View Full Version : UH-1Y Huey
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2008/08/marine_huey_082708w/
I guess getting the last bit of mileage from an old design saves money, but you would think that the Marines could have gone for one of the Navalized H-60 variants and got the same or better capability.
Guess the old Huey soldiers on ;)
Couldn't get the link to load. I like the idea of the -60's for the Marines since they go higher, farther, faster than the -1N. I don't know much about performance figures for the the -1Y, though.
I *think* the Marines like the Huey because of the extensive commonality of parts and key components between the utility platform (the Hueys) and the attack platform (the cobras). I assume they also don't have to retrain all the maintainers in the MAW's.
The almighty $$$$$. UH1 is greatly more inexpensive to operate than UH60.
RogerinTPA
08-27-08, 21:14
True statement. The Marines are pouring most of their budget into the V-22s, which are infinitely more expensive than the old Hueys or UH-60s. They'd be better off with the 60s though. I wonder how the V-22s will hold up after inserting into a hot LZ and becoming a bullet magnet..... SOF operations where stealth is required OK. Using it as a normal battle taxi, not OK.
The almighty $$$$$. UH1 is greatly more inexpensive to operate than UH60.
The almighty $$$$$. UH1 is greatly more inexpensive to operate than UH60.
I take it that also explains the Corps reliance on the Super Cobra rather than the Apache?
True statement. The Marines are pouring most of their budget into the V-22s, which are infinitely more expensive than the old Hueys or UH-60s. They'd be better off with the 60s though. I wonder how the V-22s will hold up after inserting into a hot LZ and becoming a bullet magnet..... SOF operations where stealth is required OK. Using it as a normal battle taxi, not OK.
I dunno. what about having armed escorts on hand like the Super Cobra? The SCs could join the Osprey's at the LZ and provide supressive fire.
RogerinTPA
08-27-08, 22:17
That's normal procedure in any air assault. The gunships can suppress away, but unless they can project a force field around the entire LZ (A Hot LZ at that), they will be fired upon. If they are a large enemy force and organized, they will mass fires, just like we were taught, to shoot down enemy aircraft. Being a former Army Aviator and Infantryman, I'd be cringing at the thought of a Infantry fire team or squad, massing its firepower to shoot my aircraft down, which would be a sitting duck in formation with other aircraft, at low air speeds during an insertion, gunships or not.
I dunno. what about having armed escorts on hand like the Super Cobra? The SCs could join the Osprey's at the LZ and provide supressive fire.
That's normal procedure in any air assault. The gunships can suppress away, but unless they can project a force field around the entire LZ (A Hot LZ at that), they will be fired upon. If they are a large enemy force and organized, they will mass fires, just like we were taught, to shoot down enemy aircraft. Being a former Army Aviator and Infantryman, I'd be cringing at the thought of a Infantry fire team or squad, massing its firepower to shoot my aircraft down, which would be a sitting duck in formation with other aircraft, at low air speeds during an insertion, gunships or not.
Oh how I know. But some has gotta be better than none. Besides maybe its just psychological. How much suppressive fire can a door gunner / crew chief lay down with an M-60D / M240B as opposed to a 20mm gatling or 25mm chain gun? Just throwing that out there.
Being a former Army Aviator and Infantryman
I now officially hate you :p Seriously though. My recruiter told me I qualified right out of HS for WOC for flight, but I knew better (insert symbol of me kicking my self in the ass) so I went 11B first with the idea that I could reenlist for the WOC flight program. Obviously that didnt work out. Aviation was my first love. So now Im hoping to take flight lessons some time before I turn 90.
I take it that also explains the Corps reliance on the Super Cobra rather than the Apache?
I dunno. what about having armed escorts on hand like the Super Cobra? The SCs could join the Osprey's at the LZ and provide supressive fire.
It sorta depends on how far the LZ is from the ship, I guess. The V22's selling points are its ceilings, speed, and long legs. Can the zulu Cobras keep up over longer ranges? I am not a Marine, and I don't play one on TV. But I do know logistics and air operations. The log footprint for a FARP- to stage the armed escort elements of a long-range incursion- have got to be factored in at some point.
I like the V22 now more than I did earlier. Proceedings did an article suggesting than the workups for the first USMC HMM operating the type were going pretty well. I *have heard* (take that for what it's worth- which isn't much) that the squadron's deployment has been successful. That said, IMO the Osprey makes more sense for the USAF and their SAR missions and special ops and such.
Anyway- the Huey is a good soldier. I can see why the Corps likes it. I just think I like the -60 better as a hauler
RogerinTPA
08-28-08, 00:52
Back in the day (Late 80's early 90's), when I taught at Ft Rucker as a Flight Platoon Commander and Instructor pilot, I taught a crap load of "High School to Flight School" WOCs as well as quite a few enlisted from other branches. For some reason, I got quite a few SF and Ranger WOCs. So it wasn't impossible, but sometimes, the powers that be conspire against you. If the HS WOCs, flunked out, they were shipped north to 11Bang Bang school at Ft. Benning. That recruiter with held valuable info from you. Sorry about that bro. But it's never too late to learn. After 23 years of flying Helos and airplanes and 15,000 + flight hours, I still love it. :cool:
I now officially hate you :p Seriously though. My recruiter told me I qualified right out of HS for WOC for flight, but I knew better (insert symbol of me kicking my self in the ass) so I went 11B first with the idea that I could reenlist for the WOC flight program. Obviously that didnt work out. Aviation was my first love. So now Im hoping to take flight lessons some time before I turn 90.
Army Chief
08-28-08, 01:26
I'm another former Infantryman that went on to flight school. Back in the day, the Benning-to-Rucker career progression model wasn't all that unusual for those that could qualify. I crossed over in early 1990, and I haven't yet hung up my flight suits.
Back to the original topic, though, I think Matt nailed it: the logistics train in the Corps is already equipped to deal with the Bell products already in the system, and there is a great deal of commonality between the AH and UH platforms, even today.
Since they are getting most of their attack and assault capability out of these two aircraft for a fraction of the price of fielding Apaches and Blackhawks, this frees up the Corps to spend money on other projects of interest, such as the Harrier II (once upon a time) and the current Osprey.
It's been a fairly intelligent strategy if you ask me ... but then, I'm an old UH-1 driver, so I tend to get a bit nostalgic about such things. :)
Chief
Rayrevolver
08-28-08, 01:46
In a past life I worked on the CV-22. Being a DT guy I don't know much of what happens in the real world once we hand them over, especially on the MV side of the house. The AFSOC guys love the platform and they came out of Pave Lows and Combat Talons.
In airplane mode the MV-22 is at least 100 knots faster than a Zulu. It is also quiet when its coming at you. It can scream in at 250 knots, turn and convert, and be on the ground in short order. On the other end, it can go from a hover to hauling ass very quickly.
And yes from all accounts, public and from friends supporting out there, the Osprey has been successful in Iraq. Even a presidential candidate got a ride in one...
A 7.62mm minigun located in the hell hole has been in development for a while now.
Well I was definitely not straight out of high school, but I entered under the WOCS program from civy status. I believe if you don't make it through WOC school now, they either send you back to your old MOS, or reclass you as ATC. Most people don't have this problem, I believe 95% (probably more) make it through. If you make it through WOC school, they usually give you decent options for you Warrant career.
On a different note many points about the UH1 and AH1 are right on. Cheaper to operate, and can fulfill the mission requirement, but they are eventually going to be phased out. Cobras did very well in OIF 1 invasion, due to sever avionics issues in the Apaches. Cobras kept on kicking ass. Marines are always pretty good at doing more with less.
Huey's are significantly smaller than UH 60's for amphibious ops on a flight deck at sea. Building up a logistics base for new aircraft is hugh, plus the new training for the switch over is very expensive.
S/F
Tipy
Huey's are significantly smaller than UH 60's for amphibious ops on a flight deck at sea. Building up a logistics base for new aircraft is hugh, plus the new training for the switch over is very expensive.
S/F
Tipy
True about the size issue. But consider this- the V22 is replacing the CH46. IIRC, the embarked composite HMM coalesces around the medium squadron. So they are the most common airframe on the deck- something like 10-13 I think. How big are they vs. the Ospreys? You might lose space going from Hueys to Blackhawks, but you could save deck space (I am pretty sure) by going from phrogs to Blackhawks. Here's what I mean:
I thought it'd be a good idea to keep the Cobras, phase out the Hueys, and adopt a combination of -60's and V-22's to replace the -1N and the -46 and some -53's.
new HMLA= AH1Z + some newer UH60 variant
new HMM= UH60 variant
new HMH= V22 + CH53E (or maybe all V22's)
The Corps would lose a favored workhorse, but gain a very capable aircraft which is even more flexible than the Hueys. The number of different types of aircraft on the deck stays the same at 5 (AH1, UH60, V22, CH53, AV8 or F35).
Sorry for the thread drift. It's just kinda fun to wargame this sort of thing sometimes.
I believe back in the day when the upgrades where being drawn up, the idea was to modify the AH1 and UH1 to the same drive-train standard that would be the pinnacle of upgrades for these two workhorses.
For cost purposes, the Marines haven't been in favor of the Apache or the Blackhawk varients even though they are a better design with more capability.
This goes back to the mid 90's or so. Its been in the works for awhile.
Remember when the services or probably more specifically the manufacturers got an idea and had them to prototype then production in short order? What happened to those days?
On an unrelated, sort of, subject, wonder how long it will actually take to get a working replacement for the retiring space shuttles. Remember how the early space program started with the Mercury/Atlas rockets in 59 and in just ten years went all the way to the moon and back.
Boy those where the days.
Back in the day (Late 80's early 90's), when I taught at Ft Rucker as a Flight Platoon Commander and Instructor pilot, I taught a crap load of "High School to Flight School" WOCs as well as quite a few enlisted from other branches. For some reason, I got quite a few SF and Ranger WOCs. So it wasn't impossible, but sometimes, the powers that be conspire against you. If the HS WOCs, flunked out, they were shipped north to 11Bang Bang school at Ft. Benning. That recruiter with held valuable info from you. Sorry about that bro. But it's never too late to learn. After 23 years of flying Helos and airplanes and 15,000 + flight hours, I still love it. :cool:
Talk about 6 degrees of separation, I enlisted in 88. Had I listened to my recruiter you probably would have been one of my instructors. So maybe my recruiter saved you a lot of headaches. :D
The USMC poured all their aviation money into the V-22 over the years. So the upgrade of the Huey/Cobra was the plan. The plan took longer than expected and they wore out some of the airframes they would have used to rebuild, so there was some increase in cost because of this.
Think of the Huey as a Humvee, the 60 as a 2.5ton, and the 53 as a 5 ton truck. Each has it's place and it's mission. They can overlap some, but if what you need is a Humvee, using a 2.5ton isn't really the best option.
The same thing goes for helos in the Corps. The Huey's mission in the USMC is completely different than most of it's missions it had in the Army. It's NOT the primary air assault platfrom. The V-22 is. It never made much sense to go to the Blackhawk for the USMC because it has a similar capability to the CH-46 and a less usable cabin space. Deck footprint between the 60 and 46 is about the same because the 60's tailboom takes up alot of room. Since the V-22 was the chosen successor to the 46, there's no reason to buy the 60. The V-22 has a similar cabin cube and ramp as the 46, which is better for what the Marines want than the 60-'s side doors and low roof. Remember the Army designed the 60 to fit in a C-130, something not needed by the USMC, but a bigger cabin is needed. Politically purchasing the 60 could endanger the V-22 program because of comparisons and cost. So it's understandable why the USMC stays away from the UH-60 when they had so much invested in the V-22.
RogerinTPA
08-29-08, 10:32
The V-22 is an awesome aircraft no doubt, but my worry is its ability (read inability) to defend itself via door guns when the nacelles are rotated up for landing in a hot LZ. They limit the field of fire during that time frame and the rear ramp .50 or 240 gun can only be used as a revenge weapon (able to only suppress to the rear and when leaving the LZ).
As far as a UH-60 fitting in a C-130, only if you use a car crusher....I think you meant C-5. An MH-6 or a vanilla OH-58 ok. A UH-1 wouldn't fit. Most Army equipment is designed around the dimensions of a C-5 or C-17.
The USMC poured all their aviation money into the V-22 over the years. So the upgrade of the Huey/Cobra was the plan. The plan took longer than expected and they wore out some of the airframes they would have used to rebuild, so there was some increase in cost because of this.
Think of the Huey as a Humvee, the 60 as a 2.5ton, and the 53 as a 5 ton truck. Each has it's place and it's mission. They can overlap some, but if what you need is a Humvee, using a 2.5ton isn't really the best option.
The same thing goes for helos in the Corps. The Huey's mission in the USMC is completely different than most of it's missions it had in the Army. It's NOT the primary air assault platfrom. The V-22 is. It never made much sense to go to the Blackhawk for the USMC because it has a similar capability to the CH-46 and a less usable cabin space. Deck footprint between the 60 and 46 is about the same because the 60's tailboom takes up alot of room. Since the V-22 was the chosen successor to the 46, there's no reason to buy the 60. The V-22 has a similar cabin cube and ramp as the 46, which is better for what the Marines want than the 60-'s side doors and low roof. Remember the Army designed the 60 to fit in a C-130, something not needed by the USMC, but a bigger cabin is needed. Politically purchasing the 60 could endanger the V-22 program because of comparisons and cost. So it's understandable why the USMC stays away from the UH-60 when they had so much invested in the V-22.
As far as a UH-60 fitting in a C-130, only if you use a car crusher....I think you meant C-5. An MH-6 or a vanilla OH-58 ok. A UH-1 wouldn't fit. Most Army equipment is designed around the dimensions of a C-5 or C-17.
Actually C-130. It was a requirement for purchase. Back in the day, most Army equipment was designed around the C-130. It was only recently that the C-17 was considered the floor for size.
The OH-58A/C wouldn't fit because of the mast height. The 9th ID had some 58C's with retractable landing gear to fit. A version of that gear is now on the RAH-70.
The UH-1H wouldn't fit without taking the mast out, which is alot of work because you have to reassemble and test-fly it at the other end. The taller mast, and higher cabin roof-line actually made the Slug (Huey) taller than the Hawk.
The UH-60A could fit because you can "kneel" the landing gear to lower the aircraft. You had to "feed" the Blackhawk into the Herk from a platform because it needed a straight shot in. It couldn't clear the roof if it went up the ramp.
One UH-60A in the C-130, two in the C-141, and six in the C-5.
It hasn't been until the last few years that the Army has actually reduced it's number of airframe types. You guys are lucky to have the C-17. It sucked cramming aircraft on the C-141.
So...Damn...sexy.
Ohh Rah Marine Air.
Semper Fi.
CarlosDJackal
08-31-08, 21:01
While the UH-60s provide a lot more capabilities than the venerable Huey (FWIW, I learned to fly in the UH-1H and wish I could afford to own and operate one); the interchangability of parts and maintenance between the Huey and the Cobra cannot be ignored.
The fact of the matter is, Logistics play a very huge role in military operations - as per Count Von Clausewitz (Principles of War). Besides, the Huey still provides some advantages over the UH-60. Fo one thing, it's smaller dimensions allows it to use LZs that the UH-60 cannot. :D
RogerinTPA
08-31-08, 22:43
That's what FAST Roping and Rappelling was used for.;)
Besides, the Huey still provides some advantages over the UH-60. Fo one thing, it's smaller dimensions allows it to use LZs that the UH-60 cannot. :D
Consider also this: The Corps, between the Osprey, the JSF, and the so-far abortive Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, is more than a bit leery of attempting to invest in yet another technologically dense platform like the -60, whatever it's capabilities. The UH-1, as it's been stated before, is not my gun club's rotary-wing prime mover.
It's more of a diet gunship/optics/C&C platform, a role that does not require, however much it might benefit from, the performance characteristics of the XXXHawk series aircraft.
If it was easier and more cost-effective to simply get a new aircraft, that's what would happen, but since the organic life-cycle support capability is already in place, and since we only get $.03-.06 on each DoD budget dollar, it makes more sense to maintain possession of two airframes that fulfill different roles while having about 80+% parts commonality.
I think, but am not certain, that new airframes are being built. If so, that's good, because fatigue is part of the reason why the Osprey program stayed afloat in spite of the fatalities during development; the CH-46 is getting OLD. Like what's being done with the LAV-25 (Light Armored Vehicle, not Larry Vickers, guys!), somebody realized that a glorified SLEP simply wasn't going to be enough.
Besides, it's not just about having enough room on a deck for one airframe, it's about cramming the whole lot in. Keeping the smaller birds is a better idea, considering how frickin' big the -22 is.
Army Chief
09-01-08, 01:34
Besides, the Huey still provides some advantages over the UH-60. Fo one thing, it's smaller dimensions allows it to use LZs that the UH-60 cannot. :D
That's likely where the LUH-72 will fit into the picture as (admittedly limited) fielding continues, but I would have to agree in a broader sense. We used to routinely tuck Hueys into places that almost defied reason, but wouldn't I even attempt that in a Hawk for fear of mangling the tip caps.
Chief
What's the mission of the UH-1Y in the Marine Corps as compared to the mission of the UH-60 in the US Army? As mentioned above someplace, the Y model is not a especially a cargo bird for the Marines, whereas the 60 is a cargo bird. Any Marine helicopter pilots here that can jump in on this?
S/F
Tipy
While I was an Army Aviator and not a Marine, the missions are indeed different.
Alot of how stuff gets used has to do with history and the what it replaces.
During Vietnam, the Army used the UH-1 as it's main air assault asset. The USMC used the CH-46. So when the Army goes looking for a Huey replacement, it looks evolutionary. The UTTAS program develops the UH-60 out of it as the Huey replacement. Better perfromance, better survivability, but not really a big change in doctrine. Because or the perfromance increase, we went from a 22 Huey assault company to a 15 Hawk assault company to do the same mission, mainly due to the higher power. But for the Army it still centered around moving the rifle squad.
The Marines moved more troops in fewer vehicles. Alot of that was due to room constraints on ships, but alot of it was just the way they do things. Three fireteams instead of the Army's two, larger units overall compared to the same units with fewer numbers in the Army, etc. It's just the way things are different between the two. So when the Marines went looking to replace the CH-46, they wanted something that was more to the way they did things. Features like being able to travel over the horizon (therefore keeping the ship out of sight), delivering the same number of troops as the 46, etc. was more important. Some features that the Army specified wasn't really needed by the Marine Corps. Since the 60 had a similar lift capability and a smaller usable cabin than the 46, going UH-60 was viewed as not the best solution. It would be easier to maintain (the 46 is a maintenance hog) and up to date, but actually less versitile for the Marines. So they decided to go with the V-22 program.
So just understand that just because the two land combat services use some of the same equipment, it doesn't mean that we use it the same way, nor that whatever is suitable for one is right for the other.
The Marines, as I understand it, use a composite light helo squadron consiting of both Cobras and Hueys. The Hueys would be used for Command and Control, observation and reconnisance, light attack, and special missions where it's size is and advantage rather than it's lack of capacity a hinderance. None of the missions could really be done better with a Blackhawk, at least not so much as to offset operating costs (training, cost per hour and logistics).
If you combined the missions of the RAH-70 and the LUH the Army uses, you'd be along a similar track. Just remember that we do things different, so direct comparison is more of a trap than a good idea.
The UH-1, as it's been stated before, is not my gun club's rotary-wing prime mover.
It's more of a diet gunship/optics/C&C platform, a role that does not require, however much it might benefit from, the performance characteristics of the XXXHawk series aircraft.
That's a thumbnail, from a bullet-sponge standpoint. In my dealings, while getting CAS from them, they usually worked as a mixed section (1 UH, 1 AH). The AH provided most of any smackdown required, while the UH could see everything, talk to everybody, and could lob in some flechette rockets of its own if it absolutely had to.
Some Maverick & Goose type...I mean, Rotary Wing Avaitor...could give you their definition of the role it performs.
EDIT to add: and so one has^^^
It always struck me as curious that the replacement for the CH-46 is the "MV-22", while the USAF's Special-Ops oriented version (to replace the MH-53's) is tagged as the "CV-22". Seems somewhat bass-ackward.
Army Chief
09-01-08, 12:32
While I was an Army Aviator and not a Marine, the missions are indeed different.
Alot of how stuff gets used has to do with history and the what it replaces.
During Vietnam, the Army used the UH-1 as it's main air assault asset. The USMC used the CH-46. So when the Army goes looking for a Huey replacement, it looks evolutionary. The UTTAS program develops the UH-60 out of it as the Huey replacement. Better perfromance, better survivability, but not really a big change in doctrine. Because or the perfromance increase, we went from a 22 Huey assault company to a 15 Hawk assault company to do the same mission, mainly due to the higher power. But for the Army it still centered around moving the rifle squad.
The Marines moved more troops in fewer vehicles. Alot of that was due to room constraints on ships, but alot of it was just the way they do things. Three fireteams instead of the Army's two, larger units overall compared to the same units with fewer numbers in the Army, etc. It's just the way things are different between the two. So when the Marines went looking to replace the CH-46, they wanted something that was more to the way they did things. Features like being able to travel over the horizon (therefore keeping the ship out of sight), delivering the same number of troops as the 46, etc. was more important. Some features that the Army specified wasn't really needed by the Marine Corps. Since the 60 had a similar lift capability and a smaller usable cabin than the 46, going UH-60 was viewed as not the best solution. It would be easier to maintain (the 46 is a maintenance hog) and up to date, but actually less versitile for the Marines. So they decided to go with the V-22 program.
So just understand that just because the two land combat services use some of the same equipment, it doesn't mean that we use it the same way, nor that whatever is suitable for one is right for the other.
The Marines, as I understand it, use a composite light helo squadron consiting of both Cobras and Hueys. The Hueys would be used for Command and Control, observation and reconnisance, light attack, and special missions where it's size is and advantage rather than it's lack of capacity a hinderance. None of the missions could really be done better with a Blackhawk, at least not so much as to offset operating costs (training, cost per hour and logistics).
If you combined the missions of the RAH-70 and the LUH the Army uses, you'd be along a similar track. Just remember that we do things different, so direct comparison is more of a trap than a good idea.
Easily one of the most brilliant pieces of analytical prose I've seen on this topic, whether here or elsewhere. Bravo!
Chief
RogerinTPA
09-01-08, 23:54
Actually C-130. It was a requirement for purchase. Back in the day, most Army equipment was designed around the C-130. It was only recently that the C-17 was considered the floor for size.
I meant max equipment dimensions on equipment to be air transported to be no greater than the openings of the C-5 and now C-17. Not doubting what you are saying, but in the load outs/load plans I was involved with, I never saw an option involving a UH-60 on a C-130 to be honest. Always for C-141's, C-5's, C-17's and various Navel and Merchant vessels. Maybe it was there and considered too time consuming to get it in one and disregarded by the chain of command as not being expedient enough. I'd like to see a picture of one being stuffed into one though.
You guys are lucky to have the C-17. It sucked cramming aircraft on the C-141.
I know....;)
RogerinTPA
09-01-08, 23:56
Excellent analysis of the various and different uses by the land forces.:cool: FYI, I do have around 800 hours in a UH-1H. ;)
While I was an Army Aviator and not a Marine, the missions are indeed different.
Alot of how stuff gets used has to do with history and the what it replaces.
During Vietnam, the Army used the UH-1 as it's main air assault asset. The USMC used the CH-46. So when the Army goes looking for a Huey replacement, it looks evolutionary. The UTTAS program develops the UH-60 out of it as the Huey replacement. Better perfromance, better survivability, but not really a big change in doctrine. Because or the perfromance increase, we went from a 22 Huey assault company to a 15 Hawk assault company to do the same mission, mainly due to the higher power. But for the Army it still centered around moving the rifle squad.
The Marines moved more troops in fewer vehicles. Alot of that was due to room constraints on ships, but alot of it was just the way they do things. Three fireteams instead of the Army's two, larger units overall compared to the same units with fewer numbers in the Army, etc. It's just the way things are different between the two. So when the Marines went looking to replace the CH-46, they wanted something that was more to the way they did things. Features like being able to travel over the horizon (therefore keeping the ship out of sight), delivering the same number of troops as the 46, etc. was more important. Some features that the Army specified wasn't really needed by the Marine Corps. Since the 60 had a similar lift capability and a smaller usable cabin than the 46, going UH-60 was viewed as not the best solution. It would be easier to maintain (the 46 is a maintenance hog) and up to date, but actually less versitile for the Marines. So they decided to go with the V-22 program.
So just understand that just because the two land combat services use some of the same equipment, it doesn't mean that we use it the same way, nor that whatever is suitable for one is right for the other.
The Marines, as I understand it, use a composite light helo squadron consiting of both Cobras and Hueys. The Hueys would be used for Command and Control, observation and reconnisance, light attack, and special missions where it's size is and advantage rather than it's lack of capacity a hinderance. None of the missions could really be done better with a Blackhawk, at least not so much as to offset operating costs (training, cost per hour and logistics).
If you combined the missions of the RAH-70 and the LUH the Army uses, you'd be along a similar track. Just remember that we do things different, so direct comparison is more of a trap than a good idea.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.