Talk:Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk/Archive 1

Rename article
the article was not moved.
 * HH-60 Pave Hawk → HH-60G Pave Hawk —(Discuss)— —Born2flie 22:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

OBJECT, I think the naming convention is manufacturer-model-name for these things... 132.205.45.148 18:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sikorsky HH-60G Pave Hawk would be acceptable 132.205.45.148 18:32, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm just trying to move all that helicopters which are on the List of helicopter models keeping that manufacturer-model-name-rule, but we should use the us-army designations instead of the internal codes (eg. S-70A), shouldn't we? --UPH 20:09, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * The manufacturer's model-code (ie S-70A) should probably be used in the name of the article on this family, since the US military H-60 has so many various names... (ofcourse Sikorsky H-60 could also work). Any chopper family so suffused with names should probably also be done that way. Those that aren't should be set up with redirects from the manufacturer's model to to the US Army one. This only applies if the US military is either the prime mover (initial contract to create), or prime user (say 75% of production). If it's a non-US military chopper, and the US military also uses it, then the US army designation should probably not be used, only redirected from, under the same criterion (75%) for naming, if none is a prime user, the manufacturer's code is probably the best bet. 132.205.44.134 00:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please look again on the List of helicopter models. Why shouldn't we use the us-army designations as more popular instead of the manufacturer's model-codes, but set those into brackets as I did on that list (i.g. see Sikorsky models). Nobody knows that manufacturer's codes, even it's true that a chopper like the US military H-60 has so many various names: we can resume them maybe under the main article of that family refering to the Black Hawk. We would face enormous efforts to redesign all that articles, which would be necessary to keep your proposal.--UPH 07:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * For the H-60's, it's just an issue with so many names. For some other choppers, like the Sea King, I'm not sure that the US military designation is the most widely understood one across the world... and for some, the US military designation is *not* the most widely understood one across the world. In the instance of the H-60/S-70 family, I just have concerns over the multiplicity of names. 132.205.45.148 17:23, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think, we shouldn't fear a certain imperfection. When it comes to the H-60, we should use the most widely understood designations (may be in this specific case for the Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk, the Sikorsky SH-60 Sea Hawk and the Sikorsky HH-60 Pave Hawk; for ambiguities, we have the redirects like UH-60 Black Hawk, UH-60 Blackhawk or UH-60, which are still in use and giving a wider approach to the articles). We should refer to related models only in that available articles. It seems to be a little bit neurotic, when we shoult try to hold out an article for every specific model-code given by the producer, knowing that they can and will change in every next moment. --UPH 08:05, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * True, every model/submodel/"block"/etc would be excessive. But there are some major variants, like a civilian vs military model, or a gunship vs standard model. The S-70 article makes out to list all the variants. As we have UH-60, SH-60 and HH-60 articles, a unifying parent article would be good (perhaps as S-70, or H-60) 132.205.45.148 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, do it, but do it by yourself and don't forget the redirections from each UH-60, UH-60 Black Hawk, Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawk and on and on, and: please don't forget to adapt my holy List of helicopter models, which is still under construction and almost waiting for someone as persistent as you. CU there. Greetings --UPH 13:48, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) I insist on "S-70" instead of "H-60" (really idiotic), see the numeration List of helicopter models. --UPH 13:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. violet/riga (t) 18:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Updated references
From USAF AFA Air Force Magazine 2007 Almanac. Ops section needs refs. LanceBarber 17:16, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Name?
Why is it called Pave Hawk? What's Pave? --AW 03:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pave is a Air Force program name relating to electronic systems. see PAVE. &mdash;  Dan  MP5  03:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Ref location
An inline citation should be defined at it's first instance in a page (i.e., Ref #1), and not in the middle somewhere. It makes it difficult to find. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I might have just left that ref where it was initially. But can't remember.  Anyway that's a good point. -fnlayson (talk) 17:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

CSAR-X, etc.
I propose adding a "Replacement" section here that will link to all the goofy aircraft that have been proposed over time as replacement. With any luck the Marines will just take over CSAR and the newest competition ( http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/04/26/355936/usaf-to-open-2.6-billion-in-helicopter-contracts-to-competitive.html ) can be canceled just like all the previous attempts. Hcobb (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Well it's a cancelled program. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 22:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's not just one canceled program, it's one failure after another to replace this helicopter. Should we just have a FAIL header under the USAF article that lists this, the tanker, etc, etc, etc? Hcobb (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

MH-60G replaced by V-22?
I recall reading somewhere that the V-22 was going to replace the MH-60, but I'm not 100 percent sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 18:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * A V-22 version for search & rescue has been studied. The downwash from the V-22's rotors is considered too strong for rescue operations.  The Air Force started a replacement program called CSAR-X.  That's been ended or put off.  For now they will order a few new H-60s.  See Air Force CSAR should grow, not shrink for more details. -Fnlayson (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It's back, but I keep getting reverted on this. So YMMV.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-mulls-v-22-for-rescue-mission-but-wont-cut-hh-60-412956/

Hcobb (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Right and according to that article, CV-22s would only be used for some missions and the 112 CRHs will not be cut. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Exactly. That's supplementing, not replacing. Still probably too early even for the V-22 article. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Note that V-22 appears zero times in the article in spite of other comments like: Hostage said, but in a conflict with a peer competitor in Asia (code for “China”), vast distances and sophisticated air defenses might require the speed and countermeasures of Air Force Special Operations Command CV-22 Osprey tiltrotors. http://breakingdefense.com/2014/09/freeing-the-hostage-acc-commander-outspoken-on-eve-of-retirement/ Hcobb (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * And that's the way it should be, as discussed before. - BilCat (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Use of the V-22 is only being studied now. So this is just news talk now. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been an issue of internal USAF politics for years: http://archive.defensenews.com/article/20130618/DEFREG02/306180028/USAF-May-Use-V-22s-Combat-Rescue-Mission Hcobb (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not unusual in any military with a tight budget, but not really relevant in an encyclopedia article about a helicopter. We can't cover everything that is mentioned about something, nor should we. You found this stuff out without seeing in WP first, and so can anyone else who's interested in the details of every minutiae about it. - BilCat (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Notable accidents
The article has been subjected to an example of WP:RECENTISM - the addition of material "without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention..." I refer, of course, to the brief news spike following the crash of a Pave Hawk at Cley Marshes, which resulted in a new section being added - without consideration of proportion, balance, and due weight - titled "Notable accidents". How - at this stage at least - is this incident in any way notable? The loss of a helicopter and crew is not unique in the service history of this helo, and the circumstances are not particularly unusual: a low level training flight in darkness. In October 1992 a USAF Pave Hawk crashed into the Great Salt Lake, 15 miles west of Hill Air Force Base in Utah, with a loss of 12 lives. In September 1998 two Pave Hawks collided - due to pilot error "during evasive maneuvering or close formation flying" - on a night training exercise 25 miles north of Indian Springs, Nevada, with a loss of 12 lives. In May 2002 a Pave Hawk was spectacularly captured on film crashing during a rescue operation on Mt. Hood, Oregon. A few months later, in August 2002, another Pave Hawk crashed in Urgon, Afghanistan. In March 2003, a Pave Hawk crashed in Ghazni, Afghanistan, with a loss of 6 lives. In May 2005 a Pave Hawk crashed near Angel Fire, New Mexico, killing one crewman. Eleven Pave Hawks crashed on operations in Afghanistan/Iraq, 7 due to brownout at night, which also caused 8 "major accidents" involving Pave Hawks. The list goes on. Just a few months ago another Pave Hawk crashed in Okinawa.

So, how exactly is the Cley Marshes crash in any way "notable", unique, and worthy of inclusion over all others among this long list? Apart from when viewed through the very narrow lens of the rolling, 24-hour news cycle - which has now long since forgotten it and moved on to the sexual habits of the French president, that is. Blackberry Sorbet (talk • contribs) 12:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I questioned this too, but nevertheless, made a minor copy edit to the editor inclusion. Perhaps it should be removed or, the heading revised, and other incidents included. Nightsturm (talk) 15:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I would agree it is not notable. MilborneOne (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

A Freed Hostage: ACC Commander’s Parting Shots
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sikorsky_HH-60_Pave_Hawk&oldid=630664449&diff=prev

How is Hostage not relevant on the CRH's inadequacies? It's his pilots that would be taken captive after all. (Note that title is from source.) Hcobb (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * It's an opinion, nothing else. There's no facts to convey here, nothing about the aircraft itself, just public venting over budget priorities. The articles you edit are full of such quotes, most of which eventually have to be removed at some point. WP:NOTNEWS exists for a reason, to keep out stuff that is generally irrelevant to an encyclopedia in the long run. As for the edit summary, you're responsible for what you write in summaries, and frankly it's just snarky, whether you stole it or not. Using headlines as your edit summaries was never a good idea to begin with, and this is a good example of why. It might be fine in editorials, but not on WP. -BilCat (talk) 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Besides which, you misquoted the General from here. He's referening specifically to "peer competitor in Asia (code for “China”), vast distances and sophisticated air defenses", not conflicts in general, and that the CV-22 might be better suited to those types of missions only. - BilCat (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a more notable source on Earth for modern tactical air combat than our Hostage? Hcobb (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who said it isn't the issue. Anyone's opinion wouldn't be relevant here. - BilCat (talk) 15:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who is better informed on the uses of the CRH than Hostage? Isn't it NPOV to include the comments of Earth's top expert on the subject as to the limitations of the platform? Hcobb (talk) 15:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Earth's top expert on the subject - unlikely, all he said was that they will need to use MV-22s to do the long range tasking as the CRH-60 are not designed to go that far (the original requirement is a 225 miles combat range), not really notable or outstanding or worth inclusion. MilborneOne (talk) 17:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * An USAF General would more likely be an expert on airplanes than rotorcraft. All or almost every rotorcraft the Air Force has procured has been a version of an existing model from another service or a commercial model.  A few years ago the USAF got help from other services for evaluating proposals for the CSAR-X program according to Air Force magazine. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not just range, it's survivability, from the general in charge of arranging for that pickup. Hcobb (talk) 18:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Who's about to retire, which is why he's mouthing offf now. Barry O can't fire him now for complaining that the military is underfunded. - BilCat (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Second source questioning purchase:

http://www.jameshasik.com/weblog/2012/12/the-usafs-emerging-preemptive-procurement-strategy-and-the-strange-case-of-its-csar-rfp.html The only plausible opponent that could give it that much trouble is China, and in that case, the H-60 hasn't anywhere close to the range needed to recover the aircrews.

Hcobb (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

While both are HH-60s, a Pave Hawk is not a MEDEVAC, and vice versa
I noticed a picture of a MEDEVAC (red cross markings) on the main page. I did not wish to delete it without first explaining why I thought it appropriate to do so, and giving others a chance to respond, avoiding the potential for a delete/revert back and forth.

As of May 2004, per DOD 4120.15-L, Model Designation of Military Aerospace Vehicles, available at http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/412015l.pdf the nomenclature of MEDEVAC helicopters changed from "UH-" model number to "HH-" model number. See pages 7 and 10 of DoD 4120.15-L.

Pave Hawks are Air Force platforms, equipped with PAVE, used for Search and Rescue, and armed.

MEDEVAC helicopters are Army platforms, equipped with litter supports and in-flight care medical equipment, are not armed, and are marked in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

Although both helicopters are designated as HH-60s, a MEDEVAC HH-60 is not an HH-60 Pave Hawk.

I thought about changing the title of the article to just HH-60/MH-60 and adding a section on MEDEVAC HH-60s, but decided that the focus of the article was on the Air Force platform, making that kind of change inappropriate.

If no one has any objections, I'll come back in a few days to delete this picture from this page.Eltrace (talk) 17:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Proper unit labels for armament
There has been some back and forth edits regarding the proper unit labels for the caliber of armaments in the article (ie ".50 caliber" vs "0.50 in caliber"), and I wanted to expand a little bit upon the reasoning for my edits. The source of the disagreement seems to be caused by some confusion between the use of caliber vs. barrel/cartridge diameter. When describing barrel or cartridge diameter, the correct format would indeed be to list the correct size in either imperial or metric units interchangeably, as you would with any other measurement. However, when describing caliber, specifically those listed in imperial units, the correct format omits the integer if it's value is 0. Furthermore, the inclusion of the word "caliber" (frequently abbreviated "cal") is commonly used only when referring to calibers measured in inches, and not when calibers are measured in millimeters, therefore listing 'in' or 'inches' after the number is redundant. For example, .50 caliber would be the correct format, while 0.50in caliber, would generally be incorrect.

With regards to the use of imperial units versus metric units, care must be taken to use the proper system for the specific cartridge or weapon, as they are often not interchangeable. The names of specific cartridges are often shortened to just it's caliber for simplicity. The same applies to the chambering of a weapon, as weapons are chambered to a specific cartridge, not just a caliber. For example, ".45 cal" is commonly used to refer to the .45 ACP cartridge, ".223 caliber" used to refer to the .223 Remington cartridge, and "9mm" used to refer to the 9×19mm Parabellum cartridge. This can sometimes cause confusion, as many cartridges, such as the .45 ACP and .45 Colt, may be of the same caliber, but are completely distinct and often incompatible with one another. This is why using the proper system of measurement is so relevant with regards to describing cartridges or the chamber of a weapon, as using metric and imperial calibers interchangeably can refer to two completely separate cartridges.

For example, in this article, the M60 machine gun was described as a .308 caliber weapon, as opposed to a 7.62mm weapon. While this may seem trivial, this distinction is important, because they refer to two distinct cartridges, the .308 Winchester and the 7.62mm NATO. While the the two types of ammunition are quite similar, and in some instances compatible, they are not the same cartridge. As the M60 machine gun is chambered in the 7.62 NATO cartridge, not the .308 Winchester cartridge, it would be factually incorrect to describe the M60 as a .308 caliber weapon. Mikwehttam (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Saying that caliber is not a measurement seems odd. Caliber is the nominal diameter of the bullet or barrel bore, depending on definition.  Labeling this with as caliber may be proper format for armaments but Wikipedia is meant for all viewers who may or may not know that basically caliber basically means inches.  The caliber info is listed here for the bore or size of the machine gun or autocannon.  And by the way this article falls under the WP:Aviation and WP:MILHIST projects and not the WP:Firearms project which would be more appropriate for such cartridge details. -Fnlayson (talk) 16:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sorry, you're right. I was not explaining that part very well. I should have elaborated more on caliber vs chambering when discussing armament. Caliber is indeed a measurement of a barrel or projectile. However, caliber is actually not listed here for the bore size of the machine guns or autocannons in this article. When describing or labeling small arms and light weapons, the cartridge the weapon is chambered for is used instead. The confusion comes from the common practice of abbreviating these cartridge names to just their caliber, as I mentioned in my original explanation. To use the armament in this article as another example, a 7.62x51mm NATO M60 machine gun will often be labeled as a 7.62mm M60, or a .50 BMG GAU-18/A will be labeled as a .50 cal GAU-18/A. By browsing other military aviation related articles, you'll see both abbreviated and unabbreviated labels, but the reference is always to the cartridge and formatted in the same way (as described in my original explanation above). Caliber alone is usually only used when discussing artillery.


 * As for where this discussion belongs, I respectfully disagree. As we are specifically discussing the armament of a military helicopter, and the correct labeling of this helicopter's armament is being disputed, I believe this is the proper place for this discussion. If the current labels in the article are still in dispute, then discussing this in the article's talk page is certainly preferable to debating this in the summaries of back and forth edits and reverts. The lengthy discussion on cartridges was only meant to explain in detail the reason for my edits. This article was using unusual and incorrect labels for the Pave Hawk's armament, which are not present in most Wikipedia articles or sources, including those related to aviation. While I understand that Wikipedia is for everyone, that shouldn't be a reason to use incorrect labels. If the proper labels really appear to be too confusing for most viewers, then maybe labels wikilinked to the referenced cartridges should be used. I think this is likely unnecessary, but I certainly welcome and appreciate your feedback. My only goal here is to provide the correct labeling in order to keep this article as accurate as possible and to ensure uniformity across Wikipedia articles. Mikwehttam (talk) 09:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Nothing in my post above was about where this discussion should occur; this talk page is appropriate for this article. I was listing relevant Wiki project groups that this article falls under. -Fnlayson (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I interpreted the last sentence of your previous post to mean the discussion regarding cartridge details was not appropriate here and I was attempting to explain why such a detailed explanation was necessary. Thank you for clarifying. Mikwehttam (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)