Jump to content
ARC Discussion Forums

Sign in to follow this  
Hajo L.

CSAR-X HH-47

Recommended Posts

At least it keeps my former brother-in-law(not that I see him much anymore) employed, since he divides his time between the Hook plant and the Apache plant here in Mesa

Hug him for me :D

Cheers

Matt (from a cold and windy Albuqurque)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just stumbled across an article in the Jane´s Defence Weekly of Nov. 8th: Howard Wheeldon is writing in a "Opinion"-article that the US101 Merlin is the only CSAR contender who has a significant reduced brown-out signature. Reason is the BERP (British Experimantal Rotor Programme) technology which reduces noise and brownout by reduced main rotor speed combined with a unique blade tip design.

Interesting thoughts, but obviously not important enough to get the Merlin "chosen".

HAJO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall where, but I do remember reading something very similar a while back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys,

Well it looks like a Gen. decided to put off the CSAR-X for another two years. This is due to protests. Can't really tell you much more at this time. When I can, I will let you now.

Jake

Edited by X-RAY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do they even leave these kinds of decisions in the hands of generals/admirals? Those guys are so out of touch with what the operators/boots on the ground want/need! I say, let the 0-3/0-4s that will be doing the flying have a crack at it, and then go with what they say is best.

Oh, wait, I forgot how things work in the real world. Let me get back to dealing with the awesome computer network that "they" bought for us. Oh, that's right, I can't do my job, I have to call EDS and have them mess it up worse for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hey guys,

Well it looks like a Gen. decided to put off the CSAR-X for another two years. This is due to protests. Can't really tell you much more at this time. When I can, I will let you now.

Jake

Hmmm. Hadn't heard that yet-I did hear the GAO upheld another protest re. O&S cost; which addresses a valid complaint from Sikorsky and LockMart. More to follow I'm sure.

Here's what I hope (personal opininon only):

They re-bid the whole mess and Sikorsky puts up the -53K.

Ta-da! Problem solved.

I should go into politics...or something.

Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's what I hope (personal opininon only):

They re-bid the whole mess and Sikorsky puts up the -53K.

Ta-da! Problem solved.

I should go into politics...or something.

Pig

You have my vote, Pete!

:cheers:

Gertjan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really Pig? Are you sure? Because I was thinking 53X as the basis for a Pave Low replacement with a smaller type as a Pave Hawk replacement. Something close to the size of the old HH-3 perhaps. :woot.gif:

AIR_H-92_Superhawk_lg.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Trigger,

...Sounds to me like the USAF really wants a heavy lift helo, although they asked for a medium lift helo in the RFP..then selected a heavy lift helo anyway...

If they stick to the original plan, then the -92 fits the requirement.

Just wishful thinking on my part about the -53K. I don't think the USAF has a plan to replace the PaveLow. They want better high altitude performance for the CSAR role. Seems to me like a -53K buy could fill both holes..but what do I know. I'd expect the -92 to be Sikorsky's offer if there are no changes to the RFP.

I know you're up on all this-so no new news here. Hey, a guy can dream, right?

Regards,

Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Sounds to me like the USAF really wants a heavy lift helo

Of course they do - come 2009, they won't have any! I still say that that's a HUGE reason why they chose the HH-47 last year. They realized they were going to have a capabilities gap, but they couldn't very well go through a procurement process for a SOF Heavy Lift rotary craft so they planned to use the HH-47 as a back-door replacement.

I don't think the USAF has a plan to replace the PaveLow.

Let's not go there...

can_of_worms.jpg

They want better high altitude performance for the CSAR role.

After some of the conditions encountered in Afghanistan, that's not entirely surprising.

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I say, let the 0-3/0-4s that will be doing the flying have a crack at it, and then go with what they say is best.

Two reasons why that doesn't happen:

1. Read up on the F-100 procurement way-back-when. The test community recommended not buying the aircraft due to a host of issues, the main one being it was totally unsatisfactory (as orginilly delivered) as a gun platform due to stability problems. The decision was made to let a group of operational O-3's/4's fly them for a period of time. They loved the aircraft..when asked about the stability issues, the reply was "oh, we never did any of that". They just boomed around supersonic and loved it but never tried to kill anything with it. Yeaeger in his book has a great description of this.

2. the other reality was if you gave "the fleet" control you'd never get anything due to them wanting the latest gizmo integrated, and you'd never catch up to make a deliverable product - hence why you commonly see the latest and greatest have less capability in it's original for than what it replaces. You need to have the discipline to draw a line somewhere. The other thing you'll find is the fleet is never happy. Kind of like a teenager with a car. Heck, in the Navy if the fleet had it's say the F-14 would be the only plane on a carrier deck....and it wouldn't drop bombs.

I'm not a fan of the procurement process at all and I think it's broken (mainly due to a huge lack of operator involvment) but there are reasons why the process is there.

I don't buy that the HH-47 would require less development time than the others - all are proven airframes, but the systems in all three will/would be entirely new (the HH-47 systems are very different from the MH-47 despite the looks). Most SDD time is spent on systems integration.

I think in this case, the AF is seeing this as too big a mess to deal with in light of the coming POM-10 train wreck with F-22, JSF, KC-X, CSAR-X, C-130J all competing for the same funds. Something was going to have to give, and since CSAR-X program is AFU in makes for an easy target.

My $.08

Spongebob

Edited by Spongebob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not a fan of the procurement process at all and I think it's broken (mainly due to a huge lack of operator involvment) but there are reasons why the process is there.

Actually, deep down, I knew that, I was more projecting my own dissatisfaction with something that was forced on my MOS by "higher HQ" and they still seem to have rose-colored glasses on when it comes to many of the shortfalls inherent in the way we now do business. But then, being on the "VIP list" for tech support probably insulates them from the headaches and fights that I deal with daily.

I would have thought that the "one airframe that does it all" would have died the death it richly deserves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
US Air Force seen redoing $15 bln helicopter contest

WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force is likely to broadly redo a $15 billion helicopter competition after a government watchdog last month upheld protests by the losing bidders, defense analysts said this week.

"The bottom line is, there is going to be a broad recompetition of the search and rescue helicopter and there is a real possibility that any of the three original teams might win," said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute who has close ties to Air Force officials.

Thompson said uniformed Air Force officers had urged Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne to abandon his plans for a "quick and narrowly defined" restructuring of the competition initially won by Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Air Force spokesman Lt. Col. Jim Schaefer said officials were still reviewing last month's decision by the Government Accountability Office, an arm of Congress, on the combat search and rescue helicopter (CSAR) program.

He had no timetable for when the Air Force could announce its response to the GAO ruling, although some industry sources say the Air Force response could come as early as next week.

The Air Force's top acquisition official, Sue Payton, told Reuters shortly before the GAO decision was announced that the service took the watchdog's opinions very seriously.

GAO last month upheld a second round of protests by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies Corp (UTX.N: Quote, Profile, Research), and Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research).

Congressional aides, industry executives and analysts said the GAO ruling raised serious questions about the Air Force's acquisition process, and its ongoing $40 billion aerial tanker competition will be scrutinized even more closely.

Citing the delays, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted on Wednesday to cut funding for the helicopter program in fiscal year 2008 by $192 million. "We're watching that very closely," said one Senate aide who asked not to be named.

"The Air Force needs to make this look as transparent and fully compliant as possible," agreed Richard Aboulafia, analyst with the Virginia-based Teal Group. "If this isn't resolved to everyone's satisfaction, that is going to cast a serious pall on the KC-X (tanker) competition."

Boeing, which initially won the contract last November, says it was "very disappointed" by the GAO ruling, since it remains convinced that its HH-47 twin-rotor helicopter offered the most capability to the Air Force at the least risk.

One former defense official said Boeing was incurring hefty legal and other costs due to the delay. GAO urged the Air Force to pay legal costs for Lockheed and Sikorsky since their protests were upheld.

If the Air Force decided to launch a whole new competition, that would delay the process even further, and Boeing could then sue the Air Force to recover some of its material and personnel costs, the former defense official said.

The Air Force had no comment on a report in Aviation Week that the service was considering replacing its current fleet of HH-60G search and rescue helicopters with two aircraft -- a high end helicopter and 55 less complex support helicopters for executive transport and nuclear convoy support.

The idea could save $2 billion by pairing the program with another less-complex helicopter program, the Common Vertical Lift Support Program (CVLSP), according to the magazine.

Thompson dismissed the idea, saying that he firmly believed the aircraft wanted to buy one single airframe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmmm. Hadn't heard that yet-I did hear the GAO upheld another protest re. O&S cost; which addresses a valid complaint from Sikorsky and LockMart. More to follow I'm sure.

Here's what I hope (personal opininon only):

They re-bid the whole mess and Sikorsky puts up the -53K.

Ta-da! Problem solved.

I should go into politics...or something.

Pig

You have NO IDEA how much every Pavelow dude agrees with you on that one. I would probably not be around to see it though.........I would most likely be in a coma due to the amount of beer comsumed upon hearing the announcement................

HH-47 over the -53 any day.

Jake

I LOVE THE -47s. It is an awesome machine. But if you look at the specs, the -53X/K out-performs the -47F/G. So, as much as I love the -47 (in ANY varient), I would take the -53X/K in a heart beat.

Cheers Fellers

Matt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete

With this whole mess now including CVLSP, I doubt Sikorsky will put up the -53X. That type seems overkill for that mission.

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I LOVE THE -47s. It is an awesome machine. But if you look at the specs, the -53X/K out-performs the -47F/G. So, as much as I love the -47 (in ANY varient), I would take the -53X/K in a heart beat.

Cheers Fellers

Matt

So do the Mi-26 and the C-130. :D

What the initial requirement was for, it was for the HH-60 replacement not a heavy lift helicopter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Aviation Leak by way of abcnews.go.com

USAF Made KPP Change To Keep CSAR-X On Schedule

By Michael Fabey/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report

Sept. 19, 2007

U.S. Air Force special operations officials changed a key performance parameter (KPP) during a vital review stage of the combat, search and rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter source selection in a way that avoided Pentagon attention because they wanted to field a new aircraft more quickly and thought there was too much risk involved in developing other platforms, according to sources intimately familiar with the service community and the program.

Normally such a KPP change, made in spring 2005, would have required close scrutiny by the Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC). But, the sources say, such a JROC review would likely have pushed back the CSAR-X acquisition by six months or longer. Instead, the sources say, service officials made the move as an administrative -- or relatively minor -- change, which required no such close review.

The reason the Air Force special operations officials wanted the change at all, the sources say, is because they wanted to make sure the Boeing H-47 Chinook variant would be able to make the grade.

As part of the requirements package, the CSAR-X aircraft would have to be very transportable. Indeed, sources say, mobility was one of the major concerns in developing the criteria for the platform.

To demonstrate that mobility, competitors had to show they could tear down and reassemble the aircraft quickly. Initial requirements called for reassembly within three hours to make the helicopter mission capable. The KPP change altered that to "flight ready." The Boeing H-47 variant test made that requirement just under the wire.

The reason why the service officials wanted to make sure the Boeing aircraft could enter and remain in the competition is because they thought it was best aircraft at the time for the job, according to sources. One source said the other aircraft, being offered by Lockheed Martin and Sikorsky, were still in relatively early developmental stages and service officials were concerned that the aircraft were still too unproven.

On the other hand, the sources said, the Chinook was a tried and true platform, especially for special operations units.

Edited by Trigger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pete

With this whole mess now including CVLSP, I doubt Sikorsky will put up the -53X. That type seems overkill for that mission.

Yes-I agree. I'd expect the CSAR-X -92 wrapped-up & packaged with CVLSP. Honestly, the -60 is fine for CVLSP..Maybe that's where the "retiring" HH-60's could go after a "relatively" inexpensive rebuild by Sikorsky.

Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, the -60 is fine for CVLSP..Maybe that's where the "retiring" HH-60's could go after a "relatively" inexpensive rebuild by Sikorsky.

Agreed - my only question is (and this is born out of my own ignorance of the structure and rebuilds), how many hours is a rebuilt Pave Hawk good for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed - my only question is (and this is born out of my own ignorance of the structure and rebuilds), how many hours is a rebuilt Pave Hawk good for?

Well, I suppose you could "zero time" them for a price :woot.gif: How much life did we get out of the -53's?

Pig

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There could be a small market for them, you might get Australia or another country buying 3 or 4 of them for spec ops. Personally I would like to see spec ops chinooks in Aussie markings, but that ain't going to happen. Just a thought.............

Will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...