Black hawk, what are you doing...
The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ukrainian Defense Ministry says the Black Hawk is better than the old Soviet helicopters it uses. That the machine is head and shoulders above the Mi-8 and Mi-24 in terms of flight performance and the GUR would like to get as many of these helicopters as possible.
It is clear that the louder you praise, the more likely it is that they will give you more. True, in our case, the situation is simply unique: GUR MOU, you won’t believe it, but BOUGHT a helicopter for money.
But precisely because they bought for money, they, money, were enough to buy ONE helicopter. Funny, isn't it?
Indeed, in our time it is simply nonsense for Ukrainians to suddenly buy for money. But the Black Hawk, US registration number N60FW, was indeed purchased from Ace Aeronautics, which is engaged in the restoration and modernization of fresh and not very flying equipment. The company is known and proven over the years.
Here is our hero with American citizenship
Well, since “nothing personal, just business,” then the military intelligence officers had to fork out.
Of course, now there will be a question like “What the hell?”, Because one helicopter has absolutely nothing to do in combat terms. But Ukrainian intelligence officers do. If you go to the website of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, then you can watch a very peppy video there. However, when assimilating information, the brain spins a little, because everything is a little ambiguous.
However, ambiguity is the credo of Ukraine, both in the past and in the present. As they say, this is the way.
So, what do our opponents write?
“Recently, in one of the directions of the front, another training session of the special forces of the Main Intelligence Directorate on interaction with the Black Hawk multi-purpose helicopter took place. The commandos practiced the landing of battle groups on the battlefield, evacuation, landing from landing cables, as well as night flights.
Workouts are great. Even the great Russian commander Suvorov said that it is hard in learning - easy in battle. The fact that the Ukrainian special forces are training to interact with the Black Hawk is, well, probably, commendable.
But it looks really weird, doesn't it? How, excuse me, does the landing from the "Hawk" differ from a similar operation using the Mi-8? What difference does it make which door to jump out of and which one to jump into?
For pilots - yes, definitely, such training is very necessary. Only in the rear, at the training grounds, and not near the front line, according to the press service. But here comes the interview with the crew, and everything becomes incomprehensible.
Flight engineer: "The helicopter impresses with its reliability, ease of control and combat survivability".
Pilot: "Ukrainian crews mastered the Black Hawk extremely quickly - in a matter of hours. Having experience in operating the Mi-8 and Mi-24, we flew the Black Hawk on the very first day it was received. We just sat down and flew".
According to crew members, The Black Hawk is many times more maneuverable than the Mi-8, much better in handling, and wins in horizontal flight speed. The helicopter is capable of continuously flying for about three hours, and can easily cover a distance of more than 600 kilometers.
A helicopter of this type is designed to fire guided and unguided Hellfire missiles, and is also designed to support infantry and transport various cargoes. It takes 3-4 seconds for a helicopter to unload a group of 12 fighters and evacuate another one from the battlefield.
Here, of course, gentlemen are pouring bullets, 3-4 seconds for everything is, of course, too much. Although, of course, the Hawk has a certain advantage over the Mi-8. But here it’s really not about the Hawk, but about the Mi-8, which in itself is an ingenious machine, but completely unsuitable for air assault operations. According to the charter, it is impossible to land through the rear part with the tail rotor running, the ramps are symbolic and decent inertia during takeoff.
By the way, that's why the French and the British preach halyard dumping. And the French legionnaires generally only use it. Why? Yes, because everyone wants to live. Because each helicopter has a moment of inertia, and when landing, the reverse screen effect is added to this when the helicopter “sticks” to the ground.
To achieve a fast takeoff, the pilot will first need to overcome the inertia of a static helicopter standing on the ground before the machine picks up speed. When the helicopter hangs at 4-8 meters and drops troops on the ropes, the pilot has the opportunity to start picking up speed from a place and quickly leave the landing zone. It is said that you can win up to 15 seconds this way, depending on how much the pilot is a beast.
But the Americans can afford to land "at the door." The Black Hawk allows this, although it is less stable than many similar machines, it has an extremely developed lift force compared to other helicopters. Since he has decent ramps, it is easily possible to land 6-8, and sometimes 12 people at the same time with a short landing.
At the same time, the loss of time compared to a low-altitude landing is fully compensated by a quick take-off and an extremely fast way of collective (simultaneous) assault landing.
That is, just as a landing vehicle, yes, the Hawk is very good.
“Over the past year, the level of our pilots has grown enormously. Currently, Ukraine can easily accommodate about a hundred Black Hawk multipurpose helicopters, about 50 Apache attack helicopters, and about 40-60 Chinook cargo helicopters. We could accept such a number with minimal time for retraining our pilots.”, - assures the first helicopter pilot with the call sign "Maestro".
As the Maestro noted, this Black Hawk is already actively participating in hostilities, including on enemy territory.
Well, actually, about what suspicions accumulated. Ukraine is ready to accept a hundred "Hawks" if they give it. Free of charge, that is, for free. And until that time, he is working out all sorts of nonsense on the only "Hawk", wasting the resource of the machine. Not new.
But it is not for us to judge how smart they are doing there, training special forces in the tricks of landing and disembarking from a helicopter. With its charter, as they say ...
Of course, that is precisely why the first Ukrainian Black Hawk pilot with the call sign Maestro is zealous, working for the public. Both on their own and overseas. Showing how they can fly and land / receive troops.
As for the fact that the "Black Hawk" has already visited the territory of Russia - well, let's omit it, why not lie, there is nowhere in the war without it. In fairness, I note that it is not entirely clear from the text whether the comparison of the Mi-8 and the Black Hawk was made by the Maestro or someone else. Something suggests that someone else, because the pilot who flew both machines is unlikely to say such a thing even for the sake of deflection.
The Americans themselves say that the UH-60 family of helicopters is in no way a direct analogue of the Russian Mi-8 Hip series of armed transport helicopters, not to mention the Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters with their secondary capabilities for transporting troops.
The U.S. military has previously said that older versions of the Black Hawk are inferior in a number of key aspects of the Mi-8, in particular in terms of maximum payload and high performance. Back in 2018, Joseph Trevithik, known to us from publications in Drive and Interest, burst out with a simply gorgeous article in which he quoted American men from the Air Force who evaluated US and Russian helicopters based on the results of their work in Afghanistan.
The UH-60A+ "Black Hawk" that the United States supplied to the Afghan air force is less capable and more difficult to maintain than the Russian-made Mi-17 helicopters that the Afghans have today, Air Force officials say.
The transition from the Mi-17 to the UH-60 presents several challenges that have yet to be fully resolved. It's a pity, but "Black hawks do not have the carrying capacity of the Mi-17. They are unable to accommodate the bulky and heavy loads that the Mi-17 can carry, and in total it takes almost two Black Hawks to carry the load of one Mi-17. In addition, unlike the Mi-17s, the Black Hawks cannot fly at high altitudes and cannot operate in the remote areas of Afghanistan where the Mi-17s operate.
Well, Ukraine is not Afghanistan, there are no mountains, you don’t need to climb to such a height. And Russian MANPADS operators should also receive awards from time to time. But what about the Ukrainians?
Ian Pannell from ABC News interviewed representatives of the 10th detachment of the SN GUR of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, who, in fact, are engaged in this process.
The pilot says that flying the Black Hawk compared to the old Soviet helicopters is like the difference between driving a truck and driving a Maserati sports car. The Black Hawk gives them a lot more flexibility, they can deliver a lot more troops, it's much easier for troops to get in and out of a helicopter, and to carry out combat missions.
Everything according to Krylov: why does the cuckoo praise the rooster? And after all, they don’t blush, gentlemen, spetsnaz scouts. After all, this only UH-60A of the Office of Military Intelligence, judging by who it was bought from, is a civilian helicopter! And he has no means of protection, no system that works when irradiated with a radar, no complex for shooting heat traps, no system for dropping dipoles - nothing! This is a demilitarized vehicle purchased from a completely civilian firm.
And in this configuration they fly over Russia? Not funny.
The Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine also notes that "a helicopter of this type is designed to fire guided and unguided Hellfire missiles."
Yes, of course, the Hawk can carry rockets and six-barreled machine guns... A military man.
This does not apply to our hero. Yes, and absolutely none of the above is visible on it. So yes, the Black Hawk CAN carry rockets and machine guns. Or maybe not carry them if there is nothing to hang and connect them to.
No, of course, the helicopter is beautiful. Fast, maneuverable, it is good to use it for quick disembarkation and landing of personnel ...
But the sky over Ukraine is already filled with the eyes of air defense systems, from MANPADS to medium-range air defense systems. Both sides suffered significant losses in their helicopter fleets. Ukrainian and Russian helicopter crews currently operate almost always at low altitudes to minimize the possibility of detection. Sometimes this is still not enough.
In general, the advantages and disadvantages of one Black Hawk, which is currently at the disposal of the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine, are absolutely not important, since there is only one helicopter. Of course, the Ukrainian side openly and without embarrassment demonstrates a clear interest in acquiring more of them, as well as other, more modern helicopters.
Everything is like in that joke about the tiger: "He will eat something, who would give him so much ...".
If you listen (it was possible in February) to the chief intelligence officer of Ukraine Kirill Budanov, then if it were his will, Ukraine would have both Apaches and Warthogs. But God does not give horns to a vigorous cow, and therefore all the financial power of Ukrainian intelligence was enough for was the purchase of a used UH-6A number N60FW for $60 million.
Six million dollars is very cheap. The new Black Hawk costs from 23 million, depending on the configuration.
So far, the Main Intelligence Directorate of the Ministry of Defense of Ukraine is armed with ONE Black Hawk. Which, in fact, gives rise to a wave of eulogies in his direction. Yes, the helicopter is not bad, it is very good for performing certain tasks, and in general, the Sikorsky company is Helicopters with a capital letter. But something tells me, praise not praise, but helicopters in the requested volumes of the Armed Forces of Ukraine will not be seen yet. Too expensive business.
But - why not praise a good car? Especially if it's a Ferrari, which doesn't shine for you at all?
Information