UH-60 Black Hawk Developments

Alex Hollings from Sandboxx has recently uploaded a video about the U-Hawk:


Sikorsky has officially turned America’s most prolific military helicopter, the UH-60 Black Hawk, into a fully unmanned drone aircraft, and it might just be a glimpse into the future of military aviation.
Click to expand...
So, let's talk about the S-70UAS U-HAWK.
Click to expand...

Edit: If this goes into production I wonder how long it will be before US Army and USMC troops start calling it the "U-Haul";):D?
 
So many things go into fielding a new system, even if it is an old system. For the U.S. Army the biggest challenge is people. Seems easy right. The Blackhawk maintainers keep doing their job, case closed. BUT! Those maintainer slots are going to be reclassified as MV-75 maintainers. So lets turn the Apache maintainers into U-Hawk maintainers. Case closed. Nope. The Army is taking all of those Apache battalion slots and making new air defense battalions. Bottom line there's not enough soldiers to do another platform mission. Navy, then Air Force are now the priority. Army is last, and Aviation (it's expensive) is last on the Army priority list.
 
I think that the USN would have a use for the U-Hawk. Assuming it goes into production I suppose the U-Hawk's tri-services designation would be the CQH-60A.
 
yasotay said:
I agree that the USN might have a good case for the CQH-60L.
Click to expand...

Good point! It has occurred to me that since the H-60 Blackhawk has been in service since 1979 I wonder how many (If any) of the early models are retired to the Boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB? It would seem to me that they'd be good candidates for conversion into CQH-60s.

Aside from the military market would there be much of a market for a drone S-70?
 
NMaude said:
Good point! It has occurred to me that since the H-60 Blackhawk has been in service since 1979 I wonder how many (If any) of the early models are retired to the Boneyard at Davis-Monthan AFB? It would seem to me that they'd be good candidates for conversion into CQH-60s.

Aside from the military market would there be much of a market for a drone S-70?
Click to expand...
While there certainly are plenty H-60 platforms available, how many you can "man" with maintainers and software support personnel will remain the difficult part of employing the platform within the DOW. Asking the supporting maintainers to work on twice the number of aircraft means half the time on any one aircraft. Also remember naval H-60 have a lot of extra kit to fold up and go below deck.
Civil utilization will come down to cost to operate. Is there a profitable niche for the aircraft?
 
yasotay said:
While there certainly are plenty H-60 platforms available, how many you can "man" with maintainers and software support personnel will remain the difficult part of employing the platform within the DOW. Asking the supporting maintainers to work on twice the number of aircraft means half the time on any one aircraft. Also remember naval H-60 have a lot of extra kit to fold up and go below deck.
Click to expand...
IIRC the Seahawks fold automatically. Even if not, the ground crew does that, which may not even be airedales and so just ship's force.



yasotay said:
Civil utilization will come down to cost to operate. Is there a profitable niche for the aircraft?
Click to expand...
Slung loads is what comes to mind. Fire bombing, helicopter logging. Oh, and resupply of said dudes.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC the Seahawks fold automatically. Even if not, the ground crew does that, which may not even be airedales and so just ship's force.




Slung loads is what comes to mind. Fire bombing, helicopter logging. Oh, and resupply of said dudes.
Click to expand...
Each aircraft still requires maintenance. Unless you replace some of the platforms (as in U-HAWK is not additive to the fleet) you will need more folks for the workload. Certainly it is feasible that U-HAWK could replace some of the cross deck transfer and potentially do more effort (more weight per lift or fly longer), but it is not free.
I am not sure you need this level of modification to make a UH-60 a good fire bomber. If the payload is increase enough maybe. I think just putting the MATRIX software into a UH-60, removing the seats, and unneeded avionics would net you ~1000 lbs without having to completely rebuilding the aircraft.
Bottomline, cost/productivity will decide if the U-HAWK is fielded. Sikorsky is looking for a means to exist post Multi-year 11 and CH-53K and casting about with an number of options to see if any of them catch on.
 
yasotay said:
Each aircraft still requires maintenance. Unless you replace some of the platforms (as in U-HAWK is not additive to the fleet) you will need more folks for the workload. Certainly it is feasible that U-HAWK could replace some of the cross deck transfer and potentially do more effort (more weight per lift or fly longer), but it is not free.
I am not sure you need this level of modification to make a UH-60 a good fire bomber. If the payload is increase enough maybe. I think just putting the MATRIX software into a UH-60, removing the seats, and unneeded avionics would net you ~1000 lbs without having to completely rebuilding the aircraft.
Bottomline, cost/productivity will decide if the U-HAWK is fielded. Sikorsky is looking for a means to exist post Multi-year 11 and CH-53K and casting about with an number of options to see if any of them catch on.
Click to expand...

That’s kind of depressing. I liked the idea with my superficial and ignorant thinking but as I think through some of the factors laid out here (including by you), it’s not completely clear what question this is answering, to say nothing of really thinking through the ops and sustainment implications given the flowering of so many clean sheet approaches to vertical lift that reflect future realities vs MacGuyver’ing something like this.
 
I understand that Matrix requires FBW, hence deleting the flight controls of the old airframe was needed unless the aircraft was to be optionally manned.
Given that it´s a drone that would see most of its active time spent boxed/crated, pulling all the gears out related to human flight improves, not only the payload ratio, but also decrease the burden of maintenance work. Reliability has a good chance to be on the rise.

@Training_Dummy : New certified airframe are not cheap and take time to come online. There aren´t much airframe that realistically fit the proven capacity offered by this Blackhawk conversion. At least on the horizon.

I am on the opinion that removing completely the cabin to make something like a CH-54 out of the Blackhawk could have been more appropriate , but with no DoD budget, this Hawk is already a nugget too hard to pass (and offer relevant speed and probably better range).
 
Last edited:
@TomcatViP yes new systems bring new problems.. too true. As I said, it’s not clear the juice is worth the squeeze since surely the same approach could be applied to MV-75s and the Army wants out of the traditional helicopter business over the long term.

I still think it’s a cool idea.
 
MV-75 will be fielded "optimally" manned, meaning that you can fully crew to no crew the aircraft from the start. I suspect that the U.S. Army will have to grow into letting the new and expensive aircraft do unmanned missions from the start. Once they prove to themselves it is not "voodoo magic" I suspect the unmanned mission will become for frequent.
U_HAWK is an effort by Sikorsky to keep the factory running, profitably, with the end of Blackhawk production. Even if they find a market for the technology I do not think they are going to be remanufacturing hundreds of aircraft.
 

This Is What The Night Stalkers’ MH-60M Direct Action Penetrator Brought To The Venezuelan Op​

www.twz.com

This Is What The Night Stalkers' MH-60M Direct Action Penetrator Brought To The Venezuelan Op

The hard-hitting attack version of the special operations MH-60 was clearly among the critical assets used in Operation Absolute Resolve. Signs point to the attack version of the special operations MH-60 being among the critical assets used in Operation Absolute Resolve.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
I don't like the 4-axis stick. Helo are all about torque and you need muscle memory for that with your eyes out of the cockpit. I think they went too far. IMOHO, the combination of thumb and wrist action while in an off-center position in roll and pitch is very difficult to master precisely, something you absolutely want to be able to do while inserting such a big airframe within a forest canopy or city street.

But let´s see how the market reacts.

www.skyryse.com

SkyOS

www.skyryse.com www.skyryse.com
 
TomcatViP said:
I don't like the 4-axis stick. Helo are all about torque and you need muscle memory for that with your eyes out of the cockpit. I think they went too far. IMOHO, the combination of thumb and wrist action while in an off-center position in roll and pitch is very difficult to master precisely, something you absolutely want to be able to do while inserting such a big airframe within a forest canopy or city street.

But let´s see how the market reacts.

www.skyryse.com

SkyOS

www.skyryse.com www.skyryse.com
Click to expand...
I only flew Gliders in my life but why would they remove pedals ? That sounds so stupid
 
TomcatViP said:
I don't like the 4-axis stick. Helo are all about torque and you need muscle memory for that with your eyes out of the cockpit. I think they went too far. IMOHO, the combination of thumb and wrist action while in an off-center position in roll and pitch is very difficult to master precisely, something you absolutely want to be able to do while inserting such a big airframe within a forest canopy or city street.

But let´s see how the market reacts.

www.skyryse.com

SkyOS

www.skyryse.com www.skyryse.com
Click to expand...
I personally agree with having pedals, however, like many things aviation, I am old. I don't like looking at ten metric tons of poop on my primary display and having to push eight different bezel buttons to change radio frequencies or go to the next waypoint. I did all of that with boiler gauges, knobs, and switches. That was along time ago. Modern aviators are accepting of these things and if your trained to do yaw control with your wrist I suspect the aviators will do just fine. I will note that the RAH-66 did not have pedals the cyclic control had the yaw control and 10% power control in the vertical axis as well. The old thyme helicopter pilots on the Comanche program figured out how to use it much to the irritation of their equally old thyme helicopter pilots.
 
Well, it´s not about old and new but about achieving precision in controlling an aircraft. When you start having ample deflection in pitch and roll, the wrist action to sustain a yaw movement is not constant or linear since human are not built like a well balanced mechanism. So you either loose dexterity to maintain your flightpath or need constant correction altering your trajectory in the 3 axis.

3 axis is really enjoyable for smooth deflection, I concede, but, at least to me, doesn´t apply to tactical flight or emergency situations. Add the smooth movement required to control the cyclic with what seems to be a slider under the thumb and it might be easier to master both Latin and ancient Greek in the time you would need for a check ride!


You are citing the Comanche controls from Sikorsky, but probably there is some confusion. I read:
The flight controls were fly-by-wire with a right sidearm controller for pitch, roll, and yaw control. A left side collective pitch controller was used.
Click to expand...

RAH-66-17-1024x768.jpg


Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 – Igor I Sikorsky Historical Archives

sikorskyarchives.com sikorskyarchives.com
 
Last edited:
Very good points. As there have been few aircraft with this flight control methodology it is likely not well researched.
As to Comanche I should have been more precise. The primary pitch control remained a collective lever on the left side of the cockpit. The cyclic grip was given a.10% power modulation capability. This was to allow the pilot an ability to use their left hand to manipulate MFD action. Likely would not have been used in forward combat areas as much as originally envisioned.
Today this is remedied by providing a thumb driven slew switch, usually on the collective lever.
 
TomcatViP said:
Well, it´s not about old and new but about achieving precision in controlling an aircraft. When you start having ample deflection in pitch and roll, the wrist action to sustain a yaw movement is not constant or linear since human are not built like a well balanced mechanism. So you either loose dexterity to maintain your flightpath or need constant correction altering your trajectory in the 3 axis.

3 axis is really enjoyable for smooth deflection, I concede, but, at least to me, doesn´t apply to tactical flight or emergency situations. Add the smooth movement required to control the cyclic with what seems to be a slider under the thumb and it might be easier to master both Latin and ancient Greek in the time you would need for a check ride!


You are citing the Comanche controls from Sikorsky, but probably there is some confusion. I read:


RAH-66-17-1024x768.jpg


Boeing Sikorsky RAH-66 – Igor I Sikorsky Historical Archives

sikorskyarchives.com sikorskyarchives.com
Click to expand...
Am I seeing that correctly?

7 or 8 MFDs?



yasotay said:
Very good points. As there have been few aircraft with this flight control methodology it is likely not well researched.
As to Comanche I should have been more precise. The primary pitch control remained a collective lever on the left side of the cockpit. The cyclic grip was given a.10% power modulation capability. This was to allow the pilot an ability to use their left hand to manipulate MFD action. Likely would not have been used in forward combat areas as much as originally envisioned.
Today this is remedied by providing a thumb driven slew switch, usually on the collective lever.
Click to expand...
If you need to take a hand off the collective to poke at the MFDs, wouldn't the slew switch for engine power belong on the cyclic?
 
Scott Kenny said:
Am I seeing that correctly?

7 or 8 MFDs?




If you need to take a hand off the collective to poke at the MFDs, wouldn't the slew switch for engine power belong on the cyclic?
Click to expand...
The picture is of one of the two prototype. The planned production aircraft was not to have as many MFD.
The 10% power control (not pitch I wrote above) was mostly designed for minor power changes for enroute and hover actions that would allow the pilot on the controls to change altitude while actioning other systems. It has been a long time now, but I do not recall that this was considered a significant feature to the flight crews. Most of them used the collective pitch control lever for all phases of aircraft operations. Honestly I am not sure this function would have even been included in the production aircraft.

To bring this back around to the H-60, it is likely being explored again as a feature for a single pilot or semi-autonomous aircraft where, once again, much of the aircraft actions might be handled by button pushing, but human intervention is required for some reason.
 
Don't forget the aspect of cost. One single control equates to less linkages, less wires, less integration expenditures and better marketing placards with a design artificially looking lean and optimized.
 
Kiltonge said:
Maybe someday a helicopter manufacturer will announce a drag reduction package, instead of addition.
Click to expand...
But SOAR "Kings of Parasite Drag" might see nothing wrong.:cool:

Honestly given that the U.S. Army Aviation generals are talking about air refueling I would show up with the inside of the UH-60 holding long range tanks and one of the pylons having a refuel hose and drogue pod. Likely more interest to them than turning UH-60 into gunships since they just got rid of half their gunship fleet.
 
TomcatViP said:
Fully agree.
Another troubling display of a general lack of imagination by LM Sikorsky.
Click to expand...
I can't fault them for trying to get as much milage out of Black Hawk as possible. If you don't want to spend the money on a dedicated attack helicopter and already operate the H-60 it doesn't seem like a bad idea.

Unfortunately for them the X2 configuration designs aren't likely to go anywhere without the US government as a customer even though I think the Defiant or Raider might be suitable for military customers in Europe and elsewhere. It's a damn shame really.
 
A fair point about reuse. There are however at least four (I think) secondary companies already in that market, who can potentially underbid Lockheed Martin.
 
RavenOne said:
news.lockheedmartin.com

Sikorsky Offers New Armed BLACK HAWK® Helicopter Kits to Deliver Additional Mission Capabilities

NASHVILLE, Tenn., April 15, 2026 – Sikorsky, a Lockheed Martin company (NYSE: LMT), announced its new Armed Black Hawk helicopter kits, expanding the capabilities of this proven workhorse. The...
news.lockheedmartin.com news.lockheedmartin.com
[...]
cheers
Click to expand...
The War Zone said:
The H-60 Black Hawk Gunship Evolves With New Wings And Weapons
Sikorsky unveiled a new incarnation of its Armed Black Hawk helicopter at the Army Aviation Warfighting Summit in Nashville in April 2026.TWZ's Jamie Hunter spoke with Sikorsky's Matt Isaacson about how this opens up new mission sets and provides greater flexibility, while minimizing the need for separate fleet types.
Click to expand...
Video on YouTube:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grwfg2ZYlgs

Source:
www.twz.com

H-60

See the latest H-60 stories from The War Zone. See news, trends, tips, reviews and more at The War Zone.
www.twz.com www.twz.com
 
As a recovering aerodynamicist who once worked at Sikorsky, most helicopters seem to be in the category of "flying airbrake" and have been so for all history. Military helicopters tend to be worse offenders than civil helicopters, as every time somebody wants to add a sensor they just stick it someplace on the outside.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom