this. -Fnlayson (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There's a comment from Pres. Obama about losing a $60M helicopter reported by Bob Woodward in the Washington Post. I came to this article to compare that number to typical Blackhawks, as it seemed high. The info box says $44M but the text of the article quotes numbers like $6M-10M which is a pretty big discrepancy. I'm wondering if the cost mentioned by the President suggests the helicopter was in fact specially equipped. http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/death-of-osama-bin-laden-phone-call-pointed-us-to-compound--and-to-the-pacer/2011/05/06/AFnSVaCG_story_2.html

ThinkDefense article says $14M and this seems roughly consistent with export costs mentioned in their comment thread (though exports don't include the best bits, I'm sure). http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2010/01/so-how-much-is-a-blackhawk/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.206.212 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Depends on how its unit cost is calculated, i.e. average procurement cost vs. flyaway cost, etc. Too little info on the helicopter variant and its cost to try and mention its cost in the article. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

This picture is on the Stealth helicopter page.

Artist's concept drawing of a modified Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk

I think it would be useful to add it to this page as a visual aid to go along with the text description of the "Silent Hawk", as I've come to call it (don't worry, I don't intend to insert that name into the page ;) ). I'll give it a week and if no one objects (or puts the image in themselves), I'll add it. Spartan198 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC) Spartan198 (talk) 20:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Probaby best not to - the drawing is just a guess and original research and could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this is not an official variant. It would in inappropriate to put this up as a variant. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 22:59, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Mielec assembly line?

Comments please on whether its worth folding in this, from elsewhere on WP...

S-70i Black Hawk: International military version assembled by Sikorsky subsidiary, PZL Mielec in Poland.

Thanks, -Chumchum7 (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere - do we get any clues, certainly correctly mentioned on the Sikorsky S-70 page but if a seperate S-70i page exists it should be merged with the S-70 page not here (unless Poland are building them for the US military or FMS). MilborneOne (talk) 16:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Elsewhere means at PZL Mielec. Is the S-70i Black Hawk an entirely different aircraft to the UH-60 Black Hawk, or just a different type of Black Hawk? Maybe we need a better disambig for "Black Hawk".-Chumchum7 (talk) 20:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking the non-us S-70s are not Black Hawks but they are all S-70s just the US military call them H-60s. Some of the ones listed on this page are not actually UH-60s but S-70s, although the ones sold to the US Military and through the US Foreign Military Sales scheme are H-60s and those sold direct are S-70s so it was just decided to keep the military S-70s on one page. So no harm in included a mention of the S-70i at the bottom of the S-70 list on this page. MilborneOne (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

• S-70i is an international version and has an entry at Sikorsky S-70#S-70. The S-70 article is an overview article for the family and covers civil versions. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

IIRC, the S-70I has some structural changes from the standard UH-60s. We should be able to find some further explanations in the FLightGlobal archives, and on other sites. - BilCat (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Per MilborneOne, I'll add the line, pending your improvement. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Funny, looking to see who they export to I found they shipped the first 3 already, to an "undisclosed customer" [6] . Am guessing its the Polish special forces, GROM. -Chumchum7 (talk) 21:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Hawk or Blackhawk?

I see both variants used, not only on Wikipedia as whole, but in this very article as well. Which one is the prefered? /83.227.130.26 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The UH-60 is the Black Hawk, and the S-67 is the Blackhawk. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 16:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Is this a deliberate distinction by Sikorsky? /83.227.130.26 (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Sikorsky owned the name Blackhawk, so the Army could not use it. The Army was also designating their rotary wing aircraft after Native American tribes. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 01:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

60kb article and only two sentences on the design of the third most produced helicopter? Reassess?

How can an article of this importance have only two short sentences on the design of the most important western helicopter?TeeTylerToe (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

HH-60M info

Sorry, this is my first time editing anything on Wikipedia. Figures I jacked it up! Do you work on Black Hawk Helicopters or just moderate on the wiki site? I'm not asking to be spiteful, I'm just curious. Army Aviation can be a very small community, maybe I've worked with you somewhere. I work on black hawk helicopters and have for a long time. Other than the sikorsky web site, I can only quote my 21 years of experience as a reliable source.

I just went through the "M" model transition course at Ft Eustis Virginia and got back in early December 2010. I can assure you that the HH60M, which my unit is receiving in a couple months, does not have gunners windows, and does in fact have a nose mounted FLIR system.

On the UH60A, UH60L, and UH60M, it was possible to install a rescue hoist, install a patient carousel, paint red crosses on the doors, belly, nose, and top, and remove the guns, and the aircraft became a medevac helicopter.

The HH60M is not just a "UH60M with medical equipment", and any reference that truly states that, is incorrect. It has a modified airframe with no gunner's windows. It has a built in litter system where the crew chief / medic / gunner used to sit. The crew chief and medic sit against the back wall of the cabin in special seats that can swivel, tilt and slide for/aft. It has no provision for having guns installed at all. It can not carry troops into combat. It only has limited pull down seats for ambulatory patients, no V.I.P.. It is basically a better, "m" model version of the HH60L.

Not really sure what else to say. I was just trying to make the page accurate. To include changing the data on that supposed picture of a "UH60Q", on the right side. It's an "A" model medevac aircraft with snow skis on the landing gear. The only UH60Q models ever built went to the Tennessee Army National Guard. As I recall they only made 3 of them. They have FLIR on the nose, which is what gives that photo away, it does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawk67t (talk • contribs) 23:14, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you descride to us the arrangement for the stretchers? & the number of pull-down seats? Also, do you know the layout of seats for a basic troop carrying Blackhawk? The specs say there are 14 seats, but numbers online are meaningless.96.238.143.223 (talk) 08:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The UH60A and UH60L with 14 seats in the back are arranged as follows: 4 forward facing seats on the back wall, 4 aft facing seats in the middle, 3 forward facing seats in the middle, 2 gunner/crew chief seats facing their respective left or right hand gunner's window, and a troop commander's seat which is an aft facing troop seat between the two crew chief seats.

The seats on the back wall attack to permanently mounted rings on the back wall, and to the floor with quick release connectors.

The 7 seats in the middle all hang from a seat bar that bolts to the ceiling, and attach to the floor with quick release connectors. The crew chief seats and troop commander seat all hang from the "H" bar, a seat support bar that mounts to the forward cabin ceiling, they all attach to the floor the same as the other seats.

The UH60M, I have only seen a few troop seats mounted in the center of the cabin as a demo when we were in school last November. Looks like a comparable layout to the A/L, but with an improved troop seat that can be folded up to make room for cargo, and a new ceiling seat mount sysytem for quickly getting the seats in and out. The crew seats are improved as well and are basically a martin baker style seat with the ability to swivel and ajdust up and down and are mounted on a track system on the floor.

I have not had the opportunity to play with the drop down ambulartory patient seats in an HH60M yet, but have been told there are 6 of them, 3 on each side of the cabin. My understanding is that you lower the litter pans (2 per side) all the way down and then drop the seats down.

The Litters are attached to the cabin walls and run for /aft lengthways in the front of the cabin. They are raised and lowered to allow 4 litter patients in one aircraft with room down the middle for the medic to tend to them, though I have been told that it gets a bit cramped in between with all your flight gear on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhawk67t (talk • contribs) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away so long, busy with real life. Here is a link to a picture of one of my unit's HH-60M aircraft that shows the modified airframe (no crew cheif winodws).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/cjlebel/7742402868/

Blackhawk67t (talk) 17:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Here is a picture I took on our flightline of my assigned HH-60M helicopter. You can use it on the page if you wish. It clearly shows the airframe differences.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4853634504788&set=a.4853633824771.1073741825.1414824938&type=1&theater

Blackhawk67t (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Philippine Black Hawk versions

Folks,

This is confusing as H*ll. Sources show that one UH-60A is with the Philippine Army and another source shows none with the Philippine Army. Another source shows the Philippine AF with one S-70 vesion (?) with the Presidential Flight operated by the PAF (mostly fixed wing civilian aircraft and that one S-70). Most sources say that the Philippine military operates very few new aircraft and instead buys or is given second hand aircraft that refurnished (the PAF has almost all the helicopters with 67 UH-1Hs being the majority - see note). And the Sikorsky S-70/UH-60s are way out of their league to finance. No good for an article, but most probable is that the Philippine Army has that one UH-60A for the defence minister and chief of staff and the Philippine AF operates that one S-70 for transporting the president and his staff. Both probably have contract pilots and ground crews. What a mess to figure out. I got my extensive references out and after two hours gave up. The worst thing is that because of corruption, the Philippine AF and Army have a hodge pod of equipment with no standardization of training or spares possile. Best of luck to you all figuring it out!!!!!!

Note> Most UH-1H are none flyable, but ten are being refurnished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackehammond (talk • contribs) 22:14, 23 March 23, 2013 (UTC)

Operational history section

Quite frankly I think it's getting ridiculously out of hand with the minutiae that's being included in this section for each country. Many of the references are not only questionable, but dead. I've been tracking down new references that were marked, and just found another that wasn't. Trying to eliminate link rot for information that is generally useless to what a Black Hawk is, in my view is over the top. Why not let the people over on the Turkish version of this page keep up with it (and for that matter the other countries)? Someone explain the value of knowing the precise date some country ordered X number of Black Hawks. Then X number of years later they order X more Black Hawks. So what? And then sometimes you follow a wikilink to another article also citing how many aircraft with an accompanying citation. Then you have to wonder the condition of that citation. I think this is spiraling out of control. There's enough work out there to maintain the links to the pertinent stuff. Furthermore it's not even operational history, it's procurement history. Beam me up! --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE 12:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not a big deal to me now. But if it gets bad it will be. Go ahead and remove non-notable/minor events if you want. -Fnlayson (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The non-US sections mainly cover how they came to get UH-60s and some operational use. After another quick look, I did not see any of these sections with a lot of excess or minor details. But I'll read through the sections some more and tighten wording where possible. Or point us to something in particular. Thanks. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure where this Utility variant belongs, but seems notable as a civil variant. TGCP (talk) 00:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Civil variants and usage info should go in the Sikorsky S-70 article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.army-technology.com/projects/black_hawk/

  Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

UH-60M request by Tunisia

This edit was refused and deleted several times, so i wanted to make things clear and add sources confirming the Sale (Not Possible but Confirmed Order) of 12 UH-60M Improved & Armed Utility Helicopters for Tunisia. –Tunisia places requests for US$700 million sale of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters from US –FMS proposed to Bolster Tunisian security capabilities I will be Adding Tunisia as a future operator again, based on these sources. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouath14 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mouath14: And it will be removed again until the proposed sale has passed all hurdles. As the sources you provided say: "The United States may supply Tunisia with UH-60 helicopters and weaponry to help bolster the country's security capabilities" and "The Tunisian Ministry of the National Defense (MND) has requested a US$700 million sale of UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters and associated equipment from the US Government under a foreign military sale (FMS) programme. This possible FMS contract involves ...". It is a proposed sale that may lead to an order, but it is NOT an order yet. As I have already pointed out to you on your own talk page. Thomas.W ^talk 17:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The Tunisia 'order' was removed twice, not several times. The first post was moved to the proper place in the 'Other and potential users' section and reworded. The 2nd addition was removed. Also, the Operators section is only for current users and ones with aircraft on firm order per WP:AIRCRAFT-OPERATORS. The section is not for possible/potential orders. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: And i will keep posting sources and references of this Official Order,

Here's the letter of acceptance from the Federal Register

Plenty of Trusted Sources:

Maybe we just wait for the Signature of Mr. President so we can finally call it an order ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mouath14 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 4 August 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The Federal Register and other sources only say it is a request or proposed sale. This request is already mentioned in the article text. Hopefully this deal will get resolved before too long... -Fnlayson (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

This article says the US "will soon make available" to Tunisia. So still no completed deal (contract/agreement) yet. -Fnlayson (talk) 14:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

References