WT Forums

Every time I hear about a chopper crash the whole or majority of the crew dies 11 in Ft. Drum, 12 in the first week of the war, 6 in Afghanistan.

If anyone knows, how's the safety record for the Blackhawk? Sniper, you once refered to it as the Crash-Hawk.

I know your talking about the transports, the Apache was supposed to get a large airbag system in the cockpit. I dont know what could be done with the transports given the way they usually conduct buisness, belt restraints for each seat would be about all you could do, and considering the packs frequently carried by the troops(and the variety thereof) I dont know how well belts would work.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

I've read that the Apache crew can sustain impacts of 20G's. I wonder if this can be incorporated to the Black Hawk and other transports?


Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 24 2003 2:48 PM

Sure can, it only takes $.

So what should we cancell to fund the installation of safety systems into thousands of helos?

Hey....how bout the Stuppor Hornet!!!

Onward to Baghdad!!!

Or the high-coast maintance of the Tomcat???
Super Hornet is here to stay. Like it or not.



Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 24 2003 6:34 PM

The UH-60s reportedly have the best crash-rating of any transport helicopter in US service. They ran a documentary on the History Channel about it not too long ago, but I can't remember the details of all the features.

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

I remember that. It was a marathon way back in Jan, missed that one
I'm guessing just the nature of the mission and flights are dangerous by nature.



Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 24 2003 6:40 PM

CrashHawks are highly vulnerable to ground fire, even small arms.

If they are going to retrofit anything, it should be armor.

Onward to Baghdad!!!

Yeah, there's always trade-offs.
If you had more armor, you have slower speeds.
However, there's some really strong, composite armor that's light-weight.
But then you have the $ issue again.

Yup.

Onward to Baghdad!!!

How about taking the money from do-nothing social programs? <img src=icon_smile.gif border=0 align=middle>

Like midnight basketball leagues for convicted felons?

LOL, ok...

Onward to Baghdad!!!