UH-60 Black Hawk Developments

New Zealand intends to order MH-60Rs, 5 in total, to replace their existing SH-2G(I)s.

Collins said the helicopters — capable of carrying anti-submarine torpedoes, Hellfire air-surface missiles and crew-served machine guns — were versatile and added combat and deterrent capability to the naval fleet.

"These five Seahawks will increase the offensive and defensive capability and surveillance range of New Zealand’s frigates and ensure we are interoperable with our ally Australia and other partner defence forces."

Procurement of the choppers would proceed "at pace" through the US Foreign Military Sales programme, bypassing a wider tender process, she said.

Cabinet was expected to consider the final business case next year.
Click to expand...

https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/08/21/new-planes-helicopters-for-defence-force/
 
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/08/new-zealand-falls-for-romeos-charms/
No. 6 Squadron of the Royal New Zealand Air Force (RNZAF) will maintain the MH-60Rs, and it will be pleased to trade in the second-hand Super Seasprites acquired from Australia because that is all that could be afforded at the time. The helicopters will be crewed by Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN) personnel, however.


Collins pointed out, “These five Seahawks will increase the offensive and defensive capability and surveillance range of Royal New Zealand Navy’s frigates, and ensure we are interoperable with our ally Australia and other partner defence forces.” New Zealand will arm them with Hellfire missiles and Mk 54 torpedoes, but the inclusion of APKWS rockets is unclear as yet.


The acquisition will have several phases. Tranche one will cover the helicopters themselves and weapons, and tranche two covers supporting infrastructure. A third tranche involves unmanned systems, since the RNZAF will adopt UAVs in the future to perform some roles that helicopters currently do, such as vertical replenishment or reconnaissance. This is one other reason why five MH-60Rs are replacing eight Seasprites.


Collins stated, “The MH-60R Seahawk is a great aircraft for what New Zealand needs, and [it] fulfils our objective of having a more integrated Anzac force, and the new planes will give us reliable aircraft to deploy personnel and respond to international events.”


The point that Collins made about creating a more aligned Anzac force is important. The Defence Capability Plan stated, “New Zealand will seek to procure the same assets and equipment as Australia where it makes sense to do so. This will help with interoperability.” Australia introduced the MH-60R in 2014, and it currently has 23 in service, with another 13 ordered in 2022.
Click to expand...
 
It seems a reasonable approach to working a logistics problem, especially in the Pacific. A very mature platform with about 200 years worth of spare parts, and an available, trained maintenance work force.

This is why the U.S. Army will elect to defer on the concept.
 
Very nice design. I like the Galaxy side of the folding ramp (that probably needs stronger actuator to allow runs in and out). I hope that this GalaxHawk will be available as a conversion.
 
TomcatViP said:
Very nice design. I like the Galaxy side of the folding ramp (that probably needs stronger actuator to allow runs in and out). I hope that this GalaxHawk will be available as a conversion.
Click to expand...

Ready to roll off in 20 seconds isn't terrible. OTOH, because the ramp is in the front, you can't start opening it before touchdown.
 
TomS said:
Ready to roll off in 20 seconds isn't terrible. OTOH, because the ramp is in the front, you can't start opening it before touchdown.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, this UAS could land in the tail-forward configuration? Initially, I write this as "joke", but we so familiar with the conventional helos with the pilots' cabin in the forward part, that almost forget helos' ability to fly in different directions without turning fuselage.
 
TomcatViP said:
I hope that this GalaxHawk will be available as a conversion.
Click to expand...

Answer here (it´s a conversion program, what makes sense):

The objective of the U-Hawk project to offer the Army the capability to take UH-60Ls it is retiring and convert them to conduct contested logistics, combat support and disaster-relief missions, as well as wildfire suppression and international applications, he says.
Click to expand...

https://aviationweek.com/defense/ai...-modifies-uh-60l-u-hawk-uncrewed-demonstrator
 
Last edited:
TomS said:
Ready to roll off in 20 seconds isn't terrible. OTOH, because the ramp is in the front, you can't start opening it before touchdown.
Click to expand...
The promo video shows the side doors still functional.
 
yasotay said:
The promo video shows the side doors still functional.
Click to expand...

Yes. But that isn't going to speed up the roll-off of a vehicle or palletized cargo. And I can't imagine they plan to carry troops in these.
 
I would guess U-hawk is a potential candidate for Combat Rescue and MEDEVAC close to the front line.
 
Silencer1 said:
Perhaps, this UAS could land in the tail-forward configuration? Initially, I write this as "joke", but we so familiar with the conventional helos with the pilots' cabin in the forward part, that almost forget helos' ability to fly in different directions without turning fuselage.
Click to expand...

I think the aerodynamics of those side-opening clamshells would be sufficiently horrible that they wouldn't consider it.
 
TomcatViP said:
I would guess U-hawk is a potential candidate for Combat Rescue and MEDEVAC close to the front line.
Click to expand...

It's not mentioned in any article I've seen.

I think there will be a major psychological barrier to putting humans in a UAS with no human crew. I'd personally be very unhappy being aske to fly aboard an aircraft with no humans up front, even if it was nominally safer.

Edit: In fact, they specifically note in that AvWeek article that the U-Hawk is not human-rated.

“The OPV [Optionally Piloted Vehicle] H-60 is a human-rated uncrewed aircraft system, which comes with a price point. The U-Hawk has a lower price point,” says Igor Cherepinski, director of Sikorsky Innovations, the company’s rapid prototyping unit.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
All this talk and none's talking about the blanked off windows? Claustrophobia and airborne in an UAS, now that's a killer.
 
@TomS : Wait, wasn't the AF evaluating UAS VTOL for CASEVAC close to the frontline? That was what I had in mind.

I am ready to guess that any soldier shot badly would be happy to be thrown in the cavernous mouth of this thing instead of being dragged under fire for miles to get to a safe to use helipad.
 
Two fundamental issues for UAS MEDEVAC. First you cannot leave a wounded combatant unattended once you begin life saving procedures. This is called 'abandonment' in legal jargon. Second if you are intentionally going to put humans on a flying platform it must be up to human crashworthiness standards. These are both statutory specifications, not military regulatory. They can be changed but it will take some time.
 
I am not the only one to think that the question is irrelevant (link to pdf). The massive amount of casualties will not allow traditional CASEVAC to be manned, relevant, survivable and efficient at the same time.
Thousands of such evacuation would have to be done per day in a modern peer to peer conflict, that ideally, would be devoid of fixed frontline with traditional ground infrastructures (see WWI or Ukraine new 20st century stagnation front line).
It would also be doubtful to expect sustaining a doctrine calling for agile and disaggregated combatants without a proven evacuation force able to offer injured soldiers a chance of survival.
And I don´t think that the low survivability potential of repeated sorties in direct contact to lethal fire would benefit the medical end goal to save lives if a-pilot-a-day is on what is based a force structure (think high attrition combat at the end of WWII where mission efficiency dropped down drastically).

CUAS are the logical solution with a mix of Ground and Flying robots taking over the mission for the first mile. They are not just quite here today.
 
Last edited:
TomcatViP said:
CUAS are the logical solution with a mix of Ground and Flying robots taking over the mission for the first mile. They are not just quite here today.
Click to expand...
And again, you cannot stop treating the wounded once you start. Treatment started with the Combat Lifesaver(s) and/or Medics/Corpsmen on the ground. So without massive legal changes allowing ABANDONING OF THE WOUNDED during transport, you're not going to be able to do that. Good luck pushing those legal changes through Congress.

Only way I can see it happening is if you could make telepresence medic-bots lighter than a person and cheaper than the optionally-unmanned Blackhawk.
 
yasotay said:
RUMINT says they cut off the cockpit and put clamshell doors in it place. With MATRIX flight controls it becomes the largest heavy lift VTOL cargo platform.
Click to expand...

Did you mean uncrewed VTOL cargo platform…?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom