>The day before the Air Force Association’s annual winter conference begins, the newest wrinkle in the years-long saga of deciding what aircraft the Air Force would buy to secure America’s nuclear missile fields was announced. Lockheed Martin’s Sikorsky will offer — surprise! — an updated version of the Black Hawk helicopter, the HH-60U.
>Last May, the Air Force dropped its plan to just pay $1.4 billion in a sole-source deal to buy the upgraded Black Hawks to replace the aging UH-N1s now in its fleet. Air Force Global Strike Command has said the Hueys are too slow and lack the necessary range to handle the critical nuclear security mission. The helicopters are used at all three missile bases, Malmstrom, Minot and Warren AFBs.
>Among the key factors in the competition are the choppers’ ability to carry a full load of eight combat-ready airmen. The HH-60U can carry transport nine fully outfitted Security Forces specialists, special equipment and two special mission aviators, Lockheed says, for the Continuity of Operations mission, which is all about getting senior leaders out of harm’s way in a disaster or attack. Lockheed says that mission requires transport for eight. The company also says the HH-60U can carry 9,600 pounds “of useful load.”
http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/sikorsky-unveils-hh-0u-for-air-force-nuke-response/
why not just buy gliders
why not just reactivate iowas to protect our nukes?
Why not just buy dong copters?
Why not just protect our nukes with more nukes?
>>33152426
Any reason why their not using Chinooks or borrowing some 53Es? Can fit a lot of mean dudes and their toys in both.
Why not just nuke our nukes to deny enemy nukes the nuking of our nukes with nukes? Then with no nukes there can be no nuke on nuke dukeing
>>33152426
>HH-60U
Fiero with a body kit.
>>33154441
>Chinooks
Because theyre all literally falling apart
Yes, lets secure our nuke bases with helicopters falling apart at the seams