UH-60 Black Hawk Developments

Air Superior said:
Where else are they supposed to put it?
Click to expand...

Imagine this monstrosity replaced with a single aerodynamic nose fairing with only the sensor heads visible, flush-mounted to the surface

Screenshot_20260420-093617.png

But it's quicker and easier to just rivet them onto one of the few remaining skin panels, since the R&D budget doesn't have to account for increased fuel burn, reduced range and increased signatures. That's an ops budget problem.
 
Well I guess drag is not as exponential on helicopters as it is on airplanes.

(My meager attempt at aeronautical humor for this year)
 
I've got to agree on this matter, for the amount of effort that has gone into developing these specialized variants something like an extended nose fairing would make a lot of sense. Not much that can be done about some features like the refueling probe though.

Sometimes I've also got to wonder if they're trying to jam too much into the H-60 airframe.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've got to agree on this matter, for the amount of effort that has gone into developing these specialized variants something like an extended nose fairing would make a lot of sense. Not much that can be done about some features like the refueling probe though.

Sometimes I've also got to wonder if they're trying to jam too much into the H-60 airframe.
Click to expand...
Much would depend on how extended the nose fairing becomes. Helicopters are somewhat sensitive to center of gravity. Relatively minor adjustments might be able to be dealt with through Control Law adjustments, although this might induce more frequent maintenance actions. Larger fairings could result in significant chages. You could end up like the OH-58D that had to have 50lbs(?) lead weight in the tail cone to mitigate all of the systems forward of teh CG. That's 50 lbs less fuel or ammo.
 
Colonial-Marine said:
I've got to agree on this matter, for the amount of effort that has gone into developing these specialized variants something like an extended nose fairing would make a lot of sense. Not much that can be done about some features like the refueling probe though.

Sometimes I've also got to wonder if they're trying to jam too much into the H-60 airframe.
Click to expand...
That's the actual problem.

USAF went from HH3s to HH60s. (HH53/MH53s were replaced by CV-22s)

Admittedly, an HH3 is about the same horsepower as an HH60, but was a much bigger fuselage (8-12 pax in an HH60, 28 pax in an HH3).
 
yasotay said:
Much would depend on how extended the nose fairing becomes. Helicopters are somewhat sensitive to center of gravity. Relatively minor adjustments might be able to be dealt with through Control Law adjustments, although this might induce more frequent maintenance actions. Larger fairings could result in significant chages. You could end up like the OH-58D that had to have 50lbs(?) lead weight in the tail cone to mitigate all of the systems forward of teh CG. That's 50 lbs less fuel or ammo.
Click to expand...

The problem is with the washdown flow from the main rotor. More flat surface forward of the rotor mast equate to more pitch down moment that need to be corrected by the rotor and tailplane, hence generate a loss of power then unavailable for performances. Easy to tackle with a clean sheet design. Lengthy to correct with a single modification. And then you go from there from one sensor to another, one protuberance to the next.
Today however, with the big talks on scalability, transparent upgrades etc... Airframer should include that predictable evolution into their design and probably make rooms for future sensor upgrades right at the onset of their design effort?
 
Last edited:
Just a thought and without reading the rest of the article behind the paywall on a recent Check 6 podcast they mentioned that the Joby urban air mobility air taxis are incredibly quiet. Perhaps the solution is to ferry forward new electric air vehicles that have a much lower sound profile and keep the traditional rotorcraft a little further in the rear.
 
Last edited:
Ozair said:
Just a thought and without reading the rest of the article behind the paywall on a recent Check 6 podcast they mentioned that the Joby urban air mobility air taxis are incredibly quiet. Perhaps the solution is to ferry forward new electric air vehicles than have a much lower sound profile and keep the traditional rotorcraft a little further in the rear.
Click to expand...
Then you need to swap between the loud rotorcraft and the quiet ones at some point. Which means an intermediate LZ the enemy can interdict.

Admittedly, for some places that's not a problem. Mogadishu, for example, the target of the Black Hawk Down raid was IIRC 1.5 miles from the airport flight line, so Delta et al could have taken the super-quiet birds directly to the target from the airport.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Then you need to swap between the loud rotorcraft and the quiet ones at some point. Which means an intermediate LZ the enemy can interdict.
Click to expand...
Agree although I suspect most UH-60 LZs are probably going to be within interdiction range of something.
Scott Kenny said:
Admittedly, for some places that's not a problem. Mogadishu, for example, the target of the Black Hawk Down raid was IIRC 1.5 miles from the airport flight line, so Delta et al could have taken the super-quiet birds directly to the target from the airport.
Click to expand...
That would be ideal although in that scenario visual monitoring probably made the sound profile somewhat redundant anyway.
 
Ozair said:
Just a thought and without reading the rest of the article behind the paywall on a recent Check 6 podcast they mentioned that the Joby urban air mobility air taxis are incredibly quiet. Perhaps the solution is to ferry forward new electric air vehicles that have a much lower sound profile and keep the traditional rotorcraft a little further in the rear.
Click to expand...

Better, tether it to a Weibo E-Taxi and use it as a silent tow vehicle. (with its secret mode that drive you directly to a Beijing prisoner camp)
 
Ozair said:
Agree although I suspect most UH-60 LZs are probably going to be within interdiction range of something.
Click to expand...
Oh, right, this is the UH60 thread, not the MV-75.

So, probably.



Ozair said:
That would be ideal although in that scenario visual monitoring probably made the sound profile somewhat redundant anyway.
Click to expand...
Only if you're doing the raid in daytime. Silent helos at night? Zero Dark Thirty raids? That strange sound you just heard was the entire SOCOM giggling maniacally.
 
Forest Green said:

New Engines Key To Night Stalker MH-60M Black Hawk Upgrade Plans​

https://www.twz.com/air/new-engines-key-to-night-stalker-mh-60m-black-hawk-upgrade-plans
Click to expand...
Sadly I suspect that the T901 engine will only bring H-60 back to it's original lift requirement under some atmospheric conditions. Engine efficiency changes with atmosphic conditions of course, so you might get a 10% performance boost at sea level, and much less at higher or hotter days. This is not to say that the new engine is not warranted, but I do think the sales pitch somewhat over hypes the capability given historically overstated capabilities.
 
Interestingly, the Army again rejected funding for the ITEP/T901 project in its fiscal year 2027 budget request.

Mike Souza, the GE T901 project manager, stated, "The project requires a small amount of additional funding to complete the EMD phase, but far less than the funding already received (Congress allocated approximately $175 million in fiscal year 2026)." mh-60-dap-black-hawks.jpg
 
wtna7 said:
Interestingly, the Army again rejected funding for the ITEP/T901 project in its fiscal year 2027 budget request.

Mike Souza, the GE T901 project manager, stated, "The project requires a small amount of additional funding to complete the EMD phase, but far less than the funding already received (Congress allocated approximately $175 million in fiscal year 2026)."
Click to expand...
The Army is probably banking on Congress topping the program up again and allocated that funding elsewhere.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom