active Army Sikorsky UH-60 Black Hawks would be transferred to Army Reserve and Army National Guard units for homeland defense and disaster response missions. The proposals aim to retire older helicopters to substantially reduce costs while retaining crucial capabilities. With the prospect of most UH-72s being repurposed as training helicopters, the Army requested funds to buy 100 more Lakotas to add to the training fleet. The FY-2015 budget covered 55 helicopters, and the funds from FY-2016 were to be used to complete the purchase. On 4 September 2014, the Army issued a notice of intention to buy up to 155 UH-72s for training "on an other than full and open competitive basis". AgustaWestland launched a judicial bid to have the acquisition declared unlawful, claiming that the EC145 did not offer the best value for money and that its "restricted flight maneuver envelope" impeded training. Airbus defended the Army's position, noting the EC145's prior selection, claiming AgustaWestland's cost figures were exaggerated and that it was already used for training. Bell Helicopter also criticized the decision but took no legal actions. On 14 October 2014, a Federal Claims Court issued a temporary order denying the US government's challenge of AgustaWestland's action until the Army issued a final justification and approval (J&A) to sole-source the procurement. The Army contended that the UH-72A came under the 2006 LUH contract, and so did not require a new J&A, effectively nullifying the challenge. The court sided with AgustaWestland, rejected the Army's J&A, and halted UH-72 procurement for training after finding that the Army had exaggerated the costs and time needed to acquire a training helicopter. The initial acquisition process was found negligent as it effectively tied the UH-72 to Airbus for its serviceable life. The court ordered the Army to either conduct a procurement for new training helicopters or stop buying UH-72 trainers. The Army appealed the decision. The UH-72 has faced controversy as a trainer due to perceived problems with its use as an initial trainer. A study by the National Commission on the Future of the Army, a commission established by Congress to make recommendations on force structure of the Army to the president, concluded that the UH-72 was cost-prohibitive as a training helicopter and there were cheaper options available to buy. It also showed that most instructor pilots disapproved of the UH-72, deeming it "too much aircraft for the mission", and unsuitable as