Talk:Sikorsky SH-60 Seahawk/Archive 1

Mission Systems Avionics
I believe that discussion should include the reference to Lockheed Martin Systems Integration Owego that does the Mission Systems Avionics work for the SH-60B, MH-60R and MH-60S. Mhobbes1 16:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Is that critical to the article? (Born2flie 01:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC))

Cost
The article really ought to supply the figures for the costs of these helicopters. In fact, all the articles on military armaments--airplanes, helicopters, tanks, etc.--ought to give cost figures. Anyone who can obtain the figures, please add them. Let us know where our tax dollars go. 66.108.4.183 04:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Allen Roth

I second that. Further, the year that cost is incurred would be nice. Ideally, we could separate marginal unit cost and cost per unit for the program. 164.67.237.74 (talk) 10:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Bagsc

Tsunami/huricane HSLs

 * HSL-47, an SH-60B squadron based at Naval Air Station North Island in Coronado, California, played an integral role in the United States Navy's humanitarian relief operations during both the Indonesian Tsunami and Hurricane Katrina. 

For the past 3 months in which I have been active on Wiki, this portion of the article keeps being expanded to include other units. About a month or so ago, I asked for a source; one was added, but it records HSL-47's involvement only. But once again, more units were tacked on today. I'm about ready to chuck the whole sentence; it's interesting, but is it really relevant to the article? Any thoughts? - BillCJ 22:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems like something that belongs in an article about the HSL (though there isn't one). There have been numerous SH-60's involved in rescue and humanitarian missions over the past years, we certainly can't list all of them. --Dual Freq 03:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Every HSL squadron based on the East and West Coasts (excluding HSl-37 and HSL-51 - overseas) were involved extensively with JTF Katrina. Additionally, HSL-47 and HSL-43 were involved with the 2004 SE Asia Tsunami.

MH-60S
Can someone can find a link supporting the line claiming that the name "Knighthawk" has been formally rejected for the MH-60S? If not I suggest we delete that line. 68.118.179.186 07:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * While I have not found out if Knighthawk is not the official name, I have found several recent sources on Navy sites which still call it the "MH-60S Knighthawk": http://www.msc.navy.mil/sealift/2007/April/sioux.htm, http://www.c7f.navy.mil/news/2006/november/8.htm, http://www.surfpac.navy.mil/essex/Website/USS%20ESSEX%20(LHD%202)/News%20Pages/news_hsc.htm, http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/MEDIA/mech/issues/spring07/partnumberscan.htm, and http://www.cnaf.navy.mil/default.asp?PressReleaseID=53616. So it is still being used, official or not. If we do find out for certain the name is not official, then we can just put it in quotes as MH-60S "Knighthawk". - BillCJ 08:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

HS transition
HS Squadrons are going to be transitioning to to HSC Squadrons, and will be flying the MH60S not the Romeo. I tried to correct this and it was changed back almost immediately. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/helseacombatwingpac.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.137.216 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 13 March 2007


 * This link was in the text before you changed it,a nd it is from the same site: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/hslwinglant.htm Helicopter Sea Combat (HSM). It contradicts what you are putting in, and I have pritned sources which also say that the SH-60F will be replaced by the MH-60R. Both the R and S are to be operated from carriers. - BillCJ 04:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Bill,

HS squadrons are already on the carrier, the SH-60F and HH-60H will be replaced by the MH-60S. HS squadrons will remain aboard the carrier and no longer have an ASW capability. The HSL community is currently based off of small boys (destroyers and cruisers) flying the SH-60B... They will be getting the MH-60R and will be moved onboard the carrier as part of the "Romeo to Sea" program. There is one squadron on the West Coast that is currently a "Bravo to Sea" squadron as a test case for determining the feasibility of have two Helicopter squadrons on a carrier. So basically HS will become HSC flying the Sierra, where they use to fly the Foxes and Hotels, while HSL becomes HSM flying the Romeos instead of the Bravo. HSM will take over the ASW mission entirely, with the new added capability of a dipping sonar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.137.216 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 14 March 2007


 * My sources are from 2004, so I will take your word for it that what you say is correct, and leave it the way it is in the text. Sorry if I was a bit testy, as we get all kinds on here that don't know what they're talking about. YOu seem to know your stuff, so I'll defer to you. - BillCJ 05:13, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It's rather silly to toss around jargon like "Bravo" and "Sierra". The last I read, "Sierra" was the NATO designation for a variety of Russian (or Soviet) submarine. Likewise, American submariners use the term "Sierra" for sonar contacts, though I don't know if they mean a sonar contact or a submarine contact.72.146.44.141 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Rename Or split
For awhile now, I've been thinking about proposing moving the page to MH-60 Seahawk to reflect the new models now in and entering service. However, I've not been satisfied with this proposal, as SH-60 is still a very well-known designation. As such, I think a better option to consider would be splitting off the MH-60R/S models to MH-60 Seahawk to cover the newer models, while leaving the SH-60 page here to cover the B, F, and H models. I realize that this page is not very long at all, but there is certianly enough info out there to support expansion of this page, with or without a split. Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 17:02, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With the redirect, renaming does not seem that critical to me. It can be found with either. I don't think it should be split, unless the info will be expanded and properly referenced afterwards. Also, there are several H-60 articles already. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Performance Specs
I've got some different numbers for HP, rate of climb, etc for the S-70B from a Sikorsky information document (S70B TI JUNE 2001). I think we should take a look at this a make some adjustments. The rate of climb numbers are quite different.-- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  TALK 12:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Well looks like we have a small problem with multiple REPUTABLE sources giving us different specification values, even from Sikorsky. Jeff, I don't mean to create the appearance of an editing war (which is not going on), but I guess we just have to be satisfied to be close and not exact.  Documents from 30 years ago show different number than later documents or the most current ones.  They are close, and could be related to numbers GE provides Sikorsky (i.e., engines) at any point in time.  What I believe is happening here is that something like Continuous rated power actually has subcategories internal to Sikorsky or GE that we are unaware of because they give numbers under the general top level categories.  I'm only speculating here, but why else are number inconsistent?  A good example are Refs 24 & 25 (Sikorsky Tech Info 2001 & 2008 respectively) having different numbers listed.  -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:54, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yea, probably some differences in how long of a time period is used for the rating. Also, there could be some minor improvements made to the -400C engine version over the years.  I guess we should just list 1,890 hp. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason I posted the total power rating (both engines) was because that's how the reference listed it. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 18:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure. Thanks for your improvements to the H-60 articles. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Sudden, unexplained changes, and omissions
This article suddenly, and with no explanation, starts mentioning an "S-70", which I presume is a helicopter. You don't get to do this! Any such appearance in an acronym or designation needs to be explained, even in some brief way. (Like, for example, the article does explain what "LAMPS" means the first time that that appears.) I might as well suddenly get in the middle of the article and start writing about an "F-26", whatever that is. S-70 doesn't even make much sense as a US helicopted designation - which would be SH-70. Also, the entire article has a gross overuse of jargon that the common reader wouldn't understand (I corrected a few of these myself, tonight.) Furthermore, the article has a very heavy emphasis on the direct combat uses of the LAMPS III "Seahawk", in spite of the fact that this is an multipurpose helicopter. I don't think that I see even mentioned once the use of the "Seahawk" as a reconnaissance/observation helicopter (for example, in looking for other ships), or its use in transferring crewmen onto or off of ships, or its use as a spotter for naval artillery fire in shore bombardment, or its use in observing target movements and giving mid-course guidance information to Harpoon and SLAM missiles. At least the helicopter's use in medical evacuation is mentioned, but such things are not descriped enough. For example, a crewman with appendicitis or an absessed tooth could be evacuated from a frigate or a destroyer to an aircraft carrier or a cruiser that has doctor(s) or dentist(s) on board, or to an on-shore hospital.72.146.44.141 (talk) 03:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for you observations and comments. I'll try to address some of your points/questions as I can. Please remember that all Wikipedia articles are works in progress. Other editors and I have been working on this article for a long time, and it is vastly improved from what it was, though it has a long way to go. I agree with your point above on Bravo/Foxtrot/et al, and have been removing them as I come across them. While they are terms that the Navy personnel atcually use for the helicopters, they don't mean much to non-military readers unfamiliar with the US military's phonetic alphabet (Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta, etc.)


 * As to S-70, this is Sikorsky's (hence the "S") model number for the entire H-60 family of helicopters. That is informmation that should be in the Background and Development section, which does not yet exist. That's being worked on in another editor's userspace, but neither he nor I have had time to complete it as yet. In the next few days, I'll try to put something together that at least explains what S-70 is. A link to the Sikorsky S-70 article is in the "See also" section at the bottom of the page.


 * As for other roles, we'd need info from reliable sources, so I will be looking for what I can find. It won't be a priorty for me, as I have many other WP pages I am watching, but if I find such material in putting together the section on Background and Development, I'll try to add it were appropriate. Thanks again. - BillCJ (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Background info has been added. Need to add summary of UH-60A to SH-60B changes.  This article needs some work, but it does seem to describe the variants fairly well. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * FYI: UH-60A to SH-60B changes were added sometime ago, IOW ✅ -Fnlayson (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Dates
The variant subsections under Development mention no dates after the SH-60B section. This would help explain why the MH-60S is listed before the MH-60R. At least add the year work on the variant started or year it was ordered. -Fnlayson (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is largely done now. Will try to copyedit and add more this week.  Let me know if I glossed over or missed something.  -Fnlayson (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Operational history section?
Would it be worth trying to piece together an Operational history section on the Navy Hawks? The entry into service info would be a start. I'm thinking of something like UH-60 Black Hawk Army section to start with. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I made an Operational history section with text already in the article for starters. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

MH-60B
This navy.mil photo page is of what it calls "an MH-60B". Could a knowledgeable editor add this model number to the article with an explanation? Tempshill (talk) 01:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be some mistake. The only B-models in DoD Model Designation document are YEH-60B, SH-60B, NSH-60B and YSH-60B.  More likely a new MH-60R. -Fnlayson (talk) 02:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Spec section
Can someone who knows what they're doing please fix the specifications section? It's beyond my Wiki skills. Hooded swan (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)HS


 * Fixed. The previous edit inadvertanly left out half of the Hidden comments coding. - BilCat (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

MH-60R in Australian competition
The MH-60R is competing against the NHIndustries NH90 for a Australian contract. Covered in these article:, and a subscription article from Aviation Week. I don't think there is a good place to mention this in the article now. Anybody have suggestions? No rush though as this contest is just started. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This was added to section "Other and future users". -fnlayson (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

USW
ASW is "Antisubmarine Warfare" but what about USW ("Undersea Warfare")? Is that minehunting or frogmen bashing? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 09:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The MH60S will take over mine detecting for the MH-53E in the future. -fnlayson (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I see, so USW is a new word for AMCM (Airborne Mine Countermeasures) or is it only related to MH-60S ? --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea. I'm not that up on the current/correct terminology used. -fnlayson (talk) 14:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Exit USW, thanks Fnlayson. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure. Undersea warfare seems largely redundant to anti-submarine warfare for the SH-60 family.  The mine sweeping role is not a role now also. -fnlayson (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Oceanhawk name
The placards on SH-60F the aircraft read "Oceanhawk" so anyone who thinks this was an unofficial designation hasn't worked on them. Danjw1 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Multiple reliable sources list "Oceanhawk" as an informal name. And the official DoD Model Designation document lists Seahawk as the name the SH-60F. -Fnlayson (talk) 04:01, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Over 26 years around this stuff, and this is the first time I've heard the name Oceanhawk. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 03:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the official Navy HSC-12 home page, it appears there was some transition to the SH-60F to HH-60H to MH-60S. No name designation is provided for the last two models. The "Oceanhawk" may be somehow attached to one of the last two models, but this is unconfirmed. To my knowledge the SH-60 was always a Seahawk. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just checked with a engineer friend who's been with the NAVAIR for about 30 years, and he never heard of it. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:57, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I was involved from the first production deliveries. I heard the name "Oceanhawk" kicked around in the first days of the program, but it did not get much attention. The program was sold to congress as a cheaper variation of the Seahawk, so great care was taken to insure that image was maintained. A new name implies a new aircraft. I suggest that is why "Oceanhawk" did not get too much mention. The program was named "CV Helo" and even the Sikorsky patches from the early days had that terminology on them.Calhounjim (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, then what we need is a reliable source so that we can place this in the article. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 16:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm still having an issue with this Oceanhawk. I don't doubt you believe it's a legitimate model or that you've worked in this business, but I can't find mention of it in any source online. A search at Sikorsky comes up zero. Based on a review of the Donald book at Amazon, it appears that Donald was merely an editor who compiled journal and other articles to create the Warplanes of the Fleet book. I realize it's a review, but I think it raises some questions about the sources in that book. But I guess we should rehold final judgment on that. Nevertheless there are no readily available sources online, so I would ask you to find one that actually shows this name to be an official derivative of the Seahawk. I think including possible nicknames or unofficial names, without quality sources, can lead us down the wrong road. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * The "Oceanhawk" unofficial name is covered under Development, in the SH-60F subsection. I cited this with the Donald Warplanes of the Fleet book.  This Is a quality source.  I don't understand what the problem is here. -Fnlayson (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to turn this into a giant controversy, but I just see scant sources here. Why can't I find something clearly stated about this on Sikorsky's website? I mean surely they should have something there. Also, what is an unoffical name? Is that kosher on WP? What's the difference between an Oceanhawk and a Seahawk? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 12:20, 2 April 2013 (UTC)


 * HS-11 still flies them, so I can go pay them a visit and look for this placard. However, that still doesn't provide a quotable source. I see Oceanhawk plastered all over the internet, so somebody believes it is ligit. I still have contacts at Sikorsky and I will ask for some clarification.Calhounjim (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious ref on Danish purchase
I cannot find any english reference that supports the non-english reference supporting the premise that Denmark finalized a purchase of "Sea Kings". BTW, is this Danish nomenclature for the aircraft, because I known only of the SH-3 Sea King. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The Danish sources I've been able to find (such as http://jyllands-posten.dk/politik/article4916801.ece or http://www.b.dk/nationalt/forsvaret-faar-nye-amerikaner-helikoptere) list an intention to purchase 9 Seahawks to replace the Lynx helicopters. The current source provided links to the Danish Defense Acquisition and Logistics Organization website, which I assume has been updated during the day after the decision was made to purchase them (which was a political decision). I'll keep an eye out for a reliable English source.KDLarsen (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of the site, but since I can't read it and cannot find any other link that says a contract was signed, I have an issue with the article content. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * FlightGlobal has confirmed the selection of the MH060R here. It still has to be approved by the Danish finance ministry, so we should hold off listing it in Operators until the final contract is signed. - BilCat (talk) 17:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

MH-60R
Hi - was wondering why there only is a short paragraph about the MH-60R? On my website, I have a comprehensive page with lots of information about the MH-60R Seahawk see http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Defense/MH-60R-Seahawk.html. The MH-60R should, in my opinion, have its very own page as should the MH-60S. A start would be to expand the MH-60R info. Feel free to take information from my site to do this. I have used about 15 sources for my MH-60R page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakimkasper (talk • contribs) 22:09, 21 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The MH-60R and S both have much more than 1 short paragraph of text each. Some more info can be added though. -Fnlayson (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to know what the notability of the 400th MH-60 is? So what? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE 15:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)